NationStates Jolt Archive

Creationism just makes more sense. How likely is it that in the beginning of life, somehow, all these randomly collected amino acids just HAPPENED to curl up together into amino acids, and that complicated structure just magically happened, and somehow, it got JUST right to make a cell, and somehow, that cells DNA developed JUST right to make multicelled organisms. How the heck did it make the transition?

It makes no sense to say that's what happened without something controlling it all.

So it's easier to disreguard all evidence, stick your fingers in your ears, and say "an invisible man did it!"

Nice. If there was a God I assume he would be offended by your unwillingness to accept His natural processes that He designed.

Another one that CSW will like-
1. God is all knowing.
2. God must know everything that will happen.
3. The Universe is 14+ Billion Years Old
4. God has known snice the beginning that I will call him, let's say, a loony hatemonger worthy of no respect.
5. He's been fuming over it for 14+ Billion Years.

How can a God who has known my sin of blasphemy for 14 Billion Years in advance really still be mad at me?

God, you loony hatemonger worthy of no respect, you're an idiot.

Does He really care that such an insignificant mammal has just called him a name?

If so, what a petty and insecure God.

Not you again...

1. Luckly, the good people at talk origins and your local university do. Ask them.

2. There is no such thing as a completely evolved being...this has been discussed before. Please read the other posts in this thread before posting

3. So?

4. Why?

5. Because the mesopotamian area is extremely fertile. Read "Guns, Germs, and Steel" (I believe) for a nice discussion about why life chose to arise in mesopotamia.

Yes me. Is it you detest me or what? -_-'

1. Yes, if I remember...

2. Still, I don't see evolution happening. If we're supposed to be evolving for the better why do we still succumb to common diseases? For example, no one is immune to the common cold, although our parents keep having common colds throughout their lifetimes.

3. So what is the basis of the claim that creatures evolve gradually? We only see the start product and the end product. What's happened to everything in between?

4. Humans took 200 years to destroy the planet to the stage we see. 200 years...billions years...how many times is that...if the Earth was here for so long I doubt it would have survived.

5. The Nile Delta was very fertile, but human civilisation still spread out from Mesopotamia.

Yes me. Is it you detest me or what? -_-'

1. Yes, if I remember...

2. Still, I don't see evolution happening. If we're supposed to be evolving for the better why do we still succumb to common diseases? For example, no one is immune to the common cold, although our parents keep having common colds throughout their lifetimes.

3. So what is the basis of the claim that creatures evolve gradually? We only see the start product and the end product. What's happened to everything in between?

4. Humans took 200 years to destroy the planet to the stage we see. 200 years...billions years...how many times is that...if the Earth was here for so long I doubt it would have survived.

5. The Nile Delta was very fertile, but human civilisation still spread out from Mesopotamia.

2. Bacteria are evolving too. It also takes millions and millions of years- human civilization is not even a single percent of the time it takes to see major changes.

4. Yes, but that's only after we became sentient and started exploiting the environment. The 3 billion years or so before that life didn't destroy nature much.

2. Ironically enough, evolution. Viruses want to reproduce as much as we do, so they mutate to fool our immune systems. As for dieing of those diseases, well, we don't as much as we used to. Remember smallpox? A non-fatal disease in Europe (relatively), but when it came to the America’s it wiped out most of the population.

3. No, not really, once again, I believe this has been addressed earlier in transitionary fossils. We do see intermediate stages, or we do know that they exist (between a donkey and a horse).

4. Humanity hasn't had the ability to destroy the earth for its entire existence, and you have to remember, we are but a watch in the night, barely even 100,000 years old.

5. You'd have to read the book, from what I remember, it gives an excellent explanation. If anyone else wants to field this, be my guest.

Hi. Just some general observances:

2. Why has evolution left some behind? Why doesn't evolution keep on going? We should be able to see single-celled amoeba evolve into dual-celled, then multi-celled organisms. We keep on seeing amoeba split, but not turn into more celled organisms.

This is easily explained. If a species has found a suitable method of existing in this world, then it will continue to exist. The species will live on until the conditions in its environment make it too hard for it live. Whether it be heavy predation, lack of food, or a huge friggin' meteorite slamming into the earth (whatever is your cup of tea), if the species can't keep up, it's a goner. Now, those species that have successful reproductive strategies or defenses to deal with predation, good food and resource gathering, or found a good hiding place from that meteorite, they continue to be successful to this day, despite being "less evolved" than us.

This is easily explained. If a species has found a suitable method of existing in this world, then it will continue to exist. The species will live on until the conditions in its environment make it too hard for it live. Whether it be heavy predation, lack of food, or a huge friggin' meteorite slamming into the earth (whatever is your cup of tea), if the species can't keep up, it's a goner. Now, those species that have successful reproductive strategies or defenses to deal with predation, good food and resource gathering, or found a good hiding place from that meteorite, they continue to be successful to this day, despite being "less evolved" than us.


If I may explain a wee bit further:

This explanation makes it sound like mutation stops for a bit until it needs to pop up again.

This is wrong. Things keep mutating, it's just that the mutations don't help the organism to survive at all because it already functions well. So that organism may pass that trait on, but they won't become dominant because they survive just as well as everyone else.

This explanation makes it sound like mutation stops for a bit until it needs to pop up again.

I don't know exactly how you got to this conclusion from what I typed, but thanks anyway for the addition.

Yes me. Is it you detest me or what? -_-'

1. Yes, if I remember...

2. Still, I don't see evolution happening. If we're supposed to be evolving for the better why do we still succumb to common diseases? For example, no one is immune to the common cold, although our parents keep having common colds throughout their lifetimes.

3. So what is the basis of the claim that creatures evolve gradually? We only see the start product and the end product. What's happened to everything in between?

4. Humans took 200 years to destroy the planet to the stage we see. 200 years...billions years...how many times is that...if the Earth was here for so long I doubt it would have survived.

5. The Nile Delta was very fertile, but human civilisation still spread out from Mesopotamia.
Realise that for speciation to occur it takes thousands of years and is a gradual process. As for why we aren't immune to the cold, we are, its just that cold virus itself mutates and so though we are immune to an older mutation we aren't immune to the newer version. We do see fossils showing the various stages and if you look at some modern phyla we can see where they are in that phylums evolutionary record based on how "primitive" they are. :headbang:

2. Why has evolution left some behind? Why doesn't evolution keep on going? We should be able to see single-celled amoeba evolve into dual-celled, then multi-celled organisms. We keep on seeing amoeba split, but not turn into more celled organisms.

it hasn't left anything behind. everything is just as well adapted (more or less) to its environment as everything else. a modern single-celled prokaryote has evolved exactly as much as you have since the time of your last common ancestor. hell, single celled organisms are probably better adapted than we are, given that they make up the vast majority of life on earth - by number, volume, or weight.

3. They've never found a fossil which is half fish, half bird.

nor should they. going purely on anatomic comparison, birds are much more similar to reptiles and mammals and amphibians than they are to any variety of fish. thus we would expect to find fossils of their ancestors that shared even more characteristics with one of those. in fact, a look at the anatomy of pre-bird animal fossils shows a lot of very dramatic similarities between certain kinds of dinosaurs and modern birds. and lo and behold, we have found numerous fossil dinosuars that had feathers, and that had jaws becoming increasingly like beaks, and that had developed wings and quite probably flight.

finding a half fish half bird fossil would be terrible for the theory of evolution. if it wasn't a hoax or just some weird misunderstanding, it would mean that most of what we believe about the mechanism of evolution doesn't actually work like we think it does.

5. If human life began in Africa why not the first civilisation? Why in Mesopotamia, as claimed in the Bible and proven undeniably by historians and archaeologists?

because civilization is not necessary to human life and can only occur under certain conditions. conditions like population pressure on a population that is already doing something sort of like small-scale part-time horticulture, in an area with an available wild plant species that it is possible to domesticate into a staple crop, with available wild animals that has the proper characteristics to be domesticated for use as laboring devices, amongst others. if those conditions aren't met, then there really is no chance for civilization to get started. nor any reason for it - life is actually better (longer, easier, more enjoyable) for non-'civilized' people than it is for your average joe under civilization, especially at the beginning.

CREATION!
1. How something came out of nothing, I don't know.
2. Why has evolution left some behind? Why doesn't evolution keep on going? We should be able to see single-celled amoeba evolve into dual-celled, then multi-celled organisms. We keep on seeing amoeba split, but not turn into more celled organisms.
3. They've never found a fossil which is half fish, half bird.
4. The theory that Earth having survived for billions of years really bothers me.
5. If human life began in Africa why not the first civilisation? Why in Mesopotamia, as claimed in the Bible and proven undeniably by historians and archaeologists?

Some more later..

1: All matter is transformed, nothing is created nothing is destroyed.

2: The odds of someone seeing a unicelular organism evolve to a multi-celular organism are outreageously low. Mutations are very rare. Why do you think that it took billions of year to get to this point?
Evolutionism doesn't see it that way. But by examining DNAs of various animals, we could see that it was a gradual process.

At first, unicelular organisms became multicelular organisms, which means that at some point, the fact that these cells worked together brought them some advantage. This happens, for example, in a rudimentar sponge, which is nothing but a bunch of similar cells put together.
Then some cells started specializing (according to the information that was generated by mutation in the DNA), creating organisms like jellyfish, which are basicly colonies of cells, with different functions (like the cnidocytes, the ones that sting), and so on and and so on.

As more (beneficial or non-detrimental) mutations occured in the DNA, the more complex the organisms became, sometimes branching off in different evolutionary paths (due to various reasons that you will research if you want). Why do you think that we have so many genes similar to the genes of primates? This can only mean that we branched off at some point. And if you knew anything about how evolution occurs, how species are created, you would understand this easily.

3: This is the most stupid argument ever. One can see that you are completely uneducated and don't know what you are talking about. But let me explain (something that you do not deserve...):

Fossil records show that there were species of fish, like the still living coelacanth, that grew fins that helped them creep in the floor of the ocean, lake, whatever. And some of these started adventuring out of the water for some reason. At some time, some became amphibious (some extinct, etc.) and were able to breathe either inside or outside of water. Then some chose to always be in land, and at this time the rest of the body was already adapted to the environment. They were similar to reptiles now.
Then dinossaurs came. Some ate plants, some ate other dinossaurs, some went back to the waters and some, well, grew wings (initially, a skin membrane that went from the torso to the hand) with the passing of generations. And then feathers were beneficial. And then hollow bones, filled with hot air (I bet you didn't know that) were there too. And then they were not called dinossaurs anymore, they were called birds (Archaeopteryx - the first so called bird).
Which makes your comment completely ridiculous. It's like saying that they never found a fossil that is half fish, half human.

4. How many years then? 6000? Did you know that there are older cultures than that? Much older... How about carbon dating? Mean anything to you?

5. Do you even know why people believe that humans originated from Africa? Because in our mitochondria (something that you don't know exists), there is a group of genes that is similar to every single human being.

Imagine that Africans have (ABCDE)
Native americans, for example, have a gene combination (LBCKN).
South americans have a gene combination (YWCKO)
Asians have (HBCDF)
Southern europeans have (ATRDE)
North europeans have (ZLRDE)
And that west african arabs have (ATCME)

Looking at these combinations, which one do you think that they all have something in common? What do south americans (YWBCKO) and north europeans (ATRDE) have in common? Is it native americans (LBCKN)? No.
Is it Africans (ABCDE)? Yes indeed.

And the closer we get to the origin, the more coinciding genes are found.

This combination of genes suggests that we all derive from the same person (Everyone has this ancient humanoid in their family tree). When humans were very few, this hypothetical Eve was the mother to all of our ultra-great grandparents. This isn't very hard to imagine how it happened. Imagine that there is a massive plague that kills everyone except, for example 10 cousins (male and female). All of these cousins have one of their grandmothers in common. Even if their other grandparents were all different, they still have that one starting point.

How could they measure this? Well, the mytochondria are situated in the cytoplasm and have their own genes. And these genes are not passed inside the nucleus, which suffers mutations and all, during meiosis. They are passed in the cytoplasm of the mother's egg cell. So when fertilization occurs and the spermatozoon joins with the eggcell, the mytochondria are already in there, unaltered.
To make it simple, here's a scheme:

(A*) - Egg Cell or ovum, containing *, the mytochondria and genetic information of the mother
---+(B)> - Spermatozoon containing the genetic information of the father. It also carries mytochondria, +, but these are destroyed in the process fertilization.

Fertilization = ---+(B)> (A*) ------> (AB*)

(AB*) is the zygote, a fertilized ovum, and contains nucleus genetic information AB

If (AB*) is a female, it will produce (A*) and (B*) gametes by the process of meiosis, in this case, being a female, it produces egg cells.
If the Individual is a male, it will produce --*(A)> and --*(B)> spermatozoons, which do not pass mytochondria in the next fertilization.

In the end, this means that the mtDNA, or mitochondrial DNA is only passed on from mother to daughter, outside of the nucleus (which suffers mutations during meiosis) and thus, the mtDNA remained unaltered for thousands of years, helping us find the primordial Eve.

[QUOTE=CSW]2. Ironically enough, evolution. Viruses want to reproduce as much as we do, so they mutate to fool our immune systems.
[QUOTE]

Actually, they do not mutate to fool us. That is Lamarckism. They fool us because they have mutated.

What happens is that our immune system, sometimes with the help of antibiotics, gets rid of the viruses, but one or several of these viruses might have DNA mutations that make them resistant to our defences. So these ones manage to survive and to reproduce, making a new stirp of viruses. And then these viruses spread into other persons. And these persons might have the genetic mutations that allow their immune system to fight these viruses, thus continuing to live and to pass on that immunity, or they might not have resistances, then dying and not passing on the non-resistant genes.

It's the same that happens for example, with cheetas and gazelles. The faster and more agile cheetas are able to catch gazelles, so they feed themselves and their offspring, and the slower cheetas die of hunger or cannot feed their offspring.

Then if by chance a gazelle has genes that allow it to be faster and more agile, being able to outrun or to dodge the cheetas, continues to live and is able to reproduce and pass (if lucky) the better genes for speed and agility to their offspring.
And the slower gazelles get eaten.
If the slower gazelles do not get eaten, they breed with the possibly faster gazelles, and this will not allow evolution to occur.

In the end, Gazelles are making cheetas evolve and be faster and cheetas are making gazelles evolve.

Sometimes mutations bring benefits and sometimes they don't. Imagine that there is an animal that does not hear, does not smell and hunts using a very powerful vision. Imagine that there is a black out somehow, and then the eyes of that animal become useless, and it has no way to survive and dies. This is how branches are cut off sometimes.

Dodos, for example, were 1-meter tall, fruit eating birds that because of the presence of lots of food in the ground and the absence of natural predators, with time lost his ability to fly. This mutation was not detrimental. It even had some benefit because no energy was spent on the beating of wings, etc.
But then the humans arrived. And the mutation that was once not a bad one, led the dodos to extinction, because they didn't even recognise humans as a threat and were easily caught. A sailor treat. None of the dodos had mutations that could favor their survival so they all died.

Point got across though, so no harm done.


My mistake however, thanks for pointing that out to prevent any further confusion.

JUDGEMENT:

Evolution and Creation must stay at least 500 feet from each other at all times. That is all...

JUDGEMENT:

Evolution and Creation must stay at least 500 feet from each other at all times. That is all...

with a further condition that evolution shall have custody of the children and creation will have no visitation rights, given its the long history of abuse and neglect of them.

1: All matter is transformed, nothing is created nothing is destroyed.

2: The odds of someone seeing a unicelular organism evolve to a multi-celular organism are outreageously low. Mutations are very rare. Why do you think that it took billions of year to get to this point?
Evolutionism doesn't see it that way. But by examining DNAs of various animals, we could see that it was a gradual process.

At first, unicelular organisms became multicelular organisms, which means that at some point, the fact that these cells worked together brought them some advantage. This happens, for example, in a rudimentar sponge, which is nothing but a bunch of similar cells put together.
Then some cells started specializing (according to the information that was generated by mutation in the DNA), creating organisms like jellyfish, which are basicly colonies of cells, with different functions (like the cnidocytes, the ones that sting), and so on and and so on.

As more (beneficial or non-detrimental) mutations occured in the DNA, the more complex the organisms became, sometimes branching off in different evolutionary paths (due to various reasons that you will research if you want). Why do you think that we have so many genes similar to the genes of primates? This can only mean that we branched off at some point. And if you knew anything about how evolution occurs, how species are created, you would understand this easily.

3: This is the most stupid argument ever. One can see that you are completely uneducated and don't know what you are talking about. But let me explain (something that you do not deserve...):

Fossil records show that there were species of fish, like the still living coelacanth, that grew fins that helped them creep in the floor of the ocean, lake, whatever. And some of these started adventuring out of the water for some reason. At some time, some became amphibious (some extinct, etc.) and were able to breathe either inside or outside of water. Then some chose to always be in land, and at this time the rest of the body was already adapted to the environment. They were similar to reptiles now.
Then dinossaurs came. Some ate plants, some ate other dinossaurs, some went back to the waters and some, well, grew wings (initially, a skin membrane that went from the torso to the hand) with the passing of generations. And then feathers were beneficial. And then hollow bones, filled with hot air (I bet you didn't know that) were there too. And then they were not called dinossaurs anymore, they were called birds (Archaeopteryx - the first so called bird).
Which makes your comment completely ridiculous. It's like saying that they never found a fossil that is half fish, half human.

4. How many years then? 6000? Did you know that there are older cultures than that? Much older... How about carbon dating? Mean anything to you?

5. Do you even know why people believe that humans originated from Africa? Because in our mitochondria (something that you don't know exists), there is a group of genes that is similar to every single human being.

Imagine that Africans have (ABCDE)
Native americans, for example, have a gene combination (LBCKN).
South americans have a gene combination (YWCKO)
Asians have (HBCDF)
Southern europeans have (ATRDE)
North europeans have (ZLRDE)
And that west african arabs have (ATCME)

Looking at these combinations, which one do you think that they all have something in common? What do south americans (YWBCKO) and north europeans (ATRDE) have in common? Is it native americans (LBCKN)? No.
Is it Africans (ABCDE)? Yes indeed.

And the closer we get to the origin, the more coinciding genes are found.

This combination of genes suggests that we all derive from the same person (Everyone has this ancient humanoid in their family tree). When humans were very few, this hypothetical Eve was the mother to all of our ultra-great grandparents. This isn't very hard to imagine how it happened. Imagine that there is a massive plague that kills everyone except, for example 10 cousins (male and female). All of these cousins have one of their grandmothers in common. Even if their other grandparents were all different, they still have that one starting point.

How could they measure this? Well, the mytochondria are situated in the cytoplasm and have their own genes. And these genes are not passed inside the nucleus, which suffers mutations and all, during meiosis. They are passed in the cytoplasm of the mother's egg cell. So when fertilization occurs and the spermatozoon joins with the eggcell, the mytochondria are already in there, unaltered.
To make it simple, here's a scheme:

(A*) - Egg Cell or ovum, containing *, the mytochondria and genetic information of the mother
---+(B)> - Spermatozoon containing the genetic information of the father. It also carries mytochondria, +, but these are destroyed in the process fertilization.

Fertilization = ---+(B)> (A*) ------> (AB*)

(AB*) is the zygote, a fertilized ovum, and contains nucleus genetic information AB

If (AB*) is a female, it will produce (A*) and (B*) gametes by the process of meiosis, in this case, being a female, it produces egg cells.
If the Individual is a male, it will produce --*(A)> and --*(B)> spermatozoons, which do not pass mytochondria in the next fertilization.

In the end, this means that the mtDNA, or mitochondrial DNA is only passed on from mother to daughter, outside of the nucleus (which suffers mutations during meiosis) and thus, the mtDNA remained unaltered for thousands of years, helping us find the primordial Eve.
hm...impressive. complicated. if not a little bit "inchy". still raises a few questions:

1. you claim it yourself: nobody's ever seen evolution. so how can you claim it as science when there's no solid, primary-sourced proof? sure, you say nobody's seen creation either. i don't dispute that. it's personal belief, so please respect me with the way i am respecting you.

2. still, humans haven't evolved to a state in which we can be immune to even the common cold. what's wrong then? if you could ever muster it, maybe you can explain it nicely.

3. taking your dinosaur-to-bird theory, so why do we the fossil of a dinosaur, then of a dinosaur with wings, then of a bird? why can't we find the fossil of a dinosaur with 1/8 of a wing, then 1/4 of wing, then 1/2 of a wing, then the full wing? the start and end products are there, but the process is always missing. that's the point i meant about half-fish, half-bird.

4. there a numbers of doubts about carbon dating, mind you.

5. billions of years. maybe you haven't grasped the magnitude of the world "billion". "billion" is not just an english word, it's the actual count of who-knows how many zeros, with each year passing with 365 days. that makes millions of billions of days, you see. what do you think are the chances of earth not being hit by a meteorite or comet large enough to destroy every living thing on one of that day? thousands of these dangerous aerial missiles cross earth's orbit every year, and some ultimately crash onto earth. compared with "billions of years" of earth surviving such disasters, i think "thousands of years" would be so much more easier to believe. also, why does it take one species to degenerate the earth in just 200 years but not the others in the past billions of years? "thousands" is again more believeable.

it's not just a question of biology, which currently i think you are focussing at. it's a question of physics, chemistry, geography, geology, astronomy, history, mathematics, psychology etc. etc. "the dawn of life" encompasses all these fields. if you are limiting yourself to biology it's hard to see the entire picture.

also, i wish to express my concern over your use of language and the level of respect you are showing to me. i don't give a damn about how intelligent you think you are, it doesn't give you any quarter-of-an-inch of a right to insult my being. i will let it go this time, aware that you are NOT aware of my sensitivity, but if it happens again i will consider to report it as flame.

The earth *has* been pelted by thousands of comets and matter from outerspace. There's a theory that the moon was created by a lump of rock about half the size of Earth hitting it in the early stages, while it was all still molten rock. This tore a large chunk of the panet, and may be the reason for it's oddish shape. Another theory about why earth hasn't actually been destroyed yet is that all the larger planets in the out orbits (particularly Jupiter and Saturn, the gas giants) 'draw their fire', as it were - their gravity catches anything that might otherwise work it's way further in to the solar system and hit us.

And before anyone says anything, there are no craters on Jupiter/Saturn because they are *gas* giants - no solid surface.


What is 1/4 of a wing? it would just look like a *short* wing - there are plenty of fossils with small wings. Heck, look at penguins (wings used as flippers), emus and ostriches (small wings, flightless birds). Things do not evolve in 'bits'. That is not what it's about. You might as well demand someone to show you the point where red becomes orange in the light spectrum (that's impossible, by the way).

The earth *has* been pelted by thousands of comets and matter from outerspace. There's a theory that the moon was created by a lump of rock about half the size of Earth hitting it in the early stages, while it was all still molten rock. This tore a large chunk of the panet, and may be the reason for it's oddish shape. Another theory about why earth hasn't actually been destroyed yet is that all the larger planets in the out orbits (particularly Jupiter and Saturn, the gas giants) 'draw their fire', as it were - their gravity catches anything that might otherwise work it's way further in to the solar system and hit us.

And before anyone says anything, there are no craters on Jupiter/Saturn because they are *gas* giants - no solid surface.


What is 1/4 of a wing? it would just look like a *short* wing - there are plenty of fossils with small wings. Heck, look at penguins (wings used as flippers), emus and ostriches (small wings, flightless birds). Things do not evolve in 'bits'. That is not what it's about. You might as well demand someone to show you the point where red becomes orange in the light spectrum (that's impossible, by the way).

yes, i do know how the gas planets protect us, but that raises one of my doubts again: did those gas planets just so happened to be there to protect earth? all out by chance? what are the possibilites of a higher being putting those planets there exactly for the purpose of protecting earth? just a thought.

ah, you're right about short wings. still, i think there must be a missing link somewhere...i'll think of one...maybe... if your red-orange spectrum analogy holds true as well as in evolution, what i'm looking for is the reddish-orange. currently i think they keep showing me red and orange, but nothing about lighter red, or darker orange.

and again: the driving force of evolution is the need to adapt to difficult environments. if adaptation is around, why evolution? why exactly does evolution happen?

yes, i do know how the gas planets protect us, but that raises one of my doubts again: did those gas planets just so happened to be there to protect earth? all out by chance? what are the possibilites of a higher being putting those planets there exactly for the purpose of protecting earth? just a thought.

Yup, chance. Easy-peasy.

QUOTE=Dragons Bayand again: the driving force of evolution is the need to adapt to difficult environments. if adaptation is around, why evolution? why exactly does evolution happen?[/QUOTE]

Adaption is around? What do you mean?

My theory is a combination; God created the singularity that caused the Big Bang and has guided the universe from that time, via evolution.

I believe exactly that myself. I don't see why the theories can't accomodate each other.

Yup, chance. Easy-peasy.

Adaption is around? What do you mean?

Chance...don't believe so much in chance...

Adapation being around meaning that we can see adapation occurring but not evolution

Chance...don't believe so much in chance...

Adapation being around meaning that we can see adapation occurring but not evolution
evolution is adaptation, evolution is not just macroevoultion - species to species change. THIS IS NOT POKEMON DAMNIT.

"1. you claim it yourself: nobody's ever seen evolution. so how can you claim it as science when there's no solid, primary-sourced proof? sure, you say nobody's seen creation either. i don't dispute that. it's personal belief, so please respect me with the way i am respecting you. "

There is proof. You just don't know enough about evolution to see how it works. Evolution is the survival of the fittest, which with the ages can create new species. Just read what I wrote.

"2. still, humans haven't evolved to a state in which we can be immune to even the common cold. what's wrong then? if you could ever muster it, maybe you can explain it nicely."

We all fight it with our immune systems and our medicine. But imagine that in person X, before his immune starts working, there is this single cell that has a mutation in DNA. When the immune system starts working and gets rid of all the bacterias or viruses, it turns out that this cell's mutation makes it resistant to the immune system, and is able to reproduce, creating a new version.
Is it that hard to understand?


"3. taking your dinosaur-to-bird theory, so why do we the fossil of a dinosaur, then of a dinosaur with wings, then of a bird? why can't we find the fossil of a dinosaur with 1/8 of a wing, then 1/4 of wing, then 1/2 of a wing, then the full wing? the start and end products are there, but the process is always missing. that's the point i meant about half-fish, half-bird."

This is a ridiculous point. Look at "flying" squirrels. They have this membrane that allows them to glide when they jump from tree to tree. What if a squirrel has a genetic mutation (more likely in sexual reproduction, due to the recombinations in meiosis) that makes it have larger wings, won't he glide further (if the mutation makes nice shaped wings)? And then, if mutations make his descendants (distant) have a smaller body and longer arms, they will be able to glide even further, and if they flap their arms they will be able to really fly.

How do you think that bats came to existance? They were just gliding rodents before.

This evolution isn't instant.

"4. there a numbers of doubts about carbon dating, mind you."

It might not be extremely accurate but it does show you that things are veeeery old. And what do you have to say about the ancient people found frozen in the snow? With 10000 years? What about neanderthals?

"5. billions of years. maybe you haven't grasped the magnitude of the world "billion". "billion" is not just an english word, it's the actual count of who-knows how many zeros, with each year passing with 365 days. that makes millions of billions of days, you see. what do you think are the chances of earth not being hit by a meteorite or comet large enough to destroy every living thing on one of that day? thousands of these dangerous aerial missiles cross earth's orbit every year, and some ultimately crash onto earth. compared with "billions of years" of earth surviving such disasters, i think "thousands of years" would be so much more easier to believe. also, why does it take one species to degenerate the earth in just 200 years but not the others in the past billions of years? "thousands" is again more believeable."

A billion = 1000000000. One thousand millions. And it is just an english word. Because a true billion is a million of millions but somehow, with time, someone made it be 1000 millions but that's another story.

Why do you quote the bible? It was meant by men. Men that needed answers and could not find them, because they did not have the means to explain the world around them by observation. So they created their own vision, to feel more complete.

Nowadays, there is no need for that, because we can really look for some of the truths. So you should only leave to god the question: Why is there life? This cannot be answered by science, at least yet, so it is normal to say it was god - the driving force behind nature.
But saying that there is no evolution is just being stupid. It IS proven.

"it's not just a question of biology, which currently i think you are focussing at. it's a question of physics, chemistry, geography, geology, astronomy, history, mathematics, psychology etc. etc. "the dawn of life" encompasses all these fields. if you are limiting yourself to biology it's hard to see the entire picture."

I have studied biology, geology, chemistry, etc. And I also read numerous articles, and saw numerous documentaries about physics, astronomy and history. And I am contemplating all of these things. Natural history is part of history.

"also, i wish to express my concern over your use of language and the level of respect you are showing to me. i don't give a damn about how intelligent you think you are, it doesn't give you any quarter-of-an-inch of a right to insult my being. i will let it go this time, aware that you are NOT aware of my sensitivity, but if it happens again i will consider to report it as flame."

Ok then.


Now for the conclusion:

Isn't the Creation much more beautiful if god made it so things adapt and evolve? So things reach perfection by trial and error, in small steps?
What would be the fun of having a world where things just popped out of nowhere and the world was made?

Evolution might have been created by god, how do you know? Isn't it wonderful to live in a world where everything is dynamic, as opposed to fixed and still?

Just the word, evolution, is magnificent. It means being closer to perfection. Think about it.

It has probably been said and said again(I didn't read all of it.. plenty of well-thought out, long, posts that I did read though.), but evolution, survival of the fittest is the natural tendency of any organism to choose a suitable mate with characteristics that would make the offspring more likely to survive. To dumb the conversation up a bit, that's why women find athletes or disgustingly rich men or intelligent men attractive. I'd try to think of one for the opposite... but I don't see how large breasts can help an... wait, more milk for the baby.

Yup. That's also part of selection.

But to finish the thread, I propose that everyone reads each of the ideas fully and then decides what is right or wrong. But read everything before you decide. Don't be someone that wants to remain blind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution


And one that is very interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_theory


Make your own minds.

