NationStates Jolt Archive

Recently I made a post lamenting the fact that every time I get into an evolution/creationism debate I spend far more time correcting misconceptions of what evolutionary theory is than I do discussing the evidence. So, I volunteer my time to at least attempt to do something about that.

What I need is up to five creationists who are interested in understanding why people like myself accept evolution. I mean fully understanding. What the theory really says. The reasons for it. The evidence as we see it.

Here's what I propose. I will initiate a dialog with those five creationists. I will make a post on one aspect of evolutionary theory or a related field (geology, radiometric dating, etc...). The participating creationists are free to ask questions, point out what they think are errors, etc... and we will continue until all parties are satisfied that we at least have a common understanding of that particular issue whether we all agree on it's implications or not. Then I will move on and post on another aspect and repeat the process.

This discussion will probably be ongoing for quite some time, so if you wish to participate I ask that you be planning on being a fairly regular poster here on General for at least some time to come. I am also limitting the participants to five creationists because I will be the only other poster involved and responding to any more than that in any detail would be prohibitively time consuming.

The discussion will be in a thread where it will be strongly requested that only the invited participants post so that we don't get distracted by 30 different people arguing back and forth in a free-for-all. If others feel compelled to comment on what is occuring at any point I would ask that a seperate thread be used to do so. I will not respond to anyone else with anything but a request to take it to a different thread.

It will probably begin with basic fundamental concepts to make sure everyone involved is on the same page... DNA, what it is, what it does... Mutations, what kinds there are, what effects they have... etc...

This discussion would not begin until at least Monday, as I currently have my right arm in a splint (elbow... hairline fracture) which will be coming off then. I'd rather hold down the typing until that time since this typing one-handed stuff is a bit of a pain in the ass.

So if any creationists are interested, I need a show of hands... so to speak.

EDIT: The 5 slots have now been filled. No more volunteers required.

i've never actually studied the evolutionary theory, but i do know of 2 or 3 holes in it, and am very interested in knowing exactly what it states. i myself am something of a creationist/evolutionist hybrid, as there are certain things that point strongly to both sides. doesn't look like we're gonna get any more tho...God bless.

Bump.

Surely there are at least some creationists out there who are interested in an orderly discussion of what evolutionary theory is and the evidence for it... or at least interested in telling me how wrong I am when I post on a topic while only having to deal with me instead of 37 different pro-evolution posters all responding.

Edit: Hey, there's timing... we have one taker! Maybe...

lol, i think it's gonna be just u and me, so why don't we get started?

lol, i think it's gonna be just u and me, so why don't we get started?

Nah, this isn't starting until Monday in any case since I don't want to do all this with one hand... so I've got time to wait and see if any more people show up who want to take part.

Nah, this isn't starting until Monday in any case since I don't want to do all this with one hand... so I've got time to wait and see if any more people show up who want to take part.
o, right.....ok. i can only get on once a day starting monday tho...o well...

Personally I am sick of this debate between Creationists and Evolution. Being a liberal christian I see the creation story as a metaphor and therefore believe that Creation and Evolution support each other.

As the creation story was written when the world in general had little understanding of science. Therefore it would make no sense if the bible had in it the Theory of Evolution as the humans would not be able to comprehend this complex and deep theory, so God/ the writer of Genisis choose to put it as a story as (s)he had seen over time that stories at the time were the most effective medium to spread this new religion.

Another thing I point to to back this up is the complexity of science itself. It is so complex to have happenend by coincidence and therefore leading to my belief that there is a God.

o, right.....ok. i can only get on once a day starting monday tho...o well...

That's alright, with the limitted number of participants we should be able to take our time.


edit: nevermind that last part... actually <snip>

Personally I am sick of this debate between Creationists and Evolution. Being a liberal christian I see the creation story as a metaphor and therefore believe that Creation and Evolution support each other.

As the creation story was written when the world in general had little understanding of science. Therefore it would make no sense if the bible had in it the Theory of Evolution as the humans would not be able to comprehend this complex and deep theory, so God/ the writer of Genisis choose to put it as a story as (s)he had seen over time that stories at the time were the most effective medium to spread this new religion.

Another thing I point to to back this up is the complexity of science itself. It is so complex to have happenend by coincidence and therefore leading to my belief that there is a God.
my sentiments exactly. u look at the order in which God says in genises that He created things, and that fits with evolutino too...at least, with what i know of evolution.

I will participate, though Ithink I have a pretty good understanding of science.

i also have a decent understanding of science, i just have never taken the time to actually find out wut the theory states.

Ok, we have 2 participants.

Space for three more.... we should be able to hit that target by Monday I would hope.

Well, I'll just take this opportunity to wish you good luck. It's going to take some effort to find five - five! - open-minded people on this forum. Have fun.

Good God, my sig might actually have some relation to what I've said in my post!

Well, I'll just take this opportunity to wish you good luck. It's going to take some effort to find five - five! - open-minded people on this forum. Have fun.

Good God, my sig might actually have some relation to what I've said in my post!
lol, i doubt if such a number exist, but we can always try...lol

I would like to participate, maybe help explain evolution. I'm a biology student with a fairly good understanding of it.

I already posted in many threads before, explaining how mutations appear and might lead to different characteristics in future generations due to natural selection and that huge differences don't just show up randomly. It appears that those that claim that evolution is a stupid invention are just uninformed about it.

I won't post much since during the week I have little computer access but count me in from thursday to saturday night.

sweet! another person! God bless you!

I would like to participate, maybe help explain evolution. I'm a biology student with a fairly good understanding of it.

I already posted in many threads before, explaining how mutations appear and might lead to different characteristics in future generations due to natural selection and that huge differences don't just show up randomly. It appears that those that claim that evolution is a stupid invention are just uninformed about it.

I won't post much since during the week I have little computer access but count me in from thursday to saturday night.

Sorry, I'm trying to limit participation in the actual discussion itself to only myself and 5 creationists to make sure things don't become confused by multiple cross-discussions between different people. Feel free to start up a parallel thread for commentary on what's posted once the discussion begins though.

Edit: Well, actually... how about this. If we don't hit our 5 creationist quota, consider yourself invited.

o ya....oops, i can't believe i forgot about that already..... :headbang:

Sorry, I'm trying to limit participation in the actual discussion itself to only myself and 5 creationists to make sure things don't become confused by multiple cross-discussions between different people. Feel free to start up a parallel thread for commentary on what's posted once the discussion begins though.

