Questions For Evolutionists [Archive]

Nox Acipitris

07-01-2006, 19:54

The Squeaky Rat

07-01-2006, 19:58

these questions can be found at this site
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=76

Tell me... if I were to ask you why you call Jesus good even though the Bible clearly states he anally raped a six year old boy - what would you answer ?
If it would be something like "you are just making bullshit up, so you can attack the bullshit and hope to discredit me" you have just answered most of your questions.

Cannot think of a name

07-01-2006, 20:00

I'll make the same request here as the other atheist thread-

When they come through and thrash the whole deal, you won't 'innocently' make a thread in a week or whatever asking why the mean ol' atheists pick on you. Like I said in the other one, you can have all the imaginary friends you want, just don't wake us up to tell us all about him or try to make policy based on what he whispers in your ear. And if you start the arguement don't puss out and act all picked on if we have it.

Teh_pantless_hero

07-01-2006, 20:01

Nox Acipitris

07-01-2006, 20:01

Tell me... if I were to ask you why you call Jesus good even though the Bible clearly states he anally raped a six year old boy - what would you answer ?
If it would be something like "you are just making bullshit up, so you can attack the bullshit and hope to discredit me" you have just answered most of your questions.

Stay on topic im talking about creation vs evolution not Jesus.

Alinania

07-01-2006, 20:02

uh... do you really want anyone to answer all this?
...are you planning on reading through all the responses if someone bothers actually postin them??

Nox Acipitris

07-01-2006, 20:03

The Squeaky Rat

07-01-2006, 20:06

Stay on topic im talking about creation vs evolution not Jesus.

I AM on topic. The Jesus question I posted was based on false information: I falsely stated the Bible made a certain claim and then proceded to attack that claim.
Your questionnaire does the same. For instance, it asks why matter is perfectly organised and then keeps going on about it. But matter *isn't* perfectly organised, so the question is just as meaningless as my Jesus question.

Clear ?

[NS:::]Elgesh

07-01-2006, 20:08

Stay on topic im talking about creation vs evolution not Jesus.

My friend, who the _fuck_ do you think we are?! I'm with Alinania, that's a completely unreasonable opening post, there's far too much there to begin a sensible debate:D

Why don't you pare it down, start with what you think you'd like to have answered most; as the thread progresses, you can introduce new 'sub-topics'. Or, if you'd rather, why not divide it up into threads?

As it stands, the post is far too long for a format like a debate thread; a reasonable reply would be a 5000 word essay, which I'm afraid, realistically, none of us have the time to type! But break it up, and maybe you'll start a (series of?) useful, engaging thread(s) :)

good luck, from Elgesh :)

Bobs Own Pipe

07-01-2006, 20:12

uh... do you really want anyone to answer all this?No, this is just another exercise in mental masturbation. Most likely cut-n-pasted from some masturbatory source.
...are you planning on reading through all the responses if someone bothers actually postin them??No. Count on the OP either studiously avoiding the wild-card, actual reasoned responses, or on a 'talking-parrot' line-by-line dismissal of any wild-card, actual reasoned responses.

The Squeaky Rat

07-01-2006, 20:13

Elgesh']As it stands, the post is far too long for a format like a debate thread; a reasonable reply would be a 5000 word essay, which I'm afraid, realistically, none of us have the time to type!

No, I already answered 90% of the questions on that list by pointing out they are based on a false representation of what evolution is. If the topicstarter wants a serious debate, he should provide serious questions based on fact rather than made up lies and false implications.

Matter is not perfectly organised - so those questions are meaningless.
Things like the evolution of the eye have been included in almost every standard biology textbook for the past few decades. Pretending they can not be explained through evolution is therefor nothing more than a lie. Etc. etc.

Drunk commies deleted

07-01-2006, 20:14

Common creationist tactic. Ask a shitload of questions, most of which require a long and complex answer, and then act all smug when the scientists can't answer them all in a couple of sentences or poke holes in simplefied answers given due to time constraints.

If you really want to know, look it up. http://www.talkorigins.org/

Megaloria

07-01-2006, 20:14

God told me that Evolution is true. There. Eat it.

Hyperbia

07-01-2006, 20:16

uh... do you really want anyone to answer all this?
...are you planning on reading through all the responses if someone bothers actually postin them??

This is a VERY old topic, like in the order of 2 years. All the same questions in the same order, took me almost 3 hours to type out the answer, and I don't think anyone read it.

[NS:::]Elgesh

07-01-2006, 20:16

No, I already answered 90% of the questions on that list by pointing out they are based on a false representation of what evolution is. If the topicstarter wants a serious debate, he should provide serious questions based on fact rather than made up lies.

Give him a change; if you have to edit stuff, sometimes you realise you didn't need xx% of it in the first place, it was just there for padding. I'm sure the OP will prove reasonable :)

Quaon

07-01-2006, 20:18

Ughh. For the last time, just because you believe in Evolution doesn't mean you can't believe in God. You want to know my views? Heres what I think: God did create everything, but not in 7 days. IMO, he started the most basic of life, and using his infinte wisdom, designed how the species of the world would devolop from there.

Another thing I would like to say to show that science and faith are not mutually exclusive: Energy can be changed, but not created or destroyed. Than what created energy? I believe God created energy.

I think there's a passage in the Bible that says something like "And God created the world in a such a strange way so those who think they are wise will be fools." Many believe this is referring to evolutionists, but I think it's referring to creationists. Think about it. Is creationism very strange? Evolution is strange, not creationism.

Santa Barbara

07-01-2006, 20:18

Liskeinland

07-01-2006, 20:22

What the hell. I'm going to answer these.

Where did the space for the universe come from? The Creator.
Where did matter come from? ^
Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)? ^
How did matter get so perfectly organized? Things do have a tendency to organise themselves, you know, given the physical laws which in themselves generate order.
Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing? The Creator. (You see? Evolutionist does not equal atheist)
With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce? That's an interesting one. I don't know the answer to that, how single-celled organisms which produce identical offspring can actually evolve. Anyone care to answer it for me?
Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to surviv e, or the species? How do you explain this?) It does not decrease the chances of survival. Food is everywhere for most animals, and so there is not much reason not to reproduce. And what the hell does this have to to with evolution?
How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.) The genetic language of ADGC or whatever is always the same. Therefore, your analogy is irrelevant.
Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor? They prove neither, they just indicate to one of either.
Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occ urred if evolution were true? Natural selection does not lead to absolute stability because organisms are different. Therefore, there will always be a certain level of changing. Now go and stretch the effects of that over several million years and countless generations.

I'm not going to bother to answer the rest.

Nox Acipitris

07-01-2006, 20:24

Wow, I sure am impressed by your ability to copy and paste.

Tell you what, I'll just concede. The answer to each and every one of those questions would be too much effort and thought, so I'll just give the only logical answer:

God did it.

There, happy?
yes i did copy and paste it and for the same reason you guys dont want to answer any of the question becuase it would take far to long to think about on my own and far to long to type out.

Drunk commies deleted

07-01-2006, 20:24

Saint Curie

07-01-2006, 20:25

Imagine two guys looking at a 10 mile wide math problem, etched into the side of a canyon in 10 pt font and supremely difficult.

GUY1: This looks complicated. I can only solve this small part here, right now, and I'll have to study the rest of my life to solve another part of it. My kids and their kids will have to learn the rest. Wanna help?

GUY2: I believe the answer to the whole thing is "1".

GUY1: How did you arrive at that?

GUY2: Prayer and faith.

GUY1: That's not a very good proof.

GUY2: OH YEAH? WHAT'S THE SOLUTION TO THAT PART? AND THAT PART? AND OVER THERE?

GUY1: I don't know yet, I'm still working on a real proof.

GUY2: THEN YOU'RE JUST AS WRONG AS ME FOR BELIEVING ITS "1"!!!

GUY1: But, I'm just saying, you haven't really solved anything, you just believe. I'm working on an actual solution, but it will take lifetimes.

GUY2: NO! SINCE YOU CAN'T SOLVE THE WHOLE THING NOW, YOU MUST BELIEVE THE ANSWER IS "1" OR YOU'RE WRONG!

GUY1: Okay, so, you don't want to help then.

Ivia

07-01-2006, 20:26

yes i did copy and paste it and for the same reason you guys dont want to answer any of the question becuase it would take far to long to think about on my own and far to long to type out.
So why should we bother spending the time to answer 'your' questions, when you can't even be bothered to type them out on your own?

Santa Barbara

07-01-2006, 20:28

yes i did copy and paste it and for the same reason you guys dont want to answer any of the question becuase it would take far to long to think about on my own and far to long to type out.

No, I don't want to answer your questions because you didn't make them, and you wouldn't be satisfied with ANY answer given because your faith has convinced you that your 'answer' (GOD DID IT) is 100% correct no matter what.

Your whole tactic here is to pose too many questions for anyone to bother answering, and then when shockingly no one bothers to answer them all, you go "Aha! See? God must exist! Neener neener neener!"

So really, your post is just an exercise in mental masturbation. Heck it's not even masturbation, it's having someone ELSE masturbate you and then pointing at the result and going "AHA! See? God must exist!"

Saint Curie

07-01-2006, 20:32

So really, your post is just an exercise in mental masturbation. Heck it's not even masturbation, it's having someone ELSE masturbate you and then pointing at the result and going "AHA! See? God must exist!"

I don't think we should compare the post of Nox Acipitris to masturbation, since masturbation is useful and has a reason.

Nox, when you don't know the answer to something, is it better to:

A: Make up a supernatural reason, like a God or Gods.

OR

B: Admit you don't know and increase research funding until you do know.

If, for every scientific question we couldn't answer in the past, imagine if we had just said, "Oh, God did it". You likely wouldn't have that computer to post with.

Liskeinland

07-01-2006, 20:36

Ooh… I'll do this as well.

1) How do you know god is not evil? Define evil relative to the possible creator of morality. [/sidestep]
2) How many times are angels mentioned in the bible? The Koran? Lucifer + Gabriel in the Bible, Gabriel in the Koran.
3) Why is it wrong to eat bacon wrapped scallops? Disease.
4) Which version of the bible is the divinely inspired one and why? The one in the original languages, for obvious reasons.
5) Why doesn't god ever show up for dinner? Shh! There are things you're not supposed to talk about over dinner!
6) If god created every species, why are there catterpillars in Hawaii that only eat plants that were introduced 1000 years ago? Because life is a wonderful thing that changes and grows into brighter colours. :)
7) If you mix up the letters in your mother's maiden name does it provide evidence of a virgin birth? Does this have anything to do with those Jedi name generators?
8) If someone stole your wallet, who would that someone be? Guy Fawkes.
9) How many roads must a man walk down before he wears out his shoes? 42, of course.
10) Do monkeys think humans are cute? I think only Gerald Durrell could answer that question.
11) Did god experiment with other intelligent life forms on other planets? Why else would we have :gundge: ?
12) Is it inhumane to eat meat? It's certainly not inhuman.
13) Why do we drive on a parkway and park on a driveway? Let's blame the Americans and their weird peculiarities of language.
14) If god loves people, why does he let awful stuff happen to them? I don't approve of your smoking, but I'll let you find out that it's bad for yourself. [/analogy]
15) What's fermat's last theorem? Ooh! Ooh! I know this one! Theory/em of Everything!
16) What kind of dog should everyone get? A mongrel is the purest breed of dog.
17) Where did god come from? Christian: "God created the world, because the world must have a cause."
Atheist: "So who caused God?"
Christian: "God doesn't need a cause."
Atheist: "So why does the world need a cause?"
Logical meltdown ensues.
18) Is god male? Male, adj.:
a. Of, relating to, or designating the sex that has organs to produce spermatozoa for fertilizing ova.
b. Characteristic of or appropriate to this sex; masculine.
c. Consisting of members of this sex.

No.
19) Who is god having sex with? I heard some very strange theology about this a couple of days ago…

If you can't answer all those questions to my satisfaction in 10 minutes or less I can assume that all theists are full of shit. But we are. I've never met anyone who wasn't. :confused:

Iztatepopotla

07-01-2006, 20:37

Isn't it funny that to attack evolution, abiogenesis, and the big-bang (to believe that they're the same thing or related to the same thing is the first sign of the deep ignorance and lack of scientific understanding that this poster reflects) a theist would ask "when, where, why, and how" when theistic doctrines are notorious for lack of detail.

Liskeinland

07-01-2006, 20:38

Nox Acipitris

07-01-2006, 20:38

1) How do you know god is not evil?
2) How many times are angels mentioned in the bible? The Koran?
3) Why is it wrong to eat bacon wrapped scallops?
4) Which version of the bible is the divinely inspired one and why?
5) Why doesn't god ever show up for dinner?
6) If god created every species, why are there catterpillars in Hawaii that only eat plants that were introduced 1000 years ago?
7) If you mix up the letters in your mother's maiden name does it provide evidence of a virgin birth?
8) If someone stole your wallet, who would that someone be?
9) How many roads must a man walk down before he wears out his shoes?
10) Do monkeys think humans are cute?
11) Did god experiment with other intelligent life forms on other planets?
12) Is it inhumane to eat meat?
13) Why do we drive on a parkway and park on a driveway?
14) If god loves people, why does he let awful stuff happen to them?
15) What's fermat's last theorem?
16) What kind of dog should everyone get?
17) Where did god come from?
18) Is god male?
19) Who is god having sex with?

If you can't answer all those questions to my satisfaction in 10 minutes or less I can assume that all theists are full of shit.

these questions were ment for atheists but i will answer yours to the best of my ability
1) How do you know god is not evil? I dont i havent met him/her/organised species
2) How many times are angels mentioned in the bible? The Koran? to many times that i dont want to bother counting as for the koran i dont know im not islamic and/ or never cared to read it
3) Why is it wrong to eat bacon wrapped scallops? i dont think it its
4) Which version of the bible is the divinely inspired one and why? good question
5) Why doesn't god ever show up for dinner? i never invited him onver
6) If god created every species, why are there catterpillars in Hawaii that only eat plants that were introduced 1000 years ago? if one species can eat more than one type of food i dont think theres anything wrong with that
7) If you mix up the letters in your mother's maiden name does it provide evidence of a virgin birth? no.... dont see where that one was going...
8) If someone stole your wallet, who would that someone be? someone who needed my money more than i did.
9) How many roads must a man walk down before he wears out his shoes? as many roads as it takes
10) Do monkeys think humans are cute? dont ask me ask a monkey
11) Did god experiment with other intelligent life forms on other planets? i dont know possibly if there is a god
12) Is it inhumane to eat meat? if god ment us to be vegan animals would be made of veggies
13) Why do we drive on a parkway and park on a driveway? interesting question
14) If god loves people, why does he let awful stuff happen to them? according to the bible god gave man the ability to make his own desicsions
15) What's fermat's last theorem? never heard of the guy
16) What kind of dog should everyone get?
17) Where did god come from? well if i thought like an athesist he would have created himself to explain his existense
18) Is god male? god is described in thye the book of genisies in plural so it could be a race of beings
19) Who is god having sex with? his wife?

Nureonia

07-01-2006, 20:41

As has been said, this isn't an 'evolution vs creationism' topic, because you're meshing in the Big Bang theory and abiogenesis.

Iztatepopotla

07-01-2006, 20:43

yes i did copy and paste it and for the same reason you guys dont want to answer any of the question becuase it would take far to long to think about on my own and far to long to type out.
Plus, really, the time of all of us would be better spent if you went and read about science (it's history, what it is and isn't, etc.), then Cosmos, by Carl Sagan, a couple of things by Stephen Gould, get a subscription to Discover or Scientific American, and then you would be better prepared to confront scientific and religious though, and perhaps why Dr Dino's questions are so stupid that barely merit consideration. And then you would have actually good questions to bring to this forum.

You clearly don't understand at least one of the issues, and until you do, you wouldn't be able to posit good questions or understand the answers.

Quaon

07-01-2006, 20:44

You said "he gave man the ability to decide stuff for themselves." We can't decide if we are going to be hit by a Tsunami. Why does God let those kinds of things happen, was his question.

Grave_n_idle

07-01-2006, 20:44

these questions can be found at this site
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=76

Questions for Evolutionists
Various

Where did.... so, call me.

Most of these questions have nothing to do with evolution....

Bobs Own Pipe

07-01-2006, 20:47

yes i did copy and paste it and for the same reason you guys dont want to answer any of the question becuase it would take far to long to think about on my own and far to long to type out.

Then allow me to grace your laziness with some of my own. Sure it's just cut-n-pasted, and of course, it has nothing to do with your erm, 'topic', but then again, your OP had nothing to do with your own creative or intellectual input, so I figure this is about all your cretinous thread dreserves:

How to Replace a Typewriter Ribbon

Electric typewriters often have cartridge ribbons, whereas manuals have old-fashioned spool ribbons.

Steps:
1. Lift the top off the typewriter.

2. Remove the old ribbon. On a manual, lift the spools out directly. For a cartridge, press the release lever.

3. Set aside.

4. Place the new cartridge in the holder and snap down.

5. For a spool model, place the two spools in the holders.

6. Thread the ribbon through the wire holding it in front of the roller.

7. Close the top.

Tips:
You may be able to reuse an old spool ribbon by flipping it over.

Warnings:
Don't put the red ink side of the ribbon up unless you want to type in red ink.

- also available here. (http://www.ehow.com/how_2998_replace-typewriter-ribbon.html)

Greenlander

07-01-2006, 20:48

*snip* reposted questions below.

1) How do you know god is not evil?
Because darkness cannot be well lit.

2) How many times are angels mentioned in the bible? The Koran?
99 times in the NIV Bible. Qur'an, 79 times.

3) Why is it wrong to eat bacon wrapped scallops?
It's not wrong.

4) Which version of the bible is the divinely inspired one and why?
All of them that were translated by believers whom prayed for guidance before and during translating.

5) Why doesn't god ever show up for dinner?
Does it all the time. Matthew 25:37-40
37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

6) If god created every species, why are there catterpillars in Hawaii that only eat plants that were introduced 1000 years ago?
For the same reason some people/children eat only junk food when it was invented only a few decades ago. They like it.

7) If you mix up the letters in your mother's maiden name does it provide evidence of a virgin birth?
No.

8) If someone stole your wallet, who would that someone be?
The thief.

9) How many roads must a man walk down before he wears out his shoes?
One.

10) Do monkeys think humans are cute?
No.

11) Did god experiment with other intelligent life forms on other planets?
No. God has not experimented with 'intelligent' life on any planet. :p

12) Is it inhumane to eat meat?
No.

13) Why do we drive on a parkway and park on a driveway?
You park and drive on both.

14) If god loves people, why does he let awful stuff happen to them?
'Awful' is a speculative word.

15) What's fermat's last theorem?
xn + yn = zn

16) What kind of dog should everyone get?
Everyone does get dog tired from time to time.

17) Where did god come from?
There was no place to come from until God created the Heavens and Earth.

18) Is god male?
God is neither male nor female, but God is both Masculine and Feminine

19) Who is god having sex with?
No one.

If you can't answer all those questions to my satisfaction in 10 minutes or less I can assume that all theists are full of shit.
You lied, your satisfaction is fluid and what you meant by the word satisfaction ten minutes ago is different than it is now.

Bel-Da-Raptora

07-01-2006, 20:54

Where did the space for the universe come from?
Cotradition, Space (and space for that matter) is the universe, the four dimetions of space-time that contains everything is the universe. In a sence it making its oven roon in teh cosmic infinity (which may just be realy realy realy realy very very BIG)

Where did matter come from?
Enery: E=MC^2

Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
They ar ethe way we persive thing react under sertain conditions. They come from teh was matter and enery interact in this universe.

How did matter get so perfectly organized?
its not anyway nearly perfectly organised. There bloody geat holes in if fore one thing, and all the diffent bits are mixed up, and is spead out and soem of it is being changed to energy. Wheer did you get the idear that it was perfect??

Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
Well its not organised, and the energy came from matterm (E=MC^2 again)

When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
Soem piont around 4.7 billion years ago, a mollecule was randomly formed that could replacate itself. Soem wheer in teh primordial seas. Replication is a basic deffintion of life.

When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
As I said, it wernt life until it could reproduce.

With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
Well only multi cellula organiams are capable of sexual reprodution. And it would reproduce with another. Itys perfectly possible for a living organism to be capable of both sexual and asexual reprodution to headyou off at teh pass at a retort.

Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival?
(Does the individual have a drive to surviv e, or the species? How do you explain this?)
The piont of life is to ensure the contioation of life forever, witha prefence fore the thigs that are most live it. All living things die eventualy, therefore it is better that they live forever in teh geans(or other complex molecules) that they pass on to teher offspring. All things wish for theer geans to survive, though not always at eh cost of teher own.

How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
Btu you could get a book teh would make them with chineas sounds Ie. Chow, lee ect. A mutation would be diffent, soem times better sometimes worse some times just diffent. Geane sequence is all teh same langae, all telling the same thing just dictating the order at withch proitins are made. so a chande in structure would mean a diffent prtione was made that may have a larhger effect.

Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
Possible yes. Likly No. The thory of evoltion has been proven (poeticaly, with teh very galapagos finches Darwin looked at), and and is self supporting with the need of any outside force, such as a creator or creators.

Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occ urred if evolution were true?
Yuo can start with simple genetic code and simple genetic code can remain and survive. But if more complex genetic code is developed by natural selection, it will be better than atleast some of teh existing code. Wash, Rince, and Repeat unit you have very complicated genetic code.

