NationStates Jolt Archive

This is more philosophy that anything else. The thing I'm thinking of is the basic logical laws: "if A is a B, and B is a C, then A must be a C" for one. This sort of thing we take for granted yet cannot be ascertained.

On a more practical level, take evidence gathering. Imagine you're in a strange lang. You see 10 people are carrying a bag. You see 1000 people holding bags. You see 10 000 000 all have bags and not one doesn't. By now, you might be starting to assume that everyone has a bag. But how can you be sure? You can't. This is where the PUN comes in. It allows you to assume, from previous observation, to predict the future. However, it does not rule out the possibility that someone doesn't carry a bag, that the Law you're thinking of ("Everyone has a bag") is wrong.

Yes science allows us to assume things. And yes that does not rule out the possibility that some or all of it is wrong. So, where's the footing that is assumed which makes this a religion?

Where in the bible does it say, explicitly, that the earth does not revolve around the sun? I'd still say, that someone who believes that the earth is the center of the universe should be able to have their child taught that. It is a freedom I'd defend, just like your freedom of speech to say something I disagree with.

So, then, in that case, do you think that science should also teach the creation traditions from other religions and cultures, including, but not limited to, the Aaragon, Abenaki, Acoma, Ainu, Aleut, Amunge, Angevin, Anishinabek, Anvik-Shageluk, Apache, Arapaho, Ararapivka, Arikara, Armenian, Arrernte, Ashkenazim, Assiniboine, Athabascan, Athena, Aztec, Babylonian, Balinese, Bannock, Bantu, Basque, Blackfoot, Blood, Bosnian, Breton, Brul, Bundjalung, Burns Paiute, Caddo, Cahuilla, Catalan, Cayuga, Cayuse, Celt, Chehalis, Chelan, Cherokee, Chewella, Cheyenne, Chickasaw, Chinook, Chippewa, Chirachaua, Choctaw, Chukchi, Coeur d'Alene, Columbia River, Colville, Comanche, Congolese, Concow, Coquille, Cow Creek, Cowlitz, Cree, Creek, Croat, Crow, Crow Creek, Cumbres, Curonian, Cushite, Cut Head, Da'an, Devon, Dihai-Kutchin, Diyari, Dogon, Duwamish, Egyptian, Elwha, Eritrean, Eskimo, Esrolvuli, Eta, Even, Evenk, Flathead, Fijian, Fox, Fuegan, Gaul, Gooniyandi, Gond, Govi Basin Mongolian, Grand Ronde, Gros Ventre, Haida, Han, Haranding, Havasupai, Hendriki, Heortling, Hidatsa, Hindi, Hmong, HoChunk, Hoh, Hoopa, Hopi, Hunkpapa, Hutu, Ik-kil-lin, Inca, Innu, Intsi Dindjich, Inuit, Iroquois, Isleta, Itchali, Itelemen, It-ka-lya-ruin, Itkpe'lit, Itku'dlin, Jicarilla Apache, Jotvingian, Kaiyuhkhotana, Kalapuya, Kalispel, Kamchandal, Kansa, Karuk, Katshikotin, Kaurna, Kaw, Kazahk, Ketschetnaer, Khanti, Khoi-San, Khymer, Kickapoo, Kiowa, Kirghiz, Kitchin-Kutchin, Klamath, Knaiakhotana, K'nyaw, Koch-Rajbongshi, Kolshina, Kono, Kootenai, Koyukukhotana, !Kung, Kurd, La Jolla, Lac Courte D'Oreille, Lac Du Flambeau, Laguna, Lake, Lakota, Lao, Latgalian, Leech Lake Chippewa, Lemmi, Lower Brul, Lower Yanktonai, Lowland Lummi, Lummi, Malawi, Makah, Mandan, Maori, Maricopan, Martinez, Mayan, Mazatec, Mednofski, Menominee, Meryam Mir, Mesa Grande, Mescalero Apache, Metlakatla, Miniconjou, Mission, Moallalla, Modoc, Mohawk, Mojave, Morongo, Muckleshoot, Murrinh-Patha, Nadruvian, Nagorno-Karabakh, Na-Kotchpo-tschig-Kouttchin, Nambe, Namib, Natche'-Kutehin, Navajo, Nes Pelem, Neyetse-kutchi, Nez Perce, Ngiyampaa, Nisqualli, Nnatsit-Kutchin, Nomelackie, Nooksack, Norman, Norse, Northern Cheyenne, Nyungar, Oglala, Ogorvalte, Ojibway, Okanagon, Okinawan, Olmec, Omaha, Oneida, Onondaga, Ordovices, Orlanthi, Osage, Osetto, O-til'-tin, Otoe, Paakantyi, Paiute, Pala Mission, Papago, Pawnee, Pazyryk, Pechango, Penan, Piegan, Pima, Pitt River, Ponca, Potowatomie, Prussian, Pueblo, Puyallup, Qiang, Quileute, Quinault, Red Cliff Chippewa, Red Lake Chippewa, Redwood, Rincon, Sac, Saisiyat, Sakuddeis, Salish, Salt River, Samish, Samoan, Samogitian, San Carlos Apache, San Idlefonso, San Juan, San Poil, Santa Clara, Sartar, Sauk-Suiattle, Selonian, Semigolian, Seminole, Senecan, Sephardim, Serano, Serb, Shasta, Shawnee, Shiite, Shinnecock, Shoalwater Bay, Shoshone, Sikh, Siletz, Silures, Sinhalese, Sioux, Siskiyou, Sisseton, Siuslaw, Skalvian, S'Klallam, Skokomish, Skyomish, Slovene, Snohomish, Snoqualmie, Soboba, Southern Cheyenne, Spokane, Squaxin Island, Steilacoom, Stillaquamish, Stockbridge, Sunni, Suquamish, Swinomish, Tadjik, Takhayuna, Tala, Talastari, Tamil, Tanaina, Taos, Tarim, Tasman, Tatar, Tesuque, Tlingit, Toltec, Tpe-ttckie-dhidie-Kouttchin, Tranjik-Kutchin, Truk, Tukkutih-Kutchin, Tulalip, Tungus, Turtle Mountain, Tuscarora, Turk, Turkmen, Tutsi, Ugalakmiut, Uintah, Umatilla, Umpqua, Uncompagre, U-nung'un, Upper Skagit, Ute, Uzbek, Vietnamese, Viking, Vunta-Kutchin, Wahpeton, Walla Walla, Wasco, Wembawemba, White Mountain Apache, Wichita, Wik-ungkan, Winnebago, Wiradjuri, Wylackie, Xhosa, Yahi, Yakama, Yakima, Yakut, Yanamamo, Yankton Sioux, Yellowknife, Yindjibarnd, Youkon Louchioux, Yukaghir, Yukonikhotana, Yullit, Yuma, Zjen-ta-Kouttchin, and Zulu?

I don't even think my belief that God exists, is infallible, just that the universe has no point with Him and that life would be a meaningless waste of time without Him.

Well... It is time for me to head home. My wife should be there by now. I've enjoyed the discuss for the most part. Hope you all have a good (insert time of day where you are).

PR signing off...

Okay, have fun! :D

Barvinia

Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1 GOD created all! So for those of you that have been brainwashed by the current immoral public school system, believe as you wish. That is why GOD gave us all free will. If the Big Bang ocuured..... prove it. Were you there? So evolution is an act of faith as well.

Most people reject GOD, because they don't want to lead moral and decent lives. They tend to choose the comfortable and sinful lifestyles that sooths their FLESH. They are however, unwilling to die for it.

On the other hand, true believers in GOD, tend to be humble and obediant servents that sooths their SOULS. Even to the point of being mocked, persucuted or even put to death for their faith.

Glory be to GOD allmighty!

Robert

**********


Yesterday, 11:51 PM #484
Cumulo Nimbusland
Member

Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Portland, OR, US
Posts: 209 Quote:
Originally Posted by Barvinia
GOD created all! So for those of you that have been brainwashed by the current immoral public school system, believe as you wish. That is why GOD gave us all free will. If the Big Bang ocuured..... prove it. Were you there? So evolution is an act of faith as well.

<snip>

Response:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA221.html

**********

You give me a link and I hand you the "Holy Bible"

Is that the best you can do? Were the people from this link around during the Big Bang? If so, call the Guiness Book of World Records, to let them know that you have found the oldest living human beings on earth.

I recall the question at hand, was giving me living proof and testimony of the Big Bang occurence. You can't do it, can you. Don't evade the question by trying to give me a link that proves nothing. I could give you many Christian links. Would you like some.

A gift from me to you: www.hallindsey.com

There's your starting point. There are many more links provided there that can help you to find the truth: GOD! The creator of all things. Praise GOD allmighty!

Barvinia

Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1 GOD created all! So for those of you that have been brainwashed by the current immoral public school system, believe as you wish. That is why GOD gave us all free will. If the Big Bang ocuured..... prove it. Were you there? So evolution is an act of faith as well.

Most people reject GOD, because they don't want to lead moral and decent lives. They tend to choose the comfortable and sinful lifestyles that sooths their FLESH. They are however, unwilling to die for it.

On the other hand, true believers in GOD, tend to be humble and obediant servents that sooths their SOULS. Even to the point of being mocked, persucuted or even put to death for their faith.

Glory be to GOD allmighty!

Robert

**********


Yesterday, 11:51 PM #484
Cumulo Nimbusland
Member

Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Portland, OR, US
Posts: 209 Quote:
Originally Posted by Barvinia
GOD created all! So for those of you that have been brainwashed by the current immoral public school system, believe as you wish. That is why GOD gave us all free will. If the Big Bang ocuured..... prove it. Were you there? So evolution is an act of faith as well.

<snip>

Response:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA221.html

**********

You give me a link and I hand you the "Holy Bible"

Is that the best you can do? Were the people from this link around during the Big Bang? If so, call the Guiness Book of World Records, to let them know that you have found the oldest living human beings on earth.

I recall the question at hand, was giving me living proof and testimony of the Big Bang occurence. You can't do it, can you. Don't evade the question by trying to give me a link that proves nothing. I could give you many Christian links. Would you like some.

A gift from me to you: www.hallindsey.com

There's your starting point. There are many more links provided there that can help you to find the truth: GOD! The creator of all things. Praise GOD allmighty!

You didn't even read the link. How can you come to a conclusion if you didn't read the link.

The point of the link is that the argument "you weren't there" is invalid. If you had read it, you would understand that. Since you didn't, I will post it directly here.

(In response to any claim about the history of life) Were you there?
Source:
Ham, Ken. 1989. Were you there? Back To Genesis 10a (Oct.), http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-a/btg-010a.htm
Response:

1. Yes, because "there" is here. Events in the past leave traces that last into the present, and we can and do look at that evidence today.

2. If this response were a valid challenge to evolution, it would equally invalidate creationism and Christianity, since they are based on events that nobody alive today has witnessed.

3. A more useful and more general question is, "How do you know?" If the person making a claim can not answer that question, you may consider the claim baseless (tentatively, as someone else may be able to answer). If the answer is subjective -- for example, if it rests on the person's religious convictions -- you know that the claim does not necessarily apply to anyone but that person. If you can not understand the answer, you probably have some studying to do. If you get a good answer, you know to take the claim seriously.




And here's the kicker. Big Bang theory has nothing remotely to do with the theory of evolution. You are just so wrapped up in your religion that you haven't even looked in to anything else as a possibility.

The neverending battle and story continues!

There are enumerous archeological findings that have proven the existence of Jesus and the charecters, places and events that took place. And there is scientific proof of how the Universe, Earth, the Human Body and everything else was perfectly created. You say by random chance these things happend. I say hogwash. Only GOD could have made these things perfect. It's a no brainer! Logic and common sense will carry you far. So I suggest you start using them.

There's my proof! And it's far better than any farfetched theory trying to prove evolution.

Your so called evidence is nonesense and ludicrous. Evolulution is totally unacceptable and invalid in my opinion. And that's the only one that counts, is valid and that I go by. Open your eyes, oh lost sheep! You like and want to attack people. Well I can do the same. It's not hard to do at all.

Nothing anyone can say will change my mind on this matter. I pray that there's still hope for you however.

And I have read all I need to read on Evolution, to conclude that it is false. It has nothing but flaws. The events and the prophecies of the "Holy Bible" on the other hand, have never been disproven. Not once in over 2000 years. How's that for accuracy?

Have you read the Bible? If so, I suggest you read again. And keep reading it until you are able to understand it. Only then will you be able to accept it. Ask GOD to assist you, and he will be more than willin to help you. But if reject him, without ever giving him a chance, you will never be able to understand. That's just one glorious and mysterious work of GOD.

Believing = Salvation
Disbelieving = Damnation

And because of free will it's your choice. Chose wisely, beloved brothers and sisters!

This conversation is over. I must go now and pray for you and all of the rest of the lost sheep. May you someday find GOD, before it's too late.

Good day, take care and GOD bless!

The neverending battle and story continues!

There are enumerous archeological findings that have proven the existence of Jesus and the charecters, places and events that took place. And there is scientific proof of how the Universe, Earth, the Human Body and everything else was perfectly created. You say by random chance these things happend. I say hogwash. Only GOD could have made these things perfect. It's a no brainer! Logic and common sense will carry you far. So I suggest you start using them.

There's my proof! And it's far better than any farfetched theory trying to prove evolution.

Your so called evidence is nonesense and ludicrous. Evolulution is totally unacceptable and invalid in my opinion. And that's the only one that counts, is valid and that I go by. Open your eyes, oh lost sheep! You like and want to attack people. Well I can do the same. It's not hard to do at all.

Nothing anyone can say will change my mind on this matter. I pray that there's still hope for you however.

And I have read all I need to read on Evolution, to conclude that it is false. It has nothing but flaws. The events and the prophecies of the "Holy Bible" on the other hand, have never been disproven. Not once in over 2000 years. How's that for accuracy?

Have you read the Bible? If so, I suggest you read again. And keep reading it until you are able to understand it. Only then will you be able to accept it. Ask GOD to assist you, and he will be more than willin to help you. But if reject him, without ever giving him a chance, you will never be able to understand. That's just one glorious and mysterious work of GOD.

Believing = Salvation
Disbelieving = Damnation

And because of free will it's your choice. Chose wisely, beloved brothers and sisters!

This conversation is over. I must go now and pray for you and all of the rest of the lost sheep. May you someday find GOD, before it's too late.

Good day, take care and GOD bless!
Lookie, it's hit and run christianity. Hope no one got injured.

I don't get it. Why does it matter whether the world is aged over millions years or only a thousand years? It can't be proven, will always be debated, and doesn't affect our daily lives!

The Bible is the inspired Word of God. Clouding its credibility undermines the faith of many thereby undermining the belief of many in God. Yes, that is primarily a problem with humanity rather than science itself, but many of the practitioners of science have willing and willfully participated in the destruction of faith in God amongst the general population.

So you believe that God is all for slavery and the denigration of women?

You believe that God is unaware that bleeding is not necessarily going to occur when a virgin has sex?

You believe that God feels that a woman raped in New York was consenting if no one saves her?

I can't tell you the number of times I've been called an idiot or had my intelligence questioned simply because I believe differently than the majority here.

What do you consider "questioning your intelligence". I don't feel that pointing out a blatant misunderstanding of the theory questions intelligence - and that is mostly what I see here.

It seems to me that evolutionists really do feel genuine animosity and hold in contempt anyone whose ideas are not the product of current scientific theory.

Shrug, I have yet to meet a single person who holds ideas outside of science in contempt. I have seen those who feel that science is more correct than other methods of finding truth, but I have yet to see anyone who holds animosity towards those who disagree.

Never said otherwise. Evolutionary theory does, though, claim that the Biblical creation account(six literal days 6-7 thousand years ago) is wrong.

You specifically stated that evolution was a "Godless theory," thus clearly stating that it precludes the existence of a God.

As it is, evolutionary theory is only as Godless as you want it to be. If you believe that God is not intelligent enough to do things through a process, by all means, state that.

The Bible is the inspired Word of God. Clouding its credibility undermines the faith of many thereby undermining the belief of many in God.

I have yet to meet a single person who stopped believing in God because of evolution.

Yes, that is primarily a problem with humanity rather than science itself, but many of the practitioners of science have willing and willfully participated in the destruction of faith in God amongst the general population.

That's funny, considering that most of the practitioners of science are, themselves, believers in God.

Where in the bible does it say, explicitly, that the earth does not revolve around the sun? I'd still say, that someone who believes that the earth is the center of the universe should be able to have their child taught that. It is a freedom I'd defend, just like your freedom of speech to say something I disagree with.

Where in the bible does it say, explicitly, that evolution never occurred?

I spent time here talking and responding to the one who challenged me.

Would you like to challenge me and lose as well?

I'm still here. And once again us Christians prove over and over of you Secularists ignorance and intolerance. I'd rather be a hit and run Christian that lives and speaks the truth, rather than an ignorent and intolerent Secularist that lives speaks lies.

Yes, that would definately apply to you!

It's always the same story. Secularists attack and offend Christians due to their intolerance, but then turn around and try to blame Christians for standing up and defending their views, and being the instigators of intolerence. How nice..... Hypocrits!

The theory of evolution is just that, a theory. theorys are not proven right. You try to prove them wrong until you suceede then adjust it and try again.

As my dear friend stephen ( :headbang: ) pointed out: well then where is the missing link? to quote some famous science guy who's name i can not remember, "evolution is a series of long slow changes interupted by rapid change" this is true. if you look at the history of life, why should animals change if they have no reason to. But should something happen, such as a volcanic eruption, then animals must adapt quickly or they won't survive. think of the three legged toads or whatever in the great lakes.

I was just thinking: science progresses by constant revision. What is science today maybe bulls*** tommorrow. Maybe evolution is all wrong, who knows?

There's my proof! And it's far better than any farfetched theory trying to prove evolution.

Never mind that the theory of evolution does nothing to preclude creation of a sorts.

Your so called evidence is nonesense and ludicrous. Evolulution is totally unacceptable and invalid in my opinion. And that's the only one that counts, is valid and that I go by. Open your eyes, oh lost sheep! You like and want to attack people. Well I can do the same. It's not hard to do at all.

Wow, what a wonderful attitude. I hope you don't think it is compatible with the teachings of Christ.

Nothing anyone can say will change my mind on this matter. I pray that there's still hope for you however.

*shrug* Ok. Why are you in this discussion?

Have you read the Bible? If so, I suggest you read again. And keep reading it until you are able to understand it. Only then will you be able to accept it. Ask GOD to assist you, and he will be more than willin to help you. But if reject him, without ever giving him a chance, you will never be able to understand. That's just one glorious and mysterious work of GOD.

You are so cute. And so very assured of your own infallibility. You might want to examine that. Last I checked, only God is infallible. Pride can be a dangerous sin.

Newsflash: You are not Christ. Thus, your interpretation of the Bible is just as fallible as mine.

Believing = Salvation
Disbelieving = Damnation

Based on the rest of your diatribe, I will assume you mean believing everything you say = salvation. Of course, that is ludicrous. My faith is in God, not in Barvinia.

I was just thinking: science progresses by constant revision. What is science today maybe bulls*** tommorrow. Maybe evolution is all wrong, who knows?

No scientist would ever claim otherwise.

It is, of course, highly unlikely that evolution is all wrong, just as it is highly unlikely that the theory of gravity is all wrong.

It is, however, possible.

I'm still here. And once again us Christians prove over and over of you Secularists ignorance and intolerance. I'd rather be a hit and run Christian that lives and speaks the truth, rather than an ignorent and intolerent Secularist that lives speaks lies.

Good to know that you are God. Shall we all bow down and worship you now?

After all, your claim to be infallible must make you God.

No scientist would ever claim otherwise.

It is, of course, highly unlikely that evolution is all wrong, just as it is highly unlikely that the theory of gravity is all wrong.

It is, however, possible.

We never know...

It's kinda fun to live a life of suspense, no? :D

As i look down the list, i see all these arguments. But you see... THERE IS NO PROOF FOR EVOLUTION. THERE IS NO PROOF FOR CREATION. That's why evolution is called the The Theory of Evolution. And creationism is callled the Creationism Theory. Any "proof" of evolution has always been proved wrong and vice versa.And also... when asked, the renoun scientists do not support either. But they acually say they don't know. They say that because there is no proof. More recently more and more scientists have been moving toward this conclusion. If you ask my opinion, the probability of all this world... everything. I stand in awe of how intricate the single selled organism is. You tell me that little microscopic cell happened on an accident. That's what evolution basically says. To go on, evolution basically says that there were bilions upon billions of those cells that made forms of early life. I call that BS. There is no way that all this world turned out this way by chance. It sonds more like a supreme being that created it more intricate than a puzzel that we cannot even begin to imagine how powerful this God is.