Edit: Well, actually... how about this. If we don't hit our 5 creationist quota, consider yourself invited.
And I'm sure the lot of us amature biologists/ecologists/evolutionists won't mind PMing you with some help/depth in answers. We all can't be experts in everything :).

And I'm sure the lot of us amature biologists/ecologists/evolutionists won't mind PMing you with some help/depth in answers. We all can't be experts in everything :).

By all means. :)

I've managed to acheive "very well read layman" status in a surprisingly wide variety of subjects related to evolution over the years due to long experience in just these kinds of discussions... but extra info is always welcome.

As the creation story was written when the world in general had little understanding of science. Therefore it would make no sense if the bible had in it the Theory of Evolution as the humans would not be able to comprehend this complex and deep theory, so God/ the writer of Genisis choose to put it as a story as (s)he had seen over time that stories at the time were the most effective medium to spread this new religion.

So when did God write the Bible and who did he give it to? Someone actually saw God or did he just drop the book and someone found it?

The Bible was written by humans. Regular humans. Just like the ones that wrote the Quran and the Torah. Just like Siddhartha Gautama, Buddha, was just a regular man. He was no deity and he didn't want to be regarded as one.

As for Christ, he was a jewish rebel. A traitor, in the eyes of the king, that's why he died. Not for anyone's sins but because he was leading a rebellion against his leaders, in a time when politics and religion were deeply intertwined.

Humans and their imagination...

I would be willing to get in on this kind of debate. I've been on other forums (and recognize a couple names here from them already), and almost all of the evolutionists there say, "IT'S FACT! FACT I TELL YOU! THERE ARE NO HOLES! THEY WORK THEMSELVES OUT!" I find your proposal commendable and I would consider it an honor to get involved.

Besides, I'm on at least 4 times a day, except during the day Saturday (and Sunday morning, of course ;) )

So when did God write the Bible and who did he give it to? Someone actually saw God or did he just drop the book and someone found it?

The Bible was written by humans. Regular humans. Just like the ones that wrote the Quran and the Torah. Just like Siddhartha Gautama, Buddha, was just a regular man. He was no deity and he didn't want to be regarded as one.

As for Christ, he was a jewish rebel. A traitor, in the eyes of the king, that's why he died. Not for anyone's sins but because he was leading a rebellion against his leaders, in a time when politics and religion were deeply intertwined.

Humans and their imagination...

Christians believe that the Bible was written through men who were inspired by the Holy Spirit. It's not that hard to understand.

As for this debate, I being a biblical creationist, would gladly participate, but I am way too busy. Best of luck to you! I'll follow along if I have time.

I would be willing to get in on this kind of debate. I've been on other forums (and recognize a couple names here from them already), and almost all of the evolutionists there say, "IT'S FACT! FACT I TELL YOU! THERE ARE NO HOLES! THEY WORK THEMSELVES OUT!" I find your proposal commendable and I would consider it an honor to get involved.

Besides, I'm on at least 4 times a day, except during the day Saturday (and Sunday morning, of course ;) )

Alright... participant #3.

2 to go.

I have to agree about the entire evolution thing. I'm for evolution, yet again im also not the best christian ever because im not one for being preached to. independent thought is important to me. If you are going to disagree with people comming from monkies then good...we didnt, nobody said we did. yet if you are going to disagree with every biblical teaching to go completely for evolution, remember one thing...there are a lot of things about evolution yet to be explained. im not saying whos is right and who is wrong, im making sure people understand what they are arguing for and/or against. i find a lot of people tend to argue with either misimformation or not enough information which pisses me off to no end.


but then on the gay thing stated in another thread...do whatever you want. you want to be gay, fine. less people to fill the genetic pool and more to come out. its all up to you.lol, just kiddin. gay dudes, we <3 u 2. heh

Religion in general was made for either to get power/money or to explain something that at the time logic could not

I won't get involved, mostly cause I don't have the will or the time to do so, but I am a christian. I believe that evolution goes hand in hand with the bible. Who's to say how long a day for God is? If God wants to say he made all the fish in the sea in one day, well, maybe for him it WAS one day. Anyway, good luck debating, I hope you guys get some good info out of this. :)

I won't get involved, mostly cause I don't have the will or the time to do so, but I am a christian. I believe that evolution goes hand in hand with the bible. Who's to say how long a day for God is? If God wants to say he made all the fish in the sea in one day, well, maybe for him it WAS one day. Anyway, good luck debating, I hope you guys get some good info out of this. :)

yet another very good point made...because the bible itself said it is not to be taken as a history book. it is up to people to decipher truth for themselves.

Ah creationism.

did god create everything? Am I in trouble for not spelling god with a capital 'g'? A smart man once said that the proof that god exists lies in the fact that the universe is too complicated and amazing to have occured by chance. Mathematically speaking, this is a strong argument.

But is god taking notes? Did he say, "and today is sunday, and I'm pooped. Hereforth and forever more ye shall know this as a day of rest."?

And what, then, of evolution?

Here's one for you. Darwin's theory of evolution contains in its sequence of events a stage most commonly described as 'primordial soup'. Methane, acids and electric charge - you know the drill. Problem is that there is no evidence to support the existence of priomordial soup. Not even just one primordial soup. Darwin described this as "an imperfection in the geological record". Translate - "Oh it's there, we ah, we just haven't found it yet."

Yet everyone can see the obvious truth in evolution. Animals - people included - change and adapt to the environments they live in.

But the world is too incredible to be an accident.

But evolution is too obvious and apparent not to make sense.

Answer?

ANYONE!?

Both. Neither.
We don't know. More! We will NEVER know. Some very smart Greek guys sat around giving this kind of thing a lot of thought.
Result?
They don't know.

Why the argument?

Well, team creationism is working from a slightly less likely point of view and team evolution are looking to pick an easy fight. Trouble is that team evolution becomes team 'there is no god' very quickly. St. Thomas Acquinas once argued that while there may be no universally recognised physical evidence of the existence of god, equally there is no evidence of any kind to prove that god does NOT exist. There are stupid refutations to this - but this argument has stood since the 14th or 15th century through a plethora of heavyweight philosophers and it still stands today.

that is what makes atheists so funny.

Their BELIEF in the non-existence of god is comparable in exact proportions to the religious BELIEF IN god. The real answer is that you don't know.

