NationStates Jolt Archive

Its quite simple actually, and one devout Evolutionists or Christophobes hope doesnt get raised much: we all get born from something right? So what did the first men and women get born out of?
Proof that God created the first humans as he did with everything else, evolution is a crock!

It's possible that humans were a result of a long string of mutations. It didn't necessarily all have to happen at once.

It appears that you don't have an extensive understanding of the theory. Before you try to disprove something, it helps to know what you're trying to disprove. You aren't compromising your stance if you listen to what the other side is saying.

Its quite simple actually, and one devout Evolutionists or Christophobes hope doesnt get raised much: we all get born from something right? So what did the first men and women get born out of? Proof that God created the first humans as he did with everything else, evolution is a crock!

Please say this is satire.

Please say this is satire.

Please, do...

Originally Posted by Chewbaccula
Its quite simple actually, and one devout Evolutionists or Christophobes hope doesnt get raised much: we all get born from something right? So what did the first men and women get born out of?
Proof that God created the first humans as he did with everything else, evolution is a crock! Rather than refute your claim directly, I feel it would be more befinifical to all if I directed you to this splendid website, many of the writers being christians themselves.

www.talkorigins.org (http://www.talkorigins.org)

Please say this is satire.

Or, more likely, trolling.

Its quite simple actually, and one devout Evolutionists or Christophobes hope doesnt get raised much: we all get born from something right? So what did the first men and women get born out of?
Proof that God created the first humans as he did with everything else, evolution is a crock!

Assuming you're not being facetious, I imagine the first human population was a small group of slightly different higher primates that became less and less like primates as time went on. Pretty simple, really.

Its quite simple actually, and one devout Evolutionists or Christophobes hope doesnt get raised much: we all get born from something right? So what did the first men and women get born out of?
Proof that God created the first humans as he did with everything else, evolution is a crock!
Ever heard of Asexual reproduction?

So what did the first men and women get born out of?


I imagine we evolved from some other creature.

I honestly don't care that much, t'be honest. If there is a God, I'm going to Hell for breaking at least two of the ten Commandments (what does the Bible say about starting your own religion?), and I don't intend to stop now - I'm having too much fun. :D Also, two years of studying Sociology makes me particularly skeptical about religion as anything but a way to maintain Social unity (or oppress the Subject Class, depending on your own viewpoint)

Rather than refute your claim directly, I feel it would be more befinifical to all if I directed you to this splendid website, many of the writers being christians themselves.

www.talkorigins.org (http://www.talkorigins.org)

Excellent web site! It is clearing up a few questions of my own.

Its quite simple actually, and one devout Evolutionists or Christophobes hope doesnt get raised much: we all get born from something right? So what did the first men and women get born out of?
Proof that God created the first humans as he did with everything else, evolution is a crock!

Ever heard of genetic mutations?

Its quite simple actually, and one devout Evolutionists or Christophobes hope doesnt get raised much: we all get born from something right? So what did the first men and women get born out of?
Proof that God created the first humans as he did with everything else, evolution is a crock!

I doubt your stupid enough to consider that proof. If you're looking for abuse you're going the right way about it. :D

lol sorry but that sort of person gives Christians a bad name :headbang: . Not all christians disagree with evolution - even less disagree with Natural Selection, which to me seems perfectly reasonable. Science and Religion shouldn't be arch-enemies - it's quite sad really!

The big bang happened, and we evolved from the hydrogen and what not that resulted from it.

But what was there before the big bang?

it may have been god, though i do not know for certain

ill have to ask him

lol sorry but that sort of person gives Christians a bad name :headbang: . Not all christians disagree with evolution - even less disagree with Natural Selection, which to me seems perfectly reasonable. Science and Religion shouldn't be arch-enemies - it's quite sad really!

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Albert Einstein ;)

www.talkorigins.org (http://www.talkorigins.org)
Well... since this site was posted, I guess I'll just have to post the "anti" site... y'know... just to be fair. ;)

http://www.trueorigin.org/

Its quite simple actually, and one devout Evolutionists or Christophobes hope doesnt get raised much: we all get born from something right? So what did the first men and women get born out of?
Proof that God created the first humans as he did with everything else, evolution is a crock!


The question I like which tends to be brought about by this line of reasoning is thus: If we all get "born" from something, what created God? He had to come from somewhere too, right?

But then that generally opens up a discussion of fractal realities that most Christian fundies, in my own experiences, are incapable of understanding.

The theory of evolution works all the way down to the subatomic level, the problem is who created the matter that is our universe, where did the big bang come from?

That is the first egg from with everything has grown.
Initially exotic particles, then stable particles like protons, neutrons, electrons. the matter started to clump together, and over millions of years eventually they because stars. Then they exploded. The results of the stars fusion and explosion created your more complex elements. Eventually around a newly forming star, rocky planets started to coalesce, and this is where earth comes in.
Now all that is so far, pretty much the “We don't have a great idea about this area of knowledge” part of science. Compared to the theories and postulations about the beginning of the Universe and planet formation, evolution is pretty damn solid.
And it works like this...
You start off with simple molecules, which join together to make more complex molecules, and this continues until you have a single celled animal, and from here things expand. Single cell becomes multi-celled, in the multi-celled organisms, cells start to adapt to different jobs in the organisms body, and this continues until you have some very simple animals, and these animals evolve into more complex animals, and so on. Perhaps one of the things evolution doesn't make clear is that we are a product of success, but there have been many more failures, there have been billions of evolutionary dead ends, things which failed and died.

Your argument seems to be a simple version of the intelligent design argument against evolution.
The idea that we are so complex that we must have been birthed suddenly as the result of intelligence.
But Evolution doesn't say we were birthed suddenly, it says we evolved gradually from simple organisms through more complex forms until we get to us. The intelligent design argument doesn't work because it is the result of someone not understanding the theory of evolution. It's an argument already answered by the theory of evolution.

I was under the impression that the Big Bang was a result of Matter hitting Antimatter, creating the universe from the leftover Matter.

I dunno, I'm not too up on Science. Is that true/realistic?

lol sorry but that sort of person gives Christians a bad name :headbang: . Not all christians disagree with evolution - even less disagree with Natural Selection, which to me seems perfectly reasonable. Science and Religion shouldn't be arch-enemies - it's quite sad really!

So are you for saying I give Christians a bad name for not believing in the theory of evolution, what kind of Christian dismisses another Christian completely for not believing in evolution?
What kind of Christian are you anyway to believe in only evolution?

The question I like which tends to be brought about by this line of reasoning is thus: If we all get "born" from something, what created God? He had to come from somewhere too, right?
But then that generally opens up a discussion of fractal realities that most Christian fundies, in my own experiences, are incapable of understanding.

Why not just accept instead that God was just always there, no beginning or end, like a circle.
Because even if you cant admit it, you have nothing better to offer.

So are you for saying I give Christians a bad name for not believing in the theory of evolution, what kind of Christian dismisses another Christian completely for not believing in evolution?
What kind of Christian are you anyway to believe in only evolution?

It's apparent that you're a creationist. So what do you believe regarding the Dinosaur bones and Carbon Dating, Age of the stars, etc. Did God make them look older than they are and make it look like the Big Bang happend to preserve our freedom to believe in him? Or are our measurements wrong?

It's possible that humans were a result of a long string of mutations. It didn't necessarily all have to happen at once.

It appears that you don't have an extensive understanding of the theory. Before you try to disprove something, it helps to know what you're trying to disprove. You aren't compromising your stance if you listen to what the other side is saying.

But that means we all would have had to mutate at once in the same stages all over the world, sorry but your mutation theory is too improbable.

If evolution were really proven false, then this proof would be all over the front page of every newspaper in the world and the scientest who did would undoubtedly win the Nobel Prize. I don't remember that happening.

This thread reminds me of one of the best summary descriptions of the creationism/evolution debate I've ever seen, in the March 2005 post of the month on T.O.

Imagine a man. This man is standing in the middle of an airport, with hundreds of planes flying overhead. He is currently talking to a group of aerospace engineers, some of whom have worked on designing actual spacecraft. And he is telling them, "I get frustrated when you guys cannot see the impossibility of making a flying machine heavier than air".

That sums up about 99% of these discussions pretty well I'd say. Creationists: You are that man.

As a creationist myself I find Chewbaccula’s statement unbelievably foolish. He obviously has spent no time at all researching evolution. I can’t wait for him to say, “Well if people evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys?” Ignorance, I swear.

Why not just accept instead that God was just always there, no beginning or end, like a circle.
Because even if you cant admit it, you have nothing better to offer.

When you can prove conclusively the existence of a God, maybe it would make up for your rather ignorant ideas of what evolution is all about. You seem to think that humans just went 'poof' and there we were. Actually, that sounds more like what the Bible says god did wasn't it? Evolution has a different idea.

Why not just accept instead that God was just always there, no beginning or end, like a circle.

Because there's no proof. If God is an entity that exists, then everything has to have begun at one point. Sorry, but until God turns up in my bedroom and introduces himself, I'm going to maintain myself as a skeptic for religions that merely seek to curb your freedom.

It's apparent that you're a creationist. So what do you believe regarding the Dinosaur bones and Carbon Dating, Age of the stars, etc. Did God make them look older than they are and make it look like the Big Bang happend to preserve our freedom to believe in him? Or are our measurements wrong?
I believe our scientists are wrong in everything, one thing I read on the web was that some Christian scientists worked out that a quarter of a mm of moondust gathered on the moons surface every 1000 years, if the universe was billions of years old, the astronauts would have been up to their waists in moondust.

I believe our scientists are wrong in everything, one thing I read on the web was that some Christian scientists worked out that a quarter of a mm of moondust gathered on the moons surface every 1000 years, if the universe was billions of years old, the astronauts would have been up to their waists in moondust.

You just contradicted yourself.

As a creationist myself I find Chewbaccula’s statement unbelievably foolish. He obviously has spent no time at all researching evolution. I can’t wait for him to say, “Well if people evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys?” Ignorance, I swear.