I will stand up to any person who attacks GOD. But I never attack first. I defend. Got a problem with that?

And I am not perfect, I am only human. I am entitled to get mad and express my feelings. Did Jesus not get mad when he turned over all the tables at his temple, and by telling all the merchants that this was a place of worship and that they had turned it in to a den of thieves?

You can play games and word things anyway you want, in order to pretend and deceive others. But your attitude, pride and deceitfulness will not work with me. You and the rest fo the secularists are the arrogant, proud and boastfull.

There is a difference in getting mad and standing up for the truth (Christians), than getting mad and uttering blasphemy (Secularists).

Anything else I can help you with my little lost sheep? Go away you say..... When I'm ready, and not before. Got it?

As i look down the list, i see all these arguments. But you see... THERE IS NO PROOF FOR EVOLUTION. THERE IS NO PROOF FOR CREATION. That's why evolution is called the The Theory of Evolution. And creationism is callled the Creationism Theory. Any "proof" of evolution has always been proved wrong and vice versa.And also... when asked, the renoun scientists do not support either. But they acually say they don't know. They say that because there is no proof. More recently more and more scientists have been moving toward this conclusion. If you ask my opinion, the probability of all this world... everything. I stand in awe of how intricate the single selled organism is. You tell me that little microscopic cell happened on an accident. That's what evolution basically says. To go on, evolution basically says that there were bilions upon billions of those cells that made forms of early life. I call that BS. There is no way that all this world turned out this way by chance. It sonds more like a supreme being that created it more intricate than a puzzel that we cannot even begin to imagine how powerful this God is.

*applauds the green colour*

i like what you say too, but nothing beats the green. :D

Infallible? I never stated nor made that claim once in any of my posts. Read them all, adn prove yourself wrong once again.

That is just your way of twisting words and creating lies just to make you look good. Well it won't work with me! Try again if you wish, but you will only be hurting your credibility and cause.

I will stand up to any person who attacks GOD.

*Looks around for someone attacking God. Doesn't see any such thing. Gets confused.*

But I never attack first. I defend. Got a problem with that?

Does your version of God approve of lying? After all, you did come into this thread just a little while ago flinging attacks.

And I am not perfect, I am only human.

If that is true, why do you claim to know better than others who have read the Bible what it means? Why are you the arbiter on what is right and wrong?

I am entitled to get mad and express my feelings.

That isn't the same thing as flinging attacks.

Did Jesus not get mad when he turned over all the tables at his temple, and by telling all the merchants that this was a place of worship and that they had turned it in to a den of thieves?

Was he flinging unfounded personal attacks, as you are? Did he say "You like to attack people. Well, I do too! This is fun!"???

But your attitude, pride and deceitfulness will not work with me.

Pride and deceitfulness? I am not the one claiming to be the arbiter of all that God wants.

You and the rest fo the secularists are the arrogant, proud and boastfull.

First of all, secularism in one respoect is not incompatible with religion in another. I am, as are many scientists, a Christian. Go figure.

And again, I am not the one boasting that I am personally the arbiter of all truth - that is your area.

There is a difference in getting mad and standing up for the truth (Christians), than getting mad and uttering blasphemy (Secularists).

And you personally determine what is and is not blasphemy? Did Christ himself not say to give unto God what is God's and unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's?

Anything else I can help you with my little lost sheep? Go away you say..... When I'm ready, and not before. Got it?

I am already a Christian. If I were not, your personal attacks and reliance on your own infallibility would turn me away from Christ. Does Scripture not tell us that one who leads even a single person astray will receive a worse punishment than the one led astray? Your type of tactics do nothing but lead people away from Christ.

I spent time here talking and responding to the one who challenged me.

Would you like to challenge me and lose as well?

I'm still here. And once again us Christians prove over and over of you Secularists ignorance and intolerance. I'd rather be a hit and run Christian that lives and speaks the truth, rather than an ignorent and intolerent Secularist that lives speaks lies.

Yes, that would definately apply to you!

It's always the same story. Secularists attack and offend Christians due to their intolerance, but then turn around and try to blame Christians for standing up and defending their views, and being the instigators of intolerence. How nice..... Hypocrits!

Best post ever. You're crazier than me. Salute!

As i look down the list, i see all these arguments. But you see... THERE IS NO PROOF FOR EVOLUTION. THERE IS NO PROOF FOR CREATION.

Of course not. Neither religion nor science can ever be proven.

That's why evolution is called the The Theory of Evolution. And creationism is callled the Creationism Theory.

Incorrect. Evolution is called the theory of evolution because it is a scientific theory. No one else has claimed otherwise.

Some people refer to Creationism as the Creationism Theory because they are using the lay-definition of the word theory, which roughly means "an idea".

And also... when asked, the renoun scientists do not support either. But they acually say they don't know. They say that because there is no proof. More recently more and more scientists have been moving toward this conclusion.

All scientists are aware that nothing in science is a foregone conclusion. The vast majority, however, feel that evolution accurately describes the events. This is due to the evidence we currently have.

I stand in awe of how intricate the single selled organism is.

As do I.

You tell me that little microscopic cell happened on an accident. That's what evolution basically says.

You have fun with that strawman. That is not, however, what evolutionary theory really says.

It sonds more like a supreme being that created it more intricate than a puzzel that we cannot even begin to imagine how powerful this God is.

And why could God not have created this process that led to the beautiful complexities we see now? Is God not intelligent enough to do so?

Infallible? I never stated nor made that claim once in any of my posts. Read them all, adn prove yourself wrong once again.

That is just your way of twisting words and creating lies just to make you look good. Well it won't work with me! Try again if you wish, but you will only be hurting your credibility and cause.

You state that your own personal interpretation of the Bible is correct and that everyone else fall under the "lost sheep" category. This is obviously faith in your own infallibility. A person who was not convinced of their own infallibility would be aware of the chance that they are wrong, and someone else may just be right.

It has nothing to do with twisting words - it is the very definition of the word.

As i look down the list, i see all these arguments. But you see... THERE IS NO PROOF FOR EVOLUTION. THERE IS NO PROOF FOR CREATION. That's why evolution is called the The Theory of Evolution. And creationism is callled the Creationism Theory. Any "proof" of evolution has always been proved wrong and vice versa.And also... when asked, the renoun scientists do not support either. But they acually say they don't know. They say that because there is no proof. More recently more and more scientists have been moving toward this conclusion. If you ask my opinion, the probability of all this world... everything. I stand in awe of how intricate the single selled organism is. You tell me that little microscopic cell happened on an accident. That's what evolution basically says. To go on, evolution basically says that there were bilions upon billions of those cells that made forms of early life. I call that BS. There is no way that all this world turned out this way by chance. It sonds more like a supreme being that created it more intricate than a puzzel that we cannot even begin to imagine how powerful this God is.

Creationism isn't a scientific theory... it fails at the first hurdle, by NOT being falsifiable.

'Renowned' scientists do not agree with you. Most scientists believe the current theory of Evolution to be a pretty sound set of principles... although, always open to modification, of course.

Where did you get the idea that there was no 'proof' (I assume you mean 'evidence') for Evolution?

Where is your evidence that Evolution has been 'proved wrong'?

'The world' and even 'the origin of life' are NOT part of Evolutionary theory.

Also - just because you think something is unlikely, that isn't proof that it didn't happen.

I like the green colour, though... very environmentally friendly.

HUSH! Jesus came to provide peace, not stir up arguments. If brother quarrels with brother, what image does that project to non-Christians?

*Looks around for someone attacking God. Doesn't see any such thing. Gets confused.*


Sorry - that might have been me... he was in my seat.

(I didn't really 'attack' him though, I just gave him a little push, and asked if he 'didn't have a universe that needs watching'....)

Creationism isn't a scientific theory... it fails at the first hurdle, by NOT being falsifiable.

'Renowned' scientists do not agree with you. Most scientists believe the current theory of Evolution to be a pretty sound set of principles... although, always open to modification, of course.

Where did you get the idea that there was no 'proof' (I assume you mean 'evidence') for Evolution?

Where is your evidence that Evolution has been 'proved wrong'?

'The world' and even 'the origin of life' are NOT part of Evolutionary theory.

Also - just because you think something is unlikely, that isn't proof that it didn't happen.

I like the green colour, though... very environmentally friendly.

Let's just say both theories shall never be proven right or wrong, simply because it cannot be regenerated as a scientific experiment! No experiment, no evidence, no truth.

Let's just say both theories shall never be proven right or wrong, simply because it cannot be regenerated as a scientific experiment! No experiment, no evidence, no truth.

Science never attempts to 'prove' anything right... your understanding of science is flawed, my friend.

However, as much as laboratory evidence CAN support Evolution, it most certainly has done...

As has observation of responses to changing ecology.

'Creationism', on the other hand, cannot be tested, and that is why it is not 'science'... and never will be.

Oh so I see you like to dish it out, but not take it.

Well, we can stay here and attack each other all night if you wish.

Now I see you are playing the little game of who gets the last word in. Well that will be me tonight. You see, I'm a night person, so I have gotten plenty of rest. Tomorrow you can come back and post anything you wish. For when I am done here tonight I will not be returning to this post. I will leave victorious. GOD will see to that!

I could't care less how you like to separate my statements, put them in quotes and then give your distorted and blasphemous views of me.

You sir, are nothing but a false Christian! And your comments and statements have proven that repeatedly.

What game do you have in mind next, oh great and illustrious false one?

Glory be to GOD allmigty!

Science never attempts to 'prove' anything right... your understanding of science is flawed, my friend.

However, as much as laboratory evidence CAN support Evolution, it most certainly has done...

As has observation of responses to changing ecology.

'Creationism', on the other hand, cannot be tested, and that is why it is not 'science'... and never will be.

I know science is to progress by proving previous theories wrong - which goes on to say evolution is as shaky as creationism.

I mean we can't recreate the evolution of life in the lab. Ecology is NOT evolution. Adaptation is NOT evolution either. Nobody can as yet show how life can explode out of nothing. It's all one big, meaningless argument.

HUSH! Jesus came to provide peace, not stir up arguments. If brother quarrels with brother, what image does that project to non-Christians?

If one person claims infallibility and demonstrates intolerance and we all hush to provide a show of solidarity, what image does that project to non-Christians?

If one person claims infallibility and demonstrates intolerance and we all hush to provide a show of solidarity, what image does that project to non-Christians?

I'm not saying you can't have diverse opinions, but if you argue in the public, it's not good for PR. It's not just Christianity. It happens in every social organisation. If you have something against him, why don't you take it out privately? It has less chance to degrade into anything else.

Oh so I see you like to dish it out, but not take it.

Well, we can stay here and attack each other all night if you wish.

I have yet to attack. I'm sure that those around will corroborate that.

Now I see you are playing the little game of who gets the last word in. Well that will be me tonight. You see, I'm a night person, so I have gotten plenty of rest. Tomorrow you can come back and post anything you wish. For when I am done here tonight I will not be returning to this post. I will leave victorious. GOD will see to that!

Getting the last word in makes you victorious? Turning others away from your religion makes you victorious? Why?

I could't care less how you like to separate my statements, put them in quotes and then give your distorted and blasphemous views of me.

Point out a single point at which I distorted anything you said.

And how can I have blasphemous views of a human being? Again, are you God?

You sir, are nothing but a false Christian! And your comments and statements have proven that repeatedly.

(a) I am not a sir.

(b) I am not a false Christian. I do all I can to follow God and the teachings of Christ. Can you say the same? How exactly have my statements demonstrated anything else?

What game do you have in mind next, oh great and illustrious false one?

We are all incorrect about some things. What makes you so sure that you are not?

Glory be to GOD allmigty!

Indeed.

I know science is to progress by proving previous theories wrong - which goes on to say evolution is as shaky as creationism.


On the contrary, science supports it's claims with much evidence... Creationism has ONE piece of evidence, and it has it's own contradictions.

So: Evidence: Science =1; Creationism = 0.


I mean we can't recreate the evolution of life in the lab. Ecology is NOT evolution. Adaptation is NOT evolution either. Nobody can as yet show how life can explode out of nothing. It's all one big, meaningless argument.

Micro-evolution IS evolution.

"Life exploding out of nothing", has nothing to do with evolution.

Now I see you are correcting someone else as well.

You might think you know what you are talking about, but you know nothing about GOD, Evolution or anything else you have so far discussed on this forum.

Go pick up the "Holy Bible" and read it over and over. Someday before you die, you might be able to understand it.

And until that day you will remain lost, confussed and a false Christian.

I'm not saying you can't have diverse opinions, but if you argue in the public, it's not good for PR. It's not just Christianity. It happens in every social organisation. If you have something against him, why don't you take it out privately? It has less chance to degrade into anything else.

Sorry. I will not allow intolerance and pride in humankind's infallibility to be the public face of Christianity. If that results in others seeing it, at least it demonstrates that all Christians do not agree with such views.

Meanwhile, if we never have disagreements, that does not project a view that our religion is correct. In fact, it projects just the opposite. The core must be the same, but none of us completely knows the details. To claim anything else is to turn anyone with any intelligence to speak of away from our religion. We are not infallible. We state as such. Why should we attempt to appear infallible in public?

You might think you know what you are talking about, but you know nothing about GOD, Evolution or anything else you have so far discussed on this forum.

Go pick up the "Holy Bible" and read it over and over. Someday before you die, you might be able to understand it.

And until that day you will remain lost, confussed and a false Christian.


C.S. Lewis once said that if anyone believes they have come to a full understanding, and has ceased questioning themselves and whta they believe, they have lost all faith.

If you truly believe that you have all the answers, you have lost faith in God and begun to have faith in yourself instead.

On the contrary, science supports it's claims with much evidence... Creationism has ONE piece of evidence, and it has it's own contradictions.

So: Evidence: Science =1; Creationism = 0.



Micro-evolution IS evolution.

"Life exploding out of nothing", has nothing to do with evolution.

Science progresses by overthrowing previous theories. See Popper's Falsification Method.

I'm not sure if we're talking about the same evolution....muahahahahahahaha. :fluffle:

Oh so I see you like to dish it out, but not take it.

Well, we can stay here and attack each other all night if you wish.

Now I see you are playing the little game of who gets the last word in. Well that will be me tonight. You see, I'm a night person, so I have gotten plenty of rest. Tomorrow you can come back and post anything you wish. For when I am done here tonight I will not be returning to this post. I will leave victorious. GOD will see to that!

I could't care less how you like to separate my statements, put them in quotes and then give your distorted and blasphemous views of me.

You sir, are nothing but a false Christian! And your comments and statements have proven that repeatedly.

What game do you have in mind next, oh great and illustrious false one?

Glory be to GOD allmigty!


I hope you are a troll. You can't seriously believe what you preach to be true. You are not the chosen one.


It is people like YOU who make me HOPE that the Christian God is right. Because, in that case, you and I would both be going to hell. And, I would just get pleasure out of that knowledge.


You can't seriously contend that you are being civil in any way. Much of what you have said has been insulting. Other people call you on it, and you say they are insulting and insult them again.

All I gotta say is: H20.................

See how I'm not perfect by calling you sir, and never caimed to be perfect, as you consider youself. Calling me a troll now I see. You continue to attack and are trying to prove to everyone that you are little miss perfect and know it all.

Don't worry though, I forgive you as a Christian, but no one is going to silence me from telling the truth and revealing false Christians such as yourself.

A Christian/Evolusionist, how contradictory is that? What else is up your deceptive sleeve? You are probobly part of that woman's movement that's for: Abortion, Homosexual marriage and Euthenasia just to name a few. And then to top it off you proudly and boastfully call yourself a Christian.

How sad indeed!

Oh so I see you like to dish it out, but not take it.

Well, we can stay here and attack each other all night if you wish.

Now I see you are playing the little game of who gets the last word in. Well that will be me tonight. You see, I'm a night person, so I have gotten plenty of rest. Tomorrow you can come back and post anything you wish. For when I am done here tonight I will not be returning to this post. I will leave victorious. GOD will see to that!

I could't care less how you like to separate my statements, put them in quotes and then give your distorted and blasphemous views of me.

You sir, are nothing but a false Christian! And your comments and statements have proven that repeatedly.

What game do you have in mind next, oh great and illustrious false one?

Glory be to GOD allmigty!

Well done. I liked how you intentionally misspell a word here and there to lend a "backwoods flavor" to your general craziness. I have much to learn from you. Please continue.

See how I'm not perfect by calling you sir, and never caimed to be perfect, as you consider youself. Calling me a troll now I see. You continue to attack and are trying to prove to everyone that you are little miss perfect and know it all.

Don't worry though, I forgive you as a Christian, but no one is going to silence me from telling the truth and revealing false Christians such as yourself.

A Christian/Evolusionist, how contradictory is that? What else is up your deceptive sleeve? You are probobly part of that woman's movement that's for: Abortion, Homosexual marriage and Euthenasia just to name a few. And then to top it off you proudly and boastfully call yourself a Christian.

How sad indeed!

I did not say you were a troll. I said I hope you are a troll. But you will probably just end up twisting my words again to get meaniing that isn't there.

The reason I hope you are a troll is because I find it hard to believe that there is ANYONE on Earth as arrogant as yourself. This time I am insulting you, because you have done so enough already.

You are arrogant because you believe you are holy. You purport that you do not, then you profess that you know the truth and that we do not. And then, if someone says you are wrong about something, you refute that you cannot be wrong, regardless of what the evidence suggests.

Anybody who believes that they are infallibly right (which you do) is arrogant. You even stated yourself that nothing would change your beliefs. That means that you believe you are infallibly right.

And before you twist my words, I'd like to note... I am NOT saying you believe that you are perfect. I am saying you believe your beliefs are infallibly right, and that is the stem of your arrogance.


Finally, though others on this forum are Christian (and much better Christians than yourself), I am not. (And, I'm a sir, but I see you don't realise that there are more than one person who disagree with you)

See how I'm not perfect by calling you sir, and never caimed to be perfect, as you consider youself.

Great ad hominem attack, considering I have yet to say anything that would suggest in any way that I am perfect.

Calling me a troll now I see.

Do you see the names beside the posts? Do you see that some of them are the same? I have not called you a troll. Try again.

You continue to attack and are trying to prove to everyone that you are little miss perfect and know it all.

I have yet to attack you, nor will I.

I have yet to say anything to suggest in any way that I am either perfect or that I know everything. That is your area.

Don't worry though, I forgive you as a Christian, but no one is going to silence me from telling the truth and revealing false Christians such as yourself.

So real Christians attack other people without provocation and claim to know everything there is to know about God?

A Christian/Evolusionist, how contradictory is that?

It isn't. One can be at once awed by God's creation and study the processes it set up.

What else is up your deceptive sleeve?

At what point have I lied?

You are probobly part of that woman's movement that's for: Abortion, Homosexual marriage and Euthenasia just to name a few.

I am not for abortion. I am for homosexual marriage. Of course, anyone reading Scripture that hasn't been translated several times and studies the history of the church would realize that such a view is not incompatible with Christianity. Euthenasia is iffy. I would never choose it for myself, but will not keep others from exercising their own free will, which was given to them by God.

And then to top it off you proudly and boastfully call yourself a Christian.

I would hardly call it boastful. Am I proud to be Christian? Absolutely. Am I glad to and live a Christ-like life? Absolutely. We should all be glad to do so.

Thank you Galtref! Just goes to prove once again in my misspellings that I'm by no means perfect. I don't have time for a spell check or editing right now. I'm currentlly doing battle with Satan follower.

And yes, we are all considered to be crazy. It just depends on who you ask.

Excuse me, but there's a current holy war that I need to attend to. GOD bless!

Thank you Galtref! Just goes to prove once again in my misspellings that I'm by no means perfect. I don't have time for a spell check or editing right now. I'm currentlly doing battle with Satan follower.

And yes, we are all considered to be crazy. It just depends on who you ask.

Excuse me, but there's a current holy war that I need to attend to. GOD bless!

Have at it! Just remember though - On the day of the Rapture, you and I will be eating biscuits and gravy with Jesus - while these sinners are learning the backstroke on the Lake of Fire. So take it easy on them.

Gartref = Barvinia?

Gartref = Barvinia?

I have no puppets. I'm already schizo enough.