When, where, why, and how did:
Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
Its more likly some cells fored a collany, gorping together for protection or other resons. Then soem of teh cells wold specialise in making things like Enzymes and Toxins, wich tehey can do more efficently if tehy devote themselves to it while others would continue to creat nutuence to ceep the otehr cells alive. This way teh collany becomes more biologicaly competative, and mor likey to survive, Its offspring may tehn form otehr collanys, wich may grow larger and more complex. The real question is when do many single cells depending on eachother for survival becone a single organism?

Single-celled animals evolve?
see above

Fish change to amphibians?
when tehy started to collanise the land

Amphibians change to reptiles?
Dont know, but it doent seem unlikly.

Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
But not that diffent form Dinosaws. Are you teh only person on the planet who hassnt seen jerasic park?

How did the intermediate forms live?
As dinosaws lived,

When, where, why, how, and from what did:
Whales evolve?
i think theer from some kind of large otter like animal.

Sea horses evolve?
From fish, there not that far off

Bats evolve?
Vowls or somthing simila. Possibly with an interim akin to flying squirrils.

Eyes evolve?
Ears evolve?
Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
Dont know any of these but Ill give you a possible arnser for eyes. Light sesative clls collanise together. This allows teh orginism to snce wither it is ligjht or dark. Advantage. It thirives. Cells develop that can sence the suple changes in teh ligh caused by motion. Advantage. This rutin contiunes, with each advantage leading progressivly along teh rought to teh eye. And REMEMBER, not all changes need be advantages. They could be nutral at teh tiem or even a dissadvantage, as long as it is not a biggenough dissagvantage so that its cannot survive.

Which evolved first (how, and how long; did it work without the others)?
Dont know, but there will be soem kind of anser for this, even if its a bit genral.

The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?

The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
Again, Life can be defined at the abbility to reproduce, so form teh beginning.

The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
1. The gas we breath is not perfect, 70%+ is useless/piosnous to us.
2, the lungs develop to teh gas not teh other way around.

DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?

The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
The immune system or the need for it?

There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?
Name one, nothing can defie it because its an open argument. It will cange with ech exection true excetion you can find to include it.

How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?

When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
Sentiant beings are exemt form it coz they can change theer own evoltion by consious choice. IE. you have be able to say I think therefore I am, before you can become racist.

I dont mind religion. Its a got good idears and it makes ppl happy. What I mind is when it decides taht It is teh only unversal truth, and what soem dead gye rote in a book 800years ago defince this truth.

The sooner religion wakes up and smell that evolution is happening and admits it, the better.

Would it kill people who belive to say that god, created all things to be changalbe in a changing world.

Grave_n_idle

07-01-2006, 20:57

Whales evolve?
i think theer from some kind of large otter like animal.

Current thinking suggests 'ambulocetus', I believe...

Cannot think of a name

07-01-2006, 21:01

1) How do you know god is not evil?
Because darkness cannot be well lit.

Pff. You've never seen Barry Lyndon...

Sarkhaan

07-01-2006, 21:13

First of all, don't copy and paste without any personal explination. It is annoying, because we have seen all of these a dozen times before.

second, I'm really bored, so I'm gonna answer against my better judgement.

these questions can be found at this site
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=76

Questions for Evolutionists
Various

Where did the space for the universe come from?
Where did matter come from?
Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
How did matter get so perfectly organized?
Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
The above questions have nothing, I repete NOTHING to do with evolution. If you are going to critique a theory, then you may want to know the theory and actually critique it.
When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to surviv e, or the species? How do you explain this?)
It is unknown what the exact dates times and locations are, as no one saw it. However, bacteria can absorb genetic information that is just "floating" around, as well as connect with other bacterium. As the logical progression goes, these acts became more specialized to be sexual functions that worked with asexual reproduction, and later, sexual reproduction. Therefore, there wouldn't need to be multiple cells that could engage in sexual reproduction. All of its children would have been able to, and as most cells were clones, genetic defects on the fatal level would have been rare, if not impossible. Having children does not decrease your individual chance of survival, and increases your genetic survivability (if you never have children, then there is no way your genes will be passed down)
How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.) Aside from the fact that English and Chinese are different languages with different alphabets, this is a false analogy. All DNA uses the letters A T C and G. These are broken into groups of three. There are 64 different combinations, and 24 different amino acids they program for (as well as start and stop codons). As such, many mutations result in no change. the genetic code has a program match for any of the 64 possible combinations. Language does not have a meaning for every "word" that can be created out of the 26 English letters and thousands of Chinese characters.
Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
That has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution makes no speculation about a creator. It simply explains the function that life changes over time. Actually, many "creationists" also fall under your category of "evolutionist". Evolution deals with what happened AFTER life started.
Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occ urred if evolution were true? This can be explained by start and stop codons. These codons can move or evolve in new spots. Also, there are genetic mutations like duplication, insertions, deletions...the code can get longer. Additionally, from the apes to humans, there was an overall loss of chromosomes. Both happen.
When, where, why, and how did:
Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
Single-celled animals evolve?
um...okay. I'll say this slowly. two and three celled "intermediates" ARE MULTICELLED! They are not single celled. Therefore, they are multicelled. Anyway, they were probably developed by a process of symbiosis. Several plant cells/animal cells survived better by forming a small colony. Sooner or later, it became beneficial for these colonies to reproduce at the same time, creating a full daughter colony. These colonies became more complex and got more specialized parts. Look at the Portugese Man Of War for a modern day example of a colony of specialized parts that exist and reproduce together.
Fish change to amphibians?
Amphibians change to reptiles?
Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
How did the intermediate forms live?
When, where, why, how, and from what did:
Whales evolve?
Sea horses evolve?
Bats evolve?
Eyes evolve?
Ears evolve?
Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
look up "transitional fossils" on google. I don't feel like doing your research for you.
Which evolved first (how, and how long; did it work without the others)?
The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
First life was cannibalistic. Therefore, food was first. Appetite is a conscious thing, and the first life was not conscious. Finding and eating food consisted of bumbing into it and forming around it. digestive system, juices, and resistance were a slow development to their current status. Creatures with stronger stomach acid could digest better, and thsoe who could resist those stronger acids could then survive better. Oh, and releasing a bit more mucus isn't such a big change. You do it when you get a runny nose. Irritation=mucus.
The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
The immune system or the need for it?
asking the same damn question 20 times is annoying.
There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?
Give an example of the things that defy evolutionary explanation. Also, we don't have to teach students it was just evolution. We can teach them something new when someone creates a theory that competes. CREATIONISM DOESN'T. GET OVER IT.
How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?
the question answers itself. Evolution would say it evolved by chance and lasted because of natural selection. Why would evolution use the terms "intelligent choice" or "design"?
When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
Look at promate evolution. helping one another actually INCREASES the chance of genetic survival. Using primates as an example, a chimp is more likely to call out if a child, parent, or sibling is in trouble. These animals share 50% of their genes. Therefore, even if the individual dies, it is actually MORE beneficial if three of their relatives live. Do your research before making claims.
*How did photosynthesis evolve?
simple chemical process. Chloroplasts evolved the ability, a cell "ate" chloroplasts and didn't digest them, but instead took the energy. Same process that mitochondrions were absorbed.
*How did thought evolve?
That is more of a behavioral modification. However, it probably rose with the development of a brain from just a cluster of nerves.
*How did flowering plants evolve, and from that?
see where I bitched about asking the same question 20 times? make it 21.
*What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds? this has nothing to do with evolution, but instead about me personally.
what would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium? Ohhh...pretty coelacanth.
Is thereere one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true? In the short time since the theory was created? no. Evolution isn't a rapid process. However, there are clear trends displayed within the finch populations Darwin first studied regarding beak size and weather patterns. (children born after dry years=larger beaks for harder foods, opposite for rainy years)
*What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?
better yet, what does this have to do with ANYTHING?
*Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?
No, those are creationists. Evolution does not deal with the origins of life.
After you have answered the preceding questions, please look carefully at your answers and thoughtfully consider the following questions.

Yeah. So most of the questions were either repetitive or had nothing to do with evolution. Before you critique a theory, RESEARCH IT! you may just learn something and not sound like an total idiot. Also, don't just copy and paste someone elses work. Besides the fact that they, themselves, got stuff wrong, it doesn't exactly flatter you to perpetuate these mistakes.

and why did I waste my time with that?

Randomlittleisland

07-01-2006, 21:49

I'd like to commend Bel-Da-Raptora and Sarkhaan for their excessive patience in answering a seemingly endless stream of inane questions, however, I fear that your patience will only lead to more questions.

Never the less, well done.

Randomlittleisland

07-01-2006, 21:49

Randomlittleisland

07-01-2006, 21:51

Randomlittleisland

07-01-2006, 21:53

Oops, triple post.

I'm afraid my Jolt acount is screwed up so I can't delete them.

Grave_n_idle

07-01-2006, 22:02

Oops, triple post.

I'm afraid my Jolt acount is screwed up so I can't delete them.

It was worth saying three times... :)

The Jovian Moons

07-01-2006, 22:20

All right the first questions about the universe have nothing to do with evolution. Just because I beleive in evolution doesn't mean I'm an atheist, and all you're doing is making religious people look bad.

With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
Single celled organisms are mostly A-Sexual. You've just failled bio.

Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to surviv e, or the species? How do you explain this?)
Because those that didn't had their genes evolve out of the gene pool. Why don't you try it?

Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
Multi means more than one, two is more than one. Now you've failled math as well.

Single-celled animals evolve?
No because there are no signle celled Animals. All animals are multicell. (in case you forgot that means they have more than one cell)

Fish change to amphibians? Amphibians change to reptiles?
Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
Yes. So? It took millions of years.

How did the intermediate forms live?
?? By not dying? This queston makes no sense.

When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
Your first somewhat resonable question! Congradulations! Chemical reactions in the brain. I think influenced by a soul, but a soul is unprovable just like God, so ID is also unprovable.

What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?
Evolution isn't a physical trait, so if you're implying lack of variation this is a stupid argument.

What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?
The same thing you would have said if I had said it to you, "Let me see it".

*Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?
Not 100% but has any evidence of God ever been found? No, so even if evolution is wrong ID will never be proven true. (most likely because it's wrong)

Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"?
I don't know about faith but they show more common sense

They are too proud to admit they are wrong.
How many years did it take the Church to say the Earth orbits the sun? And that can be proven by basic sceince. The Church has backed evolution so you're even farther back than the Church, that must be a record. Give me evidence and I'll say I'm wrong.

Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools? If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks? It is just a religious worldview.
Because we like what's that word... oh yeah facts. How is it a religious veiw?

Lunatic Goofballs

07-01-2006, 22:25

Then allow me to grace your laziness with some of my own. Sure it's just cut-n-pasted, and of course, it has nothing to do with your erm, 'topic', but then again, your OP had nothing to do with your own creative or intellectual input, so I figure this is about all your cretinous thread dreserves:

How to Replace a Typewriter Ribbon

Electric typewriters often have cartridge ribbons, whereas manuals have old-fashioned spool ribbons.

Steps:
1. Lift the top off the typewriter.

2. Remove the old ribbon. On a manual, lift the spools out directly. For a cartridge, press the release lever.

3. Set aside.

4. Place the new cartridge in the holder and snap down.

5. For a spool model, place the two spools in the holders.

6. Thread the ribbon through the wire holding it in front of the roller.

7. Close the top.

Tips:
You may be able to reuse an old spool ribbon by flipping it over.

Warnings:
Don't put the red ink side of the ribbon up unless you want to type in red ink.

- also available here. (http://www.ehow.com/how_2998_replace-typewriter-ribbon.html)

YAY! :D

Desperate Measures

07-01-2006, 22:38

I'd like to know how Evolution is a religious world view.
Mostly because I'd like to know who to pray to.

Mostly because I'd like to grow a third arm and wings.

Santa Barbara

07-01-2006, 22:46

Mostly because I'd like to grow a third arm and wings.

Actually, that's physically impossible.

But what you *can* do, is have sex to reproduce so many times that statistically, one of your billions of offspring will be mutated into having a third arm and wings!

Then, to ensure that it's an evolutionary advantage, go around and kill anyone who has only two arms and no wings!

Success!

Desperate Measures

07-01-2006, 22:48

Actually, that's physically impossible.

But what you *can* do, is have sex to reproduce so many times that statistically, one of your billions of offspring will be mutated into having a third arm and wings!

Then, to ensure that it's an evolutionary advantage, go around and kill anyone who has only two arms and no wings!

Success!
Surely the Evolutionary God can make an exception for one such as me who is pure of heart?

Norderia

07-01-2006, 22:48

These questions are as much to the point as when the woman asked Faraday what use electromagnetivity had. Faraday replied, "Madame, of what use is a newborn baby?"

Creationists and IDists start with the answers they want, and devise the questions to get there. Their biggest argument against evolutionism is that there are holes.

Just like there were holes in Copernicus' theory when facing Ptolemy.

Just like there were holes in Columbus' theory.

Just like there are holes in the history of the ancient Latin American tribes. Things take time to figure out, and IDists and Creationists have no patience to do things scientifically. They demand answers that coorespond with their religious beliefs, instead of demanding questions to find an accurate answer.

ID is lazy man's science. "Well, I don't know how this works. Not gonna bother trying, someone else with a bigger brain did it."

Do evolutionists have the answers to all those questions? Most likely not. Are they going to be answered in our lifetimes? Maybe, maybe not. Should we stop asking those questions, throw in the towel, and crumble beneath the weight of incorporeal and unsubstantial beings? Be my guest, but at least the people researching the answers won't be bored.

Santa Barbara

07-01-2006, 22:54

Surely the Evolutionary God can make an exception for one such as me who is pure of heart?

Nope, sorry. Take it from me, I'm a Holy Priest of His Evolutionary Greatness. Purity of heart not matter. Heart diseases matter. Kill 'em all with cholesterol, and your winged tri-arm offspring will rule the earth!

Desperate Measures

07-01-2006, 22:55

Nope, sorry. Take it from me, I'm a Holy Priest of His Evolutionary Greatness. Purity of heart not matter. Heart diseases matter. Kill 'em all with cholesterol, and your winged tri-arm offspring will rule the earth!
I shall seek employment at the nearest McDonalds. World: Prepare to meet your Evolutionary Tinkerer.

Ifreann

07-01-2006, 23:37

Nope, sorry. Take it from me, I'm a Holy Priest of His Evolutionary Greatness. Purity of heart not matter. Heart diseases matter. Kill 'em all with cholesterol, and your winged tri-arm offspring will rule the earth!

The obvious way to get 3 armed winged offspring is to sew wings and an arm onto your child and hope for the best.

What? It might work.

Liskeinland

07-01-2006, 23:58

You said "he gave man the ability to decide stuff for themselves." We can't decide if we are going to be hit by a Tsunami. Why does God let those kinds of things happen, was his question. Qliphoth? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qliphoth)

Mirkana

08-01-2006, 00:50

I'll take as many as I can. These are my PERSONAL OPINIONS, not necessarily scientific fact.

Where did the space for the universe come from?
G-d created the Big Bang.
Where did matter come from?
See above
Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
G-d wrote them.
How did matter get so perfectly organized?
Please elaborate
Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
Please elaborate
When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
Good question
When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
In my opinion, the first "life form" was actually DNA, a molecule with the ability to replicate itself.
With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
Good question
Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)
All species have an innate desire to reproduce.
How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
But recombining English letters COULD produce FRENCH books. Or Latin, or German, or any other language that uses the SAME ALPHABET! So too with DNA.
Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
I believe in both a common creator AND a common ancestor.
Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occ urred if evolution were true?
Some genes are repeated. More genetic material could have been created by accidentally overrepeating a gene.
When, where, why, and how did:
Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
Some cells started working together for survival. They eventually became dependent on one another, and ultimately became a single organism.
Single-celled animals evolve?
The first animals were multi-cellular.
Fish change to amphibians?
They developed lungs to survive in oxygen-poor waters. Later they crawled ashore.
Amphibians change to reptiles?
Some amphibians developed scaly skin to preserve body water. They then moved inland, where there would be few rivals.
Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
Good question!
How did the intermediate forms live?
Varies from species to species.
When, where, why, how, and from what did:
Whales evolve?
Sea horses evolve?
Bats evolve?
For all of the above: I DON'T KNOW!
Eyes evolve?
First, some animals developed light sensitive pigments to know if they were under a rock (where they would be safe) or out in the open (where they could be eaten). I don't remember the rest.
Ears evolve?
I don't know.
Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
I don't know.
Which evolved first (how, and how long; did it work without the others)?
The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
The immune system or the need for it?
For almost all of these... I DON'T KNOW!

There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?
It is the only SCIENTIFIC explanation, i.e. one that can be falsified. Got a better one that can be proven wrong?
How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?
Chance
When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
They are part of the soul.
*How did photosynthesis evolve?
*How did thought evolve?
*How did flowering plants evolve, and from that?
I DON'T KNOW!
*What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?
Please elaborate.
What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?
SHOW ME!
*Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?
I don't think so, but unless we have a breakthrough in treatment of HIV, watch for sub-Saharan Africa to evolve HIV resistance.
*What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?
I don't understand.
*Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?
No. I believe that G-d started it.
After you have answered the preceding questions, please look carefully at your answers and thoughtfully consider the following questions.

Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have answered? (Do these answers reflect your religion or your science?)
A mixture.
Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"?
I can't judge that.
Is it possible that an unseen Creator designed this universe? If God is excluded at the beginning of the discussion by your definition of science, how could it be shown that He did create the universe if He did?
Well, I believe G-d created the laws of nature. I DON'T exclude Him.
Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as fact?
Yes, given the definition of scientific fact.
What is the end result of a belief in evolution (lifestyle, society, attitude about others, eternal destiny, etc.)?
I don't know. Tough question.
Do people accept evolution because of the following factors?
It is all they have been taught.
They like the freedom from God (no moral absolutes, etc.).
They are bound to support the theory for fear of losing their job or status or grade point average.
They are too proud to admit they are wrong.
Evolution is the only philosophy that can be used to justify their political agenda.
Perhaps.
Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we don’t have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation, archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, vestigial organs, etc.)?
Not really, though I dispute certain examples,
Should parents be allowed to require that evolution not be taught as fact in their school system unless equal time is given to other theories of origins (like divine creation)?
No. If they want to teach kids that Genesis is literally true, they can do it themselves.
What are you risking if you are wrong? As one of my debate opponents said, "Either there is a God or there is not. Both possibilities are frightening."
I don't know.

These questions are hardly the rantings of a right-wing nutjob. They are excellent questions and deserve to be taken seriously.

Arrogant Disdain

08-01-2006, 01:04

Since we feel comfortable asking for 100 page essays, riddle me these questions:

Why do Genesis 1 and 2 disagree about the order in which things are created, and how satisfied God is about the results of his labors?

Why does the story of the flood seem like two contradicting stories on how many of each kind of animal are to be brought into the Ark--is it one pair each or seven pairs each of the "clean" ones?

Why does the Gospel of John disagrees with the other three Gospels on the activities of Jesus Christ (how long had he stayed in Jerusalem--a couple of days or a whole year?)

And why do all four Gospels contradict each other on the details of Jesus Christ's last moments and resurrection?

Why do the Gospels of Matthew and Luke contradict each other on the genealogy of Jesus Christ' father; though both agree that Joseph was not his real father?

Explain this:

"KI1 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.

CH2 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem."

And this:

"PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.

ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

1 Cor.1:19: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."

And this:

"ACT 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

MAT 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost."

And this:

"ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin."

And this:

"LEV 11:21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
LEV 11:22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
LEV 11:23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you." Four-legged insects?

And this:

"PSA 58:8 As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun." Melting snails?

And this:

"GEN 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
GEN 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof."

There are more contradictions in your "holy book". Please, explain these to me; or shall you "save" me. Since you demand LOGICAL answers, I demand the same. No "God did it" crap, k?

Arrogant Disdain

08-01-2006, 01:09

"When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
Good question"

I'll take this one myself. Simple, in the early times of the universe, there was no "life", only matter. All that organisms consist of are chemical reactions. Through time, different chemical reactions occurred, producing compounds such as methane (CH4), found in the atmospheres of many planets. Water was produced (H2O). As time progressed, different, more complex, reactions occurred. Since the universe is billions of years old, the time span in plausible.

Arrogant Disdain

08-01-2006, 01:17

Religion is not, and can never be, scientific theory. Whether you choose to believe in Christianity, that the universe is geocentric, that the world is flat, or in the "virgin" Mary, is all right with me; however, DO NOT assert your archaic beliefs upon others without supporting FACTS. "God" is not a fact; nor is the bible a fact. Scientific theory must be SUPPORTED BY TESTABLE EVIDENCE. People must be able to replicate science.

In America, there is (was) separation of Church and State for a reason, to allow the population to seek scientifically viable explanations without having god shoved down their throat.

Free Soviets

08-01-2006, 01:24

these questions can be found at this site
http://www.drdino.com/

you are aware that even the dedicated lunatics over at answers in genesis find kent hovind to be too insane for their tastes and advise creationists to stay away from his bullshit, yes?

Arrogant Disdain

08-01-2006, 01:26

you are aware that even the dedicated lunatics over at answers in genesis find kent hovind to be too insane for their tastes and advise creationists to stay away from his bullshit, yes?

What are you trying to say, rephrase?

Gymoor II The Return

08-01-2006, 01:27

snip

If I take the time to answer these questions, will you give me your full attention? That's all I want to know. If I respond to your cut-and-pasted article point by point, will you give the points their due consideration and not dismiss what I say out of hand just because it's different from what you've been taught?

Ivia

08-01-2006, 01:28

What are you trying to say, rephrase?
That the source of those questions is a man that even devout creationists don't believe to have many valid points.