Well, can you explain why?
You cant! Can you!

I believe our scientists are wrong in everything, one thing I read on the web was that some Christian scientists worked out that a quarter of a mm of moondust gathered on the moons surface every 1000 years, if the universe was billions of years old, the astronauts would have been up to their waists in moondust.

Chewbaccula... when you're citing the number 2 argument on the list that even the crackpot loonies at ANSWERS IN GENESIS say creationists should definitely not use (because it's so damn embarassing) does it give you even a little clue that you might want to do just a little bit of research before posting on this topic?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

Well, can you explain why?
You cant! Can you!

Aren't you gonna wait for him to reply? :)

The first humans were birthed from a mutated pre-human.

Because there's no proof. If God is an entity that exists, then everything has to have begun at one point. Sorry, but until God turns up in my bedroom and introduces himself, I'm going to maintain myself as a skeptic for religions that merely seek to curb your freedom.

Your thinking in human terms of beginning and end, because that is what we have, God is not constricted to terms such as beginnings and ends.
This is beyond your comprehension, as television is to a chimpanzee.

But that means we all would have had to mutate at once in the same stages all over the world, sorry but your mutation theory is too improbable.

Not at all. The Neanderthal came from Africa, as did all early humanoïds (I think) and spread out over the world. Same thing happened with the Homo Sapiens (our ancestors), who came from Africa but were more succesful than the Neanderthal, spread out over the world (there was still an ice-bridge between Russia and Alaska then) and made the Neanderthal disappear.
In this scenario the mutation happend in only one African population but was so succesful it spread out over the world. Not so improbable after all.

Its quite simple actually, and one devout Evolutionists or Christophobes hope doesnt get raised much: we all get born from something right? So what did the first men and women get born out of?
Proof that God created the first humans as he did with everything else, evolution is a crock!

LMAO!!!!!!

Woohoo, the party of stupid white men strikes again!

Why not just accept instead that God was just always there, no beginning or end, like a circle.
Because even if you cant admit it, you have nothing better to offer.



You're right, nothing better at all to offer.

Not even the idea that we are all just fractal images of each other, as we are to the rocks, the trees, the air, the planets and stars in the sky, just as we are a fractal experience of the tiniest of molecules. We are, in essence, everything that is, ever has been, and ever will be. We are a fractal experience of what you blindingly insist on calling God.

Why do you argue with yourself so vehemently?

Aren't you gonna wait for him to reply? :)

Well if millions of scientists over a hundred and fifty years cant explain why there are still monkeys around that were supposed to have been left behind as part of our "evolvement" then how will he/she?

I believe our scientists are wrong in everything, one thing I read on the web was that some Christian scientists worked out that a quarter of a mm of moondust gathered on the moons surface every 1000 years, if the universe was billions of years old, the astronauts would have been up to their waists in moondust.

Keeping in mind that the moon wasn't around billions of years ago and the dynamics of dust under lunar conditions are different to those of dust on earth.

Your thinking in human terms of beginning and end, because that is what we have, God is not constricted to terms such as beginnings and ends.
This is beyond your comprehension, as television is to a chimpanzee.

Well, forgive me, but this limited comprehension human is an Athiest. I have no problem with the religious, proving they are as open-minded about my views as I am about theirs.

Why not just accept instead that God was just always there, no beginning or end, like a circle.
Because even if you cant admit it, you have nothing better to offer.

Why not just accept that the universe was always here with no beginning or end. It's a little bit simpler explanation then adding that extra factor. If God is eternal, why not the universe?

You just contradicted yourself.

Your right, I meant non Christian scientists who believe in evolution..

You just contradicted yourself.

Your right, I meant non Christian scientists who believe in evolution.

When I peer out my window at the soaking rain giving life to life to every plant, and consequently every animal I see, there is no doubt in my mind that it is a gift from god. The brilliant sky teaming with clouds and the gentle blossoming flower all bear testimony to the divinity of life. That does not mean I don’t believe in evaporation and condensation.

Evolution answer’s how; it doesn’t say whom. Belief in evolution does not preclude a belief in the divinity of life or the existence of God. Every process in the galaxy was created by god, and they work through set rules and laws. The process of evolution is no different.

Belief in god in a matter of faith, not well reasoned philosophical or scientific argument. It is not dependent on proof, nor should it attempt to do battle with issues of science.

Your thinking in human terms of beginning and end, because that is what we have, God is not constricted to terms such as beginnings and ends.
This is beyond your comprehension, as television is to a chimpanzee.


Your implication here that it is not beyond your own comprehension is laughable.
What makes you think you truly understand even the tiniest fragment of the God you hold so high, much less any of his actions?

Well if millions of scientists over a hundred and fifty years cant explain why there are still monkeys around that were supposed to have been left behind as part of our "evolvement" then how will he/she?

I'll make it very simple for you. We all know apes live in several places in the world. And they live in groups. We call such a group a 'population'.
Populations do not nescessarily interact, because they can live miles appart. This is called 'geographical isolation'.
Now, a mutation occurs in one such population and the group evolves into humans (very much simplified). This has then happened in only one population, and because that group is geographically isolated, the other ape populations are not affected by it.
And this is why the monkies can live happily ever after while the early humans prepare to colonize the world.

Not at all. The Neanderthal came from Africa, as did all early humanoïds (I think) and spread out over the world. Same thing happened with the Homo Sapiens (our ancestors), who came from Africa but were more succesful than the Neanderthal, spread out over the world (there was still an ice-bridge between Russia and Alaska then) and made the Neanderthal disappear.
In this scenario the mutation happend in only one African population but was so succesful it spread out over the world. Not so improbable after all.

The Neanderthals were limited to Northern Europe werent they?
Also you havent explained yet how these 'mutations' happened?

I believe our scientists are wrong in everything, one thing I read on the web was that some Christian scientists worked out that a quarter of a mm of moondust gathered on the moons surface every 1000 years, if the universe was billions of years old, the astronauts would have been up to their waists in moondust.

Keeping in mind that the moon wasn't around billions of years ago and the dynamics of dust under lunar conditions are different to those of dust on earth.

A reply would be nice Chewbaccula?

The Neanderthals were limited to Northern Europe werent they?
Also you havent explained yet how these 'mutations' happened?

In the living cell, DNA undergoes frequent chemical change, especially when it is being replicated (in S phase of the eukaryotic cell cycle). Most of these changes are quickly repaired. Those that are not result in a mutation. Thus, mutation is a failure of DNA repair.

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/M/Mutations.html

Well if millions of scientists over a hundred and fifty years cant explain why there are still monkeys around that were supposed to have been left behind as part of our "evolvement" then how will he/she?

Evolutionists do not, for one second, claim that humans evolved from monkeys. They claim that we both evolved from a common ancestor.


Well, forgive me, but this limited comprehension human is an Athiest. I have no problem with the religious, proving they are as open-minded about my views as I am about theirs.

As long as your beliefs don’t involve hurting anyone, I think you will find I am quite open minded. I prefer to take the Christ like approach; instead of insulting your beliefs I simply disagree with them.

Personally, I choose not to believe in evolution, but for all I know Genesis in metaphorical. You know what? I think I will just ask the big guy when I see him.

I'll make it very simple for you. We all know apes live in several places in the world. And they live in groups. We call such a group a 'population'.
Populations do not nescessarily interact, because they can live miles appart. This is called 'geographical isolation'.
Now, a mutation occurs in one such population and the group evolves into humans (very much simplified). This has then happened in only one population, and because that group is geographically isolated, the other ape populations are not affected by it.
And this is why the monkies can live happily ever after while the early humans prepare to colonize the world.

Well if you want to patronise, I'll make it simple for you as well.
One, why did only these particular apes evolve?
And why arent other apes going through this in other parts of the world now?

Its quite simple actually, and one devout Evolutionists or Christophobes hope doesnt get raised much: we all get born from something right? So what did the first men and women get born out of?

So, evolution is wrong because it says we came from non-living matter. This is clearly different from the biblical account, where God creates Adam from...Non living matter!

Well done, you've just refuted your own belief system.

As long as your beliefs don’t involve hurting anyone, I think you will find I am quite open minded. I prefer to take the Christ like approach; instead of insulting your beliefs I simply disagree with them.


See, now this is the sort of open-minded rationality I don't see enough from religious people I know in real life. :)

I believe everyone should be allowed to express their beliefs how they wish, providing it doesn't hurt anyone. As long as people agree the same about Atheism.

Evolutionists do not, for one second, claim that humans evolved from monkeys.

Yes they do!

Yes they do!

That's a bit of a generalisation.

Yes they do!

No, they claim humans and modern apes share a common ancestor.

So, evolution is wrong because it says we came from non-living matter. This is clearly different from the biblical account, where God creates Adam from...Non living matter!
Well done, you've just refuted your own belief system.

Yes but Evolution foremost teaches that God had nothing to do with the process of creating life.

Well if you want to patronise, I'll make it simple for you as well.
One, why did only these particular apes evolve?
And why arent other apes going through this in other parts of the world now?

One, they didn't. Presumably, quite a few other species evolved, but became extinct due to natural selection, humans (and apparently monkeys) being the superior creatures in terms of survival.

And two, they are. It's a process that takes thousands of years.

No, they claim humans and modern apes share a common ancestor.

No proof but.

Are you being serious Chewbaccula or are you just looking for people to hate you?

No proof but.

Like there's no proof for God creating everything? :rolleyes:

Yes but Evolution foremost teaches that God had nothing to do with the process of creating life.

That's abiogenesis, not evolution. Don't you even know what evolution is?

[QUOTE=Enethie]One, they didn't. Presumably, quite a few other species evolved, but became extinct due to natural selection, humans (and apparently monkeys) being the superior creatures in terms of survival.

Presumably... personally I believe God created the monkeys and Humans at the same time, and made them like us to test our faith.


And two, they are. It's a process that takes thousands of years.

Proof?

Like there's no proof for God creating everything? :rolleyes:

Just billions of people who believe he did. :rolleyes:

[QUOTE]

Presumably... personally I believe God created the monkeys and Humans at the same time, and made them like us to test our faith.