Edit: besides, I would never take the time to argue on a point by point basis, I prefer to hit and run.

Well make up your mind! First you say your not a sir, and then you say you are.

As far as infallibility is cocearned, only GOD is infallible. But it is up to me and all true Christians to stand up and correct any misstatemements or erroneous interpertations of GOD's word as written in the "Holy Scriptures". Or anyone who attacks or defames GOD allmighty. And I am doing my duty as a humble and obediant servent to GOD.

Feeling tired yet, or you still want to stick around just to lose in the final round?

I'm just getting warmed up how about you? Satan lover.

I have no puppets. I'm already schizo enough.

Edit: besides, I would never take the time to argue on a point by point basis, I prefer to hit and run.

LOL

I was hoping it was just you, Gartref. I am still hoping it's a troll, because the sheer arrogance makes me doubt humanity's superiority. :p

Well make up your mind! First you say your not a sir, and then you say you are.

*looks* Nope, I never said that at all.

As far as infallibility is cocearned, only GOD is infallible.

Exactly. Of course you then go on to say that you are the arbiter of what is the correct interpretation:

But it is up to me and all true Christians to stand up and correct any misstatemements or erroneous interpertations of GOD's word as written in the "Holy Scriptures".

So which is it? Are you infallible or not? If the answer is no, then you cannot, with any surety, correct those Christians who disagree with you. You can discuss why you believe what you do, and I can do the same. Neither of us, however, can say with absolute surety that the other is incorrect in their interpretation.

Feeling tired yet, or you still want to stick around just to lose in the final round?

What is there to lose? Am I going to lose at sitting and watching you attack myself and others (although you do not seem to be able to differentiate between us) and pointing out those attacks and their pointlessness?

I'm just getting warmed up haw about you.

I'm not really sure what that means.

I had time to edit that last one Galtref. I hope you are pleased.

Maybe Comulo is getting tired or just can't think of any more lies or spewing any more venomous comments against Christians. That's why I had time to edit, I guess.

Well make up your mind! First you say your not a sir, and then you say you are.

As far as infallibility is cocearned, only GOD is infallible. But it is up to me and all true Christians to stand up and correct any misstatemements or erroneous interpertations of GOD's word as written in the "Holy Scriptures". Or anyone who attacks or defames GOD allmighty. And I am doing my duty as a humble and obediant servent to GOD.

Feeling tired yet, or you still want to stick around just to lose in the final round?

I'm just getting warmed up haw about you. Satan lover.

Well, according to you, it really doesn't matter, because in the 'final round' I will be in hell. Besides, I don't believe in God, nor do I believe in Satan. I ask you this; how can I 'love' something I don't believe in?


Anyway, I'm not tired of this. I am seeing how.... how do I say this without being insulting.... mentally deficient you are.

More than one person is talking to you! One is a sir, one is a ma'am, one I dunno. I am not a Christian, I believe the other two are. Then there's Gartref :p


If it's up to you to correct misstatements about the Bible, then you are saying that what you believe is true. Infallibly.

There is no way around it. You are saying that your opinion (which you don't consider as such) is fact, without a chance of error. You are saying your interpretation of the Bible is right.

You are saying you are infallibly correct.

Well make up your mind! First you say your not a sir, and then you say you are.

As far as infallibility is cocearned, only GOD is infallible. But it is up to me and all true Christians to stand up and correct any misstatemements or erroneous interpertations of GOD's word as written in the "Holy Scriptures". Or anyone who attacks or defames GOD allmighty. And I am doing my duty as a humble and obediant servent to GOD.

Feeling tired yet, or you still want to stick around just to lose in the final round?

I'm just getting warmed up how about you? Satan lover.You say only God is Infallible yet it's the job of Christians to correct any misinterpertations of his word? I think only God can do that and he'll do that through Prayer. The job of the Christian is not to correct anything, but to put more people into God's calling plan so that he can make his will known.

To everyone else, If I ever did sound like this, I humbly and truly appologize.

Amazing. People, evolution is not a 'theory', evolution is a fact. Anyone who's raised guppies or pigeons knows that evolution is a fact. Anyone who has studied biology for any length of time knows evolution is a fact. You can take all the polls you want, and pontificate until the cows come home, but facts just aren't up for a vote.

Now, if what you really mean is that you question Darwin's theory of natural selection, well, we can talk about that, but I have to wonder how much study those who favor 'intelligent design' have done to claim that their 'creator' is such a lousy worker that he'd depend on something as haphazard as evolution as it exists in nature...

Amazing. People, evolution is not a 'theory', evolution is a fact. Anyone who's raised guppies or pigeons knows that evolution is a fact. Anyone who has studied biology for any length of time knows evolution is a fact. You can take all the polls you want, and pontificate until the cows come home, but facts just aren't up for a vote.

Now, if what you really mean is that you question Darwin's theory of natural selection, well, we can talk about that, but I have to wonder how much study those who favor 'intelligent design' have done to claim that their 'creator' is such a lousy worker that he'd depend on something as haphazard as evolution as it exists in nature...

Recently this thread was hijacked by God... well at least someone who believes he is the word of God.

I guess Jesus was reborn?

<snip>
I am not for abortion. I am for homosexual marriage. Of course, anyone reading Scripture that hasn't been translated several times and studies the history of the church would realize that such a view is not incompatible with Christianity. <snip>

I stopped posting in this thread when it turned into a repeat fest of accusations, but this comment of yours drew me back...

What? What translation (several times according to you) Bible translations and church history (that apparently only you and people who agree with you have access too) are you talking about?

First, which translation of the Bible are you claiming to be wrong? And which part (s) of it are you referring to? Are you claiming that ancient manuscripts are somehow and somewhere different than modern English translations of the same verses and books? And if so, which ones? The KJ, NKJ, NIV, NAB LB, NLV or maybe the NRSV? Different than which Greek or Aramaic source? Different than any manuscript that passed through the council of Nicea? Or just different than what you say they are supposed to say? Too many people go around making that kind of baseless accusation against the historical accuracy of the written translations, but they get away with it because too many people don’t know enough to know it is baseless and just shut up via intimidation. Outside of the KJ and LB versions though (I haven't read the NKJ), I haven't found any English version to be purposefully misleading nor even erroneous in any such a way.

Then, after that broad statement of accusation against the authentic rendering of historical text you made, you alluded to some secret version of Church history, which has parts in some one or another age apparently, during what years you didn't say, but you claim that early Christians then would have endorsed same sex marriages?

Do you care to enlighten us? I have yet, during all my years of reading Biblical Histories and Near East Archaeological studies, have I ever heard of such a cultic translation as the one you claim. Nor have I seen it in the non-standard Gnostics gospels or books, not in the Christian Apocrypha, not in the Jewish Pseydepigrapha. So what are you talking about?

Recently this thread was hijacked by God... well at least someone who believes he is the word of God.

I guess Jesus was reborn?
Oops! Having just read back a couple of pages, I see you are correct. My apologies to God and his foaming-at-the-mouth servant.

Amazing. People, evolution is not a 'theory', evolution is a fact. Anyone who's raised guppies or pigeons knows that evolution is a fact. Anyone who has studied biology for any length of time knows evolution is a fact. You can take all the polls you want, and pontificate until the cows come home, but facts just aren't up for a vote.

Now, if what you really mean is that you question Darwin's theory of natural selection, well, we can talk about that, but I have to wonder how much study those who favor 'intelligent design' have done to claim that their 'creator' is such a lousy worker that he'd depend on something as haphazard as evolution as it exists in nature...

Anybody who has studied science at all knows that evolution is a theory. Simply put Evolution has not been proven. You see, the evidence can be misleading. Perhaps what truly occurred is so vastly different from anything we can conceive. It's possible. Evolution is only an idea used to bring the evidence together. It is not Law.

As I recall, you did. You said: First off, I am no sir!

I could go back to copy and paste it for you. But this is not a major issue nor that important, We'll jast call it a mild misunderstanding, if that's allright with you Mr. Perfect?

Anybody who has studied science at all knows that evolution is a theory. Simply put Evolution has not been proven. You see, the evidence can be misleading. Perhaps what truly occurred is so vastly different from anything we can conceive. It's possible. Evolution is only an idea used to bring the evidence together. It is not Law.

But then, gravity is also only a theory. It explains the evidence quite well. But it is not Law.

The earth is round is also a theory. But the vast majority of the evidence supports it.

The same is true with evolution.

As I recall, you did. You said: First off, I am no sir!

I could go back to copy and paste it for you. But this is not a major issue nor that important, We'll jast call it a mild misunderstanding, if that's allright with you Mr. Perfect?

But she never said she WAS a sir, I said I was. And since we're name-calling now (somehow that gets the point across better?)... alright Holy One.

What? What translation (several times according to you) Bible translations

The majority of the versions of the Bible have been through several translations. The Old Testament of the KJV, for instance has been from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English (the last under the supervision of a king willing to behead those who might include things he didn't personally like).

and church history (that apparently only you and people who agree with you have access too) are you talking about?

Church history would reveal that Christian churches, at one time, had rites consecrating same-sex unions.

First, which translation of the Bible are you claiming to be wrong? And which part (s) of it are you referring to? Are you claiming that ancient manuscripts are somehow and somewhere different than modern English translations of the same verses and books? And if so, which ones?

I cannot, myself, read Hebrew or Greek. However, having consulted those who do, I can state that there is nothing explicit in the Bible concerning homosexuality. The often quoted Levitical law, upon a closer translation, is apparently an admonishment not to have sex with a woman who is menstruating (something that would fit in well with the rest of the laws). The story of Sodom and Gomorah (sp?) is about hospitality - something that was a big issue in ancient Hebrew culture. The lone reference in Romans uses a word that specifically referred to the practice of men taking young boys as prostitutes, not to homosexuality as a whole.

Outside of the KJ and LB versions though (I haven't read the NKJ), I haven't found any English version to be purposefully misleading nor even erroneous in any such a way.

It isn't necessarily intentionally misleading. A careless translation - especially from the already taught viewpoint that homosexuality is wrong - could end up that way. Of course, I don't see anything in Scripture talking about God striking down homosexual geese, swans, dolphins, rats, dogs, cattle, apes, or any other animal. One can make an argument, if one wishes, that homosexuals should refrain from sexual contact. However, it is ludicrous to argue that homosexuality itself is somehow a sin. It is no different from arguing the viewpoint (which is actually backed up by Scripture) that menstruating is a sin.

Then, after that broad statement of accusation against the authentic rendering of historical text you made,

It isn't an accusation so much as a statement. Any text which has gone through numerous scribings, through numerous time periods, and numerous languages is going to be altered, whether intentionally or not.

you alluded to some secret version of Church history, which has parts in some one or another age apparently, during what years you didn't say, but you claim that early Christians then would have endorsed same sex marriages?

It is not secret at all. Careful study reveals that some early churches do seem to have, indeed, sanctioned same sex unions. I'll try to find the link again, I didn't bookmark it last time I found it.

Anybody who has studied science at all knows that evolution is a theory. Simply put Evolution has not been proven. You see, the evidence can be misleading. Perhaps what truly occurred is so vastly different from anything we can conceive. It's possible. Evolution is only an idea used to bring the evidence together. It is not Law.

Like most, you are confusing "evolution" with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection, which was his attempt to explain evolution. I'm sorry, but you really should ask your school for your money back. Evolution is a fact. If reality is "so vastly different from anything we can conceive", then science itself is pointless. Sure, the silliness proposed by some (that the fossil record is merely God's practical joke) could be true, but if so, then the study of nature is by definition pointless. We can only deal with the facts as they're dealt.

So which is it? Are you infallible or not? If the answer is no, then you cannot, with any surety, correct those Christians who disagree with you.

Don't answer that question, Barvinia. It is a trick. It was briliant how your feigned confusion revealed that Dempublicents1 is in fact - a woman. I should have deduced this myself from her inherently devious nature. I'll bet she's just waiting to spring one of her deceptive womanly mind tricks on you. I can see her now slyly rubbing her hands together waiting for your slightest mistep, her nostrils flaring with the anticipation of your defeat. I'll bet her hair is softly flowing down her deceptive shoulders and dishonestly caressing her neck on the way down. I'll bet she smells good too.... Wait... I've completely lost my train of thought. Where the hell was I going with all this? The woman has tricked me!

Don't answer that question, Barvinia. It is a trick. It was briliant how your feigned confusion revealed that Dempublicents1 is in fact - a woman. I should have deduced this myself from her inherently devious nature. I'll bet she's just waiting to spring one of her deceptive womanly mind tricks on you. I can see her now slyly rubbing her hands together waiting for your slightest mistep, her nostrils flaring with the anticipation of your defeat. I'll bet her hair is softly flowing down her deceptive shoulders and dishonestly caressing her neck on the way down. I'll bet she smells good too.... Wait... I've completely lost my train of thought. Where the hell was I going with all this? The woman has tricked me!

Ooh, this looks fun. Methinks I should play along. It is better than arguing to a wall.

Well it's always nice to see a fellow Christian join in and defend the word of GOD. Fighting the evil forces of Satan is a tough job, but I am most honored and humbled to do so.

You see now how GOD and his word are perfect, but Satan is not. And if you if you feed any false Christian enough rope, well, ultimately they will hang themselves.

I wonder who Satan is plannig to send here next? It doesn't really matter, because in the end, Satan knows that he and all of his followers are doomed to eternal damnation. Depart from me Satan, and enjoy your journey to the Lake of Fire.

Next!

Keep the faith dear brothers and sisters. Glory be to GOD!

I'll bet her hair is softly flowing down her deceptive shoulders and dishonestly caressing her neck on the way down.

Not yet. I'm still in the process of growing it out. =)

Well it's always nice to see a fellow Christian join in and defend the word of GOD.

Glad you're happy to see me.

Yes, sorry I misunderstood you. It is up to us three to show the satan lovers the correct path. I say we start by debunking the ideas that the Earth isn't the center of the universe.

I am a changed man. From this day forth, I will fight all satanic urges, and you can be my teacher. Everything you tell me I will take as fact.

Please enlighten me, Barvinia.

Glory be to GOD!

The majority of the versions of the Bible have been through several translations. The Old Testament of the KJV, for instance has been from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English (the last under the supervision of a king willing to behead those who might include things he didn't personally like). It is true, that the very first English translation that was widely published, the KJ version had flaws in it. Mainly in regards to the teaching of the Trinity catechism though. But later English translations all addressed this. You are talking about a five hundred year old problem that was fixed over three hundred years ago

Church history would reveal that Christian churches, at one time, had rites consecrating same-sex unions. I've been reading Christian history via archaeological publications (BAS, BR etc.,) and at theological seminars and biblical histories for years, twenty or more, and I can plainly say that your accusation are entirely unknown to the professionals in this field, be they Semitic or Christian or laypersons, I’ve seen no one make such a claim in historical fields.

But my point here isn't about homosexuality at all, only that you make a claim about historical writings that ARE verifiable, and your statements are flatly in error.


It isn't an accusation so much as a statement. Any text which has gone through numerous scribings, through numerous time periods, and numerous languages is going to be altered, whether intentionally or not.
The translations you speak of, the ‘scribing through the numerous time periods’ you think you know about, are not translations of other English versions. Their publishers and translators inherently all wanted to go back to the original sources, the same as you would if you were writing one, to see for themselves. The only translations I do not trust are the JHW version and the as yet unread by me, Mormon version. Those last to were not written by people that went back to read the originals for themselves.

The NIV, for example, WAS written by a council of Christians and Jews that wanted a complete modern day English version not related to the KJ. The NRSV was the first ever translation approved for use by all the Christian denominations, including Roman Catholic, Anglican, Protestant and Eastern Orthodox, simply because it included ALL of the book from all of the compilations taken directly from the originating text, be it Hebrew (Old testament) or Greek or Aramaic (new Testament gospels and letters). How you can claim, that the books have changed, when we can compare them to the thousands of years old Dead Sea Scrolls (old testament only) or the Christian Apocrypha for reference and there is no change outside of common speech. You are wrong, I suspect someone is lying to you if you are not lying to yourself.

Go take a course in ancient biblical manuscripts and how we know what we know, and then come back here and tell us again that you think modern translations have been changed from their original. You will find that your assumptions of their error via the years they have existed, is entirely without merit.

See what deception and false teachings have led you to believe.

You say that there was nothing wrong with what people did in Sodom and Gomorrah, yet GOD destoyed it.

So according to you GOD was wrong for judging and destoying them, yet you are right for condeming GOD for what he did.

Very Interesting! Please continue entertaining us with your blasphemy.

See what deception and false teachings have led you to believe.

You say that there was nothing wrong with what people did in Sodom and Gomorrah, yet GOD destoyed it.

So according to you GOD was wrong for judging and destoying them, yet you are right for condeming GOD for what he did.

Very Interesting! Please continue entertaining us with your blasphemy.

Yes, Dem, entertain us with your blasphemy. It's obvious that you said there was 'nothing wrong' with what people did in Sodom and Gomorrah. You didn't say anything else. Nobody is twisting your words.

Explain yourself, infidel.

Thank you once again for enlightening me, Barvinia.

Glory be to GOD.

It is true, that the very first English translation that was widely published, the KJ version had flaws in it. Mainly in regards to the teaching of the Trinity catechism though. But later English translations all addressed this. You are talking about a five hundred year old problem that was fixed over three hundred years ago

And yet the NRSV, one of the few translations directly from the earliest texts known, and not from another English translation, Latin, or Greek (in the case of the OT), is pretty recent.

In my opinion, it is the only translation with any credence at all to the details. Even it may have its flaws, especially on words that are contested but that the translators would, by tradition, translate a certain way.

But my point here isn't about homosexuality at all, only that you make a claim about historical writings that ARE verifiable, and your statements are flatly in error.

Cute. I disagree with you, so obviously I err.

The translations you speak of, the ‘scribing through the numerous time periods’ you think you know about, are not translations of other English versions.

No, they aren't. I never said they were. English is relatively recent.

The NRSV was the first ever translation approved for use by all the Christian denominations, including Roman Catholic, Anglican, Protestant and Eastern Orthodox, simply because it included ALL of the book from all of the compilations taken directly from the originating text, be it Hebrew (Old testament) or Greek or Aramaic (new Testament gospels and letters).

Correction. It was complied from the oldest available texts. This is not the same as the original texts, which are most likely lost to history.

How you can claim, that the books have changed, when we can compare them to the thousands of years old Dead Sea Scrolls (old testament only) or the Christian Apocrypha for reference and there is no change outside of common speech.

You do realize that all of those texts were scribed numerous times over. Even just in copying, things can be changed.

Meanwhile, translators err. They disagree on what a given word means exactly or how it is used. Why? Because we don't use those ancient languages, nor do we live in the cultures in which they were used. Thus, a translation is an educated guess, but is highly unlikely to be perfect.

You are wrong, I suspect someone is lying to you if you are not lying to yourself.

Actually, I am being quite honest with myself and with you. It is well-known that errors are introduced, both through scribing, and through translation. Take an English text and translate it into, say, Japanese. Then take it back to ancient Japan and have them read it. See if they understand everything in perfect detail.

Go take a course in ancient biblical manuscripts and how we know what we know,

Been there, done that. Anyone who has given even a moment's study to translation would know that it is never perfect.

Meanwhile, the vast majority of Christians seem to place their faith in the KJV, a version known to be riddled with errors.

You say that there was nothing wrong with what people did in Sodom and Gomorrah, yet GOD destoyed it.

I never said any such thing. I said that the people in Sodom and Gomorrah were not hospitable. Rather than welcoming their new visitors, they wished to rape them. This was apparently quite prevalent in those cities. I certainly would never say that there is "nothing wrong" with that." Rape and extreme promiscuity are not exactly good things.

I've studied evolution indepth enough to know that creationism is wrong...

You need to study harder. At least hard enough to be objective, painful as that might be. . . .

So objectivity allows one to treat fairy tales as facts? I'll pass, thank you...

You need to study harder. At least hard enough to be objective, painful as that might be. . . .

Does "objective" means "agrees with me"?

Anyway, put me in the last category. :)

Does "objective" means "agrees with me"?

Obviously not. It wouldn't be objective then, would it? "Objective" means objective; fair; honest; unassuming and possessing a desire to understand actual fact, whatever it may be, or however it may contradict your personal belief. This is what "objective" means, in terms of practical application.

So objectivity allows one to treat fairy tales as facts? I'll pass, thank you...

Let me give you an example of a blatant lack of objectivity: your own words. You are assuming that I ascribe to a doctrine that you choose to label as a "fairy tale," and do not stop to think that I might have some good reason for thinking what I think (and you don't even know what I think!).