So the non-creationists get involved so that they can air their views and try, for a time, to change someone's mind and then realise that it isn't really all that possible in this setting so they walk away shaking their heads saying, "well at least I tried!". To them I say HA! that is precisely how Mormons think when they go on tour.

and to the creationists - when you analyse something you use your senses and rationality. When you believe something you are doing something altogether more emotional. So before you go picking holes in the evolutionary process you might want to have another look at that mighty inconsistent book of yours. Something about glass houses and stones springs to mind.

As for me, do I believe in god?

Do I BELIEVE in God?

Sure. why not. What have I got to lose?

For this post, I shall be mostly choosing the smug light blue icon.

Religion in general was made for either to get power/money or to explain something that at the time logic could not

Ok, first of all, this is not the forum for this kind of thing. Go to the many Christian-bashing forums for that.

As to your first point, this is simply not true, because many religions advocate poverty. No money. And Christianity (not the modern Church, but Christianity under Jesus and the Apostles) advocates giving all you have to God's cause. It is not to gain more money.

And by the way, logic would dicate that most religions would not arise. Logical to assume that an invisible supreme God created the world instead of visible nature? Logical to assume that God became man to save us from our sins? It is not "logical" by any standard but faith. It is proven only by believing and having God move in your life.

It is proven only by believing and having God move in your life.

that's not proving anything then.

yet another very good point made...because the bible itself said it is not to be taken as a history book. it is up to people to decipher truth for themselves.

Wait a minute, where does it say that? I know it says that the Word of God is the absolute truth and unchanging, but I have NEVER seen ANYTHING saying "eh, make up your own truth out of this." It says that NOWHERE in the Bible and goes against all of its teachings.

that's not proving anything then.

Then you haven't been listening. God speaks to everyone, because He wants everyone to be with him. If you let him, he will move in you.

Then you haven't been listening. God speaks to everyone, because He wants everyone to be with him. If you let him, he will move in you.

but god doesn't exist, so there can't be anything to be with. nothing exists. and if you think that that statement is wronge try to prove it wronge.

EDIT: i don't mean ideas(not all, but i can't think of any names for what this specific type of idea is) like math and such, i mean objects and language and things like that.

I would be interested in getting into this. I am a christian and i beleive in the general theory of evolution. Evolution as the origin of the species, however, I don't accept or repudiate yet. This is what I would like to know more about. I don't beleive that this would be contrary to my beleifs either. Most of the scientific explanations for how things began have a common link: an unexplained power or energy to start it all. The big bang for example. I don't accept the bing bang becuase it sounds ludicrous to me, but if God created the world with the big bang then so what? If God created man through evolution, so what?

Ask a christian if his/her belief in God would change if God used these things to create; if they say yes then they are christians living for a stereotype, not true christians at heart.

I would be interested in getting into this. I am a christian and i beleive in the general theory of evolution. Evolution as the origin of the species, however, I don't accept or repudiate yet. This is what I would like to know more about.

So just to clarify... what distinction are you drawing between "the general theory of evolution" and "evolution as the origin of the species"?

In the meantime... looks like we have participant #4. One to go...

When this discussion gets started on Monday I'll pm/telegram/whatever... the participants to make sure they're aware of the thread.

Personally I am sick of this debate between Creationists and Evolution. Being a liberal christian I see the creation story as a metaphor and therefore believe that Creation and Evolution support each other.
I agree; it's ridiculous. To me it appears to be set up to make conservatives look righteous and to paint liberals as anti-Christian.

Wait a minute, where does it say that? I know it says that the Word of God is the absolute truth and unchanging, but I have NEVER seen ANYTHING saying "eh, make up your own truth out of this." It says that NOWHERE in the Bible and goes against all of its teachings.

Paribles, my friend.thats all.there are things to be taken for truth. the ten commandments are a very good example. but it says that a person is to be able to decipher the truth through their faith in god. otherwise, EVERYONE in the world would follow the word of god. I am not here for any bashing. but i do need to state something said earlier...and by me, study the evolution theory before you start saying its wrong. im not saying its wrong or right...but if you are going to say its wrong, may i ask you if you read the entire bible? and again, have you also read the entire book of life written by darwin? i doubt it profoundly. consider that.that is directly to you, dont think it is. i apologize for for what it sounds like.its just a general statement for everyone to look at.

but god doesn't exist, so there can't be anything to be with. nothing exists. and if you think that that statement is wronge try to prove it wronge.

EDIT: i don't mean ideas(not all, but i can't think of any names for what this specific type of idea is) like math and such, i mean objects and language and things like that.

Ok, you seem to have missed some important facts.

First, this thread is for evolution vs. creationism. Don't come in with your attacks on God.

Second, you missed the previous post concerning proving or disproving God. Neither can be done. And don't give me that "nothing exists" stuff. People who think that nothing exists don't deserve intelligent conversation with other people (which everyone else on this forum has proven to be).

So just to clarify... what distinction are you drawing between "the general theory of evolution" and "evolution as the origin of the species"?

In the meantime... looks like we have participant #4. One to go...

When this discussion gets started on Monday I'll pm/telegram/whatever... the participants to make sure they're aware of the thread.

The general theory is simply "things change" in laymans terms. It explains why birds have the beaks they do, why some birds are flightless, etc. Eveolution as the origin of the species states that something a long time ago evolved until its decendants were all the species that now exist.

What I beleive right now is that God created some animals, but not nearly as many as there are today. The vast number of species is on account of evolution, but evolution did not create life. Although thats what I beleive, I could be persuaded if I can undertand it better.

Also, I like to refer to Adam naming the animals (I know its probably an allegory, but bear with me) and Noahs ark. Neither of these would be possible if there were as many species as there are today. I beleive that Most of the Genus today were essentially the species of then. Also, I beleive that Adam was the first Man, but not the only. The Bible never says that there were no other men created after Adam, before he procreated. Also note the Bible says in Genesis
16: Then Cain went away from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, east of Eden.
17: Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch; and he built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son, Enoch.
So if there was someone there to be his wife then there were other humans on earth besides the garden.

Paribles, my friend.thats all.there are things to be taken for truth. the ten commandments are a very good example. but it says that a person is to be able to decipher the truth through their faith in god. otherwise, EVERYONE in the world would follow the word of god. I am not here for any bashing. but i do need to state something said earlier...and by me, study the evolution theory before you start saying its wrong. im not saying its wrong or right...but if you are going to say its wrong, may i ask you if you read the entire bible? and again, have you also read the entire book of life written by darwin? i doubt it profoundly. consider that.that is directly to you, dont think it is. i apologize for for what it sounds like.its just a general statement for everyone to look at.