I've gotta say, you're doing an admiral job holding your own Dragon's Bay, and for your sake, I'd like to add a few things. First of all, carbon-dating is only accurate to about 10,000 years (given ideal circumstances). Second, traces of Carbon-14 (used in carbon dating), which should be undetectable after 50,000 years, have been found in rocks that scientist claimed were millions of years old. Last, when Dragon's Bay says half fish, half bird, he means transitional forms of various creatures, which I guess you guys aren't picking up on. Someone gave the example of the squirrel turned bat. Why aren't there any 1/4 squirrel, 3/4 bat remains all the way from full squirrel to full bat?

Why aren't there any 1/4 squirrel, 3/4 bat remains all the way from full squirrel to full bat?
you tell me how fossils form and ill get back to you

you tell me how fossils form and ill get back to you

If I remember correctly, the remains are quickly covered by sand, dirt, etc. And then the combination of pressure and time creates rock-like remnant of the creature. Close enough?

I've gotta say, you're doing an admiral job holding your own Dragon's Bay, and for your sake, I'd like to add a few things. First of all, carbon-dating is only accurate to about 10,000 years (given ideal circumstances). Second, traces of Carbon-14 (used in carbon dating), which should be undetectable after 50,000 years, have been found in rocks that scientist claimed were millions of years old. Last, when Dragon's Bay says half fish, half bird, he means transitional forms of various creatures, which I guess you guys aren't picking up on. Someone gave the example of the squirrel turned bat. Why aren't there any 1/4 squirrel, 3/4 bat remains all the way from full squirrel to full bat?


Um...no. It's accurate to roughly 50,000 years, not 10,000, and we can use other methods for things older then that. Besides, half-lives are inexact, you can go millions of years and still end up with 50% of the c-14 remaining (extremely unlikely, but possible).

As for the squirrel/bat thing, we have shown half squirrel half bat remains, and I have an unnerving feeling that you are next going to ask for a 1/8th squirrel, 7/8ths bat. Get a grip, not all species form fossils, and trying to show that just because one link didn't form fossils somehow disproves the entire theory of evolution is insane.

Um...no. It's accurate to roughly 50,000 years, not 10,000, and we can use other methods for things older then that. Besides, half-lives are inexact, you can go millions of years and still end up with 50% of the c-14 remaining (extremely unlikely, but possible).


No, at 50,000 years it is undetectable, and certainly unreliable after 10,000. Is it really a good idea for you to be saying that half-lives are inexact? All radiometric dating kinda relies on it. But since you said it, radiometric dating will no longer be accepted in this debate.


As for the squirrel/bat thing, we have shown half squirrel half bat remains, and I have an unnerving feeling that you are next going to ask for a 1/8th squirrel, 7/8ths bat. Get a grip, not all species form fossils, and trying to show that just because one link didn't form fossils somehow disproves the entire theory of evolution is insane.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but the argument is not limited to squirrel bats. No transitional forms have ever been found for any species. Those that have been "found" have all been hoaxes.

If I remember correctly, the remains are quickly covered by sand, dirt, etc. And then the combination of pressure and time creates rock-like remnant of the creature. Close enough?
as a weak general overview, there are more factors that provide for it actually happening

As for the squirrel/bat thing, we have shown half squirrel half bat remains, and I have an unnerving feeling that you are next going to ask for a 1/8th squirrel, 7/8ths bat. Get a grip, not all species form fossils, and trying to show that just because one link didn't form fossils somehow disproves the entire theory of evolution is insane.

it should be noted that we don't have fossil proof of many animals we know HAD to have existed; we have cave paintings from areas where we have yet to find any human or ape remains that date to the time of the paintings, for example, yet nobody has proposed that the paintings were spontaneously generated. there are several million years during which we have no fossil record of the existence of crocodiles, even though fossil proof of their existence has been found to either side of that gap in time; crocs didn't vanish and then re-evolve, there simply were no viable fossils found (yet) during that period.

think about the percentage of the Earth we have checked for fossils; less than 1/100,000,000th of the viable surface area. and that's just the viable area TODAY, and doesn't include what may have been land at one time but is now under a sea. and of that area we have checked, how many fossils were probably destroyed by the natural workings of the Earth? quakes, volcanos, simple erosive processes...there are plenty of ways that the fossil record can be disturbed or erased.

saying that evolution can't be true because we haven't yet found specific fossil proof of each stage of evolution for each animal is like saying that the theory the Earth orbits the Sun can't be true because we haven't yet mapped every inch of space in this solar system.

it should be noted that we don't have fossil proof of many animals we know HAD to have existed; we have cave paintings from areas where we have yet to find any human or ape remains that date to the time of the paintings, for example, yet nobody has proposed that the paintings were spontaneously generated. there are several million years during which we have no fossil record of the existence of crocodiles, even though fossil proof of their existence has been found to either side of that gap in time; crocs didn't vanish and then re-evolve, there simply were no viable fossils found (yet) during that period.

think about the percentage of the Earth we have checked for fossils; less than 1/100,000,000th of the viable surface area. and that's just the viable area TODAY, and doesn't include what may have been land at one time but is now under a sea. and of that area we have checked, how many fossils were probably destroyed by the natural workings of the Earth? quakes, volcanos, simple erosive processes...there are plenty of ways that the fossil record can be disturbed or erased.

saying that evolution can't be true because we haven't yet found specific fossil proof of each stage of evolution for each animal is like saying that the theory the Earth orbits the Sun can't be true because we haven't yet mapped every inch of space in this solar system.

How many fossils would you say we've unearthed so far, in all of human history? Probably 1,000,000+ (Pulled it out of the air, probably a lot more). So you're trying to tell me that we can't expect to find even 1 transitional form in all of those millions? Not only that, but we should find _more_ transitional forms than current forms, but somehow in all those millions, we've missed them. Must be looking in the wrong places.

I'm not really sure how to explain my opinion. I believe that God did have to do with the creation of our world to a certain extent. But I also believe in the whole evolution of bacteria and animals, that kind of thing. In my opinion evolution is described in the Bible, but in a symbolic story to make it seem simpler than it really was.

All I want an explanation for is this...how does non-living material suddenly become a living organism? At what point do random chemicals bumping against each other in the primordial soup suddenly become alive, and obtain the ability to replicate itself?

Another one.... you're either interested, or your not. If you are, read the thread - we've been there and done this.

Non-living material doesn't need to 'become' a living organism, and being able to replicate is not the same as being alive.

Some atoms combine to produce molecules.
Some molecules are more stable than others.
Some molecules are more complex than others.
Some complex molecules are more stable than others.
Some chemical reactions produce similar results time after time.
Some stimuli cause chemical and/or physical reactions
Some stimuli cause chemical and/or physical reactions that produce similar results, time after time.
Some complex molecules favour reactions that produce similar results, time after time.
Some complex molecules can actually self-generate the necessary stimuli to cause the reactions that produce similar results, time after time.
Some of those reactions can generate abbreviated forms of the same complex molecule.

Already - I hope you can see, we have followed the passage from atom to self-replicating protein... and I hope you can see that efficiency will eventually favour the complex self-replicator over almost all of the intermediate forms. I hope you can also see that these reactions can take place in seconds, but those seconds might not arrive until the 'pot has been boiling' for millions of years.

Please read the rest of the thread.

No, at 50,000 years it is undetectable, and certainly unreliable after 10,000. Is it really a good idea for you to be saying that half-lives are inexact? All radiometric dating kinda relies on it. But since you said it, radiometric dating will no longer be accepted in this debate.


I said extremely unlikely, but possible. Sit down.

As for the rest, because you decided to be nasty, I think I'll talk-origins you to death:

Claim CD011:
Carbon-14 dating gives unreliable results.
Source:
Lee, Robert E., 1981. Radiocarbon: Ages in error. Anthropological Journal of Canada 19(3) (29 Sept.) and Creation Research Society Quarterly 19: 117-127 (Sept. 1982).
Response:

1. Any tool will give bad results when misused. Radiocarbon dating has some known limitations. Any measurement which exceeds these limitations will probably be invalid. In particular, radiocarbon dating works to find ages not much older than 50,000 years. Using it to date older items will give bad results. Also, samples can be contaminated with younger or older carbon, again invalidating the results.

In their claims of errors, creationists don't consider such misuse of the technique. It is not uncommon for they themselves to misuse radiocarbon dating by attempting to date samples that are millions of years old or that have been treated with organic substances. In such cases, the errors belong to the creationists, not the Carbon-14 dating method.

2. Radiocarbon dating has been repeatedly tested, demonstrating its accuracy. It is calibrated by tree-ring data, which gives a nearly exact calendar back for more than 10,000 years. It has also been tested on items whose age is known through historical records, such as parts of the dead sea scrolls and some wood from an Egyptian tomb [Watson 2001; MNSU n.d.]. Multiple samples from a single object have been dated independently, yielding consistent results. Radiocarbon dating is also concordant with other dating techniques.


I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but the argument is not limited to squirrel bats. No transitional forms have ever been found for any species. Those that have been "found" have all been hoaxes.


Claim CC200:
There are no transitional fossils. Evolution predicts a continuum between each fossil organism and its ancestors. Instead, we see systematic gaps in the fossil record.
Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 78-90.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pp. 57-59.
Response:

1. There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil which is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they couldn't be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil which shows a mosaic of features from an older and a more recent organism.

2. Transitional fossils may coexist with gaps. We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years. Nevertheless, we do find several fine gradations of fossils between species and genera, and we find many other sequences between higher taxa that are still very well filled out.

Fossil transitions between species and genera:

1. Human ancestry. There are many fossils of human ancestors, and the differences between species are so gradual that it is not always clear where to draw the lines between them.

2. A gradual transitional fossil sequence connects the foraminifera Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa [Pearson et al. 1997]. O. universa, the later fossil, features a spherical test surrounding a "Globigerinoides-like" shell, showing that a feature is added, not lost. The evidence is seen in all major tropical ocean basins. Several intermediate morphospecies connect the two species, as may be seen in the figure included in Lindsay [1997].

3. The fossil record shows transitions between species of Phacops (a trilobite; Phacops rana is the Pennsylvania state fossil.). [Eldredge 1972; 1974; Strapple 1978]

4. Planktonic forminifera [Malmgren et al. 1984]. This is an example of "punctuated gradualism." A 10-million-year foraminifera fossil record shows long periods of stasis and other periods of relatively rapid but still gradual morphologic change.

5. Fossils of the diatom Rhizosolenia are very common (they are mined as diatomaceous earth), and they show a continuous record of almost 2 million years which includes a record of a speciation event. [Miller 1999, 44-45]

6. Lake Turkana mollusc species [Lewin 1981].

7. Cenozoic marine ostracodes [Cronin 1985].

8. The Eocene primate genus Cantius [Gingerich 1976, 1980, 1983].

9. Scallops of the genus Chesapecten show gradual change in one "ear" of their hinge over about 13 million years. The ribs also change. [Ward and Blackwelder 1975; Pojeta and Springer 2001]

10. The horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence. Other head and neck features also evolved. These features are adaptations for head-on ramming analogous to sheep behavior. [Stanley 1974]

Fossil transitionals between families, orders, and classes:

1. Human ancestry. Australopithecus, though its leg and pelvis bones show it walked upright, had a bony ridge on the forearm, probably vestigial, indicative of knuckle walking. [Richmond and Strait 2000]

2. Dinosaur-bird transitions.

3. Haasiophis terrasanctus is a primitive marine snake with well-developed hind limbs. Although other limbless snakes might be more ancestral, this fossil shows a relationship of snakes with limbed ancestors [Tchernov et al. 2000]. Pachyrhachis is another snake with legs related to Haasiophis [Caldwell and Lee 1997].

4. The jaws of mososaurs are also intermediate between snakes and lizards. Like the snake's stretchable jaws, they have highly flexible lower jaws, but, unlike snakes, they don't have highly flexible upper jaws. Some other skull features of mososaurs are intermediate between snakes and primitive lizards. [Lee et al. 1999; Tchernov et al. 2000; Caldwell and Lee 1997]

5. Transitions between mesonychids and whales.

6. Transitions between fish and tetrapods.

7. Transitions from condylarths (a kind of land mammal) to fully aquatic modern manatees. In particular, Pezosiren portelli is clearly a sirenian, but its hind limbs and pelvis are unreduced [Domning 2001a, 2001b].

Fossil transitionals between kingdoms and phyla:

1. The Cambrian fossils Halkiera and Wiwaxia have features which connect them with each other and with the modern phyla of Mollusca, Brachiopoda, and Annelida. In particular, one species of halkieriid has brachiopod-like shells on the dorsal side at each end. This is seen also in an immature stage of the living brachiopod species Neocrania. It has setae identical in structure to polychaetes, a group of annelids. Wiwaxia and Halkiera have the same basic arrangement of hollow sclerites, an arrangement which is similar to the chaetae arrangement of polychaetes. The undersurface of Wiwaxia has a soft sole like a mollusc's foot, and its jaw looks like a mollusc's mouth. Aplacophorans, which are a group of primitive molluscs, have a soft body covered with spicules similar to the sclerites of Wiwaxia. [Conway Morris 1999, 185-195]

2. Cambrian and Precambrain fossils Anomalocaris and Opabinia are transitional between arthropods and lobopods.

Vaild points and all but I blieve in creationism. Though me and god dont agree alot I think he is real and all but as i said before I dont like his desicions.

Oh, and Bostin, I'd think about going to your science teacher and asking for your money back, everyone knows that C-14 dating is accurate to about 50,000 years, give or take a half-life.

Oh, and Bostin, I'd think about going to your science teacher and asking for your money back, everyone knows that C-14 dating is accurate to about 50,000 years, give or take a half-life.

Take that back, you fiend!!! I see absolutely NO EVIDENCE that Bostin has a science teacher.... until you can prove that he has a single clue about science, you should keep those kind of claims to yourself...

How many fossils would you say we've unearthed so far, in all of human history? Probably 1,000,000+ (Pulled it out of the air, probably a lot more). So you're trying to tell me that we can't expect to find even 1 transitional form in all of those millions? Not only that, but we should find _more_ transitional forms than current forms, but somehow in all those millions, we've missed them. Must be looking in the wrong places.

Except there are a lot of documented transitional fossils, and this is one of the oldest creationist lies in the book.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Take that back, you fiend!!! I see absolutely NO EVIDENCE that Bostin has a science teacher.... until you can prove that he has a single clue about science, you should keep those kind of claims to yourself...

Again, Ad Hom. Very Constructive :rolleyes:

As for your claim that "Everyone knows it's accurate to 50,000 years", I have found conflicting reports all over the place ranging from 10,000 to 50,000 years, and the number I had was pulled off the top of my head. All the same, we can assume that 50,000 is a maximum, although this concession really doesn't help you much. Again I question the presence of Carbon-14 in coal which supposedly takes millions of years to form. Also, I do not necessarily question the accuracy of the dating method itself, the method may be accurate given ideal circumstances. However most of the time circumstances are far from ideal. We assume that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has always been the same, it may not have been. We assume that the amount of carbon-14 and regular carbon has not been disturbed, doubtful.

Lastly, two more points. You mock my scientific prowess CWS, and yet all you can do is type my argument into a search, then pull answers off a website. Then you mock me for not being an independent thinker.

Finally, I'd like to point out that evolutionists such as yourselves might get much farther with creationist if less of your argument was insulting and more of it was addressing the points clearly and concisely.

Except there are a lot of documented transitional fossils, and this is one of the oldest creationist lies in the book.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

How about an unbiased source from someone with credentials? You'll forgive me for not accepting the word of some woman off of a pro-evolution website.

How about an unbiased source from someone with credentials? You'll forgive me for not accepting the word of some woman off of a pro-evolution website.

All of the statements are referenced to scientific papers, you idiot. Do you seriously think attacking the writer makes the evidence go away?

Again, Ad Hom. Very Constructive :rolleyes:

As for your claim that "Everyone knows it's accurate to 50,000 years", I have found conflicting reports all over the place ranging from 10,000 to 50,000 years, and the number I had was pulled off the top of my head. All the same, we can assume that 50,000 is a maximum, although this concession really doesn't help you much. Again I question the presence of Carbon-14 in coal which supposedly takes millions of years to form. Also, I do not necessarily question the accuracy of the dating method itself, the method may be accurate given ideal circumstances. However most of the time circumstances are far from ideal. We assume that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has always been the same, it may not have been. We assume that the amount of carbon-14 and regular carbon has not been disturbed, doubtful.

Lastly, two more points. You mock my scientific prowess CWS, and yet all you can do is type my argument into a search, then pull answers off a website. Then you mock me for not being an independent thinker.

Finally, I'd like to point out that evolutionists such as yourselves might get much farther with creationist if less of your argument was insulting and more of it was addressing the points clearly and concisely.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (search engines) HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH

Talk-Origins cites sources, a lot of them, that's why I use it, so maybe you can read the sources and realize that they actually have facts behind their argument. Show me your source for the 10,000 year data, and it better be from a respectable source. No creationist bullshit, as they wouldn't know science if it smacked them upside the head.

Claim CD011.1:
Carbon dating is based on the atmospheric C14/C12 ratio, but that ratio varies. Thus the carbon dating method is not valid.
Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 162-166.
Response:

1. The variability of the C14/C12 ratio, and the need for calibration, has been recognized since 1969 [Dickin 1995, 364-366]. Calibration is possible by analyzing the C14 content of items dated by independent methods. Dendrochronology (age dating by counting tree rings) has been used to calibrate C14/C12 ratios back to 13,000 years before the present [Becker et al. 1991]. C14 dating has been calibrated back more than 30,000 years using uranium-thorium (isochron) dating of corals [Bard et al. 1990; Edwards et al. 1993], and to 45,000 b.p. using U-Th dates of glacial lake varve sediments [Kitagawa and van der Plicht 1998].

If your going to use arguments that have already been disproven, don't bother asking me to come up with an answer by myself.

And I notice that you've skipped my post showing where transitionary fossils have been shown to exist. I'll take that as a consession of the point.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but the argument is not limited to squirrel bats. No transitional forms have ever been found for any species. Those that have been "found" have all been hoaxes.


Er... Imagine a squirrel. Now imagine, that in the future there is a flying (not gliding) rodent, that looks a lot like a squirrel. Wouldn't the actual "flying squirrel" (that glides) be the FRIKKIN TRANSITIONAL FORM?

Don't be a blockhead! This is just common sense, proven by theory and observation. It doesn't make god's work any worse, on the contrary.

Don't you understand that the bible was made by men? MEN. And god didn't tell them what to do. They did it because they needed something credible to believe in.

Nowadays, these beliefs have been disproven.

OPEN YOUR EYES

"The greatest enemy of knowledge isn't ignorance.
It's the illusion of knowledge"

Stephen Hawking

Er... Imagine a squirrel. Now imagine, that in the future there is a flying (not gliding) rodent, that looks a lot like a squirrel. Wouldn't the actual "flying squirrel" (that glides) be the FRIKKIN TRANSITIONAL FORM?


Well, as long as we're imagining that there could be a (real) flying squirrel in the future, imagine if there wasn't...


Don't you understand that the bible was made by men? MEN. And god didn't tell them what to do. They did it because they needed something credible to believe in.


Actually, according to the Bible, it was God who told the men to write it :P.


Nowadays, these beliefs have been disproven.

OPEN YOUR EYES

"The greatest enemy of knowledge isn't ignorance.
It's the illusion of knowledge"

Stephen Hawking

Which is of course the reason why there are still so many more people who believe in God and creation, and more scientists every day attest to creation's validity. I resumbit your own quote, back to you.

Actually, according to the Bible, it was God who told the men to write it :P.

i wonder why, maybe its becuase they want you to beleive its the truth.
who wants to know how the ibble was put to gether? a geoup of bishops long ago sat around deciding which books were the holy word of god and which wernt.

why would you trust something that tells you to trust it.

the wolf to the sheep: "im not going to eat you because i just said so, you can trust me"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (search engines) HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH

Talk-Origins cites sources, a lot of them, that's why I use it, so maybe you can read the sources and realize that they actually have facts behind their argument. Show me your source for the 10,000 year data, and it better be from a respectable source. No creationist bullshit, as they wouldn't know science if it smacked them upside the head.

Claim CD011.1:
Carbon dating is based on the atmospheric C14/C12 ratio, but that ratio varies. Thus the carbon dating method is not valid.
Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 162-166.
Response:

1. The variability of the C14/C12 ratio, and the need for calibration, has been recognized since 1969 [Dickin 1995, 364-366]. Calibration is possible by analyzing the C14 content of items dated by independent methods. Dendrochronology (age dating by counting tree rings) has been used to calibrate C14/C12 ratios back to 13,000 years before the present [Becker et al. 1991]. C14 dating has been calibrated back more than 30,000 years using uranium-thorium (isochron) dating of corals [Bard et al. 1990; Edwards et al. 1993], and to 45,000 b.p. using U-Th dates of glacial lake varve sediments [Kitagawa and van der Plicht 1998].

If your going to use arguments that have already been disproven, don't bother asking me to come up with an answer by myself.

And I notice that you've skipped my post showing where transitionary fossils have been shown to exist. I'll take that as a consession of the point.

I didn't skip it, just forgot. As long as we're whipping out links: http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/re1/chapter3.asp

And for Carbon-dating: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp

And for the STILL unadressed C-14 in coal statement:http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1141.asp

Also, show me your source for the transitional fossils. No evolutionst bullshit, they wouldn't know science if it smacked them upside the head. (Works both ways).

i wonder why, maybe its becuase they want you to beleive its the truth.
who wants to know how the ibble was put to gether? a geoup of bishops long ago sat around deciding which books were the holy word of god and which wernt.

why would you trust something that tells you to trust it.

the wolf to the sheep: "im not going to eat you because i just said so, you can trust me"

Same question to every book ever written on evolution.

Same question to every book ever written on evolution.
cept its not just them saying "we are rgiht because we said so" books usually have sources, and more so for science books

cept its not just them saying "we are rgiht because we said so" books usually have sources, and more so for science books

The writers don't claim to be right "because they said so". Archaeology has proved, time and time again, the stories of the bible. I have no reason not to believe them. Even with books that have sources, the sources have sources and the sources have sources and so on.

"Well, as long as we're imagining that there could be a (real) flying squirrel in the future, imagine if there wasn't..."

Can't... type.... Too... m...much... block...hea...hea...headness...Blargh....

Get this, genious, if in the future there aren't flying squirrels it means that evolution didn't guide squirrels to develop wings that actually allow them to fly.
But it did in the past, with dinossaurs, selecting some that could fly.

I won't mention how this happens for the third or fourth time. You should check out how evolution works (or doesn't, according to you). Try reading a science book, wikipedia, try something. Or are you afraid to see the truth? Are you afraid that you might change your mind?

Remember, knowledge is never too much, even if you disagree with it.

"Actually, according to the Bible, it was God who told the men to write it :P."

What if I wrote a book, a convincing one, saying that god talked to me? Would all of it be true? Would the people that followed the book blindly be right?

Think.


"Which is of course the reason why there are still so many more people who believe in God and creation, and more scientists every day attest to creation's validity. I resumbit your own quote, back to you."

People that still believe in the bible and the creation either don't know better or don't want to.

FREE
YOUR
MIND

Well, as long as we're imagining that there could be a (real) flying squirrel in the future, imagine if there wasn't...

What does that have to do with the price of eggs in China?

Actually, according to the Bible, it was God who told the men to write it :P.

Of course, as a Christian, I know this. I also know that those same men think God told them to say that a woman was unclean for a certain number of weeks after she gave birth and that this uncleanness was longer if she had a girl-baby. I also know that these same men thought that God told them to say if a woman got raped in a town she should be stoned along with her rapist. I also know that these men believe God told them that slavery was perfectly ok. I don't actually believe God said any of those things. Remember, in the culture of the time, if the priests said it - that meant it must've come from God.

Which is of course the reason why there are still so many more people who believe in God and creation, and more scientists every day attest to creation's validity. I resumbit your own quote, back to you.

As a scientist I would like to point out that no actual scientists attest to creation's validity. There are a few people who call themselves scientists and try to prove Creationism, often young-Earth Creationism. However, they do not follow the scientific method and are therefore not true scientists. Sorry.

The writers don't claim to be right "because they said so". Archaeology has proved, time and time again, the stories of the bible. I have no reason not to believe them. Even with books that have sources, the sources have sources and the sources have sources and so on.
archeology does not prove the myth itself happened. archeology proved that troy exists, do you believe that the nerly immortal achilles fought there? or that the roman gods helped each side?

What does that have to do with the price of eggs in China?


I was poking fun at his ludicrous statement that evolution is true because there might be a flying flying squirrel in the future.


Of course, as a Christian, I know this. I also know that those same men think God told them to say that a woman was unclean for a certain number of weeks after she gave birth and that this uncleanness was longer if she had a girl-baby. I also know that these same men thought that God told them to say if a woman got raped in a town she should be stoned along with her rapist. I also know that these men believe God told them that slavery was perfectly ok. I don't actually believe God said any of those things. Remember, in the culture of the time, if the priests said it - that meant it must've come from God.


Actually, most of those things things you stated were given to Moses, not priests. I would also like references to some of these scriptures.


As a scientist I would like to point out that no actual scientists attest to creation's validity. There are a few people who call themselves scientists and try to prove Creationism, often young-Earth Creationism. However, they do not follow the scientific method and are therefore not true scientists. Sorry.

You speak on behalf of all scientists?

"What if I wrote a book, a convincing one, saying that god talked to me? Would all of it be true? Would the people that followed the book blindly be right?"

I would say that following any blook blindly is a bad idea. Everything in the book should be tested. But once the book is right over and over again, you start to trust it.

archeology does not prove the myth itself happened. archeology proved that troy exists, do you believe that the nerly immortal achilles fought there? or that the roman gods helped each side?

What "myth" are you speaking of specifically?

Most of the Bible isn't really all that far out.

What "myth" are you speaking of specifically?

Most of the Bible isn't really all that far out.
archeology doesnt prove what happened, it proves a place and/or peoples existed

archeology doesnt prove what happened, it proves a place and/or peoples existed

The question still stands.

The writers don't claim to be right "because they said so". Archaeology has proved, time and time again, the stories of the bible. I have no reason not to believe them. Even with books that have sources, the sources have sources and the sources have sources and so on.

Besides not reading my explanation of the squirrel transition, did you also not read my "Homer's work" comment?

Well, thousands of years ago, Homer wrote the Illiad and the Odissey. In both books he mentions the war of the Greeks versus the Trojans (The illiad is about this war) and how the gods control the fate of men, etc. That war happens in the city of Troy.
Well, people always thought that this city was fictional, a mere invention by Homer. Until the beggining of last century, when the ruins of Troy were found (Turkey I believe).
Does this mean that the gods mentioned in the book are true? Shouldn't we all bow to the power of Zeus, gatherer of clouds, to Palas Athena, to Ares, etc?

Just because a book is based in reality it doesn't mean that it is completely true. Many scrolls, books and other records disappeared and have been destroyed with the passing of ages (The church also helped a lot. Hurray for the Codex).

Are you also ignorant in history, as well as in science?


"I didn't skip it, just forgot. As long as we're whipping out links: http://www.answersingenesis.org/Hom...e1/chapter3.asp
.
.
.
Also, show me your source for the transitional fossils. No evolutionst bullshit, they wouldn't know science if it smacked them upside the head. (Works both ways)."

What a hypocrit. So you're saying that evolutionists are biased and ANSWERINGFAKINGENESIS ISN'T?????

...Can't... go... o..on... Muss...sst... finish...

The question still stands.
no it doesnt,the myth is irrelevant, the fact that archeology does not prove (most) events overrides the necesity to know what or any myth

How the carbon clock works

Carbon has unique properties that are essential for life on earth. Familiar to us as the black substance in charred wood, as diamonds, and the graphite in ‘lead’ pencils, carbon comes in several forms, or isotopes. One rare form has atoms that are 14 times as heavy as hydrogen atoms: carbon-14, or 14C, or radiocarbon.

Carbon-14 is made when cosmic rays knock neutrons out of atomic nuclei in the upper atmosphere. These displaced neutrons, now moving fast, hit ordinary nitrogen (14N) at lower altitudes, converting it into 14C. Unlike common carbon (12C), 14C is unstable and slowly decays, changing it back to nitrogen and releasing energy. This instability makes it radioactive.

Ordinary carbon (12C) is found in the carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air, which is taken up by plants, which in turn are eaten by animals. So a bone, or a leaf or a tree, or even a piece of wooden furniture, contains carbon. When the 14C has been formed, like ordinary carbon (12C), it combines with oxygen to give carbon dioxide (14CO2), and so it also gets cycled through the cells of plants and animals.

We can take a sample of air, count how many 12C atoms there are for every 14C atom, and calculate the 14C/12C ratio. Because 14C is so well mixed up with 12C, we expect to find that this ratio is the same if we sample a leaf from a tree, or a part of your body.

In living things, although 14C atoms are constantly changing back to 14N, they are still exchanging carbon with their surroundings, so the mixture remains about the same as in the atmosphere. However, as soon as a plant or animal dies, the 14C atoms which decay are no longer replaced, so the amount of 14C in that once-living thing decreases as time goes on. In other words, the 14C/12C ratio gets smaller. So, we have a ‘clock’ which starts ticking the moment something dies.

Obviously, this works only for things which were once living. It cannot be used to date volcanic rocks, for example.

The rate of decay of 14C is such that half of an amount will convert back to 14N in 5,730 years (plus or minus 40 years). This is the ‘half-life.’ So, in two half-lives, or 11,460 years, only one-quarter will be left. Thus, if the amount of 14C relative to 12C in a sample is one-quarter of that in living organisms at present, then it has a theoretical age of 11,460 years. Anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable 14C left. That is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact, if a sample contains 14C, it is good evidence that it is not millions of years old.

Sometimes I doubt if you read your own sources...