Arrogant Disdain

08-01-2006, 01:30

If I take the time to answer these questions, will you give me your full attention? That's all I want to know. If I respond to your cut-and-pated article point by point, will you give them their due consideration and not dismiss what I say out fo hand because it's fdifferent from what you've been taught?

Can I have "No way in hell" for 500, Alex?

Arrogant Disdain

08-01-2006, 01:31

That the source of those questions is a man that even devout creationists don't believe to have many valid points.

Ah, good find :)

I love little impish evangelical ideologues; they're so easy to discredit.

Free Soviets

08-01-2006, 01:32

What are you trying to say, rephrase?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1011hovind.asp

Gymoor II The Return

08-01-2006, 01:34

Can I have "No way in hell" for 500, Alex?

I have the same suspicion, but part of the onus of being educated is to help those who aren't to gain some enlightenment, even though we won't receive any thanks.

Smart man's burden.

Arrogant Disdain

08-01-2006, 01:36

I have the same suspicion, but part of the onus of being educated is to help those who aren't to gain some enlightenment, even though we won't receive any thanks.

Smart man's burden.

I could not have put it better myself. Throughout grade school, I was always the one forced to work in groups with imbeciles to effectively teach my peers.

Free Soviets

08-01-2006, 01:37

That the source of those questions is a man that even devout creationists don't believe to have many valid points.

even worse, they have confronted him about some of his most obvious and undeniable lies and he kept right on going with them. and really, if your lies are so bad that an organization that "is building a museum which depicts men and women living side by side in harmony with dinosaurs 'Flintstones style' 6000 years ago", then you are really off your rocker.

Cartezia

08-01-2006, 01:46

Normally, I don't reply to flamebait - which the first post clearly is.

Nevertheless, the one single answer to all the original poster's questions - get a proper education.

To elaborate - research and understand the scientific method. From that basis, examine the huge strides made in our understanding of mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology (and all the other scientific disciplines). Observe science in action even as you read this on your computer screen. And should you choose to pick and choose your science, deciding that you can "believe" some but "not believe" the rest, ask yourself why you think science is good enough to provide the theory used to develop the microphone your priest/pastor/whatever uses, but not good enough for stuff that doesn't sit easily with what he (and it nearly always is a he) preaches.

I only wish we could develop a time machine and invite people to return to the dark ages. Perhaps that, and a better education in history, might give rise to a clearer understanding of why the decline in the influence of religion happened in the first place.

Arrogant Disdain

08-01-2006, 01:47

I'm off to the gym; I'll be back later. :)

Gymoor II The Return

08-01-2006, 01:53

I'm off to the gym; I'll be back later. :)

Ah, I believe in the theory of Intelligent Musclebuilding. It's not excercise and good diet that'll give me 6-pack abs. God'll do it.

UltraSupreme Commander

08-01-2006, 01:58

We are an alien six grade science experience..... our god will continue to throw salt on us to see us squirm like the mollusks we are. Something created this whole thing. Hmmm who knows who or what.

The Black Forrest

08-01-2006, 02:11

these questions can be found at this site
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=76

Damn it!

When are these people going to realize Kent Hovind is a crank. A snake oil salesmen at best.....

Beta Comae Berenices

08-01-2006, 02:14

these questions can be found at this site
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=76

You're actually quoting that idiot? OK. With some massive snippage of repetitive questions, here we go!

Where did the space for the universe come from?
Where did matter come from?
Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
How did matter get so perfectly organized?
Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?

None of these things have anything to do with the theory of evolution, which deals solely with changes in species over time.

When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

About 3.5 billion years ago. And there is no why. It simply happened, probably multiple times, that a single-celled organism made a copy of itself with a mutation that allowed it to share genetic material along with fissioning.

With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

There are microorganisms today that can reproduce either sexually or my division. Odds are the earliest sexual beings were the same way, reproduces asexually at first, but as more "partners" became available, exhchanging genes.

Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival?

Having offspring also gives the predators more targets, hm? And again, you can't ascribe motivation to natural processes. It's like asking "why does the sun want to shed photons?"

(Does the individual have a drive to surviv e, or the species? How do you explain this?)

Most animals show both. Although sex seems to be very instinctive.. which makes sense.

How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

Interesting that you should bring up English and Chinese. English is a language which has evolved over the centuries from it's birth among Saxon peasants. Written Chinese has remained stagnent for millennia. Guess what the most popular second language in China is?

But back to mutations. The vast majority of mutations are not beneficial. But occasionally, a mutation will show up that makes life easier for the critter, and improve its chances of surviving to mate.

Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?

Anything is possible, but there is no evidense for a creator. And we have libraries of evidense for evolution.

Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occ urred if evolution were true?

Where do you get the odd idea that the genetic code is stable? You yourself just mentioned mutations, and since we are talking about gradual changes over millions of years, there is more than enough time for changes in the genome to accumlate to the point where the new beast cannopt successfully produce fertile offspring with the parent species.

When, where, why, and how did:
(snip)

A good book on evolution would help you here.

Which evolved first (how, and how long; did it work without the others)?

The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?

Since single-celled organisms, even the simplest bacteria, can eat, it's obvious that food was present in simple forms early on. Hell, free-floating proteins can be a full meal if you're small and simple enough.

Digestive tracts show up in Cambrian fossil, the earliest being found in some of the worms from the period. Modern worms have similar, very simple digestive systems. As life evolved, digestive systems became more complex in order to extract more energy and nutrition from food.

[The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?

Think about it. single-celled organisms tend to reproduce by mitosis. Not much drive needed.. reach a certain size, and *fwoomp.* No you are two.

Once sexual reproduction comes along, competition for mates begins. We have no idea how trilobites fought over mates, but it probably happened.

The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?

LOL! "Perfect mixture?" Friend, I'm a geologist. The Earth's atmosphere has varied wildly over the eons. Go back 3.5 billion years and you'd die suffocating. No oxygen. That took a mutation that allowed microorganisms to fix Chlorophyll and make use of all that sunlight for energy. Go back 125 million years, and your eyes would burn, your nose would bleed, and you'd be giddy from all the oxygen in the air.

As for the question.. mucus first. Many slimes produce a similar substance and they're some of the oldest life on Earth. Lungs are relatively recent, coming with the rise of the amphibians 350 million years ago.

(snip)

There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?

Because it is the answer that has withstood scientific scrutiny for over a century. Symbiosis develops because it confers advantages to both species.

How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?

Favorable mutations and natural selection. Looking like something inedible or dangerous is an advantage.

When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.

Utter bilge. Anyone who has studied biology or owned a pet knows that we are not the only species to have emotions. And emotions are chemical effects on the brain. When I see my wife, endorphins are relaesed by my body in response to that stimulus, making me feel happy.

Love is vital to troop animals like the primates (which include us.) We rely on each other for protection, support, and nurturing.

(snip)

*What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?

Science thrives on controversy and dissent. We constantly argue, challenge, and refute what is accepted. It's how science works.

What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?

I would have asked to see it, and exam it to see if it was in fact a coelacanth. I would had published my results in a peer-reviewed journal so other marine biologists (assuming I was a marine biologist) could review my findings and methods.

*Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?

Yes: "Change happens."

*What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?

You really need to take a basic sciences course at this point.

*Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?

Whoops! Off the evolution track again, but that is Hovind's style. I honestly don't know what caused the Big Bang. We have theories, but we're still gathering data.

After you have answered the preceding questions, please look carefully at your answers and thoughtfully consider the following questions.

Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have answered? (Do these answers reflect your religion or your science?)

Everything i wrote is based on current understanding of science. Where I wrote something that is my opinion, I made that clear.

Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"?

Far less, because my answers demand that they be tested and proved right or wrong.

Is it possible that an unseen Creator designed this universe? If God is excluded at the beginning of the discussion by your definition of science, how could it be shown that He did create the universe if He did?

Nothing is excluded. But if you want to call it science, you have to follow the scientific method. Creationists react to that requirement like vampires to holy water.

Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as fact?

Shall we also present them astrology as a fact? How about Phrenology (the "science" of reading the bumps on people's heads)? Shall the "lumuniscant ether" be required in astronomy class, along with the concept that the sun revolves around the Earth?

You and Hovind are pushing religion. Nothing more.

What is the end result of a belief in evolution (lifestyle, society, attitude about others, eternal destiny, etc.)?

A better understanding of the universe. What is the end result of an over reliance on religion? Go look up the Black Death and the 30 Year's War.

Do people accept evolution because of the following factors?
It is all they have been taught.
They like the freedom from God (no moral absolutes, etc.).
They are bound to support the theory for fear of losing their job or status or grade point average.
They are too proud to admit they are wrong.
Evolution is the only philosophy that can be used to justify their political agenda.

How about "because it is the only explanation that accounts for all the observed facts, has been tested, and survived over a century of peer-review?"

Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we don’t have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation, archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, vestigial organs, etc.)?

No, we can use all the data being gained daily by real biologists.

Should parents be allowed to require that evolution not be taught as fact in their school system unless equal time is given to other theories of origins (like divine creation)?

Not in America. The SCOTUS ruled on that one years ago. Keep your religion in your church.

What are you risking if you are wrong? As one of my debate opponents said, "Either there is a God or there is not. Both possibilities are frightening."

What are you risking if you are worshipping the wrong god? Whatif the Yani tribe of the Amazon are the only people on Earth who are right, and on our deaths we find ourselves being judged by their minkey god?

Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools? If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks? It is just a religious worldview.

Because it is not a religion, fool. It is a scientific theory backed by all the available evidense.

Aren’t you tired of faith in a system that cannot be true? Wouldn’t it be great to know the God who made you, and to accept His love and forgiveness?

Prove God exists.

Would you be interested, if I showed you from the Bible, how to have your sins forgiven and how to know for sure that you are going to Heaven? If so, call me.

Yawn. This would be the same Bible that claims unicorns are real?

For those interested in the facts, go here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

For more on Ken "Dr. Dino" Hovind, read all the juicy details here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/

This page refutes many of the loaded questions above.

Gymoor II The Return

08-01-2006, 02:24

snip

Bravo. What do you want to bet that the original poster will use his same (utterly destroyed,) cut-and-paste argument again, completely unchanged?

Grave_n_idle

08-01-2006, 02:28

I dislike the word "troll"...

Has the 'original poster' even been back to respond to any of this?

Saint Curie

08-01-2006, 02:34

What do you want to bet that the original poster will use his same (utterly destroyed,) cut-and-paste argument again, completely unchanged?

It's like telemarketing. If they call 1000 people and make 9 sales, its 9 sales. Religion can be a lot like a subscription to "Vegas Vegetarian Restaraunt Review", in the sense that you just have to find people in the mindset to think they need it.

Not all religious people are like that, I imagine, but a lot of groups play those numbers.

Bobs Own Pipe

08-01-2006, 02:35

I dislike the word "troll"...

Has the 'original poster' even been back to respond to any of this?
Only to defend his cutting and pasting. Something about as how none of us will bother responding to it, he didn't feel it was worth the bother coming up with the questions on his own.

A pre-emptive cop-out, really.

Commie Catholics

08-01-2006, 03:06

these questions can be found at this site
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=76

Questions for Evolutionists

*snip*

Many of these questions have been answered and many haven't. But the difference between you and evolutionists is that when you confront something inexplicable, you restort to pure speculation. We, on the other hand, attempt a rational analysis. We look at the evidence and use Occam's razor to attempt an explaination. This is what defines logical right and wrong. If you speculate, you are not using the appropriate steps for logical deduction, therefore you cannot claim your idea as truth. We, having taken the correct approach, can consider ourselves to be closer to the truth than you. That is why we don't want creationism, or ID, being learned in the science class. It isn't a scientific theory. We teach Evolution because it is a valid scientific theory, at the same time it's still a theory and it's taught to be a theory, not absolute truth. ID is not a valid theory and shouldn't be taught as science.

Bobs Own Pipe

08-01-2006, 03:08

*sighs*

There is no such word as 'evolutionism', people.

Commie Catholics

08-01-2006, 03:15

*sighs*

There is no such word as 'evolutionism', people.

Sorry. Force of habit.

ShinyHappySlavistan

08-01-2006, 03:18

Saint Curie

08-01-2006, 03:23

Where are the dinosaurs in the Bible?

Actually, the Apostle Thomas was a pterodactyl. Its left out of the Bible because of the strong trend of mammaliocentrism in the 5th century church.

In the New Testament as first written, Mathew 4:6-8 actually reads:

"And the lord sayeth, to Thomas, the dinosaur, yea, even a flying dinosaur,

"Thomas, why do you ask me to create more fish? If thou canst not maintain thy metabolism without your bodyweight in fish every 36 hours, thou art a hassle

"Hey, don't blow snot at me, asshead!"

Novae Angliae

08-01-2006, 03:28

I agree with Nox Acipitris. If you have the time, check these links out.

http://www.geocities.com/deke1942/tccop/evolution.htm#item1

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b22388d6fb1.htm

Grave_n_idle

08-01-2006, 03:34

Actually, the Apostle Thomas was a pterodactyl. Its left out of the Bible because of the strong trend of mammaliocentrism in the 5th century church.

In the New Testament as first written, Mathew 4:6-8 actually reads:

"And the lord sayeth, to Thomas, the dinosaur, yea, even a flying dinosaur,

"Thomas, why do you ask me to create more fish? If thou canst not maintain thy metabolism without your bodyweight in fish every 36 hours, thou art a hassle

"Hey, don't blow snot at me, asshead!"

Okay, that was funny...

Kind of reminded me of the Gospel of "Cloister, the Stupid"...

Economic Associates

08-01-2006, 03:36

I agree with Nox Acipitris. If you have the time, check these links out.

http://www.geocities.com/deke1942/tccop/evolution.htm#item1

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b22388d6fb1.htm

When the first sites does this

If "Kara" professes to be Christian, she is one of those liberal Christians in Name Only, a CINO.

it might be a biased source. [/Jeff Foxworthy]:rolleyes:

Novae Angliae

08-01-2006, 03:40

Grave_n_idle

08-01-2006, 03:41

I agree with Nox Acipitris. If you have the time, check these links out.

http://www.geocities.com/deke1942/tccop/evolution.htm#item1

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b22388d6fb1.htm

I checked the first, but I'm afraid it was basically hollow rhetoric... little of value to be found therein.

In one paragraph, the 'author' decries the science of evolution as being flawed in it's insistence on absolutes...

In the next, the 'author' decries the science of evolution as being all "perhaps, perhaps, perhaps".

It is not consistent with modern thinking... it is not even internally consistent.

I didn't even check the other source, I'm afraid... but, if the first sets the standard, I saved myself a few minutes of otherwise wasted time.

[NS:::]Elgesh

08-01-2006, 03:44

True, but give it a look. Unfortunately, the best articles I knew have been deleted or something, as I am now unable to find them. So I hade a search and took a couple posing similar arguments. I would recommend the bottom link I provided, personally.

Recently, another fellow posted similar links he'd once bookmarked, sharing them on a similar thread - turned out they'd been taken down and replaced by the website's owners explaining their absence with a large warning sign apologising for their articles' lack of accuracy and misleading content. Perhaps a similar story with the ones you're looking for, were they from a site with the address 'amen.co.uk' or similar in them?

Arrogant Disdain

08-01-2006, 03:44

It's like telemarketing. If they call 1000 people and make 9 sales, its 9 sales. Religion can be a lot like a subscription to "Vegas Vegetarian Restaraunt Review", in the sense that you just have to find people in the mindset to think they need it.

Not all religious people are like that, I imagine, but a lot of groups play those numbers.

:p That actually made me laugh. Anyways, back from the gym. God made me stronger.

Magval

08-01-2006, 03:45

Listen all you christians out there and especially the person who asked those stupid questions ..why dont you stop acting so defensive. If your so sure of your self, then stop being so defensive. At least what I think is true has some basis in scientific fact, a heck of a lot more than what the bible states. You have no proof. Your only proof is the Bible. If christianity did not exist, guess what? That idea of god creating the world would not exist. The only reason anything about god creating the world exists is because of religion. If we had never had religion of any kind and based our discoveries on reality and logic instead of faith and blind belief, we would only have evolution as a way to creation. Your mind is closed and you are blind. Putting blind faith in a thing that is unrealistic and ilogical is stupid. People who have religion are easliy persuaded by a power figure, like the government. You cannot learn anything new because "god" rules your thoughts, and not you!

The ideas of evolution are happening right now. Natural selection and the passing on of good genes. Survival of the fittest. The Earth is over 4.6 billion years old and that is scientifically proven. It is not 4,000 years old. You may say I was not there but niether were you and science seems more logical than a book based on blind belief.

Beta Comae Berenices....I am on the same page as you and thank you for answering all those questions so well. You are completely right!

Commie Catholics

08-01-2006, 03:45

Why did God create vestigal organs?

Why does God keep creating new viruses like antibiotic resistant versions?

Why did God create everything but decided to let most of it go extinct?

Where are the dinosaurs in the Bible?

Why do most people who believe in Creationism seem really unevolved?

All good points. If we were created by God, why is the world imperfect? Why did he create the world at all?

One problem I have with creationism is this:

God is all powerful, all loving, all knowing, etc...

God created Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. He created them like children. Innocent. Not knoing Good and Evil. Having no concept of understanding. Only once they ate from the tree of knowledge did they have understanding. But God ordered them "Don't eat from the tree of knowledge!" Now Adam and Eve have no knowledge. They don't know that they should obey God. They don't have the foresight to know of the consequences that there will be if they eat from the tree. God knows this. Yet he issues the order anyway. Naturally, they eat from the tree. God gets angry with them, boots them out of the garden and introduce death into the world. Now why would God, who knows that Adam and Eve have no concept of importance or understanding, who created them like that, punish them for acting the only possible way they could act? God gave us free will, fine. He could have given us knowledge, so that we would understand what the choices we make with our free will would do to us in the long run. But no, God punishes us for not using something we don't have.
This leaves us with three options:
1) God didn't understand that we wouldn't know the importance of the order. In which case God is not all knowing, which is a contradiction making all religions with the Adam and Eve story void.

2) God is a prat who gets his kicks out of punishing weak humans for no good reason. This is not considered to be moral by any major religion. If a child steals from a candy shop we don't give them the death sentence do we? This also comes up with a contradiction. The religion says God is good. But this act is clearly immoral. The religion doesn't become void (it's not a major contradiction), but a couple of people will leave anyway.

3) Genesis is wrong. This didn't actually happen. Making the basis for creationism void. (of course there's still ID, but that also has logical flaws. I wont go into them right now)

All options are undesirable for a creationist. Are there any options I've missed?

Arrogant Disdain

08-01-2006, 03:50

Arrogant Disdain

08-01-2006, 03:50

Economic Associates

08-01-2006, 03:50

True, but give it a look. Unfortunately, the best articles I knew have been deleted or something, as I am now unable to find them. So I hade a search and took a couple posing similar arguments. I would recommend the bottom link I provided, personally.

I'm pretty sure any link with geocities in it is not to be trusted as a source for any paper you write so I doubt it would be valid in a debate as well. And the other site is by an author who's name is Myselft. Couldn't you have found some decent sources aside from these biased ones that are tanamount to garbage in a debate?

Subyrbia

08-01-2006, 03:54

these questions were ment for atheists but i will answer yours to the best of my ability
1) How do you know god is not evil? I dont i havent met him/her/organised species
2) How many times are angels mentioned in the bible? The Koran? to many times that i dont want to bother counting as for the koran i dont know im not islamic and/ or never cared to read it
3) Why is it wrong to eat bacon wrapped scallops? i dont think it its
4) Which version of the bible is the divinely inspired one and why? good question
5) Why doesn't god ever show up for dinner? i never invited him onver
6) If god created every species, why are there catterpillars in Hawaii that only eat plants that were introduced 1000 years ago? if one species can eat more than one type of food i dont think theres anything wrong with that
7) If you mix up the letters in your mother's maiden name does it provide evidence of a virgin birth? no.... dont see where that one was going...
8) If someone stole your wallet, who would that someone be? someone who needed my money more than i did.
9) How many roads must a man walk down before he wears out his shoes? as many roads as it takes
10) Do monkeys think humans are cute? dont ask me ask a monkey
11) Did god experiment with other intelligent life forms on other planets? i dont know possibly if there is a god
12) Is it inhumane to eat meat? if god ment us to be vegan animals would be made of veggies
13) Why do we drive on a parkway and park on a driveway? interesting question
14) If god loves people, why does he let awful stuff happen to them? according to the bible god gave man the ability to make his own desicsions
15) What's fermat's last theorem? never heard of the guy
16) What kind of dog should everyone get?
17) Where did god come from? well if i thought like an athesist he would have created himself to explain his existense
18) Is god male? god is described in thye the book of genisies in plural so it could be a race of beings
19) Who is god having sex with? his wife?

I'm home sick today, so I have lots of time on my hands. I decided to answer this. Nox Acipitris, your answers are underlined.

these questions were ment for atheists but i will answer yours to the best of my ability

1) How do you know god is not evil? I dont i havent met him/her/organised species

Your answer doesn’t make any sense, but consider this. God is personally responsible for the smiting of literally thousands of people in the Bible. They were killed because they opposed God and His followers. Is the taking of human life good?

2) How many times are angels mentioned in the bible?

I don’t know the answer to that, but I have found that angels are mentioned in 23 books of the Christian old and new testaments.

The Koran?

There are at least 63 references to angels in the Quran that I was able to find.

to many times that i dont want to bother counting as for the koran i dont know im not islamic and/ or never cared to read it

That’s too bad. As a Christian, you’d be interested to find many references to stories with which Christians are very familiar, but told from a different perspective. You may find they either affirm, or challenge your beliefs such as this verse from the third surah of the Quran:

“AND LO! The angels said: "O Mary! Behold, God has elected thee and made thee pure, and raised thee above all the women of the world.”