Anyway, put me in the last category. :)

I don't think you belong there. I think you belong in the third category.

To study doesn't mean to hear about it from others' mouths. It means to actually read up on the subject. You can say you have, but in actuality it was probably Creation-based 'science' explaining why not to believe evolution.


Of course, this is just an assumption, but from what I've heard from Creationists who claim to have 'studied' evolution, it seems to be the case most often.

Evolution and god can not both be true.

God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and without any fault, and to create all life through evolution would be stupid and evil.

For evolution to work, all but the strong creatures have to die. God does not let His creations die needlessly.

Also, this would mean that God couldn't get it right first time. Even with evolution, He would have to start with something, so why wouldn't He start with a perfect world?

God and evolution can simply not co-exist. One is right and one is wrong.

I for one believe that God is right and evolution is wrong, but I will readily change my mind if I see any piece of real evidence for evolution. All I've seen so far has only made me laugh.

Nice.
Great way to put it.
Have you read the Glenco Science textbook evidence for evolution? Some funny jokes there. Homology. Lol.

Dempublicents1

You can discount all you want, disregard what I say and trust in your own delusion, but modern archaeology has filled in and dispensed with the accusations like yours for at least the last fifty years.

A vast number of New Testament manuscripts have come from Egypt in the last few years. The papyri has been found in Egyptian/Christian graves and tombs and were found there in their mostly in the twentieth century. They are now in Dublin, Ann Arbor, Cologny (in Switzerland), the Vatican and Vienna. Sin. was found in a monastery library on the slopes of Mount Sinai in the nineteenth century and brought to St. Petersburg. In 1933 it was sold to the British Museum in London for a mere 100,000 pounds. A was transferred from the patriarchal library at Alexandria in the seventeenth century and is now also in the British Library. Many other have been in the Vatican since the Middle Ages.

We owe the early Egyptian Christians an immense debt. Those who are fortunate enough to be able to work with part of their heritage count their blessings every day because we can now discount minimalists accusations like you've been making here.

And nearly all of the old Testament manuscript (except Ruth I believe) have been found in the Dead Sea Scroll cave near the Qumran community, be they Essene or otherwise, they have been very beneficial in proving that those scriptures have not in fact been changed in over two thousand years.




---

You may all go back to your petty bickering, I'm off to bed.

Nice.
Great way to put it.
Have you read the Glenco Science textbook evidence for evolution? Some funny jokes there. Homology. Lol.

So you truly believe there is no science to support evolution!?

Then you haven't truly studied it.


Here's (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html) a site that debunks EVERY Creationist argument against evolution that I've heard (and many, many more). There is also much evidence for evolution, though, in here.

I have studied Evolution and Darwin, but im 55 % sure its right. im on the fence leaning toward evolution barely

I have studied Evolution and Darwin, but im 55 % sure its right. im on the fence leaning toward evolution barely

Then I suggest you visit the site I have linked above. It shows to what extent Creationists will go to debunk evolution.

Dempublicents1

You can discount all you want, disregard what I say and trust in your own delusion, but modern archaeology has filled in and dispensed with the accusations like yours for at least the last fifty years.

Show me to any archaelogist who says "We have found the original of every scripture. We know every language they are written in perfectly and completely and perfectly understand the cultures in which they are written."

If you can find that, you can state that archeology has done away with all translation problems.

A vast number of New Testament manuscripts have come from Egypt in the last few years. The papyri has been found in Egyptian/Christian graves and tombs and were found there in their mostly in the twentieth century. They are now in Dublin, Ann Arbor, Cologny (in Switzerland), the Vatican and Vienna. Sin. was found in a monastery library on the slopes of Mount Sinai in the nineteenth century and brought to St. Petersburg. In 1933 it was sold to the British Museum in London for a mere 100,000 pounds. A was transferred from the patriarchal library at Alexandria in the seventeenth century and is now also in the British Library. Many other have been in the Vatican since the Middle Ages.

This is true. None of them are likely to be the originals. They are old, yes, and thus better than the texts we had before they were found. They are not, however, originals, nor can we claim that our translations are absolutely inerrant.

We owe the early Egyptian Christians an immense debt. Those who are fortunate enough to be able to work with part of their heritage count their blessings every day because we can now discount minimalists accusations like you've been making here.

Do you have a serious martyr complex? What accusations have I made? What statements have I made that are untrue? Are you seriously going to claim that the ancient Egyptians and the current translators are infallible? If not, we have no argument.

Obviously not. It wouldn't be objective then, would it? "Objective" means objective; fair; honest; unassuming and possessing a desire to understand actual fact, whatever it may be, or however it may contradict your personal belief. This is what "objective" means, in terms of practical application.

Then why assume that anyone who does not disagree with you has not approached the evidence objectively? Are you so sure of your own infallibility?

Hmmmm...... Allright then, you also have stated that you are in favor of homosexual marriage. Now, no true Christian would ever endorse nor accept such a thing.

Are you some sort of new age Christian? Nah, I still think Satan has you under his spell.

And by the way, I am a puppet nation to Arnburg. I am the sacrificial lamb in the corrupt and immoral NSUN. Arnburg resigned, and created Barvinia. There is no way that my main nation was going to put up with such nonesense. I'm just in the NSUN to endorse an ally. I really don't ever go to vote on any of the issues any more, because every other issue it seems, is about homosexual rights of some sort.

The vast majority of homosexuals seem to had invaded this game. Pathetic!

Hmmmm...... Allright then, you also have stated that you are in favor of homosexual marriage. Now, no true Christian would ever endorse nor accept such a thing.

So you are Christ? Only Christ can determine what is and is not "true Christianity".

Have you read the New Testament? Have you seen the treatment given to the Pharisees and Saducees?

Hmm, this thread seems to have taken an interesting tangent...

Well...

*Pounces*

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen Roberts

*Runs away*

Thank you Ph33rdom for your insight and participation in such a delicate but most important subject.

Goodnight and GOD bless you!

For all of you evolutionists who say that "creation is religion. Evolution is science"
1. Ever read the laws of thermodynamics?
2. Can you test evolution? (Macro evolution, that is)
3. Can you give a rational explanation of the lack of missing links?
4. What about the origin of life?
If this isn't enough, there is more.

Ohhhh. OOOOPS! I guess I just ruined my objectivity because I disagree with the all powerful sacred SCIENTISTS. Thanks, but I'll keep the Bible over your science textbooks. It doesn't need to be revised once a year.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. See hydrogen doing anything in here? Neither do I.

And I would also like to join in fighting the forces of Satan. I would be honored to be allowed into yet one more debate on this wonderful subject. (I'm still recovering from doing a project on creation for my science class in my public school)

Hmmmm...... Allright then, you also have stated that you are in favor of homosexual marriage. Now, no true Christian would ever endorse nor accept such a thing.

Are you some sort of new age Christian? Nah, I still think Satan has you under his spell.

And by the way, I am a puppet nation to Arnburg. I am the sacrificial lamb in the corrupt and immoral NSUN. Arnburg resigned, and created Barvinia. There is no way that my main nation was going to put up with such nonesense. I'm just in the NSUN to endorse an ally. I really don't ever go to vote on any of the issues any more, because every other issue it seems, is about homosexual rights of some sort.

The vast majority of homosexuals seem to had invaded this game. Pathetic!

Yes, wise one. Homosexuality is wrong. And, the fact that you have had homosexual thoughts only strengthens your resolve to be a good, strong Christian. But don't worry, you don't actually have to admit that. In fact, please deny I even said that. If Satan has tried to get to you, he obviously has gotten many people.

So, please continue to enlighten me, holy one!

Glory be to GOD!

1. Ever read the laws of thermodynamics?

Yup. Had a whole class in thermo. Have you?

2. Can you test evolution? (Macro evolution, that is)

The underlying ideas can and have been tested. They can also be used to make predictions, which are, in and of themselves, tests. As of yet, no prediction has been proven false. If it had, the theory would've been scrapped or altered. Thus is science.

3. Can you give a rational explanation of the lack of missing links?

Geology.

4. What about the origin of life?

Irrelevant.

Ohhhh. OOOOPS! I guess I just ruined my objectivity because I disagree with the all powerful sacred SCIENTISTS.

No, but you have displayed a true lack of understanding of the theory. It is a bit difficult to argue against something that you do not, yourself, understand.

Thanks, but I'll keep the Bible over your science textbooks. It doesn't need to be revised once a year.

There is nothing in the Bible to directly contradict evolution, or any other part of science. As for revisions, that is the way science works. If you do not agree with that method of searching for knowledge, then do not go into that area.

Does "objective" mean "agrees with me"?

I'm stealing that. Not even gonna quote you. Just gonna pretend it was mine.

For all of you evolutionists who say that "creation is religion. Evolution is science"
1. Ever read the laws of thermodynamics?
2. Can you test evolution? (Macro evolution, that is)
3. Can you give a rational explanation of the lack of missing links?
4. What about the origin of life?
If this isn't enough, there is more.

Ohhhh. OOOOPS! I guess I just ruined my objectivity because I disagree with the all powerful sacred SCIENTISTS. Thanks, but I'll keep the Bible over your science textbooks. It doesn't need to be revised once a year.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. See hydrogen doing anything in here? Neither do I.

And I would also like to join in fighting the forces of Satan. I would be honored to be allowed into yet one more debate on this wonderful subject. (I'm still recovering from doing a project on creation for my science class in my public school)

Because something that changes based on new evidence is bad, wheras something that presents itself as infallible and thus refutes most evidence is good... where's the logic?

1) http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html
2) http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html
3) http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
4) http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB090.html

What more do you have?

Well, I'm off to bed.

Barvinia, if you are a troll, troll away.

If you are not, I sincerely hope that you realize how many people you are likely turning away from Christ with your arrogance and personal attacks.

I'm stealing that. Not even gonna quote you. Just gonna pretend it was mine.

Have at it. =)

Well, I'm off to bed.

Barvinia, if you are a troll, troll away.

If you are not, I sincerely hope that you realize how many people you are likely turning away from Christ with your arrogance and personal attacks.

G'night! :D

You both are totally lost and confused.

Each of your last posts make no sense whatsoever. You Praise GOD, the you attack him. Back and forth you go. Are you male or female? Maybe you are both homosexuals, that can't decide what to call yourselves.

You both are totally lost and confused.

Each of your last posts make no sense whatsoever. You Praise GOD, the you attack him. Back and forth you go. Are you male or female? Maybe you are both homosexuals, that can't decide what to call yourselves.

Ah.... give it up. They're long gone. I'll meet you back under the bridge - but next time I get to be the really crazy one.

So you are Christ? Only Christ can determine what is and is not "true Christianity".

Have you read the New Testament? Have you seen the treatment given to the Pharisees and Saducees?

Not Christ, but look in the Bible!
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (NIV)
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral not idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders (10) nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (11) And that is what some of you were. But you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

So what do you think? Does this seem to endorse homosexuality?

Not trying to offend, but you may realize the danger we would be in if this became legal throughout the world...

OK. Just explain to me where all of the matter and energy in the universe comes from.

Not Christ, but look in the Bible!
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (NIV)
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral not idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders (10) nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (11) And that is what some of you were. But you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

So what do you think? Does this seem to endorse homosexuality?

Not trying to offend, but you may realize the danger we would be in if this became legal throughout the world...

You realise that the NIV isn't the only translation, and yet you use it as the example because it is one of the few that literally condemns homosexuality. Nice one.

OK. Just explain to me where all of the matter and energy in the universe comes from.

How does that relate to evolution at all?

That's a different science, and one that is much less known about. Nobody professes a valid theory for that yet.

Because something that changes based on new evidence is bad, wheras something that presents itself as infallible and thus refutes most evidence is good... where's the logic?

1) http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html
2) http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html
3) http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
4) http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB090.html

What more do you have?

You present to me your bias sites. I present to you my bias sites. What does it accomplish? The second law of thermodynamics lowers the total info content in the universe. Life would be a dramatic increase in the amount of info in the universe.

For all of you evolutionists who say that "creation is religion. Evolution is science"
1. Ever read the laws of thermodynamics?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001_2.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001_3.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001_4.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001_5.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF002.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF002_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF003.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF005.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF010.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF011.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF101.html

Most everything there on thermodynamics.

Start reading.

2. Can you test evolution? (Macro evolution, that is)

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA220.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA230.html

3. Can you give a rational explanation of the lack of missing links?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200_1.html


4. What about the origin of life?

Unrelated to evolution.

If this isn't enough, there is more.

"Bring it on"



http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA250.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA320.html


[QUOTE=]In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. See hydrogen doing anything in here? Neither do I.

Believe it or not, hydrogen has nothing to do with the modern Big Bang Theory. At least not until after the intial bang.

And I would also like to join in fighting the forces of Satan. I would be honored to be allowed into yet one more debate on this wonderful subject. (I'm still recovering from doing a project on creation for my science class in my public school)

Beh, I'll be laughin' it up with ol' Lucifer when me and him are having fun and you lot are stuck sitting around doing nothing but staring at some shiney being with no face.

OK. Just explain to me where all of the matter and energy in the universe comes from.

It was expelled from the reptilian ass of the great turtle of wisdom. I know this is true because I read it in a book.

How does that relate to evolution at all?

That's a different science, and one that is much less known about. Nobody professes a valid theory for that yet.

The point is that in order to have real, atheistic evolution, the universe must come from nothing. If you introduce God, why not just take him at His word?

You present to me your bias sites. I present to you my bias sites. What does it accomplish? The second law of thermodynamics lowers the total info content in the universe. Life would be a dramatic increase in the amount of info in the universe.

No, the second law of thermodynamics does not. You are simply spitting out what you have been told by Creationists to counter evolution. EVERY piece of counter-evidence to evolution that I know of is based on flawed logic.

Second, and furthermore, that was not a biased site. It was a science site. You asked how science explained it. I answered with a scientific site explaining.

Cambrian explosion.

The point is that in order to have real, atheistic evolution, the universe must come from nothing. If you introduce God, why not just take him at His word?

No, that is not valid. To have real evolution the universe can come from anywhere. Atheism has nothing to do with evolution, as there are many Christian evolutionists.

Furthermore, evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe. And, which God do you want me to believe, when there are so many?

All sites that address an issue have a bias. Otherwise they have no reason to do anything about the issue.

Cambrian explosion.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html

Cambrian explosion.

No... Cranium explosion.

All sites that address an issue have a bias. Otherwise they have no reason to do anything about the issue.

Science does not proport to have 'bias' in the sense you want it to. It tries to simply explain the world we know it as based on the evidence. The only bias is the bias to want to understand.

You give me your straw man arguments (all creationist arguments are based on flawed logic). I give you mine: all evolution is based on outdated evidence and/or a lack of understanding of it.

Turning them away, no just the contrary. After listining to your lies and destortions of GOD's holy word, and condeming and attacking GOD's perfection and grace, most types of people that have not quite decided what to believe, will most likely become new Chritians. Praise GOD!

Even in this latest attemp to discredit GOD has backfired on Satan and you as one of his followers.

And as far as true Christians go, there is nothing that any non-believer could ever do or say to have them change their minds and turn away from GOD. We are his true following for life. We have no fear of speaking and defending his word, even upon death. Halleluiah to the lamb of GOD!

I told you that GOD would make me victorious. You finally gave up and got tired. Perhaps GOD placed laden eyes upon you. GOD wins, Satan loses, again!

You give me your straw man arguments (all creationist arguments are based on flawed logic). I give you mine: all evolution is based on outdated evidence and/or a lack of understanding of it.

Evolution is not in its dying throes. On the contrary, the evidence we are gathering today only supports it more.

There's even a retort to this argument...

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA230_1.html

Who is this Mark Isaak person, anyway?

And who was that last comment by Barvinia addressed to, anyway?

...all evolution is based on outdated evidence...

Good point. A big chunk of the evidence is billions of years old. That's way outdated.

And you are only giving me one site by one guy to look at. I'll find some sites to give you later. It is to bad that so many of the science sites refuse to publish creationists (and this is by bias. I might get you the story sometime).

...And who was that last comment by Barvinia addressed to, anyway?

That is a question pondered many times in many places.

And you are only giving me one site by one guy to look at. I'll find some sites to give you later.

Believe it or not, that site is the work of many people over many years dealing with people just like you.

They back up their claims with published, reviewed works.

It is to bad that so many of the science sites refuse to publish creationists (and this is by bias. I might get you the story sometime).

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA325.html

And you are only giving me one site by one guy to look at. I'll find some sites to give you later. It is to bad that so many of the science sites refuse to publish creationists (and this is by bias. I might get you the story sometime).

No, the reason science sites refuse to publish creationists is because what they are proposing IS NOT SCIENCE. If it was, they could write to a peer-reviewed scientific journal and get their findings easily published.

Furthermore, give me a conclusion of any 'study' done by a creationist that scientists will not publish, and I will tell you why it's not science.


Finally, the site I'm linking has NUMEROUS sources for EVERY claim made! It is scientific. It is not what one person wrote to counter creationism. It is what the ENTIRE scientific community has studied, and has concluded that creationism as literally stated in the Bible does not stand up to the evidence.

I claim a conflict of worldviews. Evidence is there, but what it means is based on your assumptions (law of logic). I will never be able to convince you that you are wrong, not even if I showed you fiery letters in the sky that said that Jesus is God and that we were created, and you could never convince me that evolution is true even if you showed me evolution in action. This is because my axioms include the Bible being infallible and yours include evolution as being true. You could get me as far as saying that God used evolution, perhaps, and I might just be able to get you to agree in the need for a God. But your axioms would hold firm because they are AXIOMS!

And yes, it is what one person wrote to counter creationism. His bias is obvious, and I am going to sleep!

I claim a conflict of worldviews. Evidence is there, but what it means is based on your assumptions (law of logic). I will never be able to convince you that you are wrong, not even if I showed you fiery letters in the sky that said that Jesus is God and that we were created, and you could never convince me that evolution is true even if you showed me evolution in action. This is because my axioms include the Bible being infallible and yours include evolution as being true. You could get me as far as saying that God used evolution, perhaps, and I might just be able to get you to agree in the need for a God. But your axioms would hold firm because they are AXIOMS!

Wrong again. Science doesn't purport to be infallible. God does.

If you showed me fiery letters in the sky that said "Jesus is God," and I could find no Earthly explanation (a crazed Christian, for example), I would obviously be convinced.

Furthermore, I would gladly recant evolution if a theory which more strongly represented the evidence were ever created. However, evolution fits the evidence very well, so my opinion is that it's not likely to happen.

However, it is you and only you who chooses not to change your opinion, regardless of all the evidence that has been presented to you.

And yes, it is what one person wrote to counter creationism. His bias is obvious, and I am going to sleep!

Bias towards the 'Scientific Method', maybe. Not, however, against God.

You aren't even reading the links, are you? Like this one:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA325.html

Good night.

The point is that in order to have real, atheistic evolution, the universe must come from nothing. If you introduce God, why not just take him at His word?

What you call "His word" was written by man. Man makes mistakes. How do you know what you think is "His word" is truly "His word"? Perhaps it was written wrong.

Also, your points have been refuted. Your arguments have been disproven. Everything you have said is recycled and rehashed bull with no basis. At least STUDY the issue before you make blatantly false and disproven "facts", for a lack of better terms.

Of course, this is taking into consideration that you have actually read these things.

Oh, and by the way: Evolution is not dying. If anything, it is growing stronger. New evidence is found all the time strengthening Evolution. You think it is based on outdated information? You have proved that you know absolutely nothing about it.

Taking God out of the issue for a while, I would like to ask some questions:

1. A 'billion' years a lot of years. It's not just any value - it's the actual passage of time. To me a billion years would be enough for anything to degrade, let alone 45 billion years!?

2. If life had been on Earth for at least a billion years, why is it that in the human race suddenly expanded in power and influence only over the last 5000 years? Suddenly one species is exploiting the planet like never before. It doesn't seem that the carrying capacity of the Earth is that gigantic.

I claim a conflict of worldviews. Evidence is there, but what it means is based on your assumptions (law of logic). I will never be able to convince you that you are wrong, not even if I showed you fiery letters in the sky that said that Jesus is God and that we were created, and you could never convince me that evolution is true even if you showed me evolution in action. This is because my axioms include the Bible being infallible and yours include evolution as being true. You could get me as far as saying that God used evolution, perhaps, and I might just be able to get you to agree in the need for a God. But your axioms would hold firm because they are AXIOMS!