However, things are not quite so simple. First, plants discriminate against carbon dioxide containing 14C. That is, they take up less than would be expected and so they test older than they really are. Furthermore, different types of plants discriminate differently. This also has to be corrected for.2

Second, the ratio of 14C/12C in the atmosphere has not been constant—for example, it was higher before the industrial era when the massive burning of fossil fuels released a lot of carbon dioxide that was depleted in 14C. This would make things which died at that time appear older in terms of carbon dating. Then there was a rise in 14CO2 with the advent of atmospheric testing of atomic bombs in the 1950s.3 This would make things carbon-dated from that time appear younger than their true age.

This is adjusted for, as you can see in my above post


Measurement of 14C in historically dated objects (e.g., seeds in the graves of historically dated tombs) enables the level of 14C in the atmosphere at that time to be estimated, and so partial calibration of the ‘clock’ is possible. Accordingly, carbon dating carefully applied to items from historical times can be useful. However, even with such historical calibration, archaeologists do not regard 14C dates as absolute because of frequent anomalies. They rely more on dating methods that link into historical records.

Pointless, all that it says is that C-14 dates correspond to historical dates.


Outside the range of recorded history, calibration of the 14C clock is not possible.4

This is bullshit, plain and simple. You can backdate items using trees (the rings), or other methods.

Other factors affecting carbon dating

The amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth’s atmosphere affects the amount of 14C produced and therefore dating the system. The amount of cosmic rays reaching the earth varies with the sun’s activity, and with the earth's passage through magnetic clouds as the solar system travels around the Milky Way galaxy.

The strength of the earth’s magnetic field affects the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. A stronger magnetic field deflects more cosmic rays away from the earth. Overall, the energy of the earth’s magnetic field has been decreasing,5 so more 14C is being produced now than in the past. This will make old things look older than they really are.

Wait...I thought that things were looking younger. Once again, however, this is irrelevent due to calibration done by scientists

Also, the Genesis flood would have greatly upset the carbon balance. The flood buried a huge amount of carbon, which became coal, oil, etc., lowering the total 12C in the biosphere (including the atmosphere—plants regrowing after the flood absorb CO2, which is not replaced by the decay of the buried vegetation). Total 14C is also proportionately lowered at this time, but whereas no terrestrial process generates any more 12C, 14C is continually being produced, and at a rate which does not depend on carbon levels (it comes from nitrogen). Therefore, the 14C/12C ratio in plants/animals/the atmosphere before the flood had to be lower than what it is now.

Except that there was no flood. It is an impossibility, and has been discussed before

Unless this effect (which is additional to the magnetic field issue just discussed) were corrected for, carbon dating of fossils formed in the flood would give ages much older than the true ages.

Creationist researchers have suggested that dates of 35,000 - 45,000 years should be re-calibrated to the biblical date of the flood.6 Such a re-calibration makes sense of anomalous data from carbon dating—for example, very discordant ‘dates’ for different parts of a frozen musk ox carcass from Alaska and an inordinately slow rate of accumulation of ground sloth dung pellets in the older layers of a cave where the layers were carbon dated.7

Most likely someone made an error, like with the mammoths (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_2.html).

Also, volcanoes emit much CO2 depleted in 14C. Since the flood was accompanied by much volcanism, fossils formed in the early post-flood period would give radiocarbon ages older than they really are.

In summary, the carbon-14 method, when corrected for the effects of the flood, can give useful results, but needs to be applied carefully. It does not give dates of millions of years and when corrected properly fits well with the biblical flood.


Once again, calibration, calibration, calibration. Cheers.

In my opinion creationism shows a lack of understanding and respect for the scientific method, and a lack of understanding of the bible.

The bible must be treated in its historical context, and not like a document handed down from god (the bible doesn't claim to be, only the ten commandements are alledgedly given directly from god).

All bible scolars and theologists know this, except a few who lead populistic church movements for the unintelligent or ill-informed.

The Vaticant has admitted that mixing religion with science is wrong and has apologized for its treatement of Galileo. Now for centuries later, extreme protestant denominations are making the same mistakes. The worrying aspect of this is how succesfull they are. 60% of all Americans don't believe in evolution.

I won't list the arguments for evolution here, because they are readily available to everyone who cares.

A few points however:
All the main aspects of chrisitianity are independent of any scientific findings, therefore one should keep to the facts when doing science as its impossible to prove or to disprove the existence of god.

Big bang theory and evolution is not the same. Evolution only deals with the devellopment of lifeforms from simple to complex.

The current version of the big bang theory does not predict a never ending succession of bing bangs and 'big crunches'. This was only an hypothesis that has later been abandoned due to more accurate measurements of the rate of expantion of the universe and of its density (this does not however mean that there must be a god so don't worry all you fellow atheists out there).

All scientific findings point towards evolution and not creationism (which is not the same as creation).

Besides not reading my explanation of the squirrel transition, did you also not read my "Homer's work" comment?

Well, thousands of years ago, Homer wrote the Illiad and the Odissey. In both books he mentions the war of the Greeks versus the Trojans (The illiad is about this war) and how the gods control the fate of men, etc. That war happens in the city of Troy.
Well, people always thought that this city was fictional, a mere invention by Homer. Until the beggining of last century, when the ruins of Troy were found (Turkey I believe).
Does this mean that the gods mentioned in the book are true? Shouldn't we all bow to the power of Zeus, gatherer of clouds, to Palas Athena, to Ares, etc?

Just because a book is based in reality it doesn't mean that it is completely true. Many scrolls, books and other records disappeared and have been destroyed with the passing of ages (The church also helped a lot. Hurray for the Codex).


My apology, it is not _only_ archaeology that makes the book correct. All nature, in my opinion, points to God, plus the way that people act, conscience and whatnot. The teachings of the book line up perfectly with our lives and this world.


Are you also ignorant in history, as well as in science?


I love this forum.


"I didn't skip it, just forgot. As long as we're whipping out links: http://www.answersingenesis.org/Hom...e1/chapter3.asp
.
.
.
Also, show me your source for the transitional fossils. No evolutionst bullshit, they wouldn't know science if it smacked them upside the head. (Works both ways)."

What a hypocrit. So you're saying that evolutionists are biased and ANSWERINGFAKINGENESIS ISN'T?????

...Can't... go... o..on... Muss...sst... finish...

You guys don't have much talent for satire eh? I was proving a point, and that point was that he can not say that creationists know nothing about science and not let me use any such links, when the statement can be turned back around on him with equal invalidity. I will try not to confuse you guys so much in the future.

In 1984, I was on a geological excursion in Mägenwil (Switzerland). I collected some sandstone samples with fossilized mussels in it. This rock is classified as belonging to the Upper Tertiary geological system. Evolutionary belief therefore maintains that this rock is around 20 million years old.

In the same rock, right alongside the fossil mussels, are fragments of coalified wood.

Some time after I took my samples, I discovered the same sandstone, appropriately described as coming from Mägenwil, exhibited in the ‘Geologisch-Mineralogische Austellung der ETH’ in Zürich—naturally, also labelled ‘20 million years old’.

That means the wood must also be at least that old. Mainstream geologists would never think of trying to get a radiocarbon (14C) date for the coalified wood in this Mägenwil sandstone, because anything that old should not be datable by this metho

This is because radiocarbon decays very rapidly compared to other radioactive elements such as uranium. So after, say, a theoretical 100,000 years at the most the amount of radiocarbon left in the wood would not be detectable anymore.

So anything which really was millions of years old would have no detectable radiocarbon left, and would register as giving an ‘infinite radiocarbon age’. Carbon dating, as it is often called, is thus never used to date ‘old’ fossils (which usually have no organic carbon left anyway).

However, I felt this wood probably would give a radiocarbon ‘date’, because I was convinced that this sandstone was the result of residual post-Flood catastrophism, just a few thousand years ago.

Such dating wouldn’t show the wood’s true age, since creationists have long shown that the huge imbalance of carbon in the world due to the global Flood catastrophe would give artificially old radiocarbon dates, especially those from the early post-Flood era.1

However, if it registered any age at all on the radiocarbon test (and all sources of potential contamination had been eliminated), it would mean that it could not possibly be millions of years old.

So I arranged for this coalified wood to be radiocarbon ‘dated’ by the Physikalisches Institute of the University of Bern, Switzerland.2 I assumed that such a prestigious laboratory would take all necessary precautions to eliminate contamination, and allow for all other sources of error.3

The result: 36,440 years BP ± 330 years. This discovery, that the 14C in the wood has not yet had time to disintegrate totally, is in line with what one would expect, based on the true history of the world given in the Bible by the One who made all, and Who alone is infinite in knowledge, wisdom and power. The real age is probably less than four thousand years.

It seems that long-age believers are left with only three options:

1.

Accept the radiocarbon date. This would mean that the age of the Upper Tertiary shrinks from 20 million to 36,000 years, a factor of around 500 times. The whole geologic dating system would be thrown into disrepute.
2.

Arbitrarily reject the radiocarbon date. To be consistent, therefore, they would have to conclude that radiometric dates are not the absolute age indicators we are persistently told, which destroys the main plank in the old-age dogma to begin with.
3.

Ignore the result, and hope not too many get to know about it.

There are many today, even within evangelical churches, who deny the Bible’s record of a recent creation. Because of this belief, they therefore insist that the fossils are not related to a global Flood (which they also deny), but are millions of years old. Since fossils show death, suffering, bloodshed and disease, that means that in their view, all these ‘bad things’ must have been there long before Adam’s bringing sin into the world (Romans 5:12), with the resultant Curse on creation (Romans 8:20–22). Sadly, such deadly compromise is often the result of a completely misplaced faith in the ‘absolute’ ages given by radiometric methods



This has happened before, and there are a few explanations for this:
1. It might not even be wood, and even if it was, it would be pointless to run the test. The results would be meaningless and most likely wrong.

2. The sample was porous, making it likely that it would have absorbed organic carbon from the groundwater. It was probably this contaminating carbon which produced the date.

3. Another possibility is that some C14 was created in situ by natural radioactivity in the surrounding rocks. (Yes, this has been observed happening)

4. Even if the date is correct, that alone is meaningless. It rules out creation (36,440 years, way out of the range of the bible) and does nothing to the theory of evolution besides prove that a piece of wood was stuck near an old rock.

Exactly.

What we are discussing here isn't the existance or not of god. It's evolution, which has been proved and is visible for anyone who opens their eyes, against creationism, an idea that comes from the time when people thought that the earth was in the center of everything, and that the world was flat.

(Now this guy is gonna claim that the world is flat...)

# Human ancestry. There are many fossils of human ancestors, and the differences between species are so gradual that it is not always clear where to draw the lines between them.

# A gradual transitional fossil sequence connects the foraminifera Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa [Pearson et al. 1997]. O. universa, the later fossil, features a spherical test surrounding a "Globigerinoides-like" shell, showing that a feature is added, not lost. The evidence is seen in all major tropical ocean basins. Several intermediate morphospecies connect the two species, as may be seen in the figure included in Lindsay [1997].

# The fossil record shows transitions between species of Phacops (a trilobite; Phacops rana is the Pennsylvania state fossil.). [Eldredge 1972; 1974; Strapple 1978]

# Planktonic forminifera [Malmgren et al. 1984]. This is an example of "punctuated gradualism." A 10-million-year foraminifera fossil record shows long periods of stasis and other periods of relatively rapid but still gradual morphologic change.

# Fossils of the diatom Rhizosolenia are very common (they are mined as diatomaceous earth), and they show a continuous record of almost 2 million years which includes a record of a speciation event. [Miller 1999, 44-45]

# Lake Turkana mollusc species [Lewin 1981].

# Cenozoic marine ostracodes [Cronin 1985].

# The Eocene primate genus Cantius [Gingerich 1976, 1980, 1983].

# Scallops of the genus Chesapecten show gradual change in one "ear" of their hinge over about 13 million years. The ribs also change. [Ward and Blackwelder 1975; Pojeta and Springer 2001]

# The horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence. Other head and neck features also evolved. These features are adaptations for head-on ramming analogous to sheep behavior. [Stanley 1974]

# Human ancestry. Australopithecus, though its leg and pelvis bones show it walked upright, had a bony ridge on the forearm, probably vestigial, indicative of knuckle walking. [Richmond and Strait 2000]

# Dinosaur-bird transitions.

# Haasiophis terrasanctus is a primitive marine snake with well-developed hind limbs. Although other limbless snakes might be more ancestral, this fossil shows a relationship of snakes with limbed ancestors [Tchernov et al. 2000]. Pachyrhachis is another snake with legs related to Haasiophis [Caldwell and Lee 1997].

# The jaws of mososaurs are also intermediate between snakes and lizards. Like the snake's stretchable jaws, they have highly flexible lower jaws, but, unlike snakes, they don't have highly flexible upper jaws. Some other skull features of mososaurs are intermediate between snakes and primitive lizards. [Lee et al. 1999; Tchernov et al. 2000; Caldwell and Lee 1997]

# Transitions between mesonychids and whales.

# Transitions between fish and tetrapods.

# Transitions from condylarths (a kind of land mammal) to fully aquatic modern manatees. In particular, Pezosiren portelli is clearly a sirenian, but its hind limbs and pelvis are unreduced [Domning 2001a, 2001b].

# The Cambrian fossils Halkiera and Wiwaxia have features which connect them with each other and with the modern phyla of Mollusca, Brachiopoda, and Annelida. In particular, one species of halkieriid has brachiopod-like shells on the dorsal side at each end. This is seen also in an immature stage of the living brachiopod species Neocrania. It has setae identical in structure to polychaetes, a group of annelids. Wiwaxia and Halkiera have the same basic arrangement of hollow sclerites, an arrangement which is similar to the chaetae arrangement of polychaetes. The undersurface of Wiwaxia has a soft sole like a mollusc's foot, and its jaw looks like a mollusc's mouth. Aplacophorans, which are a group of primitive molluscs, have a soft body covered with spicules similar to the sclerites of Wiwaxia. [Conway Morris 1999, 185-195]

# Cambrian and Precambrain fossils Anomalocaris and Opabinia are transitional between arthropods and lobopods.


References:

# Caldwell, M. W. and M. S. Y. Lee, 1997. A snake with legs from the marine Cretaceous of the Middle East. Nature 386: 705-709.
# Conway Morris, Simon, 1999. The Crucible of Creation, Oxford University Press.
# Cronin, T. M., 1985. Speciation and stasis in marine ostracoda: climatic modulation of evolution. Science 227: 60-63.
# Domning, Daryl P., 2001a. The earliest known fully quadupedal sirenian. Nature 413: 625-627.
# Domning, Daryl P., 2001b. New "intermediate form" ties seacows firmly to land. Reports of the National Center for Science Education 21(5-6): 38-42.
# Eldredge, Niles, 1972. Systematics and evolution of Phacops rana (Green, 1832) and Phacops iowensis Delo, 1935 (Trilobita) from the Middle Devonian of North America. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 147(2): 45-114.
# Eldredge, Niles, 1974. Stability, diversity, and speciation in Paleozoic epeiric seas. Journal of Paleontology 48(3): 540-548.
# Gingerich, P. D., 1976. Paleontology and phylogeny: Patterns of evolution of the species level in early Tertiary mammals. American Journal of Science 276(1): 1-28.
# Gingerich, P. D., 1980. Evolutionary patterns in early Cenozoic mammals. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 8: 407-424.
# Gingerich, P. D., 1983. Evidence for evolution from the vertebrate fossil record. Journal of Geological Education 31: 140-144.
# Lee, Michael S. Y., Gorden L. Bell Jr. and Michael W. Caldwell, 1999. The origin of snake feeding. Nature 400: 655-659.
# Lewin, R., 1981. No gap here in the fossil record. Science 214: 645-646.
# Lindsay, Don, 1997. A smooth fossil transition: Orbulina, a foram. http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/orbulina.html
# Malmgren, B. A., W. A. Berggren and G. P. Lohmann, 1984. Species formation through punctuated gradualism in planktonic foraminifera. Science 225: 317-319.
# Miller, Kenneth R., 1999. Finding Darwin's God. New York: HarperCollins.
# Pearson, P. N., N. J. Shckleton and M. A. Hall. 1997. Stable isotopic evidence for the sympatric divergence of Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (planktonic foraminifera). Journal of the Geological Society, London 154: 295-302.
# Richmond B. G. and D. S. Strait, 2000. Evidence that humans evolved from a knuckle-walking ancestor. Nature 404: 382-385. See also Collard, M. and L. C. Aiello, 2000. From forelimbs to two legs. Nature 404: 339-340.
# Stanley, Steven M., 1974. Relative growth of the titanothere horn: A new approach to an old problem. Evolution 28: 447-457.
# Strapple, R. R., 1978. Tracing three trilobites. Earth Science 31(4): 149-152.
# Tchernov, E. et al., 2000. A fossil snake with limbs. Science 287: 2010-2012. See also Greene, H. W. and D. Cundall, 2000. Limbless tetrapods and snakes with legs. Science 287: 1939-1941.
# Ward, L. W., and B. W. Blackwelder, 1975. Chesapecten, A new genus of Pectinidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia) from the Miocene and Pliocene of eastern North America. U.S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper 861, 24p. Cited in Pojeta and Springer 2001, below

In my opinion creationism shows a lack of understanding and respect for the scientific method, and a lack of understanding of the bible.

The bible must be treated in its historical context, and not like a document handed down from god (the bible doesn't claim to be, only the ten commandements are alledgedly given directly from god).

All bible scolars and theologists know this, except a few who lead populistic church movements for the unintelligent or ill-informed.

The Vaticant has admitted that mixing religion with science is wrong and has apologized for its treatement of Galileo. Now for centuries later, extreme protestant denominations are making the same mistakes. The worrying aspect of this is how succesfull they are. 60% of all Americans don't believe in evolution.

I won't list the arguments for evolution here, because they are readily available to everyone who cares.

A few points however:
All the main aspects of chrisitianity are independent of any scientific findings, therefore one should keep to the facts when doing science as its impossible to prove or to disprove the existence of god.

Big bang theory and evolution is not the same. Evolution only deals with the devellopment of lifeforms from simple to complex.

The current version of the big bang theory does not predict a never ending succession of bing bangs and 'big crunches'. This was only an hypothesis that has later been abandoned due to more accurate measurements of the rate of expantion of the universe and of its density (this does not however mean that there must be a god so don't worry all you fellow atheists out there).

All scientific findings point towards evolution and not creationism (which is not the same as creation).

You know, if God created the world, the science and religion are inherently linked. There is no seperation. Either no God, or no Science.

Also, Evolution is still a hypothesis, if not a widely accepted one, and is not fact, as any good scientist will tell you. As such it should constantly be tested until it is proved to be fact, which I don't think can happen until we are able to see it in action, i.e. millions of years from now.

Heh, you guys are quite elitist. It seems from most of your statements that, with the exceptions of yourselves, the general public are ignorant sheep ("OPEN YOUR EYES" seems to be a favorite of this particular discussion) doing everything that they are told, and that you are their liberators. Well I don't think that the general public is quite that stupid, and I think that you should know that somewhere, there are people saying the same things about you. I don't know how this is relevant, but it seemed worth observing.

Nothing in biology is a law, if that is what you are waiting for. Sorry.

Evolution is amazingly widely accepted, almost universally among people who know what they are talking about (I.E. have degrees in biology)

This has happened before, and there are a few explanations for this:
1. It might not even be wood, and even if it was, it would be pointless to run the test. The results would be meaningless and most likely wrong.

2. The sample was porous, making it likely that it would have absorbed organic carbon from the groundwater. It was probably this contaminating carbon which produced the date.

3. Another possibility is that some C14 was created in situ by natural radioactivity in the surrounding rocks. (Yes, this has been observed happening)

4. Even if the date is correct, that alone is meaningless. It rules out creation (36,440 years, way out of the range of the bible) and does nothing to the theory of evolution besides prove that a piece of wood was stuck near an old rock.


1. Pointless? Why? It would mean that the "20 million year old" formation was no older than a few thousand years.

2-3. Same things apply to all or most carbon-dating. What makes yours more accurate?

4. You must take into account the flood, which massively affected the C-14 content in the atmosphere. It badly hurts the dating methods that evolutionists use to claim that the earth is millions of years old.

I say OPEN YOUR EYES because you seem to like to keep them closed.

You can't see that evolution exists, and that is just ridiculous.

Did you ever even think about how the fossiles get so deep in the earth? Did god put them there?
Besides not having any knowledge in biology or history (except for the bible), you do not have any knowledge in geology.

It takes millions of years for layers of earth to go on top of other layers, especially when they are as deep as the grand canyon (of course, now you say that the grand canyon was parted by god...)

How do you explain that marine fossiles are found deep in the rock of mountain tops? God put them there no?


Oh and in case you want to know, I'm a biology student.

# Human ancestry. There are many fossils of human ancestors, and the differences between species are so gradual that it is not always clear where to draw the lines between them.

# A gradual transitional fossil sequence connects the foraminifera Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa [Pearson et al. 1997]. O. universa, the later fossil, features a spherical test surrounding a "Globigerinoides-like" shell, showing that a feature is added, not lost. The evidence is seen in all major tropical ocean basins. Several intermediate morphospecies connect the two species, as may be seen in the figure included in Lindsay [1997].

# The fossil record shows transitions between species of Phacops (a trilobite; Phacops rana is the Pennsylvania state fossil.). [Eldredge 1972; 1974; Strapple 1978]

# Planktonic forminifera [Malmgren et al. 1984]. This is an example of "punctuated gradualism." A 10-million-year foraminifera fossil record shows long periods of stasis and other periods of relatively rapid but still gradual morphologic change.

# Fossils of the diatom Rhizosolenia are very common (they are mined as diatomaceous earth), and they show a continuous record of almost 2 million years which includes a record of a speciation event. [Miller 1999, 44-45]

# Lake Turkana mollusc species [Lewin 1981].

# Cenozoic marine ostracodes [Cronin 1985].

# The Eocene primate genus Cantius [Gingerich 1976, 1980, 1983].

# Scallops of the genus Chesapecten show gradual change in one "ear" of their hinge over about 13 million years. The ribs also change. [Ward and Blackwelder 1975; Pojeta and Springer 2001]

# The horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence. Other head and neck features also evolved. These features are adaptations for head-on ramming analogous to sheep behavior. [Stanley 1974]

# Human ancestry. Australopithecus, though its leg and pelvis bones show it walked upright, had a bony ridge on the forearm, probably vestigial, indicative of knuckle walking. [Richmond and Strait 2000]

# Dinosaur-bird transitions.

# Haasiophis terrasanctus is a primitive marine snake with well-developed hind limbs. Although other limbless snakes might be more ancestral, this fossil shows a relationship of snakes with limbed ancestors [Tchernov et al. 2000]. Pachyrhachis is another snake with legs related to Haasiophis [Caldwell and Lee 1997].

# The jaws of mososaurs are also intermediate between snakes and lizards. Like the snake's stretchable jaws, they have highly flexible lower jaws, but, unlike snakes, they don't have highly flexible upper jaws. Some other skull features of mososaurs are intermediate between snakes and primitive lizards. [Lee et al. 1999; Tchernov et al. 2000; Caldwell and Lee 1997]

# Transitions between mesonychids and whales.

# Transitions between fish and tetrapods.

# Transitions from condylarths (a kind of land mammal) to fully aquatic modern manatees. In particular, Pezosiren portelli is clearly a sirenian, but its hind limbs and pelvis are unreduced [Domning 2001a, 2001b].

# The Cambrian fossils Halkiera and Wiwaxia have features which connect them with each other and with the modern phyla of Mollusca, Brachiopoda, and Annelida. In particular, one species of halkieriid has brachiopod-like shells on the dorsal side at each end. This is seen also in an immature stage of the living brachiopod species Neocrania. It has setae identical in structure to polychaetes, a group of annelids. Wiwaxia and Halkiera have the same basic arrangement of hollow sclerites, an arrangement which is similar to the chaetae arrangement of polychaetes. The undersurface of Wiwaxia has a soft sole like a mollusc's foot, and its jaw looks like a mollusc's mouth. Aplacophorans, which are a group of primitive molluscs, have a soft body covered with spicules similar to the sclerites of Wiwaxia. [Conway Morris 1999, 185-195]

# Cambrian and Precambrain fossils Anomalocaris and Opabinia are transitional between arthropods and lobopods.


References:

# Caldwell, M. W. and M. S. Y. Lee, 1997. A snake with legs from the marine Cretaceous of the Middle East. Nature 386: 705-709.
# Conway Morris, Simon, 1999. The Crucible of Creation, Oxford University Press.
# Cronin, T. M., 1985. Speciation and stasis in marine ostracoda: climatic modulation of evolution. Science 227: 60-63.
# Domning, Daryl P., 2001a. The earliest known fully quadupedal sirenian. Nature 413: 625-627.
# Domning, Daryl P., 2001b. New "intermediate form" ties seacows firmly to land. Reports of the National Center for Science Education 21(5-6): 38-42.
# Eldredge, Niles, 1972. Systematics and evolution of Phacops rana (Green, 1832) and Phacops iowensis Delo, 1935 (Trilobita) from the Middle Devonian of North America. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 147(2): 45-114.
# Eldredge, Niles, 1974. Stability, diversity, and speciation in Paleozoic epeiric seas. Journal of Paleontology 48(3): 540-548.
# Gingerich, P. D., 1976. Paleontology and phylogeny: Patterns of evolution of the species level in early Tertiary mammals. American Journal of Science 276(1): 1-28.
# Gingerich, P. D., 1980. Evolutionary patterns in early Cenozoic mammals. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 8: 407-424.
# Gingerich, P. D., 1983. Evidence for evolution from the vertebrate fossil record. Journal of Geological Education 31: 140-144.
# Lee, Michael S. Y., Gorden L. Bell Jr. and Michael W. Caldwell, 1999. The origin of snake feeding. Nature 400: 655-659.
# Lewin, R., 1981. No gap here in the fossil record. Science 214: 645-646.
# Lindsay, Don, 1997. A smooth fossil transition: Orbulina, a foram. http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/orbulina.html
# Malmgren, B. A., W. A. Berggren and G. P. Lohmann, 1984. Species formation through punctuated gradualism in planktonic foraminifera. Science 225: 317-319.
# Miller, Kenneth R., 1999. Finding Darwin's God. New York: HarperCollins.
# Pearson, P. N., N. J. Shckleton and M. A. Hall. 1997. Stable isotopic evidence for the sympatric divergence of Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (planktonic foraminifera). Journal of the Geological Society, London 154: 295-302.
# Richmond B. G. and D. S. Strait, 2000. Evidence that humans evolved from a knuckle-walking ancestor. Nature 404: 382-385. See also Collard, M. and L. C. Aiello, 2000. From forelimbs to two legs. Nature 404: 339-340.
# Stanley, Steven M., 1974. Relative growth of the titanothere horn: A new approach to an old problem. Evolution 28: 447-457.
# Strapple, R. R., 1978. Tracing three trilobites. Earth Science 31(4): 149-152.
# Tchernov, E. et al., 2000. A fossil snake with limbs. Science 287: 2010-2012. See also Greene, H. W. and D. Cundall, 2000. Limbless tetrapods and snakes with legs. Science 287: 1939-1941.
# Ward, L. W., and B. W. Blackwelder, 1975. Chesapecten, A new genus of Pectinidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia) from the Miocene and Pliocene of eastern North America. U.S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper 861, 24p. Cited in Pojeta and Springer 2001, below


What do you want me to do with this?

Nothing in biology is a law, if that is what you are waiting for. Sorry.

Evolution is amazingly widely accepted, almost universally among people who know what they are talking about (I.E. have degrees in biology)

Proof?

1. Pointless? Why? It would mean that the "20 million year old" formation was no older than a few thousand years.

2-3. Same things apply to all or most carbon-dating. What makes yours more accurate?

4. You must take into account the flood, which massively affected the C-14 content in the atmosphere. It badly hurts the dating methods that evolutionists use to claim that the earth is millions of years old.

1. No, it would mean that the wood is ~33,000 years old.

2. Because it is consistant with other data that we have recieved and calibrated to that era.

4. No. The flood is just wrong.

I say OPEN YOUR EYES because you seem to like to keep them closed.

You can't see that evolution exists, and that is just ridiculous.


Oh and in case you want to know, I'm a biology student.

Thank you for proving my point. Oh, that's nice.

What do you want me to do with this?

You wanted sources, I gave you sources. Have fun.

Thank you for proving my point. Oh, that's nice.

And read the rest of my post, I edited.

Proof?
Out of the approximately 13,000,000 scientists and engineers in the US alone, less than 5% (some 600,000) are creationists, according to Gallup poll results. However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory [Robinson 1995]. This means that less than 0.15% of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that's just the US, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1%.

Additionally, many scientific organizations believe the evidence so strongly that they have issued public statements to that effect [NCSE n.d.]. The National Academy of Sciences, one of the most prestigious science organizations, devotes a website to the topic [NAS 1999]. A panel of 72 Nobel Laureates, 17 state academies of science, and 7 other scientific organizations created an amicus curiae brief which they submitted to the Supreme Court [Edwards v. Aguillard 1986]. This report clarified what makes science different from religion and why creationism isn't science. Note that there are no creationist Nobel Laureates.

One needs to examine not how many scientists and professors believe something, but what their conviction is based upon. Those who reject evolution do so because of personal religious conviction, not because of evidence. The evidence supports evolution. And the evidence, not personal authority, is what objective conclusions should be based on.

Often, claims that scientists reject evolution or support creationism are exaggerated or fraudulent. Many scientists doubt some aspects of evolution, especially recent hypotheses about it. All good scientists are skeptical about evolution (and everything else), open to the possibility, however remote, that serious challenges to it may appear. Creationists frequently seize such expressions of healthy skepticism to imply that evolution is highly questionable. They fail to understand that the fact that evolution has withstood many years of such questioning really means it is about as certain as facts can get.

1. No, it would mean that the wood is ~33,000 years old.


As is the rock it was embedded in. Which was dated at 20 million years.


2. Because it is consistant with other data that we have recieved and calibrated to that era.


This man did nothing different and you know it.


