NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, I'm going to speak my mind.

Evolutionists say:

Evolution, a process that has never been observed, happened. When there was nothing, an explosion created the universe. All life comes from a lower form of life, survival is to the fittest. All things living came from all things not living. The earth began 600 billion years ago. Man came from fish.

Correct me if I am wrong, but is the above not correct for the most part? Please, tell me if I missed something.

Creationists (Christians) say:

God has always existed and will always exist. He created the universe and man, about 10,000 years ago. Throughout about 4000 years, great men wrote in The Bible of the acts of God and His prophets. At 0 A.D. Jesus, God's Son, was born into the world to save our souls, our spirits, the part of us that speaks to us, known as a conscience, from eternal damnation in Hell. He died a horrible death on the Cross to save us forever.

Ok, now that I've pretty much gotten both theories down...

Sure, you could say neither is proven, and all are THEORIES. That is true. Through the scientific method, neither God or evolution has been seen and observed. Now, I could debate for YEARS different facts and observations, but that would get me no where with a hardened Atheist (ok, evolutionist). But consider, if you will, the impacts of the BANNING OF SCHOOL PRAYER. To quote a favorite musician of mine:
"The ball got dropped in '62
They wouldn't let children pray in school
Violent crime began to rise
The grades went down, and the kids got high

Free love, gay rights, no absolutes,
Abortion on demand,
Brought VD, AIDS and no morality..."

And it keeps going, if you want me to (GASP!) type the (PANT!) whole (CHOKE!) thing I guess I (WHEEEEZEEEE!) will...

Anyways. Evolution gives man NO REASON for life, NO REASON to live. If all there is is you and the world, and when you die thats it, things just go black, what hope is there, what point is there, to living?
Now, I don't spend 24 hours a day reading The Bible, or debating evolutionists, or praying. But consider if you will, the aspects of Christianity (and yes, I will call it that, not Creationism) as apposed to evolution.
When faced at work with a chance to ruin someone's life in the attempt to make your own better, what would you do?
A Christian would, of course, not do that. He would stay where he is in his career and not think twice about it.
Certain Atheists would take advantage of the situation. Survival of the fittest, right? This person shouldn't of messed up, or should've covered his tracks, or should've done better, right? Besides, you might even do better in his place! And if the man and his family are reduced to a poor house or begging, who cares? He should've watched what he was doing.

If you want, I will continue, but I wanna stop here and debate what I have already said.

Now, now. What does the bible say about lieing?

"Thou shalt not lie."
But I did not lie and have no intention of doing so.
Now if someone would please attempt to debate their theory, instead of using this standard sarcasm, please go ahead.

Edit: AND! You spelt lying wrong.

I thought from the title that this would be an intelligent debate about Creation vs. Evolution, but instead I find nothing more than Atheist bashing. I guess I had my hopes set too high.

Anyways, how about something on topic? Here goes. Please, do not project your beliefs onto other Christians. I am a Christian, but I believe in evolution. And yes, that is possible to do without being a hypocrite, and there are many ways of explaining away the differences between the Bible and the Theory of Evolution. Not all Christians believe that the World was formed 10,000 years ago, just like not all Christians believe that Atheists are bad people. That is all.

Ok, you want intellegence.

I did not, anywhere say that MY WAYS ARE THE ONLY WAYS! Nor did I say Athiests/Evolutionists are evil/bad/wrong.

And I am not interested in debating other Christians. You believe in God and Jesus, as far as I know, and I do too. Too many Christians (and Atheists for that matter) bicker amongst themselves. In both cases, The Lord's words are true: "A house divided will not stand...".

I was not attempting to offend or persuade anyone. I simply wanted to use my freedom of expression and freedom of speech and debate. Now, if you or anyone else want to deny me or anyone else of our rights, go ahead. The country was founded on freedom and religion, so why not get rid of both of them at the same time?!

God and evolution are not incompatable.
The New Story of the Cosmos tells us that God started THIS universe with the Big-Bang 13 billions years ago, set up the rules and has been in and of all of the on-going Creation. To separate Creation and Evolution is to belittle God's infinite presence and, if you must, Power. Creationism is a story about human domination of God's creation to the glory of humans, not God or Creation, This in turn leads to the domination of most humans by those who wrote their interpretation of God's Word.

Quick question, Teotwawki, are you a Christian?

Hey, guys, something I just wanted to point out: Darwin was a Creationist.

Say what?

"Thou shalt not lie."
But I did not lie and have no intention of doing so.
Now if someone would please attempt to debate their theory, instead of using this standard sarcasm, please go ahead.

Edit: AND! You spelt lying wrong.I apologize for misspelling. English is not my first language.

I just was upset when reading the following:

Evolution, a process that has never been observed, happened. When there was nothing, an explosion created the universe. All life comes from a lower form of life, survival is to the fittest. All things living came from all things not living. The earth began 600 billion years ago. Man came from fish.

First, Evolutionary mechanisms has been observed again, again and again. Second, neither the big bang nor abiogenesis is covered by evolutionary theory (and the earth is not 600 billion years old, it's 4.5 billion years old). Lastly, "man came from fish" is technically true, if you have a wide definition of fish, and also mention that every land animal on earth came from those fishes as well. It took a long time, though.

Ok, you want intellegence.

I did not, anywhere say that MY WAYS ARE THE ONLY WAYS! Nor did I say Athiests/Evolutionists are evil/bad/wrong.

And I am not interested in debating other Christians. You believe in God and Jesus, as far as I know, and I do too. Too many Christians (and Atheists for that matter) bicker amongst themselves. In both cases, The Lord's words are true: "A house divided will not stand...".

I was not attempting to offend or persuade anyone. I simply wanted to use my freedom of expression and freedom of speech and debate. Now, if you or anyone else want to deny me or anyone else of our rights, go ahead. The country was founded on freedom and religion, so why not get rid of both of them at the same time?!

Point number one: This country was not founded on religion. Actually, the Founding Fathers tried to keep religion out of politics to protect religion.

Point number two: You seem to be saying that you don't want responses. If you get angry any time somebody responds to your posts, then what is the point in posting on a message board in the first place? Sure, you can, but you will soon find that nobody responds to you, and at that point I expect you will complain that nobody listens to you or respects your opinions.

Point number three: You said "Christians believe." I was telling you that this statment was incorrect.

Point number four: You blame a whole lot of things on removing prayer from school, and claim that Atheists fall into the state of nature that Hobbes described (man in a state of nature will do whatever he can to further himself). That to me looks like bashing Atheists. Forgive me if I was mistaken.

ok, im new to this so bare with me.............
im both with you and not.
evolution, i will not believe untill they have proof. a friend of mine has done a study of it and came out with an interesting report disproving darwins theory. im sum1 hu believes when the facts are presented, and evolution is not fact.
however, i am definately not an athiest but i do not rely on having belief in the after life to live a good life. basically what you are saying is that the only reason there is to live is because of what comes after death. christians cheerish life, so why only live for what comes next. the purpose in life is too love and care for all of gods creation, athiests manage to live good helathy lives even when they dont believe in god. it depends how you look at things. for me, i make the most of what i have on this earth, i try to become a better person, and i look at life as a challenge to proove myself to Him you call God.
i dont think that i will ever FULLY accept any theory to lifes cretion/evolution unless it has fact behind it. i have my own beliefs, but i do not feel threatened when fact over-rides them, i look at it as a way to reassess things.
i dunno......my thoughts anyway.
BB - Varda

there's the thing this isn't one house v the other house. There is only one humanity. One house. Frankly, I find your remarks shallow and insulting, the forums are designed for open debate and telling someone their contributions are not value because they do not fall within meaningless steriotypes is a travisty to intellectual conversation.

ok, im new to this so bare with me.............
im both with you and not.
evolution, i will not believe untill they have proof. a friend of mine has done a study of it and came out with an interesting report disproving darwins theory. im sum1 hu believes when the facts are presented, and evolution is not fact.
however, i am definately not an athiest but i do not rely on having belief in the after life to live a good life. basically what you are saying is that the only reason there is to live is because of what comes after death. christians cheerish life, so why only live for what comes next. the purpose in life is too love and care for all of gods creation, athiests manage to live good helathy lives even when they dont believe in god. it depends how you look at things. for me, i make the most of what i have on this earth, i try to become a better person, and i look at life as a challenge to proove myself to Him you call God.
i dont think that i will ever FULLY accept any theory to lifes cretion/evolution unless it has fact behind it. i have my own beliefs, but i do not feel threatened when fact over-rides them, i look at it as a way to reassess things.
i dunno......my thoughts anyway.
BB - Varda
Judging by your spelling, and the relative intelligence it shows, I'd say its a good thing you don't believe in Evolution, as that would be nothing but a black mark on an otherwise reputable theory.

Judging by your spelling, and the relative intelligence it shows, I'd say its a good thing you don't believe in Evolution, as that would be nothing but a black mark on an otherwise reputable theory.Hey, that's wrong. Science isn't something for the smartest, it's for everyone. I hope he learns someday.

Quick thing to all those who believe in God and Jesus Christ, and also in evolution.

Genesis 1:5
"And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day"
King James Version

Morning and Evening, the first day. One cycle of day and night.

Genesis 1:8
"And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day"

Morning and Evening, the second day. Two cycles of day and night.

And so it continues with something along these lines until the sixth day. I am not condeming evolution or this Creation/Evolution crossbreed, but it seems to me IMHO that to say that God created the universe in 16 billion years is to ignore the Word of God. The Bible. And, in John 1:1 John states:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God

To reject The Bible is to reject Jesus. To reject Jesus is to reject God. And you can fill in the gaps about what would happen next.

That is just my opinon, and I am not insulting anyone nor incroaching (sp?) on their rights. Just executing my own.

But consider, if you will, the impacts of the BANNING OF SCHOOL PRAYER. To quote a favorite musician of mine:
"The ball got dropped in '62
They wouldn't let children pray in school
Violent crime began to rise
The grades went down, and the kids got high

Free love, gay rights, no absolutes,
Abortion on demand,
Brought VD, AIDS and no morality..."
:p

Evolution gives man NO REASON for life, NO REASON to live. If all there is is you and the world, and when you die thats it, things just go black, what hope is there, what point is there, to living?
:p:p

When faced at work with a chance to ruin someone's life in the attempt to make your own better, what would you do?
A Christian would, of course, not do that. He would stay where he is in his career and not think twice about it.
This is too much.

Certain Atheists would take advantage of the situation. Survival of the fittest, right? This person shouldn't of messed up, or should've covered his tracks, or should've done better, right? Besides, you might even do better in his place! And if the man and his family are reduced to a poor house or begging, who cares? He should've watched what he was doing.
lol.

Ok, I'm going to speak my mind.

Evolutionists say:...

Creationists (Christians) say:....

and all are THEORIES.... But consider, if you will, the impacts of the BANNING OF SCHOOL PRAYER. To quote a favorite musician of mine:
"The ball got dropped in '62
They wouldn't let children pray in school
Violent crime began to rise
The grades went down, and the kids got high

Free love, gay rights, no absolutes,
Abortion on demand,
Brought VD, AIDS and no morality..."
...

Anyways. Evolution gives man NO REASON for life, NO REASON to live.... the aspects of Christianity (and yes, I will call it that, not Creationism) as apposed to evolution.
When faced at work with a chance to ruin someone's life in the attempt to make your own better, what would you do?
A Christian would, of course, not do that. He would stay where he is in his career and not think twice about it.
Certain Atheists would take advantage of the situation. Survival of the fittest, right? .

You have managed to entangle many issues.

Your preferred stance on morality does nothing to further your position on creationism.

Morality/ethics predates Christianity by a considerable margin.

The greatest spread of VD was through (largely) Christian sailors who introduced it to the Americas and the Pacific.

Your seeking for a "reason" does not imply that one has to exist.

Some of the most horrific acts of man have been committed in the name of religion, and that remains the case today.

Please read some history before trying to decide whether religion/Christianity has been a positive or negative influence on the world.

Quick thing to all those who believe in God and Jesus Christ, and also in evolution.

Genesis 1:5
"And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day"
King James Version

Morning and Evening, the first day. One cycle of day and night.

Genesis 1:8
"And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day"

Morning and Evening, the second day. Two cycles of day and night.

And so it continues with something along these lines until the sixth day. I am not condeming evolution or this Creation/Evolution crossbreed, but it seems to me IMHO that to say that God created the universe in 16 billion years is to ignore the Word of God. The Bible. And, in John 1:1 John states:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God

To reject The Bible is to reject Jesus. To reject Jesus is to reject God. And you can fill in the gaps about what would happen next.

That is just my opinon, and I am not insulting anyone nor incroaching (sp?) on their rights. Just executing my own.What if I don't wan't to be a fundamentalist? What if I believe it's all metaphor? What happens If I'm not a christian? (I'm not, just so You know)

my friend ed brings this up in school all the time. first off, evolution is not a theory on how the universe was created, that was the big bang theory. secondly, how do we know that God (if there is one) created the universe? because some really really old book says so? and another thing, evolution can be seen through fossil records and DNA patterns.

The problem with the creationism theory is that NOTHING has ever been created all of the sudden out of no where. I myself am not sure if the world was created through evolution or a big bang, but i can guarantee you it was just wasnt created, that wouldnt make sense. I would also like to point out just because there is no afterlife doesnt mean theres no point in living, the point of living is to make yourself happy on the short period of time we have on this earth.
And theres no real connection between prayer in school, drugs, and violence. That was a popular scare tactic used by religous fanatics in order to get their way.
And before you call atheists "violent" by saying we all just want to survive lets see what religion has given us over the years...
The crusades, The inquisition, Jihads, Salem with trials, murders, death, and war for the past 2000 years in order to instill a idea or belief, but you would want to go blame violence on no prayer, gay relations, and drugs...

Quick thing to all those who believe in God and Jesus Christ, and also in evolution.

Genesis 1:5
"And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day"
King James Version

Morning and Evening, the first day. One cycle of day and night.

Genesis 1:8
"And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day"

Morning and Evening, the second day. Two cycles of day and night.

And so it continues with something along these lines until the sixth day. I am not condeming evolution or this Creation/Evolution crossbreed, but it seems to me IMHO that to say that God created the universe in 16 billion years is to ignore the Word of God. The Bible. And, in John 1:1 John states:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God

To reject The Bible is to reject Jesus. To reject Jesus is to reject God. And you can fill in the gaps about what would happen next.

That is just my opinon, and I am not insulting anyone nor incroaching (sp?) on their rights. Just executing my own.
And, as I said in my first post, I have a response for that. Two, actually. First: who is to say how long one of God's days is? God is eternal, so one of his "days" could be billions of years.
Second: There are many people who believe that Genesis 1:1 happens a long, long time before Genesis 1:2. Their explanation is that God created the Heavens and Earth in Genesis 1:1, then the war of the Angels happened, and then Genesis 1:2 and on through the Creation are actually God cleaning up Lucifer's mess on Earth.

Judging by your spelling, and the relative intelligence it shows, I'd say its a good thing you don't believe in Evolution, as that would be nothing but a black mark on an otherwise reputable theory.

Sorry, I never knew that insulting was a good way to debate. I am actually very good at science, and I apologise for my spelling, I tend to rush things when I have a lot of things i want to get out. I shall try to slow down and spell properly for you. I think i posted fairly, i was not meaning with anything i said to ofend or criticise anybodies point of view - i was simply expressing my thoughts on the matter. I said i did not believe in Darwins theory of evolution, not evolution in general, although evidence would help. I do believe in adaption, and am ready to be swayed over to evolutionary views if you can come up with a good argument, rather than insults.
BB - Varda

Like I have said I mean no offence to ANYONE. Except Chodoloidiot there... so if i may..
Chodolo.. SHEDDDUPPP!!!
Now! :)

Consider something real quick (so I keep saying real quick. Sorry).
Human conscienceness. Does anyone watch star trek? Nemesis the movie? In one scene, Data, the android, is speaking to the captain about some word meaning "more than the sum of it's parts". He said Human Conscienceness is not explained scientifically, therefore it is (insert strange word here).

If you think about anything you've done in your life that you regret, anything at all, then that is what some people call your conscience. A question for evolutionists about their theory. At what point can something be said to have a conscience? Do animals like bears, and other things which survive solely on the food of other things, care whether or not they are moral? How many more millions of years until I can sit across a dining room table with a bear and ask him about the quality of my steak? :p

The problem with the creationism theory is that NOTHING has ever been created all of the sudden out of no where. I myself am not sure if the world was created through evolution or a big bang, but i can guarantee you it was just wasnt created, that wouldnt make sense. I would also like to point out just because there is no afterlife doesnt mean theres no point in living, the point of living is to make yourself happy on the short period of time we have on this earth.
And theres no real connection between prayer in school, drugs, and violence. That was a popular scare tactic used by religous fanatics in order to get their way.
And before you call atheists "violent" by saying we all just want to survive lets see what religion has given us over the years...
The crusades, The inquisition, Jihads, Salem with trials, murders, death, and war for the past 2000 years in order to instill a idea or belief, but you would want to go blame violence on no prayer, gay relations, and drugs...


I want to add to this..............
FACT: If the majority of the had been Pagan instead of Christian for the last 2000 years, we wouldn't have as many environmental problems etc. as we do now. I'm not saying we wouldn't have any - it's human nature, there will always be some. Pagan can be viewed as different to athiests, depending upon which deffinition you look at, but it's basically still the same, it gets you nowhere bashing other peoples views, they will just bash yours straight back.
BB - Varda

Here's something to chew on:

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

I am a christian, but I believe in micro-evolution (organisms can undergo minute changes over time--for example, humans are taller now than they were a hundred years ago, or the iguanas on the Galapagos adapting to an aquatic life). However, I do not believe that such changes can take place on a large scale (macro-evolution).

There is one flaw in the theory of evolution: an incomplete fossil record. If macro-evolution had taken place, then should we not have hundreds of sort of "flip book" of fossils from one species to the next?

By the way, Darwin was somewhat of a theist, but most likely was not a christian. He did not intend to challenge religion when writing The Origin of Species, nor did he even think that the religous authority would be opposed to his theories--it was later scientists who expanded on the theory of evolution who used it as an alternative to creationism.

Quick thing to all those who believe in God and Jesus Christ, and also in evolution.

Christ, why do you curse me so? What have I ever done to you to deserve these people?

Genesis 1:5
"And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day"
King James Version

Morning and Evening, the first day. One cycle of day and night.

How long is a day in God's standards? You have to remember that the rules that apply to mortal beings don't apply to a being powerful enough to create an entire universe using pure will and not even breaking a sweat. Plus, what light is he referring to? Is it the light of the sun, the light of the Big Bang, or the light of something that exists outside of our universe that we cannot interact with or comprehend?

Personally, I prefer Saint Augustine's interpretation of this portion of Genesis, as it strikes more as metaphor than as anything else. Anyone who dares claim to be a Christian should read his work.

Genesis 1:8
"And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day"

Morning and Evening, the second day. Two cycles of day and night.

Uno problemo: Earth didn't exist yet. If Earth didn't exist yet, it cannot be a day in the terms we understand and the cycle has to be of something else.

I find it amazing how many people fail to realize that simple piece of logic.

And so it continues with something along these lines until the sixth day. I am not condeming evolution or this Creation/Evolution crossbreed, but it seems to me IMHO that to say that God created the universe in 16 billion years is to ignore the Word of God. The Bible.

I thought the current estimate was only 13 billion, though the star they marked as being 15 billion years old means the universe is at least 16 billion and possibly as old as 17 or even 18. Depends on how long it took stars to form.

It does not in any way contradict the Bible once you realize that God and humans may have different concepts of Time. God sees all of it, understands all of it, and both exists outside and in it. Humanity is a mortal species that exists in less time than is comprehendable compared to how much is known to have passed and is often quite fallible. I suspect the use of the idea of days was to give something familiar to a people who were not yet sophisticated enough to understand a telescope, let alone the idea of Earth being a minute planet of a size so small it escapes notice in an entire universe that is billions of years old. Then again, it is possible that a day to God is far longer than most people can comprehend.

pquote]And, in John 1:1 John states:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God

To reject The Bible is to reject Jesus. To reject Jesus is to reject God. And you can fill in the gaps about what would happen next.[/quote]

Who said we are rejecting God? More of a case of realizing the limits of the people he was relating the Bible to, the fact it has been corrupted and changed down through the centuries, and trying to explore the universe on our own and discover what secrets and challenges have been set down for us. I suspect a lot of it is a focus point for humanity, a puzzle that our inherently inquisitive natures will force us to eventually focus upon and unite us. But this is my own interpretation.

That is just my opinon, and I am not insulting anyone nor incroaching (sp?) on their rights. Just executing my own.

True, but I do question your interpretation of the Bible. Try reading Augustine, try looking at it yourself, and ignore what the ministers say. Most of them actually have no clue anyway and are just relating what they were told.

By the way, Darwin was somewhat of a theist, but most likely was not a christian. He did not intend to challenge religion when writing The Origin of Species, nor did he even think that the religous authority would be opposed to his theories--it was later scientists who expanded on the theory of evolution who used it as an alternative to creationism.

Actually, iirc, Darwin was a Christian. He was a Creationist and did not view his findings as contradictory to the Bible.