3) Why is it wrong to eat bacon wrapped scallops? i dont think it its

From Leviticus 11:

“10: And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11: They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcasses in abomination.
12: Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.”

And:

“26: The carcasses of every beast which divideth the hoof, and is not cloven-footed, nor cheweth the cud, are unclean unto you: every one that toucheth them shall be unclean.”

You can argue, as many Christians do, that the rules of the Old Testament are no longer valid as Jesus introduced a new covenant between God and humanity, but if that’s so, why do you hold on to beliefs like Creationism?

4) Which version of the bible is the divinely inspired one and why? good question

There are no answers to this question because the Bible is not a single book, but a collection of books written by anywhere from 40 to 60 authors over a period of up to 1,000 years. Nor was the Bible put together by a single individual, but by – instead – conferences of scholars and religious leaders.

This holds for both the Tanakh (the Jewish “Bible”) and the Christian Bible. Even the Quran, which Muslim faithful believe was revealed to Muhammed by God through the Archangel Gabriel, was compiled into a single volume later on after the prophet died.

As far as various versions of the Bible go, such as the King James, or the Revised Standard, or the New English Bible, or the New World Translation, it’s worth considering that all these current translations are based on earlier archaeological knowledge of Biblical events.

In the past half-century, many older or differing versions of Biblical scripture have been uncovered and these frequently challenge current understandings of what is in the Bible.

Do you believe the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God? If you do, shouldn’t you figure this out? If you are truly critical, then doesn’t it follow that perhaps the Bible is more a source of inspiration to be used as a guide rather than a hard-and-fast rule book?

5) Why doesn't god ever show up for dinner? i never invited him onver

Why haven’t you? Do you believe it’s possible to do so? If God is truly everywhere, then doesn’t it follow that He is having dinner with us whether we ask Him or not? When you pray, don’t you believe God is there with you? If not, then why do you bother?

6) If god created every species, why are there catterpillars in Hawaii that only eat plants that were introduced 1000 years ago? if one species can eat more than one type of food i dont think theres anything wrong with that

Again, you haven’t answered this question. There are many species of animals, pandas and koalas famously, who eat only type of food and are often threatened with extinction when that single food source is disrupted.

It’s interesting to note that neither of these species really had to deal with any sort of competition for space or food until very recently after man encroached upon their territories. Their diets, from an evolutionary standpoint, don’t make a lot of sense, and the animals are threatened as a result.

From a creationist viewpoint, God designed them to only need one type of food – why then does He not provide them with sufficient food to survive? Is He testing humanity at the expense of another form of life? Is he cruel? Is He trying to provoke us into compassion? See questions No. 1 and 14.

7) If you mix up the letters in your mother's maiden name does it provide evidence of a virgin birth? no.... dont see where that one was going...

You’re right, this is a pointless question, much like question 5 and a number of questions which follow this one.

However, on the matter of the virgin birth, there is nothing in the Bible that proves the virgin birth. If you accept everything in the Bible on faith, then you don’t need proof because it’s stated in the scripture and you’re obviously not inclined to question it. If, however, you’re inclined to examine your beliefs, you know there’s nothing that explains how this was possible in a rational and scientific manner.

8) If someone stole your wallet, who would that someone be? someone who needed my money more than i did.

Do kleptomaniacs necessarily need the money?

9) How many roads must a man walk down before he wears out his shoes? as many roads as it takes

Another pointless question. Why, if you’re serious about real discussion about creationism and evolution, would you even entertain a question like this?

10) Do monkeys think humans are cute? dont ask me ask a monkey

Current research suggests that there is an attraction factor- the “cute factor” - that prompts various species to want to care for their young. We’ve also seen numerous examples of various species caring for the young of other species, humans included.

11) Did god experiment with other intelligent life forms on other planets? i dont know possibly if there is a god

Again, is there or isn’t there? Is it possible that God could have created other forms of life on other planets? Our explorations of Mars would certainly indicate so. For many years, it was believed that God’s creation centered around the earth, but we’ve learned that the universe is vast and that – surprise! – the earth is not its center.

12) Is it inhumane to eat meat? if god ment us to be vegan animals would be made of veggies

Life survives on other forms of life whether they be sentient or otherwise. We eat plants and animals. Other animals eat plants and animals. Bacteria thrive on human beings, and more than one bear or lion has made a tasty meal of human beings.

Your answer is specious at best.

13) Why do we drive on a parkway and park on a driveway? interesting question

It isn’t, actually. At least not in my opinion.

14) If god loves people, why does he let awful stuff happen to them? according to the bible god gave man the ability to make his own desicsions.

That doesn’t answer the question. Many Christians believe that God has given man free will, but also – perhaps contradictively – that God has intervened many times throughout history to change events.

There are numerous examples of God killing individuals because they did not believe in Him, or opposed something He sought to do. In fact, the entire saga of Moses in Egypt is just one such example of God actively trying to change one man’s mind. God sends numerous plagues to Egypt to convince the Pharoah to set the Israelites free, and then, after Pharoah has changed his mind and sent his army to pursue his former slaves, God steps in yet again. From Exodus 14:27:

“And Moses stretched forth his hand over the sea, and the sea returned to his strength when the morning appeared; and the Egyptians fled against it; and the LORD overthrew the Egyptians in the midst of the sea.”

And, just for fun, where in the Bible does it say that God gave man the ability to think for himself? Can you find it, or are you making an assumption?

15) What's fermat's last theorem? never heard of the guy

Another answer which only underscores your unwillingness to really consider your beliefs. If you’re not willing to bother to even look this up, why should anyone take your other postings seriously? I’m not knowledgeable about math at all, but with the Internet, there’s absolutely no reason to not at do a little research. Here’s an address:

http://www-groups.dcs.stand.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Fermat's_last_theorem.html

16) What kind of dog should everyone get?

You were wise to avoid this question, as it's not worth bothering with, although I will say I’m very fond of Siberian Huskies.

17) Where did god come from? well if i thought like an athesist he would have created himself to explain his existense

Huh? Why would an atheist (“One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.”) come up with this answer? Where does God come from? Is God purely conceptual, in that He represents a compilation of various ideals, or is there indeed a physical or spiritual being capable of creation? Why isn’t this a legitimate question? Are you accepting something simply because you’ve been told to? And, if you are, do you believe that God gave you the gift of inquiry and intelligence? If so, why aren’t you questioning these things? Isn’t a person who has seriously considered his beliefs and discarded what he has determined to be untrue a person of stronger faith?

18) Is god male? god is described in thye the book of genisies in plural so it could be a race of beings

If you are a trinitarian Christian, in other words, a Christian who believes in the triune nature of God as being one god revealed in three persons (father, son, holy spirit), then you believe there is only one god and to believe in the existence of other gods is a sin. If you’re Mormon, you may believe in the existence of other gods, but you probably also believe it is a sin to worship any other gods but the God of the Bible and the Book of Mormon.

19) Who is god having sex with? his wife?

Where in the Bible, which is supposedly the word of God, does it say He’s having sex with anyone?

Nox Acipitris, why - if you're serious about your faith - would you even both with this? And, if you are serious about answering these questions "correctly", why didn't you? If you don't understand the basis of your faith, why do you call yourself a Christian?

Arrogant Disdain

08-01-2006, 03:59

"Nox Acipitris, why - if you're serious about your faith - would you even both with this? And, if you are serious about answering these questions "correctly", why didn't you? If you don't understand the basis of your faith, why do you call yourself a Christian?"

Oh no, I believe that he/she/it is saying that his/her/its version of Christianity is better than your version. Pompous, are not we?

Commie Catholics

08-01-2006, 04:01

Sorry, a little confused. I can't be bothered going back through all the posts so, can somebody tell me what the hell Fermat's Last Theorem has to do with this thread?

Novae Angliae

08-01-2006, 04:01

I'm pretty sure any link with geocities in it is not to be trusted as a source for any paper you write so I doubt it would be valid in a debate as well. And the other site is by an author who's name is Myselft. Couldn't you have found some decent sources aside from these biased ones that are tanamount to garbage in a debate?

I only briefly searched when I pulled forth those articles. Here's another, and this one seems reliable. It's too late for me to stay up and read it today, but maybe tomorrow. By glance, it looks reliable. Check it out:

http://www.heartofwisdom.com/Acrobat/Creationevolution.pdf#search='evolution%20vs%20creationism%20evolution%20is%20impossible'

Magval

08-01-2006, 04:04

Arrogant Disdain

08-01-2006, 04:05

Sorry, a little confused. I can't be bothered going back through all the posts so, can somebody tell me what the hell Fermat's Last Theorem has to do with this thread?

If my memory serves me, Fermat's Last Theorem is x^n + y^n = z^n. How it is relevant, I have no clue.

Economic Associates

08-01-2006, 04:05

I only briefly searched when I pulled forth those articles. Here's another, and this one seems reliable. It's too late for me to stay up and read it today, but maybe tomorrow. By glance, it looks reliable. Check it out:

http://www.heartofwisdom.com/Acrobat/Creationevolution.pdf#search='evolution%20vs%20creationism%20evolution%20is%20impossible'

1. You should never post a source that you've only glanced over. You'll most likely get your foot stuck in your mouth later because of it.

2. Link doesn't work for me.

Subyrbia

08-01-2006, 04:05

Grave_n_idle

08-01-2006, 04:06

I only briefly searched when I pulled forth those articles. Here's another, and this one seems reliable. It's too late for me to stay up and read it today, but maybe tomorrow. By glance, it looks reliable. Check it out:

http://www.heartofwisdom.com/Acrobat/Creationevolution.pdf#search='evolution%20vs%20creationism%20evolution%20is%20impossible'

I have to ask:

Do any Christians REALLY believe they are going to 'save souls', by pointing at someone else's knowledge or experience and saying "<insert knowledge> sucks"...?

Arrogant Disdain

08-01-2006, 04:07

"Originally Posted by Commie Catholics
All good points. If we were created by God, why is the world imperfect? Why did he create the world at all?

One problem I have with creationism is this:

God is all powerful, all loving, all knowing, etc...

God created Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. He created them like children. Innocent. Not knoing Good and Evil. Having no concept of understanding. Only once they ate from the tree of knowledge did they have understanding. But God ordered them "Don't eat from the tree of knowledge!" Now Adam and Eve have no knowledge. They don't know that they should obey God. They don't have the foresight to know of the consequences that there will be if they eat from the tree. God knows this. Yet he issues the order anyway. Naturally, they eat from the tree. God gets angry with them, boots them out of the garden and introduce death into the world. Now why would God, who knows that Adam and Eve have no concept of importance or understanding, who created them like that, punish them for acting the only possible way they could act? God gave us free will, fine. He could have given us knowledge, so that we would understand what the choices we make with our free will would do to us in the long run. But no, God punishes us for not using something we don't have.
This leaves us with three options:
1) God didn't understand that we wouldn't know the importance of the order. In which case God is not all knowing, which is a contradiction making all religions with the Adam and Eve story void.

2) God is a prat who gets his kicks out of punishing weak humans for no good reason. This is not considered to be moral by any major religion. If a child steals from a candy shop we don't give them the death sentence do we? This also comes up with a contradiction. The religion says God is good. But this act is clearly immoral. The religion doesn't become void (it's not a major contradiction), but a couple of people will leave anyway.

3) Genesis is wrong. This didn't actually happen. Making the basis for creationism void. (of course there's still ID, but that also has logical flaws. I wont go into them right now)

All options are undesirable for a creationist. Are there any options I've missed?"

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!

Feil1

08-01-2006, 04:08

Cutting and pasting is fun, isn't it.

originally posted by Mike Wong, alias Darth Wong, of Stardestroyer.net

I suggest the following answer:

Quote:
1. Where did the space for the universe come from?

Where did God come from? At least we know the universe exists.
Quote:
2. Where did matter come from?

Where did God come from? At least we know that mass exists.
Quote:
3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

Where did God come from? At least we know that the laws of the universe exist.
Quote:
4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?

It is not perfectly organized. Most of the universe is chaotic.
Quote:
5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

When you light a match in a cloud of hydrogen and oxygen, it "organizes" itself into ordered groups of H2O. This is caused by the nature of matter, not by some kind of magical "energy" input.
Quote:
6. When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?

We don't know precisely when, but at some point the planet was covered with mindless nonsentient life; a state which persisted for billions of years. This is clearly shown in the fossil record. The only theory which can explain this using observable phenomena is chemical abiogenesis, which posits a primitive RNA-like self-replicating molecule.

The alternative, of course, is to buy into Dr. Dino's theory that something called "God" did it. Naturally, he cannot explain how God did it, and God himself is inscrutable, so his theory is really a long-winded way of saying "I don't know either".
Quote:
7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

Rhetorical repetition of the previous question. Since the first "living organism" would have been a mere molecule that tends to produce certain reactions through catalysis, no "learning" was required.
Quote:
8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

Ask the nearest plant. Half of the world's plants can reproduce asexually or sexually. They demonstrate the "missing link" for the evolution of sexual reproduction.
Quote:
9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kindsince this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)

The drive to reproduce is an obvious evolutionary trait, since evolutionary success is defined by propagation over multiple generations. In short, given two species, one of which has a drive to reproduce and the other does not, the one with a drive to reproduce will not go extinct. This is painfully obvious to anyone with a functioning brain.
Quote:
10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

"False analogy" fallacy. Recombining English letters can and does produce new English words, which is all we're interested in. Since every single life form on Earth shares the same base nucleotide pairs, there was never a need to produce "words" in a different "language". In fact, our shared biochemical heritage is one of the proofs of common ancestry.

BTW, bacterial mutations demonstrate clearly that this question is nonsense, since what he describes as impossible is actually quite commonplace. And in fact, we are all slightly mutated relative to one another, which is why all humans are not identical. Do not confuse real biological mutation with the kind of mutation you see in "The X-Men". It does not produce freaks or magic powers; a good example of a mutation is Shaquille O'Neal.
Quote:
11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?

Sure. However, the logical principle of parsimony, aka Occam's Razor, demands that you actually provide evidence of this Creator's existence and a testable definition before it can be considered a viable theory to compete with common ancestry. Got one handy?
Quote:
12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

This isn't difficult; one of the things which can happen in reproduction is something called gene duplication, where a gene is doubled. This gene can then be modified, thus adding new "information".
Quote:
13. When, where, why, and how did:

* Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)

Why do we have to know exactly where and when this happened in order to know that it was possible?
Quote:
* Single-celled animals evolve?

See above.
Quote:
* Fish change to amphibians?

See above. BTW, go look at a lungfish sometime. It's pretty obvious how it happened.
Quote:
* Amphibians change to reptiles?

See above. BTW, a lot of amphibians are reptiles. No "change" was requird. Perhaps you should try opening a zoology book sometime.
Quote:
* Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes,reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)

Actually, some of the ancient dinosaurs were virtually birds already, specifically the flying varieties (you did know there were flying varieties of dinosaur, right? Rolling Eyes)
Quote:
How did the intermediate forms live?

Lungfish, for example, live quite well even today. What does Dr. Dino think an "intermediate form" looks like? Does he realize that an "intermediate" form is not some kind of freakish life form but rather, any life form whose evolutionary path is not a dead-end? Does he realize that we could be an intermediate form? Do you?
Quote:
14. When, where, why, how, and from what did:

* Whales evolve?
* Sea horses evolve?
* bats evolve?
* Eyes evolve?
* Ears evolve?
* Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?

He obviously subscribes to the "lazy attack" method of argument against evolution theory, where he just challenges you to know everything about every species of he declares victory by default. As I said earlier, this is yet another example of his use of the "appeal to ignorance" fallacy. Can he show that the predictions of evolution theory are inconsistent with the fossil records of these creatures? Can you? Why does he feel that whales and dolphins could not have evolved, and how does he explain vestigial features in both of them, such as the fact that the dolphin contains a complete skeleton of a hand inside its flippers? Why does he feel that items such as eyes and epidermal features could not have evolved, even though more primitive versions of all are found in various animals even today?
Quote:
15. Which evolved first how, and how long, did it work without the others)?

* The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
* The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
* The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
* DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
* The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
* The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
* The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
* The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
* The immune system or the need for it?

Honestly, this "explain everything in the universe or I win" debate technique is not only tiresome, but highly fallacious. Can you show why any of this is not possible under the laws of nature, hence requiring divine intervention?
Quote:
16. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?

Show how they defy an evolutionary explanation.
Quote:
17. How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?

What does he mean by mimicry? If he's talking about something like the chameleon, there is a "survival of the fittest" explanation which is so obvious that you'd have to be either blind or stupid not to get it.
Quote:
18. When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.

Why does he think that Man had to evolve feelings? Does it occur to him that all animals have emotions, not just us? Has he ever owned a pet? And why is the usefulness of emotion not obvious to him? Love and lust are necessary for procreation. Desire for food, territory, etc. are necessary for survival. Fear is necesssary for survival.
Quote:
19. *How did photosynthesis evolve?

Obviously, since electromagnetic energy can catalyze certain chemical reactions, early organisms would thrive if they employed those reactions.
Quote:
20. *How did thought evolve?

Since there is a continuous spectrum of organisms between unthinking bacteria and thinking humans even today, it's pretty obvious that there is no magical point at which you can declare that "thought" suddenly begins in life.
Quote:
21. *How did flowering plants evolve, and from that?

Is he seriously arguing that there is no evolutionary imperative for flowering plants, even though it may be part of their reproductive mechanism?
Quote:
22. *What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?

The fact that there is not perfect consensus among scientists is proof of their rationality, not their dogmatism. The theory of evolution continues to improve as we learn more about the biosystem; it is not static and immune to new evidence, unlike a certain religious theory.

There are many competing explanations for quantum gravity too; does this mean that gravity is not real?
Quote:
23. What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?

I don't know; do you have a living coelacanth in your aquarium? If so, show it to me. And then explain what that has to do with your attacks on evolution theory.
Quote:
24. *Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?

Macroevolution and microevolution share exactly the same mechanism, and the predictions of evolution have been proven true on countless occasions. "Dr. Dino" only distinguishes between "macroevolution" and "microevolution" by pretending that the process of evolution would magically hit some kind of "wall" and stop after a while. This is like claiming that you can have "micro-erosion" of rock but not "macro-erosion", hence you can't make the grand canyon with a river.
Quote:
25. *What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?

Please clarify. At no point did we leap directly from hydrogen to humans.
Quote:
26. *Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?

No, everything came from everything. The universe has always been here. Time is a property of spacetime, which is a property of the universe. There was no time before the universe. Yes, I know, you will say the same about God, but there is one major distinction: we can verify that the universe exists.
Quote:
After you have answered the preceding questions, please look carefully at your answers and thoughtfully consider the following questions.

1. Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have answered? (Do these answers reflect your religion or your science?)

I am sure that my answers are the only ones which are reasonable given the information at hand. I am also sure that saying "God did it" does not explain anything, since it's the same as saying that "unknown" is a valid solution to a mathematical equation.
Quote:
2. Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"?

Less, since none of my answers depend on objects which cannot be observed. They all require only the universe (whose existence is not in question), the laws of chemistry (whose existence is not in question), and the mechanism of natural selection (which has been verified through observation).
Quote:
3. Is it possible that an unseen Creator designed this universe?

Yes, but there is no particular reason to believe this is the case. Until you can show some particular reason, it is a totally irrational "theory".
Quote:
If God is excluded at the beginning of the discussion by your definition of science, how could it be shown that He did create the universe if He did?

Define God in some testable manner. Note that the Biblical God is quite testable, since there are many predictions generated by the Bible. Unfortunately, it's trivially easy to show that many of them are untrue, such as his ludicrous claim (in the Book of Job) that hailstones are stored in warehouses in case of war, rather than being formed through atmospheric precipitative processes.
Quote:
4. Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as fact?

Yes. It is the only rational explanation for our observations which relies solely on phenomena and/or objects whose existence can be verified through observation. It is as reliable as the theory of planetary movement through gravity rather than angels pushing them through their orbits.
Quote:
5. What is the end result of a belief in evolution (lifestyle, society, attitude about others, eternal destiny, etc.)?

Is he arguing that belief in evolution makes you a bad person? That's quite a pitiful line of reasoning.
Quote:
6. Do people accept evolution because of the following factors?

* It is all they have been taught.

On the contrary, far more people know creationism than evolution, since the study of scientific principles requires much more time and effort than "God did it".
Quote:
* They like the freedom from God (no moral absolutes, etc.).

Again, is he trying to imply that all atheists are immoral? This is a rather ridiculous way to prove that a scientific theory doesn't work.
Quote:
* They are bound to support the theory for fear of losing their job or status or grade point average.

Put on your tinfoil hats, people. Dr. Dino is now resorting to the "big evil conspiracy" theory in which evolution is propagated against the will of the world's scientists, who are cowering in fear, afraid to admit the truth. And who is running this global conspiracy? Could it be ... SATAN??? Rolling Eyes
Quote:
* They are too proud to admit they are wrong.

Prove I'm wrong. Demonstrate an alternate theory which is logical. Note that "God did it" is not a logical explanation of anything, unless you can show how God did it. Otherwise, I could simply say "Nature did it" and have an equally undeniable yet hopelessly vague "explanation".
Quote:
* Evolution is the only philosophy that can be used to justify their political agenda.

This "conspiracy of silence among scientists" argument is quite frankly stupid.
Quote:
7. Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we don’t have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation, archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, vestigial organs, etc.)?

Of those, the only one that has been legitimately disproved was Piltdown Man, and that was disproven by other scientists, not by creationists. Leave it to a creationist to use the honesty of scientists as proof against itself.
Quote:
8. Should parents be allowed to require that evolution not be taught as fact in their school system unless equal time is given to other theories of origins (like divine creation)?