Ok, first, don't take this as an insult, but I'm finding it really hard to understand you.

Second, the parables are given as EXPLICITE examples of metaphor, AND they are completely defined after being told. There is no room for interpretation. Jesus tells the story. Jesus interprets the story. End of story.

Anything in the Bible that is not EXPLICITELY metaphorical or placed in a metaphorical context must be first interpretted literally, and even the metaphorical is completely explained. If the Truth changed for every person, it would not be constant, and the Word of God is true and unchanging. Therefore, there is one Truth for all people. You can't make God whatever you want Him to be.

The general theory is simply "things change" in laymans terms. It explains why birds have the beaks they do, why some birds are flightless, etc. Eveolution as the origin of the species states that something a long time ago evolved until its decendants were all the species that now exist.

...

Ok, clear enough. We'll get to all this when the discussion begins.

16: Then Cain went away from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, east of Eden.
17: Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch; and he built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son, Enoch.
So if there was someone there to be his wife then there were other humans on earth besides the garden.

Ok, you obviously misinterpretted these verses. In the beginning, man lived for hundreds of years. Cain left his family but stayed alive, later finding and marrying one of his relatives. At the start, the genetic code was perfect, and so there was no repercussion due to incest. This is why Cain was able to marry his sister, neice, or the like. This passage does not say that there were other people, simply that Cain wandered the earth and later found a relative to be his wife.

Anything in the Bible that is not EXPLICITELY metaphorical or placed in a metaphorical context must be first interpretted literally, and even the metaphorical is completely explained. If the Truth changed for every person, it would not be constant, and the Word of God is true and unchanging. Therefore, there is one Truth for all people. You can't make God whatever you want Him to be.
and i think highly of your argument. im not bashing god, im a firm believer in him. but may i ask you what god actually is? tell me that. im only learning still. dont worry. no insults here. trust me. i enjoy your input. thank you.

and i think highly of your argument. im not bashing god, im a firm believer in him. but may i ask you what god actually is? tell me that. im only learning still. dont worry. no insults here. trust me. i enjoy your input. thank you.

Here is God:

He is perfect love, and He wants to be with us. He loves us enough to give us free choice and to accept us even if we reject Him. He gave us Truth in the Bible and sent His Son, Jesus, who is a part of him, to die and allow us to be with Him again. He has planted evidence in the universe as to His intelligent design (which we will get to in the debate), and He actively seeks to bring all mankind to Him through His Son.

I believe firmly in the absolute truth in the Word, which is why I question any attempt to remove meaning from it.

If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. If you don't want to ask them on this forum, you can telegram me anytime.

I would be interested in getting into this. I am a christian and i beleive in the general theory of evolution. Evolution as the origin of the species, however, I don't accept or repudiate yet. This is what I would like to know more about. I don't beleive that this would be contrary to my beleifs either. Most of the scientific explanations for how things began have a common link: an unexplained power or energy to start it all. The big bang for example. I don't accept the big bang becuase it sounds ludicrous to me, but if God created the world with the big bang then so what? If God created man through evolution, so what?

Ask a christian if his/her belief in God would change if God used these things to create; if they say yes then they are christians living for a stereotype, not true christians at heart.

I know this thread isnt due to start till monday and i know i probably wont be part of it when it does but i just have to reply to this post, especially the bit i boldened.

I really dont like people who express opinions like this. To me it is wilful ignorance, to dismiss something with a lot of evidence just because it doesnt fit in with your worldview, to the point where they would prefer to ignore evidence and carry on their lives without changing their mind would cause them to be uncomfortable. I am guessing the poster knows little about the big bang theory (feel free to correct me but i dont think i'm wrong), and to just dismiss it without knowing what it is is just stupid to me.

Thank you. also, i would enjoy a future friendship with you. i have added you to my buddy list if you dont mind. *outreaches hand for a mutual agreement on friendship* i may need some opinions and stuff on the subject.

Ok, you obviously misinterpretted these verses. In the beginning, man lived for hundreds of years. Cain left his family but stayed alive, later finding and marrying one of his relatives. At the start, the genetic code was perfect, and so there was no repercussion due to incest. This is why Cain was able to marry his sister, neice, or the like. This passage does not say that there were other people, simply that Cain wandered the earth and later found a relative to be his wife.

In the same chapter we are told of Eve bearing Seth, the next son born after Able. If you will notice it is LATER in the chapter than Cain bearing children. Yes, I know it could be disorgonized and put in the wrong place, but there is nothing in the Bible that absoulutely says that I am right or that you are right. Therefore, you have no grounds to tell me I misinterpereted these verses, just as I have have no right to say you are wrong and so will not. Im simply stating what I beleive, and I know that there is nothing in the Bible that absolutely says that I am wrong. Aside form all that, what does it matter? The question at the base of this debate is creation vs evolution. Im saying God created man, why does it matter how many he created? It doesnt.

Ok, you seem to have missed some important facts.

First, this thread is for evolution vs. creationism. Don't come in with your attacks on God.

creationism is backed up by the belief in a god.

People who think that nothing exists don't deserve intelligent conversation with other people (which everyone else on this forum has proven to be).

same to you too. since god=nothing, you're saying nothing exists, and you said people who said that don't deserve an intelligent conversation.

I know this thread isnt due to start till monday and i know i probably wont be part of it when it does but i just have to reply to this post, especially the bit i boldened.

I really dont like people who express opinions like this. To me it is wilful ignorance, to dismiss something with a lot of evidence just because it doesnt fit in with your worldview, to the point where they would prefer to ignore evidence and carry on their lives without changing their mind would cause them to be uncomfortable. I am guessing the poster knows little about the big bang theory (feel free to correct me but i dont think i'm wrong), and to just dismiss it without knowing what it is is just stupid to me.

You are right, I have very limited knowledge of the Big Bang, I only know the basic premise.

I would like to apologise that I was not clear in my statements, but I would like to clear up a misconception. I never said I dismissed the big bang theory, simply that I dont accept it. You say it would be foolish to dismiss something without knowing it well, but I say it is even worse to accept something like that without understanding it. If I say I don't accept something, undertand that not accepting it is probably temporary for me. I like to know what Im talking about, and I never accept anything without knowing what I beleive.