Like I have said I mean no offence to ANYONE. Except Chodoloidiot there... so if i may..
Chodolo.. SHEDDDUPPP!!!
That's not very Christian. :(

:p

My Darwin fish ate your Jesus fish...

Save your fingers, DemonLordEnigma. Swatsnia has already made it clear that any Christians who don't share his views aren't welcome here.

All right everyone has some of their evidence lined up:

Evolution has fossil records, DNA patterns, the history of the crusades and Jihads and the like.

Creation has the sudden burial in water of several fossils (something like that), the water level of water underneath all rocks and sedimentary. And from history, creation can use the instances of immoral non Christians and of the actions i mentioned about the 60's and there abouts.

If I may, without attempting to offend anyone, the Crusades and Holy wars of the past WERE done by fanatics, just like Witch hunts and the like. They were done by people who lived hundreds/thousands of years ago. That gives you no justification to assault and insult Christians of today. Are WE doing Holy wars? Are WE doing witch hunts? No.
Some of the worst things imaginable have been done with the best intentions. Both Christians and Atheists can agree on that. Also, both can agree that it is in man's nature to be sinful/immoral/inperfect. Thus the expression "I'm only human!".

Like I have said I mean no offence to ANYONE. Except Chodoloidiot there... so if i may..
Chodolo.. SHEDDDUPPP!!!
Now! :)

Consider something real quick (so I keep saying real quick. Sorry).
Human conscienceness. Does anyone watch star trek? Nemesis the movie? In one scene, Data, the android, is speaking to the captain about some word meaning "more than the sum of it's parts". He said Human Conscienceness is not explained scientifically, therefore it is (insert strange word here).

If you think about anything you've done in your life that you regret, anything at all, then that is what some people call your conscience. A question for evolutionists about their theory. At what point can something be said to have a conscience? Do animals like bears, and other things which survive solely on the food of other things, care whether or not they are moral? How many more millions of years until I can sit across a dining room table with a bear and ask him about the quality of my steak? :p

Oh PLEASE.

Human consciencness can be explained rather easily. If it was in some way or shape "divine" as you imply, why can it be so easily changed via chemicals (alcohol, dope etc) or through trauma (head injury). Its quite simply organic.
Nothing special, just organic.

A "conscience" is learned behaviour, and will vary according to one's cultural background - the most primitive societies still have their "taboos".

Some people never develop what you would call a conscience - please consult your dictionary under "psychopath" and "sociopath".

Again, human behaviour can be explained through the use of science - there is still no need for a "magic" (God-like) explanation.

no one's gonna sway anyone on a fundamental issue like this.

i believe in darwin's theory of evolution. i am deeply annoyed by those who cannot see that some form or the other of evolution exists and I dont think thats what someone should care about saturday morning...

i hear this talk on enjoying life... what does it mean to enjoy life, to make the most of it?

Are you doing what you can when you work 40 hours a week and get wasted and laid friday and saturday?

Are you doing what you can when you spend every day of your life for your church, helping the poor and those who need your love more than you?

Are you doing what you can when you find the right person, live life the way you want to, by your morals, and by your will to go on?

Are you doing what you can by arguing with some faceless idiot who'll never remember you? never care for you? and can never be swayed by you?

I think you know when you're doing all you can.

Save your fingers, DemonLordEnigma. Swatsnia has already made it clear that any Christians who don't share his views aren't welcome here.

Then he really needs to read Augustine. Augustine is pretty much the founder of the majority of modern Christianity and even he viewed the story of how everything came to be as a metaphor. And he was a certainly a whole lot closer to knowing Christ than we are.

All right everyone has some of their evidence lined up:

Evolution has fossil records, DNA patterns, the history of the crusades and Jihads and the like.

Creation has the sudden burial in water of several fossils (something like that), the water level of water underneath all rocks and sedimentary. And from history, creation can use the instances of immoral non Christians and of the actions i mentioned about the 60's and there abouts.

If I may, without attempting to offend anyone, the Crusades and Holy wars of the past WERE done by fanatics, just like Witch hunts and the like. They were done by people who lived hundreds/thousands of years ago. That gives you no justification to assault and insult Christians of today. Are WE doing Holy wars? Are WE doing witch hunts? No.
Some of the worst things imaginable have been done with the best intentions. Both Christians and Atheists can agree on that. Also, both can agree that it is in man's nature to be sinful/immoral/inperfect. Thus the expression "I'm only human!".

Please consult your Bible - look up the bit that says "by their fruit you shall judge them. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit".

Then please compare that with your ludicrous statement.

If Christianity does not improve people and their morality, and the historical record suggests that it does not, then there is no point in pursuing that line of argument.

Where did I say that I am the only one welcome here? This is not the religious country club, for members only. Everyone has the right to an opinion, as far as I know, and all you did by saying "save your fingers" was use my opinion against me. I'll try that.

Chodolo has already made it clear that anyone who doesn't share his atheist beliefs isn't welcome here!

Where did I say that I am the only one welcome here? This is not the religious country club, for members only. Everyone has the right to an opinion, as far as I know, and all you did by saying "save your fingers" was use my opinion against me. I'll try that.

Chodolo has already made it clear that anyone who doesn't share his atheist beliefs isn't welcome here!
You made it clear in your very first response to me, and the fact that up until this point you have ignored the (valid) points I have been making. Chodolo was not saying anything about Atheists, unless I missed something major.

Yes, Augustine does know more about God than I do, but he's cheatin!

All right everyone has some of their evidence lined up:

Evolution has fossil records, DNA patterns, the history of the crusades and Jihads and the like.

Crusades and Jihads have nothing to do with how life evolved. They're just standard human stupidity. At least get the evidence you're trying to argue against correct.

Creation has the sudden burial in water of several fossils (something like that), the water level of water underneath all rocks and sedimentary. And from history, creation can use the instances of immoral non Christians and of the actions i mentioned about the 60's and there abouts.

The problem with this is the lack of evidence of a world-wide flood. Each area has a flood myth because, at certain times, each area was flood. But Earth as a whole never was. You have to remember that most of the story Moses wrote down was from his limited mortal perspective and subject to certain fallibilities. The world as he knew it was flooded, but not the world as a whole. Also, the thing about fossils is not in the Bible but was made up much later by people unable to explain why dinosaurs are not mentioned in the Bible. That one is easy to explain: God didn't give us maps of the continents, so what makes you think he needed to tell us about the animals that died off long before we existed and were not immediately important to us? Have to leave something for humans to investigate.

If I may, without attempting to offend anyone, the Crusades and Holy wars of the past WERE done by fanatics, just like Witch hunts and the like. They were done by people who lived hundreds/thousands of years ago. That gives you no justification to assault and insult Christians of today. Are WE doing Holy wars? Are WE doing witch hunts? No.

Actually, the first one is arguable and the second one is almost a definite yes. Wicca, a religion that has a form of witchcraft, is often persecuted in small Christian-dominated communities as the people try to run the Wiccans out of town. In some cases, quite violently. The first one is arguable because no one knows what motivates Bush in his crusades, but many suspect religion.

Some of the worst things imaginable have been done with the best intentions. Both Christians and Atheists can agree on that. Also, both can agree that it is in man's nature to be sinful/immoral/inperfect. Thus the expression "I'm only human!".

Thus the reason why you shouldn't present your view of the Bible as though it is the correct one. You may be presenting a view God did not intend us to hold. You are not God and cannot say what is metaphor and what is not.

Ok, this may sound out of the blue. but I think that everyone has gotten a bit off track here. the bible says something about god created everything within 7 days. But the bible has been translated so many times that in order to interpret it they had to find ways of explaning. It is talking about time periods. 7 time periods. the only real time period known was the "day". so it was used. so in fact all that is could have been evolution and still have come from god. God wants us to learn all we can in this life. This is because everything we learn on this life will be true. physics has to be followed. god still has to follow basic physics. but there are many things yet unknown in which god knows. but you cant just make everything in 7 short days. It just couldn't follow the laws which we know are true. So evolution could be there. But God can too. I'm not sayin we evolved from monkeys. Darwin didn't even say that. People used the monkey thing as a joke because they disliked what darwin was sayin.

Ok, I'll try to answer Northern Tronbonium's points. (Sorry. Im new at this forum thing.)

"Point number one: This country was not founded on religion. Actually, the Founding Fathers tried to keep religion out of politics to protect religion."

Yes, but they came here to avoid religious persecution in England, and that was my intended meaning.

Point number two: You seem to be saying that you don't want responses. If you get angry any time somebody responds to your posts, then what is the point in posting on a message board in the first place? Sure, you can, but you will soon find that nobody responds to you, and at that point I expect you will complain that nobody listens to you or respects your opinions.

WHERE DID I OFFEND ANYONE? This seems to be a brick wall in the road and I would like to remove it!

Point number three: You said "Christians believe." I was telling you that this statment was incorrect.

Ok, its I believe. Sorry.

Point number four: You blame a whole lot of things on removing prayer from school, and claim that Atheists fall into the state of nature that Hobbes described (man in a state of nature will do whatever he can to further himself). That to me looks like bashing Atheists. Forgive me if I was mistaken.

Well, its not just me blaming removal of prayer. I borrowed a few ideas. And no, I did not INTENTIONALLY bash athiests. I bashed the removal of CHILDREN'S RIGHTS to expression. Forgive me, but I guess I do not know why the supreme court ruled against The Supreme Power in the first place. Why remove prayer? What was it hurting?

I'd like to point out, being as much an impartial observer as one can be with issues like this, that both these well-known myths of how we came to be are considered not only provable, but sensible by many of their respective proponents.

Erm, to use small words, different people think these are right, the other is wrong, and that the facts are on their side on that.

I'm sure that all of you are smart enough to see that when this happens, obviously there isn't enough factual information to derive one answer that no one else will argue with. There is always a counter-arguement.

"Winning", as with a high-school debate, will never, ever happen. What we can decide here(rhetorical) is what system to use for our purposes.
How? Well, we decide our priorities.
Example; Do you want a philosophical system that gives a deep meaning to our life?
one that satisfies modern observations?
one that promotes good morals in society?
one that doesn't offend everyone else?

Ideally, a religion could fulfill all those criteria and more... But I don't think we've seen one that does the job for everyone just yet.

Fact is, that failing doesn't make a science or religion any more or less valid. What makes it valid rests with each persons thoughts on it.

Someone who wants clear, imperative messages from god favors a view that supplies that.
Someone who makes no assumptions about god prefers one that also make no such assumptions.
Someone who honestly believes in the importance of god over any one religion might transcend the whole thing and just worry about their own personal relationship with the divine... Might...

AND all these people will be perfectly happy with the philosophical system they chose to see the world and god through. Cause that's what they are... tools to understand the divine better, the world better, and our selves better.

I don't care what religion you are, if any. But if you're a moral person, feel love for others, and occasionally think about how we're all connected- whether you call that god or not- then we're probably not all that different.

And if you read all that and didn't decide I was attacking your religious beliefs, then thank you. Because that's the last thing I would do. If you have faith and love, then I'm happy for you. If you don't then I'm not offended, and you probly shouldn't be either.

I bashed the removal of CHILDREN'S RIGHTS to expression. Forgive me, but I guess I do not know why the supreme court ruled against The Supreme Power in the first place. Why remove prayer? What was it hurting?
The Supreme Court removed prayer to uphold the First Amendment. Public schools are run by the government, so they cannot Constitutionally promote any religion. Prayer does that.

By the way, apology accepted. Sorry I was so hard on you, I forgot you were new.

Actually, iirc, Darwin was a Christian. He was a Creationist and did not view his findings as contradictory to the Bible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin%27s_views_on_religion

Gotta love wikipedia. :cool:

If you ask me, all this evolution bullshit between us christians is really unneccessary. The point to christianity is not to understand all of God's ways (which is inherently impossible) but to put our faith in Jesus, our savior. I do not think a christian who believes in evolution would go to hell (as long as it doesn't cause them to sin). We should let such a matter rest until we can find out for certain in the presence of our Father.

Correct me if I am wrong, but is the above not correct for the most part? Please, tell me if I missed something

Anyways. Evolution gives man NO REASON for life, NO REASON to live. If all there is is you and the world, and when you die thats it, things just go black, what hope is there, what point is there, to living?
Now, I don't spend 24 hours a day reading The Bible, or debating evolutionists, or praying. But consider if you will, the aspects of Christianity (and yes, I will call it that, not Creationism) as apposed to evolution.
When faced at work with a chance to ruin someone's life in the attempt to make your own better, what would you do?
A Christian would, of course, not do that. He would stay where he is in his career and not think twice about it.
Certain Atheists would take advantage of the situation. Survival of the fittest, right? This person shouldn't of messed up, or should've covered his tracks, or should've done better, right? Besides, you might even do better in his place! And if the man and his family are reduced to a poor house or begging, who cares? He should've watched what he was doing.


So what you're saying is god exists because things are better with a belief in god? The tooth fairy exists 'cause things are better with a belief in the the tooth fairy?

This might seem off-topic, but it really isn't...
What do the creationist/Fundamentalists think about the dinosaurs?
My sister-in-law is an evangelical Christian and she believes that dinosaurs never existed. It's all some elaborate plot by athiest scientists.
It seems to me that one pretty much HAS to have this point of view if they are fundamentalist Christian and believe the Bible literally in it's current form. There's just no way to rationalize the existance of dinosaurs millions of years before God created man, right?

EAAACAAAACKKKK STOP!
SLOW DOWN!
SOMEONE HELP ME!

ACK!
Ok.

And if you read all that and didn't decide I was attacking your religious beliefs, then thank you. Because that's the last thing I would do. If you have faith and love, then I'm happy for you. If you don't then I'm not offended, and you probly shouldn't be either.
Ok, good. I'm not offended.

MissDiefied

Sorry, I never knew that insulting was a good way to debate. I am actually very good at science, and I apologise for my spelling, I tend to rush things when I have a lot of things i want to get out. I shall try to slow down and spell properly for you. I think i posted fairly, i was not meaning with anything i said to ofend or criticise anybodies point of view - i was simply expressing my thoughts on the matter. I said i did not believe in Darwins theory of evolution, not evolution in general, although evidence would help. I do believe in adaption, and am ready to be swayed over to evolutionary views if you can come up with a good argument, rather than insults.
BB - VardaLet me help you. Do you believe in the following statements?

1. All organisms have DNA, that directs the construction of their physical self.
2. DNA is prone to changes,or more correct mutations that change the DNA. These changes are very small.
3. These changes lead to changes in the organisms.
4. When changed organisms produce offspring, the offspring retains these changes (unless they change again, of course.)

5. Sometimes, the environment in which an organism lives changes. This could be a forest burning down, a newfound food source or simply a disease.
6. If the changed organisms are changed in such a way that they survive easier than the original organisms, these organisms will increase in number faster than the original organisms.
7. Organisms with harmful changes will increase in number slower than the original organisms. This will eventually lead to extinction.
8. In time, the organisms that better survives in the environment will become more and more common, until there is none of the original organisms left.


For example:

A species of monkeys live in a jungle. They are, let's say, coloured brown, but vary some in colour. The monkeys are happy and eat bananas all day (and make more monkeys).

Unfortunately some tigers moves into the jungle. The tigers don't eat bananas; they eat monkeys. Naturally, the monkeys tries to hide whenever the tigers go hunting.

Now let's assume the undergrowth and the trees are very dark coloured. This means that the tigers can spot anything bright easier, as it contrasts with the jungle.

The tigers catch and eat several monkeys (oh no!). All the monkeys that were eaten were those born with a slightly brighter fur than the others. Since the bright-furred monkeys are eaten more often than the other monkeys, they cannot procreate as much as other monkeys.

This leads to less variation in fur colour among the jungle apes. Before they might have gone from light brown to dark brown or even black, but now the brightest colour one is just regular brown.

The species have changed as a whole (not much, but still) as a result of a change in the environment. There are no more bright-furred monkeys.

(as a mental experiment, try to figure out what happens with the tigers when they suddenly find it harder and harder to spot monkeys, who all now have furs that don't contrast the jungle.)



(If I have made some mistakes here, please feel free to point them out.)

Overwhelmed? I know the feeling. It's hard being the only person arguing one point of view. It's even harder when you see both sides, try to argue both, and get attacked by everyone.

This might seem off-topic, but it really isn't...
What do the creationist/Fundamentalists think about the dinosaurs?
My sister-in-law is an evangelical Christian and she believes that dinosaurs never existed. It's all some elaborate plot by athiest scientists.

Not all Creationists are Fundementalists, and not all Fundementalists are Creationists.

It seems to me that one pretty much HAS to have this point of view if they are fundamentalist Christian and believe the Bible literally in it's current form. There's just no way to rationalize the existance of dinosaurs millions of years before God created man, right?

Yes, there is: It is part of the process God used. The evolving of dinosaurs to that state allowed mammals to evolve, and the dying out of dinosaurs allowed mammals to continue evolution and dominate the Earth.

Really not that hard.

Oops. Hit wrong button.

MissDefied

Sorry bout my spelling.

I've never read up on dinosaurs or have my own opinion too deep. I think that God made dinosaurs in one of the 7 days, and that they were wiped out after, not nessicarily during the flood.
After the flood, (Noah's) it had rained for the first time. Hard. The atmosphere changed and that made the sudden change in life spans noticable in the lineologys in the Bible.

Sanity and Reason.

THANK YOUUU!!! I needed eloquence. That was perfect.
If you ask me, all this evolution bullshit between us christians is really unneccessary. The point to christianity is not to understand all of God's ways (which is inherently impossible) but to put our faith in Jesus, our savior. I do not think a christian who believes in evolution would go to hell (as long as it doesn't cause them to sin). We should let such a matter rest until we can find out for certain in the presence of our Father.

Tho i do think you could've gotten along without the ******** word. :)

Did i miss any1?

I have several theories about dinosaurs:

1. DINOSAURS=DRAGONS This one's a bit of a stretch. Perhaps medieval dragons did exist as dinosaurs and were hunted down. Of course, that idea also assumes that carbon dating system is flawed, so the theory itself is inheretley flawed.

2. DINOSAURS DIED IN THE FLOOD A standard belief for many people, and pretty self-explanatory.

3. DINOSAURS KILLED IN THE FALL OF FALL OF MAN I personally think this idea is most accurate. When man had first sinned, the consequences did not only fall on us, but on the entire world; the order of things changed drastically. Suppose the dinosaurs were just hunted/killed to extinction.

That's all I can think of for now.

Overwhelmed? I know the feeling. It's hard being the only person arguing one point of view. It's even harder when you see both sides, try to argue both, and get attacked by everyone.


Arguing an indefenisble point, be it out of ignorance or spite, is often overwhelming.

After the flood, (Noah's) it had rained for the first time. Hard. The atmosphere changed and that made the sudden change in life spans noticable in the lineologys in the Bible.




Problem is, none of that actually happened.

It's a story in a storybook.

I have several theories about dinosaurs:

1. DINOSAURS=DRAGONS This one's a bit of a stretch. Perhaps medieval dragons did exist as dinosaurs and were hunted down. Of course, that idea also assumes that carbon dating system is flawed, so the theory itself is inheretley flawed.

2. DINOSAURS DIED IN THE FLOOD A standard belief for many people, and pretty self-explanatory.

3. DINOSAURS KILLED IN THE FALL OF FALL OF MAN I personally think this idea is most accurate. When man had first sinned, the consequences did not only fall on us, but on the entire world; the order of things changed drastically. Suppose the dinosaurs were just hunted/killed to extinction.

That's all I can think of for now.
Or, if you believe that the War of the Angels and Lucifer's fall happened before man was created, perhaps it was Satan that killed the dinosaurs, which were originally meant to be another of man's helpers. Seriously! I'm often sarcastic, but this is actually something that I could believe.

Poor monkeys. Stupid tigers.

Yes I didn't see anything wrong with those statements IMO. In fact, dog breeds are a fine example of things breeding different varietys in their enviroment. The pit bull, for example, is bred to fight other dogs (as far as I know.). Coyotes may take up residence in southern region wheras wolves in mountains. Eskimos cross breed their dogs with wolves to breed a hardier draft animal.

Yes, things can change like that, it has been documented as fact, and I believe that fact. However, is there such a thing as a dog who breeds with a cat, creating a catdog? Does a whale cross-breed with a shark?

Yes, survival of the fittest, as a term could be acceptable in the short run. Thats not the point. In a bitter freezing region with snow, two types of dogs, one long haired, one short haired, the short haired will die or move along, and the long haired will SURVIVE. True. That is survival of the fittest. But Evolution has never been observed as the above has. Now that the letters are worn off my keyboard, can i rest my hot fingers?

Or, if you believe that the War of the Angels and Lucifer's fall happened before man was created, perhaps it was Satan that killed the dinosaurs, which were originally meant to be another of man's helpers. Seriously! I'm often sarcastic, but this is actually something that I could believe.
Dinosaurs as human helpers? That sounds really cool.

creationism is not based in science

evolution is based in science

scientific method is the best way to deterimine if things are true or not



thats probably an oversimplification but i dont think i can add much more to what has already been said.

now lets all :fluffle:

Speaking of tired, I would like to stay on more, but it is MIDNIGHT!
See ya later. Hope I was of some positive influence. And let me state once more I MEANT NO OFFENCE! And im not leaving in defeat, either, I just want to stop while i still have the service of my fingers.

creationism is not based in science

evolution is based in science

scientific method is the best way to deterimine if things are true or not



thats probably an oversimplification but i dont think i can add much more to what has already been said.

now lets all :fluffle:
But I don't wanna! I think New Valkyria II has cooties!

my friend ed brings this up in school all the time. first off, evolution is not a theory on how the universe was created, that was the big bang theory. secondly, how do we know that God (if there is one) created the universe? because some really really old book says so? and another thing, evolution can be seen through fossil records and DNA patterns.