4. No. The flood is just wrong.

OF COURSE! Since you said it it must be true!

(Disclaimer: The above is sarcasm, again, sarcasm)

As is the rock it was embedded in. Which was dated at 20 million years.



This man did nothing different and you know it.



OF COURSE! Since you said it it must be true!

(Disclaimer: The above is sarcasm, again, sarcasm)

1. Quite a bit of slight of hand going on in that article, who knows what he is talking about, if he is testing the sample he found and making an assumption as to the date of the rock by compairing it to a similar rock or not, and we have no clue if any other testing facilities varified the findings.

2-3. I don't?

4. This has been discussed before. There is no way that the flood could have occured and this many species of animals still be on the planet.

CSW, just forget it. He won't let go of his dogma no matter how many credible proofs we show him. Let's just let him belief in what he wants to.

The problem is that people like him try to influence others with their dogmas...

Out of the approximately 13,000,000 scientists and engineers in the US alone, less than 5% (some 600,000) are creationists, according to Gallup poll results. However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory [Robinson 1995]. This means that less than 0.15% of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that's just the US, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1%.

Additionally, many scientific organizations believe the evidence so strongly that they have issued public statements to that effect [NCSE n.d.]. The National Academy of Sciences, one of the most prestigious science organizations, devotes a website to the topic [NAS 1999]. A panel of 72 Nobel Laureates, 17 state academies of science, and 7 other scientific organizations created an amicus curiae brief which they submitted to the Supreme Court [Edwards v. Aguillard 1986]. This report clarified what makes science different from religion and why creationism isn't science. Note that there are no creationist Nobel Laureates.

One needs to examine not how many scientists and professors believe something, but what their conviction is based upon. Those who reject evolution do so because of personal religious conviction, not because of evidence. The evidence supports evolution. And the evidence, not personal authority, is what objective conclusions should be based on.

Often, claims that scientists reject evolution or support creationism are exaggerated or fraudulent. Many scientists doubt some aspects of evolution, especially recent hypotheses about it. All good scientists are skeptical about evolution (and everything else), open to the possibility, however remote, that serious challenges to it may appear. Creationists frequently seize such expressions of healthy skepticism to imply that evolution is highly questionable. They fail to understand that the fact that evolution has withstood many years of such questioning really means it is about as certain as facts can get.


Do you have a link for this? (I believe you, I'd just like to see a link)

Something I find ironic: "They fail to understand that the fact that evolution has withstood many years of such questioning really means it is about as certain as facts can get". The Bible has been under much more scrutiny for many more years, what does that make it?

Finally, this has been a good debate guys, you have brought up some excellent points and I promise to give evolution careful scrutiny. As it stands now, my position remains unchanged, as do your own, and as I said before, we're getting nowhere. Truth be told, you guys have worn me out. Not changed my mind, but worn me out. It's really hard to argue against so many other people when you're just one. I don't know what debating the point further will prove, but I hope the rest of it goes well. No hard feelings guys.

You know, if God created the world, the science and religion are inherently linked. There is no seperation. Either no God, or no Science.

Also, Evolution is still a hypothesis, if not a widely accepted one, and is not fact, as any good scientist will tell you. As such it should constantly be tested until it is proved to be fact, which I don't think can happen until we are able to see it in action, i.e. millions of years from now.

Heh, you guys are quite elitist. It seems from most of your statements that, with the exceptions of yourselves, the general public are ignorant sheep ("OPEN YOUR EYES" seems to be a favorite of this particular discussion) doing everything that they are told, and that you are their liberators. Well I don't think that the general public is quite that stupid, and I think that you should know that somewhere, there are people saying the same things about you. I don't know how this is relevant, but it seemed worth observing.

Ahh... Evolution is more than a hypothesis, it's a theory. And a scientific theory is defined according to fairly strict rules. As such, it is already extensively tested, and CSW kindly listed a good number of findings.

That you play a word game with the word theory, doesn't change the definition of the word.

And yes, most people are stupid because they mostly just accept whatever is put in front of them. The job for science is to make sure the right thing is put in front of them.

Why is your God more likely than any other god?

Do you have a link for this? (I believe you, I'd just like to see a link)

Something I find ironic: "They fail to understand that the fact that evolution has withstood many years of such questioning really means it is about as certain as facts can get". The Bible has been under much more scrutiny for many more years, what does that make it?

Finally, this has been a good debate guys, you have brought up some excellent points and I promise to give evolution careful scrutiny. As it stands now, my position remains unchanged, as do your own, and as I said before, we're getting nowhere. Truth be told, you guys have worn me out. Not changed my mind, but worn me out. It's really hard to argue against so many other people when you're just one. I don't know what debating the point further will prove, but I hope the rest of it goes well. No hard feelings guys.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html

The bible has more holes in it then a block of swiss cheese bostin.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html

The bible has more holes in it then a block of swiss cheese bostin.

So does evolution :). Really, no hard feelings CSW. Thanks for the link, be seeing you around.

Sorry to make my very first post here such a scathing one, but:

Hasn't most of the supposed scrutiny of the Bible until recently been by those people who usually already followed it unquestioningly, and threatened to kill/torture/maim anyone who questioned it?

Reading through all the pages of the thread takes a bit too long over dial-up, and I need to clear up the phone line, so I don't know if the following has already been mentioned. Was it ever brought up that humans have a significant amount of vestigial features that point to previous lifeforms? (examples: appendix, sinuses, coccyx, etc.)

Oh, anatomical vestige. I forgot that.

And Bostin, there is also a lot of embriology data that proves that evolution exists.

Actually, most of those things things you stated were given to Moses, not priests. I would also like references to some of these scriptures.

Actually, most of those things were passed on by word of mouth, with people saying they were given to Moses, until they were eventually written down much, much later. So, like all things passed by word of mouth, they most likely got changed, subtracted from, and added to. Guess who passed them down - the priests! Very few Biblical (or Rabbinical - I think that's the proper word) scholars believe for a second that Moses actually wrote down all of the books attributed to him.

As for scriptures:

For the woman's uncleanliness after childbirth:

Leviticus 12: 1-5
The Lord spoke unto Moses, saying: Speak to the people of Israel, saying: If a woman conceives and bears a male child, she shall be ceremonially unclean seven days; as at the time of her menstruation, she shall be unclean. On the eight day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. Her time of blood purification shall be thirty-three days; she shall not touch any holy thing, or come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purification are completed. If she bears a female child, she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her menstuation; her time of blook purification shall be sixty-six days.

For the woman who is raped in a town being stoned:
Deuteronomy 22: 23-25
If there is a young woman, a virgin already engaged to be married, and a man meets her in the town and lies with her, you shall bring both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death, the young woman because she did not cry for help in the woan and the man because he violated his neighbor's wife. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. But if the man meets the engaged woman in the open country, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die.

For slavery - have you ever read the Bible????!!!! There are several laws pertaining to slavery:
Leviticus 25: 44-46 explicitly says that foreign slaves may be owned
Exodus 21: 1-6 deals with Hebrew slaves and time limits on their slavery (if they are male
Exodus 21: 1-7 gives guidelines for selling your daughter into slavery
Exodus 21: 20-21 When a slaveonwner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives for a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner's property
Exodus 21: 26-27 says that if an owner knocks out a slave's eye or tooth, they have to let them go free

You speak on behalf of all scientists?

When I say that they have to follow the scientific method, yes - I sure do.

Now for the conclusion:

Isn't the Creation much more beautiful if god made it so things adapt and evolve? So things reach perfection by trial and error, in small steps?
What would be the fun of having a world where things just popped out of nowhere and the world was made?

Evolution might have been created by god, how do you know? Isn't it wonderful to live in a world where everything is dynamic, as opposed to fixed and still?

Just the word, evolution, is magnificent. It means being closer to perfection. Think about it.

evolution means being closer to perfection.

creation means that we were created as perfect beings already.

now creation seems so much more attractive. ;)

if living things were allowed to die off because they can't keep up, doesn't that mean that we can pollute all we want and ignore conservation because if those animals and plants can't keep up with pollution, they can die? if humans can't evolve fast enough so that we can breathe in the sea, do we allow global warming to go unchecked and everyone of us drowned until one develops gills? evolution is like an escape into dreamland and wait quietly and patiently for changes which will never come.

evolution means being closer to perfection.

creation means that we were created as perfect beings already.

now creation seems so much more attractive. ;)

if living things were allowed to die off because they can't keep up, doesn't that mean that we can pollute all we want and ignore conservation because if those animals and plants can't keep up with pollution, they can die? if humans can't evolve fast enough so that we can breathe in the sea, do we allow global warming to go unchecked and everyone of us drowned until one develops gills? evolution is like an escape into dreamland and wait quietly and patiently for changes which will never come.

I thought humans created by God weren't perfect. Why do we do such horrible things then if we're perfect? And evolution doesn't necessarily say something moves to perfection, just towards the most efficient organism for it's life.

There's nothing stopping us from polluting and killing everything on this planet, except a sense of self-preservation. You know the concept of an ecosystem? We depend on a long chain of organisms for our food, and when we kill them, we end up dying. So we try to preserve the plants and animals.

And if global warming did occur and water covered the Earth suddenly, or even not so suddenly, I doubt we would develop gills. The melting would have to be extremely slow, and by the time it mattered and selection favored gills, there wouldn't be enough time to develop them.

I thought humans created by God weren't perfect. Why do we do such horrible things then if we're perfect? And evolution doesn't necessarily say something moves to perfection, just towards the most efficient organism for it's life.

There's nothing stopping us from polluting and killing everything on this planet, except a sense of self-preservation. You know the concept of an ecosystem? We depend on a long chain of organisms for our food, and when we kill them, we end up dying. So we try to preserve the plants and animals.

And if global warming did occur and water covered the Earth suddenly, or even not so suddenly, I doubt we would develop gills. The melting would have to be extremely slow, and by the time it mattered and selection favored gills, there wouldn't be enough time to develop them.

humans created by God were perfect until they sinned. once something becomes 100% efficient, it's as good as perfect.

but then if those animals die off, shouldn't we be able to adapt to better food, or better, no need for food at all.

so according to evolution ultimately humans should die out completely. what a bleak outlook of life. :(

humans created by God were perfect until they sinned. once something becomes 100% efficient, it's as good as perfect.
Uh... we're perfect but we do something wrong. Do you see the contradiction in that? But honestly not something worth debating


but then if those animals die off, shouldn't we be able to adapt to better food, or better, no need for food at all?

so according to evolution ultimately humans should die out completely. what a bleak outlook of life. :(

I'm not sure that someone has proved it's impossible to survive without intake of some kind (unless you're a robot), but I'm sure that's true. If we killed off our current food supplies (plants/animals), what would we adapt to? It's in our own interests to preserve other life on Earth.

"Eventually" everything will die out. How long we'll last is very uncertain though. Maybe we'll spread out across the galaxy like in Star Trek. But that's not really the concern of evolution, since we can't predict that.

so according to evolution ultimately humans should die out completely. what a bleak outlook of life. :(

According to the Bible unbelievers will spend eternity being subjected to unimaginable agony in hell regardless of how they've lived their lives. That's somewhat bleaker.

Also, not liking the sound of something doesn't mean it's wrong.

According to the Bible unbelievers will spend eternity being subjected to unimaginable agony in hell regardless of how they've lived their lives. That's somewhat bleaker.

Also, not liking the sound of something doesn't mean it's wrong.

ON THE OTHER HAND, believers will enjoy eternity in heaven. that doesn't sound too bleak to me. you have a lifetime to convert, and it's your choice. our extinction, according to evolution, is not of our choice.

sure not, except that not liking the sound of it makes me doubt, and as long as i doubt, it will never become fact to me.

Uh... we're perfect but we do something wrong. Do you see the contradiction in that? But honestly not something worth debating

I'm not sure that someone has proved it's impossible to survive without intake of some kind (unless you're a robot), but I'm sure that's true. If we killed off our current food supplies (plants/animals), what would we adapt to? It's in our own interests to preserve other life on Earth.

"Eventually" everything will die out. How long we'll last is very uncertain though. Maybe we'll spread out across the galaxy like in Star Trek. But that's not really the concern of evolution, since we can't predict that.

it's definitely something worth debating. just not here.

if we killed off our current food supplies maybe we can adapt to going on without food. still, it's adapation and not evolution.

adaptation: changes in the organism which allows it to survive different conditions, but does not change into distinct differences and for it to emerge into a new species.

evolution: the changing of one species to another

i don't dispute adaptation, but evolution really does seem a little too far-fetched.

adaptation: changes in the organism which allows it to survive different conditions, but does not change into distinct differences and for it to emerge into a new species.

evolution: the changing of one species to another

i don't dispute adaptation, but evolution really does seem a little too far-fetched.

Those are called micro- and macro-evolution. Both share the same mechanism, and one is simply a lot of the other.

Oh, and speciation has been observed. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

The problem is that evolution takes a very long time to produce good mutations. Every now and then, a human baby is born with a genetic mutation, always bad. It is highly unlikely to be good. For a good mutation to occur, it takes a VERY long time to be passed on. Only with the completion of the human genome project and other such projects can we change the genes of people for abilities like breathing underwater

The problem is that evolution takes a very long time to produce good mutations. Every now and then, a human baby is born with a genetic mutation, always bad. It is highly unlikely to be good. For a good mutation to occur, it takes a VERY long time to be passed on. Only with the completion of the human genome project and other such projects can we change the genes of people for abilities like breathing underwater

hm...fair point...

but that means since we can't observe it, it's not science.

The problem is that evolution takes a very long time to produce good mutations. Every now and then, a human baby is born with a genetic mutation, always bad. It is highly unlikely to be good. For a good mutation to occur, it takes a VERY long time to be passed on. Only with the completion of the human genome project and other such projects can we change the genes of people for abilities like breathing underwater

No such thing as 'good' or 'bad' mutations, most are neither and a mutation that is harmful in some situations may be advantageous in others [sickle-cell anaemia being a good example].

hm...fair point...

but that means since we can't observe it, it's not science.

Except it's been observed. And, um, this then makes creation theory which relies on an entity which cannot be observed at all better?

hm...fair point...

but that means since we can't observe it, it's not science.

We can't observe evolution in the current species of humans, but evolution has been seen in other species that reproduce more quickly. Read the talk origins site given above.

Evolution is science. If the scientific community accepts it as a valid science, then it is science.

Except it's been observed. And, um, this then makes creation theory which relies on an entity which cannot be observed at all better?

when has evolution been observed? has new species evolved in front of anybody's eyes? species are discovered all the time, yes, but that doesn't mean evolution is happening, just proves that we are seeing more of the world.

i would think that the very fact the world exists is God's proof to the world. i can certainly observe God.

We can't observe evolution in the current species of humans, but evolution has been seen in other species that reproduce more quickly. Read the talk origins site given above.

Evolution is science. If the scientific community accepts it as a valid science, then it is science.

it's ADAPTATION! i see adaptation everywhere too.

wrong. what the masses accept may not be the truth. for 200 years they accepted that the white man was superior to the black and the yellow. for 2000 years the europeans accepted that the earth was flat.

when has evolution been observed?


GO READ:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

GO READ:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

that's separating species thought to be together into seperate species. it's not one simpler thing evolving into a more complicated thing.

wrong. what the masses accept may not be the truth. for 200 years they accepted that the white man was superior to the black and the yellow. for 2000 years the europeans accepted that the earth was flat.


I'm assuming by "the masses" you mean the scientific community. What the scientific community chooses to call science is science. It's a social construct. Scientists agree that something is scientific, backed up by evidence, and worthy of study. So they investigate it and look for more evidence.

There may be some evidence in the future that disproves evolution. If it is reproducible and conclusive, the scientific community will either discard evolution as a way to explain the development of life or revise it.

Currently, there has been no evidence that would absolutely disprove evolution. Therefore, scientists accept it as the current theory.

i would think that the very fact the world exists is God's proof to the world. i can certainly observe God.

You cannot observe God in a way that can be usefully verified by a third party, let alone demonstrated repeatedly under lab conditions. Therefore, I only have your word on it.

it's not one simpler thing evolving into a more complicated thing.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901_2.html

# Evolution works almost exclusively by gradual changes. It has taken hundreds of millions of years of evolutionary divergence to produce the existing phyla, and probably hundreds of thousands of years at least for classes to develop. For a new phylum, order, or class to arise suddenly would be creationism, not evolution.

# Macroevolution is evolution at or above the species level, which has been observed.

# Evidence is not limited to seeing something happen before our eyes. Evidence for macroevolution includes the pattern of homology between organisms, the fossil sequence (including abundant transitional fossils), biogeography, and other evidence. Furthermore, there are no plausible mechanisms which would prevent macroevolution given the variation which we observe. Indeed, plausible mechanisms leading to diversity do exist [Lee et al. 2003].

The existence of speciation is all that is necessary for that to happen. This has been shown.

that's separating species thought to be together into seperate species. it's not one simpler thing evolving into a more complicated thing.


Wait.. that shows macroevolution and you accept it? But you don't accept that microevolution happens? Any development of a new trait is microevolution, no matter how complicated it is. A species of bacteria developing a resistance to an antibiotic is microevolution.


EDIT: I think this is the wrong response, but I'll leave it anyways.

well, i can't debate it cuz i don't understand it. what's the difference between macro and micro evolution?

EDIT: it seems that what you mean by microevolution is adaptation. sure, adaptation occurs, but within the species. anything that goes beyond, what you call macroevolution, is what i call "evolution", and that is the part in which i protest.

well, i can't debate it cuz i don't understand it. what's the difference between macro and micro evolution?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902.html

I still don't get where the speciation bit fits in. Is it macroevolution or just in limbo between micro and macro?

I still don't get where the speciation bit fits in. Is it macroevolution or just in limbo between micro and macro?

Speciation is macroevolution.

Speciation is macroevolution.

PLEASE! EXPLAIN THE TERMS TO ME SO WE DON'T MISUNDERSTAND EACH OTHER!!! :P

Microevolution
Macroevolution
Speciation

Here's the problem I've always had with the theory of intelligent design:

We need God to explain "all this", right?
But if God created "all this", God had to be <i>at least</i> as complex as "all this". Thus, God is not an explanation. Indeed, what created God? God seems in this case insufficient as explanation.

Unless you consider God synonymous with the physical forces of the universe, i. e., "Nature". In which case we're really just playing semantic games and applying sentience in absurd ways.

Asking "what created God?" supposes that God exists in time like our universe does. But it is stressed in the Bible that God exists outside of time - God has not been created - he simply IS in an eternal present. Time is just one dimension of our universe and God represents a whole another mode of existence which is timeless.

PLEASE! EXPLAIN THE TERMS TO ME SO WE DON'T MISUNDERSTAND EACH OTHER!!! :P

Microevolution
Macroevolution
Speciation

Microevolution is changes within a species that do not cause a new species to develop. [it's actually defined as 'the change of allele frequencies (that is, genetic variation due to processes such as selection, mutation, genetic drift, or even migration']

Macroevolution is evolution at the species level or higher. It involves the same mechanisms as microevolution, since one is basically a lot of the other.

Speciation is when two groups of organisms evolve to the point where they are no longer able to produce fertile offspring with each other.

Okay, my definitions are:

Microevolution: Change within a species (I believe DB's adaptation) ie a new trait develops in a population and spreads throughout the population. But all individuals can reproduce together and are members of the same species.

Speciation: One species is split into two or more species. ie, in one example given on talk origins, a population of worms was split up and each were put in different environments. when brought back together they could not breed together. They were different species.

Macroevolution: (includes speciation) formation of new species or new genera. So like humans and chimps had a common ancestor, but now we are in a different genera(not sure about the correct term). That would also be macroevolution.

Asking "what created God?" supposes that God exists in time like our universe does. But it is stressed in the Bible that God exists outside of time - God has not been created - he simply IS in an eternal present. Time is just one dimension of our universe and God represents a whole another mode of existence which is timeless.

Interesting way to dodge the question. Rephrase, what created this 'mode of existence?'

ah...ok...so how many adaptations (mike-evo) does it take to have one evolution (mac-evo)? and how does speciation come into it?

ah...ok...so how many adaptations (mike-evo) does it take to have one evolution (mac-evo)? and how does speciation come into it?

It's not a fixed sum, oddly enough.

It's not a fixed sum, oddly enough.

evolution still strikes me as taking too many chances...

ah...ok...so how many adaptations (mike-evo) does it take to have one evolution (mac-evo)? and how does speciation come into it?

I think a good part of it depends on isolation. When members of a species are separated geographically, then new traits will spread in that population but not in the other. (and vice versa) And over time, the accumulation of traits in each population could add up to where they can't reproduce together if they were brought back together. That's how you can get 2 separate species

If all members of a species were in relatively constant contact with each other and reproduced with each other across the board, then they wouldn't form 2 species. But, over time, they could accumulate enough different traits (through microevolution) that if you brought an individual from the original population to the future, he couldn't reproduce with a current individual.

I think a good part of it depends on isolation. When members of a species are separated geographically, then new traits will spread in that population but not in the other. (and vice versa) And over time, the accumulation of traits in each population could add up to where they can't reproduce together if they were brought back together. That's how you can get 2 separate species

If all members of a species were in relatively constant contact with each other and reproduced with each other across the board, then they wouldn't form 2 species. But, over time, they could accumulate enough different traits (through microevolution) that if you brought an individual from the original population to the future, he couldn't reproduce with a current individual.

so you mean as time passes on eskimos won't be able to create babies with south pacific islanders? something like that?

Now, evolution can be shown to happen, since as it is only a set of mutations occuring over a long period accumulating amongst a large number of members of the same species, those members better able to compete for breeding and food than other offspring (I won't go in depth...you'd likely get bored). However, though I don't believe Creationism to be true, it could still exist in conjunction with evolution -- just that by our time, a non-interference protocol is in use because we need to grow up -- I might not be too religious, but I would say that many religious leaders would believe that our gods want us to grow up and learn by ourselves, to not be forever-dependent. Also, our view of the world is forever changing, so the Bible was the world several thousand years ago -- now we have the internet and sciences telling us about one another and the universe around us. To tell the truth, perhaps sciences are also a bible of some sorts -- such as 'thou shalt not have eukaryotic lifeforms with cell walls and chloroplasts and which photosynthesise dubbed as animals, because they show different features from Kingdom Animalae, and so shall be dubbed Kingdom Plantae' -- that sort of thing (come to think of it, that's catchy...who wants to form a religion where everyone worships me because I know all about the mysteries of the universe? Every 1000 prayers will bring NEW knowledge and wisdom down on my followers...lol...[sign here please]). I'm not trying to mock anyone with that joke-of-my-very-own-religion thing...I'm just useless at jokes most the time...

I'm reading some of Stephen Hawking's books too, and they're really beginning to make sense. The only confusing part is energy being converted to matter in the Big Bang...now, the Big Bang is the most logical theory for objects travelling away from one another amidst the universe (red-shift, that sort of stuff) and the faint-pervading radiation (in the early universe, radiation prevailed, now matter prevails)...but there are few (IF ANY?) logical explanations for the Big Bang...I can't take any as much logic because, well, energy doesn't usually convert to matter, matter is usually converted to energy...like in the sun and all other stars...I'm not gonna even try to understand the energy converted to matter thing.

Another thing - this notion of "God" -- perhaps they aren't a person -- perhaps they are the universe? Perhaps they are everything around us, the laws of science that we observe? The creators of our visible universe?

Ah, just read another post -- speciation. This is when at least two populations of the same species are separated, either geographically or biologically. In both populations, there are a wide variety of alleles and therefore a range of phenotypes (physical features). Some of these alleles help certain members to survive in the local conditions better than others. However, over time, both populations will eventually become so different that they will no longer be able to interbreed - and therefore, they become two separate species -- this is speciation. Now, as per the microevolution and macroevolution, I'd take it that those may very well apply to the Galapagos Islands -- about 13 to 14 species of finch reside there -- now, I'm not sure if I'm correct, but microevolution and macroevolution may be simply different degrees of evolution -- take giraffes for example, and how they evolved the long necks, likely down to a mutation which gave at least one or two a great advantage over other giraffes, and a greater appeal to the mating-pairing -- that is evolution on a big scale, over millions of years, but over a large area -- we always see giraffes like that. Now, take the finches of the Galapagos Islands -- we see them there, but not all over the Earth with the exact same features -- the speciation took place in a small area, and wasn't spread all over the Earth. That microevolutiona and macroevolution may apply there...not sure.

Anyway, evolution does exist, it's just a question of WHAT ELSE EXISTS.

Oh, send private messages, you know, telegrams, if you want to debate this in more privacy with me, or whatever. Either side can. I don't like messageboards loads...lol...and here I am, going on and on, and I say I don't like messageboard debates loads...

so you mean as time passes on eskimos won't be able to create babies with south pacific islanders? something like that?

It's possible. It's more complicated for humans because technology allows us to remove a lot of selective pressures which would normally effect us.

so you mean as time passes on eskimos won't be able to create babies with south pacific islanders? something like that?

If those 2 populations lived in isolation for a sufficiently long time (no clue how long this really is), then yes. But, given that the majority of populations have gene flow between them, then the kind of speciation is unlikely to take place. The timescale of macroevolution requires more generations than we've seen or are likely to see for 2 isolated populations

It's possible. It's more complicated for humans because technology allows us to remove a lot of selective pressures which would normally effect us.

If those 2 populations lived in isolation for a sufficiently long time (no clue how long this really is), then yes. But, given that the majority of populations have gene flow between them, then the kind of speciation is unlikely to take place. The timescale of macroevolution requires more generations than we've seen or are likely to see for 2 isolated populations.

hm...interesting...sorry, but that makes evolution even more far-fetched to me.... =P

Ummmm... take a look at languages... it's the same principle.

In areas where individuals from two different groups are isolated, over time the languages become more and more distinct, to the point where each group cannot understand the other. (compare basically any islands native language compared to that of the mainland).

In areas of 'speech flow' (constant interaction between the two groups), the language will develop co-dependantly and become, at most, dialects and pidgeon languages (look at africa or india for example).

It's a very simple concept really.

I guess it's undeniable.

http://www.catracing.net/forms/forms/files/08_26_31_EvolutionBanner.jpg
http://www.catracing.net/forms/forms/files/08_27_09_evolution_photo.jpg

god is just another case of idiots persinifying things just like people personify cars, in this case there just giving a personailty to existance... then again he may be real so im sorry really please no not the lightning again

Can the poll be modified to reflect those who are undecided?

Ummmm... take a look at languages... it's the same principle.

In areas where individuals from two different groups are isolated, over time the languages become more and more distinct, to the point where each group cannot understand the other. (compare basically any islands native language compared to that of the mainland).

In areas of 'speech flow' (constant interaction between the two groups), the language will develop co-dependantly and become, at most, dialects and pidgeon languages (look at africa or india for example).

It's a very simple concept really.

i understand the concept, just the more detailed workings. language is different i guess, because language is not genetic. well, all analogies break down at some point, but i get what you mean.

separated so much until offspring cannot be produced...hm...what about the product between tiger and lion? and horse and donkey? they seem to be "cousins", but they are able to reproduce with each other. i can't make a distinct argument or statement with this fact, but just raising it for more poking thoughts...

Can the poll be modified to reflect those who are undecided?

Can the poll be modified to reflect theories of Creation as set forth by non-Christian religions? Who knows, the Muslims or Hindus might have a more watertight Creation story.

Can the poll be modified to reflect theories of Creation as set forth by non-Christian religions? Who knows, the Muslims or Hindus might have a more watertight Creation story.

and todays nomination for oxymoron of the week goes to Aleksistran for
"watertight creation story"!.

hm...interesting...sorry, but that makes evolution even more far-fetched to me.... =P


Of course it does. Besides not knowing anything about evolution or biology, you don't want to know anything.

I hope it's cozy in your little bubble of comfort.

The problem is that evolution takes a very long time to produce good mutations. Every now and then, a human baby is born with a genetic mutation, always bad. It is highly unlikely to be good. For a good mutation to occur, it takes a VERY long time to be passed on. Only with the completion of the human genome project and other such projects can we change the genes of people for abilities like breathing underwater

i wouldn't put it like that. nearly every single individual has multiple mutations that aren't shared with their parents. most have no effect what so ever, many have only very minor positive or negative effects, and a very tiny number are fatally bad or incredibly good. but everybody has both good and bad mutations.

well if not for our civilized and steralized society, people with bvad mutatiosn would die out and those with good mutations would be obviously more prevalent

separated so much until offspring cannot be produced...hm...what about the product between tiger and lion? and horse and donkey? they seem to be "cousins", but they are able to reproduce with each other. i can't make a distinct argument or statement with this fact, but just raising it for more poking thoughts...

evolutionary boundries are fuzzy and no concept of species can put up a big thick black line dividing this closely related species from that one that works absolutely. however, ligers and mules do not form genetically viable breeding populations, and would be exceedingly rare in the wild because their parent species do not share the same habitat/mating patterns/sexual signals/etc.

but then again, evolution actualy explains this sort of thing in a way that creationism cannot. what possible sort of explanation could a creationist offer that allows two obviously different species to be able to produce offspring, but prevents two that from happening when attmpted with a slightly more different pairing?

so you mean as time passes on eskimos won't be able to create babies with south pacific islanders? something like that?

Yes.

Example: The Basques of Northern Spain have been diverged from their European neighbours for so long that, not only is their language unidentifiable with any other European language, but they are also (practically) incapable of producing offspring with other European races.

(I say practically incapable because there is always a statistical - but tiny - chance that a Basque may produce viable offspring with an outsider).

well if not for our civilized and steralized society, people with bvad mutatiosn would die out and those with good mutations would be obviously more prevalent

most 'bad' mutations aren't fatal or even affect people in a very negative way. it's mostly things like the enzyme created by gene x1 isn't quite as efficient at catalyzing reaction y as the 'normal' one created by gene x, but not disastrously so.

separated so much until offspring cannot be produced...hm...what about the product between tiger and lion? and horse and donkey? they seem to be "cousins", but they are able to reproduce with each other. i can't make a distinct argument or statement with this fact, but just raising it for more poking thoughts...