Well, right there you admit its about personal belief, despite a lack of proof. We don't believe you because of that factor, nor do you believe us.

So these debates are pointless.

Just billions of people who believe he did. :rolleyes:

That isn't proof.

Are you being serious Chewbaccula or are you just looking for people to hate you?

Im serious, and why would people hate someone just for not believing in evolution????

[QUOTE=Chewbaccula]

So these debates are pointless.

I agree. :headbang:

Originally Posted by Chewbaccula
Yes but Evolution foremost teaches that God had nothing to do with the process of creating life. ROFL! How about you take a basic course in biology.

No it doesn't, it teaches how organisms developed and adapted to their environment. I think you're talking about abiogenesis, which in itself is NOT a refutation of God's existence.

That isn't proof.

Its good enough for me.

Well if you want to patronise, I'll make it simple for you as well.
One, why did only these particular apes evolve?
And why arent other apes going through this in other parts of the world now?

Lets patronise again shall we????
One, these apes WEREN'T the only ones that evolved. Look up the term "common ancestor". The common ancestor we share with chimpanzees would be as different to chimpanzees as they are to us.
And, You assume that evolution isnt still occuring. And, quite simply, you're an idiot if you believe that evolutionists are claiming that evolution has stopped now that it has gotten to us.
Also it would be an evolutionary disadvantage for any modern apes to gain attributes that would put them into competition with us as a specialised species.

[QUOTE=Chewbaccula]
Well, right there you admit its about personal belief, despite a lack of proof. We don't believe you because of that factor, nor do you believe us.
So these debates are pointless.

What debate isnt?

Yes they do!

NO THEY DONT! evolutionists have never said we evolved from modern day apes or monkeys. Go find out some information about evolution BEFORE you come up with lame attacks on it.

Presumably... personally I believe God created the monkeys and Humans at the same time, and made them like us to test our faith.

So you've said.

Proof?
Ironic that you ask us for proof, while believing in a religion that precludes proof.

But if you want it, there are dozens if not hundreds of studies on genetic mutation, archaeological records and the adaptation of species based on environmental conditions. Do take a look at the birds of the Galapagos.

Its good enough for me.

Well, then that's fine for you. Others, it's not fine for.

Millions of people used to believe that everything rotated around the Earth, seen by the stars and the sun moving around the sky. Millions of people used to believe the world was flat. Millions of people believed that people from Africa were racially inferior on the grounds of external characteristics (and unfortunately, there are people that still do, but that's a different debate)

But as I said, its about personal belief, and thus this debate is pointless.

Just billions of people who believe he did. :rolleyes:

And 400 years ago billions of people believed the world was flat, that witches can fly and that illnesses can be cured by cutting open the patients veins and bleeding them half to death.

Believe isn't fact.

Just billions of people who believe he did. :rolleyes:
And I believe I'm the King of France. :rolleyes:

Just because you, or even a huge number of people believe in something, that does not make it true.

Just billions of people who believe he did. :rolleyes:
Logical fallacy - you just proved you could never "win" this debate.

Presumably... personally I believe God created the monkeys and Humans at the same time, and made them like us to test our faith.

Then you are not following the word of the bible.

Tit.1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began.

Heb.6:18 It was impossible for God to lie.

2Cr 11:31 The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.

Whoops, God doesn't lie, so the fossil record can't be a colossal practical joke after all.

This is just great. Chewbaccula wont answer any of my posts. :mad:

[QUOTE=Unified Colonies]

What debate isnt?

You consider debates on World Poverty or Environmental concerns as pointless?

Presumably... personally I believe God created the monkeys and Humans at the same time, and made them like us to test our faith.

You seriously believe that God would test us this way? Last time I checked,tests of faith involved personal things. In fact, if you can name one time in the Bible where God tests the entire population of the Earth in any way even remotely like this, I may be less inclined to totally dismiss everything you say.

Lets patronise again shall we????
One, these apes WEREN'T the only ones that evolved. Look up the term "common ancestor". The common ancestor we share with chimpanzees would be as different to chimpanzees as they are to us.
And, You assume that evolution isnt still occuring. And, quite simply, you're an idiot if you believe that evolutionists are claiming that evolution has stopped now that it has gotten to us.
Also it would be an evolutionary disadvantage for any modern apes to gain attributes that would put them into competition with us as a specialised species.


Weeell well. Look who threw the first insult, learn to debate my friend without stooping into the gutter for ammunition.

So what did this common ancestor look like, and how did he diverge into apes and humans?
And how honestly do you believe humans could evolve further than what we are now, God made us in his image like this, nothing more or less.

A little off the topic, but I'm listening to "Love Really Hurts Without You" Billy Ocean. Anybody here heard it and liked it?

Well if you want to patronise, I'll make it simple for you as well.
One, why did only these particular apes evolve?
And why arent other apes going through this in other parts of the world now?

Because humans have already filleed the niche. There's nothing left to exploit. Also we haven't been around for very long and neither have current species of ape.

You seriously believe that God would test us this way? Last time I checked,tests of faith involved personal things. In fact, if you can name one time in the Bible where God tests the entire population of the Earth in any way even remotely like this, I may be less inclined to totally dismiss everything you say.

Well why not, it could just be a red herring, as proof of Gods wonderful sense of humour.

A little off the topic, but I'm listening to "Love Really Hurts Without You" Billy Ocean. Anybody here heard it and liked it?

No hijacking please, read the forum rules too.

Weeell well. Look who threw the first insult, learn to debate my friend without stooping into the gutter for ammunition.

Style over substance fallacy.

So what did this common ancestor look like, and how did he diverge into apes and humans?

Why don't you do some actual research rather than asking us to think for you? At least some of our other creationists are prepared to learn about the subject.

And how honestly do you believe humans could evolve further than what we are now, God made us in his image like this, nothing more or less.

Circular reasoning. Learn to debate.

Weeell well. Look who threw the first insult, learn to debate my friend without stooping into the gutter for ammunition.

So what did this common ancestor look like, and how did he diverge into apes and humans?
And how honestly do you believe humans could evolve further than what we are now, God made us in his image like this, nothing more or less.

Humans can't evolve further. For evolution to manifest it's beautiful head, survival of the fittest must apply. Since we look after sick people and support the disabled or deformed on the shoulders of our government, we no longer have to worry about surviving. There's no need to evolve further so we wont.

And how honestly do you believe humans could evolve further than what we are now, God made us in his image like this, nothing more or less.

You're basically saying "we must have been made by God, because God made us this way." That doesn't really get us anywhere.

Weeell well. Look who threw the first insult, learn to debate my friend without stooping into the gutter for ammunition.

So what did this common ancestor look like, and how did he diverge into apes and humans?
And how honestly do you believe humans could evolve further than what we are now, God made us in his image like this, nothing more or less.

What did our common ancestor look like? Interesting question. The current thinking is a nuckle-walking ape that was much less robust than a gorilla. Then we have the australopithecines and also the aethiopicus evolutionary branches to choose an ancestor from.

So, evolution is wrong because it says we came from non-living matter. This is clearly different from the biblical account, where God creates Adam from...Non living matter!

Well done, you've just refuted your own belief system.

All it says in my bible is, to paraphrase, that God created man in his own image and likeness. It only says that he 'created man'. God created all other life from the ground, though. The difference is that scientists believe that they have a good idea of how amino acids could have been formed, and it was on earth. The only problem is that they have no clue how these acids came together and formed protocells. More experimentation will have to be done to answer that question.

Edit: People post in these threads fast.

No hijacking please, read the forum rules too.

If you didn't want me to hijack your bloody thread you would have replied to my damn posts! :sniper:

Well why not, it could just be a red herring, as proof of Gods wonderful sense of humour.

Then you are not following the word of the bible.

Tit.1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began.

Heb.6:18 It was impossible for God to lie.

2Cr 11:31 The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.

Whoops, God doesn't lie, so the fossil record can't be a colossal practical joke after all.

How does the second creation story fit into creationists' view of the world? It gives a different order to the creationists' view of the world. How do you reconcile this with the account being entirely accurate.

All it says in my bible is, to paraphrase, that God created man in his own image and likeness. It only says that he 'created man'. God created all other life from the ground, though.

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Which bible do you have? o_O

[QUOTE=Chewbaccula]
You consider debates on World Poverty or Environmental concerns as pointless?

Yes, debating is basically about one group of people following one set of rules in an arguement that appose another groups, how would anyone starving in the third world gain from a group pointlessly bickering, you either agree to help the other side who wants to help, or you dont get in the way of them doing so.

Postmodernist Sociologists say that Metanarratives or "grand stories" have been largely discredited in 21st Century society. This includes a loss of faith in Science as well as mainstream religion due to the perverse methods Science has been used for. Postmodernists believe can create their own identity through choosing what they believe in, because no one belief is more valid than another.

I'm coming back to the personal belief thing here.

(Also, I have a Sociology exam on religion this Thursday, so it kinda proves I've been revising.)

All it says in my bible is, to paraphrase, that God created man in his own image and likeness. It only says that he 'created man'. God created all other life from the ground, though. The difference is that scientists believe that they have a good idea of how amino acids could have been formed, and it was on earth. The only problem is that they have no clue how these acids came together and formed protocells. More experimentation will have to be done to answer that question.

Edit: People post in these threads fast.



I remember being taught in both a Bible class (church) and a Bible as Literature class (high school), and from reading numerous versions of the Bible before and since, that Adam himself was created from dust of the Earth.

Ashes to ashes, dust to dust?

Well why not, it could just be a red herring, as proof of Gods wonderful sense of humour.

Okay, either you are just joking around and this whole thread was fake, or you are willing to call God a deceiver (something which he definitely isn’t, read above post, or the Bible) just to support your “argument” against evolution. That is just sad. :(

[QUOTE=Unified Colonies]

Yes, debating is basically about one group of people following one set of rules in an arguement that appose another groups, how would anyone starving in the third world gain from a group pointlessly bickering, you either agree to help the other side who wants to help, or you dont get in the way of them doing so.