First and formost how do you know that it can be seen were you the one that did those studies or did you watch a lame movie with alec baldwin in biology class that said so Secondly lets say that there is no prove that god created the earth(look at the world around places like niagra falls and rain forests and so on could not have been created by a chance explosion)so theres no prove but the thing about god is you dont need prove all you need is faith there are something is this world youll just never understand and running with what i said previously theres this little law that states matter can not be created or destroyed. But yet scientist want us to belive that our universe was created by some space dut the just suddenly exploted thne out poffed all this great stuff. You see the thing baout science is every thing has to be proven and it cant so there goes that theroy so the only logicl explination here is god and if you dont see that you not looking at the facts.

Poor monkeys. Stupid tigers.

Yes I didn't see anything wrong with those statements IMO. In fact, dog breeds are a fine example of things breeding different varietys in their enviroment. The pit bull, for example, is bred to fight other dogs (as far as I know.). Coyotes may take up residence in southern region wheras wolves in mountains. Eskimos cross breed their dogs with wolves to breed a hardier draft animal.

Yes, things can change like that, it has been documented as fact, and I believe that fact. However, is there such a thing as a dog who breeds with a cat, creating a catdog? Does a whale cross-breed with a shark?

Yes, survival of the fittest, as a term could be acceptable in the short run. Thats not the point. In a bitter freezing region with snow, two types of dogs, one long haired, one short haired, the short haired will die or move along, and the long haired will SURVIVE. True. That is survival of the fittest. But Evolution has never been observed as the above has. Now that the letters are worn off my keyboard, can i rest my hot fingers?Wait, so what is the problem? You accept small changes in creatures over time. There isn't much more to evolution than that. Or do you have a different definition of it that we other's don't have?

I have only read the first page of posts so bare with me if I repeat what someone else said.

My personal theory is a combination of the two, who's to say that Evolution wasn't started by God, as well as the creation of this universe. In order for the Big bang theory to work, there has to be something for their to have been collected in order to detonate and create the universe. Maybe (and maybe not) The original Big bang was created by a God(going out to any other religions that may have theories) And the most recent one may not even be the first big bang, but the 100th or something. I havent read much of the Bible, but I believe it says that Man was created by God, but it dosen't say how(to my knowlage). Who knows? Maybe it was done through evolution.

As this is my theory, I dont expect anyone to find it correct, or even feesable(spelling?). But it's a consept i've went over in my head a few times and it seems sound to me. (then again i also have theories on time travel and paralel dementions n' such. though those are much longer, and off topic; so someone would have to ask me about those.)

PS: Any misspellings or misuse of punctuation is not a mesure of my intelegence, i am personaly bad at the conventions of writing and i already know that so please dont hold any against me.

Not all Creationists are Fundementalists, and not all Fundementalists are Creationists.
Understood. Sorry
Yes, there is: It is part of the process God used. The evolving of dinosaurs to that state allowed mammals to evolve, and the dying out of dinosaurs allowed mammals to continue evolution and dominate the Earth.

Really not that hard.
OK, let's just say that I'm speaking to those who take Genesis 1 literally and that one day was one day, a twenty-four hour period. Please, I understand about metaphors and allegory, so there's no need for anyone to throw that out there. But understand that there are people who don't and firmly believe God created everything in a human-earth week. For them, I ask;
How could God have made the creatures of the sea and air on day 5 and then the creatures of the land AND man on the 6th day, and there is no evidence man and dinosaurs co-existed but plenty of evidence that they lived millions of years apart?

After the flood, (Noah's) it had rained for the first time. Hard.
So it never, ever rained on earth until AFTER the flood? Interesting. I'll be needing to study Genesis a bit more thoroughly.

2. DINOSAURS DIED IN THE FLOOD A standard belief for many people, and pretty self-explanatory.
I'm sorry if I find this is a very hard pill to swallow. Is this really a standard belief? What about "You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you." -Genesis 6:19, didn't Noah understand?

Listen, I believe in evolution, but I am going to put forth MY understanding for so many people's belief in Creationism. It's roughly derived from "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy"

Creationism is an act of faith. Faith is a belief in something when lacking scientific proof. A faith based religion should emphasize the fact that their beliefs exist outside of our realm, and that therefore there will never be any proof for their beliefs. That you can never totally disprove a faith based belief is also key.

If scientific evidence were to ever be found of creationism or anything faith based, then the beliefs are automatically made null-and-void. The moment you can prove the existence of a faith based deity is the moment that it ceases to be deific and it becomes something mundane, and faithless. While disproving it will never get anyone anywhere.

Just becuase someone has a theroy dosnt mean it it remotly right at all when i was younger i literally thought this a friend was mine was talking baout how they could take a pair of your genes i though jeans then i wonder to myself how that would work and i decided some of a persons skins cells could be on there jeans so they could clone them from that but that doesnt have to do with this my real point is that whne i was younger my theory on evolution was that god created some men and other evolved fomr monkeys

OK, let's just say that I'm speaking to those who take Genesis 1 literally and that one day was one day, a twenty-four hour period. Please, I understand about metaphors and allegory, so there's no need for anyone to throw that out there. But understand that there are people who don't and firmly believe God created everything in a human-earth week. For them, I ask;
How could God have made the creatures of the sea and air on day 5 and then the creatures of the land AND man on the 6th day, and there is no evidence man and dinosaurs co-existed but plenty of evidence that they lived millions of years apart?
I believe that in Genesis 1 when it says a day it means 24 hours. However, check my previous posts concerning the Fall of Lucifer to see why I also believe in evolution. If you don't get it (because I probably didn't explain it well) then ask me.

To Kevin's Pants: You are struggling under a misconception. In the realm of Science, an idea is not labeled as a "theory" until it has vast amounts of proof behind it.

Understood. Sorry

OK, let's just say that I'm speaking to those who take Genesis 1 literally and that one day was one day, a twenty-four hour period. Please, I understand about metaphors and allegory, so there's no need for anyone to throw that out there. But understand that there are people who don't and firmly believe God created everything in a human-earth week. For them, I ask;
How could God have made the creatures of the sea and air on day 5 and then the creatures of the land AND man on the 6th day, and there is no evidence man and dinosaurs co-existed but plenty of evidence that they lived millions of years apart?


So it never, ever rained on earth until AFTER the flood? Interesting. I'll be needing to study a bit more thoroughly.

I'm sorry if I find this is a very hard pill to swallow. Is this really a standard belief? What about "You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you." -Genesis 6:19, didn't Noah understand?

Noah did understnad and he brought them after that flood the erths enviroment was dreamticly changed from a lusj jungle type enviorment to what it is today and dinosuars couldnt adapt so they died

Wheres you evidence that they didnt exsist together?

The erth didnt need rain becuase a mist would come up from the ground every day.

I know alot about this stuff if you want to know more my aim is Saliorgalaxy2000 or "argue" about it with me

Wheres you evidence that they didnt exsist together? In fossils

The erth didnt need rain becuase a mist would come up from the ground every day. Is that from the Bible? If so, could you provide the book and verse?

To Kevin's Pants: You are struggling under a misconception. In the realm of Science, an idea is not labeled as a "theory" until it has vast amounts of proof behind it.

When its a theory it's still not proven and when i was daying theory i was using it libriealy

Listen, I believe in evolution, but I am going to put forth MY understanding for so many people's belief in Creationism. It's roughly derived from "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy"

Creationism is an act of faith. Faith is a belief in something when lacking scientific proof. A faith based religion should emphasize the fact that their beliefs exist outside of our realm, and that therefore there will never be any proof for their beliefs. That you can never totally disprove a faith based belief is also key.

If scientific evidence were to ever be found of creationism or anything faith based, then the beliefs are automatically made null-and-void. The moment you can prove the existence of a faith based deity is the moment that it ceases to be deific and it becomes something mundane, and faithless. While disproving it will never get anyone anywhere.
And I'm going to quote myself to bring my friendly point of view out of the shadow of the bickering...

And I'm going to quote myself to bring my friendly point of view out of the shadow of the bickering...
Yeah, but then we don't get to argue. I like arguing, it's fun. :p

When its a theory it's still not proven and when i was daying theory i was using it libriealy



No, a "hypothesis" is something that isnt proven.

While a theory isnt proven (as nothing can be ultimately proven) it has a large ammount of evidence in its favor and little or no evidence against it.

Wheres you evidence that they didnt exsist together?
Carbon dating.
The erth didnt need rain becuase a mist would come up from the ground every day.
Chapter and verse? As I said before I really must read Genesis a bit more thoroughly.
I don't want to AIM or argue. You can just post a reply here. Thanks.

In fossils

Is that from the Bible? If so, could you provide the book and verse?

I will go get my bible
Genesis 2
5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- 7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

I couldnt find my bible so i had to llok it up on the internet(what a bad christain am i)

PS im srry i cam off a little mean in my last post i didnt mean to

There is a mass of evidence against the hypothesis that the world flooded.

A) There is not enough water on earth to cover the entire surface at once to the depth described in the bible.

B) There exists no earth-wide uniform deposit of sediment that would be left behind by such a flood.


Note that this concerns only the reality of whether or not the world flooded.

Different points can be made against the hypothesis of Noah's Ark.

Among them:

According to the bible's dimenstions of the Ark, it could not hold two of every species in the world.
Nor feed
Nor manage the waste.

Also, there are funny things that happen to people's heads when atmospheric pressure goes up to the degree it would if the volume of the earth increased due to a world flood.

You're right; there's no mention of rain in the Bible until Noah's flood. Of course, there's no mention of rain afterwards either, so it's possible the author just didn't bother to write it in since rain is such a consistent part of our world. Then again, perhaps it really didn't rain until the flood...

I will go get my bible
Genesis 2
5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- 7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Glad to know that humanity is responsible for the forthcoming of plant life...

I re-read through the posts and it seems to me that almost everytime a new point is brought up that dosent step on somebody's toes is ignored. Im not saying anything one way or another this time, just wanted to bring that up.

There is a mass of evidence against the hypothesis that the world flooded.

A) There is not enough water on earth to cover the entire surface at once to the depth described in the bible.

B) There exists no earth-wide uniform deposit of sediment that would be left behind by such a flood.


Note that this concerns only the reality of whether or not the world flooded.

Different points can be made against the hypothesis of Noah's Ark.

Among them:

According to the bible's dimenstions of the Ark, it could not hold two of every species in the world.
Nor feed
Nor manage the waste.

Also, there are funny things that happen to people's heads when atmospheric pressure goes up to the degree it would if the volume of the earth increased due to a world flood.

Your post made me literally excited i love debating the issue of noahs ark for some reson in the bible it dosnt give the measure in our standers also it's not like they would take full grown animals they prolly took younger onces so then they wouldnt ake up as much space.

There is plently of evidence for this theory that can prove it(it also can suppot other) Fossils of fish have been found on the top of moutins how would they have gotten their either massive flodding or mountins were once on the surface but that one dosnt apply to this cus i feel like completly ignoring other theories and just sticking to the ones that support my case.

And about the water in biblical times there was once a firmament( nlike i cant spell it right) surronding the earth basicly a layer of water that fell down to earth when said flood happend then the water recedded yes i know there isnt that much water on the earth but god dosnt have to obey the laws of physics

with all the added water the oxyegen would have been pushed up with it cusing there to be more ocygen up farther.

Animal can do a thing called hybernate so they prolly did that. and as for the ones that cant they did any way.

Glad to know that humanity is responsible for the forthcoming of plant life...

Yea it is

Yea it is
Guess that's why all the plant eating dinosaurs died out, and by proxy, the carnivores.

Guess that's why all the plant eating dinosaurs died out, and by proxy, the carnivores. I dont even know what that word means (proxy) But ill make a guess at it

god created man before animals so by the time the animals came man had already taken care of that pesky plant problem

The story of the flood is from the Sumerians as described in the Epic of Gilgamesh. So what happened after the flood? Noah's daughter gets him drunk and does the nasty with him. No one quotes that bit of the Bible. Is this the type of story you call divinely inspired? Sounds like smut to me. Is this the type of filth we want to expose our children to? What about Onan, he jerked off and God killed him. Okay I can see the point, he didn't want to sleep with his sister-in-law, I'd rather be dead than sleep with my sister-in-law. Masturbation is a mortal sin but sleeping with your brother's wife is divine. You know maybe this Bible is not so bad after all if your into incest and dysfunctional family relationships.

just a couple points.
1. Genesis 2: 5-6, For the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.'

2. The belief that God created the universe then left everything else to evolution is nothing more than a rehashing of the deistic beliefs of hundreds of years ago, but this time with a hint of 'science' thrown in.

yes i know there isnt that much water on the earth but god dosnt have to obey the laws of physics






You realize that trying to argue about facts and then saying that your arguments dont have to follow the laws of physics is ridiculous dont you?


As regards marine fossils atop mountains: see plate tectonics.
As regards small animals v. large animals (more specifically the dimensions of the ark): see Gen. 6:14-16
Millions of small animals would have had no more luck fitting than millions of large animals.
Ditto food+waste.

Ruins date from antiquity which are described in the bible in the cubit, a measure that has survived to this day.

According to God's instructions in the bible, the Ark was supposed to be smaller than an oil tanker or an aircraft carrier.

see: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c013.html for info on the length of a cubit.

I can sum it up if you like:
A cubit is the legnth from an adult's elbow to the tip of an adult's fingers.
Roughly 18 inches.

God gives the dimensions of the Ark as:
300 cubits long (450 ft.)
50 cubits wide (75 ft)
and 30 cubits deep (45 ft)

The largest tanker afloat today (according to http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:hrUc-0-I6P4J:www.wws.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/byteserv.prl/~ota/disk3/1975/7508/750802.PDF+supertanker+dimensions&hl=en) is:

Supertanker Dimensions.—Tankers of about 100,000 deadweighttons are typically more than 1,000 feet in length and 50 feet in draft.The largest supertanker afloat (a 480,000 dwt ULCC) is 1,250 feetlong, 203 feet wide and 90 feet in draft. Supertankers are under con-struction of 533,000 dwt—1,360 feet in length, 208 feet in width, and 93 feet in draft.

I dont even know what that word means (proxy) But ill make a guess at it

god created man before animals so by the time the animals came man had already taken care of that pesky plant problem
Um...
Dinosaurs -- 65 Million years ago.
Man -- Let's just say not quote so much...thus revealing a huge issue with mainstream religions, a multi-million year gap during which apparently nothing happened, guess God was out of ideas.

The story of the flood is from the Sumerians as described in the Epic of Gilgamesh. So what happened after the flood? Noah's daughter gets him drunk and does the nasty with him. No one quotes that bit of the Bible. Is this the type of story you call divinely inspired? Sounds like smut to me. Is this the type of filth we want to expose our children to? What about Onan, he jerked off and God killed him. Okay I can see the point, he didn't want to sleep with his sister-in-law, I'd rather be dead than sleep with my sister-in-law. Masturbation is a mortal sin but sleeping with your brother's wife is divine. You know maybe this Bible is not so bad after all if your into incest and dysfunctional family relationships.

noah brought his wife and grown kids on board his grown kids also had familys
And im sure he had an awful lot of kids because by that time he was piling on the 100's

noah brought his wife and grown kids on board his grown kids also had familys
And im sure he had an awful lot of kids because by that time he was piling on the 100's

wouldn't there still be a bit of interbreeding going on? And were they of all races as well?

noah brought his wife and grown kids on board his grown kids also had familys
And im sure he had an awful lot of kids because by that time he was piling on the 100's
One famiy's kids having kids with each other is still incest...
Side Note: and if you subscribe to the whole Adam/Eve thing, you realize that anyone having sex is committing incest...fun times.

There's really too many fallacies and contradictions within the bible for it to be logically defendable. That's why they say the only true faith is blind faith, because religion and logic don't mix. Especially the whole "paganism is bad" thing that some religions have...

One famiy's kids having kids with each other is still incest...
Side Note: and if you subscribe to the whole Adam/Eve thing, you realize that anyone having sex is committing incest...fun times.

When go created adam and eve they were perfect so dooing it with your kids was ok becuase it was need for our race and we wouldnt get messed up kids

There is plently of evidence for this theory that can prove it(it also can suppot other) Fossils of fish have been found on the top of moutins how would they have gotten their either massive flodding or mountins were once on the surface but that one dosnt apply to this cus i feel like completly ignoring other theories and just sticking to the ones that support my case.


There have to be just the right conditions for animals to become fossils. On top of a mountain is about the least ideal - too much weathering, not enough sediment overlay (need much more time as well). So they would have to be, in all likely hood, from before the mountain formed.

When go created adam and eve they were perfect so dooing it with your kids was ok becuase it was need for our race and we wouldnt get messed up kids
That's one of the stupidest statements I have ever read.

You realize that trying to argue about facts and then saying that your arguments dont have to follow the laws of physics is ridiculous dont you?

No not really were talking about god here he created those laws so what makes you think he has to follow them


I kno whow big a cubit is but see its not like the brought every kind of dog know to man the brought dog cat not allt he kind of said animals

you keep throwing in these thing like they wouls disprove what i belive (im sure your not trying to and im not trying to change yours i just like arguing) i mentioned something about the tectonic plates thing and that just goes back to ther heart of thing on how you belive the earth was created obviously you dont belive the same hting as i nither of us are scientists so its not like the stuff were saying we can prove our self were just putting out fiath in someone else and trusting in them that there answers are right science has proved to be wrong time and time again but im putting my faith into something that has never been wrong(depends on your opinion)

That's one of the stupidest statements I have ever read.


I'm starting to suspect this guy might be a troll.

No not really were talking about god here he created those laws so what makes you think he has to follow them


I kno whow big a cubit is but see its not like the brought every kind of dog know to man the brought dog cat not allt he kind of said animals

you keep throwing in these thing like they wouls disprove what i belive (im sure your not trying to and im not trying to change yours i just like arguing) i mentioned something about the tectonic plates thing and that just goes back to ther heart of thing on how you belive the earth was created obviously you dont belive the same hting as i nither of us are scientists so its not like the stuff were saying we can prove our self were just putting out fiath in someone else and trusting in them that there answers are right science has proved to be wrong time and time again but im putting my faith into something that has never been wrong(depends on your opinion)


The problem is that I've made sense and offered factual bases for the assertions i've made while you've said "I dont have to have a factual basis because i'm talking about god and he can do anything no matter what."

There have to be just the right conditions for animals to become fossils. On top of a mountain is about the least ideal - too much weathering, not enough sediment overlay (need much more time as well). So they would have to be, in all likely hood, from before the mountain formed.

i tottally had somthing but then i lost it it had somehting to do with the fact of something but tis gone

No not really were talking about god here he created those laws so what makes you think he has to follow them


I kno whow big a cubit is but see its not like the brought every kind of dog know to man the brought dog cat not allt he kind of said animals

Due to your last two statements you obviously have no understanding of genetics

i tottally had somthing but then i lost it it had somehting to do with the fact of something but tis gone
Excellent argument. "I was gonna make a point but I forgot it...assume I was right"

One famiy's kids having kids with each other is still incest...
Side Note: and if you subscribe to the whole Adam/Eve thing, you realize that anyone having sex is committing incest...fun times.


early on in the bible, it says that cain went out and found a wife when he was cursed, i think it was cain, well someone of adams sons went out and found a wife, FOUND HER, i think god would make more people to keep the incest away...but everyone is still descended from adam.

The problem is that I've made sense and offered factual bases for the assertions i've made while you've said "I dont have to have a factual basis because i'm talking about god and he can do anything no matter what."

Well he can and he could totally beat you up if you keep not just aceppting my opnion is fact when i dont even know for sure that it is

Just for a bit of some kind of reference, but not actually:

Many modern theologians believe that, although many world religions contain flood stories, Western religions are all tied to the same flood. This is the flood described in the Bible and the Epic of Gilgamesh. Excuse me for not sourcing this, I might get back to it later, but probably not.
Some serious research lends itself to the theory that at one time, the Mediterranean Sea was not a significant body of water. At around the time of the Flood, the Straits of Gibraltar may have broken, and unleashed a sudden flood in the entire Mediterranean basin. This would have far reaching effects around the world, with sudden flooding around that area (Fertile Crescent is on the opposite side of Med Basin as the Straits, and immortal guy from Epic was flooded there) and strange droughts in others. This cataclysmic event was probably set off by worldwide rains, which caused serious flooding anyway.

Damn those sources.

While a very interesting theory, I'm not sure if it is actually feasible.... and neither do you. I mean, if you were a Mediterranean geological/oceanographic team maybe. Got to find those sources, they lay it out nice.

Recent thing on this I just remembered-- some Syrian guy was on MSN.com, talking about the ruins of Atlantis. After this godsdamned research I can't find came out, many scientists started searching for Atlantis in the Med. Especially around Cyprus; whoops, here's this big lump on the ocean floor with strange, non-natural formations on it. Lost City theories tied in with Flood stories. Stellar delisch.