They are not able to produce completely viable offspring. To be the same species, you must be able to produce offspring that can then mate and produce more offspring. Neither ligers nor mules can produce further offspring.

hm...interesting...sorry, but that makes evolution even more far-fetched to me.... =P

Out of curiosity, do you believe in atoms? How about wind? Or is God the *only* think you can't see that you believe in?

Yes.

Example: The Basques of Northern Spain have been diverged from their European neighbours for so long that, not only is their language unidentifiable with any other European language, but they are also (practically) incapable of producing offspring with other European races.

(I say practically incapable because there is always a statistical - but tiny - chance that a Basque may produce viable offspring with an outsider).
Yes, but Basques are still part of the Homo Sapiens, aren't they? They're not forming another species, are they?

Of course it does. Besides not knowing anything about evolution or biology, you don't want to know anything.

I hope it's cozy in your little bubble of comfort.

darling, the point of me on this forum is to learn and have fun. if you're here to boast, brag, insult, or flame, sure, but leave me out of it. why can't you just engage in healthy discussion like many of the excellent members of this thread than act like a spoiled brat?

evolutionary boundries are fuzzy and no concept of species can put up a big thick black line dividing this closely related species from that one that works absolutely. however, ligers and mules do not form genetically viable breeding populations, and would be exceedingly rare in the wild because their parent species do not share the same habitat/mating patterns/sexual signals/etc.

but then again, evolution actualy explains this sort of thing in a way that creationism cannot. what possible sort of explanation could a creationist offer that allows two obviously different species to be able to produce offspring, but prevents two that from happening when attmpted with a slightly more different pairing?

yes, i get you, except the last question... =P would you please nicely explain? hahahahahaha...thanks...

Out of curiosity, do you believe in atoms? How about wind? Or is God the *only* think you can't see that you believe in?

God has convinced me that he is the only. power in the world. Atoms and wind can't.

I demand to know why it seems that not only do creationists thoroughly not understand the theory of evolution, but they often seem unwilling to do so?

Curse you, Pokemon, and your refering to "bulbasaur" turning into "ivysaur" as "evolution"!

E: If time and matter can't be infinite, how come God can?

Such a question assumes that whatever "substance" that God is "composed of" is subject to the same restrictions that material objects are. Since we can observe them directly, we can determine certain properties of material objects, such as the dependence of them on previously existing material objects. However, we lack such direct observation of whatever God is composed of, thus we are unable to determine whether it too has such a dependence.

I demand to know why it seems that not only do creationists thoroughly not understand the theory of evolution, but they often seem unwilling to do so?

I chose 'both' on the poll. That makes me a creationist who accepts evolution. (although i admit being slightly skeptical about creation)

It is not just the creationists that don't understand the theory of evolution and are unwilling to do so. It works vice versa too. Some evolutionists seem adamant and quick to deny the POSSIBILITY of creation.

Admittedly, science has proven many things and the Evolution argument has some weight behind it. Creation is purely down to faith and it's only evidence revolves around a book that has been translated, edited, added to, taken away from, re-edited, re-translated, reprinted and now has many different texts and interpretations. (and for all we know could be the worlds first readers digest book of short stories)
However strongly the evidence points to evolution, it would be senseless to disregard creation as a possible factor. IMO anyway.

Short of God suddenly announcing himself one day, this topic will never be resolved. Not just in this forum, I mean in general... everywhere. This debate has gone on since evolution was first suggested, creation being the only 'possibility' beforehand. It is a fascinating topic for me, as i love to see different peoples views, as well as all the really 'knowledgable' arguments going on. (the intricacies of evolving bacteria & 'parsimony' to name two). I just wish people would stop trying to change other peoples beliefs. It's not going to happen. lol

yes, i get you, except the last question... =P would you please nicely explain? hahahahahaha...thanks...

yeah, no problem. what sort of explanation does creationist theory have to offer on why it is possible for lions and tigers or horses and donkeys to mate and produce offspring, but not lions and donkeys or lions and bobcats. there is a very simple evolutionary explanation, but i can't see one at all for the creationist side. from an evolutionary perspective it has to do with the amount of time since the two species populations split off and started evolving independently. but creationism can't even rely on its vague concept of 'kinds' because lions and housecats should be in the same 'kind' but they can't reproduce. and the kinds all should have started splitting off at roughly the same point - after noah's flood.

separated so much until offspring cannot be produced...hm...what about the product between tiger and lion? and horse and donkey?

Not sure about lion and tiger, but a horse and a donkey produce offspring [a mule] which is not fertile. Thusly, they are different species. The ability to produce fertile offspring is what makes you the same species.

I want to start out saying this: I am a firm beliver in God and the Christian faith. I also believe that God created the Earth and everything on the earth. You are not going to persuade me, so don't try.

I also want to say that I think it is ridiculous that most people who believe in creation are automatically asumed to be "Holy Rollers" and that most people who believe in evolution are "Satan Worshipers"

That said: I want to put in my two cents. I believe that God created the earth from nothing and that God himself was never created. He just was. That is what I call faith. I just believe, I can't prove it but I can't disprove it. I also believe that God created things to adapt to their surroundings, thus evoling.

I haven't read all of the posts but this question popped out at me: (i don't remeber it exactly, but it went something like this) why don't lions mate with donkeys or bobcats with lions? Okay a little paraphrased, I apologize. THis is what I believe. God created male lions to be attracted to female lions. In scientific words, that the male likes the harmons that the females produce. Female dogs produce a certain harmon that male dogs REALLY like, thus producing puppies. It is that they can't, (have you ever seen them try?) as much as they don't want to.

Also, the ark question..... I saw heard something that made a lot of sense to me one day. In noah's time there where not as many breeds of animals. Just types of animals. For example: there may not have been a doberman, a pincher, a hound dog and so forth. Maybe there was just one kind, and all other breeds came form that dog. Who knows? This is why I believe that things can change according to their surroundings.

Last but not least, I want to say that I did not post this to change anyone's mind. I just wanted to put somethings out there for other people to think about.

Not sure about lion and tiger

i present, the liger!

http://www.tigers-animal-actors.com/pom/liger.jpg

like most hybrids between fairly distinct species, they are almost always sterile. though there can be fertile hybrids (mules included).

check this out: http://lionshrine.topcities.com/otherlions.htm
according to this site, female lion hybrids are fairly often fertile.

They are all fertile I guess. But the odd gene pairing brings a lot of trouble to meiosis, so it takes a LOT of luck to produce fertile descendency.

In wolves and dogs, the genes are evenly paired and the difference between one's genetic information and the other's is small enough for these two two be considered the same species (different sub-species).


As for Teran: You should learn more about every point of view before making your own mind about issues like this. Read through all posts.

I also want to say that I think it is ridiculous that most people who believe in creation are automatically asumed to be "Holy Rollers"

nah, most of them are just ignorant of the actual facts of the world. but ignorance is no crime. its their leaders that really bug me, because they aren't stupid and they can't claim to be ignorant. which really only leaves 'evil lying bastards'.

I haven't read all of the posts but this question popped out at me: (i don't remeber it exactly, but it went something like this) why don't lions mate with donkeys or bobcats with lions? Okay a little paraphrased, I apologize. THis is what I believe. God created male lions to be attracted to female lions. In scientific words, that the male likes the harmons that the females produce. Female dogs produce a certain harmon that male dogs REALLY like, thus producing puppies. It is that they can't, (have you ever seen them try?) as much as they don't want to.

its beyond the fact they wouldn't want to - in the wild a lion and a tiger wouldn't get it on. but if you take sperm from a lion and an egg from a donkey, you cannot get a fertilized egg. it is impossible. same deal with lions and bobcats. it just doesn't work on a genetic level. that requires some non-evolutionary explanation.

Also, the ark question..... I saw heard something that made a lot of sense to me one day. In noah's time there where not as many breeds of animals. Just types of animals. For example: there may not have been a doberman, a pincher, a hound dog and so forth. Maybe there was just one kind, and all other breeds came form that dog. Who knows? This is why I believe that things can change according to their surroundings.

unfortunately, there are far too many different types of animals to fit onto noah's ark, even if you say that they can evolve within 'kinds'. and if you make fewer original 'kinds' to go on the ark, you wind up requiring evolution on a scale and speed undreamed of by science.

its beyond the fact they wouldn't want to - in the wild a lion and a tiger wouldn't get it on. but if you take sperm from a lion and an egg from a donkey, you cannot get a fertilized egg. it is impossible. same deal with lions and bobcats. it just doesn't work on a genetic level. that requires some non-evolutionary explanation.


See the post I wrote above. It's the mismatches between the horse half chromossomes and the donkey half chromossomes.
During meiosis, they don't pair up normally (you have to know how meiosis works in order to understand how it happens) and there are too many mutations and translocations between different sets of chromossomes (like a set of genes from an area that produces proteins for hair color mixes with a set of genes relating to leg length, etc) and there are chromossomes that have different sizes and if a small on pairs with a bigger one, the extra portion of the bigger one might be deleted, etc.

This causes unviable gametes.


As for the ark: Wouldn't the ark have to fits millions of plant species, besides the millions of animal species?

This would take one BIG ASS ark.

Tigers and lions do not share the same habitat and mating rituals.

http://www.weebls-stuff.com/toons/29/

See the post I wrote above. It's the mismatches between the horse half chromossomes and the donkey half chromossomes.
During meiosis, they don't pair up normally (you have to know how meiosis works in order to understand how it happens) and there are too many mutations and translocations between different sets of chromossomes (like a set of genes from an area that produces proteins for hair color mixes with a set of genes relating to leg length, etc) and there are chromossomes that have different sizes and if a small on pairs with a bigger one, the extra portion of the bigger one might be deleted, etc.

This causes unviable gametes.


As for the ark: Wouldn't the ark have to fits millions of plant species, besides the millions of animal species?

This would take one BIG ASS ark.
The ark could be done today, as long as you can get cell samplef from each species. Not sure how you would get a viable breeding population after but you could recreate the animals.
The ark idea would also depend at what point you took your biological samples as to the number of species, or thenumber of species needed to bring about the species we have today.
If you want to prove evolution do that, don't attack religion. To demonstrate that the religious teachings are difficult to explain does not validate evolution at all.
I've said before and will continue to say: evolution, very good theory lacking some evidence and still to be proven, but stands up to scrutiny by current science.

As for the ark: Wouldn't the ark have to fits millions of plant species, besides the millions of animal species?

This would take one BIG ASS ark.

hell, the ark would have to hold all the various freshwater fish too.

sometimes i think that creationists haven't even ever been to the zoo or the aquarium, let alone a botanical garden.

hell, the ark would have to hold all the various freshwater fish too.

sometimes i think that creationists haven't even ever been to the zoo or the aquarium, let alone a botanical garden.

I'll start by saying I am not religous so I don't get the educated science proves this (which invariably it doe not) so you must be stupid response that may psudo science types throw at people with faith.
The ark is not an issue when it comes to creation. Creation is an event to it self. If we suddenly discover for example a creature that was only seen as a fossil yet is still alive, unchanged and not very well adapted, it does not diprove evolution, it just raises a few more questions.
The fact that we cannot explain the big bag or what came before to the satisfaction of all scientists again does not disprove evolution, but the creationist doe have a full explanation of this event which is more than science does.
And before you start, no science does not. We have no idea what (assuming it is a fact rather than a theory for a minute) caused the big bang or what came before it.
So can we not say that evolution is a working theory but does not have all the answers?

Um... there *are* theories about what came before the big bang.

Ever heard of black holes? The consist of a singularity (one point) at the center of an area bordered by the event horizon, where gravity is so strong that nothing can avoid falling into the singularity.

Basically, the Big Bang theory states that at the beginning, there was a singularity.

Now, the universe is currently full of black holes - in fact, there are theories that state that all the galaxies *revolve* around giant black holes (and yes, there is some evidence to support this).

Now, black holes cannot be destroyed, and when they meet, form something larger than the sum of the area of the two (you can read about it in the books by Stephen Hawking, if you are so inclined).

So after another, say, billion billion billion years, everything in the universe may very well end up inside black holes until we are left with only the one singularity.

And without matter, there cannot be gravity - hence, the one giant black hole collapses, releasing all the matter of the past universe in an explosion - what is essentially the Big Bang.

Science isn't all about 'something from nothing' you know.

The ark is not an issue when it comes to creation. Creation is an event to it self.

perhaps you haven't encountered it, but there is this thing that is called "scientific creationism". it's theory, in so far as it has one, depends on the flood myth for nearly everything, from geology to mass extinctions. so the ark is an issue when talking about creationism.


The fact that we cannot explain the big bag or what came before to the satisfaction of all scientists again does not disprove evolution, but the creationist doe have a full explanation of this event which is more than science does.
And before you start, no science does not. We have no idea what (assuming it is a fact rather than a theory for a minute) caused the big bang or what came before it.

no, creationism does not. it has a non-explanation that pretends to be a real explanation. but the origin of the universe is completely seperate from the origin of life which is completely seperate from the evolution of life.

So can we not say that evolution is a working theory but does not have all the answers?

of course we can. but we have to realize at the same time that it is one of the best confirmed scientific theories, which has survived a remarkable number of tests from every angle. and at the same time realizing that creation 'theory', in so far as it is testable, has failed miserably in the face of every minor challenge thrown at it - not to mention all the major ones. we are as absolutely certain as we can be about anything at all that the 'theory' of creationism is completely and utterly false.

ok, as we're getting more complicated, let's strip it all the way back to the basics: how and why does evolution occur at all?

Pressures from the environment.

Organisms that are slightly better at surviving (stronger muscles, longer claws, thicker coats etc) than others survive and reproduce, passing on the good genes; the ones that don't have those genes are not competitive, cannot breed as easily (mating rituals often involved) or cannot compete for food and die. Then the same thing happens with the next generation.

I can give an example, all though it may be too long for some people :p

There are two groups of a small mammal - one group has slightly longer tails, the other has short tails. Without any environmental pressures, the length of the tail has no effect on which animals survive to breed and which don't - so both groups are able to exist equally. A ratio of, say, 40:40

Now, a cat like predator moves into the environment. Suddenly the long tailed group is at a disadvantage - the cat like predators learn to catch them by their tails. As more and more of the long tailed mammals get caught, fewer and fewer survive to breed. This means that fewer and fewer 'long tail' genes are passed on to offspring. Hence, the ratio of long tailed mammals falls, say to 10:40.


I can also go into the actual genetic basics of this if anyone likes; just ask, and I'll start another thread :p

Pressures from the environment.

Organisms that are slightly better at surviving (stronger muscles, longer claws, thicker coats etc) than others survive and reproduce, passing on the good genes; the ones that don't have those genes are not competitive, cannot breed as easily (mating rituals often involved) or cannot compete for food and die. Then the same thing happens with the next generation.

then the species grows stronger, but why do more complicated species grow?

Say no predators in an environment have teeth and claws- any predator that mutates and developes teeth and claws is more complex, but is also much more able to kill and eat it's prey, so natural selection will prefer it. The same with eyes, ears and noses, they all make it easier to find what you want to eat and what wants to eat you.

well, they don't *always* get more complicated.

And complication is really just a matter of more and more advantageous (or non-disadvantageous) additions.

Often it seems that complication allows organisms to be more efficient (for example, humming birds have very complicated wings, but it allows them to hover in one place, which is advantageous since it allows them to feed on pollen without being easy prey for predators).

Complication is a way of filling narrower and narrower natural niches - the more specialised you are, the better you can compete against competetion.

The flip side is that very highly specialised organisms deal very badly with change. For example, Koala Bears here in Australia (actually marsupials, but anyway). They have highly specialised digestive tradcts, and can only eat leaves from one species of tree (Eucaliptis), and even then, they only eat the very tips of the leaves. They have filled a natural niche, because most animals cannot digest Eucaliptis leaves, so they have practically no competition. However, if all the Eucaliptis trees in one area die out, all the Koalas in that area are doomed to die out too - they are so specialised that they cannot adapt quickly enough to deal with change.

Is funny how the oppinions change depending of the country.
Things are not the same here in Europe :rolleyes:

I shall now redefine my stance on the subject:

while the evolution of species is possible, the origin of lifeforms on Earth was powered by the hand of God. anything else doesn't matter, as long as God was the start of it all.

:D Goodness Dragons Bay, you sure are showing yourself to be open-minded lately. It's a very pleasant change from some people's attitudes.

And I personally am willing to agree one your stand - while I personally don't believe in God still (more a matter of choice), I'm willing to agree that there *is* a place for God in the natural order.

It's so *nice* seeing people use new information :D


(May I also, completely without connection to religion, suggest you look into genetics? It really is very interesting. Feel free to email me any general questions you have too (sharnofshade @ hotmail dot com :p) - I just completed biology last year, so I can answer basic stuff, and I have a friend (Christian no less :p) who's pursuing it in University, so I can ask him for answers to some of the more complicated questions)

God has convinced me that he is the only. power in the world. Atoms and wind can't.

Alright! Way to avoid the question! The point was that you say Evolution is less viable of a theory to you because you cannot personally see it happening. You also cannot see wind, atoms, or even your own internal organs - do you believe they exist?

:D Goodness Dragons Bay, you sure are showing yourself to be open-minded lately. It's a very pleasant change from some people's attitudes.

And I personally am willing to agree one your stand - while I personally don't believe in God still (more a matter of choice), I'm willing to agree that there *is* a place for God in the natural order.

It's so *nice* seeing people use new information :D


(May I also, completely without connection to religion, suggest you look into genetics? It really is very interesting. Feel free to email me any general questions you have too (sharnofshade @ hotmail dot com :p) - I just completed biology last year, so I can answer basic stuff, and I have a friend (Christian no less :p) who's pursuing it in University, so I can ask him for answers to some of the more complicated questions)

yes, dear shaed. i've just been to the book fair, looked at a few religious books, and rethought: does it matter how life was created as long as we acknowledge the sole power of the Creator, hence, my new stance. I thank you, dear shaed and many many other members in this thread, for allowing me this wonderful opportunity to engage in such uplifting and challenging discussion. :D

(un)fortunately, i did NOT opt for biology because if i did i would be dead now. Genetics was THE topic i could not figure out...*sigh*

do you have messenger service? ;)

yep, 'm on MSN - although I'll probably be on at whack times from your point of view, since I'm in Aus. I'm using my sharnofshade at hotmail address :p

do you have messenger service? ;)

guess you do...

Hmm well it's 11:45PM here now... so I'm going to be going off to bed. If anyone adds me on MSN and I (ZOMG) don't add them immediately, that'll be why.

Yes, but Basques are still part of the Homo Sapiens, aren't they? They're not forming another species, are they?

The question was about divergent populations being able to breed or not, and the answer (in some cases, as illustrated) is not... eventually.

And, thinking about it, no they are probably not creating a different species - bar mutations... but, if the rest of the homo sapiens species does produce a marked evolution, they will become a different species to the Basques, I guess.

if god was all powerful(going a little off subject here) why did he need noah to build a boat to hold all of em could he just plop down some animals after the flood went away and theres not enough water on the planter to cover all the planet.

I'll start by saying I am not religous so I don't get the educated science proves this (which invariably it doe not) so you must be stupid response that may psudo science types throw at people with faith.
The ark is not an issue when it comes to creation. Creation is an event to it self. If we suddenly discover for example a creature that was only seen as a fossil yet is still alive, unchanged and not very well adapted, it does not diprove evolution, it just raises a few more questions.
The fact that we cannot explain the big bag or what came before to the satisfaction of all scientists again does not disprove evolution, but the creationist doe have a full explanation of this event which is more than science does.
And before you start, no science does not. We have no idea what (assuming it is a fact rather than a theory for a minute) caused the big bang or what came before it.
So can we not say that evolution is a working theory but does not have all the answers?

We also have no idea what 'caused' god, or what came before 'him'... so that argument is no better than the evolution one, surely?

I can see it now... the answer will be "nothing came before god", etc... because Creationists can somehow imagine god could be eternal, but not the universe...

if god was all powerful(going a little off subject here) why did he need noah to build a boat to hold all of em could he just plop down some animals after the flood went away and theres not enough water on the planter to cover all the planet.

the thing that disturbs me is: god is supposed to be all powerful, yet he only has one answer... e.g.

Adam and Eve are naughty... he makes them 'mortal', so they will die.
People are naughty... he kills everyone, by big buckets of water.
People in sodom and gomorrah are naughty... he kills them all with nuclear weapons.
The whole world needs a saviour, so he sends down his son, and, yep, you guessed it... the world can't be forgiven unless HE dies, too.

Come on, he created the world, but he can't think of any other way to stop sin than by mass executions?

I'll start by saying I am not religous so I don't get the educated science proves this (which invariably it doe not) so you must be stupid response that may psudo science types throw at people with faith.
The ark is not an issue when it comes to creation. Creation is an event to it self. If we suddenly discover for example a creature that was only seen as a fossil yet is still alive, unchanged and not very well adapted, it does not diprove evolution, it just raises a few more questions.

You will not find anything alive which is not well adapted to its current environment. Evolution is not about "progress". You have to get away from the dimwitted notion, peddled in a lot of bad (and elderly) books on popular science, that evolution is some great pyramid of constant improvement with simple one-celled life at the bottom and human beings -- usually represented by a white male with a desk job -- at the top. Evolution is just about fitting in with the current environment. The dinosaurs were just as "highly evolved" as the mammals.

The fact that we cannot explain the big bag or what came before to the satisfaction of all scientists again does not disprove evolution, but the creationist doe have a full explanation of this event which is more than science does.

I know this is just a typo, but... I love the idea of a "big bag" theory. "The universe came from a Big Bag." :)

And before you start, no science does not. We have no idea what (assuming it is a fact rather than a theory for a minute) caused the big bang or what came before it.
So can we not say that evolution is a working theory but does not have all the answers?

To echo some other posters, Creationists don't have a full explanation: "God" isn't an explanation to the question of the origin of either life or the universe, it's a cop-out. You might as well say "magic", or "the Great Green Arkleseizure".

Certainly, though, evolution does not have all the answers. Like the rest of science, it's a work in progress. The Creationists are just adherents of "the God of the gaps": they find things which are not yet fully explained and say that that is where God comes in. It's been going on since we started to explain thunder and lightning, analyse rainbows, calculate the orbit of the earth around the sun and generally sweep away the superstitious claptrap which some people feel is fundamental for their religion.

creationism has to be correct heres why:

science says that random events, that of which have never happened again and whos odds say were very unlikely to happen happened, all happened at the most exact perfect moment in time to created all of mankind. wow that seems like it could happen!

wrong actually. lets look at a watch.

if i was to take all the parts that makes a watch and put them into a shoebox and shake it around, by the odds that science says created the universe, eventually id have a watch. but as i go and do it myself, no matter how hard i shake, for any given amount of time, the watch will never come together.

the same is true of the universe.

what are the chances of us living on a ball, that of which has and atmosphere composed of the least poisonous of the poisonous gases that our solar system is comprised of, and only our planet being comprised of those?

also what are the chances of our moon, being the exact distance from our planet so that at certain times of the year, the disk of the moon, is the exact size of the disk of the sun and block it out?

the answer to both of these questions is slim to none, as science has said.

by saying that we "evolved" your saying that we're no better than monkies. did you know that science has shown that humans are more closely related to a rutebaga(?) than to a primate? also in saying we evolved, your in effect saying that humans have no point or reason to their lives.

everyday science is proving the accounts in the bible true. and everyday more and more people discover that the bible is the only book that doesnt contridict itself. but thats a whole other discussion.

i want to ask a few questions to the evolutionists:

what happens when you die?
what proof do you have that says that the THEORY of evolution is concrete?

in closing, people come up to me alot and ask, why do you believe in god and christ, and i say, it gives me hope. then they ask what if your wrong, then i say, id rather believe in something and be wrong then not to believe in anything at all. think about that you guys

peace

John 3:16

creationism has to be correct heres why:

science says that random events, that of which have never happened again and whos odds say were very unlikely to happen happened, all happened at the most exact perfect moment in time to created all of mankind. wow that seems like it could happen!

wrong actually. lets look at a watch.

if i was to take all the parts that makes a watch and put them into a shoebox and shake it around, by the odds that science says created the universe, eventually id have a watch. but as i go and do it myself, no matter how hard i shake, for any given amount of time, the watch will never come together.

the same is true of the universe.

what are the chances of us living on a ball, that of which has and atmosphere composed of the least poisonous of the poisonous gases that our solar system is comprised of, and only our planet being comprised of those?

also what are the chances of our moon, being the exact distance from our planet so that at certain times of the year, the disk of the moon, is the exact size of the disk of the sun and block it out?

the answer to both of these questions is slim to none, as science has said.

by saying that we "evolved" your saying that we're no better than monkies. did you know that science has shown that humans are more closely related to a rutebaga(?) than to a primate? also in saying we evolved, your in effect saying that humans have no point or reason to their lives.

everyday science is proving the accounts in the bible true. and everyday more and more people discover that the bible is the only book that doesnt contridict itself. but thats a whole other discussion.

i want to ask a few questions to the evolutionists:

what happens when you die?
what proof do you have that says that the THEORY of evolution is concrete?

in closing, people come up to me alot and ask, why do you believe in god and christ, and i say, it gives me hope. then they ask what if your wrong, then i say, id rather believe in something and be wrong then not to believe in anything at all. think about that you guys

peace

John 3:16

Well, if Earth weren't good for life, we wouldn't be around to notice. There are 400 billion stars in this galaxy alone, and most of them have at least oen planet. The chances of life evolving aren't as bad as you say.

What happens after you die? Well, science says your brainwaves stop and conciousness is lost, after which you are dead. Religion says your soul floats up to heaven or alternatively is tortured in eternal agony forever. It's not science's place to say what happens after you die besides "you're dead". Myself I think that we go in the ground and get eaten by worms, though.

Proof? The changing of genes and mutations within species, combined with evidence of speciation and macroevolution. Evolution has tons of proof- it's been tested for almost a hundred years now, and nobody has proven it false.

Prove that humans are more genetically related to rutabegas than primates. I've never heard that and it smells like bull.

The moon and sun being the same size from earth is a phenomenon of Lagrange Points, and isn't as unilkely as you'd think. And, so what? Just because it's unlikely doesn't mean God did it.

False analogy on the watch, your watch is not a group of protiens that "want" to get together and self replicate. A better analogy would be nanorobots and watch parts in a box where the nanorobots are attempting clumsily to piece a watch together.

Wait, and composed of the LEAST poisonous gasses? You realize that they're only not poisonous to us because if they were we'd be dead? And that oxygen is deadly to some life-forms (especially primitive ones from the deep, deep past). The whole reason nitrogen and oxygen isn't poisonous to us is that's the main gases where we live.

creationism has to be correct heres why:

wrong actually. lets look at a watch.



If you shook the box for long enough, the parts would eventually be in the right positions to make a watch.... although, by shaking the box, you'd probably break it again.

Just try it... shake the box for maybe 150 million years, then we'll talk again...


what are the chances of us living on a ball, that of which has and atmosphere composed of the least poisonous of the poisonous gases...


We evolved to breathe those gasses, that's why they are not poisonous TO US!


also what are the chances of our moon, being the exact distance from our planet so that at certain times of the year, the disk of the moon, is the exact size of the disk of the sun and block it out?



And at other times, the moon is way too far away to cover the whole sun when viewed from earth. What are the chances? Wow! At other times it's so close, it's even bigger than the sun as seen from earth... WOW! Again, how can this miracle be acheived????

It's a matter of perspective. Sometimes they look the same size, and that's when you 'notice' the eclipse... but what about the thousands of times they pass when they aren't the same size, or aren't lined up.

Your argument is a house of cards, and shaky even for that.


by saying that we "evolved" your saying that we're no better than monkies.


In terms of evolution, we are no better than monkies. In terms of education, most of us are... although I'm not sure if you are helping or hindering this case.



did you know that science has shown that humans are more closely related to a rutebaga(?) than to a primate? also in saying we evolved, your in effect saying that humans have no point or reason to their lives.



The rutabaga thing is a lie. and a stupid one at that. And you would have to BE a rutabaga to believe it.

And, your life has as much reason and point as you give it. If your life means nothing to you without the crutch of Creationism... your life is the problem, not Evolution.



everyday science is proving the accounts in the bible true. and everyday more and more people discover that the bible is the only book that doesnt contridict itself. but thats a whole other discussion.



I take it, you have never read the Bible then. If you had, you wouldn't make a claim as ridiculous as the non-contradiction one.



what happens when you die?
what proof do you have that says that the THEORY of evolution is concrete?



No one knows what happens when you die, until they die. Anyone that claims to know is lying, or accepting someone else's lies blindly. Are you dead? Then you do not know FOR SURE any more than evolutionists do.

Oh, and the only proof for the existence of evolution is the entire world on which we live... but that is nothing compared to your 1800 pieces of paper, right?

creationism has to be correct heres why:

science says that random events, that of which have never happened again and whos odds say were very unlikely to happen happened, all happened at the most exact perfect moment in time to created all of mankind. wow that seems like it could happen!

wrong actually. lets look at a watch.

if i was to take all the parts that makes a watch and put them into a shoebox and shake it around, by the odds that science says created the universe, eventually id have a watch. but as i go and do it myself, no matter how hard i shake, for any given amount of time, the watch will never come together.

the same is true of the universe.

Read The Blind Watchmaker. The old "When I see a watch, I infer a watchmaker" is a bit hackneyed, really. Apart from anything else, when I see a watchmaker, I infer a watchmaker's parents. If you insist that something can't emerge from nothing, then where did God come from? Or is he just special?

what are the chances of us living on a ball, that of which has and atmosphere composed of the least poisonous of the poisonous gases that our solar system is comprised of, and only our planet being comprised of those?

also what are the chances of our moon, being the exact distance from our planet so that at certain times of the year, the disk of the moon, is the exact size of the disk of the sun and block it out?

the answer to both of these questions is slim to none, as science has said.