Debate SHOULDN'T be about pointless bickering - it should be about finding solutions to problems. World Poverty is something 'real' - here and now which people all agree is happeninng. "Debating" about the creation of the world is pointless because we never prove it either way. It's personal belief.

Its quite simple actually, and one devout Evolutionists or Christophobes hope doesnt get raised much: we all get born from something right? So what did the first men and women get born out of?
Proof that God created the first humans as he did with everything else, evolution is a crock!

This is the kind of blithering I should've mentioned in that annoying post thread. :)

Then you are not following the word of the bible.
Whoops, God doesn't lie, so the fossil record can't be a colossal practical joke after all.


How has he lied? He can't make up our own interpretations for us can he?
We have many myths of dragons and sea creatures in our history, so its quite possible these are the dinosaurs, indeed there are still sightings. Their extinction as in large numbers probably came from us and the flood.

It's possible that humans were a result of a long string of mutations. It didn't necessarily all have to happen at once.

It appears that you don't have an extensive understanding of the theory. Before you try to disprove something, it helps to know what you're trying to disprove. You aren't compromising your stance if you listen to what the other side is saying.

I couldn't have said it better myself. :)

[QUOTE=Chewbaccula]

Debate SHOULDN'T be about pointless bickering - it should be about finding solutions to problems. World Poverty is something 'real' - here and now which people all agree is happeninng. "Debating" about the creation of the world is pointless because we never prove it either way. It's personal belief.

But it's also really boring to say we can't debate it because it comes down to belief. There can be now actual proof of anything. Everything comes down to belief in the end.

Humans can't evolve further. For evolution to manifest it's beautiful head, survival of the fittest must apply. Since we look after sick people and support the disabled or deformed on the shoulders of our government, we no longer have to worry about surviving. There's no need to evolve further so we wont.

This made me think of a special I saw on TV last week. A part of the show described a pill that fought off a person's brain tumors much more effectively then chemotherapy (chemotherapy wasn't working at all) and with far fewer side effects. The problem was that the drug only works for roughly 15% of the people that take it due to a gene. Were people with cancer to take this pill, survive, and have children, you might see this gene become more common within a few thousand years. Eventually almost every human would have it, and after that it would be an anomoly that someone didn't have it. Wouldn't this be evolution?

How has he lied? He can't make up our own interpretations for us can he?
We have many myths of dragons and sea creatures in our history, so its quite possible these are the dinosaurs, indeed there are still sightings. Their extinction as in large numbers probably came from us and the flood.

That would make no sense because it says in the Bible that Noah took a pair of EVERY animal into the ark. Not just the small and furrry ones.

[QUOTE=Chewbaccula]
Debate SHOULDN'T be about pointless bickering - it should be about finding solutions to problems. World Poverty is something 'real' - here and now which people all agree is happeninng. "Debating" about the creation of the world is pointless because we never prove it either way. It's personal belief.

Yes and what has the countless hours of debating actually done for allieving us of world poverty?

I couldn't have said it better myself. :)

I wish everyone would follow that advice. Especially me. I don't know all that much about evolution, yet I'm still trying to argue specifics.

[QUOTE=Unified Colonies]

But it's also really boring to say we can't debate it because it comes down to belief. There can be now actual proof of anything. Everything comes down to belief in the end.

Sorry to keep using this as an example, but millions of people dying due to Poverty isn't down to personal belief. It's on the news every day.

I have no problem with debates on personal belief. Here on a forum for example it's fine. In the Real World however, when people in power argue over this sort of thing, wasting time and resources that could be put to more practical and humanitarian use, then its a waste.

[QUOTE=Unified Colonies]

Yes and what has the countless hours of debating actually done for allieving us of world poverty?

That's because largely the debate has involved bickering, which it shouldn't. That isn't 'Debate' as I would define it.

The point is, Evolution vs. Creationism is never gonna be proved either way to 100 percent of the population, because it involves personal belief. So we might as well accept that.

How has he lied? He can't make up our own interpretations for us can he?

By forging evidence of something, he is engaging in deceit. Same thing, and He can't.

We have many myths of dragons and sea creatures in our history, so its quite possible these are the dinosaurs, their extinction probably came from us and the flood.

The flood is absolutey ridiculous; there isn't enough water anywhere in the world, the Ark is an engineering impossibility, categorising the animals for a scientifically ignorant man like Noah would not have been possible, and he would have had to infect himself with fatal bacterial diseases like Cholera and Malaria in order to allow their survival. Seriously, if you can't pull arguments better than this one-line nonsense and actually present some evidence, I'm locking this thread as spam.

That would make no sense because it says in the Bible that Noah took a pair of EVERY animal into the ark. Not just the small and furrry ones.

Well lets say he did take small pairs of dinosaurs in as well, and after the flood they were hunted into extinction?

Weeell well. Look who threw the first insult, learn to debate my friend without stooping into the gutter for ammunition.

So what did this common ancestor look like, and how did he diverge into apes and humans?
And how honestly do you believe humans could evolve further than what we are now, God made us in his image like this, nothing more or less.


Actually its only an insult if you really do believe that evolutionists think evolution has stopped. If you are open minded enough to actually LISTEN to the other side of the argument then my statement does not in any way say you are an idiot and thus shouldnt be taken as an insult. Listening to the rebuttals, evidence and opinions of your opposition is a good technique of debating. So is knowing a little about the opposition viewpoint before you start a debate against it. Neither of which you seem to have accomplished yet.

You would do us all a favour if you would postpone this debate until you have actually learned some of the basics of evolutionary theory.

Look at some of the fossil record and you will get a good idea of what the common ancestor would have looked like. If you actually do the research the information isnt hard to find.

And we could evolve a great deal from where we are now. We have highly inefficient eyes for one thing (compared with things as 'lowly' as squid and octopi and shrimp and brids of prey). Our muscular strength to weight ratio is incredibly low compared with other primates, our hearing isnt very acute either, the grey matter in our brain could quite easily expand out to give us a better cognitive process (which hopefully would stop pointless debates like this one, and would maybe make me not take the reactionary path of replying to someone i have a strong inclination is too narrowminded to listen to anything anyone says that isnt in full agreement with his own preconceived ideas), should i continue with what can be improved in the human form?

P.S. If you really arent willing to alter your skewed and inccurate image of evolution, even when the people who accept it are telling you the things you believe about it are fallacies, then you shouldnt be insulted but you should be ignored.

Look at human history and tell me that god really created us as his image...

If that's true...

What kind of monster is this god?

Oh yeah, we only killed some 60 million of our species in the last world war. We only reached the ability to wipe out mankind several times, lovely. Truely an image of god.

Also...

The bible, the bible, the bible... Who the F cares what's in the bible?! Hello, there are more religions than that one, more so called "holy books" than just the one that was heavily censored by the ones in charge of their religion. Get that into your brains first. It's typical though, seems that most kids in the west don't learn about other religions than the one with possibly the most blood on its hands. And I say it again... stupid white men...

This made me think of a special I saw on TV last week. A part of the show described a pill that fought off a person's brain tumors much more effectively then chemotherapy (chemotherapy wasn't working at all) and with far fewer side effects. The problem was that the drug only works for roughly 15% of the people that take it due to a gene. Were people with cancer to take this pill, survive, and have children, you might see this gene become more common within a few thousand years. Eventually almost every human would have it, and after that it would be an anomoly that someone didn't have it. Wouldn't this be evolution?

I'm a little rusty on my definitions but wouldn't that be natural selection?

Thank you, by the way. You're the first person to reply to something I've posted in the last 4 pages.

I'm a Christian. I only recently started rereading the creation story again after having had it drilled into me as a chid. One question. There appears to be two different stories of the creation of the world in Genesis. One puts the creation of humans first, the other it puts them last. How do creationists decide which one to listen to? Doesn't this make the whole idea of the passage being infallible a bit silly when it contradicts itself?

Well lets say he did take small pairs of dinosaurs in as well, and after the flood they were hunted into extinction?

Now you're speculating without providing evidence. :)

Evolution is constantly happening around us within our own species. One problem with tracking it is that we are a fairly short-lived species. Our maximum lifespan is, what, around 120 years, under optimal conditions? That's about six generations. With the sheer number of humans alive at this moment, tracking one or two deep changes in genetics would be a daunting task for pretty much any group.
Or maybe I'm complexing the issue.

However, an example of tracking evolution in humans could be studying the relationship between Sickle Cell Anemia and Malaria. Those afflicted with the former, be it as an uneffected carrier or as an affected individual, are generally immune to Malaria.



Of course, this is an aside from the topic at hand, which is a joke in its own right. No prrof has been offered beyond faith that evolution is false, and none can be as yet.

[QUOTE=GMC Military Arms]By forging evidence of something, he is engaging in deceit. Same thing, and He can't.

I never mentioned forging evidence.

The flood is absolutey ridiculous; there isn't enough water anywhere in the world,

The worlds suface is covered by seventy % water.


the Ark is an engineering impossibility, categorising the animals for a scientifically ignorant man like Noah would not have been possible,

God helped him, its the only way he could have pulled it off.



and he would have had to infect himself with fatal bacterial diseases like Cholera and Malaria in order to allow their survival. Seriously, if you can't pull arguments better than this one-line nonsense and actually present some evidence, I'm locking this thread as spam.

Thats not really fair is it?
look at the interest its created. Maybe I cant provide enough proof, but Im sure there are others on here that could.

That would make no sense because it says in the Bible that Noah took a pair of EVERY animal into the ark. Not just the small and furrry ones.


How did Noah take all the fish, the whales, the sharks, the dolphins, etc. onto the Ark?

That question has plagued me for years :)

After all, all life not on the Ark was wiped out in the flood....

Look at human history and tell me that god really created us as his image...

If that's true...

What kind of monster is this god?

Oh yeah, we only killed some 60 million of our species in the last world war. We only reached the ability to wipe out mankind several times, lovely. Truely an image of god.

Also...