In the same chapter we are told of Eve bearing Seth, the next son born after Able. If you will notice it is LATER in the chapter than Cain bearing children. Yes, I know it could be disorgonized and put in the wrong place, but there is nothing in the Bible that absoulutely says that I am right or that you are right. Therefore, you have no grounds to tell me I misinterpereted these verses, just as I have have no right to say you are wrong and so will not. Im simply stating what I beleive, and I know that there is nothing in the Bible that absolutely says that I am wrong. Aside form all that, what does it matter? The question at the base of this debate is creation vs evolution. Im saying God created man, why does it matter how many he created? It doesnt.

Ok. Let's leave the subject alone as it doesn't really pertain to our subject, as you said. I've stated my beliefs and you yours, so I guess we should leave it at that.

Ok. Let's leave the subject alone as it doesn't really pertain to our subject, as you said. I've stated my beliefs and you yours, so I guess we should leave it at that.
Acrimoni applauds a true statement of intelligence.

same to you too. since god=nothing, you're saying nothing exists, and you said people who said that don't deserve an intelligent conversation.

Ok, God is All, not nothing.

And just as I can't provide physical evidence He exists, you can't provide any evidence He doesn't exist. Don't come and ruin this forum like people like you do to so many others with your constant attacks and no evidence. If you're going to be like that, just leave.

The way things are progressing Tribal Ecology may just get that fifth spot... :rolleyes:

Ok, God is All, not nothing.

And just as I can't provide physical evidence He exists, you can't provide any evidence He doesn't exist. Don't come and ruin this forum like people like you do to so many others with your constant attacks and no evidence. If you're going to be like that, just leave.

if you wanted me to provide evidence, you should have asked! i'll gladly provide evidence for the non-existance of a god.
1. this proof only works provided the closed theory of the universe is correct; when you continue in the same direction in a straight line(in the first 3 dimensions straight atleast) you will eventually reach the place you started at. this would work with any object. now, for each tiny separation of an angle, there will be another possibility of how the universe will be when you reach the final location(the place you started at). because these places overlap, and they are on the same spot, you could travel up and down these overlaps and the traveling through it would be called time. it's odd how in this theory you need a fifth dimension to get to the fourth dimension, but you probably don't it's most likely just the way it was discribed to me. the way i described it doesn't make sence, but i'm not good at describing things, ask me a question and i'll answer it to clarify something about it.
2. even if you can somehow manage to prove that something exists, by the time the stimulai reach the brain telling us of what happened, that object we're observing has already become non-existant(in our time) and there is another thing there, but it isn't exactly the same. noone KNOWS exactly what will be there when it is in the present, but we can sort of predict what will happen. i never talk in the view of the observer cause of this, like how when people say that because they think, they exist. that doesn't make sence as thoughts are just electrical/chemical proscesses, which are physical. an arguement against this(which goes allong with #3) is where if there was a person who played the trumpet, and was just about to put the trumpet back, but had found a snake had crawled into their trumpet case, they wouldn't have known the snake existed before. just because they didn't think it didn't mean it didn't exist, or even that it exists, think of hallucinating people. same proscesses for thought for them, so we don't know that we're thinking is true either.
3. if something is neither proven nor unproven, it is assumed to not exist. (this is just my thinking, not what is generally thought.) this would go for things such as the mind(not brain) and other things.
i was just thinking of more, but i can't remember now, so if you want me to try to remember them i will. and you still haven't proven that anything exists yet.

Here's one for you. Darwin's theory of evolution contains in its sequence of events a stage most commonly described as 'primordial soup'. Methane, acids and electric charge - you know the drill. Problem is that there is no evidence to support the existence of priomordial soup. Not even just one primordial soup. Darwin described this as "an imperfection in the geological record". Translate - "Oh it's there, we ah, we just haven't found it yet."

Darwin spoke nothing about that primordial soup. That theory, of Biopoiesis, was developed by J. B. S. Haldane and A.I. Oparin in the 1920s. And the Miller-Urey experiment tested that theory in 1953.
"The molecules produced were relatively simple organic molecules, far from a complete living biochemical system, but the experiment established that natural processes could produce the building blocks of life without requiring life to synthesize them in the first place."


Here is a link to a very recent post I made about evolution:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8827616&postcount=48

Ok, does anyone get Yupaenu? I mean, at all? Because he or she seems to have some problems with being in existence. I don't know why he or she is so hostile to the fact that we, um, well, ARE ALIVE and that we live in a REAL WORLD. Just wondering what everyone else thought.

I still don't understand how you can argue that nothing exists. And the "straight line to the same point" thing? You obviously need some help on dimensional movement.

Ok, does anyone get Yupaenu? I mean, at all? Because he or she seems to have some problems with being in existence. I don't know why he or she is so hostile to the fact that we, um, well, ARE ALIVE and that we live in a REAL WORLD. Just wondering what everyone else thought.

I still don't understand how you can argue that nothing exists. And the "straight line to the same point" thing? You obviously need some help on dimensional movement.

i'm talking about curved space. it's also a theory on how time could be a spatial dimension. and it does make sense, but i'm not good at explaining things.

i'm talking about curved space. it's also a theory on how time could be a spatial dimension. and it does make sense, but i'm not good at explaining things.

But if space can be curved it must be there...

Hmmmmmm...

And no, you can't explain very well. When you're trying to prove a complex point like this (which has no place in this forum, by the way), use a link.

Recently I made a post lamenting the fact that every time I get into an evolution/creationism debate I spend far more time correcting misconceptions of what evolutionary theory is than I do discussing the evidence. So, I volunteer my time to at least attempt to do something about that.

What I need is up to five creationists who are interested in understanding why people like myself accept evolution. I mean fully understanding. What the theory really says. The reasons for it. The evidence as we see it.

Here's what I propose. I will initiate a dialog with those five creationists. I will make a post on one aspect of evolutionary theory or a related field (geology, radiometric dating, etc...). The participating creationists are free to ask questions, point out what they think are errors, etc... and we will continue until all parties are satisfied that we at least have a common understanding of that particular issue whether we all agree on it's implications or not. Then I will move on and post on another aspect and repeat the process.

This discussion will probably be ongoing for quite some time, so if you wish to participate I ask that you be planning on being a fairly regular poster here on General for at least some time to come. I am also limitting the participants to five creationists because I will be the only other poster involved and responding to any more than that in any detail would be prohibitively time consuming.

The discussion will be in a thread where it will be strongly requested that only the invited participants post so that we don't get distracted by 30 different people arguing back and forth in a free-for-all. If others feel compelled to comment on what is occuring at any point I would ask that a seperate thread be used to do so. I will not respond to anyone else with anything but a request to take it to a different thread.