Oh dear, you really haven't grasped what "evolution" means, have you? The composition of our atmosphere and the requirements of life on earth are mutually interdependent. Without life -- specifically, without plants -- there would be no free oxygen. The composition of the atmosphere and the physiologies of life on earth have evolved together over time. Without one, there wouldn't be the other, and vice-versa.

The moon currently almost the same size as the sun when viewed from the earth for most eclipses. It was closer before, and will be further away later. Plus, where in the Bible does it say that the moon and the sun are the same size when viewed from earth? If it's supposed to be a sign of divine intervention, you'd think it would get a more prominent billing: "For lo I have made the moon just the right size to occlude the sun during an eclipse", or something. It's just chance. There's a rock on Barra off the west coast of Scotland that, when viewed from the east at sunset, forms a perfect profile of Queen Victoria in old age. Does this mean that Queen Victoria or Barra or this rock is in some way significant? Or is it just chance? There's a 14,000,000 to 1 chance of winning the UK lottery, and yet somehow, almost every week, someone wins it! Incredible!

by saying that we "evolved" your saying that we're no better than monkies. did you know that science has shown that humans are more closely related to a rutebaga(?) than to a primate? also in saying we evolved, your in effect saying that humans have no point or reason to their lives.

You are misinformed, I'm afraid. We share around 99% of our DNA with cimpanzees. Whilst we also share a significant chunk of our DNA with all other living things, including rutabagas, we are NOT more closely related to them than we are to other primates. Go and check your facts.

Humans don't have any point or reason to their lives, any more than any other organism. If you want one, go out and make one for yourself: don't just sit around thinking some big old book of mythology gifts you one for free.

everyday science is proving the accounts in the bible true. and everyday more and more people discover that the bible is the only book that doesnt contridict itself. but thats a whole other discussion.

Please tell me one biblical account which science has proven to be true. And while you're at it, perhaps you could explain these biblical contradictions (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/extra/bible-contradictions.html). And maybe you could point out to me the contradictions in, say, the Oxford English Dictionary?

i want to ask a few questions to the evolutionists:

what happens when you die?

Decomposition, and the universe rolls on without me. So it goes.

what proof do you have that says that the THEORY of evolution is concrete?

Genetic evidence, observed mutation, fossil evidence, lead isochron dating, electron-spin resonance dating, extinction... what do you have -- aside from your faith -- that tells you the Bible is anything more than a bunch of stuff some people made up a long time ago?

in closing, people come up to me alot and ask, why do you believe in god and christ, and i say, it gives me hope. then they ask what if your wrong, then i say, id rather believe in something and be wrong then not to believe in anything at all. think about that you guys

peace

John 3:16

Well, I'd rather face reality than believe a comforting lie, and I'd rather find hope in the real world than inside a set of ancient myths, but it takes all sorts. If I'm wrong, and there is a God, fair enough: if he won't take me as I am and insists on torturing me for all eternity just because I couldn't swallow the hokey tales in the Bible, then he's not a God but a monster, unworthy of my worship. I will not grovel in terror before a ravening beast. Universal love I can cope with -- I doubt it, personally, but it's a nice idea -- but a God that doles out eternal suffering deserves it for itself. Think about that.

Just thought of something...

Why would there need to be so many different types of animals. Especially beetles, there's bloody millions of them. ?

If god 'created' it all, why create so much redundancy? Why not just go "pow, there's a pig, you can eat that"; "pow, there's a horse, you can ride that"; "pow, there's a beetle, bugger all use really, and kind a weird looking, but they have loads of legs..."

Doesn't that huge amount of variety makes you more inclined to support evolution than creation?

Well how can we be sure evolution existed before Darwin. He brought about the idea, but no one knows that it was always there.

You know, if God created the world, the science and religion are inherently linked. There is no seperation. Either no God, or no Science.

And if God did not create the world, science and religion are not inherently linked, there is a separation and the fact there is no God (in this case) implies less about the existence of science.

It all depends on whether you believe God exists or not, in the first place. God cannot be proved from your quote, much as God cannot be disproved from my counter-statement.

Edit: In the words some order wrong got. Re-phrased to make better sense. I think.

Well how can we be sure evolution existed before Darwin. He brought about the idea, but no one knows that it was always there.

what? the guy discovered evolution, he didnt invent it.

The concepts of a "God" and his creation of the world were great for those in the caves. Religion was a way to unite the tribe and enforce order.
"God" is as useful and as relevant as vodoo, sun worship, tree worship or any OTHER worship.
If YOU need it great, go for it.
My problem with the "religious" types has allways been that they pick and choose PARTS of thier religion to live. If they ALL lived ALL of thier religion, the world would be a much nicer place.
OTHERWISE, "God" and creation and all that comes with it should be ABOLISHED for it is destroying the world we live in!!!

Just thought of something...

Why would there need to be so many different types of animals. Especially beetles, there's bloody millions of them. ?

If god 'created' it all, why create so much redundancy? Why not just go "pow, there's a pig, you can eat that"; "pow, there's a horse, you can ride that"; "pow, there's a beetle, bugger all use really, and kind a weird looking, but they have loads of legs..."

Doesn't that huge amount of variety makes you more inclined to support evolution than creation?
Needed to piss off 5th graders doing insect collections.

I shall now redefine my stance on the subject:

while the evolution of species is possible, the origin of lifeforms on Earth was powered by the hand of God. anything else doesn't matter, as long as God was the start of it all.

I clap at you, for opening your eyes.

I do not know if god exists or not. There are many things left unexplained. But I do believe that the world is much more beautiful with the dynamics of evolution, adaptation.

Wouldn't God want beings that evolve, grow, reach perfection, instead of beings that are always the same?

Well how can we be sure evolution existed before Darwin. He brought about the idea, but no one knows that it was always there.


Thats the equivalent of saying that there was no gravity before Newton came around.

Or that Brazil didn't exist before Pedro Alvares Cabral discovered it...

after reconsulting the Bible, i'm afraid i have to redefine and refurbish my re-definition:

1. God was the start of it all. It doesn't matter whether life was evolved or created in a flash, He was the power which made it happen.

2. If evolution DID occur, it would not have been a result of creatures wanting to survive by chance - it would be part of God's plan all along.

3. It all happened in six days, because it is very clearly stated in the Bible: "And the evening and the morning were the nth day."

4. The Bible states God "created", but is not specific whether "created" means "zap! boom! it is there", or the process of rapid evolution.

5. The creation of Man was a completely different process with the creation of other life:
i. We were specifically made for God's image.
ii. We were made to fill Earth, and to rule it.
iii. We were made from dust, not evolved from apes.
iv. We have the breath of God in us, that is why we are so much superior than the rest of the species. That is why we are able to harness nature, why we have a conscience, why we develop religions etc.

6. God saw that His creations were "good", very possibly meaning perfect, which means that any additions in life, whether by zapping or by evolving, has stopped. New species will be discovered, but never naturally created.

Conclusion: While animal and plant life may or may not have come from evolution, God was the power and planner of it all. Humans were specifically created, and are at a higher tier than all other organisms combined because we have the breath of God inside us.

*much head bonking*

Homo Sapiens is in the kingdom animalia. WE ARE ANIMALS.

creationism has to be correct heres why:

science says that random events, that of which have never happened again and whos odds say were very unlikely to happen happened, all happened at the most exact perfect moment in time to created all of mankind. wow that seems like it could happen!
No, science doesn't say that.

wrong actually. lets look at a watch.
Paley's Watchmaker argument has been refuted to death.

the same is true of the universe.
...but not god, right? Special pleading logical fallacy.

what are the chances of us living on a ball, that of which has and atmosphere composed of the least poisonous of the poisonous gases that our solar system is comprised of, and only our planet being comprised of those?
1:1

also what are the chances of our moon, being the exact distance from our planet so that at certain times of the year, the disk of the moon, is the exact size of the disk of the sun and block it out?
1:1

by saying that we "evolved" your saying that we're no better than monkies. did you know that science has shown that humans are more closely related to a rutebaga(?) than to a primate?
Who told you that lie? Gish? Hovind?

Look, don't talk anymore. You're a barely verbal idiot.

*much head bonking*

Homo Sapiens is in the kingdom animalia. WE ARE ANIMALS.

Certainly, by human definition. Can human definition replace Divine definition?

Certainly, by human definition. Can human definition replace Divine definition?
Yes.

Yes.

I'm so sorry...I have to rephrase my question:

can human definition become superior to Divine definiton? and the answer is no. i don't know why we are so eager to prove ourselves aligned with primitive monkeys when we were promised by God to be one level above all other creatures.

I'm so sorry...I have to rephrase my question:

can human definition become superior to Divine definiton? and the answer is no. i don't know why we are so eager to prove ourselves aligned with primitive monkeys when we were promised by God to be one level above all other creatures.


Um...yeah, you believe that.

Dragons Bay, humans as a species share 98.6% (not 99, and probably not exactly 98.6, but 98.6 is more accurate than 99) of DNA with chimpanzees.

Now, before you discount that as meaning nothing, I really suggest you go and borrow a nice new modern biology book from the library and look up exactly what that means. I'm not trying to be patronising (and heck, I'd be willing to pick up a version of the bible and read through it if that would encourage you to do this).

Either someone was taking creative issues when saying that God made us in his image, or God is very *very* closly related to chimpanzees, in a very literal sense. And both those conclusions sound far too insulting, so personally I'd consider taking that particular quote with a pinch of salt.

Also, did you know that that passage from the bible was used to excuse the horrific torture of animals, back when people first started being interested in biology? They used to nail dogs to wooden platforms and then cut them open while they were still alive, in order to observe their running bloodstreams. Even the egyptians limited their scientific knowledge to animals being butchered for meat.

This is just one of many examples, not of why the bible is 'wrong', but why it's very dangerous to throw quotes around.

Dragons Bay, I hope you still take some interest in learning about evolution - I have a Christian (a fairly strict Christian, too) friend who is taking a Genetics course in Uni - at the very least, the more information you have about it that comes from an unbiased source, the better you'll be able to make up your mind about it :D

Evolution is a fact! Evolution will occur if certain prerequisites are in place. It's a fact. Deal with it!

Now, wether evolution has created the universe, the nature and humans and other animals, that is an open question.

God cannot be proved easily. There's only one way, and that is to show that our reality is not consistent with itself. This can happen in two ways.

One is that science one day concludes: Yup, we know everything there is to know (about a certain problem, like human consciousness or the infinte nature of the universe). Still we cannot explain it. This would be the conceptual equivalent of travelling to the edge of the universe and finding there a huge f...ing brick wall. That would prove that there is something out there, wouldn't it. Something that put up the brick wall we cannot see past.

The second way is more obvious, if our reality suddenly ripped appart and what's behind showed itself, we obviously would know it was there. At least those of us who don't do drugs.

To the best of my knowledge, neither has happened yet. (Feel free to correct me.)

Proving that nothing exists outside our reality is impossible. Out reality may be internally consistent, sciency may find the answer to every question. But that does not prove there's nothing outside and above our reality.

So far we have a consistent reality, with some unanswered questions to it. But science doesn't know it all yet, so these questions may be answered in the future. That means there's no need to explain things with supernatural magic beings yet. The reason we can't explaing difficult problems like the complexity of nature and human consciousness are that our knowledge and intellect is limited. These are facts, and they're very adequate solutions to this problem.

The conclusion:
We don't need to explain anything with God (or similar) yet. Our limited intellect is a very good explanaition for our lack of ability to explain certain things. We cannot prove God. And we cannot disprove God. It all bowls down to choice. You can chose to believe, but there really is no scientific reason to do so.

after reconsulting the Bible, i'm afraid i have to redefine and refurbish my re-definition:

1. God was the start of it all. It doesn't matter whether life was evolved or created in a flash, He was the power which made it happen.

2. If evolution DID occur, it would not have been a result of creatures wanting to survive by chance - it would be part of God's plan all along.

3. It all happened in six days, because it is very clearly stated in the Bible: "And the evening and the morning were the nth day."

4. The Bible states God "created", but is not specific whether "created" means "zap! boom! it is there", or the process of rapid evolution.

5. The creation of Man was a completely different process with the creation of other life:
i. We were specifically made for God's image.
ii. We were made to fill Earth, and to rule it.
iii. We were made from dust, not evolved from apes.
iv. We have the breath of God in us, that is why we are so much superior than the rest of the species. That is why we are able to harness nature, why we have a conscience, why we develop religions etc.

6. God saw that His creations were "good", very possibly meaning perfect, which means that any additions in life, whether by zapping or by evolving, has stopped. New species will be discovered, but never naturally created.

Conclusion: While animal and plant life may or may not have come from evolution, God was the power and planner of it all. Humans were specifically created, and are at a higher tier than all other organisms combined because we have the breath of God inside us.

Why do you feel the need to take every word in the Bible literally? Surely it's obvious that these stories are just myths. Otherwise you end up with ludicrous intellectual dead-ends like "the dinosaur skeletons were put there to test our faith!" (maybe the Bible was put here to test our gullibility), or --frankly just as silly -- that they were all "flash-fossilised" in the Flood. Not much further on down that route is a belief in an immobile earth. Take a look at this wingnut's website (http://www.fixedearth.com/) and see the sort of crazy fellow-travellers you've got.

For the life of me, I cannot understand this obsession with Biblical literality. Which version of the two different stories of the Creation given in Genesis do you adhere to anyway? When God and his angels were concerned that the Tower of Babel might "reach heaven", how tall was this tower? The Pioneer and Voyager probes are pushing the boundaries of the heliopause and they haven't hit a ceiling yet. When the Gospels say that "A decree went out from Ceasar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed," do you believe that too? Or do you think that "all the world" should be interpreted as meaning "the Roman Empire"? And when Jesus is given two different genealogies in two different Gospels, do you think that they are both true?

Why do you insist on limiting your God to the parameters drawn up by desert shepherds in the Bronze Age? If -- as Genesis makes clear -- earth and humanity are utterly central to the Creation of everything, why is the universe so unthinkably vast? Was God worried that we'd be claustrophobic? Surely a creator who is responsible for something as cosmically vast, strange and ancient as science says the universe is, is more awesome than a tinkering sandbox fiddler who knocks the whole thing up in six days and actually physically moulds people out of clay before blowing up their noses. Is your faith so fragile that you have to force yourself to believe every contradictory myth, no matter how much it must insult your intelligence to do so?

Incidentally, on the "no new species" thing, you might want to look at this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3790531.stm).

Fairy tale vs. scientific theory logically derived from observed evidence. How will I ever decide?

after reconsulting the Bible, i'm afraid i have to redefine and refurbish my re-definition:

1. God was the start of it all. It doesn't matter whether life was evolved or created in a flash, He was the power which made it happen.

That's your belief. If you define God (or 'god') as the rules that make the universe tick, I believe in that. I'm a bit reticent about the bearded guy in the clouds bit. And while "God moves in mysterious ways", don't you think He seems darned inconsistent sometimes..? No, that's not a question directed at you, just what my inner-voice says.

2. If evolution DID occur, it would not have been a result of creatures wanting to survive by chance - it would be part of God's plan all along.
No creature "wants to survive by chance". They get on with living (as they are genetically programmed/socially instructed/divinely guided to do) and the chance part is something completely outside their control. Again, I perceive that it (essentially) as a clockwork universe doing the maths and decreeing that certain animals get to find a mate and reproduce and some are on the receiving end of 50m asteroids (or the at least the secondary/tertiary effects) that they are simply not equipped to survive.

3. It all happened in six days, because it is very clearly stated in the Bible: "And the evening and the morning were the nth day."
In another famous book it says "In a hole in the ground there lived a Hobbit". In other books a world is described that is flat and supported by elephants whos tand the back of a turtle. There are quite a few books that say that a population of animals that are the common ancestor to humans and fellow great-apes got geographically isolated and that at least one troop/tribe eventually developed into humans whilst others became gorillas, chimpanees, bonobos, whatever.

I think the issue we have here is that you have (perhaps for good reasons, but certainly for none that can currently convince me) accepted the Bible
as the Truth, The Whole Truth and Nothing But The Truth, and then are attempting to justify this by effectively using the argument "The Bible is right because the Bible says it is so". As long as you can accept that there are some people who do not (currently) believe the Bible to be correct, and thus cannot accept statements taken from the Bible to be authoritative enough to 'jump-start' any new-found belief.

4. The Bible states God "created", but is not specific whether "created" means "zap! boom! it is there", or the process of rapid evolution.
I accept that there is interpretation issues. If the Bible is the truth, then I would also accept that this is a matter where it can be completely accurate yet not resolve the issue. As per the response to point 4, however, as yet the Bible has not been proven as the truth, in my mind. I don't expect you to hold that against me, but please consider it as pre-existing condition before trying to convince anyone of some of the more 'direct' issues coming from said tome.

5. The creation of Man was a completely different process with the creation of other life:
i. We were specifically made for God's image.
ii. We were made to fill Earth, and to rule it.
iii. We were made from dust, not evolved from apes.
iv. We have the breath of God in us, that is why we are so much superior than the rest of the species. That is why we are able to harness nature, why we have a conscience, why we develop religions etc.
I believe (on balance of evidence) that Man is merely the currently visible tip of a particular branch of evolution (i.e. we may be a transitional on to other forms of life, if we don't destroy ourselves or get destroyed first).
i) We are well suited to all the world's environments (our brains giving us the ability to employ secondary characteristics such as thermal underware, Scuba gear, space suits and parachutes) to live and survive in environments where our physiology alone does not allow us to do so.
ii) Because of our nature we are filling the Earth, attempting to control it and actually making changes to it (some intentional, some unintentional, some 'beneficial' to some parts of the the ecosystem and some definitely not) beyond the level of small-area vegetation consumption, minor earth excavation and insignificant water divertion that other creatures do.
iii) Everything came from dust (i.e. galactic dust clouds) that formed our world, set up a nice primaeval soup with a hint of self-replicating molecules and then developed into a diverse range of organisms, among them being the proto-ape as described above, from which tribes/troops split off, one ore more being our ancestors who evolved into us.
iv) We are beings with the congition to consider more than "where's my next meal", "I must avoid that dangerous looking creature" and "I must mate", and that is why we are here having this argument. We have each been able to classify and understand species beyond our own individual and direct experience and thus understand that other creatures have not got the same grip upon the world as we have. Our 'conscience' is merely an extension of the social rules that all social creatures need to develop in order to be social creatures (which allows for includes exceptions to the accepted social norms and how to deal with such transgressors). The development of religions are an extension of this thanks to our congitive nature. Whereas tribal leaders are individual and mortal and may or may not rule consistently with their predecessor's wishes, a secondary line of authority made up of men who provide another dimension to life by representing themselves as conduits to a higher power provides an (ironically) evolving form of moral guidence that is shaped by circumstance, environment, external pressures and the nature of the conduits involved. (Religious leadership is not necessarily any more consistent, between generations, except that it is stabilised by the preceived dinstancing of conduit's will from supreme will, thus a new conduit to the same Power will have generally been apprenticed by the previous encumbant and cannot normally immediately overturn /all/ central tennets, even if they should so wish.)

That's my belief.

6. God saw that His creations were "good", very possibly meaning perfect, which means that any additions in life, whether by zapping or by evolving, has stopped. New species will be discovered, but never naturally created.
There is weight of evidence that suggests (highly suggests, I was almost tempted to save 'prooves') that new species do get created, but there are certainly so many 'current' species still unknown that there are going to be a lot of existing creatures still to be discovered.

Conclusion: While animal and plant life may or may not have come from evolution, God was the power and planner of it all. Humans were specifically created, and are at a higher tier than all other organisms combined because we have the breath of God inside us.
Tick Tock goes the universe. Was the clock built by a God? Is the clock a natural result of the way the rules of the universe act upon that which is in it? We naturally assume ourselves to be the centre of the world because we see through our eyes, hear with our ears and smell with our armpits... erm... noses. Every creature will have that impression, at whatever level its cognitive ability allows. We have the level of cognition and physical ability that we have and imagine this to be the peak of perfection. That's essentially all that an individual of our type can do. This particular individual sees the patterns of direct experience and of a lifetime of education and self-discovered evidence and concludes that humans dominate the world, but due to more to a specialised intelect than to any physical or moral value.

I don't think we can say anything about us being on a higher tier. It's a bit like an Escher picture with stairways and arches in all directions. From our POV we may be superior because we're at the top of the intelligence and cognition steps, but a shark (in its own way) would perceive itself at the top of the sea and predation steps while the common cold finds itself superior to us on the grounds of prevalence and counter-adaptibility to our immune systems/medicines.

Up until extraterrestrial intelligences provide their own insights as to how they are the dominant life on (or in) their own homeworlds (with the obvious caveat that the ETs who can tell us these things are obviously sharing an intelectual and philosophical viewpoint with ourselves, so may be similarly biased against viruses and instinctual predators and such-like) we can declare ourselves the king of our castle, and we can theorise about the causes of our existence, but it's always a bit iffy while anthropocentric principles dominate our understanding, and I really do not understand why a moment of creation (or continual guidence) by a supreme being is in any way more elegant than a a complex process that is merely the product of rapid and parallel application of a number of simple rules that are the intrinsic properties of the universe as we know it.

Dragons Bay, humans as a species share 98.6% (not 99, and probably not exactly 98.6, but 98.6 is more accurate than 99) of DNA with chimpanzees.

Now, before you discount that as meaning nothing, I really suggest you go and borrow a nice new modern biology book from the library and look up exactly what that means. I'm not trying to be patronising (and heck, I'd be willing to pick up a version of the bible and read through it if that would encourage you to do this).

Either someone was taking creative issues when saying that God made us in his image, or God is very *very* closly related to chimpanzees, in a very literal sense. And both those conclusions sound far too insulting, so personally I'd consider taking that particular quote with a pinch of salt.

Also, did you know that that passage from the bible was used to excuse the horrific torture of animals, back when people first started being interested in biology? They used to nail dogs to wooden platforms and then cut them open while they were still alive, in order to observe their running bloodstreams. Even the egyptians limited their scientific knowledge to animals being butchered for meat.

This is just one of many examples, not of why the bible is 'wrong', but why it's very dangerous to throw quotes around.

Dragons Bay, I hope you still take some interest in learning about evolution - I have a Christian (a fairly strict Christian, too) friend who is taking a Genetics course in Uni - at the very least, the more information you have about it that comes from an unbiased source, the better you'll be able to make up your mind about it :D

chimpanzees have 98% DNA similarity, but there's the 2% plus a soul that makes us completely difference from chimps. Oogh. Chimps.

God gave us the power to look after the world. Look after, like a big brother to a young brother. Those crazies are manipulating the Bible for their own gain - again.

i am! i am! throwing in my current viewpoint does NOT mean not accepting others! :D

Evolution is a fact! Evolution will occur if certain prerequisites are in place. It's a fact. Deal with it!

Now, wether evolution has created the universe, the nature and humans and other animals, that is an open question.

God cannot be proved easily. There's only one way, and that is to show that our reality is not consistent with itself. This can happen in two ways.

One is that science one day concludes: Yup, we know everything there is to know (about a certain problem, like human consciousness or the infinte nature of the universe). Still we cannot explain it. This would be the conceptual equivalent of travelling to the edge of the universe and finding there a huge f...ing brick wall. That would prove that there is something out there, wouldn't it. Something that put up the brick wall we cannot see past.

The second way is more obvious, if our reality suddenly ripped appart and what's behind showed itself, we obviously would know it was there. At least those of us who don't do drugs.

To the best of my knowledge, neither has happened yet. (Feel free to correct me.)

Proving that nothing exists outside our reality is impossible. Out reality may be internally consistent, sciency may find the answer to every question. But that does not prove there's nothing outside and above our reality.

So far we have a consistent reality, with some unanswered questions to it. But science doesn't know it all yet, so these questions may be answered in the future. That means there's no need to explain things with supernatural magic beings yet. The reason we can't explaing difficult problems like the complexity of nature and human consciousness are that our knowledge and intellect is limited. These are facts, and they're very adequate solutions to this problem.

The conclusion:
We don't need to explain anything with God (or similar) yet. Our limited intellect is a very good explanaition for our lack of ability to explain certain things. We cannot prove God. And we cannot disprove God. It all bowls down to choice. You can chose to believe, but there really is no scientific reason to do so.

true. that's why i choose to believe and i'm standing with my viewpoint.

Why do you feel the need to take every word in the Bible literally? Surely it's obvious that these stories are just myths. Otherwise you end up with ludicrous intellectual dead-ends like "the dinosaur skeletons were put there to test our faith!" (maybe the Bible was put here to test our gullibility), or --frankly just as silly -- that they were all "flash-fossilised" in the Flood. Not much further on down that route is a belief in an immobile earth. Take a look at this wingnut's website (http://www.fixedearth.com/) and see the sort of crazy fellow-travellers you've got.

For the life of me, I cannot understand this obsession with Biblical literality. Which version of the two different stories of the Creation given in Genesis do you adhere to anyway? When God and his angels were concerned that the Tower of Babel might "reach heaven", how tall was this tower? The Pioneer and Voyager probes are pushing the boundaries of the heliopause and they haven't hit a ceiling yet. When the Gospels say that "A decree went out from Ceasar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed," do you believe that too? Or do you think that "all the world" should be interpreted as meaning "the Roman Empire"? And when Jesus is given two different genealogies in two different Gospels, do you think that they are both true?

Why do you insist on limiting your God to the parameters drawn up by desert shepherds in the Bronze Age? If -- as Genesis makes clear -- earth and humanity are utterly central to the Creation of everything, why is the universe so unthinkably vast? Was God worried that we'd be claustrophobic? Surely a creator who is responsible for something as cosmically vast, strange and ancient as science says the universe is, is more awesome than a tinkering sandbox fiddler who knocks the whole thing up in six days and actually physically moulds people out of clay before blowing up their noses. Is your faith so fragile that you have to force yourself to believe every contradictory myth, no matter how much it must insult your intelligence to do so?

Incidentally, on the "no new species" thing, you might want to look at this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3790531.stm).

i stand by my own viewpoint and represent nobody else. objectively, whether they were myths is not for you to say because you haven't witnessed them. subjectively, sure, because religion is subjective. i am being subjective. i believe them. they were facts. even if they weren't, they wouldn't put a dent into God's teachings. The Tower of Babel teaches not to become too proud of ourselves. Mary and Joseph, though they knew they were going to give birth to God's Son, adhered to the pagan emperor's decree to be taxed, which teaches us to be humble and obey the governments of our world. The creation of the entire Universe in six days teach us the greatness of God. You may be right about exaggerations in the Bible's text, but certainly the teachings stay, and the teachings I am concerned about.

still, saying that evolution happened so much by chance defies the planning power of God. saying that evolution MIGHT have occurred but strictly by God's plan is acceptable. it doesn't matter how He created the world, as long as He did it. you might like to see it as a softening of my position, but i must insist that life was created by God's plan, not some spontaneously reaction which relies so heavily on chance.

oogh, your new fruit flies are beginning to emerge due to ARTIFICIAL breeding. it shows artificial tampering in evolution. the same can be said for a Divine tampering in evolution.

That's your belief. If you define God (or 'god') as the rules that make the universe tick, I believe in that. I'm a bit reticent about the bearded guy in the clouds bit. And while "God moves in mysterious ways", don't you think He seems darned inconsistent sometimes..? No, that's not a question directed at you, just what my inner-voice says.


No creature "wants to survive by chance". They get on with living (as they are genetically programmed/socially instructed/divinely guided to do) and the chance part is something completely outside their control. Again, I perceive that it (essentially) as a clockwork universe doing the maths and decreeing that certain animals get to find a mate and reproduce and some are on the receiving end of 50m asteroids (or the at least the secondary/tertiary effects) that they are simply not equipped to survive.


In another famous book it says "In a hole in the ground there lived a Hobbit". In other books a world is described that is flat and supported by elephants whos tand the back of a turtle. There are quite a few books that say that a population of animals that are the common ancestor to humans and fellow great-apes got geographically isolated and that at least one troop/tribe eventually developed into humans whilst others became gorillas, chimpanees, bonobos, whatever.

I think the issue we have here is that you have (perhaps for good reasons, but certainly for none that can currently convince me) accepted the Bible
as the Truth, The Whole Truth and Nothing But The Truth, and then are attempting to justify this by effectively using the argument "The Bible is right because the Bible says it is so". As long as you can accept that there are some people who do not (currently) believe the Bible to be correct, and thus cannot accept statements taken from the Bible to be authoritative enough to 'jump-start' any new-found belief.


I accept that there is interpretation issues. If the Bible is the truth, then I would also accept that this is a matter where it can be completely accurate yet not resolve the issue. As per the response to point 4, however, as yet the Bible has not been proven as the truth, in my mind. I don't expect you to hold that against me, but please consider it as pre-existing condition before trying to convince anyone of some of the more 'direct' issues coming from said tome.


I believe (on balance of evidence) that Man is merely the currently visible tip of a particular branch of evolution (i.e. we may be a transitional on to other forms of life, if we don't destroy ourselves or get destroyed first).
i) We are well suited to all the world's environments (our brains giving us the ability to employ secondary characteristics such as thermal underware, Scuba gear, space suits and parachutes) to live and survive in environments where our physiology alone does not allow us to do so.
ii) Because of our nature we are filling the Earth, attempting to control it and actually making changes to it (some intentional, some unintentional, some 'beneficial' to some parts of the the ecosystem and some definitely not) beyond the level of small-area vegetation consumption, minor earth excavation and insignificant water divertion that other creatures do.
iii) Everything came from dust (i.e. galactic dust clouds) that formed our world, set up a nice primaeval soup with a hint of self-replicating molecules and then developed into a diverse range of organisms, among them being the proto-ape as described above, from which tribes/troops split off, one ore more being our ancestors who evolved into us.
iv) We are beings with the congition to consider more than "where's my next meal", "I must avoid that dangerous looking creature" and "I must mate", and that is why we are here having this argument. We have each been able to classify and understand species beyond our own individual and direct experience and thus understand that other creatures have not got the same grip upon the world as we have. Our 'conscience' is merely an extension of the social rules that all social creatures need to develop in order to be social creatures (which allows for includes exceptions to the accepted social norms and how to deal with such transgressors). The development of religions are an extension of this thanks to our congitive nature. Whereas tribal leaders are individual and mortal and may or may not rule consistently with their predecessor's wishes, a secondary line of authority made up of men who provide another dimension to life by representing themselves as conduits to a higher power provides an (ironically) evolving form of moral guidence that is shaped by circumstance, environment, external pressures and the nature of the conduits involved. (Religious leadership is not necessarily any more consistent, between generations, except that it is stabilised by the preceived dinstancing of conduit's will from supreme will, thus a new conduit to the same Power will have generally been apprenticed by the previous encumbant and cannot normally immediately overturn /all/ central tennets, even if they should so wish.)