Damn you, research. Someone please help me with that.
I'm not making much sense anymore, so I will stop.

Well he can and he could totally beat you up if you keep not just aceppting my opnion is fact when i dont even know for sure that it is



My hypothesis regarding this clown being a troll is now a theory.

Har dee har har

early on in the bible, it says that cain went out and found a wife when he was cursed, i think it was cain, well someone of adams sons went out and found a wife, FOUND HER, i think god would make more people to keep the incest away...but everyone is still descended from adam.
You just contradicted yourself.
"God made more people to keep the incest away"
"Everyone is still descended from adam"
See the problem?

Excellent argument. "I was gonna make a point but I forgot it...assume I was right"

Isn't it though

My hypothesis regarding this clown being a troll is now a theory.

Har dee har har
You called it.

You just contradicted yourself.
"God made more people to keep the incest away"
"Everyone is still descended from adam"
See the problem?

i meant everyone alive today

i meant everyone alive today
That doesn't change anything.

Due to your last two statements you obviously have no understanding of genetics

ooo you did not just say that out of all the things we have ever studied at school genetics is my favorite subject

Um...
Dinosaurs -- 65 Million years ago.
Man -- Let's just say not quote so much...thus revealing a huge issue with mainstream religions, a multi-million year gap during which apparently nothing happened, guess God was out of ideas.
depends on your interpretation

Thank you Kevins_pants. Thanks to you I learned the ignore function of the forums.

Just for a bit of some kind of reference, but not actually:

Many modern theologians believe that, although many world religions contain flood stories, Western religions are all tied to the same flood. This is the flood described in the Bible and the Epic of Gilgamesh. Excuse me for not sourcing this, I might get back to it later, but probably not.
Some serious research lends itself to the theory that at one time, the Mediterranean Sea was not a significant body of water. At around the time of the Flood, the Straits of Gibraltar may have broken, and unleashed a sudden flood in the entire Mediterranean basin. This would have far reaching effects around the world, with sudden flooding around that area (Fertile Crescent is on the opposite side of Med Basin as the Straits, and immortal guy from Epic was flooded there) and strange droughts in others. This cataclysmic event was probably set off by worldwide rains, which caused serious flooding anyway.

Damn those sources.

While a very interesting theory, I'm not sure if it is actually feasible.... and neither do you. I mean, if you were a Mediterranean geological/oceanographic team maybe. Got to find those sources, they lay it out nice.

Recent thing on this I just remembered-- some Syrian guy was on MSN.com, talking about the ruins of Atlantis. After this godsdamned research I can't find came out, many scientists started searching for Atlantis in the Med. Especially around Cyprus; whoops, here's this big lump on the ocean floor with strange, non-natural formations on it. Lost City theories tied in with Flood stories. Stellar delisch.

Damn you, research. Someone please help me with that.
I'm not making much sense anymore, so I will stop.



Another interesting explanation for the prevalance of flood myths among cultures that arose on flood plains is that owing to the variance in floods from year to year, large floods were mythologized as "great floods."

That doesn't change anything.
yes it does, because after a while we would have a stable genetic pool, and he wouldnt have to do it anymore, then there was the flood, so he had to do it again. also about their not being enough water on earth for the flood, if there was...IT WOULD STILL BE FLOODED!

I will go get my bible
Genesis 2
5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- 7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
Hmm, compelling, plus if you read on Chapter 2:10 "A river watering the garden flowed from Eden". Not much need for rain. However, you realize that Chapter is kind of going back to the Beginning, Chapter 1 and paraphrasing. Gen. 1:11 "The God said, 'Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land . . . the third day." So plants were created BEFORE man, as were animals, see below.

PS im srry i cam off a little mean in my last post i didnt mean to
No offense taken, as I hope you're taking none from me. I'm just trying to get enlightened.
god created man before animals so by the time the animals came man had already taken care of that pesky plant problem
You better find that Bible, fast ...
and read Genesis 1:20-26
plants came first, then animals, then man.

yes it does, because after a while we would have a stable genetic pool, and he wouldnt have to do it anymore, then there was the flood, so he had to do it again. also about their not being enough water on earth for the flood, if there was...IT WOULD STILL BE FLOODED!
Despite the fact that you didn't even quote the right thing...
You do realize that you are wrong, correct? Obviously not. If My great x 500 grandfather is the same as someone else's then you are related. If you actually believe what you say, then at what point does someone who had the same originator become no longer related?

yes it does, because after a while we would have a stable genetic pool, and he wouldnt have to do it anymore, then there was the flood, so he had to do it again. also about their not being enough water on earth for the flood, if there was...IT WOULD STILL BE FLOODED!

hey hey hey now i already said that after the flood the water just went away
then youll be all like where did it go and ill say god dosnt have to obey they way our natural world works and then youll be like how is that possible an dill say hes god

You better find that Bible, fast ...
and read Genesis 1:20-26
plants came first, then animals, then man.

I thoughts thats how it was but i miss read another part opps

Thank you Kevins_pants. Thanks to you I learned the ignore function of the forums.
your welcome but i dont know what you mean by that

And now, a cameo.

FROM GOD.


HELLO, PUNY MORTALS. I RULE WITH LOVING TYRANNY, NOT UNLIKE SOME NATIONS IN NATIONSTATES. HEH. I CAN DO ANYTHING. SO SHUT UP. I CAN MAKE IT RAIN FROGS, FOR CRISSAKE. YOU THINK I CAN'T TAKE AWAY 30% OF THE WORLD'S WATER?

End cameo.

I love God. He can feed the hungry children. He can stop bullets before they kill innocents. He can understand politics. He can do some amazing things with the ole H2O. He can change my underwear.

And now, a cameo.

FROM GOD.


HELLO, PUNY MORTALS. I RULE WITH LOVING TYRANNY, NOT UNLIKE SOME NATIONS IN NATIONSTATES. HEH. I CAN DO ANYTHING. SO SHUT UP. I CAN MAKE IT RAIN FROGS, FOR CRISSAKE. YOU THINK I CAN'T TAKE AWAY 30% OF THE WORLD'S WATER?

End cameo.

I love God. He can feed the hungry children. He can stop bullets before they kill innocents. He can understand politics. He can do some amazing things with the ole H2O. He can change my underwear.
Too bad he doesn't do the last thing ;)

PSYCH!

lol, I gotya.

Also, the implication was that he could NOT do those things.
Just so you know.

I love God. He can feed the hungry children. He can stop bullets before they kill innocents. He can understand politics. He can do some amazing things with the ole H2O. He can change my underwear.
why yes i believe i already did know that god can do anything...

Just for a bit of some kind of reference, but not actually:

Many modern theologians believe that, although many world religions contain flood stories, Western religions are all tied to the same flood. This is the flood described in the Bible and the Epic of Gilgamesh. Excuse me for not sourcing this, I might get back to it later, but probably not.

Actually there are similarities between the Theology of the Bible, and the "mythologies" of many world traditions. Adam and Eve, stories referring to a tree with forbidden fruit at the beginning of time (Nordic), the flood story, son/sun Gods being executed and rising to life after three days (Osirus, Mithras, Quezocoatl).

Also, the implication was that he could NOT do those things.
Just so you know.
Yeah, I figured :)

I love God. He can feed the hungry children. He can stop bullets before they kill innocents. He can understand politics. He can do some amazing things with the ole H2O. He can change my underwear.
I know isn't he great.

Just for a bit of some kind of reference, but not actually:

Many modern theologians believe that, although many world religions contain flood stories, Western religions are all tied to the same flood. This is the flood described in the Bible and the Epic of Gilgamesh. Excuse me for not sourcing this, I might get back to it later, but probably not.
Some serious research lends itself to the theory that at one time, the Mediterranean Sea was not a significant body of water. At around the time of the Flood, the Straits of Gibraltar may have broken, and unleashed a sudden flood in the entire Mediterranean basin. This would have far reaching effects around the world, with sudden flooding around that area (Fertile Crescent is on the opposite side of Med Basin as the Straits, and immortal guy from Epic was flooded there) and strange droughts in others. This cataclysmic event was probably set off by worldwide rains, which caused serious flooding anyway.

you're thinking of the black sea, actually. the med hasn't been blocked off for over 5 million years. and while it does appear that the black sea filled to its present level in a dramatic fashion around the time that the first cities are getting built (though last i heard, there was still some dispute over that), there does not seem to be any evidence of a massive population movement away from the black sea area. certainly not all the way across the middle east to get from the black sea to the persian gulf, where the flood myth originates.

Why is it that so many people, here and elsewhere in the threads, assume/believe/preach/argue/postulate/demand/theorize that evolution and creation are mutually exclusive? Can't they exist together? They can in my mind, why not yours?

Source me, if you don't mind. I can't find where I got the idea from and it's annoying me to no end.

There is one flaw in the theory of evolution: an incomplete fossil record. If macro-evolution had taken place, then should we not have hundreds of sort of "flip book" of fossils from one species to the next?

we already have the fossils needed to make something like that for a bunch of lineages. we can't say for sure whether any particular species gave rise to any other particular species, but we can tell when things are at least evolutionary cousins (stupid evolution and its bushes instead of ladders...). line 'em up and we have several very nice sets already. my personal favorite is the hominid line, but dinosaurs to birds and reptiles to mammals are nice too. some people are in to snails and such too, but i like the dramatic flare of those three. though the whale flip book is also looking more and more full all the time, and it looks damn fine.

Yeah, it's called ID (Intelligent Design.)
Lots of people on both sides say that if God is great, and God is good, than let us thank him for our gene pool and surrounding universe, down to the last detail. Wouldn't an omnipotent, omnipresent God be able to tweak the 'verse so that people could live? I mean, would you create a living system in a very small amount of time and then not do even a little maintenance, even on the smallest levels?
I would.

LIES. I would sit on my ass and hope politicians did something about it, instead of take my money which I don't have.

Point made.
SOURCE: I read about this in Scientific American, about 2 years ago. Represent.

Source me, if you don't mind. I can't find where I got the idea from and it's annoying me to no end.

for the black sea flood? the idea comes from a book called "noah's flood" by william ryan and walter pitman. from there it made its way to national geographic and the discovery channel and such.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_noah.htm has some info on the idea

Thankee.

Filler, filler.

Empty space.

Thanks, man.

La di da.

Filler (again.)

Thanks (again.)

Why is it that so many people, here and elsewhere in the threads, assume/believe/preach/argue/postulate/demand/theorize that evolution and creation are mutually exclusive? Can't they exist together? They can in my mind, why not yours?

because creationism is the belief that both of the genesis creation stories are in some sense literally true. it also typically includes the idea that the earth, if not the entire universe, is 6,000 years old. this cannont be made to fit with evolution or a scientific understanding of history in general - they are mutually exclusive.

and if that's not what creationism means to you, then i know where to find a whole bunch of young earthers prepared to call you an atheist evilootionist. so welcome to the club. once to undergo the initiation rights, you get your decoder ring and learn the secret hand shake.

Evolution

Greetings to one and all.

I would like to point out a few misapprehensions about the religious philosophy of evolution that I have encountered in this "thread," that I know are rampant almost everywhere else.

Firstly, the earth is not 4.5 billion years old; indeed, I am saying that the earth is, at quite a stretch, 40,000 years old. In fact, it is highly probable (almost undoubtable) that our planet is much younger: the heat which is produced by the earth spinning on its axis has been decreasing by about 0.14-16 degrees since the Great Flood, which occurred around 5,000 or 9,000 B.C.; not long before that event, the earth was still decreasing in temperature, but at a much faster rate than it is now - my point is that it wasn't very long before the Great Flood that the earth was a ball of flame.

Scientists are correct in categorizing abiogenesis and evolution as two entirely different subjects, but most evolutionists will tell you that life evolved from nonliving organisms (i.e., they contained no carbon. I won't dwell on this particular point, but I will ask you to remember it), through the process of abiogenesis. I wonder if anyone of you know how vaguely remote such an event actually is; most scientists agree that it has very high mathematical odds against it (odds of about 10 to the 450 million power, which translates into 10 followed by 450 million zeros). To accept such a ludicrous proposition as being absolute fact is not science - it is quite the opposite: unenlightened superstition. It requires a great deal more blind faith than does virtually anything else, and once we step into the evolutionary realm, we understand that it was highly unlikely that such a precise combination of necessary chemicals would have actually come into existence and functioned perfectly through its first mutation, thus making it even more unthinkable!

Let me also remind you that this event supposedly took place during a time in Earth's history when there was no oxygen available - so the organisms would have to form in this uncanny way, evolve into plants, and then produce oxygen through absorbtion of carbon dioxide. Such an idea is insane and totally unscientific, considering the fact that there was no carbon dioxide either!

Now that I've finished with the geological topic, let me take your attention to the fossil record - a widely misinterpreted one. "Lucy," the "Australopithicene," was a shameful fabrication that was based on the leg bone of a diminutive man and the kneecap of an old woman who was suffering from arthritis (the kneecap was found over four miles away from the leg bone, and was later identified as belonging to a female); this was built into Australopithicene, the Missing Link. And let us not forget "Nebraska Man" - an entirely new species based on one artifact: a pig's tooth. (This last anecdote appeared in most newspapers, but nevertheless, "Nebraska Man" is still taught as being an actual ancestor of the human race.) It does make me laugh, a little, to think that the entire theory is based on about twelve fossils of deformed, crippled, weak, and adolescent human beings.

By the way, evolutionists admit that about 999 genetic mutations out of a thousand are 100% fatal. Moving on. . . .

The Second Law of Thermodynamics directly counters evolutionary thought, even though most who believe in this religion will say that the "two issues are entirely unrelated" - a marvelously unfair statement, considering that there is absolutely no reason in the world to think that the theory of Causal Determinism (in strict mathematical and chemical terms) is not 100% percent accurate, and that String Theory may correspond with it, as well. (The accuracy of the former would be the end of the theory of chaos.)

So don't bother telling me that evolution is an absolute, inescapable scientific fact; I won't buy it. Look at the definition of science - it is a noun, but has verb-like qualities as well, and indicates a correspondance between theory and absolute fact.

Well, sor, that does sound mighty inter-estin'.

I'd shore like to read me up some more uh that there topic.

SOURCE PLZ.

Note: I hate when people just spew stuff. Including myself. Unless it's opinion. This is a scientific thingummy, though; so just give me something to look at, so I can nod my head. Back yourself up. And stuff.

Second Note: It's 3% of all genetic mutations which can lead to favorable mutations. Not .1%.

Evolution







The Second Law of Thermodynamics directly counters evolutionary .



The error here is so profound that it implies absolute scientific illiteracy.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics deals with closed systems.

The earth is not a closed system, it is a system into which energy is constantly being added.

This sort of fundemental error really has no excuse. It is indefensible.

Granada, you seem very unable to pay close attention to the subject - did I say nothing about deterministic theory? Do you know what that is? Do you know what its relation would be to the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

Hm . . . evidently not.

Granada, you seem very unable to pay close attention to the subject - did I say nothing about deterministic theory? Do you know what that is? Do you know what its relation would be to the Second Law of Thermodynamics?



Evolutionary biology is essentially a long chain of causes in the form of a dialectic.

Over time, the contests for reproduction between organisms with slightly different genes favors those with the genes best suited for survival.

Over a great many iterations, the changes in the organisms mean that the current species is on the surface unrecognizable from ancient precursor organisms.

In no way does the second law of thermo, which deals with increasing entropy in a closed system apply. This is simply by definition, because the earth and its organisms are not a closed system.

Now that I've finished with the geological topic, let me take your attention to the fossil record - a widely misinterpreted one. "Lucy," the "Australopithicene," was a shameful fabrication that was based on the leg bone of a diminutive man and the kneecap of an old woman who was suffering from arthritis (the kneecap was found over four miles away from the leg bone, and was later identified as belonging to a female); this was built into Australopithicene, the Missing Link. And let us not forget "Nebraska Man" - an entirely new species based on one artifact: a pig's tooth. (This last anecdote appeared in most newspapers, but nevertheless, "Nebraska Man" is still taught as being an actual ancestor of the human race.) It does make me laugh, a little, to think that the entire theory is based on about twelve fossils of deformed, crippled, weak, and adolescent human beings.

somebody obviously missed the replies in the other thread to these claims. for example my post at http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7507648&postcount=256
i'll even reproduce it here for you.

been reading stuff from gish, johnson, and 'dr.' tax-fraud, have we?

12 or 13 hominid fossils, eh? sorry, incorrect. the number is actually larger than 6 thousand hominid fossils that are categorized into a variety of species, based on their shared anatomical similarities and differences, with around 2 or 3 dozen pre-homo sapiens specimens with moderately complete skulls and skeletons.

your version of the lucy's knee story is both false and an exaggeration of the standard creationist lie about it. you probably meant to say 'found 2 to 3 kilometers away'. that is also false, and is a lie being intentionally maintained by creationist leaders despite their error being repeatedly pointed out to them.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint.html

in any case, besides the fact that we have other skeletal evidence to suggest that lucy was bipedal, we also have a fair number of other australopithicine fossils (with similar knees, oddly enough). we also have at least two sets of australopithicine foot prints. examining them leads to the same undeniable conclusion - the australopithicines walked upright.

and finally name me one high school textbook that even mentions 'nebraska man', let alone discusses it in a positive light. just one. i frelling dare you.

'nebraska man', for those of you who don't keep up with creationist lies, is a case of media sensationalism from about 80 years ago that was never accepted by the scientific community.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html

we can deal with the rest of your claims later.

the heat which is produced by the earth spinning on its axis has been decreasing by about 0.14-16 degrees since the Great Flood, which occurred around 5,000 or 9,000 B.C.; not long before that event, the earth was still decreasing in temperature, but at a much faster rate than it is now - my point is that it wasn't very long before the Great Flood that the earth was a ball of flame.

source?

most scientists agree that it has very high mathematical odds against it (odds of about 10 to the 450 million power, which translates into 10 followed by 450 million zeros).

source?

considering the fact that there was no carbon dioxide either!

source?

By the way, evolutionists admit that about 999 genetic mutations out of a thousand are 100% fatal.

source?

The Second Law of Thermodynamics directly counters evolutionary thought

i dare you to even try to explain how.

Second Note: It's 3% of all genetic mutations which can lead to favorable mutations. Not .1%.

and most of the rest are neutral mutations to non-coding dna. some are moderately negative. only a tiny minority are fatal.

Granada, I cannot tell you how gratifying it would be if you answered my questions about deterministic theory.

Not according to Stephen Jay Gould, Soviets.

Not according to Stephen Jay Gould, Soviets.

source?

source?



source?



source?



source?



i dare you to even try to explain how.

I believe the response would be something to the effect:

If I think therefore I am, then, if I think it therefore it is fact.

Or goodbad logic along those lines.

Not according to Stephen Jay Gould, Soviets.

here, don't bother even attempting to pull out some nonsensical quote-mine a liar has passed on to you as being from gould. the vast majority of our dna is non-coding. therefore the vast majority of mutations will occur in non-coding dna. which means that the vast majority of mutations will have no effect what so ever.

The story of the flood is from the Sumerians as described in the Epic of Gilgamesh. So what happened after the flood? Noah's daughter gets him drunk and does the nasty with him. No one quotes that bit of the Bible. Is this the type of story you call divinely inspired? Sounds like smut to me. Is this the type of filth we want to expose our children to? What about Onan, he jerked off and God killed him. Okay I can see the point, he didn't want to sleep with his sister-in-law, I'd rather be dead than sleep with my sister-in-law. Masturbation is a mortal sin but sleeping with your brother's wife is divine. You know maybe this Bible is not so bad after all if your into incest and dysfunctional family relationships.

heh...nice!
www.landoverbaptist.org

and anyone else notice how god's demeanour changed from the old to the new testament? isn't god to be immutable? change implies a lack of perfection and therefor a lack of a tennet of divinity.

and i have to mention the people who claim (possibly correctly) that Darwin was a theist, Darwin recanted on his deathbed, etc etc...really irk me. that mathematician portrayed in 'a beautiful mind', you know, the one that worked with einstien's so called language of god, that guy who was brilliant (and still might be)...well he was crazy as a shithouse rat. nuts. i mean he saw people that weren't there. does that make his mathematics suspect? of course not. though, if he were possesed by an evil spirit, one might question his ability to converse in god's language...heh.

creationism is a rich metaphor. as an english teacher i can recognise it's beauty for that. however, to claim that because science cannot answer what came before the big bang, it is somehow defunct is a logical leap indeed; especially when it leads one to an even more specious conclusion, namely that god exists. as far as the philosphy of logic is concerned, it is always incumbant upon the person asserting a positive declaration to prove her/his point. The person who negates the point can never fully prove their side. Take for example the statement: There are wombats in Canada. Clearly I can never prove that there are no wombats in Canada, because I lack the ability to be everywhere in Canada at once. All the person who states the positive has to do though is to hold one up by their ears, whilst in Canada, to prove their point.