Should parents be allowed to require that geology not be taught as fact in their school system unless equal time is given to other theories of rock formation such as "God did it?" Should parents be allowed to require that astrophysics not be taught as fact in their school system unless equal time is given to the theory that angels push the planets around? Should parents be allowed to require that meteorology not be taught in their school system unless equal time is given to the theory that God makes and keeps hailstones in warehouses in the sky, as described in the Book of Job?
Quote:
9. What are you risking if you are wrong? As one of my debate opponents said, "Either there is a God or there is not. Both possibilities are frightening."

"False dilemma" fallacy. What if there is a Great Spirit, as the Native Americans believed? What if there is Brahma, as the Hindus believe? What if there is Enlightenment, as the Buddhists believe? What if the universe itself is God, rather than God being a weirdo who makes creatures and then punishes them for following their own nature? Pointless speculation about that which we cannot know is irrelevant to a rational evaluation of a scientific theory.
Quote:
10. Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools?

Present it all you like, so long as you do it in a "comparative religion" class where you also discuss other religious explanations for the origins of the universe. But do not force it into a science class where it does not belong. Science is about describing the observable universe via rational means, using observable phenomena.
Quote:
If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks?

Why do you insist upon trying to teach religion as a science, rather than teaching it as a religion?
Quote:
It is just a religious worldview.

Yet it happens to rely exclusively on phenomena and objects whose existence can be verified; something you cannot say about every other "religion".

Arrogant Disdain

08-01-2006, 04:08

Actually, my version of Christianity isn't any better or worse. I'm not a Christian.

Really, then care to explain your comment for me.

Commie Catholics

08-01-2006, 04:09

If my memory serves me, Fermat's Last Theorem is x^n + y^n = z^n. How it is relevant, I have no clue.

I know what the theorem is. That isn't a theorem. What you posted was an equation. The theorem is: There are no integer solutions to X^n + Y^n = Z^n for n > 2. It was proved by Andrew Wills a few years ago. He spent 7 years in his attic doing it supposedly. Think he use elliptic curves to proove it.

Can anyone tell me how it's relevant. I'm terribly interested now.

Arrogant Disdain

08-01-2006, 04:12

I know what the theorem is. That isn't a theorem. What you posted was an equation. The theorem is: There are no integer solutions to X^n + Y^n = Z^n for n > 2. It was proved by Andrew Wills a few years ago. He spent 7 years in his attic doing it supposedly. Think he use elliptic curves to proove it.

Can anyone tell me how it's relevant. I'm terribly interested now.

I'm more of an English/ History person anyway. :P

Commie Catholics

08-01-2006, 04:12

Thank you so much! You are completely right! I could not have said it better myself!

Thank you for reading it. Anybody else care to reply? I'd rather like some Christian feedback on this particular argument.

Subyrbia

08-01-2006, 04:15

Really, then care to explain your comment for me.

Unexamined faith is pointless. If someone is going to profess to believe something, especially if they're going to try and convince others of its rectitude, they'd better be able to back it up with at least some knowledge of its sources.

I don't believe in God; I don't disbelieve in God. I'm not concerned with God. I do, however, see how religion affects society and I try to understand that. I'm not critical of religious faith, I simply feel that all beliefs should be examined.

Arrogant Disdain

08-01-2006, 04:18

Unexamined faith is pointless. If someone is going to profess to believe something, especially if they're going to try and convince others of its rectitude, they'd better be able to back it up with at least some knowledge of its sources.

I don't believe in God; I don't disbelieve in God. I'm not concerned with God. I do, however, see how religion affects society and I try to understand that. I'm not critical of religious faith, I simply feel that all beliefs should be examined.

"You call yourself a Christian!" is almost always a derogatory comment used to affirm the speaker’s sense of superiority.

The Chinese Republics

08-01-2006, 04:20

snipWow, what a waste of time.

Arrogant Disdain

08-01-2006, 04:22

http://www.qwantz.com/fanart/creationism.gif

:p

Novae Angliae

08-01-2006, 04:22

1. You should never post a source that you've only glanced over. You'll most likely get your foot stuck in your mouth later because of it.

2. Link doesn't work for me.

Then I resume you don't have Acrobat Reader, because the link works fine for me.

I don't regularly post links like this, just I'm extremely tired, g'night.

Commie Catholics

08-01-2006, 04:23

Wow, what a waste of time.

They're asking the same old questions, most of which have already been dealt with. You think people would learn. :rolleyes:

Subyrbia

08-01-2006, 04:23

"You call yourself a Christian!" is almost always a derogatory comment used to affirm the speaker’s sense of superiority.

That's the disadvantage to posting responses online. You can't read tone.

Just as your sign-on name might lead one to believe that you're arrogantly disdainful of others, rather than ironic.

At least, I assume that's your intent.

Ivia

08-01-2006, 04:24

Unexamined faith is pointless. If someone is going to profess to believe something, especially if they're going to try and convince others of its rectitude, they'd better be able to back it up with at least some knowledge of its sources.
That goes against most of the logic most people possess. Most people, when it comes to serious issues like belief in evolution or creation, follow this basic statement:
IF [the opposition's position] is sound, AND [the opposition] believes in [their position] fully, THEN they have no need to defend it -> IF [the opposition] defends their position, either their position is not sound, they do not believe in their position, or both are true.
Forgive me for not putting it in proper computer code format, but I hope you get the idea. If you feel the need to defend your position in the face of an opposing opinion, the other person automatically starts to think (consciously or unconsciously) that they've won the battle already.

That's why debates like this are moot. You won't change the other person's mind, you only serve to make yourself look like a false believer, no matter what your position on the matter is. If you believe in something absolutely, you shouldn't need to defend it. Spread your knowledge, perhaps, but not outright say why it's right and someone else's is wrong. (That's just how I see things, though.)

Arrogant Disdain

08-01-2006, 04:25

They're asking the same old questions, most of which have already been dealt with. You think people would learn. :rolleyes:

The keyword being /people/. ;)

Subyrbia

08-01-2006, 04:27

That goes against most of the logic most people possess. Most people, when it comes to serious issues like belief in evolution or creation, follow this basic statement:
IF [the opposition's position] is sound, AND [the opposition] believes in [their position] fully, THEN they have no need to defend it -> IF [the opposition] defends their position, either their position is not sound, they do not believe in their position, or both are true.
Forgive me for not putting it in proper computer code format, but I hope you get the idea. If you feel the need to defend your position in the face of an opposing opinion, the other person automatically starts to think (consciously or unconsciously) that they've won the battle already.

That's why debates like this are moot. You won't change the other person's mind, you only serve to make yourself look like a false believer, no matter what your position on the matter is. If you believe in something absolutely, you shouldn't need to defend it. Spread your knowledge, perhaps, but not outright say why it's right and someone else's is wrong. (That's just how I see things, though.)

I have to agree with you; that's why I rarely ever participate in these forums. As I noted, however, I have a lot of time on my hands today and my medication has left me feeling a little cranky.

Arrogant Disdain

08-01-2006, 04:28

That's the disadvantage to posting responses online. You can't read tone.

Just as your sign-on name might lead one to believe that you're arrogantly disdainful of others, rather than ironic.

At least, I assume that's your intent.

1. I'll give you that

2. How am I ironic? I'm I not arrogant enough for you? I can try harder! :eek:

3. Sort of. I have a nasty habit of being arrogant and disdainful. Maybe it has to do with being in the 99th percentile and with the signed letters of excellence crap from Bush. (Now THAT'S irony.)

Commie Catholics

08-01-2006, 04:31

That goes against most of the logic most people possess. Most people, when it comes to serious issues like belief in evolution or creation, follow this basic statement:
IF [the opposition's position] is sound, AND [the opposition] believes in [their position] fully, THEN they have no need to defend it -> IF [the opposition] defends their position, either their position is not sound, they do not believe in their position, or both are true.
Forgive me for not putting it in proper computer code format, but I hope you get the idea. If you feel the need to defend your position in the face of an opposing opinion, the other person automatically starts to think (consciously or unconsciously) that they've won the battle already.

That's why debates like this are moot. You won't change the other person's mind, you only serve to make yourself look like a false believer, no matter what your position on the matter is. If you believe in something absolutely, you shouldn't need to defend it. Spread your knowledge, perhaps, but not outright say why it's right and someone else's is wrong. (That's just how I see things, though.)

My mind has been changed on a couple of issues from past forums. The problem is that even when people have logical flaws in their beliefs pointed out to them, they want to believe it so bad that they ignore the flaw. I try not to believe things, instead just look at the evidence and accept what it says. You can't do that with Christians. They're irrational.

Commie Catholics

08-01-2006, 04:37

The keyword being /people/. ;)

Touche.

Subyrbia

08-01-2006, 04:38

Subyrbia

08-01-2006, 04:39

Sorry, I forgot to include the following quote.

My mind has been changed on a couple of issues from past forums. The problem is that even when people have logical flaws in their beliefs pointed out to them, they want to believe it so bad that they ignore the flaw. I try not to believe things, instead just look at the evidence and accept what it says. You can't do that with Christians. They're irrational.

Now, I have to disagree with that, as well. I've known plenty of thoughtful, intelligent Christians, both conservative and liberal.

Granted, it would appear the majority of Christians in the US are pretty reactionary, but so it appears the majority of Muslims are bloodthirsty fundamentalists, as well. Do you believe that? I've seen plenty of evidence to tell me otherwise.

I have several profound disagreements with Christianity as a religion, but I don't believe all Christians are irrational as a result.

Commie Catholics

08-01-2006, 04:42

Now, I have to disagree with that, as well. I've known plenty of thoughtful, intelligent Christians, both conservative and liberal.

Granted, it would appear the majority of Christians in the US are pretty reactionary, but so it appears the majority of Muslims are bloodthirsty fundamentalists, as well. Do you believe that? I've seen plenty of evidence to tell me otherwise.

I have several profound disagreements with Christianity as a religion, but I don't believe all Christians are irrational as a result.

Having a speculatory belief goes against the logical method. Thus: Christian = Irrational. There are many christians more rational that the other christians but being less irrational doesn't make them completely rational.

East Jereckjaveck

08-01-2006, 04:46

Who made God?
If god made himself how?
Where did God get the matter to create the universe?
If he made it what did he make it out of?
If you answered himself then is'nt the universe made out of god?
If true then aren't we all gods?

Arrogant Disdain

08-01-2006, 04:49

My mind has been changed on a couple of issues from past forums. The problem is that even when people have logical flaws in their beliefs pointed out to them, they want to believe it so bad that they ignore the flaw. I try not to believe things, instead just look at the evidence and accept what it says. You can't do that with Christians. They're irrational.

Try living in Kansas :headbang:

Subyrbia

08-01-2006, 04:53

Having a speculatory belief goes against the logical method. Thus: Christian = Irrational. There are many christians more rational that the other christians but being less irrational doesn't make them completely rational.

That statement ignores the fact that there are many varieties of Christianity out there, from organized denominations to variations practiced by individuals. Sweeping generalizations aren't any more rational than a belief in virgin birth.

Subyrbia

08-01-2006, 04:54

Try living in Kansas :headbang:

I'll decline your gracious invitation in the interest of good taste. But thank you.

Arrogant Disdain

08-01-2006, 04:55

While that generalization is generally accurate, generalizations in general are ineffective and not informative.

Subyrbia

08-01-2006, 04:56

While that generalization is generally accurate, generalizations in general are ineffective and not informative.

Generally speaking.

Arrogant Disdain

08-01-2006, 04:57

Generally speaking.

Of course. Touche on noticing the irony.

Commie Catholics

08-01-2006, 04:59

That statement ignores the fact that there are many varieties of Christianity out there, from organized denominations to variations practiced by individuals. Sweeping generalizations aren't any more rational than a belief in virgin birth.

It doesn't ignore anything. If you have a belief motivate by a feeling, or intuition, instead of the logical method, and you consider this feeling to be truth, then it is irrational. Simple as that. Christians are irrational. Anybody that tries to use logic to suggest God, invariably has a flaw in their logic which is quickly pointed out. Yet they still hold their beliefs despite it. ALL Christians are irrational. They may only be irrational to the extent of their religion and rational towards anything else, but it doesn't matter. One single irratioal belief makes you irrational.

Commie Catholics

08-01-2006, 05:00

While that generalization is generally accurate, generalizations in general are ineffective and not informative.

:D

Subyrbia

08-01-2006, 05:03

It doesn't ignore anything. If you have a belief motivate by a feeling, or intuition, instead of the logical method, and you consider this feeling to be truth, then it is irrational. Simple as that. Christians are irrational. Anybody that tries to use logic to suggest God, invariably has a flaw in their logic which is quickly pointed out. Yet they still hold their beliefs despite it. ALL Christians are irrational. They may only be irrational to the extent of their religion and rational towards anything else, but it doesn't matter. One single irratioal belief makes you irrational.

OK, I'll grant you that. But the danger in that statement is that it's inherently dismissive, which gives rise to the same sort of antagonism we've seen arise from quite a few Christians.

Commie Catholics

08-01-2006, 05:08

OK, I'll grant you that. But the danger in that statement is that it's inherently dismissive, which gives rise to the same sort of antagonism we've seen arise from quite a few Christians.

True.

What did you think of the argument I post about Adam and Eve. I'm curious as to whether there's a flaw in there somewhere and since you're one of the more objective people on this forum, I'd like to know what you think.

Arrogant Disdain

08-01-2006, 05:09

OK, I'll grant you that. But the danger in that statement is that it's inherently dismissive, which gives rise to the same sort of antagonism we've seen arise from quite a few Christians.

The problem with that statement is that it concludes that all people save the atheists are irrational. I, myself, believe in god; but not over logic. I believe that there is a connecting force amongst us all and in karma; but does that stop me from being rational?

Commie Catholics

08-01-2006, 05:14

The problem with that statement is that it concludes that all people save the atheists are irrational. I, myself, believe in god; but not over logic. I believe that there is a connecting force amongst us all and in karma; but does that stop me from being rational?

Depends. You may be special. Give us your logical conclusion for your belief and we'll either tear it apart and tell you you're irrational, accept it logically and change our own beliefs (or lack there of).

Arrogant Disdain

08-01-2006, 05:19

Depends. You may be special. Give us your logical conclusion for your belief and we'll either tear it apart and tell you you're irrational, accept it logically and change our own beliefs (or lack there of).

Well, I believe that there is a "force", if you will, that connects us all as humans, be it "god" or the human psyche. I also believe in karma, what goes around comes around - that good begets good and that evil begets evil.

I'm not one of those "God did it" people.

Theorb

08-01-2006, 05:27

I think I can (hopefully) answer these correctly:

Since we feel comfortable asking for 100 page essays, riddle me these questions:

Why do Genesis 1 and 2 disagree about the order in which things are created, and how satisfied God is about the results of his labors?
It doesn't disagree, the things God made grow when Genesis 2 starts were only in the garden, not in the entire world. Plus Genesis 2:4 says "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created", implying that it is adding to our information on what was going on during the 7 days and then afterwards. Also, where does it say that the degree of goodness God saw was different?

Why does the story of the flood seem like two contradicting stories on how many of each kind of animal are to be brought into the Ark--is it one pair each or seven pairs each of the "clean" ones?
I can't judge people's feelings on why people want things to seem one way or another, but my best guess could probably be summed up in the phrase,
"People will believe anything....as long as it's not in the Bible". As to the other point, God ordered Noah to take 1 pair of some animals and more pairs of others.

Why does the Gospel of John disagrees with the other three Gospels on the activities of Jesus Christ (how long had he stayed in Jerusalem--a couple of days or a whole year?)
Ok, I took a long time to look this one up, and I can't find a citation of this verse anywhere, even though this claim is made on several websites. As I skimmed over the Book of John, I didn't see John set a timetable at all besides Jesus arriving for the passover and then leaving after his conversation with Nicodemus, and nothing I saw said he stayed in Jerusalem a year, which verse is this?

And why do all four Gospels contradict each other on the details of Jesus Christ's last moments and resurrection?
Matthew, Mark, and Luke were not all in the same places at the time and so didn't always see the things the other ones saw, if you're referring to the sign thing, the words they said were on it all meant the same, and if your referring to the who saw who when Jesus came out of the cave, once again, not everyone saw everything the other guys did. Also, one of them might not of put in the women first since Jewish Law apparently did not trust the testimony of women very much. John wasn't even there and was getting information from all accounts he could, so he was probably forming more of a summary of everything, and he might not of found accounts from people who were in all of the places back then.

Why do the Gospels of Matthew and Luke contradict each other on the genealogy of Jesus Christ' father; though both agree that Joseph was not his real father?
Because one goes down the paternal side and the other the maternal, plus sometimes they skip or jump around since 'son' back in those days could mean son, grandson, step-son, etc. etc...it was a more flexible definition in the Jewish language
Explain this:

"KI1 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.

CH2 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem."
The NIV says that only some Septuagint manuscripts says forty, but only in both places, which translation are you using here?
And this:

"PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.

ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

1 Cor.1:19: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."
the Proverbs verse did not say that understanding did not bring grief, for example, it would be wise to know the Holocaust happened, and it is quite a grief-filled thing indeed to know what happened. The last one is paraphrased from Isaiah 29:14, where Isaiah is saying how God sees how the people are only pretending to know him, and in the context of Corinthians Paul says in 1:20 "Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?" not all wisdom is of the world, the Bible often states that wisdom of the world is foolishness, but wisdom about the world or other things isn't included, such as knowing facts about World War 2 or something, or knowing that Jesus is Lord. For instance, many times in this thread and in many places people make references to things like "One day religious people will start to have a brain and realize God is a myth" or some such things, that would count as 'worldy' knowladge. Christ himself says He is not of the world and that is why the world hates Him, and since He was also God, the reason people often don't like God (And, by association, the Bible) is because their relying on 'worldly' knowledge, and God, not being of the world, therefore often gets critisized.
And this:

"ACT 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

MAT 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost."
Acts 2:30, when read in context, is clearly referring to King David, and as the NIV puts it "But he was a prophet and knew that God has promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendents on the throne", geneologically Jesus was one of his descendents, how does this not fit and how is it even related to Matthew 1:18? if your saying that the fruit of the loins part means his loins personally, that doesn't have to be what it means, the 'fruit' in this instance just had to turn into another tree and go back to fruit a bunch of times.
And this:

"ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin."
The part in Deuteronomy there is addressed to the Israli people, and is referring to Israli fathers and sons, since it is after all part of what would become Israli law. In Isaiah 14:4 it is made clear that this section is all about "...this taunt against the King of Babylon:" who was not an Israli, so that law didn't apply.
And this:

"LEV 11:21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
LEV 11:22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
LEV 11:23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you." Four-legged insects?
They could of gone extinct in the +2000 years between then and now if they existed, but the NIV says that 11:23 reads as "But all other winged creatures....", so once again, what translation are you quoting?
And this:

"PSA 58:8 As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun." Melting snails?
The fleshy part of the snails can certainly boil and melt away in high enough temperatures, or just die and the flesh will just degrade outward like melting, it doesn't have to be melting due to high heat.
And this:

"GEN 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
GEN 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof."
Like earlier, the Genesis 2 account is filling in information, nothing says 1 or 2 days wern't being recounted there, and it doesn't say God formed all the critters and brought them to Adam immedietly.
There are more contradictions in your "holy book". Please, explain these to me; or shall you "save" me. Since you demand LOGICAL answers, I demand the same. No "God did it" crap, k?
I know i've technically explained them instead of saving you as you put it, but in order to try and save you i'd have to start another discussion, feel free to PM me if you'd like to start one in a chat room or something, it probably wouldn't work well with the forums or PMs :/.

Dinaverg

08-01-2006, 05:28

I like the idea of karma, a step up on that oh-so-very-conceited golden rule. *mumble* ...thinks it's so great....on all those posters in elementary school...*mumble*

Commie Catholics

08-01-2006, 05:32

Arrogant Disdain

08-01-2006, 05:43

Pardon the grammar in the last post.

So, a connection between all humans. This isn't an irrational belief. It has many foundations, stories of somebody being hit by a car and half way across the world another person knows about it, stuff like that. That belief isn't irrational because you haven't label something as the direct cause without a previous analysis. The belief in karma on the other hand is a little more motivated by feeling and less by logic. Is there a good logical reason you believe in karma? If not, do you think that klarma is 'truth' or do you have your doubts?

I wholeheartedly believe in karma on the principle that good begets good and evil begets evil. I have witnessed many experiences that can be attributed to the belief of karma. :)

Commie Catholics

08-01-2006, 05:48

I wholeheartedly believe in karma on the principle that good begets good and evil begets evil. I have witnessed many experiences that can be attributed to the belief of karma. :)

That's true of humans. They will reward goodness and return malice. But does what you've seen suggest a supernatural force. Isn't it just a quirk of human behaviour?

Krakozha

08-01-2006, 05:49

Where did the space for the universe come from?

Space did not exist befor ethe Big Bang, because the laws of Physics did not exist before the Big Bang. I presume the the primeval atom which is responsible for the Big Bang came into existance and 'exploded' at exactly the same time, because time also did not exist before the Big Bang. It's not against an evolutionist's beliefs that some greater force may have flicked a switch somewhere to start everything off. Before the Big Bang, nobody knows what existed and never will.

Where did matter come from?

Because the laws of physics did not exist, the primeval atom was of infinite size, volume and mass. All mass that now exists in the Universe was once tied into this one primeval atom, of which it's nature is currently unknown.

Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

From the Big Bang. All four forces of nature are tied together, in some very simple equation, which we've yet to figure out. It's called the Unification Theory, I'm sure a quick google search will throw up a huge amount about this, and the number of dimensions present, String theory, etc, etc, etc...

How did matter get so perfectly organized?

Simple. Those four little forces that you mentioned last question - gravity, EM, and stong and weak nuclear forces bind everything form the microscopic to the macroscopic together. I wouldn't, not by a long shot, say that everything is 'perfectly organised', given galactic collisions, naturally occurring unstable isotopes, etc, etc, but nature has a way of cleaning up after herself.

Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

From teh Big Bang. One of the first things that you learn when you first start studying physics is that neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed, only converted from one type to another. You can burn coal or wood to create heat energy, which is then dissipated into the atmosphere, which, in turn, is radiated back into space.

When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?

Through many, many cycles of star formation and death. Again, google nuclear fusion in a star to find out how basic elements - hydrogen and helium, can be fused into heavier elements, such as carbon and iron. There's a lot more that can be created in such huge temperatures and cataclysmic explosions, but that'll give you a start.

When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

Do you learn how to give birth? If you got pregnant/your girlfriend pregnant, do you think that it'll stay in there till you got your diploma in giving birth? DNA is a complex molecule capable of reproducing itself, and incorporating changes into its overall structure, which gives rise to the huge number of species on this planet. Probaly not answering your question, again, google it, there's bond to be someone out there working on this stuff in a lab somewhere...

With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

Single cells are imcapable of sexual reproduction. They reproduce by self replication. Presumably the first multicellular organisms had some form pf penis/ovary and egg laying abilities that had developed to diversify DNA and give the species the best chance at survival possible. With single cell organisms, if an environmental factor kills 99.9% of them, only 0.1% survive to pass on their superior DNA to the next generation. That's why there's a new head lice solution out on the market ever few years, the damn things develop an immunity to the stuff your mum used on you when you were a tot, and the one who survived and hopped away bred a whole new generation immune to the stuff

Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to surviv e, or the species? How do you explain this?)

It's not about survival of one, it's about the continuation of the species. I want to have a baby. I know it hurts like hell to give birth, that I'll forever more have stretch marks that will mean my bikini will never again see the light of day, that for the next 18 years, I'll have some brat hanging out of my tits, and then I'll have to fork out for college for him/her. But I still want to do it. When I'm gone, I know there's someone carrying on my DNA and continuing my bloodline. It's instinct, a very basic and primitive instinct that will always be present in the depts of every living thing on this planet. Even creatures like the praying mantis which can only copulate while being devoured by the female still goes on the pull.

How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

Recombining English letter will never get you Chinese books, but may get you a rudimentary French book if you tried long and hard enough. Plenty of genetic mutations pop up now and again, and dependsing on whether they are successful or now determines whether or not they become a well established species. Humans are opportunists. We ate plants, all kinds of plants and scavanged any meat we could get our hands on. Panda's on the other hand will most likely be extinct in a few generations because they're specialised eaters, depending almost solely on bamboo, which is disappearing at a fairly fast pace. If a bunch of people are born with three legs instead of two, and can therefore run faster and catch more food, they'll do better than their two leggeed counterparts and eventually they'll take over from two legged humans. This is what Darwin meant by 'survival of the fittest'.

Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?

Only if you're really determined to believe that. However, it wouldn't account for the genetic changes to species over the generations, genetic abnormalities, like frogs with extra legs, etc, not for evolution. Unless you're willing to believe, as a creationist, that humans are animals too, which goes against the Bibles teachings regarding creationism, this cannot be validated. Otherwise genetic similarities between humans and chimps would have to be considered coincidence, which immediately blows a hole as wide as the Grand Canyon in your arguement.

Again, survival of the fittest. If one bacteria A learned how to eat small bacteria B, then bacteria B would all end up being large bacteria, which means that bacteria A would have to grow in some way to be able to eat the small bacteria B again. It's a case of what nature came up with, given a specific set of circumstances at that time, which allowed a species to survive. How come kangaroos can only be found in Australia? How come only snow hares live in arctic regions? Why do aquatic animals have such huge amounts of blubber? They grew and adapted to their surroundings. Bear in mind too that single celled organisms mutate a lot faster than an animal, because of the life span and reproductive rate of each species.

[QUOTE]
When, where, why, and how did:
Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)

Single celled organisms probably became multi celled organisms by starting out in colonies. Some of these bacteria still live today. I can't remember where it is, but they build huge mushroom shaped colonies on a shaded beach somewhere, so no matter what happens, at least some survive a catastrophic event. Maybe bacteria B got bigger when two of them stuck together for protection. Without actually being on Earth four billion years ago, I can't actually tell you, but again, a quick google will point out a research group working on it.

Single-celled animals evolve?

See above

Fish change to amphibians?

Some fish spotted a nice juicy plant just out of reach on a beach one day, beached itself, took a bite and used its flippers to hop back in. And continued to do it. And it's kids watched and emulated it and eventually only the ones with very strong flippers continued to do it and evolved into something will rudimentary legs.

Amphibians change to reptiles?

All it takes is for some fish scales to dry out and become tough, shrinking gills and expaning chest cavity with lungs. If the food supply on land was greater, then you learn to adapt.

Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)

Regardless of wha they say, even I don;t believe in thes one. You do have a point, studies into the structure of the finger bones reveals that an animals would have had to lose one finger and evolve another on to change from a dinosaur to a bird, and that ain't gonna happen. I'm sure birds were probably scaly at some point in their evolution, but I doubt they're related to any reptile we know today.

How did the intermediate forms live?

Intermediate forms? They're just one step in the whole evolutionary scale. You need B to get from A to C, these intermediate steps are required. All other species were at intermediate steps too, so, relative to each other, it didn't make a difference.

When, where, why, how, and from what did:
Whales evolve?
Sea horses evolve?
Bats evolve?

Individual species don't matter, only overall changes, like eyes, ears, fur, feathers, claws, canine teeth, etc, etc. Each one developed in the way tha tit did because of it's unique environment and requirements for survival.

Eyes evolve?

Plants, therefore food could be found in brightly lit, sunny areas. If you could detect light, you could find food. Later, if you could see meovement, you could avoid being eaten, later again, if you could spot a yellow tiger against a green background before the colour blind animal next to you, you got away more quickly. Again, survival of the fittest.

Ears evolve?

Again, if you could hear rustling in the grass next to you when your deaf counter part couldn't, you got away quicker.

Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?

Hair, scales, nails and claws are all the same stuff, just in difference forms, each fitting a different purpose, depending on the requirements of each species. And feathers aid flight, necessary for birds.

Which evolved first (how, and how long; did it work without the others)?
The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?

Obviously the ability to find and eat food. Everything else came together. Not being resistant to your own digestive juices would have meant that the species would have died soon after birth. Again with lack of appetite, no appetite, no wanting food, therefore, death soon after birth, due to starvation.

The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?

The ability to reproduce. Only multi celled organisms can possess instinctive drives.

The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?

The perfect mixture of gases came last, creatures evolved to breathe them. Did you know that oxygen is actually a lethal poison? Yet we can breathe it. Plants use CO2. We now live in perfect balance.

DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?

RNA doesn't carry anything anywhere. RNA is one of the basic components of DNA, therefore RNA came first.

The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?

Neitehr would exist without the other. Chicken and egg question - they evolved together. This is one very good arguement against creationsim actually. If all creatures were created by God, why did her create some that were entirely dependent on another for survival ?

The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?

Plants - air pollinated.

The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
The immune system or the need for it?

All chicken and egg questions, all require each other to exist with purpose, therefore all evolved together.

There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?

Because we teach that evolution is responsible but is, as yet, not a complete Theory. But it holds more physical evidence than Intelligent Design. If you want to study biology, stick to science, religion has no place in a biology lab.

How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?

By choice, if you mimic something at another animal does, and survives something that this behaviour helped it avoid, they you'd keep doing it.

When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.

They're beaten into us from an early age because of what society and the Church expects of us. Love is nothing more than a deep familiarity with one particular person, and the desire to have them close to you.

*How did photosynthesis evolve?

They had to get food from somewhere to survive.

*How did thought evolve?

We got bored staring at a big rock, so we began thinking about it.

*How did flowering plants evolve, and from that?
Flowers attract insects, which evolved before flowers and evolved further to collect nectar from these flowers.
[QUOTE]
*What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?

Huh?

What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?

Fair deuce to you for managing to catch one.

*Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?

Nature doesn't work in leaps and bounds unless some catastrophic event gives it a helping hand. Mammals took off only after the very large dinosaurs were all killed off in a huge meteor impact. The ice age brought on creatures like the wooly mammoth, and indeed, the modern human.

*What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?

When you put it that way, not much, but take a step back and take a look at the whole evolutionary scale, and it'll make a lot more sense.

*Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?

No, everthing came from the primeval atom, but we don't underdstant it's nature, and probably never will.

After you have answered the preceding questions, please look carefully at your answers and thoughtfully consider the following questions.

Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have answered? (Do these answers reflect your religion or your science?)

Yes. The theory of Evolution is not complete, but it comes a lot closer to answering a lot of the questions about what we see around us and what we have already established as scientific fact.

Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"?

Neiter. Scientists tend to have strong religious beliefs. Believeing that nature is random doesn't go against my beliefs as a Christian and wholly supports my logical thinking as a phycisict.

Is it possible that an unseen Creator designed this universe? If God is excluded at the beginning of the discussion by your definition of science, how could it be shown that He did create the universe if He did?

No, the Universe is most likely a fluke.

Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as fact?

Yes. Do you think its fair to present Christian beliefs to non Christians as fact?

What is the end result of a belief in evolution (lifestyle, society, attitude about others, eternal destiny, etc.)?

That there's a future for our species out there, that we'll continue to grow and develop and adapt to our ever changing environment.

Arrogant Disdain

08-01-2006, 05:53

That's true of humans. They will reward goodness and return malice. But does what you've seen suggest a supernatural force. Isn't it just a quirk of human behaviour?

"Seen" is not quite the right word. I'm not getting a revelation here. It could be a quirk of human behaviour, I will admit; nonetheless, I believe in karma.

Clarification: I define karma as "good begetting good and evil begetting evil". Either through human nature or a universal force, it happens. I'm open to both options.

Arrogant Disdain

08-01-2006, 05:54

I think I can (hopefully) answer these correctly:

I know i've technically explained them instead of saving you as you put it, but in order to try and save you i'd have to start another discussion, feel free to PM me if you'd like to start one in a chat room or something, it probably wouldn't work well with the forums or PMs :/.

I'll have to take these one at a time, since my brain is tired; but nonetheless, I shall.

Subyrbia

08-01-2006, 05:55

Well, I believe that there is a "force", if you will, that connects us all as humans, be it "god" or the human psyche. I also believe in karma, what goes around comes around - that good begets good and that evil begets evil.

I'm not one of those "God did it" people.

Ah, but that isn't karma. There is no good karma or bad karma. Karma is merely the outcome of the fact that all beings are interconnected.

I buy a loaf of bread at the store. Someone had to put that bread on the shelf, and yet another person (who wears clothing manufactured by another person, who came to work in a bus driven by another person which was fueled with gas taken to the gas station...) carried the loaf in from a delivery truck driven by another person who picked it up at the bakery where it was baked by another person from flour produced by yet another person who milled it from grain grown by another person from seed produced by grains grown by yet another person...

Each action has an outcome. It's neither good nor bad, but its realization may prove contrary to another person's circumstances or expecations, which causes pain or disappointment, or happiness or any other number of possibilities.

All events are the results of certain causes and conditions, some of which we can see and understand, and other which we can't.

Subyrbia

08-01-2006, 05:57

True.

What did you think of the argument I post about Adam and Eve. I'm curious as to whether there's a flaw in there somewhere and since you're one of the more objective people on this forum, I'd like to know what you think.

I didn't see that post, but I'll look for it now.

Arrogant Disdain

08-01-2006, 06:00

Ah, but that isn't karma. There is no good karma or bad karma. Karma is merely the outcome of the fact that all beings are interconnected.

I buy a loaf of bread at the store. Someone had to put that bread on the shelf, and yet another person (who wears clothing manufactured by another person, who came to work in a bus driven by another person which was fueled with gas taken to the gas station...) carried the loaf in from a delivery truck driven by another person who picked it up at the bakery where it was baked by another person from flour produced by yet another person who milled it from grain grown by another person from seed produced by grains grown by yet another person...

Each action has an outcome. It's neither good nor bad, but its realization may prove contrary to another person's circumstances or expecations, which causes pain or disappointment, or happiness or any other number of possibilities.

All events are the results of certain causes and conditions, some of which we can see and understand, and other which we can't.

Let me show you my views:

Karma, in essence, is similar to divine retrobution, with or without the god part.

Good Karma:

You let that ass merge in front of you graciously on the highway on your morning commute. Later that day, someone else lets you merge onto the highway during rush hour.

Assuming that all things are connecting and begetting, karma.

Bad Karma:

You run that red light. A few days later, the person behind you tries to speed up at a yellow light while you are slowing down.

Again, assuming that all things are connecting and begetting, karma.

Krakozha

08-01-2006, 06:02

Subyrbia

08-01-2006, 06:05

Let me show you my views:

Karma, in essence, is similar to divine retrobution, with or without the god part.

Good Karma:

You let that ass merge in front of you graciously on the highway on your morning commute. Later that day, someone else lets you merge onto the highway during rush hour.

Assuming that all things are connecting and begetting, karma.

Bad Karma:

You run that red light. A few days later, the person behind you tries to speed up at a yellow light while you are slowing down.

Again, assuming that all things are connecting and begetting, karma.

I would suggest that it's not karma you're talking about, but retribution.

Karma is not distinguished by qualities of good or bad. Karma, again, is the outcome of certain causes and conditions which come together to create new circumstances, which are then perceived by those who experience them as either good or bad, because we see all events in a very selfish manner, ie., in how they effect us personally.

There is nothing divine in karma.

Arrogant Disdain

08-01-2006, 06:06

I like your philosophy

Yay :D

Arrogant Disdain

08-01-2006, 06:09

I would suggest that it's not karma you're talking about, but retribution.

Karma is not distinguished by qualities of good or bad. Karma, again, is the outcome of certain causes and conditions which come together to create new circumstances, which are then perceived by those who experience them as either good or bad, because we see all events in a very selfish manner, ie., in how they effect us personally.

There is nothing divine in karma.

If what you say hold true, then maybe my perception of karma is based upon the nonchalant use of the word in modern English. :p My philosophy on good/bad "karma" was outlined above. I personally do not care what it's called; beliefs stay, name withstanding. Karma is the word that comes to mind when I try to sum up my philosophy :)

Arrogant Disdain

08-01-2006, 06:20

Why do Genesis 1 and 2 disagree about the order in which things are created, and how satisfied God is about the results of his labors?
It doesn't disagree, the things God made grow when Genesis 2 starts were only in the garden, not in the entire world. Plus Genesis 2:4 says "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created", implying that it is adding to our information on what was going on during the 7 days and then afterwards. Also, where does it say that the degree of goodness God saw was different?

On the lines of the board’s creator, since these are crappy copy and past questions, I do not have to respond to that. To tell you the truth, I have read the bible but once. I went with my OCD Christian neighbors to their church, once. They read some passages and I was like WTH. None of it made any logical sense.

Why does the story of the flood seem like two contradicting stories on how many of each kind of animal are to be brought into the Ark--is it one pair each or seven pairs each of the "clean" ones?
I can't judge people's feelings on why people want things to seem one way or another, but my best guess could probably be summed up in the phrase,
"People will believe anything....as long as it's not in the Bible". As to the other point, God ordered Noah to take 1 pair of some animals and more pairs of others.

I have “learnt” over the years that Noah took two of each animal. Nowhere have I ever heard your explanation.

Why does the Gospel of John disagrees with the other three Gospels on the activities of Jesus Christ (how long had he stayed in Jerusalem--a couple of days or a whole year?)
Ok, I took a long time to look this one up, and I can't find a citation of this verse anywhere, even though this claim is made on several websites. As I skimmed over the Book of John, I didn't see John set a timetable at all besides Jesus arriving for the passover and then leaving after his conversation with Nicodemus, and nothing I saw said he stayed in Jerusalem a year, which verse is this?

No clue, actually. On the lines of the board’s creator, since these are crappy copy and past questions, I do not have to respond to that.

And why do all four Gospels contradict each other on the details of Jesus Christ's last moments and resurrection?
Matthew, Mark, and Luke were not all in the same places at the time and so didn't always see the things the other ones saw, if you're referring to the sign thing, the words they said were on it all meant the same, and if your referring to the who saw who when Jesus came out of the cave, once again, not everyone saw everything the other guys did. Also, one of them might not of put in the women first since Jewish Law apparently did not trust the testimony of women very much. John wasn't even there and was getting information from all accounts he could, so he was probably forming more of a summary of everything, and he might not of found accounts from people who were in all of the places back then.

Would it kill the Christians to get their story straight, however? Also, Jewish law does not distrust the testimony of women. Trust me, I’m Jewish. (Well, it’s still my denomination, though not necessarily my belief) I’ve had enough religious education to know that fact.

Why do the Gospels of Matthew and Luke contradict each other on the genealogy of Jesus Christ' father; though both agree that Joseph was not his real father?
Because one goes down the paternal side and the other the maternal, plus sometimes they skip or jump around since 'son' back in those days could mean son, grandson, step-son, etc. etc...it was a more flexible definition in the Jewish language

Again, you’re confusing Hebrew. There are distinct words for son, grandson, etc.

Explain this:

"KI1 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.

CH2 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem."
The NIV says that only some Septuagint manuscripts says forty, but only in both places, which translation are you using here?

Don’t ask me. On the lines of the board’s creator, since these are crappy copy and past questions, I do not have to respond to that.

And this:

"PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.

ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

1 Cor.1:19: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."

the Proverbs verse did not say that understanding did not bring grief, for example, it would be wise to know the Holocaust happened, and it is quite a grief-filled thing indeed to know what happened. The last one is paraphrased from Isaiah 29:14, where Isaiah is saying how God sees how the people are only pretending to know him, and in the context of Corinthians Paul says in 1:20 "Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?" not all wisdom is of the world, the Bible often states that wisdom of the world is foolishness, but wisdom about the world or other things isn't included, such as knowing facts about World War 2 or something, or knowing that Jesus is Lord. For instance, many times in this thread and in many places people make references to things like "One day religious people will start to have a brain and realize God is a myth" or some such things, that would count as 'worldy' knowladge. Christ himself says He is not of the world and that is why the world hates Him, and since He was also God, the reason people often don't like God (And, by association, the Bible) is because their relying on 'worldly' knowledge, and God, not being of the world, therefore often gets critisized.
“"PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.

ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

1 Cor.1:19: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."”

1. Wisdom is paramount, get it, and get it all, baby.
2. Wisdom brings grief, the more the not-so-merrier. (Ignorance is bliss)
3. I will kill all of the intelligent people

So, “god” is saying: Get smart so you can be depressed and that I can kill you. That makes total sense.

And this:

"ACT 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

MAT 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost."

Acts 2:30, when read in context, is clearly referring to King David, and as the NIV puts it "But he was a prophet and knew that God has promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendents on the throne", geneologically Jesus was one of his descendents, how does this not fit and how is it even related to Matthew 1:18? if your saying that the fruit of the loins part means his loins personally, that doesn't have to be what it means, the 'fruit' in this instance just had to turn into another tree and go back to fruit a bunch of times.

“Fruit of your loins”, also known as, semen- human birth. The latter, some ghost gave birth to him – is that possible? Contradiction.

And this:

"ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin."

The part in Deuteronomy there is addressed to the Israli people, and is referring to Israli fathers and sons, since it is after all part of what would become Israli law. In Isaiah 14:4 it is made clear that this section is all about "...this taunt against the King of Babylon:" who was not an Israli, so that law didn't apply.

They’re both in the bible, however. I’m quite aware of Jewish law.

And this:

"LEV 11:21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
LEV 11:22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
LEV 11:23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you." Four-legged insects?

They could of gone extinct in the +2000 years between then and now if they existed, but the NIV says that 11:23 reads as "But all other winged creatures....", so once again, what translation are you quoting?

Find me the history of the four-legged insect(s). I’m quite interested.

And this:

"PSA 58:8 As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun." Melting snails?
The fleshy part of the snails can certainly boil and melt away in high enough temperatures, or just die and the flesh will just degrade outward like melting, it doesn't have to be melting due to high heat.

Next time that you see a snail melting, message me.

And this:

"GEN 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
GEN 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof."
Like earlier, the Genesis 2 account is filling in information, nothing says 1 or 2 days wern't being recounted there, and it doesn't say God formed all the critters and brought them to Adam immedietly.

One is bringing life from the water, the other, from the ground. They can’t /both/ be “correct”. Contradiction.

Subyrbia

08-01-2006, 06:23

All good points. If we were created by God, why is the world imperfect? Why did he create the world at all?

One problem I have with creationism is this:

God is all powerful, all loving, all knowing, etc...

God created Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. He created them like children. Innocent. Not knoing Good and Evil. Having no concept of understanding. Only once they ate from the tree of knowledge did they have understanding. But God ordered them "Don't eat from the tree of knowledge!" Now Adam and Eve have no knowledge. They don't know that they should obey God. They don't have the foresight to know of the consequences that there will be if they eat from the tree. God knows this. Yet he issues the order anyway. Naturally, they eat from the tree. God gets angry with them, boots them out of the garden and introduce death into the world. Now why would God, who knows that Adam and Eve have no concept of importance or understanding, who created them like that, punish them for acting the only possible way they could act? God gave us free will, fine. He could have given us knowledge, so that we would understand what the choices we make with our free will would do to us in the long run. But no, God punishes us for not using something we don't have.
This leaves us with three options:
1) God didn't understand that we wouldn't know the importance of the order. In which case God is not all knowing, which is a contradiction making all religions with the Adam and Eve story void.