It will probably begin with basic fundamental concepts to make sure everyone involved is on the same page... DNA, what it is, what it does... Mutations, what kinds there are, what effects they have... etc...

This discussion would not begin until at least Monday, as I currently have my right arm in a splint (elbow... hairline fracture) which will be coming off then. I'd rather hold down the typing until that time since this typing one-handed stuff is a bit of a pain in the ass.

So if any creationists are interested, I need a show of hands... so to speak.


You spend most of your time correcting misconceptions because people in general are ignorant fools. Thank you for taking the time to try to educate the uneducated. We need more people like you in the world before humanity can get anywhere.

All of the "evidence" Yupaenu gave is based off of unproved assumptions. Like that the universe is curved inwardly instead of outwardly. From what we've observed, the amount of mass in the universe is likely at the perfect middle ground, meaning the universe is fifth dimensionally flat. Now that seems like a pretty powerful coincidence. One possible explanation is that God simply made it that way, but it's always true that some new and exciting theory may pop up to explain it.

But that's not really what this thread is supposed to be about. I am a biblical creationist who is not entirely decided on the subject of evolution yet. I don't really buy into the "one day could be millions of years" theory, since the bible explicitly says, "the evening and the morning was the (first, second, third, etc) day". I believe that an undetermined period of time passed between the first verse, when everything was created, and the second, when the earth became void and formless. This period of time would have to account for dinosaurs, and other pre-ice age creatures, and it could also, at least partially, account for evolution. Then the seven days account refers to reordering things the way they were again, and making sentient humans. (Notice it doesn't refer to creating anything beyond humans after the first verse. The seven days isn't necessarily the account of creation.) Since I've started on my major in biology, I have come to appreciate more the validity of the theory of evolution, and I'd be happy to take part in this debate. I wouldn't have volunteered, since I'm probably going to be pretty busy over the next week, but you seem to be having trouble filling that last spot.

All of the "evidence" Yupaenu gave is based off of unproved assumptions. Like that the universe is curved inwardly instead of outwardly. From what we've observed, the amount of mass in the universe is likely at the perfect middle ground, meaning the universe is fifth dimensionally flat. Now that seems like a pretty powerful coincidence. One possible explanation is that God simply made it that way, but it's always true that some new and exciting theory may pop up to explain it.

But that's not really what this thread is supposed to be about. I am a biblical creationist who is not entirely decided on the subject of evolution yet. I don't really buy into the "one day could be millions of years" theory, since the bible explicitly says, "the morning and the evening was the (first, second, third, etc) day". I believe that an undetermined period of time passed between the first verse, when everything was created, and the second, when the earth became void and formless. This period of time would have to account for dinosaurs, and other pre-ice age creatures, and it could also, at least partially, account for evolution. Then the seven days account refers to reordering things the way they were again, and making sentient humans. (Notice it doesn't refer to creating anything beyond humans after the first verse. The seven days isn't necessarily the account of creation.) Since I've started on my major in biology, I have come to appreciate more the validity of the theory of evolution, and I'd be happy to take part in this debate. I wouldn't have volunteered, since I'm probably going to be pretty busy over the next week, but you seem to be having trouble filling that last spot.

And there's 5!

Alexandria Quatriem
Thorograd
Falconus Peregrinus
Acrimoni
Ra hurfarfar

(Sorry Tribal Ecology)

PM/IM/Telegrams/Whatever... will go out on Monday as soon as the thread is started.

I'm a Christian and I'm somewhat exploring the evolutionary theory. As of now, I really can't decide, but for the most part I'm leaning toward the Creationism side. I just can't come to believe in evolution as it stands. I believe is some things of evolution, like natural selection, but I have 3 main problems with evolution, which I won't go into too much detail about.

1. Intermediate species. My problem here is that the supposed intermediate species, under the theory of natural selection, contradicts itself. Take birds for example. Brids supposedly evolved from reptiles, their forelimbs evolving into wings. The intermediate forms between reptiles and birds would have had simply nubs for forearms, which aren't helping them survive at all? How could they have evolved into wings if natural selection took place?

2. Genetic Mutation. The claim is that a series of genetic mutations occur and this leads over time to a new species. But wait, don't genetic mutations cause defects and disease? Mutations occuring and occurring would just cause more and more defects. This seems to suggest that we would be regressing, instead of prgoressing. The fact is that, genetically, we are built a certain way, and if something goes wrong, if something is out of place with our genes, we go wrong. We go bckward, not forward.

3. Adding of genetic Material/ Information. This goes somehwat along with 2. Basically, you can't add new genetic material to existing genetic material randomly. If you compare genetic info to books, we have a library of information in our DNA. You can't prove that one letter of information can be added randomly. It's be like a computer learning a new program without you telling it to. It just doesn't happen. If you could add a new piece of code, it would screw up the existing code, causing genetic mutations. See #2.

1. Intermediate species. My problem here is that the supposed intermediate species, under the theory of natural selection, contradicts itself. Take birds for example. Brids supposedly evolved from reptiles, their forelimbs evolving into wings. The intermediate forms between reptiles and birds would have had simply nubs for forearms, which aren't helping them survive at all? How could they have evolved into wings if natural selection took place?


As to your example:

The evidence suggests that birds diverged from terrestrial theropods (bipedal carnivorous dinosaurs) some 150 million years ago.

Few subjects in evolutionary theory have posed such intriguing puzzles for so long as the origin of birds. Evidence of avian beginnings has been elusive in the fossil record because birds' light, hollow bones rapidly decompose. So far, the oldest-known bird fossil is the famous Archaeopteryx lithographica, discovered in 1861 just two years after the publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species, but Archaeopteryx leaves many questions unanswered.

This odd, crow-sized creature had long legs and three toes tipped with claws; its jawbone and teeth were like those of a small dinosaur, and its extended spine formed a tail, another reptilian feature found in small dinosaurs too. But the creature also had wings and bore feathers -- certainly birdlike traits.

Scientists now view Archaeopteryx, which lived about 150 million years ago, as the earliest known (or most basal) member of the lineage of modern birds, but it still retained many features of small dinosaurs. These small, two-legged dinosaurs called theropods scurried around something like today's roadrunners. Many characteristics that typify birds were present in the theropods before birds evolved, including hollow bones, a wishbone, a backward-pointing pelvis, and a three-toed foot. In the course of theropod evolution, the forelimbs and hands became progressively longer. In some theropods, the bones of the wrist took on a shape that allowed the joint to flex sideways. This would have allowed these animals to whip their long hands forward in a swift snatching motion, perhaps to catch prey. The wishbone in theropods served to anchor the muscles that pulled the forelimb forward in this grabbing movement -- a motion that functional analysis shows to be almost identical to the flight stroke of modern birds. Theropods, though, probably remained largely on the ground.