I am deeply offended by any statement that infers that Athieism, or lack of Christianity, has resulted in some sort of moral degeneration in our society. Pan-historically, one will always find simple minded people bemoaning the way that it used to be, when a simple study of the historical record often shows that we are more or less the same over time. There were pregnancies outside of wedlock prior to the removal of school prayer, just as there will be if we ever choose to (god forbid :-) reinstate it. State secularism was intended, as stated before, to protect religion from the state. One's moral code is something which needs to be arrived at through careful consideration in order that it be a) comprehensible and b) consistent. I have not found (fundamental/born again/Baptist/etc.) Christian ethics ever to meet these deceptively simple criteria. Secular humanism and some existential theories come closer than most Christians I know.

And when did the world become Christian? If the numbers are speaking, you guys have it wrong by a long shot with a couple of other religions waaaay ahead. Maybe you christians really need to find Ganesh...escape your magic and savagry.

Quote: Mandaristan
because science cannot answer what came before the big bang, it is somehow defunct is a logical leap indeed; especially when it leads one to an even more specious conclusion, namely that god exists.


Science can not explain a big bang. We almost need to invoke theories of being in a negative energy universe to explain it, despite our being in a positive enery universe. Stephen hawking admits the laws of Physics break down and fail to adequately explain the soundness of the big bang theory. It defies the fundamental of rules upon which physics are based.

So, using the big bang to declare creationism as defunct logic, is well, defunct logic.

Humans often turn to res ipsa loquitor, to explain events. It would not have happened were it not for the actions (affirmative or ommitive) of another. So, I can see, but not entirely agree, with how religions can beleive that we would not be here were it not for the actions of a superior being. As we can not adequately explain away such a belief, they are entitled to it. Therefore, we can not proclaim religion, particularly christianity, to be based on defunct logic. Now creationism, I would lean towards yes, defunct. The belief in God, not defunct.

A neat applicable phrase for both sides:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Also, as an english teacher, please instruct others to use person instead of one. Person more adequately addresses your readers than the first integer in an infinite series. That, and person is... well, more personable.

Evolution is occuring right now. In the period since Darwin first observed it we have inumerable examples of adaptation, advancement and extinction in all kinds of species. To suggest it is only a theory is spurious and wrong. If the Church wishes to go head to head with science then the arguement comes down to vast quantites of irefutable data vs blind faith. As Bill Hicks was keen to observe when confronted with the 10,000 years theory, 'What about Dinosaurs?' Left behind to test our faith? Oh, so we have a prankster God?

Evolution is occuring right now. In the period since Darwin first observed it we have inumerable examples of adaptation, advancement and extinction in all kinds of species. To suggest it is only a theory is spurious and wrong. If the Church wishes to go head to head with science then the arguement comes down to vast quantites of irefutable data vs blind faith. As Bill Hicks was keen to observe when confronted with the 10,000 years theory, 'What about Dinosaurs?' Left behind to test our faith? Oh, so we have a prankster God?

In case you are jumping to conclusions about AP, I was talking about the big bang, not evolution. The two are mutually exclusive theories, evolution being concrete. The big bang deals with the creation of the universe, of which our planet is apart. It does not deal entirely with the formation of planets. Which is observable and known. Evolution deals with the progression of living beings over time as they adapt to the environment. Which is also observable and known.

I kinda skipped to the last page after reading the first (yeah, it's lazy, but even though I don't have a life, I do want to be able to enter the debate at some point before 2050)

I should mention first that I'm agnostic, that means I don't discount the possibility of the existance of god or gods, but I don't pretend to know what he/she/they want us to do, and I don't think anyone else should either, but your beleifs in the supernatural are your business.

And I do mean YOUR business, not even your minister/mullah/rabbi/etc. business, you have a brain (god given or naturally occurring), so actually use it.

Someone (or someseveral) mentioned that the people who founded the United States wanted to keep the law from being used to enforce any given religion, at the time there was a load of religious conflicts going on in Europe (two versions of the same one would you believe), and they desperately wanted to get away from that.

Anyway, I think you need to ask the following questions.



Do we actually need a supernatural being ot validate our existance? why not instead just live for the fun of it? Live to enjoy yourself, live to partake in your favorite activity (tennis, rocketry, paragliding, whatever takes your fancy that doesn't interfere with the lives of others)

Do we need a supernatural being to tell us what laws to obey? Why not make laws with the objective to make a society we can all live in without fear of getting dead or losing our possessions or being taken as a slave? creating a free and safe society is motive enough to ban murder, theft, assault, rape, etc.

Do we need a supernatural being to justify a right to bear arms? all the really compelling reasons to allow private gun ownership are related to crime control, not ''cos god sed so'.

Do we need a supernatural being to prevent school massacres? surely class discipline and aggressive anti-bullying strategies would work better, if bullies where to experience punishment for assaults they thought they weren't seen doing at the time enough times, they'd get too paranoid to do it, I'd have thought.

Also, do we need a supernatural being to explain how we got here? there are plenty of ways we could have come about naturally, even if science doesn't have a complete picture, I have more faith in it than some voice in someones head saying God made a whole planet with a functioning ecosystem and fossils to 'test our faith' over the course of a week, you may have your own theory, but could you PLEASE TRY to base it on physical reality? Holy books are a dime a dozen, ... okay, more like £2-£15 each, but the point is I could make up a religion today if I felt assed to (remember the UK national survey a while back? there was talk of everyone entering 'Jedi' in their response to 'what is your religion?'?) and it would be as legitimate as any other.




I'm agnostic because I have better things to be doing than worrying weather I'm obeying the correct holy book, and humanity has better things to be getting on with than killing itself by the millions over whose faith is the right one, or banning sex education (seriously, it's like trying to prevent food poisoning by restricting access to food safety courses) amongst other things.

What does the big band have to do with evolution?

Don’t mind me; I just jumped to the last post so I could say something.

Why is it that whenever an argument like this pops up, everyone always takes a side, and no one, NO ONE, ever stops to wonder if they're both wrong.

Before I start ranting, I just want to make it clear that I do not condone the idea of animals mutating rapidly instead of slowly evolving – Supposedly, an animal is meant to mutant to suit a rapidly changing environment rather than face extinction. I seem to recal that in these situations, animals adapt new physical abilities which invariably assist them in surviving new environments. So, let’s say that large enough group of animals all mutated an extra appendage at the same time whilst remaining free of both mental and physical retardation, what are the odds that they would mutate something that actually helps them survive in a new environment?

Humans, as a species, are currently facing higher and higher temperatures. Yet I am certain that we will not mutate in such a way as to adapt to this new environment, and neither will any other species on earth.

Anyway, onward to the rest of my post!

Now, it would take a smart person internet access about 10 minutes to realize that Macro Evolution just cant work (Micro Evolution however, has been observed during the Industrial Revolution when a species of butterflies changed color to camouflage themselves in soot). There are so many things to factor in against Macro Evolution, like fatal mutations, the sudden appearances of new species and the impossible chance that self aware life forms came into being inside a universe that was supposedly created by a massive, fiery and above all, life extinguishing explosion

Another fatal flaw in the evolution theory is, in my opinion, quite obvious – how would a single celled organism “evolve”, or even mutate, into a multi-celled organism. Think about it. Evolution is based upon the idea of certain cells being used more often that others, and being improved and streamlined while less useful cells eventually become redundant. So how could this organism, with its one cell, grow another?

Moving up in the evolutionary ladder, how would a slug evolve eye balls? They cannot happen gradually – you either have a mechanism for detecting light, or you don’t. Maybe something similar to eyes can evolve into an eye ball, but the basic problem is still there –where did that light detecting apparatus come from? And then it would need to be linked to the brain through an optic cable or something, and then this poor, mutated freak of a creature would still need a brain capable of detecting and understanding light patterns, which it won’t have.

And this is the biggest doozy of all for me – where did birds come from? Supposedly from dinosaurs, but how can a walking reptile slowly evolve wings? A scaled lizard doesn’t just grow feathers. And if, by some amazing chance, it does grow feathers, there would be no way the dinosaur could use them to fly – solid bones, no wings, and no knowledge of aerodynamics or flight.

It is a proven fact that we have a brain part designed to blindly accept information as facts, and while people used to use this brain part for believing in God, they now use it to believe in the scientific method, and theories such as Evolution.

But at the same time, every person capable of rational thought should realize God creating the universe is a just a lame answer to the "why are we here" question. I don’t want to start any Christian bashing here, but it’s not that hard to realize that God just doesn’t make sense.

In fact, the only reason alot of religious folks believe what they believe is because that’s what they were raised on. If you were born in ancient Egypt, you would know that the sun died and was then reborn each morning, and you would know that when you die Anubus would weigh your heart before allowing you access to the Field of Reeds and an eternal life with Ra, the sun god.

But we all know that’s not what’s going to happen when we die, and maybe one day thousands of years from now students in history classes will be reading up on us and joking about our quaint “God” religions and stupid “Evolution” theories.

And then even more futuristic historians will eventually research their beliefs and laugh at them.

What bugs me with these conversations is everyone is out to prove the other guy wrong without looking for faults in their own beliefs first.

Now, I want you all to go google "Arguments against Evolution" and "Arguments against God", and read the hundreds of rational articles and essays on why neither theory can work before you continue preaching your beliefs to each other.

Take note of what I’ve said, and feel free to correct me if some of my facts are off, which I’m sure a few probably are.

Evolution gives man NO REASON for life, NO REASON to live.

Life is its own reason.

Also, it isn't "God vs. Darwin." Darwin struggled all his life between his own materialist science and a late-Victorian theology, and avoided talking about the theological and sociological aspects of his work. Nor did he come up with the idea of evolution. There were many evolutionists before Darwin. His contribution was the means (mostly natural selection) by which evolution is achieved.

These discussions are almost always pointless in that very few "creationists" know anything about biology (and don't kid yourself, there is no modern study of biology without evolution) except church taught propaganda. They begin their "science" with the results already determined and proceed to look for "proof" to support that predetermined end. This is not the method for proving or disproving a theory (are they willing to acknowledge divine creation is a theory, not a fact?).

That, of course, is the main reason creationism is unscientific.

Originally Posted by Swatsnia
Evolution gives man NO REASON for life, NO REASON to live.

^^^
Like he said, life is its own reason. Geneticlly, we and every species doesnt want to die. Not wanting to is normally enough to discourage most people ;)And the Reason to live is to mate, breed and raise enough offspring to continue the survival of the species, which is also geneticlly drilled into our brains.

Creationism Does Not Even Meet the Standards of Christian Belief

That Creationism is not a science is easy enough to prove and has been more than adequately demonstrated. Since Creationism is a religious belief how does it hold up when judged by its own Christian standards of belief?

Since Creationism claims to be a science it must adhere to the scientific method. It is this method, when applied to Christian belief, which undermines the faith of Creationists. This method is composed of fours steps:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon.
2. Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomena.
3. Use of the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature. If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will come along and conflict with, and overturn, a theory.

Therefore, to be a science Creationists must begin with the understanding that their theory is based upon observable and verifiable data, with the possibility that it could one day be overturned.

However, the basis of Christianity is not verifiable data and proof, but rather, faith. The Bible, both Old and New Testaments, are very clear on the central role of faith. Isaiah commands, “If you do not stand firm in your faith, you will not stand at all.” This is further reinforced in the New Testament, “The righteous will live by faith” (Romans 1:17).

The Bible is very clear that religious faith takes precedent over the world of men’s ideas. Corinthians’ rejection of the scientific world is unambiguous, “… your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power” (1 Corinthians 2:5).

What is science if not men’s wisdom?

In Hebrews it is written that, “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.” Christianity is not to be proven through pseudo-science or even real science, but must be taken on faith.

Those who continue to pound the dead horse of Creationism are not only bad scientists, but poor Christians, as well.

If the Earth/moon have been around so long, why isn't there more of a build-up of dust on the moon?

If you look at the landing gear of the lunar landers, they expected the dust to be much deeper, right?

What does that have to do with biology?

I think he intended to post on the "Moon Landings Were Faked" thread. An embarrassing overlap of creationism and moon landing conspiracy.

It wouldn't surprise me - I always get confused my the sheer delusion of creationists, moonhoaxers and holocaust deniers. I find those three groups often uses similar arguments.

I thought from the title that this would be an intelligent debate about Creation vs. Evolution, but instead I find nothing more than Atheist bashing. I guess I had my hopes set too high.

Anyways, how about something on topic? Here goes. Please, do not project your beliefs onto other Christians. I am a Christian, but I believe in evolution. And yes, that is possible to do without being a hypocrite, and there are many ways of explaining away the differences between the Bible and the Theory of Evolution. Not all Christians believe that the World was formed 10,000 years ago, just like not all Christians believe that Atheists are bad people. That is all.


Anyways???.... How about just anyway...no "s" and it is not a Theory. You are using the word wrong..

is ne 1 ere from worthing in england

It's like this: Darwin was a Christian
Not all Christians are Creationists
Creationists are basically ignoramus'
Not all Christians are ignoramus'
I say this because there is very good science that has been proven.

Evolution is the creation. Notice how in Genesis, the creation story mirrors the theory of evolution in terms of the order in which everything was created.

The book "the Science of God" (Schroeder) explains in great detail the beautiful symmetry between evolution and creation. After reading it, I have no doubt:

God began creating the universe a long time ago, and it is still a work in progress.

my views on evolution/creationism are as follows, a) there is evidence for natural selection but not for evolution (i.e. lizard to man to who knows) the evidence is all around us, its not really diputable. things do change over series of generations, through 1, mutations that increase the odds of survival, or 2, the basic reshuffling of genes during reproduction of dna. side note, any evolutionist, or i guess any creationist, that doesnt think that christians believe that things adapt, are dead wrong. consider this. we believe thatall humans came from 2 humans (adam and eve) look at all the variety we see in humans today. secondly, we believe that all species of animals today descended from the two put on noahs ark. so all deer today (mule deer, whitetailed, etc,) came from two "deer" or whatever that were on the ark. se creationists def believe that things change. what we disagree with evolutionists on is that these changes can produce a more complex organisms, ex, going from bacteria to humans. the reasoning is this: mutations occur by either switching around, deleting, or shutting off sections of genes. how does deleting information make something more complex. when famous evolutionists are asked to give an example of a species that underwent a mutation that increased or made the genteic information more complex, they cant give one example, because there are none, and has never in any fossil been record of one. so, there is no possible way for say, a fish, to mutate into a higher form of life. thats all for now, if anyone has any questions, just directly telegram my country, mundata. p.s. im sure i spelled some stuff wrong, lets not go off on that again lol//

my views on evolution/creationism are as follows, a) there is evidence for natural selection but not for evolution (i.e. lizard to man to who knows) the evidence is all around us, its not really diputable. things do change over series of generations, through 1, mutations that increase the odds of survival, or 2, the basic reshuffling of genes during reproduction of dna. side note, any evolutionist, or i guess any creationist, that doesnt think that christians believe that things adapt, are dead wrong. consider this. we believe thatall humans came from 2 humans (adam and eve) look at all the variety we see in humans today. secondly, we believe that all species of animals today descended from the two put on noahs ark. so all deer today (mule deer, whitetailed, etc,) came from two "deer" or whatever that were on the ark. se creationists def believe that things change. what we disagree with evolutionists on is that these changes can produce a more complex organisms, ex, going from bacteria to humans. the reasoning is this: mutations occur by either switching around, deleting, or shutting off sections of genes. how does deleting information make something more complex. when famous evolutionists are asked to give an example of a species that underwent a mutation that increased or made the genteic information more complex, they cant give one example, because there are none, and has never in any fossil been record of one. so, there is no possible way for say, a fish, to mutate into a higher form of life. thats all for now, if anyone has any questions, just directly telegram my country, mundata. p.s. im sure i spelled some stuff wrong, lets not go off on that again lol//

Of course you are entitled to your belief, and as a belief, it should not be challenged.

It just isn't science.

Anyways. Evolution gives man NO REASON for life, NO REASON to live. If all there is is you and the world, and when you die thats it, things just go black, what hope is there, what point is there, to living?
Now, I don't spend 24 hours a day reading The Bible, or debating evolutionists, or praying. But consider if you will, the aspects of Christianity (and yes, I will call it that, not Creationism) as apposed to evolution.
When faced at work with a chance to ruin someone's life in the attempt to make your own better, what would you do?
A Christian would, of course, not do that. He would stay where he is in his career and not think twice about it.
Certain Atheists would take advantage of the situation. Survival of the fittest, right? This person shouldn't of messed up, or should've covered his tracks, or should've done better, right? Besides, you might even do better in his place! And if the man and his family are reduced to a poor house or begging, who cares? He should've watched what he was doing.

If you want, I will continue, but I wanna stop here and debate what I have already said.

So you are arguing that believing in evolution equals a lack of morality. Congratulations on making even less sense than most creationalists.

The evolutions of species is a scientific fact. The "theory of evolution" is a scientific theory that attempts to explain the origin as well as development of life and has thousands of pieces of evidence supporting it. There is not a single piece of evidence that God exists at all, except for a book written by dozens of people that does not list its sources and directly contradicts several other such books. So please do not be calling Creationalism a "theory" on par with evolution.

What point is there to life? Give me a break. So, according to you, the only point of life is to believe in God so that, after you die, you get to heaven. If you don't believe that happens, why bother living at all!? I'm sure Ted Turner agrees with you and created those thousands of jobs because, well, without God, he had no reason to go from day to day. People live to be happy, to further society, to have kids and teach them about the world. You can do those things without the Bible telling you how and why.

As for your little parting shot, I hope you fullly appreciate the irony that the Republican party, which has the unfettered support of people like you, believes more firmly in social Darwinism than anyone else. Or do you have some sort of proof that every "Christian" will always do the right thing but most Athiests will always take the low road the screw people over in their climb to the top? President Bush is a Christian but has passed on a trillion dollars debt to the future generations. Dozens of Christian priests molested children. Atheists do not bomb churches, but "Christians" blow up abortion clinics.

Evolution and social Darwinism are not related, except that the former inspired the latter. Christianity is not the only source of inspiration to live a good life. If you cannot realize or accept this kindly keep your ill-founded opinions to yourself.

Moving up in the evolutionary ladder, how would a slug evolve eye balls? They cannot happen gradually – you either have a mechanism for detecting light, or you don’t. Maybe something similar to eyes can evolve into an eye ball, but the basic problem is still there –where did that light detecting apparatus come from? And then it would need to be linked to the brain through an optic cable or something, and then this poor, mutated freak of a creature would still need a brain capable of detecting and understanding light patterns, which it won’t have.

I highly recommend taking a class on Evolutionary Biology or Neurology. Or just Vertebrate Anatomy. Bio Profs love to argue evolution. (Once in my Verte Anatomy class someone actually asked the prof to prove evolution, which he then promply sited evidence of evolution for the rest of the 50 min lecture) If I remember, since I really don't want to find my Vertebrate Anatomy text, the photo-receptor evolved from either the pressure receptor or temperature receptor (those guys let you know when you "touch" something). Personally, I think its the temperature receptor, since heat is really infrared radiation, which is just below the visible light in the EM spectrum, and thus a mutation allowing the temperature receptor to detect red light would be therefore a primitive photo-receptor. Of course i'm over-simplifying the whole process, but the jump from no eyes to eyes is not as dramatic as you seem to indicate in your post, which is my point. Also, vision gives an organism a great "evolutionary advantage" over a non-seeing organism, thus as soon as primitive sight was available, seeing organisms would easily get food and reproduce at a highly more successful rate than the non-seeing version of the species, and soon there would be only "slugs with eyes". Evolution is a extremely slow process especially with complex systems like eyes & other systems. But if you would like to see the spread of different eyes, look at fish, sharks (which are not fish), oh and worms. Oh man go outside and dig up a earthworm. You'll see small "black dots" on one end of the worm, which are its photoreceptors or "eyes". Those are some primitive eyes.

And this is the biggest doozy of all for me – where did birds come from? Supposedly from dinosaurs, but how can a walking reptile slowly evolve wings? A scaled lizard doesn’t just grow feathers. And if, by some amazing chance, it does grow feathers, there would be no way the dinosaur could use them to fly – solid bones, no wings, and no knowledge of aerodynamics or flight.

For this one, just watch the Discovery Channel and see one of their specials on Dinosaurs. They'll do a far better job explaining how birds evolved from dinosaurs. First of all, Dinosaurs are not "lizards." They're completely separate, although its generally believed that they evolved from reptiles. Many Paleontologists believe that several Dinosaurs were actually covered in feathers (i.e., the Velociraptors from Jurassic Park), they were "warm-blooded" (like birds but unlike cold-blooded reptiles), and the bone structure of birds and Birds & Dinosaurs are more "similiar" than any other animal group (sorry i don't remember my phylum, class, group, etc. classifications) in bone structure. There are probably more examples as well, but I don't remember off hand.

Hooray for Bio Professors & the Discovery Channel!

what we disagree with evolutionists on is that these changes can produce a more complex organisms, ex, going from bacteria to humans. the reasoning is this: mutations occur by either switching around, deleting, or shutting off sections of genes. how does deleting information make something more complex.