The bible, the bible, the bible... Who the F cares what's in the bible?! Hello, there are more religions than that one, more so called "holy books" than just the one that was heavily censored by the ones in charge of their religion. Get that into your brains first. It's typical though, seems that most kids in the west don't learn about other religions than the one with possibly the most blood on its hands. And I say it again... stupid white men...

This post is in no way helpful to debate. if you are going to argue with creationists you have to try and avoid it turning into an argument aobut the existence of God or the validity of the Bible.

I'm a Christian. I only recently started rereading the creation story again after having had it drilled into me as a chid. One question. There appears to be two different stories of the creation of the world in Genesis. One puts the creation of humans first, the other it puts them last. How do creationists decide which one to listen to? Doesn't this make the whole idea of the passage being infallible a bit silly when it contradicts itself?

I don't remember reading anything like that. Can you direct me to the passages so that I can look them up in my Bible?

(Also, I have a Sociology exam on religion this Thursday, so it kinda proves I've been revising.)

No it doesn't kinda. But it indicates that you might lack faith in your own arguments and find it necessary to complement it by adding a source of authority.
And except for I completely agree with your point and pragmatic stance.

Bearer of the Ank of Truth (and does that prove anything?),

How did Noah take all the fish, the whales, the sharks, the dolphins, etc. onto the Ark?

That question has plagued me for years :)

After all, all life not on the Ark was wiped out in the flood....

This means we have loads of evil ducks wandering around. AAAAAAAAH.

*Hides*

Well lets say he did take small pairs of dinosaurs in as well, and after the flood they were hunted into extinction?

And let’s also say that I am a magical self-conscious pixie living in an enchanted forest found in the hairy ears of an elderly Irish Catholic man. Where do you come up with this stuff?

I personally believe that the Arc was a magnificent miracle, but to hear you constantly change your argument and ignore the Bible while claiming to be Christian just to support an anti-evolution position is infuriating.

I don't remember reading anything like that. Can you direct me to the passages so that I can look them up in my Bible?

Chapter 2 of genesis has a different account to chapter 1.

No it doesn't kinda. But it indicates that you might lack faith in your own arguments and find it necessary to complement it by adding a source of authority.
And except for I completely agree with your point and pragmatic stance.

Bearer of the Ank of Truth (and does that prove anything?),

Actually, I have been revising, so :p

Also, what's the problem with drawing on other sources to complement your argument.

Anyway, that statement was supposed to be a little light humour.

I never mentioned forging evidence.

You didn't need to. There is a wazooload of evidence that the Earth, and the universe, are a couple billion years old. Carbon dating, most notably. If the world is only a few thousand years old, as conventional creationism suggests, then God has been mighty deceptive to plant all this false evidence all over the place.

I never mentioned forging evidence.

You stated God had forged evidence of evolution to test man's faith, remember?

The worlds suface is covered by seventy % water.

Sweet mother of christ, you think the water in the world now could cause a Biblical flood that covered the highest mountaintop, even though it obviously doesn't? Do the highest mountains look covered?

God helped him, its the only way he could have pulled it off.

No, God gave him nothing but dimensions. What kind of Christian are you? You've obviously never read the Bible...

Now you're speculating without providing evidence. :)

Its a fair call but, surviving humans would see these creatures growing in number again, and remembering storys told to them by surviving flood members of their ferocity, hunted them into extinction, speculation yes, but also possible.

Genesis Chpt 2:18 "The the Lord God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone: I will make him a helper as his partner." So out of the ground the Lord God formed ever animals of the field and ever bird of the air and brought them to the man."

It seems to be a different order to the creation in the first chapter.

Its a fair call but, surviving humans would see these creatures growing in number again, and remembering storys told to them by surviving flood members of their ferocity, hunted them into extinction, speculation yes, but also possible.

I do love the idea of primitve humans with spears and bows and arrows hunting to extinction huge, thick-skinned dinosaurs.

Chapter 2 of genesis has a different account to chapter 1.

Chapter two only says that man was created before the first “shrub of the field”. This means that when Adam and Eve came into being there was no agriculture, yet.

[QUOTE=GMC Military Arms]You stated God had forged evidence of evolution to test man's faith, remember?

No, I said he left it open to us for interpretation, some of us decided for everyone that it was evolution

Sweet mother of christ, you think the water in the world now could cause a Biblical flood that covered the highest mountaintop, even though it obviously doesn't? Do the highest mountains look covered?

The floods receeded remember? Are you sure its not you who hasnt read the bible properly.


No, God gave him nothing but dimensions. What kind of Christian are you? You've obviously never read the Bible...

And alot of advice, and do you interpret a Christian as only a person who knows the book word for word?
I mighten know it all, but at least I respect it.

You didn't need to. There is a wazooload of evidence that the Earth, and the universe, are a couple billion years old. Carbon dating, most notably. If the world is only a few thousand years old, as conventional creationism suggests, then God has been mighty deceptive to plant all this false evidence all over the place.

Don't use carbon dating. It's far too inaccurate at the moment to make any statements about the age of the earth.

How did Noah take all the fish, the whales, the sharks, the dolphins, etc. onto the Ark?
That question has plagued me for years :)
After all, all life not on the Ark was wiped out in the flood....

Well obviously any creatures in the sea for the most part would have survived the flood, the all life referred to land creatures mostly.

I'm a little rusty on my definitions but wouldn't that be natural selection?

Thank you, by the way. You're the first person to reply to something I've posted in the last 4 pages.

My pleasure. :)

I believe that it would be an example of microevolution. Let me borrow a paragraph from wikipedia.

"Microevolution consists of small-scale changes in gene frequencies in a population over the course of a few generations. These changes may be due to a number of processes: mutation, gene flow, genetic drift, as well as natural selection. Population genetics is the branch of biology that provides the mathematical structure for the study of the process of microevolution."

The example certainly fits the first sentance. The question is how a 'population' is defined. I don't know, but it would make sense that the entire planet would be a population (perhaps excluding extremely homogenous places such as North Korea, but that country hasn't been that closed for that long) due to the extensive interaction between people from all parts of the world. For the sake of argument, let's assume that all humans make up one population. Any significant (sustained?) increase or in the amount of people that are born with this gene would be an example of microevolution. If the percentage went from 15% to 17% in, say 20 generations, and in the next 20 it went from 17% to 20%, then you would have an example of evolution.

Chapter two only says that man was created before the first “shrub of the field”. This means that when Adam and Eve came into being there was no agriculture, yet.

See the quote I made from verse 18.

Don't use carbon dating. It's far too inaccurate at the moment to make any statements about the age of the earth.

Yes the great myth of carbon dating...

Chapter 2 of genesis has a different account to chapter 1.

"Out of the groung God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air and sent them to Adam to see what he would call them"

I thik it's just referring to the beasts and birds in the garden of Eden.

Its a fair call but, surviving humans would see these creatures growing in number again, and remembering storys told to them by surviving flood members of their ferocity, hunted them into extinction, speculation yes, but also possible.

Well since you bought up the ark...

Aside from all the other impossibilities about the flood and the ark I have a major problem with Koalas. Firstly how did the koalas get from australia to the middle east? thats a long trip and they arent that good at swimming so the arafura sea/indian ocean would have proven a little tricky. Secondly did they bring the years supply of fresh eucalyptus leaves (koalas need fresh not dried leaves since they derive their water from them) with them, or did Noah arrange for them to be provided by divine caterers of some description? Then when the ark landed on the mountain how did the koalas get down the mountain and back to Australia? They are worse mountaineers than they are swimmers? did a friendly mountain goat give them a ride down? and then a kangaroo give it a ride back down to SE Asia before a pod of charitable dolphins gave them all a hitch back to mainland australia?

Please Explain.

Chapter 2 of genesis has a different account to chapter 1.



They're not different accounts, per se. It's the same story. They merely have different points of focus, as they were from two different collections of writings. One puts everything before Man, the other puts everything for Man. More or less :)



Also, as to the Biblical age of the Earth...

We all do realise that the age given as ~5000 years was gained by adding the lifespans given in... was it Genesis or Numbers? My memory of the specific is hazy. (X) begat (Y) begat (Z).

And we all do realise, as well, that the original text did not imply (X) gave birth to (Y) as "begat" does, but instead implied that (X) was an ancestor of (Y), thus negating the entire age debate, right?

There could be uncountable number of generations between each recorded branch of the tree.


I really do wish Christians would learn more about their Bible. It would make debates like this one, well, less likely to be pissy little bickerfests about who's right and who's right.

No, I said he left it open to us for interpretation, some of us decided for everyone that it was evolution

So why is there overwhelming evidence for evolution unless he forged it?

The floods receeded remember? Are you sure its not you who hasnt read the bible properly.

Receded to where? You're talking about enough water to raise global sea levels by over twenty nine thousand feet!

And alot of advice, and do you interpret a Christian as only a person who knows the book word for word?

I interpret a fundamentalist Christian as someone who is familiar enough with scripture not to make glaring errors in his citations of Biblical content. How can you believe the bible inerrant if you don't even know what it says?

I thik it's just referring to the beasts and birds in the garden of Eden.

Or possibly restating that God created them. The Bible restates quite often.

Yes the great myth of carbon dating...

As an archaeologist and anthropologist I can say that carbon dating is only useful for site-specific comparisons. However, on the subject of age. The main problem is the written record going back beyond 6000 years. Also the sheer ammount of stuff that's happened in the archaeological record would point to us being around a bit longer.

My pleasure. :)

I believe that it would be an example of microevolution. Let me borrow a paragraph from wikipedia.

"Microevolution consists of small-scale changes in gene frequencies in a population over the course of a few generations. These changes may be due to a number of processes: mutation, gene flow, genetic drift, as well as natural selection. Population genetics is the branch of biology that provides the mathematical structure for the study of the process of microevolution."