Despite the increasingly clear picture of the evolution of birds from theropod dinosaurs that has emerged, a few scientists are still unconvinced. No alternative hypothesis has been offered to explain the multiple similarities between birds and theropods, however, and there is scant evidence to support a link to any of the other animals that have been suggested as possible ancestors or relatives. Meanwhile, the evidence connecting birds and theropods continues to accumulate.

For a long time, feathers were regarded as a uniquely avian feature. Bur recent fossil evidence suggests that feathers, too, evolved in theropods before birds. Whether they evolved for warmth, for display, or served some other function is not yet known. But in a small, lightly built bipedal predator leaping into the air to catch insect prey, even primitive feathers could have given a small amount of lift. Larger feathers would have increased lift until it was possible to stay airborne for short distances. The evolution of feathers with an asymmetrical shape, like those of Archaeopteryx, further enhanced the flight capabilities of early birds.

After Archaeopteryx, the fossil record suggests that birds diversified rapidly, though some of these Cretaceous early birds would have looked quite strange to our eyes, with their toothed beaks and clawed fingers. Our knowledge of this period of bird evolution is growing rapidly. Since 1990, more than three times as many bird fossils dating from the Cretaceous have been discovered than were found in the previous two centuries. While most of the bird lineages that arose during the Cretaceous died out, some of them survived to gave rise to the wonderful diversity of birds we see today.

From http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_01.html (emphasis mine).

Alternative scenarios postulate initial employment of feathers to break the fall of a "parachuting" arboreal protobird, followed by selection for articulated wings in favor of the more controlled locomotion of gliding, and eventually full-fledged flight. Other theories envision flight as the behavioral byproduct of a small terrestrial theropod's pursuit of winged insects - initially insulatory feathered wing-fringes would thus have been selected for on the basis of their utility as an "insect net"; thrashing with the forelimbs to flush prey and whilst leaping to capture prey animals before they flew out of range might thereby have progressed into a fluttering flight. Yet another theory, based on the fact that chicks of several living bird species "run up trees", employing wings as airfoils to stabilise their bodies against the tree trunk while the legs scrabble frantically.

Regardless, natural selection would have "favored" the morphology of those representatives of this conceptual protobird best able to leap (or glide down) for flying prey (or, alternatively, evade predators by running up tree trunks, etc.). The corresponding genotypes of these "better-endowed" specimens - if with no associated congenital "drawbacks" of consequence - would thus be "favored" (as through ability to more efficiently gather food or to better be able to evade predators) over those of others of that species. With their possessors (and, by extension, the offspring thereof) having a comparative edge in life, those particular genotypes would come to dominate the gene pool.



2. Genetic Mutation. The claim is that a series of genetic mutations occur and this leads over time to a new species. But wait, don't genetic mutations cause defects and disease? Mutations occuring and occurring would just cause more and more defects. This seems to suggest that we would be regressing, instead of prgoressing. The fact is that, genetically, we are built a certain way, and if something goes wrong, if something is out of place with our genes, we go wrong. We go bckward, not forward.

3. Adding of genetic Material/ Information. This goes somehwat along with 2. Basically, you can't add new genetic material to existing genetic material randomly. If you compare genetic info to books, we have a library of information in our DNA. You can't prove that one letter of information can be added randomly. It's be like a computer learning a new program without you telling it to. It just doesn't happen. If you could add a new piece of code, it would screw up the existing code, causing genetic mutations. See #2.

Some points for consideration:

- Mutations are not necessarily malign.
- There are, with both computers and living, reproducing organisms, transcription errors, so to speak.
- Most forms of biological reproduction ensure mutation to be ubiquitous.

This page (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html) provides some comprehensive answers for questions 2 and 3.

As to your example:

The evidence suggests that birds diverged from terrestrial theropods (bipedal carnivorous dinosaurs) some 150 million years ago.



From http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_01.html (emphasis mine).

Alternative scenarios postulate initial employment of feathers to break the fall of a "parachuting" arboreal protobird, followed by selection for articulated wings in favor of the more controlled locomotion of gliding, and eventually full-fledged flight. Other theories envision flight as the behavioral byproduct of a small terrestrial theropod's pursuit of winged insects - initially insulatory feathered wing-fringes would thus have been selected for on the basis of their utility as an "insect net"; thrashing with the forelimbs to flush prey and whilst leaping to capture prey animals before they flew out of range might thereby have progressed into a fluttering flight. Yet another theory, based on the fact that chicks of several living bird species "run up trees", employing wings as airfoils to stabilise their bodies against the tree trunk while the legs scrabble frantically.

Regardless, natural selection would have "favored" the morphology of those representatives of this conceptual protobird best able to leap (or glide down) for flying prey (or, alternatively, evade predators by running up tree trunks, etc.). The corresponding genotypes of these "better-endowed" specimens - if with no associated congenital "drawbacks" of consequence - would thus be "favored" (as through ability to more efficiently gather food or to better be able to evade predators) over those of others of that species. With their possessors (and, by extension, the offspring thereof) having a comparative edge in life, those particular genotypes would come to dominate the gene pool.




Some points for consideration:

- Mutations are not necessarily malign.
- There are, with both computers and living, reproducing organisms, transcription errors, so to speak.
- Most forms of biological reproduction ensure mutation to be ubiquitous.

This page (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html) provides some comprehensive answers for questions 2 and 3.

1) You're missing the point. Helpful mutations are very, very rare, and don't contribute to evolution in the physical sense.

2) Again, you miss the point. I'm not talking about "errors", I'm implying an entirely new genetic code, which can't be added without an outside agent.

3) I don't think that matters. Most mutations are harmful, and more than 2/3 are recessive. It would be very, very rare to find a helpful, dominant mutation.

1) You're missing the point. Helpful mutations are very, very rare, and don't contribute to evolution in the physical sense.

2) Again, you miss the point. I'm not talking about "errors", I'm implying an entirely new genetic code, which can't be added without an outside agent.

3) I don't think that matters. Most mutations are harmful, and more than 2/3 are recessive. It would be very, very rare to find a helpful, dominant mutation.