Assuming you are right, of course. Since, you know, you speak directly from God, and know exactly what is and isn't true. Your statement bleeds of arrogance. I find it odd that many Christians say that the will of God is impossible for us to truly understand, but then say that what they say is God's true word and will. Interesting little contradiction of thought. You are an enigma.

Also, this shows doubt in your mind of your own religion. You dare not consider that something is amiss, thus you do not question. You accept blindly for the fear that you may be wrong. You have a great deal of doubt. Don't bottle it up. Question your faith, as I know you haven't. You may be surprised by how devout you are, either way. Little advice to the blind.

Taking God out of the issue for a while, I would like to ask some questions:

1. A 'billion' years a lot of years. It's not just any value - it's the actual passage of time. To me a billion years would be enough for anything to degrade, let alone 45 billion years!?

2. If life had been on Earth for at least a billion years, why is it that in the human race suddenly expanded in power and influence only over the last 5000 years? Suddenly one species is exploiting the planet like never before. It doesn't seem that the carrying capacity of the Earth is that gigantic.

1. What do you mean 'anything to degrade'?

2. Just because you find something hard to believe doesn't mean it's automatically invalid. Yes, humans learned technology, and writing allowed them to learn from the past (among other things). Since we are the only species both intelligent enough to create technology and with the means (hands) to do so, this is perfectly reasonable.

1. What do you mean 'anything to degrade'?

2. Just because you find something hard to believe doesn't mean it's automatically invalid. Yes, humans learned technology, and writing allowed them to learn from the past (among other things). Since we are the only species both intelligent enough to create technology and with the means (hands) to do so, this is perfectly reasonable.

I mean, wouldn't Earth just degrade away? Get blown up by a very large meteor or something? Billions! 45 Billions! The sheer scale of number is quite incredible.

"Just because you find something hard to believe doesn't mean it's automatically invalid"....sounds like a creationist argument too...

What will be the purpose of life if we're mere mortals waiting to pass on our genes? Is life only a bunch of chemicals? How did social institutions, like families, fraternities and governments come by?

Has evolution stopped yet? How would humans evolve next? Why do humans suddenly care for the entire planet, when all the other animals don't give a damn about Global Warming? It seems like human intelligence and technology just ballooned in such a short.

Why did eyes evolve? How did eyeless animals "know" that they needed eyes and thus evolved them out?

Taking God out of the issue for a while, I would like to ask some questions:

1. A 'billion' years a lot of years. It's not just any value - it's the actual passage of time. To me a billion years would be enough for anything to degrade, let alone 45 billion years!?

2. If life had been on Earth for at least a billion years, why is it that in the human race suddenly expanded in power and influence only over the last 5000 years? Suddenly one species is exploiting the planet like never before. It doesn't seem that the carrying capacity of the Earth is that gigantic.

1.The Earth, according to evidence given, is roughly 6-8 billion years old, depending on who you ask it could be as young as 4, though. Also, you must remember that matter is never destroyed, only changed in form. To go further, genetic material is recycled, and is apparently hardy in it's current form.

2. Humans in their current state only show up in the fossil records up to about a hundred thousand years or so. It took a good deal of time for Man to eventually spread across the Earth. Frankly, the reason man has only recently become strong is due to us finally finding a form which is strong enough to withstand. All other forms had merely moderate success. When Homo-sapiens(and depending on who you ask, sapiens subspecies) finally came along about a hundred thousand years ago, we were finally able to thrive and spread. However, it took a long time to do this. As man spread, so did culture, which is why there are similarities among different people across the world. Culture was likely one of the first things humans had going for us. We also know that humans migrated, as we can actually map the movement of many people, such as the Aztec's migration from the Americas southward, or the Aborijinal movement across micronesia into Australia. It's very easy to find, if you know what you are looking for.

Basically the reason why humans have only become strong is because we have finally had the chance to. We needed to eventually come along in evolution terms, we needed to develop culture, then spread, then settle, then grow.

Also, humans have not always existed. Humans, in our earliest known form(Austrolopithicenes) date back a very meager 2-4 million years, hardly a bump geologically.

Assuming that evolution exists, of course.

I mean, wouldn't Earth just degrade away? Get blown up by a very large meteor or something? Billions! 45 Billions! The sheer scale of number is quite incredible.

"Just because you find something hard to believe doesn't mean it's automatically invalid"....sounds like a creationist argument too...

What will be the purpose of life if we're mere mortals waiting to pass on our genes? Is life only a bunch of chemicals? How did social institutions, like families, fraternities and governments come by?

Has evolution stopped yet? How would humans evolve next? Why do humans suddenly care for the entire planet, when all the other animals don't give a damn about Global Warming? It seems like human intelligence and technology just ballooned in such a short.

Why did eyes evolve? How did eyeless animals "know" that they needed eyes and thus evolved them out?

No, not 45 billion. 4.5 billion.

But you are right, it is an extremely long time. But, why would Earth have gone away if other planets didn't?

The length of time also allows us to explain the SLOW process of evolution.


Evolution does not attempt to explain the purpose of life.


Evolution has not stopped yet, and there is no evidence to support that it will stop in the future.


Other creatures may not 'give a damn' about Global Warming, but they sure are feeling the affects. Furthermore, global warming is not taught as evolution.


Creatures do not 'want' to evolve. It just happens. Mutations in genes are very common, and if a mutation is favourable, it is likely that it will be passed along. Regarding the eye: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html

God is infallible, humans are not. (Except for Jesus, of course).

So by this assumption, evolution is not possible, because you have scientests (humans), trying to figure out when, where and how life started, while commiting mistakes in the process, that will never lead to the proof needed(not possible anyway) nor acceptance of evolution.

Thank you all very much for proving Creation the only sane and rational explanation. Now we must work on bringing prayer back to schools, outlawing abortion, partial birth abortion, euthanesia, homosexual marriage, drugs, rape, incest, prostitution (Nevada) hunger, poverty, homelessness, greed, capitalism and corruption. That's would be a great start. Maybe we could return to being the moral and great nation America once was. In GOD I pray this. Amen!

GOD is glorious and magnificent! Keep the faith, read GOD's holy word on a daily basis and pray and give thanks for what we have daily as well.

Thank you GOD for creating me and everything around me.

GOD I love you so very, very much! Life would be meanigless without you!

Goodnight and GOD bless all!

Robert.

God is infallible, humans are not. (Except for Jesus, of course).

So by this assumption, evolution is not possible, because you have scientests (humans), trying to figure out when, where and how life started, while commiting mistakes in the process, that will never lead to the proof needed(not possible anyway) nor acceptance of evolution.

Thank you all very much for proving Creation the only sane and rational explanation. Now we must work on bringing prayer back to schools, outlawing abortion, partial birth abortion, euthanesia, homosexual marriage, drugs, rape, incest, prostitution (Nevada) hunger, poverty, homelessness, greed, capitalism and corruption. That's would be a great start. Maybe we could return to being the moral and great nation America once was. In GOD I pray this. Amen!

GOD is glorious and magnificent! Keep the faith, read GOD's holy word on a daily basis and pray and give thanks for what we have daily as well.

Thank you GOD for creating me and everything around me.

GOD I love you so very, very much! Life would be meanigless without you!

Goodnight and GOD bless all!

Robert.

Incidentally, http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH030.html

But I don't expect you will actually read it, so it doesn't matter.

As to any argument you've made so far, you have yet to give ANY evidence or information supporting what you claim. All you have done is insult people and twist their words.

Therefore, I have no reason to argue with you. You can believe what you will, but it is your type of fascism for Christianity that keeps many people away from the religion (including myself).

No, not 45 billion. 4.5 billion.

But you are right, it is an extremely long time. But, why would Earth have gone away if other planets didn't?

The length of time also allows us to explain the SLOW process of evolution.


Evolution does not attempt to explain the purpose of life.


Evolution has not stopped yet, and there is no evidence to support that it will stop in the future.


Other creatures may not 'give a damn' about Global Warming, but they sure are feeling the affects. Furthermore, global warming is not taught as evolution.


Creatures do not 'want' to evolve. It just happens. Mutations in genes are very common, and if a mutation is favourable, it is likely that it will be passed along. Regarding the eye: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html

It could be possible that the other planets are as young as Earth. If we can't determine the age of the Earth accurately, it would be incredible to compare it with other estimates of the ages of the other planets.

Evolution and age of the Earth seem to go hand-in-hand. Arguing one with another is circular argument. What if one day it was found out that the Earth was indeed about 10,000 years old? What would happen then?

Evolution does not explain the purpose of life, which is what makes it incomprehensible. You can't simply isolate evolution from the purpose of life because the biological and the psychological side of life go hand-in-hand. The failure of evolution - or science in general - to explain the meaning of life makes the theory inadequate.

If evolution is continuous how can we classify creatures with names, since the genetic makeup of every generation is different from the previous generation?

About global warming, I mean that only the human species actually cares about trying to stop it. And only human beings care about the future in the long-term, about space travel and things. Only humans have a sense of religion. Only humans have morality.

If evolution 'just' happens, who is it to determine what happens?

Evolution is about positive feedback, where changes deviate from the original. However, the general view today is that any deviation from the original is viewed as freaks - see abnormal people with three legs. If evolution was about improvement, we should view ourselves, the 'normal' people, as being left out.

I will read up about the eyes and reply. Thanks!

EDIT: I have read about the eyes. In essence the passage is only a SUGGESTION about the evolution of the eye, which cannot be proven by evidence. So it still does not answer why the eye came about. The process itself looks ridiculous. All by chance the photosensitive cells came about?? All by chance??

I mean, wouldn't Earth just degrade away? Get blown up by a very large meteor or something? Billions! 45 Billions! The sheer scale of number is quite incredible.

"Just because you find something hard to believe doesn't mean it's automatically invalid"....sounds like a creationist argument too...

What will be the purpose of life if we're mere mortals waiting to pass on our genes? Is life only a bunch of chemicals? How did social institutions, like families, fraternities and governments come by?

Has evolution stopped yet? How would humans evolve next? Why do humans suddenly care for the entire planet, when all the other animals don't give a damn about Global Warming? It seems like human intelligence and technology just ballooned in such a short.

Why did eyes evolve? How did eyeless animals "know" that they needed eyes and thus evolved them out?
I mean, wouldn't Earth just degrade away? Get blown up by a very large meteor or something? Billions! 45 Billions! The sheer scale of number is quite incredible.

"Just because you find something hard to believe doesn't mean it's automatically invalid"....sounds like a creationist argument too...

What will be the purpose of life if we're mere mortals waiting to pass on our genes? Is life only a bunch of chemicals? How did social institutions, like families, fraternities and governments come by?

Has evolution stopped yet? How would humans evolve next? Why do humans suddenly care for the entire planet, when all the other animals don't give a damn about Global Warming? It seems like human intelligence and technology just ballooned in such a short.

Why did eyes evolve? How did eyeless animals "know" that they needed eyes and thus evolved them out?

I'm not sure where you keep getting 45 billion. Try 4-5, maybe 6-7 billion. No one considers it to be 45 billion years, as the Universe itself is projected no more than 20(By those who project, that is).

The Earth has not been hit because there are so few large objects just floating around. Even the largest of objects which have any threat to Earth would not destroy it in its entirety.

Also, why such objects have yet hit is because of three important objects: Jupiter, The Moon, and the Sun. Jupiter's gravitational pull pretty much sucks everything up that would come within the inner solar system. Next, as a second safe guard, the Moon acts a shield. It has been bombarded thousands of times, evidence of this is on the far, dark side of the moon, which is littered with craters. Next, the Sun rips things out of our pull. We have three very important and very strong safegaurds against anything that comes within our reach.

Your questions on families is rather easy. Animals group together for safety and strength. Families grew out of this.

Has evolution stopped yet? No, of course not. Why do we care for the planet? Because we are aware of the problems. Animals are not aware of thing as "Pollution" and other things which we have created. Why would they? There is no way for us to communicate with animals, however they can communicate with us. Who's more intelligent there? Us, who know practically nothing of what animals think, or animals who can key into almost exactly what we think?

Also, with intelligence and technology: It has ballooned. It appears that intelligence growth is Exponential, not Constant. Think of it like this: With one discovery, two more become possible. Two more discoveries become possible from each of those, and so forth and so on. It quickly grows into massive scale. Remember: All scientific discoveries and all technology is based off of earlier discoveries and technologies. There is really nothing new.

As nothing anyone says will convince anyone else of anything, I would just like to say that I don't intend to be spending much time in this forum. This doesn't mean that I don't still believe what I said I believe!

Apologies: I keep getting 45 billion because the Chinese characters for 45 billion is very confusing - I come to contact with at least 3 numbering systems and I haven't come to terms with any of them yet.

It could be possible that the other planets are as young as Earth. If we can't determine the age of the Earth accurately, it would be incredible to compare it with other estimates of the ages of the other planets.

Evolution and age of the Earth seem to go hand-in-hand. Arguing one with another is circular argument. What if one day it was found out that the Earth was indeed about 10,000 years old? What would happen then?

But there is significant, overwhelming scientific evidence to suggest that the Earth is in fact 4.5 billion years. One example is radiometric dating.

Evolution does not explain the purpose of life, which is what makes it incomprehensible. You can't simply isolate evolution from the purpose of life because the biological and the psychological side of life go hand-in-hand. The failure of evolution - or science in general - to explain the meaning of life makes the theory inadequate.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI120.html

If evolution is continuous how can we classify creatures with names, since the genetic makeup of every generation is different from the previous generation?

What? I don't understand what you are saying here.

About global warming, I mean that only the human species actually cares about trying to stop it. And only human beings care about the future in the long-term, about space travel and things. Only humans have a sense of religion. Only humans have morality.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA630.html

If evolution 'just' happens, who is it to determine what happens?

Once again, I don't understand how those statements are connected.

Evolution is about positive feedback, where changes deviate from the original. However, the general view today is that any deviation from the original is viewed as freaks - see abnormal people with three legs. If evolution was about improvement, we should view ourselves, the 'normal' people, as being left out.

I will read up about the eyes and reply. Thanks!

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html

Sorry about giving you so much to read, but all these have been discussed before, and the arguments are evidence that creationists have not actually studied evolution.

A note: reading more about the site, it bugs me on a huge scale that much of what is said cannot be proven by hard facts. They are merely "educated guesses" made by scientists, who, as Barvinia rightly said, are prone to be wrong.

It all boils down to the conclusion: the answer will never be reveals. :sniper:

As nothing anyone says will convince anyone else of anything, I would just like to say that I don't intend to be spending much time in this forum. This doesn't mean that I don't still believe what I said I believe!

Have you ever considered that you don't really believe what you believe? Perhaps consciously you supress all doubt for fear that you are wrong. If you do not question what you believe, then you do not truly believe it. You accept it, but you do not believe it. You are a slave to others, and will be a slave forever.

I'm not saying that if upon questioning you will undoubtedly come to something other than Christianity. You may very well find that you truly believe in Christianity. Just remember: Faith without question is slavery.

But there is significant, overwhelming scientific evidence to suggest that the Earth is in fact 4.5 billion years. One example is radiometric dating.



http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI120.html



What? I don't understand what you are saying here.



http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA630.html



Once again, I don't understand how those statements are connected.



http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html

Sorry about giving you so much to read, but all these have been discussed before, and the arguments are evidence that creationists have not actually studied evolution.

That last statement is right, but read my previous post about evolution being "educated guesses" and theoretical and logical arguments more than solid evidence. I really can't be reading all those stuff now. I have an Economics exam tomorrow and I really should be studying that instead. :gundge: But thanks a bunch! :D

A note: reading more about the site, it bugs me on a huge scale that much of what is said cannot be proven by hard facts. They are merely "educated guesses" made by scientists, who, as Barvinia rightly said, are prone to be wrong.

It all boils down to the conclusion: the answer will never be reveals. :sniper:

Yes, much of what is said CAN be proven by 'hard facts' depending on what you mean by 'hard facts'. However, if you mean something that is absolutely correct, then the only thing that would fit that is God.

These are not 'educated guesses' unless you claim that the Earth revolving around the sun is an 'educated guess', in which case you are once again saying the only "Truth" is God.


If scientists are prone to be wrong, why do we have computers? Why do we have medicine? Why can we build spacecraft that go to Mars? Why can we breed new more productive versions of crops?

It all boils down to the conclusion: the answer will never be reveals. :sniper:

True. However, it is hoped that at least a few misconceptions(on both sides) were righted, and some questions answered. In the end, the full truth will never be truly known, whether or not one claims to accept something as a full truth or makes a statement as being completely true.

Yes, much of what is said CAN be proven by 'hard facts' depending on what you mean by 'hard facts'. However, if you mean something that is absolutely correct, then the only thing that would fit that is God.

These are not 'educated guesses' unless you claim that the Earth revolving around the sun is an 'educated guess', in which case you are once again saying the only "Truth" is God.


If scientists are prone to be wrong, why do we have computers? Why do we have medicine? Why can we build spacecraft that go to Mars? Why can we breed new more productive versions of crops?

I did say leave God out of this because it just defeats the entire argument in a flash and questioning will be no more fun.

By your last statement are you saying that scientists are always right?

Did we just prove that a Creationist/Evolutionist argument can be conducted without flaming? :D :D :D

I did say leave God out of this because it just defeats the entire argument in a flash and questioning will be no more fun.

By your last statement are you saying that scientists are always right?

I would NEVER suggest that scientists are always right. They are quite often wrong. But when a theory has stood the test of time this long, and new evidence almost always supports that theory, there is not much basis in believing it is fully and utterly wrong.

Did we just prove that a Creationist/Evolutionist argument can be conducted without flaming? :D :D :D

LOL, yep! It has been done before, and hopefully this type of open discussion will continue.

I am not trying to make anybody look bad, or stupid, or anything. I just want to get a few misconceptions straight. :D

EDIT: Anyway, as it's midnight here, I'd best be getting some sleep.

Thanks to those who at least thought about what I had to say. And trust that I also took what you had to say in to consideration.

If scientists are prone to be wrong, why do we have computers? Why do we have medicine? Why can we build spacecraft that go to Mars? Why can we breed new more productive versions of crops?



Remember that with each of those inventions, there are thousands of failures behind them. Science is almost never exact. Trial and error. Thomas Edison had well over 10,000 failures before he finally made the first working lightbulb.

Just goes to show that not all of us crazy Evolutionists think alike.

I would NEVER suggest that scientists are always right. They are quite often wrong. But when a theory has stood the test of time this long, and new evidence almost always supports that theory, there is not much basis in believing it is fully and utterly wrong.

LOL, yep! It has been done before, and hopefully this type of open discussion will continue.

I am not trying to make anybody look bad, or stupid, or anything. I just want to get a few misconceptions straight. :D

Unless the fundamental theories of evolution are wrong, which would bring the entire apparatus tumbling down. But we'll see :D

I loved this conversation. But I REALLY need to move on to economics :rolleyes: Thanks~!

Remember that with each of those inventions, there are thousands of failures behind them. Science is almost never exact. Trial and error. Thomas Edison had well over 10,000 failures before he finally made the first working lightbulb.

Just goes to show that not all of us crazy Evolutionists think alike.

Of course mistakes are made. I would never suggest otherwise. :p

I was just pointing out that scientists' ideas of what Earth is like must have superficial validity, because if it didn't we wouldn't be able to use our understanding to create such things.

Did we just prove that a Creationist/Evolutionist argument can be conducted without flaming? :D :D :D

Oh dear. THis is not good... Better start getting things moving.

This is you :)
This is me :mp5:

:) :mp5:

Just kidding of course.

Of course mistakes are made. I would never suggest otherwise. :p

I was just pointing out that scientists' ideas of what Earth is like must have superficial validity, because if it didn't we wouldn't be able to use our understanding to create such things.

Ah, gotcha. It's two in the morning for me, and I'm a bit tired. With me out of school, I'm not fully in things.

I don't think you belong there. I think you belong in the third category.

To study doesn't mean to hear about it from others' mouths. It means to actually read up on the subject. You can say you have, but in actuality it was probably Creation-based 'science' explaining why not to believe evolution.


Of course, this is just an assumption, but from what I've heard from Creationists who claim to have 'studied' evolution, it seems to be the case most often.

I'm not terribly interested in the conclusions you've drawn based on what you have heard from creationists who claim to have "studied" evolution. I have. Don't insult my intelligence by making stupid assumptions.

Is there a thread here that catalogues the testable hypotheses put forth by creationism, in any or all its forms?