Mutations do not always result in a loss of genes. Chromosomes can be duplicated one too many times (accidentally) and a gamete can receive a disproportional piece of one chromosome, leading to an organism with "extra" genes. Furthermore, it has been virtually proven that fairly large chunks of our DNA originated from virus and bacteria genes which were absorbed into the genome over millions of years.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101_2.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB110.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

Your argument is not a new idea.

my views on evolution/creationism are as follows, a) there is evidence for natural selection but not for evolution (i.e. lizard to man to who knows) the evidence is all around us, its not really diputable. things do change over series of generations, through 1, mutations that increase the odds of survival, or 2, the basic reshuffling of genes during reproduction of dna. side note, any evolutionist, or i guess any creationist, that doesnt think that christians believe that things adapt, are dead wrong. consider this. we believe thatall humans came from 2 humans (adam and eve) look at all the variety we see in humans today. secondly, we believe that all species of animals today descended from the two put on noahs ark. so all deer today (mule deer, whitetailed, etc,) came from two "deer" or whatever that were on the ark. se creationists def believe that things change. what we disagree with evolutionists on is that these changes can produce a more complex organisms, ex, going from bacteria to humans. the reasoning is this: mutations occur by either switching around, deleting, or shutting off sections of genes. how does deleting information make something more complex. when famous evolutionists are asked to give an example of a species that underwent a mutation that increased or made the genteic information more complex, they cant give one example, because there are none, and has never in any fossil been record of one. so, there is no possible way for say, a fish, to mutate into a higher form of life. thats all for now, if anyone has any questions, just directly telegram my country, mundata. p.s. im sure i spelled some stuff wrong, lets not go off on that again lol//

about information being added:
-People that have more chromosomes than other people are born each day. people with down syndrome have a different number of chromosomes than you (unless you are one of them). Errors occur when cells split up and one cell can just gain an extra portion of dna, which in turn can be altered by mutations.
-studies showing for example that humans have 99% DNA in common with chimps, and of course, all studies comparing DNA of closely related species (as defined in evolution theory) show that it occurs in nature.

i agree with everything u said there, but let me point out one thing; are those monkeys more complex of an organism? no. do they have more genetic information? no. in fact, if anything, the gene for bright fur was prolly deleted or turned off, so they monkeys, while adapting to their environment, dont become more complex or more advance. and their still monkeys.in other words, thos monkeys could never evolve into say, people, because they dont actually gain new genetic information.
Let me help you. Do you believe in the following statements?

1. All organisms have DNA, that directs the construction of their physical self.
2. DNA is prone to changes,or more correct mutations that change the DNA. These changes are very small.
3. These changes lead to changes in the organisms.
4. When changed organisms produce offspring, the offspring retains these changes (unless they change again, of course.)

5. Sometimes, the environment in which an organism lives changes. This could be a forest burning down, a newfound food source or simply a disease.
6. If the changed organisms are changed in such a way that they survive easier than the original organisms, these organisms will increase in number faster than the original organisms.
7. Organisms with harmful changes will increase in number slower than the original organisms. This will eventually lead to extinction.
8. In time, the organisms that better survives in the environment will become more and more common, until there is none of the original organisms left.


For example:

A species of monkeys live in a jungle. They are, let's say, coloured brown, but vary some in colour. The monkeys are happy and eat bananas all day (and make more monkeys).

Unfortunately some tigers moves into the jungle. The tigers don't eat bananas; they eat monkeys. Naturally, the monkeys tries to hide whenever the tigers go hunting.

Now let's assume the undergrowth and the trees are very dark coloured. This means that the tigers can spot anything bright easier, as it contrasts with the jungle.

The tigers catch and eat several monkeys (oh no!). All the monkeys that were eaten were those born with a slightly brighter fur than the others. Since the bright-furred monkeys are eaten more often than the other monkeys, they cannot procreate as much as other monkeys.

This leads to less variation in fur colour among the jungle apes. Before they might have gone from light brown to dark brown or even black, but now the brightest colour one is just regular brown.

The species have changed as a whole (not much, but still) as a result of a change in the environment. There are no more bright-furred monkeys.

(as a mental experiment, try to figure out what happens with the tigers when they suddenly find it harder and harder to spot monkeys, who all now have furs that don't contrast the jungle.)



(If I have made some mistakes here, please feel free to point them out.)

Ok, I'm going to speak my mind.

Evolutionists say:

...bad description of evolution was here - if you want to see it, go to first post...

Correct me if I am wrong - ok, I did.

...bad description of creationism removed. if you must see it, go to first post...

...other silly statements removed...
Anyways. Evolution gives man NO REASON for life, NO REASON to live. If all there is is you and the world, and when you die thats it, things just go black, what hope is there, what point is there, to living? Assumption that Evolution = no God, no afterlife. WRONG...

Now, I don't spend 24 hours a day reading The Bible, or debating evolutionists, or praying. But consider if you will, the aspects of Christianity (and yes, I will call it that, not Creationism) as apposed to evolution.Second wrong assumption. Please, go read the bible 24 hours a day and leave us alone

When faced at work with a chance to ruin someone's life in the attempt to make your own better, what would you do? A Christian would, of course, not do that. He would stay where he is in his career and not think twice about it.
Certain Atheists would take advantage of the situation. Survival of the fittest, right? This person shouldn't of messed up, or should've covered his tracks, or should've done better, right? Besides, you might even do better in his place! And if the man and his family are reduced to a poor house or begging, who cares? He should've watched what he was doing. Bad assumptions, incorrect conclusions, flawed logic. In other words - just words...

If you want, I will continue, please don't but I wanna stop here and debate what I have already said. a debate would assume that you have used logic, have a valid arguement, and will listen. First two on that list are already blown. My guess is, so is the third.First point: You, and your ilk, are always saying something like "X, and all christians know and say X".

That's crap. I'm a Christian, and just because I disagree with your little dogmatic decision on how God choose to create and manage the world does not give you and/or your ilk the right to say I can't be a Christian if I don't agree with you.

Well, I guess you can say it. It has no meaning, but you can say it.

Evolution does not say man came from fish. Evolution says that millions of years ago ("in the beginning...") something caused a spark of life to occur on this planet. Many think on other planets as well.

Notice that the vast majority of us who believe evolution is more reasonable than creationism do not say God did not create that spark of life.

In any case, over the millions of years since then, that spark of life has slowly evolved into all the various and splendid forms of life that have existed since then, and exist now, to inlcude human kind.

Notice, again, that the vast majority of us who believe in evolution do not say that God did not choose this method to create the variety of life he choose to inhabit this planet. In fact, that is what many of us believe.

You, and those like you, refuse to see that evolution, and the bulk of science, and God, are NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

What is mutually exclusive is YOUR PARTICULAR VIEW OF WHAT GOD IS AND HOW HE CHOOSE TO CREATE THE WORLD, and science/biology/evolution.

If you choose to believe that the bible is word for word true, and refuse to believe in evolution/biology, fine. But, please, allow the rest of us to excercise the brain that God arranged for us to have, and enjoy the fact that we understand a little of the way he choose to create the world.

As for the rest of your diatribe, it only means anything if one assumes your assumptions to be correct - and they aren't.

Mudata's argument is hereby pwnz0rd by Down's Syndrome.

I am still waiting for a creationist to explain to me how your belief can both be a science (abiding by the scientific method) and adhere to basic Christian beliefs (i.e., “… your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power”)?

If the Earth/moon have been around so long, why isn't there more of a build-up of dust on the moon?

If you look at the landing gear of the lunar landers, they expected the dust to be much deeper, right?

It doesn't have anything to do with biology. It has to do with the age of the earth (universe). Some fundie gave me this answer as to why creationism is viable scientifically. Was hoping for a little more specific answer as I'm not a geologist.

Evolution

Greetings to one and all.

I would like to point out a few misapprehensions about the religious philosophy of evolution that I have encountered in this "thread," that I know are rampant almost everywhere else.

Christ, why must you curse me with these also? Why? I have been a loyal, good Catholic, and I have done my best to follow your teachings.

Firstly, the earth is not 4.5 billion years old; indeed, I am saying that the earth is, at quite a stretch, 40,000 years old. In fact, it is highly probable (almost undoubtable) that our planet is much younger: the heat which is produced by the earth spinning on its axis has been decreasing by about 0.14-16 degrees since the Great Flood, which occurred around 5,000 or 9,000 B.C.; not long before that event, the earth was still decreasing in temperature, but at a much faster rate than it is now - my point is that it wasn't very long before the Great Flood that the earth was a ball of flame.

1) No evidence of the Great Flood covering the Earth. I'm not disputing its existance, but pointing out that, like the Romans, Moses had a limited definition of what the world amounted to due to his level of understanding of the universe at the time. You have to remember the extreme differences between levels of learning.
2) There is no evidence for the Earth decreasing rapidly in temperature before the "Great Flood" happened. The most rapid temperature decreases have been ice ages, but the last one was, iirc, 10,000 years ago.
3) That rate of temperature decrease is not supported by scientific evidence, or even the laws of thermodynamics.

Scientists are correct in categorizing abiogenesis and evolution as two entirely different subjects, but most evolutionists will tell you that life evolved from nonliving organisms (i.e., they contained no carbon. I won't dwell on this particular point, but I will ask you to remember it), through the process of abiogenesis. I wonder if anyone of you know how vaguely remote such an event actually is; most scientists agree that it has very high mathematical odds against it (odds of about 10 to the 450 million power, which translates into 10 followed by 450 million zeros). To accept such a ludicrous proposition as being absolute fact is not science - it is quite the opposite: unenlightened superstition. It requires a great deal more blind faith than does virtually anything else, and once we step into the evolutionary realm, we understand that it was highly unlikely that such a precise combination of necessary chemicals would have actually come into existence and functioned perfectly through its first mutation, thus making it even more unthinkable!

Nonlive != nonorganic. Diamonds are considered organic, but nonliving. Silicon-based lifeforms would be living, but nonorganic. Also, there is an increasing number of scientists convinced that life on Earth was actually introuduced by a meteor or comet back in the days before Earth had an atmosphere capable of burning them up. They've also proven it impossible for life to form from inorganic matter under what they think are the atmospheric conditions of Earth in that period.

Let me also remind you that this event supposedly took place during a time in Earth's history when there was no oxygen available - so the organisms would have to form in this uncanny way, evolve into plants, and then produce oxygen through absorbtion of carbon dioxide. Such an idea is insane and totally unscientific, considering the fact that there was no carbon dioxide either!

Actually, there was both oxygen and carbon dioxide. Little fact they forget to mention about volcanos: When a volcano erupts, it throughs oxygen into the air as well as the rest. That is why there is a theory that the deoxyfication of Earth back during the era of dinosaurs was volcanos dying out, which may have lead to their extinction and our rise. This may also provide all of the evidence needed to disprove humanity is the source of the current atmosphere problems, but requires decades to research.

Finally, keep in mind that, even today, there are organisms on this planet which do not require oxygen for their survival. Most of them are found on the ocean floor, but there is the possibility of some we have yet to find.

Now that I've finished with the geological topic, let me take your attention to the fossil record - a widely misinterpreted one. "Lucy," the "Australopithicene," was a shameful fabrication that was based on the leg bone of a diminutive man and the kneecap of an old woman who was suffering from arthritis (the kneecap was found over four miles away from the leg bone, and was later identified as belonging to a female); this was built into Australopithicene, the Missing Link. And let us not forget "Nebraska Man" - an entirely new species based on one artifact: a pig's tooth. (This last anecdote appeared in most newspapers, but nevertheless, "Nebraska Man" is still taught as being an actual ancestor of the human race.) It does make me laugh, a little, to think that the entire theory is based on about twelve fossils of deformed, crippled, weak, and adolescent human beings.

Actually, this is false. But someone else already dealt with it enough for my satisfaction.

By the way, evolutionists admit that about 999 genetic mutations out of a thousand are 100% fatal. Moving on. . . .

Actually, that is not true. If it were, we would all fall down dead. The average human undergoes, iirc, at least six genetic mutations in their lifetime, most of which are not passed on to their children. Some undergo far more than that. And let's not forget bacteria that have changed half their genetic makeup in their own lifetimes. Most genetic mutations are shown to be nonlethal, even by science.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics directly counters evolutionary thought, even though most who believe in this religion will say that the "two issues are entirely unrelated" - a marvelously unfair statement, considering that there is absolutely no reason in the world to think that the theory of Causal Determinism (in strict mathematical and chemical terms) is not 100% percent accurate, and that String Theory may correspond with it, as well. (The accuracy of the former would be the end of the theory of chaos.)

And this is your logical fallacy for the temperature guesses. The Earth is not a closed system. It has heat and energy added to it by the Sun, sends matter and energy into space (due mostly to humans), recieves matter and energy from the occasional meteor or comet, and may even have other sources of outside interference. That is far from a closed system.

So don't bother telling me that evolution is an absolute, inescapable scientific fact; I won't buy it. Look at the definition of science - it is a noun, but has verb-like qualities as well, and indicates a correspondance between theory and absolute fact.

A good scientist will admit it isn't absolute fact, but the most likely explanation. A bad scientist will call it a fact. If you had read this topic, you would know that most of us, whether believing in the Bible or believing it fiction, pretty much accept this.

Ok, I'm going to speak my mind.

Evolutionists say:

Evolution, a process that has never been observed, happened.

Bacteria live and die at a much faster rate than humans, bacteria mutate into forms that are immune to antibiotics that used to kill them outright. The accelerated life cycle of bacteria demonstrate observable evolution. Bacteria are direct and incontravertable proof that life changes in order to survive.

If the Earth/moon have been around so long, why isn't there more of a build-up of dust on the moon?

If you look at the landing gear of the lunar landers, they expected the dust to be much deeper, right?

Actually, this was taken as decisive evidence that the moon was molten not too long ago.

I do not believe that creationism and evolutionism are incompatible. Some people do. And that's all right. It is from hearing lots of opinions on a single matter that people begin to understand each other and the issue better. I will put a really great quote from Orson Scott Card's Xenocide at the bottom for those who care to read it. Anyway, along this same train of thought, I don't believe anyone has a right to limit what others think. You may try to convince someone but they are free to believe whatever they want. Including hardened athiests who believe only in evolution. Even if the Christians who believe only in creationism are right (something I highly doubt since I think it's hard for anyone to be entirely right), I still think God can handle a little dissent and that it's his job to clear it up as he sees fit. Evolutionists are pursuing truth as they see it, and Christians are pursuing truth as they see it. And the more truths we pursue the more options we have and the more ways to see the world and the more open we can become...

“Even when [humans are] asleep they’re not asleep. Earthborn animals do this thing, inside their brains—a sort of mad firing-off of synapses, controlled insanity. While they’re asleep. The part of their brain that records sight or sound, it’s firing off every hour or two while they sleep; even when all the sights and sounds are complete random nonsense, their brains just keep on trying to assemble it into something sensible. They try to make stories out of it. It’s complete random nonsense with no possible correlation to the real world, and yet they turn it into these crazy stories. And then they forget them. All that work, coming up with these stories, and when they wake up they forget almost all of them. But when they do remember, then they try to make stories about those crazy stories, trying to fit them into their real lives… They’re practicing. They’re doing it all the time. Coming up with stories. Making connections. Making sense out of nonsense. They change what their stories mean… They transform things so that the same memory can mean a thousand different things. Even from their dreams, sometimes they make up out of that randomness something that illuminates everything. Not one human being has anything like the kind of mind you have. The kind we have. Nothing as powerful. And their lives are so short, they die so fast. But in their century or so they come up with ten thousand things for every one that we discover… Madness, and then illumination. We knew everything there was to know before we met these humans, before we built this connection with Ender’s mind. Now we discover that there are so many ways of knowing the same things that we’ll never find them all.”
-Orson Scott Card

Micro-evolution is a proven process, and macro-evolution will also be one in coming years.

Fundamentalists are afraid of examining the issue too closely, thus they stick to repeating their stale bromides, and will resort to anger in order to dodge the facts of the world.

Christianity in itself is slavery of the soul through time and destroying the reason of the mind, but it's nice to see that several christians here still abide by some reason and have not become too depraved mentally.

Micro-evolution is a proven process, and macro-evolution will also be one in coming years.

Not necessarily. They require far more genetic evidence for comparing the rates of mutation and to work out some of the math bugs.

Fundamentalists are afraid of examining the issue too closely, thus they stick to repeating their stale bromides, and will resort to anger in order to dodge the facts of the world.

Ironically, this is the same statement I made in a Bible arguement a few hours ago...

Christianity in itself is slavery of the soul through time and destroying the reason of the mind, but it's nice to see that several christians here still abide by some reason and have not become too depraved mentally.

And this piece of flamebait is relevant how?

Don’t mind me; I just jumped to the last post so I could say something.

Why is it that whenever an argument like this pops up, everyone always takes a side, and no one, NO ONE, ever stops to wonder if they're both wrong.

Before I start ranting, I just want to make it clear that I do not condone the idea of animals mutating rapidly instead of slowly evolving – Supposedly, an animal is meant to mutant to suit a rapidly changing environment rather than face extinction. I seem to recal that in these situations, animals adapt new physical abilities which invariably assist them in surviving new environments. So, let’s say that large enough group of animals all mutated an extra appendage at the same time whilst remaining free of both mental and physical retardation, what are the odds that they would mutate something that actually helps them survive in a new environment?

Humans, as a species, are currently facing higher and higher temperatures. Yet I am certain that we will not mutate in such a way as to adapt to this new environment, and neither will any other species on earth.

Anyway, onward to the rest of my post!

Now, it would take a smart person internet access about 10 minutes to realize that Macro Evolution just cant work (Micro Evolution however, has been observed during the Industrial Revolution when a species of butterflies changed color to camouflage themselves in soot). There are so many things to factor in against Macro Evolution, like fatal mutations, the sudden appearances of new species and the impossible chance that self aware life forms came into being inside a universe that was supposedly created by a massive, fiery and above all, life extinguishing explosion

Another fatal flaw in the evolution theory is, in my opinion, quite obvious – how would a single celled organism “evolve”, or even mutate, into a multi-celled organism. Think about it. Evolution is based upon the idea of certain cells being used more often that others, and being improved and streamlined while less useful cells eventually become redundant. So how could this organism, with its one cell, grow another?

Moving up in the evolutionary ladder, how would a slug evolve eye balls? They cannot happen gradually – you either have a mechanism for detecting light, or you don’t. Maybe something similar to eyes can evolve into an eye ball, but the basic problem is still there –where did that light detecting apparatus come from? And then it would need to be linked to the brain through an optic cable or something, and then this poor, mutated freak of a creature would still need a brain capable of detecting and understanding light patterns, which it won’t have.

And this is the biggest doozy of all for me – where did birds come from? Supposedly from dinosaurs, but how can a walking reptile slowly evolve wings? A scaled lizard doesn’t just grow feathers. And if, by some amazing chance, it does grow feathers, there would be no way the dinosaur could use them to fly – solid bones, no wings, and no knowledge of aerodynamics or flight.

It is a proven fact that we have a brain part designed to blindly accept information as facts, and while people used to use this brain part for believing in God, they now use it to believe in the scientific method, and theories such as Evolution.

But at the same time, every person capable of rational thought should realize God creating the universe is a just a lame answer to the "why are we here" question. I don’t want to start any Christian bashing here, but it’s not that hard to realize that God just doesn’t make sense.

In fact, the only reason alot of religious folks believe what they believe is because that’s what they were raised on. If you were born in ancient Egypt, you would know that the sun died and was then reborn each morning, and you would know that when you die Anubus would weigh your heart before allowing you access to the Field of Reeds and an eternal life with Ra, the sun god.

But we all know that’s not what’s going to happen when we die, and maybe one day thousands of years from now students in history classes will be reading up on us and joking about our quaint “God” religions and stupid “Evolution” theories.

And then even more futuristic historians will eventually research their beliefs and laugh at them.

What bugs me with these conversations is everyone is out to prove the other guy wrong without looking for faults in their own beliefs first.

Now, I want you all to go google "Arguments against Evolution" and "Arguments against God", and read the hundreds of rational articles and essays on why neither theory can work before you continue preaching your beliefs to each other.

Take note of what I’ve said, and feel free to correct me if some of my facts are off, which I’m sure a few probably are.

Oh, where to start. How about the number one fallacy, committed by virtually everyone who argues against evolution in the first place:

1: "Disproving" evolution does not demonstrate that Creationalism is true.

No matter how many reasons you can think of to explain why evolution can't be true, almost all of which can be immediately disproven, the fact remains that even if there is only one piece of evidence supporting evolution it is one more than that which supports Creationalism.

2: Just because 10,000 people argue for evolution and 10,000 people argue against, the views represented are not equal.

99.99% of scientists in related views hold evolution to be true; as do about 99% of everyone in a scientific or engineering field. Meanwhile, who believes in Creationalism? People who are faithful in religion. If you Creationalists want to demonstrate that evolution is false scientifically, instead of just saying "We don't believe it because we have faith that the Bible is true instead," you need scientific evidence, not a bunch of poorly-informed folks quoting Hovind and concluding that "God is great, he made everything, the end." Compared to the thousands of research papers published each year which support evolution, we aren't just talking thin ice -- you're walking on water.

As to your specific points, had you spent 10 minutes researching them on the Internet, you would not have made such egregious claims. Your example of microevolution is ridiculous, and your "proof" against macroevolution isn't.

You want microevolution? How about the in the human being? Our brains are larger than, say, the Peruvian Ice Man's; humans over time have become less hairy; the extra teeth and intestine required to digest large amounts of roughage have become unneeded "wisdom teeth" that give folks trouble and a vestigil organ that's only purpose is occasionally getting infected. How about antibiotic-resistant bacteria? How about the HIV virus, which mutates around our every solution?