Well, beneficial mutations do happen. How do you think bacterias become imune to antibiotics?

And there's 5!

Alexandria Quatriem
Thorograd
Falconus Peregrinus
Acrimoni
Ra hurfarfar

(Sorry Tribal Ecology)

PM/IM/Telegrams/Whatever... will go out on Monday as soon as the thread is started.

Just a word of warning - when the subject matter concerns archeo-zoology and paleo-zoology, the creationists will most likely be able to find "dated" evidence that supports their claims (or, most often, negates yours). So, Reformentia, better do your homework - I've seen what you can do, so I trust you to be able to come up with sound facts. Just be wary, that's all. If I'm able to, I'll check in on monday and bump this post a few times with the sites that contain the dated info and more recent arguments that dethrone them, in case the creationist lobby ( :D ) gets to them first. Because we all have the right to learn about evolution. I also hereby salute the creationists, for keeping an open mind.

And there's 5!

Alexandria Quatriem
Thorograd
Falconus Peregrinus
Acrimoni
Ra hurfarfar

(Sorry Tribal Ecology)

PM/IM/Telegrams/Whatever... will go out on Monday as soon as the thread is started.

No worries. But make sure that the people debating read what the "theory" of evolution is about first, since you don't want someone who never read unbiased facts about it explaining that it's impossible, etc.

A very good and informative read is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution - although it has some terms that the unversed in biology might not understand. But if there are any doubts you can search the things you are curious about on Wikipedia itself, if you are too lazy or can't find what you want I will be glad to explain what certain things mean or I'll try to simplify the main ideas if there is need.


And is there any way to make a private thread that only invited people may post although everyone, including me, may read?

1) You're missing the point. Helpful mutations are very, very rare, and don't contribute to evolution in the physical sense.

2) Again, you miss the point. I'm not talking about "errors", I'm implying an entirely new genetic code, which can't be added without an outside agent.

3) I don't think that matters. Most mutations are harmful, and more than 2/3 are recessive. It would be very, very rare to find a helpful, dominant mutation.
1. Bullox. Helpful mutations happen all the time (roughly one mutation per 10 million base pairs, every time). What do you mean don't contribute to evolution in the physical sense?

2. New genetic code? The genetic code has been roughly the same with a few variances from the beginning of time until now.

3. Again, you're forgetting about how often mutations occur, and yes, it would be rare. That's why evolution takes hundreds of thousands of years.

Well, beneficial mutations do happen. How do you think bacterias become imune to antibiotics?

Exactly. There are many mutations but only if there are outside pressures, certain mutations can be either detrimental or beneficial.

Like in bacteria and antibiotics. It's as if, imagine, 1 bacteria (in a population of millions) had a little mutation when replicating into two that inserted or multiplied some gene somewhere. That bacteria appears exactly the same as the others and works the same way. So it reproduces, etc, making a lot of bacterias with that little different gene.
When the antibiotic comes, it turns out that that little gene gave the mutated individuals resistance to the antibiotic, while all other bacterias that didn't have that certain mutation (or a similar mutation that made them resistant) were eliminated. That is how evolution occurs.

In humans, when we reproduce, thousands of mutations occur that could become detrimental or beneficial in the future, we don't know yet. Like maybe people that have a gene that allows them to breathe even in the presence of toxic fumes will be the only survivors in a future where toxic fumes are all around. We don't know.
Just like europeans in the middle ages didn't know that many were resistant to the black plague due to their "superior" genes. But who knows, if the virus that caused the black plague worked in a different way, the people that died during that time could have been the survivors, instead of our ancestors.

And now europeans are *more* resistant to ebola like viruses, because of the black plague, that eliminated those that were more vulnerable. But in Africa, which wasn't affected by a plague as strong as in Europe, more people die from ebola-like viruses, for example the Marburg virus, since they don't have genes for that resistance, or the genes aren't so common (I bet that many are resistant to the disease, they just don't know it).

Personally I am sick of this debate between Creationists and Evolution. Being a liberal christian I see the creation story as a metaphor and therefore believe that Creation and Evolution support each other.

As the creation story was written when the world in general had little understanding of science. Therefore it would make no sense if the bible had in it the Theory of Evolution as the humans would not be able to comprehend this complex and deep theory, so God/ the writer of Genisis choose to put it as a story as (s)he had seen over time that stories at the time were the most effective medium to spread this new religion.

Another thing I point to to back this up is the complexity of science itself. It is so complex to have happenend by coincidence and therefore leading to my belief that there is a God.

That's a fallacy of ignorance. "I don't understand science, so God must exist."

Firstly, physics wasn't created by random chance. The Earth was, so I'll use that in my example. Let's say there's a googol (10^100) balls of gas and the chance of one of them randomly forming into the Earth and humans and giraffes is 1 out of a googol. So one of them does form Earth and life and everything. That doesn't mean God exists. It's possible that EVERY ball of gas could have formed into a planet capable of sustaining life! (Of course, when balls of gas turn into planets, it's not nearly as simple as that.)

No worries. But make sure that the people debating read what the "theory" of evolution is about first, since you don't want someone who never read unbiased facts about it explaining that it's impossible, etc.

Actually the whole point of this exercise is to start from the basics and build from there, so if anyone does go in not knowing what evolution is they know by the time we're finished.

And is there any way to make a private thread that only invited people may post although everyone, including me, may read?

I don't think so. Basically I'm just going to start a regular thread and strongly request when I do that only those who were selected to actively participate in it post in it... and if anyone decides to ignore that request, to respond to them only by saying they can take it to another thread but we're not indulging in distracting splinter conversations in the thread in question.

If anyone reading along does feel the irresistible urge to comment on what's being discussed they can always start their own thread and do so after all. It's not like we have a shortage of the things around here. ;)

sry dudes, but i can't really afford to keep checking this thread: if we're starting and i'm still a judge/juror, or if anyone has questions about the Christian side of things, then please telegram me.

sry dudes, but i can't really afford to keep checking this thread: if we're starting and i'm still a judge/juror, or if anyone has questions about the Christian side of things, then please telegram me.

It'll be a new thread. You'll get a telegram.

i've never actually studied the evolutionary theory, but i do know of 2 or 3 holes in it, and am very interested in knowing exactly what it states.

How can you know of holes in something without ever having studied it? I note that christians tend to get indignant about people claiming to know of 2 or 3 holes in the bible without having read it.

What you likely have is 2 or 3 misconceptions.