I suggest that YOU might need to be the one to go back ang reread what Evolution is proposing.

For example, the fact is that we CAN theoretically breed horses backwards and get prehistoric races back, as a matter of fact, it's been done. We CAN breed backwards to anything in a given species’ history. If evolution is correct we should be able to breed backwards to the common ancestor of all cats and dogs (if there is one) or cucumbers and tomatoes (if there is one), but biology has so far been unable to confirm either of those. That part of the theory of evolution has not been verifiable. I suggest that biology confirms the theory of evolution only partially.You can only truly 'breed backwards' if: In each new generation you have the right (overtly) modified traits in the offspring to 'advance' the population back along the path and, Use some method to encourage these traits (exclusively?) above all others.
The problems are that: With those are that the mutations you have to work with are random, though... ...you could deliberately engineering them, at the genetic level but you must first understand what you have to engineer (and not break anything else), Also, while you can theoretically 'plough back through' many generations (the competing mutations took a while to settle on the forwards stroke, but you're being single-minded on the back stroke) you couldn't reverse a million generations of change in a thousand, never mind that You can (and they have, in one case I'm aware of) 'recreate' an animal 'A' from selective breedings of a A-B hybrids encouraging for 'A'-ness, but there's a distinct possibility that you are artificially encouraging 'parallel evolution', and it doesn't mean that even your 'perfectly A' result doesn't have extensively 'B' biochemistry (where it matters) and therefore not be a viable breeding (even socialising) member of an 'A' population, were you to introduce it into one.
(Also, attempts to recreate mammoths by hybridising elephants with recovered mammoth DNA and selectively breeding the offspring for a few generations are, at best, going to create a 'very mammoth-like' sub-genus of Elephant, albeit with an accelerated 0th generation mutation, and unless you can recover the entire genome, proteome and every other -ome involved from the frozen samples you aren't going approach getting a genuine mammoth, though we could get one that looks like one at many levels...)

The inheritance of adult traits to the offspring is truth, Evolution is the theory that takes that truth and proposes that it may lead to interspecies developments if given enough time. As of yet, we have been unable to confirm this.[edit: sorry forgot to add to this bit... Essentially, I think you have the right idea, except that a) we can never 'confirm' evolution in an absolute sense, but b) we have enough supporting eviodence to confirm it 'until something better comes along' in a very real sense, and the difference between these two is what some creationists are trying to lever apart...]

Random note: Science progresses by disproving previous theories, and is considered partially successful if it can predict future events. However, nobody has yet been able to predict future trends of evolution is?

Evolution, apart from finding "evidence", can hardly be called "science" in a philosophical sense...

Random note: Science progresses by disproving previous theories, and is considered partially successful if it can predict future events. However, nobody has yet been able to predict future trends of evolution is?

Evolution, apart from finding "evidence", can hardly be called "science" in a philosophical sense...

Well, it is scientific: You can make predictions about what intermediate forms should be found and what not. And if you find them later (consider how many spectacular finds have been made in the past 10-15 years), your prediction is verified.

Yes, evolution has been making predictions. Not just the esoteric like Darwin's prediction of an insect with a 12 inch tongue that services the comet orchid. (His prediction was ridiculed at the time, 147 years later he was proven correct.) Predictions that people invest big money in. Consider the search for venoms to jumpstart various medical, and industrial ends for example.

Creationism itself makes the occasional prediction. One from the Bible, as the infalible Word of God, is that snakes would be forever condemed to crawl on the ground blah blah. Well, many snakes spend their whole lives in trees, or at sea. Some even know how to glide quite spectacularly (even if they don't actually fly). Clearly the Bible is spectacularly wrong.

Yes, evolution has been making predictions. Not just the esoteric like Darwin's prediction of an insect with a 12 inch tongue that services the comet orchid. (His prediction was ridiculed at the time, 147 years later he was proven correct.) Predictions that people invest big money in. Consider the search for venoms to jumpstart various medical, and industrial ends for example.

Creationism itself makes the occasional prediction. One from the Bible, as the infalible Word of God, is that snakes would be forever condemed to crawl on the ground blah blah. Well, many snakes spend their whole lives in trees, or at sea. Some even know how to glide quite spectacularly (even if they don't actually fly). Clearly the Bible is spectacularly wrong.

Hey, good point there. You bring up something very interesting. :)

I'm not saying that all scientists or atheists are immoral. My actually argument is that they lose the rational for any form of morality and that every form of morality or lack there of is value equal in the absense of an omniscient, and there by objective, definer of morality.Swerving away from the issue at hand, but I do not believe that Morality == Religion.

Looked at 'externally' a lot of immoral things have been done in the name of religion, usually because "they are to the greater power of our God" - e.g. human sacrifices, wars and Crusades, KKK actions against 'coloured's, your modern suicide bombers...

Similarly, there are a lot of people who don't live religious lives who would rival St Francis of Assissi [however many 's's he has...], and there are various worldwide secular charities.


As one on the soft-atheist side of Agnostic, my opinions about what happens after death generally boil down to "I expect nothing more than oblivion", and I'm not a homocidal maniac. In fact, my personal morality is (apart from societal pressures) that as my own death would mean the loss of any 'me', the killing of another would mean the loss of any 'them', and there are few people (and none I've knowingly met, certainly none who I've had my own time to get to know by direct opinion) who I have ever felt deserved undergoe personal extenction.

Even bin Laden who I (through the influence of the media and general tidal-wave of opinion, in the immediate aftermath of 911) felt deserved a particularly dire fate, I wished merely to be condemed to be strapped to a hard metal table while I carefully used a small geological hammer and, starting from his feet, started to carefully break each and every bone, hoping to reach the skull while he was still conscious. And I've heard more extreme views than that (an extreme POV from myself at a time when emotions were high and I was in hot blood) from the avowed religious. And we can all agree (well, a lot of us) that there are far more moral ways of dealing with him, where possible. (Though I personally think that the most moral managable method is for him to be killed. Capture and internment doesn't sound doable, and leaving him at liberty is immoral to the world at large.)


This is way-strayed from the subject at hand, however...

Well, it is scientific: You can make predictions about what intermediate forms should be found and what not. And if you find them later (consider how many spectacular finds have been made in the past 10-15 years), your prediction is verified.

Well, has anybody made such a prediction and succeeded?

Yes, evolution has been making predictions. Not just the esoteric like Darwin's prediction of an insect with a 12 inch tongue that services the comet orchid. (His prediction was ridiculed at the time, 147 years later he was proven correct.) Predictions that people invest big money in. Consider the search for venoms to jumpstart various medical, and industrial ends for example.

Creationism itself makes the occasional prediction. One from the Bible, as the infalible Word of God, is that snakes would be forever condemed to crawl on the ground blah blah. Well, many snakes spend their whole lives in trees, or at sea. Some even know how to glide quite spectacularly (even if they don't actually fly). Clearly the Bible is spectacularly wrong.

Just one note: the 'snake' of those times are different with the 'snake' of today, thanks to old Carl L.

All I'm saying is that they should have had the right to chose.

No they should not - you don't get a choice as to the valency of oxygen or the formula for friction coefficients, why should biology be different? Exactly the same processes are involved as in the rest of science.



As for evolution, it is the currently accepted interpretation of the data. To say more than that is not even good science. Essentailly, it is sciences best guess. Nothing more, nothing less. Why should it hold a more promenent place in the educational system than any other best guess?

Because in science "best guess" means "supported by an overwhelming body of evidence".

Faith and superstition don't count as evidence, ergo creationism isn't a "best guess".

Choose One:
The Bible is not the divinely inspired word of God.
God is ignorant of the creatures upon the Earth.
God is powerless to prevent creatures from disobeying his curses.
God doesn't mean what he says, (forever to him is like a day to us).
The Bible uses metaphore and allegory to craft an general manual for enduring, if not surviving, great social upheaval.
The bible is old bullshit.

As to your other question. Yes. Plenty. Life is weird, and plentiful. It's the fossils that are rare.

Darwin did not invent Biology. Nor did he invent animal husbandry and crop farming. Obviously we can change the size and shape of things that we breed (plant or animal) but we can't change a tomato into a cucumber, nor breed cats from a stock of dogs, no matter how long we try, and that, in essence, is what Darwin proposed when he assumed that the known truth of biological inheritance of traits might be the cause of the animal diversity we see in the world around us.

So when you guys argue for, or against, Evolution, you seem to be thinking of biology and evolution as the same thing, they are not.

Evolution is the overarching explanatory basis for biology.

As for your cats from dogs argument - that demonstrates nothing save a profound ignorance of what evolutionary theory posits. Darwin never proposed any such thing - nor has any of the subsequent thousands of researchers in the field.

I don't want to dictate what anyone concludes. I just want the freedom to teach my children and have them taught the conclusions that I have come to. Science is the dept that is attempting to force its belief structure on others here... Not to say that creationists haven't done that in the past, but that doesn't excuse scientist forcing their beliefs on other any more than it would justify Hitler forcing his beliefs on the world not does it...

You seem to be intentionally misrepresenting the simple fact that science is founded on empirical, testable explanations - that means that it is ver far removed from anything which can sensibly labelled a "belief structure".

In comparison to the weight of science, your conclusion is less than worthless.

Evolution, unless observed, shall forever remain a theory. Simply put, unless something can be observed, it is NEVER a law/fact. We will never know for sure if Evolution is fact(Barring some significant scientific discover).


You are grossly misrepresenting the notion of "theory" in science.

Evolutionary biology is *rooted* in observation. It is a fact. The theory is the explanatory framework surrounding that fact.

Just like gravity - gravity is a fact. The theoretical framework is intended to explain *what* gravity is and how it works.

We know beyond a doubt that parents pass on genes to offspring, that different genes have different effects at the level of the organism (effects that directly or indirectly influence the number of offspring they have), and that random mutation happens occasionally. Neo-darwinian evolution follows as a logical consequence of these undeniable truths* and thus would be a proven theory even without the volumes of further evidence in its favour. Creationism doesn't even qualify as an explaination of how complex life came about, since it relies on the prior and inexplicable existence of a complex life form to "create" things. The only interesting thing about anti-Darwinians is the lengths they go to to avoid believing in the obvious.

*disclaimer - there may be some implicit, yet also obviously true, assumptions in here I forgot to mention. I don't have the source (The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins) with me right now but these assumptions seem to me to be enough.

Well, has anybody made such a prediction and succeeded?

I think so. You may know that Ichthyostega is known for decades, but more recently other of these forms have been found (Acanthostega, Panderichthys), as was expected.

Or think about all the weird arthropods from Burgess Shale, which are from Middle Cambrian. The prediction was made that should earlier sediments with similar good preservation be found, we should find more primitive forms. More recently a new locality (i think the name was Chengjiang) has been discovered, which is from Lower Cambrian and shows primitive successors of theh Burgess Shale forms.

To make a future prediction: i'm expecting that more feathered dinosaurs from the middle and late Jurassic will be found.

Incorrect. Science never proves anything.


One of the inherent problems with discussion of scientifiic topics.

The general public think "theory" means "random thought" - science doesn't.

The general public also use "proven" differently to science. To them, proven is quite a weak word, whereas for science it is absurdly strong.

Using the lay understanding, evolution has indeed been proven.

I mean we can't recreate the evolution of life in the lab. Ecology is NOT evolution. Adaptation is NOT evolution either. Nobody can as yet show how life can explode out of nothing. It's all one big, meaningless argument.Abiogensis is NOT evolution.

you could never convince me that evolution is true even if you showed me evolution in action.

That just sums up the entire creationist argument, doesn't it?


This is because my axioms include the Bible being infallible and yours include evolution as being true. You could get me as far as saying that God used evolution, perhaps, and I might just be able to get you to agree in the need for a God. But your axioms would hold firm because they are AXIOMS!

Nonsense - axioms are not immutable. If that weren't the case, evolution would not now be the accepted scientific consensus - to say nothing of the countless other axiom shattering developments in science over the years.

Why does evolution get subjected to these insane attacks that other scientific theories don't? For instance, General Relativity and Quantum theory are almost certainly just approximations to some deeper theory (or theories). Why the hate on evolution? What is it about these facts that cause people to lose all reason and composure?

Why does evolution get subjected to these insane attacks that other scientific theories don't? For instance, General Relativity and Quantum theory are almost certainly just approximations to some deeper theory (or theories). Why the hate on evolution? What is it about these facts that cause people to lose all reason and composure?

QM and Relativity are harder to grasp - if the average evolution denier were actually able to understand the basics of those areas of science, they would attack them too.

QM and Relativity are harder to grasp - if the average evolution denier were actually able to understand the basics of those areas of science, they would attack them too.
Being unable to understand the theory doesn't prevent them attacking darwinism......

Being unable to understand the theory doesn't prevent them attacking darwinism......

Apologies - I should have specified *perceived* understanding. They *think* they understand Darwinism.

Patently they don't - not even close.

QM and Relativity are harder to grasp - if the average evolution denier were actually able to understand the basics of those areas of science, they would attack them too.

This is coupled with the problem that people often think they understand evolution when they don't. I wonder how many people who claimed to
have "studied" evolution on the poll could actually explain the theory.

Evolutionary biology suffers from the same problem that ecology suffers from - they are deceptively complex fields of study, and people who wouldn't dare argue with a quantum physicist about quantum physics will cheerfully ridicule every piece of evidence for climate change or the mutability of species without properly taking the time to examine such evidence.

People have an inbuilt idea that physics is "real science", and is therefore more complex than biology. I would argue the opposite - biology is a huge, interlinking, many layered subject, requiring a knowledge of the base principles of chemistry and physics, as well as an ability to recognize emergent properties (of which there are MANY in biology).

And this lack of faith in biology is coupled with a current disturbing trend towards a mistrust of science - without any clear logical basis for such mistrust.

And this lack of faith in biology is coupled with a current disturbing trend towards a mistrust of science - without any clear logical basis for such mistrust.

I think it's a case of blame the messenger - it always seemt to be scientists telling people just how much damage they are doing to the world around them. People don't seem to like that.

It seems like a case of "those scientists keep telling me that my lifestyle is ruining the planet, ergo those scientists must be wrong".

I'm a Christian, a science undergraduate, and I believe that evolution is the mechanism that God chose for the creation of life. Probably.

I think it's a case of blame the messenger - it always seemt to be scientists telling people just how much damage they are doing to the world around them. People don't seem to like that.

It seems like a case of "those scientists keep telling me that my lifestyle is ruining the planet, ergo those scientists must be wrong".
I think of this may be due to Sicnece saying it has the answers then scientists (being paid by different bodies) come up with plausable contradictory statements.
In some science circles there is a rigidity to change that reminds you of religous fanatics.

And this lack of faith in biology is coupled with a current disturbing trend towards a mistrust of science - without any clear logical basis for such mistrust.
Look on the bright side. It should make people smarter. In 50 years or so intelligent people will be able to take advantage of genetics to make their children stronger and smarter, while the stupid and the ignorant will die from curable diseases because they chant at crystals instead of seeking proper care. This should usher in a new era of human evolution.

I'm a Christian, a science undergraduate, and I believe that evolution is the mechanism that God chose for the creation of life. Probably.
Assuming the spontaneous existence of a deity is just another form of creationism.

I think of this may be due to Sicnece saying it has the answers then scientists (being paid by different bodies) come up with plausable contradictory statements.
In some science circles there is a rigidity to change that reminds you of religous fanatics.

Science doesn't claim to have the answers. It does allow the qualitative and quantitative evaluation of theories though. The process of evaluation involves the weighing up of evidence on both sides - a reactionary might see this as contradiction, but it isn't.

Also, there is less contradictory evidence than people imagine. The overwhelming majority of biologists accept evolution as a fact. We accept that the balance of mechanisms (Selection vs Neutral evolution etc.) is not fully understood, but that doesn't mean that we are any less in agreement that evolution happens.

To continue the comparison with climate change, there is a popular perception that, as scientists cannot agree on whether increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will lead to global warming / a new ice age / etc., that the threats will somehow average out. However, any scientist on either side of that debate can tell you that that is not a valid way of thinking about it. They all agree that our excessive burning of fossil fuels is leading to increased stochasticity (randomness) in the system. It's like dropping a stone down a mountain - you can predict an effect (that it will fall), but you may not be able to predict where exactly it will end up. Of course, the climate MIGHT remain exactly the same, but the chances of it doing so can be compared to the chances of hitting the bullseye with a dart - blindfolded. What scientists are currently trying to work out is just how far away from the dartboard we're standing.

Assuming the spontaneous existence of a deity is just another form of creationism.

Not necessarily. If you believe that evolution happens but that it is directed by a deity (i.e. that mutations aren't just random) then you are not a creationist because you don't believe in a single creation. If anything, you are a "modificationist".

And you can believe in an existence of a deity who has nothing to do with the physical aspects of the world - He/She simply directs the spiritual side. That is not creationism either.

There is nothing about evolutionary theory that specifically contradicts the idea of the existence of a God or Gods.

I said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ph33rdom
Darwin did not invent Biology. Nor did he invent animal husbandry and crop farming. Obviously we can change the size and shape of things that we breed (plant or animal) but we can't change a tomato into a cucumber, nor breed cats from a stock of dogs, no matter how long we try, and that, in essence, is what Darwin proposed when he assumed that the known truth of biological inheritance of traits might be the cause of the animal diversity we see in the world around us.

So when you guys argue for, or against, Evolution, you seem to be thinking of biology and evolution as the same thing, they are not.

Then you said:

Evolution is the overarching explanatory basis for biology.

As for your cats from dogs argument - that demonstrates nothing save a profound ignorance of what evolutionary theory posits. Darwin never proposed any such thing - nor has any of the subsequent thousands of researchers in the field.


But what do you mean nobody stated it? It’s in Darwin’s original work. The entire theory of Evolution is nothing but the argument for natural selection of different cell mutation of body parts as the catalyst of change in the natural world around us. This IS the Theory of Evolution. Evolution is not the ‘change’ itself, the Theory of Evolution is Darwin’s idea about what ‘causes’ the changes in animal fauna in the world. As everyone here should remember, an active and good theory will make predictions that it can be tested on, and the theory of Evolution predicted that we would find a link between species when it was written in 1859;

The Origin of Species
Charles Darwin
Chapter 14 - Recapitulation and Conclusion

On this doctrine of the extermination of an infinitude of connecting links, between the living and extinct inhabitants of the world, and at each successive period between the extinct and still older species, why is not every geological formation charged with such links? Why does not every collection of fossil remains afford plain evidence of the gradation and mutation of the forms of life? We meet with no such evidence, and this is the most obvious and forcible of the many objections which may be urged against my theory. Why, again, do whole groups of allied species appear, though certainly they often falsely appear, to have come in suddenly on the several geological stages? Why do we not find great piles of strata beneath the Silurian system, stored with the remains of the progenitors of the Silurian groups of fossils? For certainly on my theory such strata must somewhere have been deposited at these ancient and utterly unknown epochs in the world's history.
And this:
With respect to the absence of fossiliferous formations beneath the lowest Silurian strata, I can only recur to the hypothesis given in the ninth chapter. That the geological record is imperfect all will admit; but that it is imperfect to the degree which I require, few will be inclined to admit. If we look to long enough intervals of time, geology plainly declares that all species have changed; and they have changed in the manner which my theory requires, for they have changed slowly and in a graduated manner. We clearly see this in the fossil remains from consecutive formations invariably being much more closely related to each other, than are the fossils from formations distant from each other in time.

Such is the sum of the several chief objections and difficulties which may justly be urged against my theory; and I have now briefly recapitulated the answers and explanations which can be given to them. I have felt these difficulties far too heavily during many years to doubt their weight. But it deserves especial notice that the more important objections relate to questions on which we are confessedly ignorant; nor do we know how ignorant we are. We do not know all the possible transitional gradations between the simplest and the most perfect organs; it cannot be pretended that we know all the varied means of Distribution during the long lapse of years, or that we know how imperfect the Geological Record is. Grave as these several difficulties are, in my judgement they do not overthrow the theory of descent with modification.

However, it has now been nearly one hundred and fifty years and thousands of naturalists, scientist, geologist and archaeologist the world over have spent entire careers trying to satisfy this prediction, to no avail.

Perhaps there is another reason, a different catalyst than natural selection of random cell mutations, as the root cause of change in the natural world we see around us. Something else might be causing the evolving creatures we see. And if it is not natural selection of random cell mutations, then the Theory of Evolution is wrong.