That's my belief.


There is weight of evidence that suggests (highly suggests, I was almost tempted to save 'prooves') that new species do get created, but there are certainly so many 'current' species still unknown that there are going to be a lot of existing creatures still to be discovered.


Tick Tock goes the universe. Was the clock built by a God? Is the clock a natural result of the way the rules of the universe act upon that which is in it? We naturally assume ourselves to be the centre of the world because we see through our eyes, hear with our ears and smell with our armpits... erm... noses. Every creature will have that impression, at whatever level its cognitive ability allows. We have the level of cognition and physical ability that we have and imagine this to be the peak of perfection. That's essentially all that an individual of our type can do. This particular individual sees the patterns of direct experience and of a lifetime of education and self-discovered evidence and concludes that humans dominate the world, but due to more to a specialised intelect than to any physical or moral value.

I don't think we can say anything about us being on a higher tier. It's a bit like an Escher picture with stairways and arches in all directions. From our POV we may be superior because we're at the top of the intelligence and cognition steps, but a shark (in its own way) would perceive itself at the top of the sea and predation steps while the common cold finds itself superior to us on the grounds of prevalence and counter-adaptibility to our immune systems/medicines.

Up until extraterrestrial intelligences provide their own insights as to how they are the dominant life on (or in) their own homeworlds (with the obvious caveat that the ETs who can tell us these things are obviously sharing an intelectual and philosophical viewpoint with ourselves, so may be similarly biased against viruses and instinctual predators and such-like) we can declare ourselves the king of our castle, and we can theorise about the causes of our existence, but it's always a bit iffy while anthropocentric principles dominate our understanding, and I really do not understand why a moment of creation (or continual guidence) by a supreme being is in any way more elegant than a a complex process that is merely the product of rapid and parallel application of a number of simple rules that are the intrinsic properties of the universe as we know it.

this post is very interesting, as all the posts are...but please...it's 25 minutes to midnight, and i don't exactly have the power to reply in detail. so instead of giving you a crappy instant reply, please allow me to save it until the morning. i promise i will reply to this as best as i can. :D

i stand by my own viewpoint and represent nobody else. objectively, whether they were myths is not for you to say because you haven't witnessed them. subjectively, sure, because religion is subjective. i am being subjective. i believe them. they were facts. even if they weren't, they wouldn't put a dent into God's teachings. The Tower of Babel teaches not to become too proud of ourselves. Mary and Joseph, though they knew they were going to give birth to God's Son, adhered to the pagan emperor's decree to be taxed, which teaches us to be humble and obey the governments of our world. The creation of the entire Universe in six days teach us the greatness of God. You may be right about exaggerations in the Bible's text, but certainly the teachings stay, and the teachings I am concerned about.

still, saying that evolution happened so much by chance defies the planning power of God. saying that evolution MIGHT have occurred but strictly by God's plan is acceptable. it doesn't matter how He created the world, as long as He did it. you might like to see it as a softening of my position, but i must insist that life was created by God's plan, not some spontaneously reaction which relies so heavily on chance.

oogh, your new fruit flies are beginning to emerge due to ARTIFICIAL breeding. it shows artificial tampering in evolution. the same can be said for a Divine tampering in evolution.

you havent changed your mind at all have you?

((This is a long read, if you have time to read it go ahead. And I have chosen both.))

Flee from delirious ideas of philosophers who are not ashamed to say that their soul and a dog's soul are alike and that they were fish.

- St Basil the Great.

What is the Orthodox attitude towards natural science? This question does not have at the moment a rigorous and unambiguous answer. The point is not as much in a detailed explanation of its various aspects as in the possibility of a coherent Orthodox view of the key issues of natural science. Is it really possible to reconcile the Orthodox dogmas and scientific knowledge? E.g., can one combine the Biblical story of creation and the Christian understanding of its purpose with the contemporary cosmogonic theory of the "big bang" and the eventual evolutionary development of the universe, or with the concept of the origin of life based on destruction (mutations) and death (natural selection)? Is Orthodox education at all compatible with such a materialistic perspective? Some Christian apologetic publications are aimed at finding a positive answer. However the attractiveness of such an answer is deceiving, since it conveys the idea that it is possible to come to the Divine Truth without believing in Christ, with the help of scientific reasoning of the human mind only. But whatsoever is not of faith is sin (Rom 14:23). Without God neither science nor any other concept of human thought leads to the Truth, that no flesh should glory in the presence of God. (1 Cor 1:29). The Saviour Himself has said: "I receive not testimony from man" (Jn 5:34); "Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice" (Jn 18:37); "He that is not with me is against me" (Mt 12:30).
St Theophanus the Recluse wrote: "The positive teaching of the Church serves to know whether a concept is from the Truth. This is a litmus test for all teachings. Whatever agrees with it, you should accept it, whatever does not- - reject. One can do it without further deliberations" [1]. "Science goes forward fast, let it do so. But if they infer something inconsistent with the Divine Revelation, they are definitely off the right path in lie, do not follow them" [2]. "Believers have the right to measure the material things with spiritual ones, when materialists get into the realm of the spiritual without a slightest scruple... We have wisdom as our partner, while theirs is foolishness. Material things can be neither the power not the purpose. They are just the means and the field of activity of spiritual powers by the action of the spiritual beginning of all things (Creator)" [1]. To come to the true understanding of God's creation one should not project, pleasing this materialistic age (Rom 12:2), the Revealed Truth onto scientific achievements, since in the light of the Divine Revelation the Truth itself is given to us in entirety and simplicity to the extent that pleases God. On the contrary, one should view science from the divine, spiritual point according to St Basil the Great, "exploring the world and studying the universe not based on the worldly wisdom, but in the way God teaches His servant, speaking to him explicitly but not in dark speeches (Num 12:8)" [3].
The cornerstone of the Orthodox attitude to science is the concept of Creation - the origin of the universe, life and man. From the Christian perspective, the laws governing the world today and before the fall are different in principle, as everything created by God in the beginning was perfect and immortal. St Ignatius writes: "Today the earth is quite different in our eyes. We do not know its state in its saint virginity; we know it in the state of corruption and condemnation, we know it already bound to be burnt; it was designed for eternity" [4].
To reconcile today's cosmogonic hypotheses with Moses' story of the Six Days is a great temptation for contemporary scientists newly converted into Orthodoxy. The original logical incoherence of all these hypotheses is in the attempts to describe the appearance and development of the world with the help of the laws of the already existing universe. Creation is in principle a religious concept, but not a scientific one. On the contrary, the religiousness of this scientific concept is in its atheistic nature (in the faith in no-God).
In 1885 N.Ya.Danilevsky wrote that "the theory of evolution is not as much a biological teaching, as it is a philosophical one, a dome on the building of mechanical materialism, by which is it only possible to explain its fantastic success not related to real scientific achievements" [5]. Here is the reason why the theory of evolution despite its scientific infertility, has remained hitherto an almost unrivalled concept: it satisfies the necessity of having a materialistic explanation of all things, "scientifically" proving natural origin of all forms of live, man included. By doing so, the theory of evolution getting too far beyond the limits of science - in the area of faith - on behalf of science demands the denial of God, bearing all the responsibility for such mindlessness: "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." (Ps 13:1, 53:1; Rev 16:9).
One can in many ways disprove scientifically the inconsistency of the theory of evolution - either Darwinian or its contemporary synthetic counterpart or any modification of those including ones having theistic forms. However, any scientific argumentation is conditional. The theory of evolution is not a scientific theory in the rigorous sense. It is a world perspective, perception, a religious (namely, pagan) concept of the origin of the world that penetrates all today's science putting in its foundation the idea that the world has in itself a mechanism for its own development, self-perfection having been in action for billions of years.
The Christian understanding of the world states however that from the moment Adam fell, the world has been bound to be driven by involution - degeneration, whereas all the creative force comes from the Lord, not from within the world. If one wants to speak of evolution, let them speak of the voluntary spiritual development on a personal basis in terms of acquiring the fullness of the image of God rather than the biological evolution of the Homo sapiens species. In this sense, the evolution of man is subdued not to the natural laws but the supernatural law of salvation.
An evolutionary perspective of the world's history that interprets it as a process of perpetual striving for perfection of all forms of life driving the "arrow" of development from simplest organisms towards man is incompatible with the Orthodox understanding expressed by the Holy Fathers of the Church. The starting point of the Christian view is that man was placed on top of God-given dignity but succumbing to the temptation of the independent evolutionary development (italics mine, E.S.) he fell trying to acquire an even higher position and caused all creation to fall from grace along with him. The attitude towards evolutionism is not an abstract philosophical or a special scientific question. It is a spiritual issue, an issue concerning faith and eternal salvation - it deals with the outset, existence and, consequently, the end of the world. This issue forms the mindset of an individual, his attitude towards life, and morals.
The principal point of disagreement of evolutionism and Christianity is the question of the origin of living organisms. Apostle Paul admonished us not to deliver teachings different from his, nor did he let us listen to the endless fables at variance with God's lessons of faith (1Тim. 1: 3-4). All the scientific, religious and philosophical existential teachings stemming from outside The Old Testament and Christian Revelation describe endless births and multilateral transformations of things based on the thesis that nothing can appear from nothing else. The world is understood either in terms of only transformations of material substance coming up with more complex forms from simpler ones or of emanation (proceeding from) the Deity or, finally, of identity of the world with the Deity. The difference is only in the fact the in the first case the physical evolution is meant; in the latter, the appearance of new forms is defined by the spiritual state of the object undergoing series of reincarnations. However, in both cases, in the foundation lies the evolutionist (heathen) idea of the appearance of new entities from the old ones. Evolutionists, like all the other pagans, are trying to state that cosmos originates from primitive chaos. About gods "performing" such a transformation of chaos into cosmos St Gregory Palamas said: "A god creating not from nothing, a god that did not exist before matter… is not a god. I'll tell you adding something to the words of the Prophet: The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens (Jer 10:11) as well as those theologians who invented them" [6]. L.A.Тykhomirov notes: "The idea of creation could only come from Revelation by the One Who stands beyond the laws of matter and Who Himself has created it. For the human mind, which never observed such a thing and which only knows birth, evolution and transformation of existing things, the idea of coming into being from nothing is absurd. It could not have occurred to anyone and is at variance with our knowledge and comprehension." [7]. In its essence, Christian Revelation is counter-evolutionary. This does not rule out the possibility of natural development of species, within certain limits (within biological genders). This only means that new entities (in their own kind) have an entirely different mechanism of appearance - by the act of creation from nothing - inconceivably to our mind because of its supernatural, divine origin. This mechanism sets characteristics, definitive and unchangeable properties transferred genetically from ancestors to descendents. The teaching about the Divine act of creation of everything from nothing is an integral part of the whole Christian doctrine. St Athanasius teaches that "each created thing in its kind, in its entity, remains as it was created" [3].
The idea that this life on earth is a preparation to life eternal, which first appeared in the Old Testament Revelation and then delivered in its fullness by the Saviour, distinguishes in principle the Christian world perspective from all the rest religious views and teachings always carrying elements of evolution. Nonetheless, in all times (both pre-Christian and Christian) there have been attempts to synthesise Revelation with human understanding of the world as a wholesome Gnostic or syncretic doctrine.
Conforming to contemporary science, the theory of evolution of biological species has evolved itself from the simple Darwinism to more complex theories still preserving the key idea of development from lower forms towards higher forms of organisation. And here again we see "mediocre theologians", heirs of gnostocism and supporters of theistic, "Christian" (quotes mine, E.S.) or teleological evolutionism who dare speak of natural appearance and development of life in religious terms. - It is better for them not to know the way of truth than knowing it to come away from the holy commandment given to them. For it has happened to them according to the parable: a dog coming back to its vomit and a washed pig to the dirt (2 Pet 1:20-21). As Fr Seraphim (Rose) says, "any attempt to combine evolutionism with Christianity bears witness of not only a low theological background of an individual but also of an almost complete loss of common sense." [8].
It should be stressed once more that, according to any evolutionary concept be it with or without Christian terminology and religious semblance, the origin and driving force of the world is seen not in God but in the world itself, in its own natural mechanisms. In the foundation of the evolutionary perspective lies the so-called principle of uniformity, which says that the laws of nature remain as they were perpetually.
The idea of Christian evolutionism is based on speculatively stretching the concept of spiritual evolution of an individual towards the perfect embodiment of the image of God (that is, the inconceivable phenomenon of salvation of the faithful or, in other words, the evolution of the image of God into the His likeness) onto the natural development of creation. While arguing so, Christian evolutionists leave out of account all the legacy of the Fathers of the Church who left for us profound contemplation on the Book of Genesis. They ignore that the spiritual evolution is concerned with spiritual matters such as humility and repentance in falling short to fulfill God's commandments and, therefore, it is obviously irrelevant to speak in terms of "Christian mechanisms of evolution" relative to flora and fauna.
Christian evolutionism assumes a special, understandable only to the evolutionists themselves explanation of the Holy Scriptures, which contradicts the Fathers of the Church. In the holy words of the Book of Genesis, according to these scientists, there are hidden mysteries of our being. The clue can only be granted to the chosen intellectuals enriched with the knowledge of contemporary natural science. A certain time ago Adam viewed the forbidden fruit as a symbol, which, once possessed, would give him control over his own existence. Today Christian evolutionists consider Adam a symbol… Such explanations of the Scriptures are the fruit of scientific intellectualism, the fruit of the mind affected by sin. Centuries ago, Gnostics were misled by the same idea. Generally speaking, Christian evolutionism is a contemporary form of gnosticism and, therefore, cannot help being pagan. On the other hand, as is said above, the essence of heathenism is in evolution of both visible and invisible nature. The illusion of evolutionism becomes possible when the spiritual guidance has been lost, when scientific hypotheses are accepted as absolute and treated as idols. Such a perverted thinking is stubborn and is not obedient to the Truth (Rom 1:28, 2:8). Really, evolution is not even a scientific truth (a fact, a law or an inference): its existence cannot be scientifically proved or disproved since it cannot be observed. Hence, according to the precise definition by Apostle Paul, evolution is a subject of faith as the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (Heb 11:1). In the non-Christian evolutionism, which denies the Revealed Truth, there is no danger for Christians: them that are without God judgeth (1Cor 5:13). However, when it comes under false pretences of Christianity, it becomes extremely dangerous and therefore it must be called a heresy.
The reason why the theory of evolution has been considerably changed (as to acquiring religious including "Orthodox" forms) is related to today's shift from the exhausted rationalistic paradigm toward fuller idealistic concepts of the world that do not deny the existence of God absolutely. However, even a minor misinterpretation of a dogma leads to heresy and, consequently, to falling apart from the Truth. It is clear therefore why "saving" half-scientific mythology by "adding" it to the religious dogmas for the sake of "harmony between science and faith" (at the price of compromise on the part of faith) leads away from the true Christian teaching to the darkness of occultism and theosophy. An example of the above "convergence" of the theory of evolution and theology might be a new concept suggesting that apart from struggle for life, that is, enmity (which, by the way, a certain time ago justified the class struggle in the social world), a driving force for evolution can also be assistance. Philosophically, this is a form of dualism (no better than the materialism due to Darwin), since it states the independence of the two issues, the destructive and constructive. In the history of the Church this Gnostic concept expressed itself in the Manichean heresy.
While gaining momentum after separating from magic and having fully acquired materialistic grounds, natural science in attempts to understand the laws of life trespassed on the border between purely material and spiritual matters. However all kinds of spirituality which are not from the Holy Spirit are hopeless ugliness, a travesty of the Truth or a spiritual miscarriage. Therefore the process of transformation of secularised science into an occult para-science that we are observing nowadays is quite logical. The theory of evolution, which borrowed from the Bible the idea of a gradual accomplishment of the world, serves an excellent example of anti-Christian spirituality in science. Today the words of St Theophanus the Recluse of Vysha sound ever more to the point: "In our days the Russians start deviating from faith: some of them are completely losing it falling into disbelief, others are leaving for Protestantism, yet others are surreptitiously concocting their own beliefs where they think to combine spiritism and geological nonsense with Divine Revelation. Evil is growing: false belief and disbelief are raising their heads, while faith and Orthodoxy are weakening. Will we stop? Will we finally have the same as the French, for example, or others … The West has grown depraved. It depraved itself: instead of the Gospel they started learning from the heathens and imitate them - and ended up in depravity. We are going to have the same: we started learning from the West that had left Christ and we have acquired the spirit of the West. In the end, like the West we will deny the true Christianity. However, there is nothing here that inevitably influences our free choice: if we want, we can chase away the western darkness; if we don't, we'll disappear in it" [9].
Let us now show in more detail why the evolutionary perspective is incompatible with the Orthodox doctrine. Among the numerous properties of God it has become traditional in patristic literature to group the following ones (the so-called cataphatic [10] properties, i.e. those properties that state positive qualities of God) together. As will be shown below, these qualities are denied by evolutionists.
Omnipotence. Evolutionism, being unable to prove that evolution takes place within observable time intervals, for the sake of plausibility of its arguments asserts that the timescale of the world's history amounts to millions of years. This diminishes God's omnipotence and capability of creating the world in six days only by His Word (Gen. 1: 1-31, Ps 32:9, 148:5, 113:11, 118:90, Lk 1:37). It should be noted here that Christian evolutionists, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God (Mt 22:29), having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart (Eph 4:17-18), mistakenly lay in the foundation of their reasoning about the length of the six days of creation the verse in the Bible saying that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day (2 Pet 3:8). This saying by the Holy Apostle Peter should be interpreted as something pertaining to the Lord. As St John The Chrisostom argues, it should be treated as a metaphor aimed at clarifying that God is beyond time, that is, eternal. Evolutionists view the days of creation as "intervals of indefinite length", referring to the ambiguity of the Jewish word "yohm". This understanding is wrong. The Holy Fathers of the Eastern Church pointed that these days were equal in length to our usual days, that is, they lasted 24 hours each. E.g., St Ephrem the Syrian writes: "Although both light and clouds have been created instantaneously, the day-half and the night-half of the first day lasted twelve hours each" [40]. The Lord Himself witnessed the literary sense of the days of creation as the days of the week: Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy… For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it (Ex 20: 8, 11)". The Orthodox Liturgical tradition also interprets the days of creation to be equal to usual days [10]. In particular, in the Church services creation and redemption are juxtaposed. E.g., the fall took place on Friday afternoon (Gen 3:9), at the same time on Friday Saviour was crucified on the Cross: "O Thou Who on the sixths day and hour hast nailed to the Cross the sin that Adam dared to commit in Paradise: tear up the record of our trespasses, O Christ our God, and save us" (Lenten Troparion of the Sixth Hour).
It is important to note that all the Holy Fathers, who gave explanations to the Book of Genesis, unanimously stressed that the creative acts of the Lord were instantaneous. St Basil the Great says: "Let the earth bring forth… (Gen 1:11). At this short command in a moment there appeared a great nature and the artistic word, bringing forth limitless multitudes of plants more quickly than we reason" [3]. St Ambrose of Milan says: "He (Moses) did not anticipate a late and slow creation from combinations of atoms" but "wanted to express the unthinkable rate of the action" (see [11]). St Athanasius the Great testifies: "All kinds of animals were created at once all together at the same command" [12]. St Ioann of Kronshtadt states: "He says and His word instantly becomes multiple images and versatility of forms" [13]. Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose) writes: " the "God" of "Christian evolution" is a god who is "not strong enough to accomplish all the work"; the reason itself why the teaching of evolution has been developed is to explain the universe based either on the idea that there is no God or that He is not able to create the world in six days by His word alone. Those who believe in the God worshiped by Orthodox Christians would never imagine evolution" [8]. King David asked: "Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?" (Ps 2:1) Why does then the weak mind of evolutionists-heathens rage being unable to accept by faith a very simple divine truth: And God said, Let there be… And there was!?
Goodness. Evolutionism does not admit that God created the world because of His goodness and it this world there was no corruption and death in the beginning: God did not create death (Pr 1:13), God created man not corrupted (Pr 2:23), death came into the world because of the envy of the devil (2:24), as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned (Rom 5:12). Everything that God made was very good (Gen 1:31) and this was so not according to our judgement but God's! The world created in six days was perfect. It was perfect not, of course, in the sense that this ruled out any further perfection. The utmost perfection will only be after the end of this age in the everlasting eighth day. But, undoubtedly, it was so because it did not have anything against or not pleasing God such as a shortcoming, vice or sin. Therefore in the newly created world there were no diseases, suffering, aging, corruption or death. The opposite concept will inevitably lead to an absolute misinterpretation of the idea of God. Death came as a result of breaking the harmony in the relationship between God and man: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die (Gen 2:17). Death appeared only after the fall of man who was supposed to reign over all creation. So the creature itself came under the bondage of corruption… The whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now (Rom 8:21-22). Having disobeyed God, man learned sin for by the law is the knowledge of sin (Rom 3:20). And sin brought forth death. As a matter of fact, death is a consequence, result and the wages of sin (Rom 6:23); and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death (Jam 1:15).
The sin committed by the first people, by concrete historical personalities who gave in to the tempter, was exactly that they tried to acquire knowledge independently of God to become perfect or "evolve" and be like gods, knowing good and evil (Gen 3:5). Man willfully separated himself from God, the Giver of life, breaking His life-creating commandment. In doing so he doomed himself and the rest of creation to die since the separation from God causes corruption according to the Prophet: but the way of the ungodly shall perish (Ps 1:6); they that are far from thee shall perish (Ps 73:27). On the contrary, according to evolutionists death or "natural selection" is considered not a consequence of sin or a discord and lawlessness brought into the world from outside but a sort of "tribute to nature" or a necessary condition for new biological species to appear. This view implies pragmatically explains the purpose of existence of creatures instead of accepting that they are self-sufficient and valuable as such. Each living thing is then but a stage in the progressive development towards more advanced forms and is inevitably devoured and sacrificed by this inexorable development. In other words, it is not considered a creature with the purpose to exalt and glorify the goodness, power and wisdom of God: Praise the Lord from the earth, ye dragons, and all deeps: Fire, and hail; snow, and vapours; stormy wind fulfilling his word: Mountains, and all hills; fruitful trees, and all cedars: Beasts, and all cattle; creeping things, and flying fowl (Ps 148:7, 9-10). The idea of the existence of death before the fall is especially blasphemous with respect to man himself as a person created by God according to His image and likeness and therefore immortal. The theory of evolution is a sacrilege therefore since it assumes the existence of ape (or even more primitive) ancestors of Adam putting a question about their redemption on the Cross and moreover limitlessly lengthening the genealogy of the Son of Man Himself (which in fact has 77 generations from Adam (Lk 3:23-38)). Alternatively this theory does not accept Adam as a historical person not only "disproving" his being saint but disproving the fact of his life and thus "killing" him. This reveals that it originates from the devil who was a murderer from the beginning (Jn 8:44). Rule 123 of the Council of Carthage states: "Whoever says that Adam, the first man created, was created mortal so that whether he had or had not sinned would have died anyway, that is, would have left his body not as in punishment for sin but due to the necessity of nature: let him be cursed (anathema)" [30]. It is important to realise that believing in the existence of death before Adam's fall destroys the grounds for the Christian understanding of the world. "Can one believe in Christ and doubt in the fall of the first people?" - asks St Hieromartyr Seraphim (Chichagov) and clarifies - "If the story of the fall was a legend, an imaginary beginning of the following events of the observable history of the world, there would be no necessity in redemption of humanity by the Son of God and the unity of people and God would never be broken" [31]. The point here is not in the subtlety of explanation of the Bible but in the incompatibility of the Orthodox theology and evolution, of the faith in the necessity of our redemption by the incarnate Son of God Jesus Christ and the faith in the absence of reasons making such redemption necessary: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? (2 Cor 6:14-15); what communion has a wolf with a lamb? And a sinful with a righteous (Sir 13:21).
Wisdom. Evolutionism disregards the divine origin of life as it tries to explain it scientifically, with the earthly wisdom based on the distorted, fragmental rational knowledge. But God is not worshipped with men's hands (Acts 17: 25); the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God (1 Cor 3:19). For it is only God in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Col 2:3) his understanding is infinite (Ps 146:5), and there is no searching of his understanding (Is 40:28). For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? (Rom 11:34). No one is able to conceive His works (Sir 18:2).
Omniscience. The theory of evolution rejects God's all-knowing since it sees Him making laboratory experiments according to a manly limited scheme: learning slavishly by trial and error and from simpler things to more complex. But God, Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty (Rev 1:8), knows everything of every creature not even born yet and did know before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4) because He is beyond time: Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world (Acts 15:18); And in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them (Ps 139:16); but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him (Heb 4:13). There is a good example of this [14]. An evolutionist must invent a contemporary airplane. He takes a steam train, removes an engine attaches wings to the engine and here it is, Mozhaysky's aircraft! The next step is to come up with an internal combustion engine and get Brothers Wright's plane. Then even in this model he has to do yet another degenerative mutation removing the second pair of wings to obtain a monoplane. Finally, the engine must mutate to become a jet one. Well, it is roughly what the evolution of human ideas in aircraft building looked like. But is there a constructor who, knowing beforehand the way the desired plane looks, will start making it from a steam train and Mozhaysky's plane?
Can anyone imagine that our Creator is such a "constructor", He Who is eternal and Who knows what is hidden, who knows everything before it comes into being?
Truth. Evolutionism tries to disprove that God is truthful and faithful, compelling one either to reject the Scriptures or to believe that the creation of the world and the life of man described by the prophet Moses in the book of Genesis, did not take place in history but is an allegorical story requiring additional analysis based on principles entirely hostile to Christianity. But we know that God is faithful and there is no lie in Him: "all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he (Dt 32:4), the word of the Lord is right; and all his works are done in truth (Ps 33:4); But the Lord is the true God (Jer 10:10, Jn 8:27), it is impossible for God to lie (Heb 6:18). The Holy Fathers did not accept any allegorical understanding of the Bible including the Hexaemeron, on the contrary they emphasised the necessity to understand it "as it is written". St Basil the Great in his explanations of the Hexaemeron says: "When I hear about the grass, I think of the grass; as well as plants, fish, animals and cattle - all is understood according to its name. For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ (Rom 1:16)" [3]. St John The Chrisostom: "Not to believe what is told in the Divine Scriptures but to invent something different is extremely dangerous for the one who dares to do it" [15].
Holiness. When we say that God is Holy, we emphasise that His nature is different from this world and therefore incomprehensible. Evolutionism, on the contrary, either rejects the supernatural and miraculous or does not make the distinction. But the Lord our God is Holy (Ps 99: 9). It is the very meaning of our life to strive for holiness. Man, being God's image, is not only an earthly thing but a heavenly as well: he is given the spirit which sets him apart from the animal world. With the spirit man conceives God and acquires holiness. The main reason why the theory of evolution is not consistent with the Orthodox thinking is, according to St Theophanus the Recluse, that the former reduces the spirit-soul-and-body human constitution to the animal nature with just two parts, body and soul. He writes: "If we accept that the center of man's nature is spirit, the theory of Darwin comes crushing down by itself. In fact, when considering the origin of man, to say that it is solely the origin of his body is not sufficient. On the contrary, his origins as a spiritual entity in an animal body and soul should be emphasised" [16]. A person who does not have a spiritual life and denies the manifestation of spirit in himself, actually loses it and becomes like an animal. It should be noted that the antichrist, the man of lawlessness, will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped (2 Th 2, 4), will win people's favour, as is said in the Apocalypse, in the image of a beast: The whole world was astonished and followed the beast. Men worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped the beast and asked, "Who is like the beast? Who can make war against him? (Rev. 13: 3-4). The theory of evolution that likens man to a beast has already won people's favour and become a scientific version of the pagan cult of totem, the animal beginning.
The main issue of anthropology is the reference frame in which to describe man. We can name a few layers of the hierarchical perception of the phenomenon of man. From the mechanical point of view, man is a system of joints and links. At the physico-chemical layer, a nonlinear open system able to organise and develop itself. Biologically, we are a living organism with a preprogrammed set of instincts. At the spiritual level, we are God's image. Therefore spiritual laws are important for us not to be a machine, a protein mass or an animal. The principle of action of these laws is different from the physical ones: the spiritual laws do not act by themselves but are given to be observed. Therefore they may be violated by the free will of man. God does not want to force these laws on us but He wants the will of His creation to freely come in accordance with His will. If this happens, His creature, man, becomes like God. On the other hand, every sin is contrary to God's will and leads to the destruction of man and the whole world and the separation from the Creator.
Therefore in natural sciences man should be viewed not from a fallen and seriously affected by sin personality's perspective, but bearing in mind those features and properties that distinguish us from the rest of creation and liken us to God - the ability to speak, think and love as well as our freedom, creativity, immortality, power and other qualities. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made (Ps 139:14)! All the personal properties acquire their true worth only in relation to God, in relation to our striving towards God's likeness. That is why when we view the nature of man we must overcome the ontological propensity to sin in our being. By contrast, viewing the man from within his fallen nature leads to ever more aberration. It is sufficient to remember the recent advances in gene engineering, the appearance of new bio-technologies such as fetal therapy, conception in vitro, cloning, xenotransplantology (transplantology across species) and the like.
Apart from the concept of man's nature, another very important issue is our own attitude towards nature, which has also been immensely "darwinised" in the present time. The notion of ecology itself is anti-Christian, because it misconstrues the core of the problem: the reason of the contemporary ecological crisis is seen by ecologists in the unwise industrial activities. That is, they exchange the true reason of the crisis for its manifestation, its consequence. The actual reason of all natural catastrophes, illnesses, sufferings and death is, however, our sin before God: Against thee, thee only, have I sinned (Ps 49:4). Man as such is not an obstacle to the existence of nature. Sin lead to the spreading of evil from man to the animal world and all creation: For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God (Rom 8:20-21). St John The Chrisostom explains: "What does it mean: was made subject to vanity? - It was made corruptible. What for and why? - It is your fault, man. Because you got a deadly body subject to sufferings, the Earth has also been cursed" [17]. The Earth itself has been changed. "According to the Revelation, the Earth is irritated by the lawlessness which is done on it, - writes Deacon Daniel Sysoyev, - This happens not because our planet is a god or a personality (as occultists say), but because on the third day of creation divine not-made ideas were put in it which give the Earth fertility and control its being. They come from the inconceivable entity of God. This is why every crime and sin is inevitably reflected on our planet." [18]. Therefore the salvation, preservation and healing of nature is only possible after the healing of master of this world, man, who being unworthy has lost his ability and power to govern it. The world was created for us, not the other way around. Every creature exists, according to the Holy Fathers, to serve man. And since the Lord sent the flood onto the ancient and depraved world, is it not clear that attempts to improve the ecological situation on Earth using only the rational scientific approach without thinking of the rebirth of man in Christ are futile? If he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly (2 Pet 2:4-6). The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law (Dt 29:29). This phrase shows that it is only the fulfillment of the law, a revealed thing that belongs to us, whereas the salvation of this world, a secret thing, is up to the Lord.
To create an earthly paradise is impossible. We cannot avoid the end of the world and no one is able to save it: the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men (2 Pet 3:7). The transfiguration of man and the world is only possible by acquiring God's grace and overcoming our fallen nature: The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished (2 Pet 2:9); the Lord knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish (Ps 1:6).

you havent changed your mind at all have you?

i have! i'm accepting evolution as part of God's plan, though i would deem it unlikely. that's a GIGANTIC step!!! :D

I stop clapping at you Dragon's Bay.