The example certainly fits the first sentance. The question is how a 'population' is defined. I don't know, but it would make sense that the entire planet would be a population (perhaps excluding extremely homogenous places such as North Korea, but that country hasn't been that closed for that long) due to the extensive interaction between people from all parts of the world. For the sake of argument, let's assume that all humans make up one population. Any significant (sustained?) increase or in the amount of people that are born with this gene would be an example of microevolution. If the percentage went from 15% to 17% in, say 20 generations, and in the next 20 it went from 17% to 20%, then you would have an example of evolution.

True. But would we still be around after forty generations. Due to the increasing population we would soon run out of resources and all die off. Although you are right in that we can still evolve.

"Out of the groung God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air and sent them to Adam to see what he would call them"

I thik it's just referring to the beasts and birds in the garden of Eden.

Why do you think that? Where does the authority come from to make that interpretation? I'm all for strictly adhering to the Bible but it often seems to me like the creationists do as much twisting as the evolutionists.

Its quite simple actually, and one devout Evolutionists or Christophobes hope doesnt get raised much: we all get born from something right? So what did the first men and women get born out of?
Proof that God created the first humans as he did with everything else, evolution is a crock!DEAR GOD YOU ARE A RETARD!!! The first humans were not born out of humans. They were born out of primates that were sort of like humans, but humans were a mutation of that. Go talk to some scientists, but if they can't help... YOU:mp5:

Its quite simple actually, and one devout Evolutionists or Christophobes hope doesnt get raised much: we all get born from something right? So what did the first men and women get born out of?
Proof that God created the first humans as he did with everything else, evolution is a crock!

That isn't "proof," it's opinion wrapped in a cozy blanket of ignorance. The theory of evolution relies on a couple of processes. Start with a single celled organism that's able to reproduce itself. It floats in some pond for a few thousand generations until one day through a fluke genetic error it produces one or more multi-celled offspring. That's called mutation. If the new organism is better suited to survive in its environment, then they'll multiply and eventually supplant their predecessors. That's called natural selection. When the two processes happen together over millions of years it's called evolution and it's how scientists think we go from ameobas to worms to fish to apes to people.

Creationism, on the other hand, would have us believe... what? That the first man was made out of clay? And the first woman was made from one of his ribs? And that the two of them gave rise to 6 billion people all over the world in something like 6 thousand years without catastrophic inbreeding? And that we're the only life in the whole insanely-vast universe?

One doesn't have to be a "Christianophobe" to find creationism a pretty unsensible proposition. If there's a phobia at work, it's an irrational fear on the part of some people to give up the dogmatic easy answers that have been drilled into them in order to control them and to learn something about science.

Don't use carbon dating. It's far too inaccurate at the moment to make any statements about the age of the earth.

C-14 is accurate to within about 1700-years, and of course there are isotopes with wider ranged. Obviously not so useful if we want to know the exact date when Lucy died, but it's enough to reasonably prove that some of these atoms started decaying a number of million years before God is said to have made it.

Well obviously any creatures in the sea for the most part would have survived the flood, the all life referred to land creatures mostly.



So you're saying the Bible is fallible and makes at least one mistaken representation?

[QUOTE=Undelia]And let’s also say that I am a magical self-conscious pixie living in an enchanted forest found in the hairy ears of an elderly Irish Catholic man. Where do you come up with this stuff?

The difference between my stuff and yours, is there is a chance I could be right, ie; there did exist an ark once, and there did exist dinosaurs, but absolutley no way did you live in the enchanted hairy ears of an old catholic man.
You see at least my story has some evidence.

I personally believe that the Arc was a magnificent miracle, but to hear you constantly change your argument and ignore the Bible while claiming to be Christian just to support an anti-evolution position is infuriating.

Sorry, but how have I changed my arguement?
How have I ignored the Bible??
How does this make me any less a Christian, for not blindly agreeing with the evolution theory???

Why do you think that? Where does the authority come from to make that interpretation? I'm all for strictly adhering to the Bible but it often seems to me like the creationists do as much twisting as the evolutionists.

I think that because the name of the chapter is "The Garden of Eden" and it doesn't mention creatures under the sea like it does in chapter one. The Church has the divine authority to interpret the Bible given to them by Jesus. Don't ask me where it says that cause I don't remember.

Or possibly restating that God created them. The Bible restates quite often.

What gives you the authority to make this interpretation and to say that it's any more valid than the idea that the creation story is a poem, written in verse, using metaphor to explain the fact that God created the world.

So you're saying the Bible is fallible and makes at least one mistaken representation?

No, I believe it word for word.
Our interpretations of it differ here because you believe that Noah was instructed to take in sealife as well, as it says in the Bible all life, where as I make the obvious connection to see that sealife didnt need to even be considered in this scenario for obvious reasons.

I think that because the name of the chapter is "The Garden of Eden" and it doesn't mention creatures under the sea like it does in chapter one. The Church has the divine authority to interpret the Bible given to them by Jesus. Don't ask me where it says that cause I don't remember.



hrm
"The Church" as you call it is a heretical Jewish cult.

Jesus didn't give anyone the Bible.
Jesus gave people an attitude for life. Love. Nothin' but love. Ja gave the same attitude. So have other people throughout history.

"The Church" is where it is said that "The Church" has such authority.

No, I believe it word for word.
Our interpretations of it differ here because you believe that Noah was instructed to take in sealife as well, as it says in the Bible all life, where as I make the obvious connection to see that sealife didnt need to even be considered in this scenario for obvious reasons.

You therefore disagree with the Bible. Q.E.D.

C-14 is accurate to within about 1700-years, and of course there are isotopes with wider ranged. Obviously not so useful if we want to know the exact date when Lucy died, but it's enough to reasonably prove that some of these atoms started decaying a number of million years before God is said to have made it.

Nope, sorry, I really do want c-dating to proove the age of the earth but it doesn't. It relies on an entirely false premise that the levels of c-14 in the atmosphere remain constant. See Petitt, the guy's fantastic.

Nope, sorry, I really do want c-dating to proove the age of the earth but it doesn't. It relies on an entirely false premise that the levels of c-14 in the atmosphere remain constant. See Petitt, the guy's fantastic.

I suppose I will, then. Does the problem apply to underground samples too? Can't see how atmospheric disturbance would get in the way of that.

No, I believe it word for word.
Our interpretations of it differ here because you believe that Noah was instructed to take in sealife as well, as it says in the Bible all life, where as I make the obvious connection to see that sealife didnt need to even be considered in this scenario for obvious reasons.



So "all life" is not "all" life?
Obvious or not, you're applying personal interpretation to your Holy Book, thus assuming you know something which is not expressly written within it. Such a belief has started more wars throughout history, been the basis for more crimes and assassinations throughout history, than you can shake a stick at.
Or are you assuming you have a spark of divinity within you that nobody else does?
Sounds rather PRIDEful to me.

No, I believe it word for word.
Our interpretations of it differ here because you believe that Noah was instructed to take in sealife as well, as it says in the Bible all life, where as I make the obvious connection to see that sealife didnt need to even be considered in this scenario for obvious reasons.

Word for Word? It's dangerous to believe the Bible word for word. Jesus spoke in parables, do you take them word for word or do you interpret them?

Its quite simple actually, and one devout Evolutionists or Christophobes hope doesnt get raised much: we all get born from something right? So what did the first men and women get born out of?
Proof that God created the first humans as he did with everything else, evolution is a crock!

Have you ever thought that maybe if/when God created the world, things were a little different than they are now? Perhaps God created all life forms and gave them the ability to adapt to their environments. Maybe he allowed for slight variations to take place within the same species. Over time, maybe the ones of that species that had the specific variation proved to be better suited for their environment and thus were able to live longer in it and survive to pass on their traits to the next generation. Over millions and millions of years, all these small variations within the species added up, changing it so much that it became completely different than the original species. And then maybe God said "It is good that my creations are able to adapt to this ever-changing world that I created."

Creationist thought and Evolutionary thought are not mutually exclusive!!!! You can believe in both. Charles Darwin did.

That's right. Darwin was a devout Christian. That little tidbit tends to get overlooked.

But even so, why worry about how we got where we are today? Why not instead enjoy life while we have it. And though you may think evolution is "a crock," there are plenty of beliefs in the Christian faith that seem just as outlandish to others. Why is it that it's considered noble when Christians attack anyone who posses different beliefs, yet if someone else attacks Christian beliefs, they are seen as evil/immoral/etc.? I don't get it.

But yea, I guess if I was trying to make a main point out of all of this it is this:
1) Creationism and Evolution are not necessarily contradictory, so stop treating it like an either/or dilemma!

2) Don't attack someone just because they happen to have different beliefs. Guarantee you that your beliefs sound just as silly to them as theirs do to you.

Thank you,
-TFSLOG

"Religion is the opiate of the masses" - Karl Marx

No, I believe it word for word.

Even though you don't know what those words are.

Our interpretations of it differ here because you believe that Noah was instructed to take in sealife as well, as it says in the Bible all life, where as I make the obvious connection to see that sealife didnt need to even be considered in this scenario for obvious reasons.

Ah, so you're ignorant of marine biology too.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH541.html

1. Layering of the floodwaters contradicts the Flood model, which proposes that the Flood was turbulent enough to stir up sediments on an incredible scale. The model proposes that the floodwaters became the present oceans, so all the water flowing into the oceans would have ensured that they were well mixed. The freshwater fish would have had no place to find fresh water.

2. The fact that many fish can tolerate wide ranges in salinity does not mean that all can. Furthermore, the problem applies to more than fish. Freshwater invertebrates are commonly used as indicators of the health of streams. Even a tiny amount of pollution can cause many species to disappear from the stream.