Perhaps it is solar radiation waves causing change, perhaps it is ‘purposeful’ cell development, “positive thinking” supposedly has been shown to improve healing rates and thus implies the ability to control our own bodies at the cell level itself…

But whatever it is that is causing the change, Darwin’s own admition that the best argument against his theory was the lack of species change in the fossil record at the time, and he suggested that was caused by a lack of record and not looking for it, so he dismissed it and predicted we would find it.

Now we’ve looked, it’s been over a hundred years and we still can’t find it. I say it’s time to start over with a different prediction/theory.

I said:
But what do you mean nobody stated it? It’s in Darwin’s original work. The entire theory of Evolution is nothing but the argument for natural selection of different cell mutation of body parts as the catalyst of change in the natural world around us. This IS the Theory of Evolution. Evolution is not the ‘change’ itself, the Theory of Evolution is Darwin’s idea about what ‘causes’ the changes in animal fauna in the world. As everyone here should remember, an active and good theory will make predictions that it can be tested on, and the theory of Evolution predicted that we would find a link between species when it was written in 1859;


There is nothing in that that even *suggests* dogs from cats.

Predictions derived from evolutionary theory are validated repeatedly - confirmable by a simple literature search.

The theory of evolution is not Darwin's idea. It is simply the theory that living things are mutable (evolution means "change over time"). Lamarck gave his own theory of evolution; extreme Neutralists give another; Christians who believe that God directs evolution give another. The idea has been around since the Ancient Greek philosophers first practiced bestiality.

Darwin's theory is of Natural Selection.

There is nothing in that that even *suggests* dogs from cats.

Predictions derived from evolutionary theory are validated repeatedly - confirmable by a simple literature search.

OMGosh, I showed it to you, did you read it? Sometimes you Evolution zealots are worse than the fundamentalist creationists... On this doctrine of the extermination of an infinitude of connecting links, between the living and extinct inhabitants of the world, and at each successive period between the extinct and still older species, why is not every geological formation charged with such links?
Do you even understand what he is talking about there? Species. Changing species. There should be a common link between species, as Darwin said himself, such as dogs and cats, Mammals, etc.

But we have found no such links in the fossil record. I ask, when does the prediction go invalid?

But whatever it is that is causing the change, Darwin’s own admition that the best argument against his theory was the lack of species change in the fossil record at the time, and he suggested that was caused by a lack of record and not looking for it, so he dismissed it and predicted we would find it.

Now we’ve looked, it’s been over a hundred years and we still can’t find it. I say it’s time to start over with a different prediction/theory.

Umm... hello? There's plenty of fossil record that has been found in the meantime. What about all the arthropods from Burgess Shale and Chengjiang, what about the feathered dinosaurs from Liaoning? What about Acanthostega ,Ichthyostega and Panderichthys from Greenland? Or the 'whales with legs' like Ambulocetus and Pakicetus from India and Pakistan? Where do we not find any transitional fossils?!? :headbang:

OMGosh, I showed it to you, did you read it? Sometimes you Evolution sealots are worse than the fundamentalist creationists...
Do you even understand what he is talking about there? Species. Changing species. There should be a common link between species, as Darwin said himself, such as dogs and cats, Mammals, etc.

But we have found no such links in the fossil record. I ask, when does the prediction go invalid?

Cats and dogs? If i am not mistaken, the Miacids from the Paleocene and Eocene are the common ancestors of cats and dogs...

The theory of evolution is not Darwin's idea. It is simply the theory that living things are mutable (evolution means "change over time"). Lamarck gave his own theory of evolution; extreme Neutralists give another; Christians who believe that God directs evolution give another. The idea has been around since the Ancient Greek philosophers first practiced bestiality.

Darwin's theory is of Natural Selection.

The idea may have been around but they also had major flaws. Ever hear the one involving Giraffees and neck stretching?

Darwin gets the honor as he was the first to make a formal presentation of the idea and how it worked. There may have been others before but the Church tended to get pissed over such talk.

Even Erasamus Darwin had an idea for it......

But what do you mean nobody stated it? It’s in Darwin’s original work. The entire theory of Evolution is nothing but the argument for natural selection of different cell mutation of body parts as the catalyst of change in the natural world around us. This IS the Theory of Evolution. Evolution is not the ‘change’ itself, the Theory of Evolution is Darwin’s idea about what ‘causes’ the changes in animal fauna in the world. As everyone here should remember, an active and good theory will make predictions that it can be tested on, and the theory of Evolution predicted that we would find a link between species when it was written in 1859;.
I think that the fossil record fit well with the theory of evolution and new fossils that fit in are found all the time. Sounds like prediction to me.

A lot has happened since Darwin. Just take a look at the fiels of genetics, cellular biology, biochemistry. I have no idea what "cell mutations of body parts" is.

The idea may have been around but they also had major flaws. Ever hear the one involving Giraffees and neck stretching?

Even Erasamus Darwin had an idea for it......

Oh yes, I'm familiar with them. And they're some of the more sensible ones. ;)

On the other hand, the theory of neutral evolution (which is not Darwinian) almost certainly has some truth to it - in small populations, neutralism is likely to have more of an effect than Natural Selection is. My point (which I didn't make particularly clear at the time) was that Evolution does not necessarily equate to Darwinism.

Have you ever considered that you don't really believe what you believe? Perhaps consciously you supress all doubt for fear that you are wrong. If you do not question what you believe, then you do not truly believe it. You accept it, but you do not believe it. You are a slave to others, and will be a slave forever.

I'm not saying that if upon questioning you will undoubtedly come to something other than Christianity. You may very well find that you truly believe in Christianity. Just remember: Faith without question is slavery.

I believe what I believe. I do look at what I believe and at the facts. The belief and the facts fit perfectly, so I'll take them.

Oh yes, I'm familiar with them. And they're some of the more sensible ones. ;)

On the other hand, the theory of neutral evolution (which is not Darwinian) almost certainly has some truth to it - in small populations, neutralism is likely to have more of an effect than Natural Selection is. My point (which I didn't make particularly clear at the time) was that Evolution does not necessarily equate to Darwinism.

Ahhh! Agreed then. :)

I believe what I believe. I do look at what I believe and at the facts. The belief and the facts fit perfectly, so I'll take them.
Then you have not looked at enough facts and or not objectively simple as that data collected does not promote the creation myth (in fact there are two different ones in genesis which one do you choose to be the “right” one?)

Then you have not looked at enough facts and or not objectively simple as that data collected does not promote the creation myth (in fact there are two different ones in genesis which one do you choose to be the “right” one?)

*gasp* You mean Dr. Dino is WRONG?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?

:p

*gasp* You mean Dr. Dino is WRONG?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?

:p
Maybe :)

Not Christ, but look in the Bible!
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (NIV)
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral not idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders (10) nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (11) And that is what some of you were. But you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

And that, my dear, is a mistranslation. Greek scholars have suggested that the word did not refer to homosexuality, but in fact to the practice of taking young boys as male prostitutes. I'm sure we can all agree that is a bad thing?

Not trying to offend, but you may realize the danger we would be in if this became legal throughout the world...

I see no danger in allowing perfectly good people to live their lives.

But what do you mean nobody stated it? It’s in Darwin’s original work.As the prior respondant said "Cats from Dogs" is the thing that was not stated. People looking to falsify evolution say "Well, dogs may have been bred into different types of dogs, but nobody has bred dogs into a cat". And that is a 'specious' argument (ha! see that pun! ;)) for the reasons of both distance required (you have to approach the number of generations actually taken from the common-cat/dog ancestor to current cats and dogs in your forced-breeding attempts) and the breadth of the influence you have to invoke (you have to be able to encourage and select for such things as inreasing ability to retract claws and the mental processes that affect their 'lapping' behaviour).

[...insert quotes lost, not repasting them...]
However, it has now been nearly one hundred and fifty years and thousands of naturalists, scientist,
geologist and archaeologist the world over have spent entire careers trying to satisfy this prediction, to no avail.What? No avail? If I'm reading your objection correctly, then we have indeed, over the last 150+ years discovered bits and pieces that Darwin himself was in want of. Not everything, but the picture is much less pixelated, and a also less muddled than before, and though we cannot see the end-twigs of the evolutionary tree, we have seen the direction of a lot of the branches and explained most of the leaves we see at its crest and within the mulch covering its roots...

Perhaps there is another reason, a different catalyst than natural selection of random cell mutations, as the root cause of change in the natural world we see around us. Something else might be causing the evolving creatures we see. And if it is not natural selection of random cell mutations, then the Theory of Evolution is wrong.

Perhaps it is solar radiation waves causing change, perhaps it is ‘purposeful’ cell development, “positive thinking” supposedly has been shown to improve healing rates and thus implies the ability to control our own bodies at the cell level itself…I fear (ph33r?) you are a little mixed up. You suggest that the effects of solar radiation is distinct (and thus a separate possibility) to random cell mutations... Or perhaps you suggest that the 'consciousness' of the sun makes intelligent decisions as to how the intergenerational development of creatures arise?

To the latter, I have no intelligent answer, at least not one I could hope to phrase in a manner you would consider intelligent. For the former concept I would attempt to explain that random cell mutations occur for all kinds of reasons, starting with the melting pot that 'averages' both parents' genetic contributions (and may express recessive genes), but also involves environmental effects of a chemical or radiological nature such as (directly or indirectly) those that arise from the actions of the sunlight or trace elements in soil, water or air... The brink across which this becomes artificial in nature is somewhere between the point at which the offending material/radiation is 'man-made' (or caused by man's actions) and that where the cell mutation is deliberately provoked by conscious effort of man. Up until that point, the catalyst is still 'natural' (despite the thinning of the ozone being a result of man's activities, despite the mistaken release of radioisotopes into the field, it is merely a product of the environment, albeit an environment that Man has influenced).

And that is getting away from the point, which is that mutation happens. There are few that deny it happens.

And the mutation (for the large part) creates miniscule changes which would (logicly) lead us to believe that a particular heritable condition could exist throughout a portion of the population after its arising in an individual and hence a propogation by germ-lines to a good proportion of its offspring and offspring's offspring and... ...well, I see no issue if that change is not disadvantageous, and some mutations will be not disadvantageous.

And if a change is actually beneficial, such that the possessors maintain even a miniscule advantage over their fellow creatures (and luck is always considered a factor) then that change will eventually be ubiquetous throughout the breeding population and potentially possessed by all.

Build further changes (in parallel and series) upon a species, each generation or twenty or two hundered or two thousand bearing increased differences from the 'template' member of the species that was their common ancestor and the changes that are made (physical, biochemical, behavioural) add up to something whose differences from the original are great. And two different, seperated lines of ancestry are (through both the different environmental factors that affect reasons for selection along the two populations' existences and from the different 'randomness' and genetic noise that is experienced by the separate populations) almost certainly going to develop into two different different new species such that (perhaps through the combinations of sugars and whatnot upon the surface of the relevant gamete cells, perhaps through subtle but irrevocable differences between the relevant numbers or layout of genes/chromosomes/proteome mixture) prevent inter-breeding and production of viable offspring... Why would anyone think this is not a practical possibility if they are happy to consider all the precursor arguments?

None of this has been disproven. And there is plenty of support (more than circumstancial) evidence as well through discoveries and practical experiments that show that things that might be expected under such process have occured. And there is (as yet) no real alternative of similar scientific calibre that also explains the observed facts and yet relies upon a different process than mere chance (of mutation) and tendency (of survival).

An early contender was Lamarkism, where (much as your "positive thinking" example) a creature that strained to reach higher branches would pass on its will to have a longer neck (or perhaps its acquired longer neck, through pure physical effort) to its ofsspring that would realise that feature and perpetuate the lengthening to its own offsrping. This theory is essentially disproven by the discovery of DNA (developmental information is passed on, not mental or lifestyle) and the fact that circumcision must still be carried out on male Jewish infants (rather than, by now, the trait of having a foreskin being excised from the relevant population, unless you believe that females convey 'pro-foreskin' tendencies... which they may do in a genetic method, but not by strict Lamarkism).

But whatever it is that is causing the change, Darwin’s own admition that the best argument against his theory was the lack of species change in the fossil record at the time, and he suggested that was caused by a lack of record and not looking for it, so he dismissed it and predicted we would find it.

Now we’ve looked, it’s been over a hundred years and we still can’t find it. I say it’s time to start over with a different prediction/theory.Our opinions wildly diverge here. Over the past hundred+ years we have found countless examples.

Assuming the spontaneous existence of a deity is just another form of creationism.

Don't attack something when your attack is unfounded. Believing in a God, or that said God set up the processes for evolution, does not necessitate a God for the theory. Thus, it is in no way unscientific. If the theory depended on the existence of a God, it would be unscientific.

I believe what I believe. I do look at what I believe and at the facts. The belief and the facts fit perfectly, so I'll take them.

That is fine, as a personal belief.

However, taking a set belief and trying to fit the facts to it, rather than the other way around, is not scientific.

Might as well put my two cents in, for what they're worth.

Evolution is a theory, not a fact, sure. But, science tends not to take a theory and simply "believe" it is true and leave it at that - the whole point of science is to take a theory, test its assumptions, and if necessary modify the theory to come in line with empirically observed facts (and even completely abandon the theory if it's obviously wrong). Creationism on the other hand, is not proposed as a theory - it is, from the very outset, disseminated as though it is "fact", and it's adherents are anything but scientific in their approach. On the contrary; its proponents often encourage (some even demand) that people do not question its validity (in other words, have "blind faith", although they leave out the "blind" part to make it more palatable). Science encourages investigation, Creationism requires ignorance. Faith is a "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence" (credit dictionary.com). Science on the other hand, requires proof in order for it to be accepted by the community at large; one may have faith in a theory whilst it is still young, but once enough tests have been run, and we have evidence to support it (like Evolution does, which is why so many in the scientific community have accepted it), it is no longer faith; it is a reasonably well-founded belief. Sure, you can't say "fact" unless it's proven beyond all reasonable doubt, but scientists have been testing evolution for a long time now; if it were that obviously wrong, surely they'd have drawn a blank by now rather than pulling up more and more evidence to support it. Because of that, I can rest reasonably assured that evolution is the best current explanation for the world as it is today. I do accept that evolution could be completely wrong, but until the day it is refuted with hard evidence, I will continue to accept evolution as the nearest thing we have to fact.

Several problems exist with the creationism "theory" (I'll refer to it as a theory now, because I believe it NOT to be fact, thus I cannot call it such). First of all, if God created everything, then who or what created God? If one argues that no-one created God because there was no first cause, then one can easily apply that to the universe as well (i.e. if nothing created God, then why couldn't nothing create the universe?). Next comes the problem of God's actual existence. In order to prove creationism, there must, somewhere along the line, be some proof of a supreme being's existence (after all, you can't say X created Y when you haven't or can't prove that X even exists). I could spend most of this day writing the arguments against God's existence, but suffice to say, there are many out there who have already said nearly everything I could; I give particular reccomendation to skepdic's entries on argument from design (http://skepdic.com/design.html), intelligent design (http://skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html), and creationism (http://skepdic.com/creation.html). Before I'll even give Creationism the time of day, someone must prove to me that God exists. I've yet to meet anyone who's up to that task (and why not? Surprise surprise - they have no actual evidence that stands up to reasoning).

With that said, there will still be those who simply refuse to believe or even take evolution seriously. And, ironically perhaps, for the same reasons evolutionists refuse to take ID (creationism) seriously. No amount of rational argument will sway them; they have, what we call "true believer syndrome". And hell, that can apply to evolutionists just as much as creationists (although overwhelmingly more in the creationist camp).

/goes back to lurking

If the theory depended on the existence of a God, it would be unscientific.

Which is pretty much why Creationism is out of the running as a science then.

Evolution and god can not both be true.

God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and without any fault, and to create all life through evolution would be stupid and evil.

For evolution to work, all but the strong creatures have to die. God does not let His creations die needlessly.

Also, this would mean that God couldn't get it right first time. Even with evolution, He would have to start with something, so why wouldn't He start with a perfect world?

God and evolution can simply not co-exist. One is right and one is wrong.

I for one believe that God is right and evolution is wrong, but I will readily change my mind if I see any piece of real evidence for evolution. All I've seen so far has only made me laugh.

Thankyou my friend for helpfully listing a couple of the silliest misconceptions about what evolution describes:

1. "All but the strong creatures have to die" Not true, strength is not the issue, 'fitness' is. This is whether you can effectively exploit an ecological niche. Also it's not like the animals are actually actively killed off. Animals dying is obviously part of God's plan because they do it all the time. Evolution is a far from active one even on a metaphysical level. It's all generational. If a group of slightly different animals arrises it's because they are able to outcompete other individuals and therefore reproduce more. It's not an active killing.

2. "Why wouldn't he start with a perfect world?" Because a different world will have been required for different stages of God's plan. Evolution is not a progression towards perfection. It is a flux of different factors. These factors are controlled by God so that we have the most perfect environment at every stage of human past.

To Bakamongue:

*round of applause*

Excellent arguments!

It never ceases to amaze me that people STILL use the contention that the fossil record provides no 'transitional' forms.

Which is pretty much why Creationism is out of the running as a science then.

Yes. That, and the fact that it is completely opposed to the scientific method.

Several problems exist with the creationism "theory" (I'll refer to it as a theory now, because I believe it NOT to be fact, thus I cannot call it such). First of all, if God created everything, then who or what created God? If one argues that no-one created God because there was no first cause, then one can easily apply that to the universe as well (i.e. if nothing created God, then why couldn't nothing create the universe?). Next comes the problem of God's actual existence. In order to prove creationism, there must, somewhere along the line, be some proof of a supreme being's existence (after all, you can't say X created Y when you haven't or can't prove that X even exists). I could spend most of this day writing the arguments against God's existence, but suffice to say, there are many out there who have already said nearly everything I could; I give particular reccomendation to skepdic's entries on argument from design (http://skepdic.com/design.html), intelligent design (http://skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html), and creationism (http://skepdic.com/creation.html). Before I'll even give Creationism the time of day, someone must prove to me that God exists. I've yet to meet anyone who's up to that task (and why not? Surprise surprise - they have no actual evidence that stands up to reasoning).

With that said, there will still be those who simply refuse to believe or even take evolution seriously. And, ironically perhaps, for the same reasons evolutionists refuse to take ID (creationism) seriously. No amount of rational argument will sway them; they have, what we call "true believer syndrome". And hell, that can apply to evolutionists just as much as creationists (although overwhelmingly more in the creationist camp).

/goes back to lurking

As an evolutionist christian myself, I think you're giving evolutionists a seriously bad name with this kinda crap. The whole "If God created the world, who created God?" prattle is useless because science has exactly the same problem. Scientists still have no real set idea where the matter in our universe came from. They're just as in the dark as the creationists.

Assuming the spontaneous existence of a deity is just another form of creationism.Don't attack something when your attack is unfounded. Believing in a God, or that said God set up the processes for evolution, does not necessitate a God for the theory. Thus, it is in no way unscientific. If the theory depended on the existence of a God, it would be unscientific.I considered (at the time) commenting that I hadn't (even from my POV of sitting on the soft-Atheist sofa, feet on the coffee-table of Agnosticism) any problem with a person holding the possibility of a small-c 'creation' being possibly attributable to God, for such a small-c creation is necessarily a God Of The Gaps and situated outside the experience and evidence available to them through science while allowing God to be part of the inexplicable bit.

Big-C Creationism, however, is the philosophy that I have a distinct issue with, however, for that is the belief of the literality of the Biblical Creation (choosing either or ignoring the difference) inclusive of the Young Earth scenario and the 'as they are now, so they were then' nature of the animals. Such a person ought to be made aware of the evidence (either real or created by God as if real, take your pick, it has to be 'valid' under both scenarios, has it not?) that they are currently ignoring and the arising theories and conclusions they are dismissing outright upon the say-so of untenable arguments.

I'd have completely different conversations with a evolutionary creatonist (necessarily a small-c type) such as introduced themselves, however, and where their conviction does differ from my ideas is an area where I stay a floating-voter. Philosophical discussions may occur, over that territory, and myself necessarily taking the contraripoint (devil's advocate, one might say) for the sake of constructive discussion, but unlike an anti-evolutionary Creationist, there'd be no intrinsic falsehood to their core ideas.

Not necessarily. If you believe that evolution happens but that it is directed by a deity (i.e. that mutations aren't just random) then you are not a creationist because you don't believe in a single creation. If anything, you are a "modificationist".