You are going back to the friggin book written BY MEN. No men has ever talked to god himself. How can they say that those are his words? Jesus? He was just a man. A normal person, derived from evolution, like the rest of us. His father humped his mother. Or maybe he didn't. Maybe it was another guy. And Joseph, the sucker, thought: "Dear Jehovah! Mary had a child without me touching her! IT IS GOD'S CHILD!"

Hahaha.

What is your concept of mythology, Bay? Why do you think that the bible is real? It's a collection of myths from other cultures with real stories added.
Big deal. The Illiad is a story about the war of Troy, that really happened. Does this mean that Zeus is in mount Olympus amongst the other gods?

I'll tell you something you might want to hear: The "flood" really happened, or at least it is very likely it happened. 11000 to 12000 years ago, with the end of the last ice age, the melting of the ice caps originated floods, sometimes even quick floods, that made the waters of all oceans rise dozens of meters. These floods made the earth lose about 2 million of square miles (if I remember correctly) of land, all around the globe. It is hypothisized that Atlantis was flooded this way. And that it was located near the actual islands of Malta (They were much bigger before).

But these floods don't make me believe one bit more in the bible.

As for animals not having a soul... Hahahaha. There are chimpanzees and many other animals like dogs that are hundreds of times nicer than some people. They care for their own and for those that respect them. My dogs are afraid of hurting people. My bitch (female dog), is a big dog and she has tremendous power. If she stands and puts her paws against you you'll fall if you aren't careful. But she doesn't do that often because she knows it might hurt us. She also like to grab people by the arm (with her teeth), so we play with her, but she has a lot of strengh and sometimes she hurts us. We just have to say Ouch and she will let go of the arm that second. Why? Because she knows we are hurt. She feels that we don't like being hurt, because she doesn't like being hurt either. She has empathy.
And some humans don't. Those that do anything for money, even hurt people, start wars, mess up nature, etc, without feeling a hint of remorse.
My grandma, who goes to church, had to stay with my dog (poodle-like, not gay though) for a weekend, and she told me that she was feeling sad and that my dog felt it and went to her (to make her happy, like dogs normally do to people).
If all people were like these "soulless" animals, we would be much better...


Don't be a sheep. Stray off the herd and find your own green pastures.

Having a soul does not mean having certain emotional traits. A soul is man and womans link to the spiritual world. :)

Lords Mansion, I don't care about your Bible's bullshaite. It was written by PEOPLE. People that didn't know shaite about science.


As for those stupid philosophers (philo = lover, sophos = knowledge) ... Damn them and their love of knowledge. Knowledge sucks. It corruuuuupts people (Tele evangelist voice).

If you could see the clear picture Science and Religion work together. Just most people today feel that they need to act like rebels. Anyways to you they are just people, for me they were divinely driven to write these books. :P

As I see that you did not properly define Philosophy which derives from two separate Greek words. 'Philo' a love, be a friend to 'sophy' from the word Sophia meaning Wisdom. 'A love for wisdom' :P

i stand by my own viewpoint and represent nobody else. objectively, whether they were myths is not for you to say because you haven't witnessed them. subjectively, sure, because religion is subjective. i am being subjective. i believe them. they were facts. even if they weren't, they wouldn't put a dent into God's teachings. The Tower of Babel teaches not to become too proud of ourselves. Mary and Joseph, though they knew they were going to give birth to God's Son, adhered to the pagan emperor's decree to be taxed, which teaches us to be humble and obey the governments of our world. The creation of the entire Universe in six days teach us the greatness of God. You may be right about exaggerations in the Bible's text, but certainly the teachings stay, and the teachings I am concerned about.

Exactly! Whether the events were real or not makes no difference to the religious message. Allegory and symbolism is central to all religions. What I don't understand is why an intelligent individual in the 21st century would think that the creation myth(s) in the Bible should be viewed as actually, literally, physically true, when vast quantities of basic science -- the same science that heats and lights your home, that supports the infrastructure of your society in a myriad of ways, that is making this conversation possible -- says that the earth is billions of years old and that humanity is a very recent arrival.

The religion of Genesis is that of a tribe of desert shepherds from the late Bronze Age/early Iron Age. They thought they were living on a flat earth under a dome of sky with their God on the other side. Like every other culture that's ever existed they invented stories about where they, and everything else, came from. But it is surely eccentric in the extreme for 21st-century people to adhere rigidly to these myths. And they ARE myths: just like the Babylonian myths, or the Egyptian myths, or the myths of the Sioux, or the Aztecs, or the thousands of other cultures both here and gone.

still, saying that evolution happened so much by chance defies the planning power of God. saying that evolution MIGHT have occurred but strictly by God's plan is acceptable. it doesn't matter how He created the world, as long as He did it. you might like to see it as a softening of my position, but i must insist that life was created by God's plan, not some spontaneously reaction which relies so heavily on chance.

"God's plan" denies free will, does it not? If everything happens according to "God's plan", then the words I'm typing now originate in the mind of God. Essentially, this is God talking to you. For heaven's sake, how often are we told that God "surpasseth all understanding"? Innocents die, and we are told, "Ah, have faith: all is for the best." But we're supposed to be able to clearly see the practical and understandable working of God in geology and the fossil record? Why this insistence on a completely humanly comprehensible God in the creation, and a similarly fervent insistence on the idea that we can't possibly understand anything he does?

Divinely chosen to write the books? Hahaha. Did god whisper behind their ear?

Stop believing in fairy tales. You are probably old enough already.


And as for philosophy. Fine, wisdom. In Portugal it's translated as knowledge.

I'll rephrase:

As for those stupid philosophers (philo = lover, sophos = wisdom) ... Damn them and their love of wisdom. Wisdom that isn't in the bible sucks. It corruuuuupts people (moron televangelist voice).

the thing that disturbs me is: god is supposed to be all powerful, yet he only has one answer... e.g.

Adam and Eve are naughty... he makes them 'mortal', so they will die.
People are naughty... he kills everyone, by big buckets of water.
People in sodom and gomorrah are naughty... he kills them all with nuclear weapons.
The whole world needs a saviour, so he sends down his son, and, yep, you guessed it... the world can't be forgiven unless HE dies, too.

Come on, he created the world, but he can't think of any other way to stop sin than by mass executions?


I want you to think about one thing: I was naughty - so he killed his son. You were naughty - so he killed his son.

This is the point: for sin to be forgiven there had to be a sacrifice. Before the new convenant (also know as new testament) the sacrifice was a perfect lamb. After that, Jesus became the sacrifice so that you and me can have a relationship with Him. That is afterall why he created Adam and Eve becuase he wanted someone to love Him by their choice.

I still mess up everyday almost but God loves me so I am still alive. Before Jesus died on the cross the only people that could have a relationship with God were priests, now (thanks to the death of Jesus) I can talk with him personally. SO you see he didn't kill his son becuase the world was naughty - Jesus died so that I could live eternally.

I apologize if this offendes anyone, I just had to say something. If you want, you can email me at JemperLynn@cs.com.

Those of you who say that God is not a necessity...Forget about all the ideas that Christianity proposes...forget about all the things you have learned about the God and religions....I advise you to just look at the mirror...concentrate at your own eyes for a minute....and think....if you still can not see the God, nobody can make you see it... :)

Just another point to the above quote from Grave. You are forgetting God's attributes. He is just, which means that there must be a consequence for sin. If you break a law in today's society, there is a consequence. God wouldn't be God if he allowed us to sin without consequence. That said, don't misunderstand me and say that God punishes us for every little mistake we make. There are natural consequences put in place simply by the physical laws of this world.

I want you to think about one thing: I was naughty - so he killed his son. You were naughty - so he killed his son.

This is the point: for sin to be forgiven there had to be a sacrifice. Before the new convenant (also know as new testament) the sacrifice was a perfect lamb. After that, Jesus became the sacrifice so that you and me can have a relationship with Him. That is afterall why he created Adam and Eve becuase he wanted someone to love Him by their choice.

I still mess up everyday almost but God loves me so I am still alive. Before Jesus died on the cross the only people that could have a relationship with God were priests, now (thanks to the death of Jesus) I can talk with him personally. SO you see he didn't kill his son becuase the world was naughty - Jesus died so that I could live eternally.

I apologize if this offendes anyone, I just had to say something. If you want, you can email me at JemperLynn@cs.com.

Are you immortal or are you referring to your soul?
Anyway, if god exists, do you think he forgives believing murderers, child abusers (many times priests), war-waging capitalists, etc, just as he forgives those like me that avoid stepping on the most miserable plants unless it can't be avoided?

What kind of god is that? God is blind, hurray for God. I want my space in heaven right next to the belgian guy that violated and killed those two girls.

Before Jesus died on the cross the only people that could have a relationship with God were priests, now (thanks to the death of Jesus) I can talk with him personally. SO you see he didn't kill his son becuase the world was naughty - Jesus died so that I could live eternally.

Although it could be argued that people still depended on priests for a relationship with God until Martin Luther did his stunt with the 95 theses in Wittenberg in 1517; up until then God only spoke Latin. And it could be further argued that Luther did a pretty sharp about-face when he saw what these "personal relationships with God" really meant: independent thought, liberty, equality, freedom. Dear me no.

And I still can't get over the idea that it's not much of a sacrifice to send your own son to "die" when you know he's just going to come back to life again.

Those of you who say that God is not a necessity...Forget about all the ideas that Christianity proposes...forget about all the things you have learned about the God and religions....I advise you to just look at the mirror...concentrate at your own eyes for a minute....and think....if you still can not see the God, nobody can make you see it... :)

To diverge from all the philosophy of my earlier posts, let me just tell you that when I look in a mirror I get one of several feelings:
o I need a shave.
o My hair is a mess.
o I must get around to making that animatronic head I've been meaning to get around to constructing from the servos and bits of metal I've been collecting over the last few months. I need to get some eyeballs first, though.
o Urgh! All blurry! Where did I leave my glasses?

But that's me. I recognise 'self' in a mirror, and I often wonder how vampires shave, I'm obviously not suited to a life devoted by faith. :)

Oh, and in response to Jeldred, would you find it easy to see your son die in the worst way invented yet? Would you like to see him do it for a speck of dust? Would you like to be separated from him for the first time in eternity? Would you be able to say, "Oh, he'll be back in a few days." Have you even grasped the enormous injustice of this single act? Would your pain be less?

Just another point to the above quote from Grave. You are forgetting God's attributes. He is just, which means that there must be a consequence for sin. If you break a law in today's society, there is a consequence. God wouldn't be God if he allowed us to sin without consequence. That said, don't misunderstand me and say that God punishes us for every little mistake we make. There are natural consequences put in place simply by the physical laws of this world.

"God is just": hmm. He creates two beings, Adam and Eve, but doesn't give them any knowledge of right and wrong. Fair enough. He then tells them not to eat the fruit of such-and-such a tree: also fair enough. They disobey him, and eat the fruit -- but, since they had no knowledge of right and wrong, can you really hold them responsible? He told them not to, but they didn't know that doing something they were told not to was wrong, do you get me? God goes ballistic and curses them and all their descendants to such a degree it requires the human sacrifice of his own son, some 4000 years after the Original Sin, to even get humanity back to square one in his estimation. Are you sure he's just?

A God of infinite and universal love is an idea I can go along with. I don't believe it, but it's a happy sort of thought. A God -- a Supreme Being, mark you -- that doles out punishments up to and including eternal punishment is not worthy of my or anybody else's worship. What could possibly be bad enough to merit eternal punishment? Such a creature is not a Supreme Being, it's just a rabid monster.

God Created the Universe...Evolution has been proven false so many times..i guess thats why they keep on changing how old the earth is ..how many more billions will evolutionists add each time they are proven wrong? if the world was billions, even just millions of years old imagine how the environment would be? it wouldnt be..
as for the Bible, it hasnt been proven false in any way, to believe it tho requires faith. if only Columbus had read the Bible and believed it he wouldnt have had to go around the world to figure it wasnt a block...or flat for that matter..

I would also like to establish this clearly now. Evolution is not scientific. It is a theory like everything else that cannot be proven. It is absurd to say the scientific method can be applied to events that supposedly happened billions of years ago.
Just so we're on equal ground here.

Are you immortal or are you referring to your soul?.
Yes, My soul will live forever, but this mortal body will still die.

Anyway, if god exists, do you think he forgives believing murderers, child abusers (many times priests), war-waging capitalists, etc, just as he forgives those like me that avoid stepping on the most miserable plants unless it can't be avoided?

What kind of god is that? God is blind, hurray for God. I want my space in heaven right next to the belgian guy that violated and killed those two girls.

Yes he forgives anyone who believes and has accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior. HOWEVER, do I still believe that these people should pay the price for what they have done.

A little story I heard one day:

A very inteligent scientist went to God one day and said "We have done it" We have figured out how to create everything ourselves. We can even create a living person. We don't need you anymore." God said, "I knew that I created you with intelligence. Let me see what you have learned." The man reached down and picked up some dirt and started over to a lab table. God said, "wait, you can't use that. I created it."

My point being: nothing can be produced if there is nothing to create it with. It had to start somewhere. You say that our universe was created by black holes. Where did the black holes come from.

The one thing that scientists have a problem with about creation is this: you simply have to believe.

Oh, and in response to Jeldred, would you find it easy to see your son die in the worst way invented yet? Would you like to see him do it for a speck of dust? Would you like to be separated from him for the first time in eternity? Would you be able to say, "Oh, he'll be back in a few days." Have you even grasped the enormous injustice of this single act? Would your pain be less?

Since in this instance, "my son" is another aspect of myself -- God the father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost, three in one -- and therefore the Supreme Being too, I can't imagine it was really much of a big deal. It's a flawed plot point. It would make a much better story if Jesus didn't know that he was God -- but since the Bible never says that he is, and since Jesus was only elected divine by a majority vote at the Council of Nicaea in 325AD, it's probable that the original story has been somewhat mucked up by all the editing, revision and translation.

But that's me. I recognise 'self' in a mirror, and I often wonder how vampires shave, I'm obviously not suited to a life devoted by faith. :)[/QUOTE]

I do not expect a calculator to perform as a NASA computer...That is why I said only YOU can/can not see the God. Nobody else can make you see it. If you even look carefully to your "self", you can realize that you are not infact a "self" :)) Think about it....all people, animals, etc. We are all unique notes in an endless harmony....

And I still can't get over the idea that it's not much of a sacrifice to send your own son to "die" when you know he's just going to come back to life again.

Did you know that God had to look away from his Son when Jesus died. (the earth going black) Besides (this may get deep) I believe in the Trinity. God himself cam down to earth and bore MY sins and died on the cross so that I would live. Do you know how people that are crucified die? They sufficate. When a person is crucified they have to pull up on the nails that are through their wrists and push up on the nail at their feet to get a breath. It is long and VERY PAINFUL. Could you die like that so that your son or daughter could live? What about someone who will be born on March 12th, one thousand nine hundred and eighty three years later?

I would also like to establish this clearly now. Evolution is not scientific. It is a theory like everything else that cannot be proven. It is absurd to say the scientific method can be applied to events that supposedly happened billions of years ago.
Just so we're on equal ground here.

You're right, it can't be proven -- although you can apply the scientific method to the evidence at hand. And there's a damn sight more evidence for evolution over billions of years than there is for any of the world's myriad creation myths.

In fact the problem is not whether you believe in God or not...it is that whether God believes in you or not :)

An evolution vs. creation debate is ridiculous. It alwas consists of Bible thumpers and People that think they know everything. But the fact is, we don't know everything. We weren't around when the universe popped into existence or when life on Earth showed up. To claim we know how it all went down is foolish, if not more than a bit arrogant.

I am going to submit a theory of mine to you: the universe has no beginning nor has it an end. This doesn't mean there is a god, and it doesn't mean there isn't one, either. With no beggining or end, the universe is an endless cycle, rhythmically growing and shrinking. Here's how it goes:

Big Bang -> growth -> slowdown -> contraction -> Big Crunch -> Big Bang -> etc

This results in where we are now, with an infinite number of universal configurations behind and ahead of us. God has no place in this cycle, but may still exist. We simply don't need to account for him.

Life on Earth is perhaps a big more enigmatic, as we, despite living on it, would need to observe earth from a third person for many million of years, starting when it formed. This is, obviously, quite impossible. My suggestion until then is that we locate another Earthlike planet and observe that. Until that time, we should stop acting like we know the answer.

OK, Jeldred. Adam and Eve DID have a sense of right and wrong. They knew that to disobey God was wrong, which is proven by their guilt immediately afterwords.
You bring up an interesting point in the comment on Eternal Punishment. However, you must realize that since God is just, and Holy, he cannot stand to have anything impure in his presence. There are several places in the Bible where people die simply from touching the Ark of the Covenant. Heaven is a constant state of fellowship in God's presence. You cannot have sin, no matter how small, to withstand that. In addition, when you sin, you disobey God, which is essentially saying that "I don't need you." When God has made the supreme sacrifice so that you can live with him for eternity, and you deny his very existence, spit in his face even, what do you think happens? Again, he is just, so he provided a way for Heaven. You can accept it, or deny it. That is your choice.

Did you know that God had to look away from his Son when Jesus died. (the earth going black) Besides (this may get deep) I believe in the Trinity. God himself cam down to earth and bore MY sins and died on the cross so that I would live. Do you know how people that are crucified die? They sufficate. When a person is crucified they have to pull up on the nails that are through their wrists and push up on the nail at their feet to get a breath. It is long and VERY PAINFUL. Could you die like that so that your son or daughter could live? What about someone who will be born on March 12th, one thousand nine hundred and eighty three years later?

If you are the SUPREME BEING, I don't think anything can really be said to be VERY PAINFUL. Crucifxion: nasty for people -- although there are worse and more painful ways to die -- but really a bit of a doddle for the Lord of All Creation, He who set the stars and divided the earth from the waters and all that jazz.

By the way...Jesus has not been crusified....all Christian idealogy is based on a totaly wrong belief...The man on the cross is the betrayer, not Jesus...God saved Jesus and took him to heaven while converting the face of the betrayer as the Jesus' face... Roman soldiers captured the betrayer, and thinking that he was Jesus they crusified him....

OK, Jeldred. Adam and Eve DID have a sense of right and wrong. They knew that to disobey God was wrong, which is proven by their guilt immediately afterwords.

No. They were guilty afterwards because they had just eaten the apple of the Tree of Knowledge, which let them know that eating that said apple was wrong. 20/20 moral hindsight. But when they ate the apple, they didn't know that disobeying God was wrong. Therefore, it was unjust to punish someone for doing something which they didn't know was wrong.

You bring up an interesting point in the comment on Eternal Punishment. However, you must realize that since God is just, and Holy, he cannot stand to have anything impure in his presence. There are several places in the Bible where people die simply from touching the Ark of the Covenant. Heaven is a constant state of fellowship in God's presence. You cannot have sin, no matter how small, to withstand that. In addition, when you sin, you disobey God, which is essentially saying that "I don't need you." When God has made the supreme sacrifice so that you can live with him for eternity, and you deny his very existence, spit in his face even, what do you think happens? Again, he is just, so he provided a way for Heaven. You can accept it, or deny it. That is your choice.

God can do anything he wants: he is all-powerful, is he not? If he's going to use that ultimate power to torture his fallible creations, he can stuff it. I demand a higher standard of behaviour from a Supreme Being.

Retired Bankers, what are you talking about? I haven't heard any sort of theory that says that anywhere.

Big Bang -> growth -> slowdown -> contraction -> Big Crunch -> Big Bang -> etc



probably wont happen. The universe is thought at the moment to not have enough mass in it to start a contraction to an eventual big crunch. Besides if your model did go on for ever, the laws of entropy would need rather a lot of work.

If you are the SUPREME BEING, I don't think anything can really be said to be VERY PAINFUL. Crucifxion: nasty for people -- although there are worse and more painful ways to die -- but really a bit of a doddle for the Lord of All Creation, He who set the stars and divided the earth from the waters and all that jazz.

I Totally disagree. God was still A HUMAN, things hurt him. If they did not then why did Jesus cry? The bible says that he could have called angels from heaven to rescue him. But he didn't. Do you that it says that blood and water ran out of his side? Do you know that they have proven that the only reason for that to happen was his heart had to be broken. I mean his heart to be in literally two pieces.

So what if he didn't hurt. HE STILL DIED SO THAT I MAY HAVE LIFE AFTER DEATH AND HAVE REAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE GOD THAT CREATED ME AND THE HEAVENS AND THE STARS - AND ALL THAT JAZZ!

Jeldred, who are you to demand anything of supreme being? Do you realize how infinitely miniscule each and every one of us is? Why should it matter what you believe or not? We live in a society where we like to think that everyone has a voice, but the fact is, that when it comes to God, we don't even deserve a voice. You seem very idealistic to be so presumptuous. It doesn't matter if you believe gravity is there or not, it is, so if you jump off the Empire State Building, you go SPLAT.

I Totally disagree. God was still A HUMAN, things hurt him. If they did not then why did Jesus cry? The bible says that he could have called angels from heaven to rescue him. But he didn't. Do you that it says that blood and water ran out of his side? Do you know that they have proven that the only reason for that to happen was his heart had to be broken. I mean his heart to be in literally two pieces.


Jeez where do you get your facts from? Blood gradually serperates into 2 seperately coluoured substances after someone dies and isnt moved. It has nothing to do with a heart breaking.

Jeez where do you get your facts from? Blood gradually serperates into 2 seperately coluoured substances after someone dies and isnt moved. It has nothing to do with a heart breaking.
Gradually is the key word, it doesn't happen instantly.

Gradually is the key word, it doesn't happen instantly.

Yes i know, thats why i said it, whats your point?

I Totally disagree. God was still A HUMAN, things hurt him. If they did not then why did Jesus cry? The bible says that he could have called angels from heaven to rescue him. But he didn't. Do you that it says that blood and water ran out of his side? Do you know that they have proven that the only reason for that to happen was his heart had to be broken. I mean his heart to be in literally two pieces.

So what if he didn't hurt. HE STILL DIED SO THAT I MAY HAVE LIFE AFTER DEATH AND HAVE REAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE GOD THAT CREATED ME AND THE HEAVENS AND THE STARS - AND ALL THAT JAZZ!

Well... I would suggest that he cried and felt pain because he wasn't a god, he was an out-of-town rabbi who stirred up the population of Jerusalem a bit and was got rid of by the temple hierarchy and the Romans -- which makes his suffering genuine. I know that the story says that blood and water ran out of his side after he was pierced by the spear of Longinus, but I can't think of any way "water" would be produced by a literally breaking heart. A punctured bladder seems a more likely diagnosis. Also, if his heart literally broke into two pieces, how did he manage to last nine hours? Unless he was god -- in which case the validity of his suffering is somewhat diminished. It's a bit like me falling over clutching my chest when a child shouts "Bang! Bang! You're dead!"

probably wont happen. The universe is thought at the moment to not have enough mass in it to start a contraction to an eventual big crunch. Besides if your model did go on for ever, the laws of entropy would need rather a lot of work.
Well, I never claimed to be a physicist! :D I merely used it as a possible example of a universe that doesn't require a binary god/no god decision. There can be a god, he just doesn't need to be involved in the beginning of the universe. This seems to be a major, and false, argument for the creationist side.

On the evolutionist side, they have a nice theory. It is simply very logical to conclude that primitive life forms give way to more advanced ones over time. It still doesn't explain the origin of life on Earth, though, and people seem to think that it does.

God Created the Universe...Evolution has been proven false so many times..i guess thats why they keep on changing how old the earth is ..how many more billions will evolutionists add each time they are proven wrong? if the world was billions, even just millions of years old imagine how the environment would be? it wouldnt be..
as for the Bible, it hasnt been proven false in any way, to believe it tho requires faith. if only Columbus had read the Bible and believed it he wouldnt have had to go around the world to figure it wasnt a block...or flat for that matter..

That "God Create the Universe" is a belief that has yet to be proven to me. Sorry. You and many others believe it is so, and I respect that. I and many others aren't sure about it, please resepect that. There's a huge crowd out there that believe it is patently false, and never mind all the other believers of alternate religious faiths who believe subtely or vastly different creation stories. Respect due to all of them. Someone is right, and as a "not sure", I can only be sure that it isn't me, as I do not have an opinion. I'm fairly confident there was a Big Bang of some kind, from what I have learnt, and tend to think it was the colllision of two higher-dimensional membranes that kick-started this 4- (or is it 10-?) dimensional world. There's room for a God in there somewhere, but He may not be necessary.

That Evolution exists has been proven to me, and many others. (Perhaps it is best said that Evolution has been reasonably justified as a possibility with a level of accompanying proof that does /not/ exist in the "God Create the Universe" argument.) I'm sorry, but I can't accept the 'proven false' bit. There have been (and may still be) minor errors in the 'proven true' bits that mean the age of the Earth (which has actually only a peripheral effect upon Evolution) is still to be accurately determined, but that's the Scientific Process for you and there's nothing that truly disproves the whole idea, merely sheds doubt on minor points of timescale.

I won't go into the "Bible has never been proven false" bit. Apart from anything else, it suffers from differing interpretations by the (imperfect) people that read it who sometimes (and unfortunately) treat the matter as "The Bible is true, let's work out how we can possibly understand the physical evidence so that it agrees with the Bible" most of the time. And a person who does not believe the Bible to be the ultimate truth (and there are a lot of us) can't be convinced by self-referential statements of "the Bible says it is true". You need other sources to back it up, or somehow resolve all the self-contradictory parts.

Not sure where Columbus fits into this process. Are you saying he should not have crossed the Atlantic? (Also note that he did not go around the world, as in circumnavigate, that was Magellan and various others.) And while some interpretations do allow statements in the Bible to show the world to be spherical, there are some statements that require that a person on a high mountain can see all the world. (And you don't need to be on top of a mountain to do that if you are looking at the world from a higher dimension, unless "a mountain" is supposed to mean "a higher dimension", in which case it's another matter for interpretation.)

Actually, Evolution is not so logical as people like to think. Look at the world today. EVERYTHING is degenerating, breaking down. I would also like to ask a question. How many observed mutations in favor of evolution have actually created a NEW element, a new gene? This would be necessary for species to become more complex. Unless something new has been created during this mutation, all you have done is use pre-existing building blocks to make this "evolution." In fact, natural selection seems to agree with many Creationist's interpretation of the origin. God made every type of animal, probably dog-kind, cat-kind, cow-kind, etc. Contained in every animal would be the genes necessary for adaptation. Natural selection then breeds animals in certain areas for certain traits, and different traits in different areas.

Jeldred, who are you to demand anything of supreme being? Do you realize how infinitely miniscule each and every one of us is? Why should it matter what you believe or not? We live in a society where we like to think that everyone has a voice, but the fact is, that when it comes to God, we don't even deserve a voice. You seem very idealistic to be so presumptuous. It doesn't matter if you believe gravity is there or not, it is, so if you jump off the Empire State Building, you go SPLAT.

Exactly. Any Supreme Being would be so far above and beyond any of us that to try to stick it down to the somewhat unimaginative stories concocted by, to be blunt, pig-ignorant desert yokels some 3,000 years ago seems a trifle daft to me. Further, how could an infinitely powerful, infinitely good Supreme Being condemn other, lesser creatures to eternal punishment. I wouldn't. I think the idea is repulsive. There are plently of human beings who are able to forgive the most shocking brutalities and tortures: I don't see how simple, pitiful humans could be more forgiving and less unpleasant than the Supreme Being.

You can believe in whatever you like. It still doesn't change my opinion that a God who makes and uses a Hell deserves to be stuck there himself. But since -- also in my opinion -- this is all imaginary anyway, it really doesn't matter. I'm just puzzled by the way people cling to inconsistent and illogical stories, and indeed to this or that particular set of inconsistent and illogical stories. There are thousands of variations on a theme to choose from: why nail your spiritual colours to this or that particular mast?