3. Aquatic organisms would have more than salinity to worry about, such as the following:

* Heat. All mechanisms proposed to cause the Flood would have released enough heat to boil the oceans. The deposition of limestone would release enough heat to boil them again. Meteors and volcanoes that occurred during the Flood, as implied by their presence in layers attributed to the Flood by flood geologists, would probably have boiled them again (Isaak 1998). Woodmorappe (1996, 140) dismissed the problem of volcanoes but ignored all the other sources of heat.
* Acid. The volcanoes that erupted during the Flood would also have produced sulfuric acid, enough to lower the pH of the ocean to 2.2, which would be fatal to almost all marine life (Morton 1998b).
* Substrate. Many freshwater and marine invertebrates rely on a substrate. They anchor themselves on the substrate and rely on currents to carry their food to them. During the Flood, substrates would have been uninhabitable at least part of the time, especially on land. Woodmorappe (1996, 141) suggested floating pumice as a substrate, but it would float with the currents, so currents would not bring nutrients to animals on them.
* Pressure. The Flood would have caused great fluctuation in sea pressures. Many deep-sea creatures invariably die from the decompression when brought to the surface. Other surface animals would die from too much pressure if forced deep underwater.


4. Woodmorappe predicted a sudden extinction of fish caused by the Flood. "[P]resent-day marine life is but an impoverished remnant of that which had originally been created and had existed before the Flood" (1996, 142). However, the actual pattern of extinction we see shows convincing disproof of the Flood. Living genera become decreasingly represented in fossils as one goes deeper in the geological column, until there are no recent genera in the Triassic, and only about 12 percent of recent genera have any fossil record. Extinct genera continue back to the Cambrian (Morton 1998a). This pattern exactly matches what one would expect from evolution. It contradicts a global flood, which should include modern fish more-or-less uniformly throughout the flood-deposited sediments.

But it indicates that you might lack faith in your own arguments and find it necessary to complement it by adding a source of authority.


This comment, and many of the other posts on this this thread (from both 'sides') show a fundamental lack of understanding of the scientific method.

Those of us who, like me, 'believe' in evolution can't ever prove creationists wrong because their 'proof' is intangible, based predominately on faith. Scientific proof, on the other hand, is based on empirical evidence and inductive reasoning. In other words, we 'believe' what we see, experience, or can otherwise assume to exist based on our sensory experience or that of others we trust.

Whenever creationists come up with a so-called 'proof' such as saying that 'god' placed dinosaur fossils on earth to test our faith, we can disprove this by citing a thousand studies, using carbon-dating or other scientific techniques, or pointing out the logical fallacies in their argument. Unfortunately this only disproves their argument within OUR logical paradigm, but doesn't make a difference to them. Similarly, creationists claim they can disprove our theories using their 'proofs', and again this works for them within their logical paradigm.

A case in point - creationists attack scientists by saying that evolution is 'only a theory', as if this meant it was somehow lesser than something which has been proved beyond doubt. Well, in science nothing is every proved beyond doubt, everything is open to debate, and when a new bit of evidence comes along that disproves a theory, it is reexamined and may be revised. So, if you want to argue with creationists I would suggest you do what several people in this thread have done and operate within their paradigm by pointing out inconsitencies between their arguments and what it says in the 'bible', or what other creationists say. Don't bother appealing to scientific reasoning, because they don't accept the fundamental principles of scientific argument. It's a waste of time. As, increasingly, is reading the posts on this thread.

Peace :fluffle:

I have an idea. This guy obviously has no clue about anything. He keeps stating things which are Biblically inaccurate while at the same time things that are Scientifically inaccurate. I say, for our sanity we stop posting on this over bloated thread. All this guy wanted was attention and we gave it to him. I for one am done with this sorry excuse for human communication. Of course, if my evolutionist comrades out there want to keep hammering him, go right ahead.

You obviously don't have much (if any) understanding of the theory of evolution. Nor do you seem to have much understanding of The Bible, either in text or in context.

God may have helped Noah with the engineering, but the 'Good Book' says that the thing was forty cubits long. A cubit is the distance between your wrist and shoulder (I believe, if it's not that it is an even smaller cross-section of the arm) which would put the ark at about eighty feet long. On that ark he supposedly placed two of every animal on earth. There are, of course HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of species on earth. An eighty foot long boat would have trouble holding two elephants, let alone two elephants, two lions, two bears, two South Carolina Parakeets, two etc., et alia.

A boat large enough to handle such a thing would have to be the size of, let's copriciously say, Australia. Even then, how Noah would have travelled to the far reaches of A Bahia and The Marshall Islands and The Arctic and New Jersey is without explanation.

The story is a frickin' parable, it's not literal.

And as far as evolution goes, the evidence for it is so great and so interwoven into all else we know about biology that were it to be anything but true the world would look very different from how it does now. All life today follows the same structure, DNA. These elements are composed in the same fashion within every living thing on the planet. Therefore, the problem of where the first homo sapien sapiens would have come from is an entirely specious one (no pun intended).

Evolution can be seen, not only throughout the fossil record, but aslo throughout the genetic record. Were we to not have any fossils we would still be able to conclusively come to evolution as point of fact. The same goes ibso facto for the genetic record. The fact that these MILLIONS of points of evidence line up without a single inconsistency should really tell you something.

All humans alive today can track their ancestry to a single homo sapien sapien. This does not mean that this is the first homo sapien sapien, it merely means that it is the last homo sapien sapien to still have progeny on this earth. The question of where she came from is easy: she was likely born of other homo sapiens whose other offspring did not survive.

Mutation and natural selection are not only noticeable, but also tautological. As far as noticeable goes, we have seen many examples of mutation within the last century alone. Moths living in soot-filled environments have turned black from white, because those with darker colors were better camoflagued against a darkened terrain. Many bateria have evolved organelles to combat our anti-biotics, which is why there is such a row currently about over prescription of such products. And of course, all domestic dogs were once wolves that were bread for qualities by and through mankind. To think that The Britney Spaniel, Terrier, Dauschound, and any other dog you have seen or owned were wolves just a few petty thousands of years ago is pretty awe inspiring.

It also helps in understanding what happens to organisms over HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS, as opposed to thousands, of years.

The big bang theory has nothing to do with evolution. Infact, a lot of cosmologists are falling onto other models recently that seem to answer more questions and fit more variables. That's the neat thing about science: it doesn't have to be right all the time. But it grows more and more correct over time. Much like, you guessed it, evolution.

If you have anymore questions or objections I assure you I can offer solutions to every single one of them. Remember that Darwin was religious and that many people who believe in and even study evolution are as well. The only inklings of modern-academic-atheism that existed before Darwin were those poised by David Hume. But Hume only stated the obvious proof that a universe does not imply a creator. To be sure, many other movements of atheism, agnosticism and so on existed before Hume, but as far as our current society, he was mostly the progenitor, with some shoulderstanding from Descartes, Epicurous, Diogenes, etc.

If you would like to know where humans evolved from, as far as modern evolutionary biology knows (and I should be clear in saying that even if some specifics end up being mistaken or new details emerge it would take something far more significant to upset the seat of Darwinism), here is a brief list:

Eubacteria (initial life)>archaea>mixotrich>plants>amoebozoans>fungi>drips>choanoflagellates>sponges>placozoans>ctenophores>cnidarians>acoelomorph flatworms>protostomes>ambulacrarians>sea squirts>lancelets>lampreys>sharks>ray-finned fish>coelacanths>lungfish>amphibians>Sauropsids>mammal-like reptiles>monotremes>marsupaisl>afrotheres>xenarthrans>laurasiatheres>rodents>colugos>lemurs>tarsiers>new world monkeys>old world monkeys>gibbons>orang utans>gorillas>chimpanzees>ape-men>habilnes>ergasts>archaic homo sapiens> homo sapien sapien

tada

I think that because the name of the chapter is "The Garden of Eden" and it doesn't mention creatures under the sea like it does in chapter one. The Church has the divine authority to interpret the Bible given to them by Jesus. Don't ask me where it says that cause I don't remember.

1. The titles of chapters are put in afterwards, durrr. Mine has the title "Another account of creation" lol.
2. The Church? Do you mean the Catholic Church? Don't get me started my brother. The point is that many other Churches don't use this interpretation and I don't think this is the place to argue denominational politics.
3. Fundamentally, you are arguing for creationism because it's what you're told to believe by the Church. That's even biblical.

Oh Dear God, please please please please please tell me you are joking. Firstly, its not a theory, its fact, it was doubtable when " Of Natural Selection" was first put forward, but now we have actual fossil evidence, and quite frankly, anyone who doubts Charles Dawins breakthrough, is a tosser.

I suppose I will, then. Does the problem apply to underground samples too? Can't see how atmospheric disturbance would get in the way of that.

You don't seem to quite understand what I'm getting at. The carbon in underground sample comes from when they were above ground and absorbing carbon from the atmosphere. C-14 dating assumes that organic matter is taking the same ammount of C-14 all the time. Therefore when the organic matter dies and stops taking in carbon then C-14 will stop entering and will begin to decay. This decay is what we're measuring. But, if the C-14 levels change, then you have now way of knowing what the levels of C-14 were originally and therefore you don't know how long the carbon has been decaying for.

[QUOTE=GMC Military Arms]Even though you don't know what those words are.

Your just flaming m8, ist that abit beneath amoderator?


Ah, so you're ignorant of marine biology too.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH541.html

No, I accept that alot of marine life would have died as well during the flood, and probably whole species wiped out.
Is your constant flaming of me here really necessary? Your supposed to be a moderator arent you?
Or perhaps you think you are you above the rules that everyone else has to follow?

You don't seem to quite understand what I'm getting at. The carbon in underground sample comes from when they were above ground and absorbing carbon from the atmosphere. C-14 dating assumes that organic matter is taking the same ammount of C-14 all the time. Therefore when the organic matter dies and stops taking in carbon then C-14 will stop entering and will begin to decay. This decay is what we're measuring. But, if the C-14 levels change, then you have now way of knowing what the levels of C-14 were originally and therefore you don't know how long the carbon has been decaying for.

Ah. Fair enough. (Forgive me, I'm on about a half hour of sleep at the moment.)

No, I believe it word for word.
Our interpretations of it differ here because you believe that Noah was instructed to take in sealife as well, as it says in the Bible all life, where as I make the obvious connection to see that sealife didnt need to even be considered in this scenario for obvious reasons.

Do you now? Word for word of which version? There are lots of different translations in lots of different languages, and they are in some places *very* different. So which version is the correct one? Since you seem to have vast and unique understanding of the divine I'm sure you should know that.