Now, you argue that a single-celled organism could not mutate into a two-celled organism. However, I would suggest you look at lichen. A lichen is a combination of plant and algae cell, where each type contributes something to the organism as a whole. I bring this up because it is remarkably similar to the leading theory regarding just how single-celled organisms became multicellular, which resulted as slightly different single-cell organisms "clumped" next to one another. Having multiple organisms fending for one another obviously gives an evolutionary advantage, and over time enough changed that they evolved into a single organism. Genetic evidence demonstrates that the mitochondra in every one of your cells were once a separate organism that eventually came to live inside other organisms. Eventually, the different kinds of cells integrated into the organism specialize more and more, until becoming today an organ, which has lost the ability to do anything but its appointed task.

Dinosaurs? I suppose you were not a fan of dinosaurs as a child, because you surely would have remembered the pterodactyl and related species, which were hollow-boned dinosaurs with elongated armbones to which were attached large flaps of skin, which the animals used to glide. You also evidently haven't heard of "bird-hipped" dinosaurs, as opposed to "lizard-hipped," or the evidence that some or even many dinosaurs were warm-blooded and used feathers or feather precursors as insulation. And do I even have to bring up Archaeopteryx?

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html for a more complete discussion

As for macroevolution, look at the world today. We have Cape buffalo in Africa, and American buffalo here. Both fulfill essentially identical roles in similar environments, yet they are different. And buffalo and antelope are both closely related to horses, as are deer and caribou, but none are the same animal. Isn't it obvious that separate populations of what was at one point the same animal took different paths to better fit their environment? Genetic studies have demonstrated that at one point, thousands of years ago, there were only three female cheetahs. Is it so hard to imagine that a pride of lions with "weak" genes became gradually smaller and weaker, barely able to compete, until some disaster forced them to mutate rapidly and evolve the necessary muscles and sinews to run at incredible speed? And in this pride there were only 3 females that pulled the trick? How else would so many animals be so closely related but very slightly different, in those subtle ways that help them out? Caribou have just enough over deer that, not only can they not interbreed, but caribou can survive colder climates on food of lower quality. But it's pretty obvious that they started as some very lost, very cold deer, before the stress induced required mutation.

I agree with evolution because I do not require faith to see that it is true, whereas Creationalism requires not only the faith to believe, but also to disbelieve titanic scientific evidence and even proof.

Ok, I'm going to speak my mind.

Evolutionists say:

Evolution, a process that has never been observed, happened. When there was nothing, an explosion created the universe. All life comes from a lower form of life, survival is to the fittest. All things living came from all things not living. The earth began 600 billion years ago. Man came from fish.

Correct me if I am wrong, but is the above not correct for the most part? Please, tell me if I missed something.

Creationists (Christians) say:

God has always existed and will always exist. He created the universe and man, about 10,000 years ago. Throughout about 4000 years, great men wrote in The Bible of the acts of God and His prophets. At 0 A.D. Jesus, God's Son, was born into the world to save our souls, our spirits, the part of us that speaks to us, known as a conscience, from eternal damnation in Hell. He died a horrible death on the Cross to save us forever.

Ok, now that I've pretty much gotten both theories down...

Sure, you could say neither is proven, and all are THEORIES. That is true. Through the scientific method, neither God or evolution has been seen and observed. Now, I could debate for YEARS different facts and observations, but that would get me no where with a hardened Atheist (ok, evolutionist). But consider, if you will, the impacts of the BANNING OF SCHOOL PRAYER. To quote a favorite musician of mine:
"The ball got dropped in '62
They wouldn't let children pray in school
Violent crime began to rise
The grades went down, and the kids got high

Free love, gay rights, no absolutes,
Abortion on demand,
Brought VD, AIDS and no morality..."

And it keeps going, if you want me to (GASP!) type the (PANT!) whole (CHOKE!) thing I guess I (WHEEEEZEEEE!) will...

Anyways. Evolution gives man NO REASON for life, NO REASON to live. If all there is is you and the world, and when you die thats it, things just go black, what hope is there, what point is there, to living?
Now, I don't spend 24 hours a day reading The Bible, or debating evolutionists, or praying. But consider if you will, the aspects of Christianity (and yes, I will call it that, not Creationism) as apposed to evolution.
When faced at work with a chance to ruin someone's life in the attempt to make your own better, what would you do?
A Christian would, of course, not do that. He would stay where he is in his career and not think twice about it.
Certain Atheists would take advantage of the situation. Survival of the fittest, right? This person shouldn't of messed up, or should've covered his tracks, or should've done better, right? Besides, you might even do better in his place! And if the man and his family are reduced to a poor house or begging, who cares? He should've watched what he was doing.

If you want, I will continue, but I wanna stop here and debate what I have already said.

Take a basic logic course. The Greeks taught logic before the the Pyramids were built in Egypt. If your initial asumption is not proven, all crap that follows is meaningless. You misinterpret 2 "Theories", and then pretend to judge them. Neither are theories, because they lack facts and proof.

Only 1, of the following 2, ACTUAL FACTs are sufficient to blow you away.
1. There are NO FACTS regarding any god.
2. The Universe is less than 20 Billion years old. (You claim that the Earth is 600 Billion years old).

#2 shows that you have no knowledge of PROVEN facts.
#1 relies on "Faith", which is (correctly) defined as "belief that is NOT BASED ON TRUTH"

Your "facts" have no value. Do not continue to lie to your sheep, John Kerry.

the person who made this thread made a mistake, there is no such thing as lower life forms. anything alive is equal! you cannot say anything, from dirt, to frogs, to a baby human, to a star is any better or worse than another, they are all made of atoms, which in turn are made of vibrations of infinitsmal strings, or membrane.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics directly counters evolutionary thought

The second law is a straightforward law of physics that states, "in a closed system, you can't finish any real physical process with as much useful energy as you had to start with — some is always wasted." Basically, in a closed system, available energy can never increase.

Creationists often latch onto this law of physics to "prove" evolution could not occur. After all, how could more life, and more energy, be created than started out on the planet?

Beyond their failure to distinguish between thermodynamic entropy and logical entropy (which is a whole other science lesson), they disregard the fact that Earth's biological system is not closed, but rather open to organizing input from the outside, the sun being a chief example.

It doesn't have anything to do with biology. It has to do with the age of the earth (universe). Some fundie gave me this answer as to why creationism is viable scientifically. Was hoping for a little more specific answer as I'm not a geologist.
It was based on calculations that used an extremely inaccurate estimation of the accumulation of dust. It's far, far too fast. In addition, the weight of the dust would compress lower layers of it into rock.

Take a basic logic course. The Greeks taught logic before the the Pyramids were built in Egypt. If your initial asumption is not proven, all crap that follows is meaningless. You misinterpret 2 "Theories", and then pretend to judge them. Neither are theories, because they lack facts and proof.

Only 1, of the following 2, ACTUAL FACTs are sufficient to blow you away.
1. There are NO FACTS regarding any god.
2. The Universe is less than 20 Billion years old. (You claim that the Earth is 600 Billion years old).

#2 shows that you have no knowledge of PROVEN facts.
#1 relies on "Faith", which is (correctly) defined as "belief that is NOT BASED ON TRUTH"

Your "facts" have no value. Do not continue to lie to your sheep, John Kerry.

I dont know where you got your "correct" definition of faith, but it is incorrect. Faith is belief in something that doesnt rest on logical proof or material evidence. Either you believe God created the world or you dont. I dont need proof to make me believe that Heaven and God are real. But thats my choice, to worship, believe and have faith in God almighty. Thats the thing about faith. God asks you to have faith in him and do as he asks in order to have eternal life in heaven. He probably wont part the sea for me if I ask or turn some water into wine, but then as far as I'm concerned- he doesnt have to. Human nature makes it difficult for us to believe something that cant physically be proven to us. I admit that it is HARD to stay faithful to a God you cant see or hear. God isnt just going to hand over Heaven to us that easily. We have to work for it. Part of that work means believing in him without having to have that tangible evidence. I can totally understand how people find it difficult to believe in him and follow him. Its just each individuals choice on how or what they believe in.

/\ then you (not specifically, but creationists in general) cant use god as evidence of creation, because there is no evidence of god besides some ficticious book written by the stoners of the ancient times.

science is 'god' now.... just the way it should be.

/\ then you (not specifically, but creationists in general) cant use god as evidence of creation, because there is no evidence of god besides some ficticious book written by the stoners of the ancient times.

science is 'god' now.... just the way it should be.

you(not specifically you) miss my point entirely. "Creationists" dont need evidence that he existed. We believe it without proof -hence we have faith in God.

I dont know where you got your "correct" definition of faith, but it is incorrect. Faith is belief in something that doesnt rest on logical proof or material evidence. Either you believe God created the world or you dont. I dont need proof to make me believe that Heaven and God are real. But thats my choice, to worship, believe and have faith in God almighty. Thats the thing about faith. God asks you to have faith in him and do as he asks in order to have eternal life in heaven. He probably wont part the sea for me if I ask or turn some water into wine, but then as far as I'm concerned- he doesnt have to. Human nature makes it difficult for us to believe something that cant physically be proven to us. I admit that it is HARD to stay faithful to a God you cant see or hear. God isnt just going to hand over Heaven to us that easily. We have to work for it. Part of that work means believing in him without having to have that tangible evidence. I can totally understand how people find it difficult to believe in him and follow him. Its just each individuals choice on how or what they believe in./\ then you (not specifically, but creationists in general) cant use god as evidence of creation, because there is no evidence of god besides some ficticious book written by the stoners of the ancient times.

science is 'god' now.... just the way it should be.
There is evidence for God, just no objective empirical evidence and scientism requires objective, repeatable, experimental evidence. It's for this very reason many people refuse to accept athropology or psychology as sciences. However, objective empirical evidence is not the only kind of evidence.

Your post only serves to point out that science cannot be used to prove religion, which I think of us knew. But I agree with you that Creationists should not point to evidence in the physical world as proof of God.

you(not specifically you) miss my point entirely. "Creationists" dont need evidence that he existed. We believe it without proof -hence we have faith in God.


"creationism" is practically defined as the "attempt to prove by evidence that the story in the bible of the world's creation is literally true"

attempting to prove something is the hallmark of little faith.

Faith is belief without regard for evidence.

Belief indeed sometimes against the evidence.

well call it whatever you like- i personally do not need physical proof that God exists. I beleive in him through my faith. He blesses me everyday and I am thankful for him.

I wish to understand the view of the evolutionist more, please correct me in the following statement.

Evolutionism is the belief that everything that exists today is the result of scientific reactions in elements that came about through chance. These reactions could not occur without energy which came from the big bang, which in itself just happened. The planets were formed from the gravitational pull of various clumps of elements which pulled these clumps together to make bigger clumps to make planets. Basic life (bacteria etc.) also formed from these reactions, which explains why life could exist on other planets but thats another topic. This basic life then gradually 'changed' from one form to another (is the reason for this change understood?). This caused the emergence of sea creatures, which made their way to land and became able to live on land. What is the supposed order of this development, was it from fish to reptiles to birds or what? Humans came from monkey/ape-like ancestors which came down from the trees and gradually straightened outand changed to ressemble what we are today.
Again, I ask that any mistakes in this would be cleared up, I think it would be wise to know what the theory is at this moment in time. If this is acheived, then a proper debate can commence.

I think it was Sun Tzu who said 'know your enemy'.

good point, but your forgetting a few things. 1, people wih downs syndrome dont have new information in their DNA. 2, they are not more complex organisms. look at it like this, if i have the instruction book for say, building a computer processor, thats a lot of information right? not at all, compared to the information of all of our DNA, or even compared to the Dna of a simple bacteria. so lets say we want to make a better processor. does it make sense that by randomly switching, deleting, or even adding/duplicating some pages of the instruction book its possible to make a better or more complex processor? no, not even assuming say, if u tried it a million times. so theres no way that happened with humans.
Mutations do not always result in a loss of genes. Chromosomes can be duplicated one too many times (accidentally) and a gamete can receive a disproportional piece of one chromosome, leading to an organism with "extra" genes. Furthermore, it has been virtually proven that fairly large chunks of our DNA originated from virus and bacteria genes which were absorbed into the genome over millions of years.
yah i know its not a new argument, did it have to be? none of yours (plural) are.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101_2.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB110.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

Your argument is not a new idea.

according to himself, he was. he specificaly stated that he expected that in the future, large amounts of transistion fossils would be found, in fact would have to be found if his theory was true. if he was alive today, whos to say if he would still believe his own theory.
and yes, i know about the ridiculous attempts made by evolutionists to cover their buts after not really finding any transistion fossils. nice one guys.

yep. good call.
Evolution is the creation. Notice how in Genesis, the creation story mirrors the theory of evolution in terms of the order in which everything was created.

The book "the Science of God" (Schroeder) explains in great detail the beautiful symmetry between evolution and creation. After reading it, I have no doubt:

God began creating the universe a long time ago, and it is still a work in progress.

All of you realise Darwin was a devout R-Catholic and was going to become a member of the cleregy, he was deeply hurt that everyone took it that he was saying God didnt exist if anything it showed the mrvel of God. So i dont think you should title it Creastionism/God Vs Evolutionists/Darwin, God Vs Darwin, No......

according to himself, he was. he specificaly stated that he expected that in the future, large amounts of transistion fossils would be found, in fact would have to be found if his theory was true. if he was alive today, whos to say if he would still believe his own theory.
and yes, i know about the ridiculous attempts made by evolutionists to cover their buts after not really finding any transistion fossils. nice one guys.

we've got plenty of transitional fossils. tons and tons of them really.

I wish to understand the view of the evolutionist more, please correct me in the following statement.
With pleasure.

Evolutionism is the belief that everything that exists today is the result of scientific reactions in elements that came about through chance.
Nope. Evolution deals with the diversification of life.

These reactions could not occur without energy which came from the big bang, which in itself just happened.
More or less, yes. It still has nothing to do with evolution. It's physics that you're talking about.

The planets were formed from the gravitational pull of various clumps of elements which pulled these clumps together to make bigger clumps to make planets.
Yes. Took an extremely long time, but you have the basic idea. This still has nothing to do with evolution. Right now you're in cosmology.

Basic life (bacteria etc.) also formed from these reactions,
BZZZZT! Wrong. What came first were simple organic chemicals, which developed into self-replicating molecules, which developed into more and more complex self-replicating molecules, which eventually became what we call life. This, however, is abiogenesis, not evolution. You're in chemistry now.

This basic life then gradually 'changed' from one form to another (is the reason for this change understood?).
Yes. Random mutation filtered by natural selection.

Again, I ask that any mistakes in this would be cleared up, I think it would be wise to know what the theory is at this moment in time. If this is acheived, then a proper debate can commence.

And I have cleared them up.

When faced at work with a chance to ruin someone's life in the attempt to make your own better, what would you do?
A Christian would, of course, not do that. He would stay where he is in his career and not think twice about it.
Certain Atheists would take advantage of the situation. Survival of the fittest, right? This person shouldn't of messed up, or should've covered his tracks, or should've done better, right? Besides, you might even do better in his place! And if the man and his family are reduced to a poor house or begging, who cares? He should've watched what he was doing.


This is utter nonsense.

Christians fuck each other up just as much, if not more often, than atheists do. Glancing at some UK prison statistics, atheists and agnostics combined are only 0.5% of inmates, compared to about 60% for christians. I doubt US statistics will be vastly different.

Since when does Atheism = Social Darwinism, anyway?

according to himself, he was. he specificaly stated that he expected that in the future, large amounts of transistion fossils would be found, in fact would have to be found if his theory was true. if he was alive today, whos to say if he would still believe his own theory.
and yes, i know about the ridiculous attempts made by evolutionists to cover their buts after not really finding any transistion fossils. nice one guys.

Punctuated equilibrium, friend. Ever heard of it?

Transition fossils? How about, say, Archaeopteryx?

we've got plenty of transitional fossils. tons and tons of them really.
do ur research chief. yes, theyve found some, but not nearly, not even close to the number needed to prove or even support the traditional evolution theory.

do ur research chief. yes, theyve found some, but not nearly, not even close to the number needed to prove or even support the traditional evolution theory.

All of the current evidence points towards evolution, a theory formed *based* on the current data we have. Thus, everything we *currently* have supports the *current* theory of evolution. If it didn't, the theory would have been thrown out already for something else. This is how science works.

Besides, how many do you need? Do you need a fossil for every organism that ever existed ever on earth? Because you won't find it.

Argue on about this but let me get one point across:

CHRISTIAN DOES NOT EQUAL CREATIONIST

There are many, many branches of the Christian faith, all with varying degrees of belief in evolution vs. creationism...certain Christian fundamentalists are the ones who believe strongly in creationism...among other, weirder things

Punctuated equilibrium, friend. Ever heard of it?

Transition fossils? How about, say, Archaeopteryx?

well, friend, yes i have heard of it. thats what i classified as the ridiculous attempts by evolutions to cover their butts.
and notice that i didnt say no transition fossils, i know there are some, but i think we both know that there arent enough to even support evolution.
and explain why i should believe that punctured equilibrium is true.

Christians fuck each other up just as much, if not more often, than atheists do. Glancing at some UK prison statistics, atheists and agnostics combined are only 0.5% of inmates, compared to about 60% for christians. I doubt US statistics will be vastly different

Maybe it has something to do with a third of the world being Christian

All of the current evidence points towards evolution, a theory formed *based* on the current data we have. Thus, everything we *currently* have supports the *current* theory of evolution. If it didn't, the theory would have been thrown out already for something else. This is how science works.

Besides, how many do you need? Do you need a fossil for every organism that ever existed ever on earth? Because you won't find it.

sweet way to be wrong, senor generalizer. what science has is a bunch of evidence and i dont really dispute any of it, but evolution is simple one way to explain it. so its not like thats what all the evidence points to, thats just how we are currently explaining it to our school kids. personally, i think that the evidence points just as much (if not much more) towards creationism. and no, i dont need a transistion fossil for everything, but u should. i.e., if traditional evolution is true, there would have to, whether we found them or not. and if there was, chances are real good we would have found a lot more than we have.

well, friend, yes i have heard of it. thats what i classified as the ridiculous attempts by evolutions to cover their butts.
and notice that i didnt say no transition fossils, i know there are some, but i think we both know that there arent enough to even support evolution.
and explain why i should believe that punctured equilibrium is true.

This is a goofy statement, considering that the current theory is *based* off of the fossils and DNA evidence we *currently* have. So, obviously, there is enough to back up current theory at least to the point that it is the most viable. As we find new evidence, the theory changes. Thus is science.

Wow, big arguements going on here. i'm not much of a forumn board kinda person, so please put up with me, at least for a short while anyway....
i believe wholehartedly in creationism. God created us. No doubt about it in my mind.
My views on Evolutionists and christians who believe in evolution: Popycockle.
How can you call yourself a christian and believe in evolution when the bible clearly states that God made the world in 6 days...count'em, 6. rested on the seventh.
any ways, i'm not really the arguing type, so thats my really big long argument!
God bless ya's all!
Tarlz

How can you call yourself a christian and believe in evolution when the bible clearly states that God made the world in 6 days...count'em, 6. rested on the seventh.

The Bible is not meant to be taken literally

Point number one: This country was not founded on religion. Actually, the Founding Fathers tried to keep religion out of politics to protect religion.

Point number two: You seem to be saying that you don't want responses. If you get angry any time somebody responds to your posts, then what is the point in posting on a message board in the first place? Sure, you can, but you will soon find that nobody responds to you, and at that point I expect you will complain that nobody listens to you or respects your opinions.

Point number three: You said "Christians believe." I was telling you that this statment was incorrect.

Point number four: You blame a whole lot of things on removing prayer from school, and claim that Atheists fall into the state of nature that Hobbes described (man in a state of nature will do whatever he can to further himself). That to me looks like bashing Atheists. Forgive me if I was mistaken.


This country was founded on religion and freedom.If it wasn't, why is God's name in the constitution?Prayer should be in the school.It shouldn't be forced upon everyone but all who says their Christain are not Christain.If you walk into a modern highschool, middle school, even an elementary school, you can not walk down the hallway without hearing some offensive about sex, drugs, o music or race.If prayer were in school, maybe a better understanding of Christainity would be given to ignorant CHristians.About the evolution things... who wants to believe they came from pre-historic animals and monkeys.And I'm sorry to whoever made this threa but I cant debate when I agree with you.Oh and Northern Trombonium, you're forgiven.

The Bible is not meant to be taken literally


Haha.You've just offended me. :mp5:

Ok, I'm going to speak my mind.
having read this first, let me say this: you don't get out much do you?

Evolutionists say:

Evolution, a process that has never been observed, happened. When there was nothing, an explosion created the universe. All life comes from a lower form of life, survival is to the fittest. All things living came from all things not living. The earth began 600 billion years ago. Man came from fish.

1. the big bang is not part of the theory of evolution.
2. the fossil record provides evidence that life on this planet has changed, has evolved since it began. this is evolution.
3. abiogenesis is not evolution.
4. yes, humanity would have somehow descended from some kind of fish...

Correct me if I am wrong, but is the above not correct for the most part? Please, tell me if I missed something.
well, that's a small sampling of your innacuracies.