2) God is a prat who gets his kicks out of punishing weak humans for no good reason. This is not considered to be moral by any major religion. If a child steals from a candy shop we don't give them the death sentence do we? This also comes up with a contradiction. The religion says God is good. But this act is clearly immoral. The religion doesn't become void (it's not a major contradiction), but a couple of people will leave anyway.

3) Genesis is wrong. This didn't actually happen. Making the basis for creationism void. (of course there's still ID, but that also has logical flaws. I wont go into them right now)

All options are undesirable for a creationist. Are there any options I've missed?

Good post, and I think your questions raise good points. Similar difficulties come up in Job, of course, but also in the first chapter of Luke. In the 1970s, feminist writer Mary Daly liked to argue that Mary was raped, but even though I wasn't Christian, I disliked that position.

It seemed to me that if God were choosing someone to bear His child, He would have chosen someone morally and emotionally strong enough to do so. In that particular case, Mary would certainly have realized she had the ability to say 'no'.

In which particular case, created as we supposedly are in God's image, we have the power to say 'no' or 'yes' and ultimately effect even God's hopes for His creation.

Subyrbia

08-01-2006, 06:29

If what you say hold true, then maybe my perception of karma is based upon the nonchalant use of the word in modern English. :p My philosophy on good/bad "karma" was outlined above. I personally do not care what it's called; beliefs stay, name withstanding. Karma is the word that comes to mind when I try to sum up my philosophy :)

I believe that's what you're doing - you've simply adopted a common, though incorrect, definition of karma.

At the risk of sounding like a know-it-all, I am very familiar with the concept of karma in its appropriate sense, so I feel confident in making these statements.

Karma is very real, because it's based on observation and experience. It does little good to state that one believes in karma if one hasn't tried it on and given it a test drive. Indeed, that's the basis of karma.

As I've said, it's neither good nor bad.

Arrogant Disdain

08-01-2006, 06:37

I believe that's what you're doing - you've simply adopted a common, though incorrect, definition of karma.

At the risk of sounding like a know-it-all, I am very familiar with the concept of karma in its appropriate sense, so I feel confident in making these statements.

Karma is very real, because it's based on observation and experience. It does little good to state that one believes in karma if one hasn't tried it on and given it a test drive. Indeed, that's the basis of karma.

As I've said, it's neither good nor bad.

I guess then I'm guilty as charged :p

I certainly have given it a "test drive", if you will.

Whalers Fans

08-01-2006, 06:45

My pretend friend created all those. Happy?

Subyrbia

08-01-2006, 06:56

Your pretend friend, like God, is dead.

Arrogant Disdain

08-01-2006, 07:09

Your pretend friend, like God, is dead.

In order to die, one must live beforehand.

Artitsa

08-01-2006, 07:22

If god created us in his image, then why do we all look different?

Darwinnaria

08-01-2006, 07:26

Then I'll ask :

Who created god ?

You say it was always there, this thing must be bored ...

So, what if universe (or something similar) was always there.

You can't prove anything, yet you have to make a decision.

So for me, the decision is, absence of proof is proof of absence.

We can,t explain god, we can,t explain universe, yet I see and I know there is a universe, so in universe I believe, in god I do not

Hakartopia

08-01-2006, 08:02

If god created us in his image, then why do we all look different?

Maybe He got bored?

Jimbolandistan

08-01-2006, 08:05

All good points. If we were created by God, why is the world imperfect? Why did he create the world at all?

One problem I have with creationism is this:

God is all powerful, all loving, all knowing, etc...

God created Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. He created them like children. Innocent. Not knoing Good and Evil. Having no concept of understanding. Only once they ate from the tree of knowledge did they have understanding. But God ordered them "Don't eat from the tree of knowledge!" Now Adam and Eve have no knowledge. They don't know that they should obey God. They don't have the foresight to know of the consequences that there will be if they eat from the tree. God knows this. Yet he issues the order anyway. Naturally, they eat from the tree. God gets angry with them, boots them out of the garden and introduce death into the world. Now why would God, who knows that Adam and Eve have no concept of importance or understanding, who created them like that, punish them for acting the only possible way they could act? God gave us free will, fine. He could have given us knowledge, so that we would understand what the choices we make with our free will would do to us in the long run. But no, God punishes us for not using something we don't have.
This leaves us with three options:
1) God didn't understand that we wouldn't know the importance of the order. In which case God is not all knowing, which is a contradiction making all religions with the Adam and Eve story void.

2) God is a prat who gets his kicks out of punishing weak humans for no good reason. This is not considered to be moral by any major religion. If a child steals from a candy shop we don't give them the death sentence do we? This also comes up with a contradiction. The religion says God is good. But this act is clearly immoral. The religion doesn't become void (it's not a major contradiction), but a couple of people will leave anyway.

3) Genesis is wrong. This didn't actually happen. Making the basis for creationism void. (of course there's still ID, but that also has logical flaws. I wont go into them right now)

All options are undesirable for a creationist. Are there any options I've missed?

Other questions would be...

Why did god put the tree of knowledge into the garden?

Why did god create the morningstar?

Postulating that god is all powerful, why has he not defeated evil? People talk of a war between good and evil, but if god is not all powerful is he not merely toying with evil like a cat plays with a mouse?

Postulating that a second coming will occur, why does god continue its delay?

Why are cattle and plant hybrids and linen wool blends forbidden? [leviticus 19:19]

Postulating that god created our souls; why did he create the weaknesses in these souls that cause us to sin?

If a child of 1 month dies before asking christ's forgiveness does it go to hell? A child of 1 year? A child of 10 years? A man of 20 years? Is there a deliniated cutoff point for innocence?

Postulating that a soul is inserted at inception, does god put a soul into a fetus he knows will be aborted? If so, why? Does the soul go to heaven, hell, or get recycled?

Postulating that an aborted fetuses soul goes to heaven, why do anti-abortionists seek to deny these souls' free tickets? Are not abortions saving these souls from suffering through life and from the possiblity of falling from grace?

Is it better to kill an evil man, denying him the chance to repent, or a rightous man, denying him the chance to fall from grace? [before pointing out the commandmant about not killing read all of leviticus chap 20]

If a man gives his seed to Molech, why is his family punished? [Leviticus 20-4,5]

Where did the souls of the "heathens" go that died before the word of god reached their region? Heaven? Hell?

Finally, just for giggles, why do depictions of Jesus not show his semitic heritage? Just once I'd like to look at a cruxifix and see a swarthy man with curly hair.

Lord Jimbo
God-Emperor of Jimbolandistan

Commie Catholics

08-01-2006, 08:05

Artitsa

08-01-2006, 08:07

Maybe He got bored?

I know I would have. So the question is... which one of us actually looks like god?

I CALL DIBS/SHOTGUN.

Commie Catholics

08-01-2006, 08:10

I know I would have. So the question is... which one of us actually looks like god?

I CALL DIBS/SHOTGUN.

Perhaps God looks like Woody Allen. Which would be why he doesn't want to prove himself by appearing.

Artitsa

08-01-2006, 08:13

An excellent point. I guess that whole thing with Soon Yong (Or wtf her name is) kinda embarrassed god then, aye?

Straughn

08-01-2006, 09:53

Stay on topic im talking about creation vs evolution not Jesus.
Some of the people of that philosophy insist that Jesus WAS present in Genesis. It's a stretch, yes, but no worse than MANY others in the book.

Straughn

08-01-2006, 09:57

I take it you failed to read what i wrote and just decided to flame it like half of the other people out there because its to complex for you to consider as a possibility for your existence.
It appears that three letter words are too complex for you to insist on accuracy. It doesn't give much creedence to the idea that you're actually listening to anyone's responses to the scientifically-oriented issues you've brought up. It instead lends more to the idea that you prefer oral traditions of things .... right in line with biblical worship.

Straughn

08-01-2006, 10:00

God told me that Evolution is true. There. Eat it.
You're the messiah! God told me so. God told me it would be a poster on NS. Also, God told me what you wouldn't be wearing when you posted it.
Hmmm, makes it a little uncomfortable to fashion a graven image for the devout masses to wear on their persons right by their hearts, chins and between their bosom.

Straughn

08-01-2006, 10:03

Straughn

08-01-2006, 10:05

Heck it's not even masturbation, it's having someone ELSE masturbate you and then pointing at the result and going "AHA! See? God must exist!"
:eek:
I thought i was the only one who did that!!!!
Silly me. I feel kinda sheepish now, but i'm better that it's out, and better still for having shared it with all y'all.

Straughn

08-01-2006, 10:10

Straughn

08-01-2006, 10:30

1) How do you know god is not evil?
Because darkness cannot be well lit.
That would explain all the daylight sightings by people on a regular basis.

3) Why is it wrong to eat bacon wrapped scallops?
It's not wrong.
It is on an aesthetic level as well as quite possibly eruptive in the lower alimentary canal. *PFERT*-fume

5) Why doesn't god ever show up for dinner?
Does it all the time. Matthew 25:37-40
37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
He said "god" not Jesus, and even the THREADPOSTER clarified that.
Pay attention. *smack*

8) If someone stole your wallet, who would that someone be?
The thief.
No, the republican party and it's morally bankrupt propegators and the ilk.

10) Do monkeys think humans are cute?
No.
Wrong again. Robin Williams made that QUITE clear on his standup Live at the Met, 2004.

11) Did god experiment with other intelligent life forms on other planets?
No. God has not experimented with 'intelligent' life on any planet. :p
The jury's still out ... ;P
Maybe there'll be more answers to that by the end of this thread, eh?

13) Why do we drive on a parkway and park on a driveway?
You park and drive on both.
Then why aren't they called both?

14) If god loves people, why does he let awful stuff happen to them?
'Awful' is a speculative word.
So you speculate. Now try answering the question with some integrity.

17) Where did god come from?
There was no place to come from until God created the Heavens and Earth.
Ineffability isn't an answer, it's inherently an unfinished question. Wrong.

18) Is god male?
God is neither male nor female, but God is both Masculine and FeminineTell me more about the sensitive, feminine side of God. Mmmm. I'm picturing a victorian corset, stiletto heels, excess rouge long lashes and a whip. And a smile not unlike Dick Cheney's. :eek: Perhaps there's more than a couple of passages that support it. A few come to mind. There's probably more in apocrypha.
BTW you'd dig the Hindus.

19) Who is god having sex with?
No one.
Wrong, he date-raped Adam. And then got jealous of Eve and then started that whole cursing to propegation and painful childbirth and sins of the father bullsh*t. Seems like he's f*cking SOMEBODY with that mentality.

If you can't answer all those questions to my satisfaction in 10 minutes or less I can assume that all theists are full of shit.
You lied, your satisfaction is fluid and what you meant by the word satisfaction ten minutes ago is different than it is now.
Satisfaction in fluid would be pretty cool if Santa Barbara hadn't already taken care of all that j@zz first.

Saint Curie

08-01-2006, 10:39

Wrong, he date-raped Adam.

"You shall not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Here, have these roofies instead..."

Zos-Kia

08-01-2006, 10:40

Questions for Evolutionists
Various

Where did the space for the universe come from?
Where did matter come from?
Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
How did matter get so perfectly organized?
Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
(...)
Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)

I don't understand why you assume that an Evolutionist has to be Atheist.
I am not Atheist, whilst at the same time I understand that not believing in the Evolution is simply a sign of absolute idiocy. :headbang:

How is it that Monarchy became Capitalism? It's impossible! They are so different! Then it's obvious that Monarchy never existed... all the History books are wrong, the History books are hallucinations created by the Devil!
Such arguments are laughable... but they are not too different from your way of thinking.

Grow up... and learn not to read Holly Books in a stupid literal way!

"Both read the same Bible day and night; but you read black where I read white" (W.B.)

The Squeaky Rat

08-01-2006, 10:41

"You shall not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil."

For some reason I now perceive the tree to be a phallic symbol.

Saint Curie

08-01-2006, 10:46

For some reason I now perceive the tree to be a phallic symbol.

That's okay, when I see doors, I think vaginas.

On topic, I think we should start referring to chromatid masses as "Jesus Blobs". Maybe that will appease the fundies.

Straughn

08-01-2006, 11:16

"You shall not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Here, have these roofies instead..."
*FLORT*
Hahaha
"It's okay, everybody's doing it ..." God says slyly ... just like a frat brother who never calls you back after they defile you on the lawn in front of the other animals (zoo or fraternity of angels). Then they create a religion which instead is just a therapy group of accepting victims who are doing their best not to destroy themselves with reflection and self-loathing. Eventually came the merchandising with the franchising.
!

The Squeaky Rat

08-01-2006, 11:24

That's okay, when I see doors, I think vaginas.

Thou shalst not eat from the holy door of knowledge :p ?

Straughn

08-01-2006, 11:31

Thou shalst not eat from the holy door of knowledge :p ?
What's that old judaic law about eating shellfish?

Grave_n_idle

08-01-2006, 15:02

Theorb

08-01-2006, 17:54

Im back :D
Why do Genesis 1 and 2 disagree about the order in which things are created, and how satisfied God is about the results of his labors?
It doesn't disagree, the things God made grow when Genesis 2 starts were only in the garden, not in the entire world. Plus Genesis 2:4 says "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created", implying that it is adding to our information on what was going on during the 7 days and then afterwards. Also, where does it say that the degree of goodness God saw was different?
On the lines of the board’s creator, since these are crappy copy and past questions, I do not have to respond to that. To tell you the truth, I have read the bible but once. I went with my OCD Christian neighbors to their church, once. They read some passages and I was like WTH. None of it made any logical sense.
Im just saying, when I was answering your question about this, I had my Bible right in front of me here and as im reading Genesis 1 I see 6 good's and 1 very good, and in Genesis 2 there's only one 'not good' over Adam being alone which was skipped over in Genesis 1, so I don't see the problem your mentioning is what im saying.
Why does the story of the flood seem like two contradicting stories on how many of each kind of animal are to be brought into the Ark--is it one pair each or seven pairs each of the "clean" ones?
I can't judge people's feelings on why people want things to seem one way or another, but my best guess could probably be summed up in the phrase,
"People will believe anything....as long as it's not in the Bible". As to the other point, God ordered Noah to take 1 pair of some animals and more pairs of others.
I have “learnt” over the years that Noah took two of each animal. Nowhere have I ever heard your explanation.
Genesis 6:19-20 says 2 of every kind of living animal goes into the ark, then Genesis 7:2-3 says to bring seven (or seven pairs as the translation can apparently read) pairs of all clean animals, seven (or seven pairs) of every kind of bird, and then still 2 pairs of unclean animals. Genesis 7 is set off from 6 by "The Lord then said...." which means he was adding onto and clarifying the order.
Why does the Gospel of John disagrees with the other three Gospels on the activities of Jesus Christ (how long had he stayed in Jerusalem--a couple of days or a whole year?)
Ok, I took a long time to look this one up, and I can't find a citation of this verse anywhere, even though this claim is made on several websites. As I skimmed over the Book of John, I didn't see John set a timetable at all besides Jesus arriving for the passover and then leaving after his conversation with Nicodemus, and nothing I saw said he stayed in Jerusalem a year, which verse is this?
No clue, actually. On the lines of the board’s creator, since these are crappy copy and past questions, I do not have to respond to that.
Well im just saying, I can't answer a contradiction which doesn't even appear to exist :/.
And why do all four Gospels contradict each other on the details of Jesus Christ's last moments and resurrection?
Matthew, Mark, and Luke were not all in the same places at the time and so didn't always see the things the other ones saw, if you're referring to the sign thing, the words they said were on it all meant the same, and if your referring to the who saw who when Jesus came out of the cave, once again, not everyone saw everything the other guys did. Also, one of them might not of put in the women first since Jewish Law apparently did not trust the testimony of women very much. John wasn't even there and was getting information from all accounts he could, so he was probably forming more of a summary of everything, and he might not of found accounts from people who were in all of the places back then.
Would it kill the Christians to get their story straight, however? Also, Jewish law does not distrust the testimony of women. Trust me, I’m Jewish. (Well, it’s still my denomination, though not necessarily my belief) I’ve had enough religious education to know that fact.
The disciples did the best they could, they were still only human :/. and I meant Jewish Law way back then, not now, sorry if that was a bit unclear.
Why do the Gospels of Matthew and Luke contradict each other on the genealogy of Jesus Christ' father; though both agree that Joseph was not his real father?
Because one goes down the paternal side and the other the maternal, plus sometimes they skip or jump around since 'son' back in those days could mean son, grandson, step-son, etc. etc...it was a more flexible definition in the Jewish language
Again, you’re confusing Hebrew. There are distinct words for son, grandson, etc.
Sorry, I meant ancient Hebrew, that was the language they wrote everything in back in ancient times :D. I don't know anything about modern Hebrew personally :/.
Explain this:

"KI1 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.

CH2 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem."
The NIV says that only some Septuagint manuscripts says forty, but only in both places, which translation are you using here?
Don’t ask me. On the lines of the board’s creator, since these are crappy copy and past questions, I do not have to respond to that.
Well my answer still stands then, as far as I know only septuagint manuscripts say forty and only in both places, all others should say four in both places as far as I know.
And this:

"PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.

ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

1 Cor.1:19: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."

the Proverbs verse did not say that understanding did not bring grief, for example, it would be wise to know the Holocaust happened, and it is quite a grief-filled thing indeed to know what happened. The last one is paraphrased from Isaiah 29:14, where Isaiah is saying how God sees how the people are only pretending to know him, and in the context of Corinthians Paul says in 1:20 "Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?" not all wisdom is of the world, the Bible often states that wisdom of the world is foolishness, but wisdom about the world or other things isn't included, such as knowing facts about World War 2 or something, or knowing that Jesus is Lord. For instance, many times in this thread and in many places people make references to things like "One day religious people will start to have a brain and realize God is a myth" or some such things, that would count as 'worldy' knowladge. Christ himself says He is not of the world and that is why the world hates Him, and since He was also God, the reason people often don't like God (And, by association, the Bible) is because their relying on 'worldly' knowledge, and God, not being of the world, therefore often gets critisized.
“"PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.

ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

1 Cor.1:19: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."”

1. Wisdom is paramount, get it, and get it all, baby.
2. Wisdom brings grief, the more the not-so-merrier. (Ignorance is bliss)
3. I will kill all of the intelligent people
Let me try to explain another way, lets say you had the wisdom to predict where and when, hypothetically speaking, Iran would nuke the U.S., and lets say you lived right near the site it would hit. You'd be sure unhappy probably that their gonna nuke your home and destroy everything around it, and you'll probably have alot of grief when people don't believe you and most people stay behind because you'll sound crazy to them if they don't understand your wisdom, but you'll have plenty of time to get out of there and survive. Whereas if you didn't have the wisdom for that, (Which technically none of us could probably have, but this is hypothetical) you'd be in ignorant bliss....until you get nuked instantly. You might die a merry, instant death, but you'll still be dead...as opposed to being alive, and when your alive, you can do good things. When your dead...you kinda can't. And that last verse is saying He will bring destruction to the wisdom of the 'wise', not desctruction to their life, which as i've said is a reference to those of worldly knowledge in this verse, not death to all those people.
So, “god” is saying: Get smart so you can be depressed and that I can kill you. That makes total sense.
And this:

"ACT 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

MAT 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost."

Acts 2:30, when read in context, is clearly referring to King David, and as the NIV puts it "But he was a prophet and knew that God has promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendents on the throne", geneologically Jesus was one of his descendents, how does this not fit and how is it even related to Matthew 1:18? if your saying that the fruit of the loins part means his loins personally, that doesn't have to be what it means, the 'fruit' in this instance just had to turn into another tree and go back to fruit a bunch of times.
“Fruit of your loins”, also known as, semen- human birth. The latter, some ghost gave birth to him – is that possible? Contradiction.
Mary was the descendent of Nathan, who was David's son, or so this website http://www.abideinchrist.com/messages/legitmessiah.html claims. Also, it would of been quite bad if Joseph was Jesus's physical father instead of his adopted father, as Joseph's whole family and his descendents were cursed in Jeremiah 22:30, starting with jechonias. However, Joseph was still Christ's father legally, so the point had to be said in those geneologies that Christ descended that way so people would understand he at least legally descended from the line of David.
And this:

"ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin."

The part in Deuteronomy there is addressed to the Israli people, and is referring to Israli fathers and sons, since it is after all part of what would become Israli law. In Isaiah 14:4 it is made clear that this section is all about "...this taunt against the King of Babylon:" who was not an Israli, so that law didn't apply.

They’re both in the bible, however. I’m quite aware of Jewish law.
Sorry, I should of said ancient Jewish Law, not the law today. And just because the King of Babylon was in the Bible didn't make him a Jew, many times non-jews are mentioned in the Bible, such as the book of Esther.
And this:

"LEV 11:21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
LEV 11:22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
LEV 11:23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you." Four-legged insects?

They could of gone extinct in the +2000 years between then and now if they existed, but the NIV says that 11:23 reads as "But all other winged creatures....", so once again, what translation are you quoting?
Find me the history of the four-legged insect(s). I’m quite interested.
As i've said they could of gone extinct whatever they were and just never found, archaeologists find the fossils of new species all the time, and the NIV only says winged creatures, i've looked this up and it appears your using the King James Version here. There's also some other argument right here: http://www.ldolphin.org/contradict.html, but im not sure if its correct or not, im just throwing it out here.