And you can believe in an existence of a deity who has nothing to do with the physical aspects of the world - He/She simply directs the spiritual side. That is not creationism either.

There is nothing about evolutionary theory that specifically contradicts the idea of the existence of a God or Gods.
The evolutionary theory undermines the argument that complexity implies the existence of a creator. Also, what created the creator? This doesn't prove there is no God but it does completely undermine one argument for his existence.

The evolutionary theory undermines the argument that complexity implies the existence of a creator. Also, what created the creator? This doesn't prove there is no God but it does completely undermine one argument for his existence.

I don't think anyone uses complexity as an argument for God's existence. I think most people would argue on gorunds of beauty rather than complexity.

Though you have to admit that this whole universe is the result of some pretty amazing 'coinicidences.' If the weight of an electron was slightly different we'd be living completely differently (if at all), if the elemental makeup of the universe was slightly different it would rip itself to shreds.

As far as I know 99.99999% of all who belive in creationism are born and raised in USA. (That is, maybe one of 1 out of 10 milion creationists live out side of the US.)
You -might- find a creationist in, for instance Sweden. However, anyone who expresses such ideas tends to get a gentle pat on the head and a question what they hit their head on...

Are the US creationists going to argue that it's GOD-YHVH who makes water freeze at 32F each and every time by his will, NOT any "laws of nature".
That planes and kites fly because GOD-YHVH holds them up, not the working of physics...

I'm not against teaching of creationism within the US, but the US only, because it means fewer americans can compete effectively on the international work-market. Something that in the end will make USA depend on aide from the rest of the world for technological progress.
Or perhaps the Amish really were right all along.

<Snip>
The brink across which this becomes artificial in nature is somewhere between the point at which the offending material/radiation is 'man-made' (or caused by man's actions) and that where the cell mutation is deliberately provoked by conscious effort of man. Up until that point, the catalyst is still 'natural' (despite the thinning of the ozone being a result of man's activities, despite the mistaken release of radioisotopes into the field, it is merely a product of the environment, albeit an environment that Man has influenced).

I'm not suggesting that the mutation isn't 'natural' I'm suggesting that Darwin was wrong in that it's not random.


And that is getting away from the point, which is that mutation happens. There are few that deny it happens. I'm not denying it either. Only that Darwins "Theory of Evolution, The origin of speicies" that of natural selection of random mutations, is incorrect.


And the mutation (for the large part) creates miniscule changes which would (logicly) lead us to believe that a particular heritable condition could exist throughout a portion of the population after its arising in an individual and hence a propogation by germ-lines to a good proportion of its offspring and offspring's offspring and... ...well, I see no issue if that change is not disadvantageous, and some mutations will be not disadvantageous.

But we see, that some traits that are disadvantegous survive (like lemmings running off a cliff, or whales that beach themselves), even when they should not. I would think it would be rather more easy to prove that mutation occurs for it's own sake, equally good and bad, than it is to be able to prove that that it works for the benefit of the species (as Darwin said).


An early contender was Lamarkism, where (much as your "positive thinking" example) a creature that strained to reach higher branches would pass on its will to have a longer neck (or perhaps its acquired longer neck, through pure physical effort) to its ofsspring that would realise that feature and perpetuate the lengthening to its own offsrping. This theory is essentially disproven by the discovery of DNA (developmental information is passed on, not mental or lifestyle) and the fact that circumcision must still be carried out on male Jewish infants (rather than, by now, the trait of having a foreskin being excised from the relevant population, unless you believe that females convey 'pro-foreskin' tendencies... which they may do in a genetic method, but not by strict Lamarkism).
DNA discovery has not, in any way, disproved anything about that. We do not understand how information is transfered to developing cells and why it chooses to develop as it does nor what influences may be brought to bear of changing these instructions or priorities. Will we someday be able to tell a cell not to develop the cancer it was going to? I think maybe, but will we be able to tell a developing cell to be blonde instead of brunette? I don't know. Well see, but the truth is, we don't yet understand how nature does it yet either, but we do know it does it. I'm saying that we should be able to tell by now that it's not all random mutation and natural selection though.


Our opinions wildly diverge here.
Yes, but with respect in this case. :)

What I find quite interesting is the whole nature of chance. I believe that chance is the new God of this world. People explain everything in terms of chance and probability. As an anthropologist I find this fascinating because a very similar device is used by many African tribes. It's called "witchcraft."

It is important to note that no society seems to talk of witchcraft to the exclusion of natural causes. Among the Zande, witchcraft is used to explain why many people go through the same chain of causation but will come out with different fortunes, this is not to deny the natural element contained within the chain of causation. For example, many people walk along the same path and take the same amount of care not to injure their feet, therefore, the Zande reason that there must be some other influence (I.e. witchcraft) which makes one person out of many injure their foot. In essence, witchcraft in Zande society replaces the element of coincidence and chance that is present in some Western European explanations of why bad things happen. The Zande also do not talk of witchcraft to the exclusion of morals or other social constructs. Firstly, it is social situation that indicates the relevant cause out of several possibilities identified, therefore not every misfortune is explained by witchcraft. Witchcraft is not morally exclusive either; among the Zande lies, adultery, stealing and disloyalty are thought never to be the result of witchcraft. The tendency of people to not accept the explanation of witchcraft if it conflicts with social exigencies expressed in law and morals is a rational one in that it allows morals and laws to exist without conflicting logically with witchcraft beliefs.

And that, my dear, is a mistranslation. Greek scholars have suggested that the word did not refer to homosexuality, but in fact to the practice of taking young boys as male prostitutes. I'm sure we can all agree that is a bad thing?

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
It says the same thing in the
NLT, ESV, CEV, ASV, Wycliffe, NLV, NASV.

The two Greek terms translated by this phrase refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts. It is true that there was male and teenage boys relationship then as well, as NAMBLA tries to remind us all of today, but you seem to have a translation all your own in regards to being able to make such broad statements that “it’s a mistranslation,” whenever you don't like what a scripture says.

You were doing that last night too, generally trying to whitewash the entire scripture with your version of what you seem to think it should say. And then when I challenged you on it you said that, I (being me, not you) couldn’t find the original documents (that you couldn’t possibly have either) backing it up my statements, and generally saying things like saying “a study of the history of the church will show.” When anyone that does knows that is utter nonsense.

Predicting that you think it should be real or you want it to have been real is one thing, but suggesting that there is evidence to support your claim that homosexual relationship existed in the early church is flatly made up after the fact, is not a position, it’s a deception.

(EDIT: FYI, the NRSV translates it "Sodomites" which clearly does confine itself to man~boy relationships either.

Again though, for the rest of you, I'm am not addressing my point to the topic of homosexuality, but rather, the accusation that scripture has been modified to say something new)

Don't attack something when your attack is unfounded. Believing in a God, or that said God set up the processes for evolution, does not necessitate a God for the theory. Thus, it is in no way unscientific. If the theory depended on the existence of a God, it would be unscientific.
How does the theory that God set up evolution not depend on the existence of God?

aI don't think anyone uses complexity as an argument for God's existence. I think most people would argue on gorunds of beauty rather than complexity.

Though you have to admit that this whole universe is the result of some pretty amazing 'coinicidences.' If the weight of an electron was slightly different we'd be living completely differently (if at all), if the elemental makeup of the universe was slightly different it would rip itself to shreds.This is where I would (if I saw it as necessary) place God and his creation-event into my belief-system. One theory I subscribe to (as a viable candidate) is that on God's kitchen table (or one in a workshop if his wife complains about the mess) are jam-jars containing different mixtures of Universal Constants (and not necessarily the constants that we would identify, from our view on the inside of one of those jars) and thus different Universes.

Some of the universes throb and glow and maybe even spit a bit and some just contain an amorphic blob of 'existence' that doesn't do much than sit there... Maybe He (or his wife) throws some jars away, maybe He occasionall sticks his gloved finger in a gives it a swirl first to see if anything comes of it, maybe he just has an infinitely-large table and has all the possible universes on the go at the same time. Whatever the case, we have no way or reason to deduce this God so let's just hope our jar keeps looks pretty and doesn't shatter itself, and that we stay interesting-looking enough to keep on the shelf, if nothing else. (As to what might make us look interesting, who knows... I see a valid argument for prayer, if that 'reveals' itself in the appearance of the universal mixture, but I also see a valid argument for the manner of the formation of the matter in the universe at the galactic, cluster and super-cluster levels, so it might well be something we don't have a say in... ;))

Completely seriously (well, the above is serious, save that it's unprovable and undisprovable and just my hypothesis) argument neither on the grounds of complexity nor beauty is going to sway me, for they would have arisen under any system of creation/Creation (theistic or no) where there existed those who would recognise them. It's a sort of Weak-Anthropic Aestheticism principle I suppose...

*Sigh* there are too few people on this thread to bother with little old me. I've actually posted some quite interesting stuff but if no one's interesteed I suppose I'll go. :(

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm cosmic kitchen. :D

I'll have my universe muffin-shaped please. :)

Does God do kebabs?

*Sigh* there are too few people on this thread to bother with little old me. I've actually posted some quite interesting stuff but if no one's interesteed I suppose I'll go. :( You didn't post anything to argue with.

Make a statement about your witchcraft/chance theory. Are you suggusting that Darwin was guessing witchraft? I like it! :)

I have to say that is the coolest (and also weirdest)theory of universe I've ever heard. You should preach.

You didn't post anything to argue with.

Make a statement about your witchcraft/chance theory. Are you suggusting that Darwin was guessing witchraft? I like it! :)

Well I was just wondering whether a random universe is an any less religious theory than a non-random one. There is still this abstract concept, "chance," that rules over everything.

But we see, that some traits that are disadvantegous survive (like lemmings running off a cliff, or whales that beach themselves), even when they should not. I would think it would be rather more easy to prove that mutation occurs for it's own sake, equally good and bad, than it is to be able to prove that that it works for the benefit of the species (as Darwin said).


DNA discovery has not, in any way, disproved anything about that. We do not understand how information is transfered to developing cells and why it chooses to develop as it does nor what influences may be brought to bear of changing these instructions or priorities. Will we someday be able to tell a cell not to develop the cancer it was going to? I think maybe, but will we be able to tell a developing cell to be blonde instead of brunette? I don't know. Well see, but the truth is, we don't yet understand how nature does it yet either, but we do know it does it. I'm saying that we should be able to tell by now that it's not all random mutation and natural selection though.




Lemmings do not infact follow others off of a cliff. That was a myth created by the loving Disney company while making a documentary on them in the 1950's. They actually follow each other into the ocean for migratory reasons, but they do not commit mass suicide in such a way.

Also, we do not know why whales beach themselves. We may think it to be stupid, but the fact is we don't know why. There may be very good reason why they keep beaching themselves.

And thus is the problem with Darwinism: It takes into account only the beneficial effects of a mutation. However, when you go deeper, you find that almost all mutations have a bad effect to go with the good. An extreme form of this is the "runaway effect".

To demenstrate this, take the Peacock. Now, the males with the larger tail attract the females and breed. However, if the males tail gets to large, then it will be unable to run from predators. So thus, the Peacock males are always in a paradox so to speak of trying to get larger tales, but still keeping them small. A trait like this is both a blessing and a curse. This occurs many times in nature. Even in humans.

And to answer your question on whether or not we can tell a blonde gene to be brunnette: Absolutely we can. It's actually fairly easy after you find the specific gene that governs the trait. If we can splice the genetics of a bean plant with a firefly, we can turn a blonde gene into a brunnette gene. Infact, telling a cell not to develop cancer is far more difficult that changing hair color. We do not fully understand why cancer occurs. Also, Punnette squares help a great deal with determining hair color. Remember: If your parents are both blonde, you will not be naturally blonde.

Thankyou my friend for helpfully listing a couple of the silliest misconceptions about what evolution describes:

1. "All but the strong creatures have to die" Not true, strength is not the issue, 'fitness' is. This is whether you can effectively exploit an ecological niche. Also it's not like the animals are actually actively killed off. Animals dying is obviously part of God's plan because they do it all the time. Evolution is a far from active one even on a metaphysical level. It's all generational. If a group of slightly different animals arrises it's because they are able to outcompete other individuals and therefore reproduce more. It's not an active killing.

2. "Why wouldn't he start with a perfect world?" Because a different world will have been required for different stages of God's plan. Evolution is not a progression towards perfection. It is a flux of different factors. These factors are controlled by God so that we have the most perfect environment at every stage of human past.

I thought that was quite interesting too. :(

[QUOTE=Seangolia]So thus, the Peacock males are always in a paradox so to speak of trying to get larger tales, but still keeping them small. [QUOTE]

And the prize for most inept spelling mistake goes to...

As an evolutionist christian myself, I think you're giving evolutionists a seriously bad name with this kinda crap. The whole "If God created the world, who created God?" prattle is useless because science has exactly the same problem. Scientists still have no real set idea where the matter in our universe came from. They're just as in the dark as the creationists.
If a hurricane blows through a junkyard the chances of it assembling a 747 are vanishingly small. A 747 is a complex object in the technical sense in that it is intricately designed, assembled in a non-random manner. The universe is not intricately designed in this way, "God" is. God shows signs of functional design, the universe does not. Functional design strongly implies a designing mechanism.

A 747 requires a special type of explaination. A star or a galaxy does not. Sure, it'd be nice to know why there is a universe but it doesn't need the special sort of explaination, the explaination of complex design, that a deity does.

But we see, that some traits that are disadvantegous survive (like lemmings running off a cliff, or whales that beach themselves), even when they should not. I would think it would be rather more easy to prove that mutation occurs for it's own sake, equally good and bad, than it is to be able to prove that that it works for the benefit of the species (as Darwin said).

Mutation doesn't occur adaptively. FIXATION of mutations in a population is often adaptive, though.

It is true that not all fixed mutations are adaptive. I mentioned Neutral Theory earlier - in small populations, it is predicted that selection will be weaker as a force than Genetic Drift (random fixation of mutations). This can lead to maladapted individuals.

The lemmings case is a bit of a myth - lemmings don't really do much of the kamikaze stuff in nature. Neither do they nuke themselves. They DO reach huge population densities very quickly (this means that they can pre-empt predators), which leads to a lot of aggression between them. The question is - did they jump, or were they pushed? ;)

And a lot of seemingly maladaptive characteristics are due to evolutionary tradeoffs. You might ask why small fish still get fooled by the worm-like tongues of snapping turtles - well, if they didn't try to attack worm-like things, they'd starve. The same applies to clutch sizes of birds - you might expect that evolution would try to maximize the number of eggs they lay, but this would mean that less parental care could be given to each chick, so fewer would survive. There are a huge number of cases where it is shown that individuals behave optimally.


DNA discovery has not, in any way, disproved anything about that. We do not understand how information is transfered to developing cells and why it chooses to develop as it does nor what influences may be brought to bear of changing these instructions or priorities. Will we someday be able to tell a cell not to develop the cancer it was going to? I think maybe, but will we be able to tell a developing cell to be blonde instead of brunette? I don't know. Well see, but the truth is, we don't yet understand how nature does it yet either, but we do know it does it. I'm saying that we should be able to tell by now that it's not all random mutation and natural selection though.

I think science is a little better informed on this count than you're aware. We know how to "tell" a plant cell to contain a particular chemical, by genetic engineering. We have a perfectly workable construct of how genetics makes things happen in nature. We have extremely accurate models for how cells develop their identity. For the few things we don't understand, we have good theories - they just need testing.

"Hey there baby, I'm a male peacock. Have I got a tale to tell you. The only problem is when I start telling it this big fox comes up and starts trying to eat me and I'm so engrossed in telling the tale that I end up bitten."

If a hurricane blows through a junkyard the chances of it assembling a 747 are vanishingly small. A 747 is a complex object in the technical sense in that it is intricately designed, assembled in a non-random manner. The universe is not intricately designed in this way, "God" is. God shows signs of functional design, the universe does not. Functional design strongly implies a designing mechanism.

A 747 requires a special type of explaination. A star or a galaxy does not. Sure, it'd be nice to know why there is a universe but it doesn't need the special sort of explaination, the explaination of complex design, that a deity does.

I don't quite understand, are you disagreeing with me? Agreeing with me?

It seems like you're making a completely unrelated point (sorry if I haven't noticed the relevance).

I don't think anyone uses complexity as an argument for God's existence. I think most people would argue on gorunds of beauty rather than complexity.
That's just a retarded way of saying complexity. Functional design. Designed to be beautiful? If you say so. It's still functional design.

Though you have to admit that this whole universe is the result of some pretty amazing 'coinicidences.' If the weight of an electron was slightly different we'd be living completely differently (if at all), if the elemental makeup of the universe was slightly different it would rip itself to shreds.
Now that's more like it! This is exactly what I meant when I asked why people are always harping on about their little theory of how evolution is wrong and never mention any other sciences. About the electron mass, it is not yet understood how particle masses are generated so it isn't clear whether it's value is a coincidence or a necessary fact. My guess is that the electron mass will be strongly constrained by the mass generation process (BTW, I'm dong a PhD in particle physics). That is just a guess though.

Again though, for the rest of you, I'm am not addressing my point to the topic of homosexuality, but rather, the accusation that scripture has been modified to say something new)

Just mentioning that it wouldn't be the only case in which a mistranslation would occur.

First off, in the original texts, the word "betray" was never once mentioned when referring to Judas and Jesus. The word used translation was actually "hand over", which leads many to believe that Jesus planned on being handed over to the romans.

Also, Jesus was likely not born at an Inn. The discrepency occurs do to a review of the original texts finding that the word for "inn" is also the same word for "upper room", which refers to an area in a household(at this time) raised above the manger(which was part of the main house at the time).

Recently the oldest version of the New Testement was founding, show that the devil's number is NOT 666. It is instead 616. Woops.

There are likely more mistranslations that occurred, which is expected, since the Bible has been translated from Hebrew, to Greek, to English Spanish French German and many other languages. Not to mention that Hebrew and Latin are so vastly different from one another, that was almost impossible to translate fully. Remember, man is not infallible.

So thus, the Peacock males are always in a paradox so to speak of trying to get larger tales<--my mistake, but still keeping them small.

And the prize for most inept spelling mistake goes to...

Crap. Okay, I make mistakes. I'm not perfect...

You- :)
Me- :mp5:

:) :mp5:

Just kidding of course.

Ulp! Looks like Seangolia pre-empted me on most of that (and put it better than I did too).

The really interesting thing about the peacock example is the idea that even the increased risk of predation due to a finer tail may be adaptive. By showing off a more ridiculous tail, the male is saying "Look at me - gosh, how fit I must be to be able to escape predators despite this stupid handicap". The tail therefore acts as an honest signal of his fitness, enabling females to get a direct idea about how beneficial it would be to mate with him.

So if you want a girlfriend, try strapping a land-mine to yourself. :)

I don't quite understand, are you disagreeing with me? Agreeing with me?

It seems like you're making a completely unrelated point (sorry if I haven't noticed the relevance).
Disagreeing. The existence of a universe does require an explaination but it doesn't require functional design, (or it isn't obvious that it does). The existence of a God does because God is complex, in the technical sense. If a glob of magma forms a normal rock that's to be expected. If you saw a rock the exact shape of the venus di milo that would require a special explaination, like someone carved it. God is more like the statue, the universe is more like the rock.

"Hey there baby, I'm a male peacock. Have I got a tale to tell you. The only problem is when I start telling it this big fox comes up and starts trying to eat me and I'm so engrossed in telling the tale that I end up bitten."

Time to fix the mistake: TAIL

There, let it die.

That's just a retarded way of saying complexity. Functional design. Designed to be beautiful? If you say so. It's still functional design.

Now that's more like it! This is exactly what I meant when I asked why people are always harping on about their little theory of how evolution is wrong and never mention any other sciences. About the electron mass, it is not yet understood how particle masses are generated so it isn't clear whether it's value is a coincidence or a necessary fact. My guess is that the electron mass will be strongly constrained by the mass generation process (BTW, I'm dong a PhD in particle physics). That is just a guess though.

Beauty is not the same as complexity or functional design. As a poet I tihnk that's blatently obvious.

On the subject of physics, my degree is actually in archaeology and anthropology but I have always had an interest in science. (Exciting things I get to play with in my degree inclcude a modified electron microscope, a particle accelerator and a mass spectrometer.) I still think there are some pretty amazing linking coincidences in physics. The whole quantum theory thing is pretty fun too. Have you heard the quantum theory proof of the existence of God?

Time to fix the mistake: TAIL

There, let it die.

Sorry, I'm too easily amused.