I would also point out the blinding ignorance in your sea life comment, but GMC already has it covered.

I have proof even more irrefutable than his is. Take a look here:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=425475

I guarantee you cannot refute that.

I have an idea. This guy obviously has no clue about anything. He keeps stating things which are Biblically inaccurate while at the same time things that are Scientifically inaccurate. I say, for our sanity we stop posting on this over bloated thread. All this guy wanted was attention and we gave it to him. I for one am done with this sorry excuse for human communication. Of course, if my evolutionist comrades out there want to keep hammering him, go right ahead.

Its people like you that give me more reason to believe in Christ.

1. The titles of chapters are put in afterwards, durrr. Mine has the title "Another account of creation" lol.
2. The Church? Do you mean the Catholic Church? Don't get me started my brother. The point is that many other Churches don't use this interpretation and I don't think this is the place to argue denominational politics.
3. Fundamentally, you are arguing for creationism because it's what you're told to believe by the Church. That's even biblical.

I'm not arguing for creationism. I'm an Atheist and therefore an Evolutionist. Arguing for creationism is the last thing I'd want to do. I do mean the Catholic church considering that they were the first church. And the official position of the Church is for Evolutionism, made official by John Paul 2 just before Steven Hawking delivered a speech on quasi-Steady State theory.

If you would like to know where humans evolved from, as far as modern evolutionary biology knows (and I should be clear in saying that even if some specifics end up being mistaken or new details emerge it would take something far more significant to upset the seat of Darwinism), here is a brief list:

Eubacteria (initial life)>archaea>mixotrich>plants>amoebozoans>fungi>drips>choanoflagellates>sponges>placozoans>ctenophores>cnidarians>acoelomorph flatworms>protostomes>ambulacrarians>sea squirts>lancelets>lampreys>sharks>ray-finned fish>coelacanths>lungfish>amphibians>Sauropsids>mammal-like reptiles>monotremes>marsupaisl>afrotheres>xenarthrans>laurasiatheres>rodents>colugos>lemurs>tarsiers>new world monkeys>old world monkeys>gibbons>orang utans>gorillas>chimpanzees>ape-men>habilnes>ergasts>archaic homo sapiens> homo sapien sapien

tada

I disagree on the last few steps. There is no such thing as habilines or ergasts. Also you make a huge jump in your "ape-men" step, you just jumped a whole mess of genera.Otherwise all seems scientifically sound. :)

Its people like you that give me more reason to believe in Christ.

Whose flaming now?

Oh Dear God, please please please please please tell me you are joking. Firstly, its not a theory, its fact, it was doubtable when " Of Natural Selection" was first put forward, but now we have actual fossil evidence, and quite frankly, anyone who doubts Charles Dawins breakthrough, is a tosser.



Speaking as one who leans much more towards Evolution than Creationism (as it pertains to this specific argumentative thread, at least), Evolution IS just a theory. EVERYTHING in science is just a theory. As has previously been said, nothing in science is proven beyond all doubt. NOTHING. Heap up all the evidence you want, but it remains JUST A THEORY. Even the theory of gravity is a just a theory. Science cannot prove anything any more or less than religions can. Some of us even refer to science as the "new" religion.
But, maybe we're just arguing semantics.... damn that tower of Bab El!

Of course, to they who bring up the scientific method, let us not forget that the scientific method cannot prove itself ;)

Well if you want to patronise, I'll make it simple for you as well.
One, why did only these particular apes evolve?
And why arent other apes going through this in other parts of the world now?

Because mutation is a tricky thing. It's very, very small chance the mutation happens and only happens in certain circumstances. The apes of our times are also evolved forms of what they used to be and their DNA (or genectic code) has changed. They have less chromosomes (or more, I'm not certain) and are incapable of mutating into humans. Their DNA can still mutate, but the chances of a 'human mutation' (simplification) is extremely small (as it was in prehistoric times) and even if it did happen, it would take several thousand years before we would notice (it's not like the Homo Sapiens just came into being either).
So, why did those apes evolve? Coincidence and need. Most likely, that group of apes migrated to the steppes. They would have to adjust to survive there (other predators and such) and by coincidence, they learned and evolved to stand upright. This trait became engraved in the DNA, thanks to mutation (and several other reasons. I said I simplified. If you to know all known factors, you should go to the library. They should have some fine books on the subject).
This upright stance allowed for a bigger brain-volume, thus increasing intelligence ect, ect.

Now, why do mutations happen? Mostly, they are faults in DNA-copying (you do believe DNA exists, right?). Most of the time, they are negative, or even deadly so they don't take to big an effect. Sometimes however, a mutation is succesful and passed on into the next generation and in the right circumstances, becomes so dominant it will chance an entire population over the years. And then, survival of the fittest kicks in.
A chain of mutations may even change a species that much they cannot even breed with members of non-mutated species, although they had the same species as ancestor. (Example: Dingos and Wolves)
This is all a big simplification ofcourse, and getting into all details would take us way to far. And I don't know everything about it, so I can't give you full details :)

No, I accept that alot of marine life would have died as well during the flood, and probably whole species wiped out.


But wait! Lots of marine species (most, in fact) that exist today are of the variety that would not survive the conditions of the flood. So where did they come from? Did they *gasp* evolve from the ones that survived?

I just wanted to throw my voice into the crowd -- I wanted to respond to a few key points of Chewbaccula's... if I had to guess, I would say that you're a young teenager that is just starting to think of these things on your own -- and I think that's totally cool, and the fact that you're willing to discuss it in the open with so many people throwing bile at you is all the more respectable. Nevertheless, you opened yourself to it, so I'm getting in on it...

QUOTE: Chewbaccula: Its quite simple actually, and one devout Evolutionists or Christophobes hope doesnt get raised much: we all get born from something right? So what did the first men and women get born out of? Proof that God created the first humans as he did with everything else, evolution is a crock!

Retort: This isn't proof that evolution is a crock. Just because scientists cannot provide absolute proof of an origin besides God's will for humanity's genesis doesn't mean that a god created mankind. Arguing along these lines is like me saying, "Guess what fruit I'm thinking of", and you guessing it's a grape, and I say no, and you guess it's an apple, and I say no, and then you say, "well then it has to be a grape!"

Just because you have run out of answers doesn't mean you've already found the correct one. You may need to keep looking. The nature of science is to keep probing until the correct answer is found -- so whereas evolution is based on scientific evidence but it still has some logical holes to fill, keep in mind that creationism is based purely on a supposition, and the only evidence that supports it is biblical. (I realize that may be all the evidence you need, but keep in mind that all the other evidence in the entire world is contradictory.)

QUOTE: Chewbaccula: Why not just accept instead that God was just always there, no beginning or end, like a circle. Because even if you cant admit it, you have nothing better to offer.

Retort: Once again, just because somebody "has nothing better to offer" doesn't mean that you are correct -- and it certainly doesn't mean that God created mankind. Just because the answer isn't staring you in the face doesn't mean it isn't there. I wholeheartedly admit that I can't solve this argument based on logic or scientific evidence -- but that doesn't mean your religious evidence is correct. Your answer isn't correct just because it's the only absolute one.

QUOTE: Chewbaccula: Presumably... personally I believe God created the monkeys and Humans at the same time, and made them like us to test our faith.

Retort: You're openly admitting that an all-loving god is attempting to trick his most beloved creation into going to Hell. Why would an all-loving god do such a thing? Do you think he came down, made the monkeys and humans and snickered to himself, thinking, "we'll see who believes in me now!"

Personally, I think this presumption of yours is simply a defense mechanism you've built up because you can't think of a better explanation that still lets you adopt the biblical creation story exclusively -- in other words, you can't come up with anything better, so you believe it.

That's all for now -- I'll see where this goes, if anywhere.

Do you now? Word for word of which version? There are lots of different translations in lots of different languages, and they are in some places *very* different. So which version is the correct one? Since you seem to have vast and unique understanding of the divine I'm sure you should know that.
I would also point out the blinding ignorance in your sea life comment, but GMC already has it covered.
I agreed with him, actually, as for your bible slur on me, I choose the King James version, although the Good News has a lot to offer as well.
Whether Im right or wrong about what I choose to believe in, still leaves me smelling like roses compared to some on here who not believing in God, throw pathetic insults and slurs, indeed you would wonder if their so correct, why they would even bother to sink this low, unless its a natural state for them to begin with.

I'm not arguing for creationism. I'm an Atheist and therefore an Evolutionist. Arguing for creationism is the last thing I'd want to do. I do mean the Catholic church considering that they were the first church. And the official position of the Church is for Evolutionism, made official by John Paul 2 just before Steven Hawking delivered a speech on quasi-Steady State theory.



Sorry, but the Catholic Church was not, in fact, the first church. There were many different factions prior to the establishment of Catholicism, the Gnostics being one of them. Learn some history, and remember that it is generally written by those in control.

I'm not arguing for creationism. I'm an Atheist and therefore an Evolutionist. Arguing for creationism is the last thing I'd want to do. I do mean the Catholic church considering that they were the first church. And the official position of the Church is for Evolutionism, made official by John Paul 2 just before Steven Hawking delivered a speech on quasi-Steady State theory.

Sorry about that, silly assumption. Hope you do find faith though, it really is quite jolly. God can be a very useful guy to have around.

BTW the Catholic Church was not the first church, it just claims to be. It has nothing to do with the first churches mentioned in the bible.

Your just flaming m8, ist that abit beneath amoderator?

Call that flaming? You don't know what the words are; throughout this debate you've displayed staggering ignorance of scripture while proudly proclaiming it to be infallable, something which has even offended those who are supposed to be on your side.

Is your constant flaming of me here really necessary? Your supposed to be a moderator arent you?

There is no flaming. Saying you are ignorant because you lack even the most basic working knowledge of both scripture and science is a simple statement of fact, not flaming. 'Your argument is idiotic, therefore you are an idiot' is a valid logical statement, not a flame. You are either that or a troll, and either way this thread has far outstayed its welcome. Locked.