Creationists (Christians) say:

God has always existed and will always exist. He created the universe and man, about 10,000 years ago. Throughout about 4000 years, great men wrote in The Bible of the acts of God and His prophets. At 0 A.D. Jesus, God's Son, was born into the world to save our souls, our spirits, the part of us that speaks to us, known as a conscience, from eternal damnation in Hell. He died a horrible death on the Cross to save us forever.
except that some christian creationists believe the world to be 4 billion years old and that god caused evolution. nice to know that only young earther, literalists count as christian.

[quopte]Sure, you could say neither is proven, and all are THEORIES. That is true. [/quote]
no it's not. creationism is not a theory.

Through the scientific method, neither God or evolution has been seen and observed.
nylon bug?

Now, I could debate for YEARS different facts and observations, but that would get me no where with a hardened Atheist (ok, evolutionist). But consider, if you will, the impacts of the BANNING OF SCHOOL PRAYER.
mandatory school prayer should be banned. if you want to pray silently, fine. don't force everyone else to pray with you though. not everyone is christian and you would be alienating those who are not. not to mention that if you want your kid to learn a religious tradition, then bring them to church/synagogue/mosque/temple/whatever. school is not for religious education unless you're in a religious school or a religion class.

To quote a favorite musician of mine:
"The ball got dropped in '62
They wouldn't let children pray in school
Violent crime began to rise
The grades went down, and the kids got high

Free love, gay rights, no absolutes,
Abortion on demand,
Brought VD, AIDS and no morality..."
umm.... that's not because people aren't forced to pray.

Anyways. Evolution gives man NO REASON for life, NO REASON to live. If all there is is you and the world, and when you die thats it, things just go black, what hope is there, what point is there, to living?
to live?
technically, to pass on your genes.
but just because science doesn't give you a purpose for living doesn't mean that you can't find your own purpose in life. you have a brain, use it to think for yourself and come up with some answers on your own.

When faced at work with a chance to ruin someone's life in the attempt to make your own better, what would you do?
A Christian would, of course, not do that. He would stay where he is in his career and not think twice about it.
Certain Atheists would take advantage of the situation. Survival of the fittest, right? This person shouldn't of messed up, or should've covered his tracks, or should've done better, right? Besides, you might even do better in his place! And if the man and his family are reduced to a poor house or begging, who cares? He should've watched what he was doing.
1. i know christians who have done such things and will probably continue to do them. there are christians who use people freely and take advantage of the kindness of others.
2. not all atheists would take advantage of such a situation. you don't need a god in your life to be a good person, and i don't think atheists really seek a purpose in life in destroying the lives of others.

so again, i must ask you. where did you learn about evolution? your ideas about it are idiotic. as are your opinions of atheists. do you actually personally know anyone who isn't a christian? do you know any christians who aren't good people?

Wow, big arguements going on here. i'm not much of a forumn board kinda person, so please put up with me, at least for a short while anyway....
i believe wholehartedly in creationism. God created us. No doubt about it in my mind.
My views on Evolutionists and christians who believe in evolution: Popycockle.
How can you call yourself a christian and believe in evolution when the bible clearly states that God made the world in 6 days...count'em, 6. rested on the seventh.
any ways, i'm not really the arguing type, so thats my really big long argument!
God bless ya's all!
Tarlz

Well then, we might as well all go home, the Bible says so.

Wow, big arguements going on here. i'm not much of a forumn board kinda person, so please put up with me, at least for a short while anyway....
i believe wholehartedly in creationism. God created us. No doubt about it in my mind.
My views on Evolutionists and christians who believe in evolution: Popycockle.
How can you call yourself a christian and believe in evolution when the bible clearly states that God made the world in 6 days...count'em, 6. rested on the seventh.
any ways, i'm not really the arguing type, so thats my really big long argument!
God bless ya's all!
Tarlz

Why do you choose the first Genesis creation account over the second?

This country was founded on religion and freedom.If it wasn't, why is God's name in the constitution?Prayer should be in the school.It shouldn't be forced upon everyone but all who says their Christain are not Christain.If you walk into a modern highschool, middle school, even an elementary school, you can not walk down the hallway without hearing some offensive about sex, drugs, o music or race.If prayer were in school, maybe a better understanding of Christainity would be given to ignorant CHristians.About the evolution things... who wants to believe they came from pre-historic animals and monkeys.And I'm sorry to whoever made this threa but I cant debate when I agree with you.Oh and Northern Trombonium, you're forgiven.

coudl you please use two spaces following your periods, this makes it very difficult to read your writing.

and also, weren't the founding fathers of the u.s. deists? didn't thomas jefferson make his own version of the bible?

and who cares if you don't want to believe we share a common ancestor with moneys... that's what the evidence is telling us, and as fans of csi know, the evidence doesn't lie.

Evolutionism is the belief that everything that exists today is the result of scientific reactions in elements that came about through chance. These reactions could not occur without energy which came from the big bang, which in itself just happened. The planets were formed from the gravitational pull of various clumps of elements which pulled these clumps together to make bigger clumps to make planets.

not part of the theory of evolution.

This basic life then gradually 'changed' from one form to another (is the reason for this change understood?). This caused the emergence of sea creatures, which made their way to land and became able to live on land. What is the supposed order of this development, was it from fish to reptiles to birds or what? Humans came from monkey/ape-like ancestors which came down from the trees and gradually straightened outand changed to ressemble what we are today.

this is evolution.

kinda... the details are off but it is essentially this: life on this planet has changed since life began on this planet. we don't see t-rexes anymore, now do we? nor do we see sabertooth tigers.

If it wasn't, why is God's name in the constitution?

Really? It is? Please point out where this occurs.

The only place you'll come close is the 'in the year of our Lord" in the date, which is hardly a constitutional endorsement of god in our government.

Maybe it has something to do with a third of the world being Christian
and more than 0.5% of the population is atheistic/agnositc...

how is it that atheists and agnostics have a much lower representation in prison populations compared to the overall % of them than christians do?

perhaps figuring that if you've only got one life, and everyone else has only got one life, it might not be the best idea to fuck up other people's lives and/or spend your own life in jail?

the person who made this thread made a mistake, there is no such thing as lower life forms. anything alive is equal! you cannot say anything, from dirt, to frogs, to a baby human, to a star is any better or worse than another, they are all made of atoms, which in turn are made of vibrations of infinitsmal strings, or membrane.
string theory? apparantly there's some debate about whether that's science or philosophy.

As we find new evidence, the theory changes. Thus is science.

You mean as evolutionist don't find the evidence they thought they would, they change the theory.

do ur research chief. yes, theyve found some, but not nearly, not even close to the number needed to prove or even support the traditional evolution theory.

Every fossil they've ever found is a 'transitional' fossil. Honestly, we're never going to find a complete sequence from any one creature to another. The fossil record is woefully incomplete, but not due to anything us humans can control, merely that fossil formation is amazingly rare.

How about a dialectical solution?

Who's to say the hand of God, Gods or aliens wasn't behind the creation? Scientists suggest they know the method of creation, but they speculate on the forces behind those methods. I contend that the forces of our respective, reveered deities were the unseen forces behind the method of creation and evolution.

You mean as evolutionist don't find the evidence they thought they would, they change the theory.

No one goes looking for evidence to support their theory expecting to find certain things and calls themselves a scientist.

If you mean the predictions that have been made with the theory of evolution, please feel free to point any failed predictions out.

Every fossil they've ever found is a 'transitional' fossil. Honestly, we're never going to find a complete sequence from any one creature to another. The fossil record is woefully incomplete, but not due to anything us humans can control, merely that fossil formation is amazingly rare.


every fossil found is a transistion fossil? only if u already believe in evolution, so thats a circular argument. i mean, u can call everything a transistion fossil, but that doesnt mean it is.

You mean as evolutionist don't find the evidence they thought they would, they change the theory.
no...
fossils don't happen for every organism that ever dies, more often the bones are scattered by other animals, wind, water, et c. it's possible that for some species, the conditions were never right for fossilization.

if we find evidene that indicates something entirely different, then the theory changes.

every fossil found is a transistion fossil? only if u already believe in evolution, so thats a circular argument. i mean, u can call everything a transistion fossil, but that doesnt mean it is.
So is claiming that very fossil we have isn't a transition fossil. Meet us half way, we've got plenty of them.

havent' they found complete fossil records for some organisms though?

or more or less complete...

do ur research chief. yes, theyve found some, but not nearly, not even close to the number needed to prove or even support the traditional evolution theory.

give me a number of how many obviously transitional fossils you want. because we have thousands and thousands. and they all transition in consistent patterns. what more could one ask for as evidence for evolution?

would you care to discuss a particular transitional 'family tree' in detail?

The Empire of Presidency has $50 on Creation/God.

The first thing I'll do is admit I didnt read all 16 pages of responses, I read the first 5 then skimmed the the rest briefly.

So if I'm repeating someone I'll apologize.

Firstly I'll correct a few scientific errors (that sounds far more condescending then I intended):

While macro-evolution has never been observed micro-evolution has, repeatedly.

The Earth is dated at about 4.5 billion years, not 600 billion.

All things did not come from a 'lower' form of life, all things came from a different sort of life, yes beginning with single-cell organisms but the concept of higher or lower life forms is a poor one and misleads people into thinking of life in terms of pyramid graphs.

Now we get into personal opinions.

"Evolution gives man NO REASON for life, NO REASON to live."

Exactly why do you need a higher power to dictate a reason in life for you. Find your own. Evolution does, in fact,give man a reason to live. Survival of the fittest your reason to live is to achieve the goal of being 'fittest'.

"A Christian would, of course, not do that. He would stay where he is in his career and not think twice about it."

On the contrary, countless wars have been fought between the various Christian sects for followers for centuries. Even in more recent history look at the violence between Catholics and Protestants in Europe.

'"The ball got dropped in '62
They wouldn't let children pray in school
Violent crime began to rise
The grades went down, and the kids got high

Free love, gay rights, no absolutes,
Abortion on demand,
Brought VD, AIDS and no morality..."'

You have quoted a popular song, while its lyrics have surely inspired many that does not cause it to be true. Just as convincing thousands of the existence of WMD's in Irag didn't cause them to pop into being. Okay now I'm being facetious but you see my point.

In fact it has been my experience that the most tolerant and non-violent people I've met tend to also be very accepting of homosexuality.

As for the rise in violence I'm sure that the tension of the Cold War and the hostility over the American troop buildup in vietnam beginning in Febuary 61' and the horrific war that followed had nothing to do with that.

There was a debate later in this thread between evo-creationism (believing a mix of both) and solid creationism. Someone stated that God speciffically stated the creation timeframe in days and that this is the true Word of God and cannot be challenged (thus disproving, in their mind, a common evo-creation theory that one of Gods days in in fact millions of years), it is also the true Word of God that a horrendous flood killed off all life on the earth save Noah and his ark. However there is no physical evidence of such. A sudden flood of that magnitude would leave thousands, if not millions of deathbeds where entire herds of creatures numbering in the thousands died at once. There is no such evidence. A flood leaves a certain trace of sediments upon the ground that is indicative of a it, the entire globe should have such a trace at the same sedementary level, it doesn't. Some have theorized that the 'ice age' was actually the flood. Water, in its liquid state, does not leave the same marks that glaciers do, which can easily be seen in the Canadian Shield, or gouge deep fjords such as those found in Norway and Sweden, or many of the lochs in Scotland.

While I sympathize with your position it is exactly these sort of 'us-or-them' aguments being brought up that cause atheists and scientists to look at religious fundamentalists with such disdain.

... who wants to believe they came from pre-historic animals and monkeys.

What you want does not influence science or reality.

You mean as evolutionist don't find the evidence they thought they would, they change the theory.

All science adjusts so as to best fit existing evidence. Evolution being science, you should not be surprised to see it change over time. The original theory of planetary rotation, after all, was completely backwards. Although Darwin's evolution wasn't that far off the modern theory, most biologists agree that punctuated equilibrium is the way to go.

Creationalism, on the other hand, is exactly what it has been for 2000 years -- faith-based, with no backing evidence.

You mean as evolutionist don't find the evidence they thought they would, they change the theory.

No. I mean that the theory is based on current evidence.

If something is found that does not coincide with current theory, the theory is changed to suit it.

THis is the way science works. If you don't like it, don't try and debate it.

Creationalism, on the other hand, is exactly what it has been for 2000 years -- faith-based, with no backing evidence.

Faith-based, absolutely. no backing evidence?? Where did you come up with that? Obviously you dont know the creationist view very well to come up with that one. There is plenty of backing evidence for creationism, try doing some research.

Exactly why do you need a higher power to dictate a reason in life for you. Find your own. Evolution does, in fact,give man a reason to live. Survival of the fittest your reason to live is to achieve the goal of being 'fittest'.
.

Ok, lets assume for a minute that your correct in that statement? Then lets say that I go to your house and kill you and your entire familly. Does anyone have a right to be outraged? No, your statement provides no morals or ethics in life. If by murdering two year olds I can better my own chance for survival, then i guess I deserve a pat on the back, right? So, believe that if you want but remember that as long as you do, you have no right to be offended or outraged at anything someone does to you.

Ok, lets assume for a minute that your correct in that statement? Then lets say that I go to your house and kill you and your entire familly. Does anyone have a right to be outraged? No, your statement provides no morals or ethics in life. If by murdering two year olds I can better my own chance for survival, then i guess I deserve a pat on the back, right? So, believe that if you want but remember that as long as you do, you have no right to be offended or outraged at anything someone does to you.

Survival of the fittest is not the best way to describe evolution. It's really survival of animal in its niche. This means that a flea is best at what it does, a dog is best at what it does, a human is best at what it does, etc.

Of course, we can bypass this entire system since most people in industrial countries live to have kids and grow old, even if they have undesirable traits that would get them killed if they had to live in a wilderness.

Faith-based, absolutely. no backing evidence?? Where did you come up with that? Obviously you dont know the creationist view very well to come up with that one. There is plenty of backing evidence for creationism, try doing some research.

Ok Mundata, I'll bite. How about providing some testable creationist hypotheses that 'creation-scientists' have failed to falsify. How about some evolutionary theory hypotheses that creationists have successfully falsified. Let's see some of this evidence.

Survival of the fittest is not the best way to describe evolution. It's really survival of animal in its niche. This means that a flea is best at what it does, a dog is best at what it does, a human is best at what it does, etc.

Of course, we can bypass this entire system since most people in industrial countries live to have kids and grow old, even if they have undesirable traits that would get them killed if they had to live in a wilderness.

Actually, that really isn't an accurate description of 'fitness' as understood in modern evolutionary sciences. For an organism to be fit means that it has produced offspring that survive and reproduce. Survival in a traditional sense is only part of the picture. If you don't reproduce, you'll never be evolutionarily fit. If your offspring don't survive, you're not fit. Since evolution is based on the transfer of genes to the next generation, how adapted you are to your environment is irrelevant if your not passing on genetic material.

In addition, fitness doesn't refer to evolution itself, but to a mechanism of evolution: natural selection. Natural selection is only one of four mechanisms by which evolution (=change in allele frequencies over time) occurs. Genetic drift, essenitially random sampling errors, is another mechanism of change. It is argued by some to be at least equally important as selection. It is a common misunderstanding that natural selection=evolution. That isn't true.

(Fixed a typo; changed comman to common)

Survival of the fittest is not the best way to describe evolution. It's really survival of animal in its niche. This means that a flea is best at what it does, a dog is best at what it does, a human is best at what it does, etc.

Of course, we can bypass this entire system since most people in industrial countries live to have kids and grow old, even if they have undesirable traits that would get them killed if they had to live in a wilderness.

Even describing evolution that way, it provides no avenues or sources for any type of moral or ethical system. By the way, since their obviously are morals in the world, where did they come from? evolution? that doesnt coincide with the current theory of evolution. i mean, some morals, yes, could help the survival of our species, like not going around killing everyone, but what about morals or ethics that seem to spring from the mere goodness of peoples hearts? what about people that want to technically decrease their chance of survival by saving certain animals instead of eating them? evolution can not accout for such a thing. by the way, i definately agree that humans have completely screwed up our own, and our environments micro evolution. troubling isnt it?

Evolution, a process that has never been observed, happened. When there was nothing, an explosion created the universe. All life comes from a lower form of life, survival is to the fittest. All things living came from all things not living. The earth began 600 billion years ago. Man came from fish.
1. I am quite sure it has been observed several times.
2. The Earth began 4.5 Billion years ago.
3. Man cam from Upright Great Apes, although indirectly fish.

God has always existed and will always exist. He created the universe and man, about 10,000 years ago. Throughout about 4000 years, great men wrote in The Bible of the acts of God and His prophets. At 0 A.D. Jesus, God's Son, was born into the world to save our souls, our spirits, the part of us that speaks to us, known as a conscience, from eternal damnation in Hell. He died a horrible death on the Cross to save us forever.
1. The bible does not name a specific date for Adam and Eve.
2. Can you prove Jesus was the son of "God"? Can to prove that he "saved" us by being nailed to a cross like many others? Saved us from what?

Sure, you could say neither is proven, and all are THEORIES. That is true. Through the scientific method, neither God or evolution has been seen and observed. Now, I could debate for YEARS different facts and observations, but that would get me no where with a hardened Atheist (ok, evolutionist).
Evolution has been proven through DNA.

But consider, if you will, the impacts of the BANNING OF SCHOOL PRAYER. To quote a favorite musician of mine: "..."
There is no proof that banning school prayer has affected crime rates. People were pissed of about the Vietnam war and became hippies and drugs became easy to get at the time.

Anyways. Evolution gives man NO REASON for life, NO REASON to live. If all there is is you and the world, and when you die thats it, things just go black, what hope is there, what point is there, to living?
Now, I don't spend 24 hours a day reading The Bible, or debating evolutionists, or praying. But consider if you will, the aspects of Christianity...
There is a reason for life: Helping future generations. Is it really important to go to "hell" or "heaven", when no one has told us what it is actually like. Maybe because it doesn't exist.

Honestly, Christians are the stupidest people on Earth. They are also very greedy.

Even describing evolution that way, it provides no avenues or sources for any type of moral or ethical system. By the way, since their obviously are morals in the world, where did they come from? evolution? that doesnt coincide with the current theory of evolution. i mean, some morals, yes, could help the survival of our species, like not going around killing everyone, but what about morals or ethics that seem to spring from the mere goodness of peoples hearts? what about people that want to technically decrease their chance of survival by saving certain animals instead of eating them? evolution can not accout for such a thing. by the way, i definately agree that humans have completely screwed up our own, and our environments micro evolution. troubling isnt it?

Mundata, you really don't understand evolutionary theory do you? Arguing that evolution provides no source for moral systems is like arguing that evolutionary theory offers no source for online bulletin boards. Where do any thoughts come from?

::Big drum roll::

Moral systems, online bulletin boards, thoughts come from human brains. The brains is an organ that, like the rest of the human body, has undergone changes. Around 50,000 years ago a major behavioral shift occurred that contrasts with earlier cultural behavior. The source of moralizing may lie close to that point. The first evidence of other complex behaviors is found then too. Regardless, it is clear that the human brain has acquired the ability for very complex thought, a trait radically different from other species. There is no reason to think that moralizing is some special capacity that can't be accounted for in this way. Adding brains to social contexts and individuals' responses to inter-personal interaction makes it clear how morals could evolve. Plus, the fact that multiple moral systems exist clearly supports the interpretation that there is no basis for the claim of a single inherent moral system for the world, but rather multiple contextually specific systems.

Maybe you're trying to say evolutionary theory doesn't argue there is any inherent morality to nature. That would be correct. There isn't. Religions, while asserting the world provides a moral framework, have failed to demostrate a single, unitary morality that exists external to our interpretation of the world. Again, the fact that multiple moral systems and religions exist supports the claims of evolution rather than a created world of fixed types.

Many Christians must have a pretty bleak view of humanity to believe that we cannot be naturally good.

Faith-based, absolutely. no backing evidence?? Where did you come up with that? Obviously you dont know the creationist view very well to come up with that one. There is plenty of backing evidence for creationism, try doing some research.

I know the creationist view very well, I've seen one of the top "creation scientists" speak. He was full of shit - and nothing he said was true science.

If I wanted to, I could find evidence that a dog gives birth to chickens. I could then ignore any evidence to the contrary and come to the conclusion that I was right. However, it wouldn't be science.

Ok, lets assume for a minute that your correct in that statement? Then lets say that I go to your house and kill you and your entire familly. Does anyone have a right to be outraged? No, your statement provides no morals or ethics in life. If by murdering two year olds I can better my own chance for survival, then i guess I deserve a pat on the back, right? So, believe that if you want but remember that as long as you do, you have no right to be offended or outraged at anything someone does to you.

Human beings are social animals. As such, we have evolved so that the genes of the "pack" need to be passed on, not so much individual's genes. Much like in any pack animals, killing another harms the overall society, and is thus bad.

Honestly, Christians are the stupidest people on Earth. They are also very greedy.

Generalizations are never a good thing - and are rarely correct.

I know the creationist view very well, I've seen one of the top "creation scientists" speak. He was full of shit - and nothing he said was true science.

If I wanted to, I could find evidence that a dog gives birth to chickens. I could then ignore any evidence to the contrary and come to the conclusion that I was right. However, it wouldn't be science.

Heyyyy!

That wouldn't have been Dr. Dino?

I think he used the dog/chicken argument before.....