And this:

"PSA 58:8 As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun." Melting snails?
The fleshy part of the snails can certainly boil and melt away in high enough temperatures, or just die and the flesh will just degrade outward like melting, it doesn't have to be melting due to high heat.
Next time that you see a snail melting, message me.
Snails body's are made up of a good deal of water, I see no reason why they couldn't melt if they boiled before they shriveled up, try putting a couple on hot pavement when the temperature is like above 100 if you can and see.
And this:

"GEN 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
GEN 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof."
Like earlier, the Genesis 2 account is filling in information, nothing says 1 or 2 days wern't being recounted there, and it doesn't say God formed all the critters and brought them to Adam immedietly.
One is bringing life from the water, the other, from the ground. They can’t /both/ be “correct”. Contradiction.
If that's the contradiction, then it looks like God just made more of every beast out of the ground this time and brought them to Adam so he didn't have to go leave the garden and go on a worldwide safari looking for everything.

The Black Forrest

08-01-2006, 18:33

10) Do monkeys think humans are cute?
No.

Actually that is not absolute. Obviously we can't ask them. However, there are instances of liking.

For example take two people; One little bastard always tosses crap at one and never at the other! ;)

The apes are easier especially when they have rudimentary signing capabilities(ie. Koko saying she wanted to mate with William Shatner ;) ).

[/thus ends the tangent of the day]

Saint Curie

08-01-2006, 22:38

while the cave of resurrection is a strong candidate for femininity.

Good thing they wrapped him up in white before they stuck him in...

Unogal

08-01-2006, 22:43

They're all pertinant questions. As far as I know they have no answers. I think that is why people bring a higher power into the equation as an explanation. But when you say "God made the universe" what made god? and what made the thing that made god. The fact is, we are just not going to know where something came from (be it god or the universe) and its jsut much more simple to just say THE UNIVERSE (just) IS rather than GOD (just) IS

[NS]Desperate Measures

08-01-2006, 22:48

Actually that is not absolute. Obviously we can't ask them. However, there are instances of liking.

For example take two people; One little bastard always tosses crap at one and never at the other! ;)

The apes are easier especially when they have rudimentary signing capabilities(ie. Koko saying she wanted to mate with William Shatner ;) ).

[/thus ends the tangent of the day]
I'm reminded of a passage in the book, "Our Inner Ape" by Frans de Waal where a primatologist takes her newborn baby to the Bonobo Ape cage. A mother bonobo looks at the infant for a moment, turns around and goes back into her cave. She comes back out holding her own infant, holding it in the same way as the woman, obviously making a complex connection. I don't know why.... Just reminded me of it.

Litherai

08-01-2006, 23:32

these questions can be found at this site
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=76

Questions for Evolutionists
Various

Where did the space for the universe come from?
Where did matter come from?
Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
How did matter get so perfectly organized?
Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to surviv e, or the species? How do you explain this?)
How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occ urred if evolution were true?
When, where, why, and how did:
Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
Single-celled animals evolve?
Fish change to amphibians?
Amphibians change to reptiles?
Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
How did the intermediate forms live?
When, where, why, how, and from what did:
Whales evolve?
Sea horses evolve?
Bats evolve?
Eyes evolve?
Ears evolve?
Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
Which evolved first (how, and how long; did it work without the others)?
The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
The immune system or the need for it?
There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?
How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?
When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
*How did photosynthesis evolve?
*How did thought evolve?
*How did flowering plants evolve, and from that?
*What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?
What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?
*Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?
*What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?
*Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?
After you have answered the preceding questions, please look carefully at your answers and thoughtfully consider the following questions.

Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have answered? (Do these answers reflect your religion or your science?)
Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"?
Is it possible that an unseen Creator designed this universe? If God is excluded at the beginning of the discussion by your definition of science, how could it be shown that He did create the universe if He did?
Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as fact?
What is the end result of a belief in evolution (lifestyle, society, attitude about others, eternal destiny, etc.)?
Do people accept evolution because of the following factors?
It is all they have been taught.
They like the freedom from God (no moral absolutes, etc.).
They are bound to support the theory for fear of losing their job or status or grade point average.
They are too proud to admit they are wrong.
Evolution is the only philosophy that can be used to justify their political agenda.
Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we don’t have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation, archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, vestigial organs, etc.)?
Should parents be allowed to require that evolution not be taught as fact in their school system unless equal time is given to other theories of origins (like divine creation)?
What are you risking if you are wrong? As one of my debate opponents said, "Either there is a God or there is not. Both possibilities are frightening."
Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools? If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks? It is just a religious worldview.
Aren’t you tired of faith in a system that cannot be true? Wouldn’t it be great to know the God who made you, and to accept His love and forgiveness?
Would you be interested, if I showed you from the Bible, how to have your sins forgiven and how to know for sure that you are going to Heaven? If so, call me.

Q. "With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce? "
A. It would only be capable of sexual reproduction if other cells existed at the same time. It is quite possible that there were intermediate that were capable of both for a while, and then exclusively sexually-reproducing varieties evolved.

Q. "Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival?"
A. To ensure the survival of the species. Usually, when an organism reproduces the habitat that it resides in is capable of supporting the extras. The organism would therefore not worry about this (if it was the kind that supported its offspring once born) and would reproduce. If too many organisms were created, then competition would take place and the ones most suited to the environment would win, as they would be faster, warmer, better able to get food, better able to escape predators etc. The population would drop, and the process would repeat itself.
Also, remember that some organisms have incredibly short lifespans (24 hours in some cases). If they don't reproduce, what happens to the species? The drive to survive is there, but the instinct to reproduce is also there. They are not mutually exclusive.

Q. "Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor? "
A. That is possible, but the common ansestor one works equally well. Also, similarities occur when a particular feature is extremely useful to the survival or a creature, and many creatures evolve it (for example, fur or streamlined shape.)

Q. "How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.) "
A. Mutations aren't just recombinations of the same genes, you can get different alleles (types) of genes through mutation as well. For example, the recessive allele for an attached earlobe and a dominant allele for an unattached earlobe, or the various strains of wheat. This can be caused by radiation (or another mutanigenic factor) or randomly. Often, the mutations are recessive (such as the allel for haemophillia) but occasionally useful strains emerge that are dominant and improve the survival chances of the species.
Also, genes aren't quite like languages. Slight changes to the code in one place can have a huge impact on the development and appearance of an organism.

Q. "Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occ urred if evolution were true? "
A. Again, the genes can mutate. However, you have to remember that evolution takes place over hundreds of thousands of years, and so as favourable characteristics are selected over and over again, and the climates and habitats are constantly changing, so various new features will appear and be selected. (For example, Scotland was once almost all desert. it is now temperate/soggy. The species would have to adapt and change with the climate.)
A favourable or useful feature would have a lot of time to develop; eyes for example, were once very very basic - mere light receptors distnguishing between light and dark areas. However, they have been developed over millions of years to become what they are now. Being able to tell one moving object from another had incredible survival benefits, allowing a creature to distinguish between allies, prey and predator.

Q. "Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!) "
A. This goes for the preceding two questions in the list as well - fossilised intermediate creatures have been found. If a lizzard can travel above the ground it opens up more possibilities for survival by being able to avoid earth-bound predators and also take to the trees to get new prey. Some lizards today have membranes connecting their legs that allow them to 'fly' between trees. Millions of years ago, some developed feathers (insulation) but were not able to fly much further than to the next tree either. However, they evolved too. Hollow bones, better developed wings, smaller frames - it didn't happen over night, but like everything else they developed increasingly benefician characteristics.

Q. "How did the intermediate forms live? "
A. Fish evolved to reptiles by way of amphibious intermediates. These could live in and out of the water. Reptiles to birds were similar, making a gradual change from earth to trees, and so on and so forth.

Q. "Whales evolve? "
A. Put simply, there were plenty of whale-like creatures around in prehistoric times. As their needs changed, so did their bodies.

Q. "Eyes evolve?
Ears evolve? "
A. I've already gone over this. vestigial organs developed into what they are today over millions of years.

Q. "The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs? "
A. The gases didn't change to suit us, we changed to suit the gases. All over our respiratory organs have developed over time to better consume the air around us. Hence why changes to the air can have serious effects on our health, because we have adapted to breathe specific things.

Q. "*What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human? "
A. What is so scientific about the idea of an all-powerful being creatng everything in a week before a week was invented? We all have our theories.

Q. "*Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing? "
A. Yes, I do. I believe we are all a very big coincidence. But whose to say that ours is the first universe? There could well have been others before ours that had a different balance of forces that would have made life impossible.

"Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools? If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks? It is just a religious worldview.
Aren’t you tired of faith in a system that cannot be true? Wouldn’t it be great to know the God who made you, and to accept His love and forgiveness?
Would you be interested, if I showed you from the Bible, how to have your sins forgiven and how to know for sure that you are going to Heaven? If so, call me."

We aren't 'afraid' at all. We merely object to having religion passed off as science. Let's turn the question on its head; why are religious people so afraid of having evolution presented in public schools?
We never said 'you cannot teach religion'. But religion is for the religious classroom, not the science lab. There are plenty of religious books out there, and if we tried to put evolution into them there'd be a public outcry. Religion can be used as a way of approaching science (is God directing evolution?) but on itself it is NOT science, it is faith. Thus, science is not a religious worldview. The difference? Religion is faith based, whereas science is constantly changing, theories being developed and scrapped, there is no fixed following or set of values. However, the widely accepted theories are called so under this definition: a SCIENTIFIC theory is one that has been tried and tested over and over again and PROVEN BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT. Hence evolution. It wasn't made and kept as it is, it too has been developed over many years.
We don't think our system cannot be true; we belive that it is, in fact, far more likely to be true than the religious explanations we've been given. We could ask you the same question. It all depends on your viewpoint.
And no, I wouldn't be interested in 'having my sins forgiven and knowing that I'm going to heaven' if you showed me a Bible. Because I don't believe in heaven or Hell, and no book written by a group of powerful men as both an explanation and method of control and source of power thousands of years ago is going to change that.
However, it's good to see someone actually asking good questions.

Straughn

09-01-2006, 00:11

At the risk of injecting a moment of almost sanity into the merriment...

Many of the 'symbols' of the scripture HAVE been considered to have gendered meanings, by various people at various times.

The crucifix or stake is a fairly obvious candidate for masculinity, while the cave of resurrection is a strong candidate for femininity.

In the Garden of Eden... there is perhaps more scope... the Tree can be both masculine (as a pillar symbol) AND feminine (as a grove symbol). The Serpent, on the other hand, is pretty consistently masculine.

So - Eve finds a snake in her sacred grove, and is awakened to a new sense of wonder.

Make of it what you will....
*drool*
Song of Solomon was TOO short.
This helps though, thanks.

...oh and as a personal anecdote i used to have a little charm collage i'd wear around my neck made up of trinkets people'd given me, as friends, et cetera ... and then one day a friend's sister asked me if i'd wear a horse stimulator around my neck if some friend of mine gave it to me in earnest.
True story.
The answer was, well, wash it first, whenever you're done with it.
No follow up.

Straughn

09-01-2006, 00:13

Desperate Measures']I'm reminded of a passage in the book, "Our Inner Ape" by Frans de Waal where a primatologist takes her newborn baby to the Bonobo Ape cage. A mother bonobo looks at the infant for a moment, turns around and goes back into her cave. She comes back out holding her own infant, holding it in the same way as the woman, obviously making a complex connection. I don't know why.... Just reminded me of it.
Guess what else comes to mind when you mention Bonobos?
;)

Straughn

09-01-2006, 00:15

The apes are easier especially when they have rudimentary signing capabilities(ie. Koko saying she wanted to mate with William Shatner ;) ).

Obviously she was a Captain Kirk fan and knew Kirk's proclivities.
Understandable ....

Desperate Measures

09-01-2006, 00:18

Guess what else comes to mind when you mention Bonobos?
;)
Snap snap, grin grin, wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more?

Straughn

09-01-2006, 00:19

Snap snap, grin grin, wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more?
...is she interested in photography? Eh? Candid photography?

Grave_n_idle

09-01-2006, 00:21

Good thing they wrapped him up in white before they stuck him in...

Sounds... unhygienic to me.... :)

Grave_n_idle

09-01-2006, 00:24

*drool*
Song of Solomon was TOO short.
This helps though, thanks.

...oh and as a personal anecdote i used to have a little charm collage i'd wear around my neck made up of trinkets people'd given me, as friends, et cetera ... and then one day a friend's sister asked me if i'd wear a horse stimulator around my neck if some friend of mine gave it to me in earnest.
True story.
The answer was, well, wash it first, whenever you're done with it.
No follow up.

Scared her off, did you?

Or... is she still 'using' the stimulator.......?

Straughn

09-01-2006, 00:28

Scared her off, did you?

Or... is she still 'using' the stimulator.......?
I didn't scare HER off, i basically had to get a high roll for composure, and i think i did (i carried my 6's and 20's in those days) so i just kinda took it until the conversation veered elsewhere, and then i ran away.
She is probably still using that stimulator. It was one of a great many rumours about her. I never found out but i'd heard a lot. Not quite becoming, IMO.

Bakamongue

09-01-2006, 01:38

Imagine two guys looking at a 10 mile wide math problem, etched into the side of a canyon in 10 pt font and supremely difficult.

GUY1: This looks complicated. I can only solve this small part here, right now, and I'll have to study the rest of my life to solve another part of it. My kids and their kids will have to learn the rest. Wanna help?

[snip ]

GUY2: NO! SINCE YOU CAN'T SOLVE THE WHOLE THING NOW, YOU MUST BELIEVE THE ANSWER IS "1" OR YOU'RE WRONG!

GUY1: Okay, so, you don't want to help then.

If Guy 1 wants any help, I'm up for it if there's anything I can do. I must admit that I wouldn't be surprised if the answer was "0" but I would hope that this won't influence me in any way.

(Translating that to real life, the answer to the universe could be 'one', or 'zero', or 'forty-two', and I really don't know which, but while I would find it particularly satisfying if it were 'zero' (assuming a closed system, and all), I will allow that it could be absolutely anything and may not even be calcuable. In the meantime, let us understand the bits that we can check, and that might give us enough clues to help deal with other bits that concern us in practical manners...)

Swallow your Poison

09-01-2006, 02:04

I'm bored, so I'll answer.
Where did the space for the universe come from?
Totally irrelevant to evolution. This would be a question for those who believe in non-theist universe origin explanations.
Where did matter come from?
Totally irrelevant to evolution. This would be a question for those who believe in non-theist universe origin explanations.
Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
Totally irrelevant to evolution. This would be a question for those who believe in non-theist universe origin explanations.
Are you beginning to see a pattern?
How did matter get so perfectly organized?
Totally irrelevant to evolution. This would be a question for those who believe in non-theist universe origin explanations.
Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
Ditto
When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
Closer, but no cigar. This is a question about abiogenesis, not evolution.
When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
Ditto
With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
I don't know. I'm not sure why it matters though?
Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival?
This question is silly. Plants don't want anything, not having minds! And I doubt that most animals are able to think to the point where they can recognize the dilemma. Irrelevant.
(Does the individual have a drive to surviv e, or the species? How do you explain this?)
I think that the idea of 'drives' is a bit misplaced in some cases, particularly, bacteria and plants. They just do things, they don't think about them. In terms of higher forms of life, I'd say there isn't a drive for the species survival. It is generally towards the individual animal, or more likely the individual animal and others it is near to (children, herds, etc.)
How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties?
Random changes, since they happen so often over a long period of time, cause it. But I'm not so sure the 'how' matters as much, because we have seen it happen.
A bacteria has evolved that eats nylon waste. This occurred when a single thymine was added to its genetic code. Since nylon did not exist before the 1900's, it must be a new mutation, musn't it?
(Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
This is a false analogy. For one, Chinese and English are written using totally different alphabets. Secondly, they are different languages. And finally, they are more complex than the 'language' of DNA.
DNA has four base pairs, and any combination of three of them will code for some sort of amino acid, and there are only twenty of them(I think). So it is far more likely to end up with something useful in this situation.
Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
They don't prove it, but they could provide evidence for either, perhaps.
Natural selection only works with the genetic information available
No it doesn't. utations are dealt with through natural selection.
and tends only to keep a species stable.
No it doesn't. Better adapted organisms survive. If species stayed stable, they would die.
How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occ urred if evolution were true?
Randomness guided by the fact that right answers perpetuate themselves, I suppose?
When, where, why, and how did:
Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
Single-celled animals evolve?
Fish change to amphibians?
Amphibians change to reptiles?
Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
How did the intermediate forms live?
When, where, why, how, and from what did:
Whales evolve?
Sea horses evolve?
Bats evolve?
Eyes evolve?
Ears evolve?
Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
Which evolved first (how, and how long; did it work without the others)?
The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
I don't know enough to answer any of those.
The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
This is another misleading question. Neither of them were caused by natural selection, as natural selection depends on them.
The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
Not knowledgable enough to answer.
The immune system or the need for it?
And another silly question. The need for something doesn't evolve, things that help organisms survive become more prevalent.
There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation.
There are? I didn't know that.
What are they?
Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?
Well, have you got anything better?
How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?
By chance, of course, guided by the fact that when it did happen by chance, the mutation flourished.
When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings?
Ooh, a fairly good question for once. The evolution of the mind seems to me to be a very tricky bit.
I can't remember the last explanation I'd heard.
Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
Why not? Perhaps a merciful person wouldn't die as quickly?
Or perhaps emotions aren't coded for genetically, they're an emergent feature of the mind?
But I'm just guessing. I'm out of my league here.
*How did photosynthesis evolve?
*How did thought evolve?
*How did flowering plants evolve, and from that?[/quote]
Beats me.
*What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?
What kinds are there? I don't know what kind I am.
What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?
:D
This is officially the best question here.
Err, colecanths were the ones we thought were extinct, right? I'd probably either think you were crazy, or think that someone had slipped something into my food.
*Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?
I'm not sure what the predictions of macroevolution are...
Seeing as it's based on the random chance of mutations, I can't make any particular predictions off the top of my head.
*What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?
*Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?
Neither of these are about evolution, they're about abiogenesis, and the universe's origin, respectively.
After you have answered the preceding questions, please look carefully at your answers and thoughtfully consider the following questions.

Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have answered?[quote]
Well, some of them are provable, and the ones where I was just guessing are probably either false or unprovable.
[quote](Do these answers reflect your religion or your science?)
Some of them reflect my science, and some of them are idle, uninformed speculation, but I don't think any of them are religious.
Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"?
The provable ones, yeah. Mostly because we've already seen many of them happen.
Is it possible that an unseen Creator designed this universe?
Sure.
If God is excluded at the beginning of the discussion by your definition of science, how could it be shown that He did create the universe if He did?
Whether God is excluded depends on your definition of God. If theres some way to provide evidence of this God's actions, then I don't think GOd is excluded.
Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as fact?
Well, natural selection is pretty solid, mutation is fairly solid, and the rest is the best guess we've currently got.
I don't think any scientific theory should be presented as "this is incontrovertible fact and you can't disprove it no matter what", because that isn't the way science works. Science is a process of making logical (or illogical, as it may be) guesses, finding out that you're wrong, and coming up with a better guess.
What is the end result of a belief in evolution (lifestyle, society, attitude about others, eternal destiny, etc.)?
Beats me. Personally, I don't think a belief in evolution would change my belief in any of those factors, had I previously disbelieved in evolution, in most cases.
Do people accept evolution because of the following factors?
It is all they have been taught.
I doubt that this happens very often, but it is possible.
They like the freedom from God (no moral absolutes, etc.).
It isn't true that a belief in evolution requires amoral atheism. I mean, if I'm remebering correctly, Charles Darwin himself was a Christian or some sort of theist while he was formulating his theories. And heck, many atheists believe in moral absolutes too.
They are bound to support the theory for fear of losing their job or status or grade point average.
Well, in most jobs other than teachers or other people who otherwise work with evolution, I can't see how that would be a problem. And in terms of teachers and students, I think there's a misunderstanding about science classes again.
Science is offering our current best theory on how things happened and happen. Science classes are teaching science.
You can disbelieve in evolution, and still do well in science class, even while studying evolution. Here's how: Realize that science class is just teaching what our current best theory is. It could be wrong, it could be incomplete, or whatever. You don't need to believe in it to recognize that it is what the current theory is, or to learn to understand it. And I'd say that learning about could/would/does help help non-evolutionists to hone their arguments.
Same thing for teachers, you can personally disbelieve in it, while recognizing ot and understanding it. Heck, I wouldn't care if a teacher even brought in some criticism of it, if that criticism were logical and scientific. It would make the class think more about the issue, and that's good.
They are too proud to admit they are wrong.
That could be true for any belief, but wouldn't it require it to be false?
Evolution is the only philosophy that can be used to justify their political agenda.
I somehow doubt that happens often. What political agenda, other than the supporting of evolution itself, would be forwarded by a belief in evolution?
Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we don’t have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation, archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, vestigial organs, etc.)?
If they're outdated or false, I somehow doubt we still use them very often, but if we do, of course we should stop.
Should parents be allowed to require that evolution not be taught as fact in their school system unless equal time is given to other theories of origins (like divine creation)?
Well, I think that most theories being taught as totally, definately true, is wrong.
But I don't think that Creationism or ID really have anything useful to offer in terms of science, yet. I'm fine with a class on religious beliefs that includes world-origin theories and such, and I'm fine with going over the criticisms of evolution, if they are logical, but ID isn't up to par, and creationism is more about faith than about reason, I thought?
What are you risking if you are wrong?
Well, personally I doubt I'm risking anything. It's possible that I'm risking a lot, but I haven't seen mucbh to suggest that it's true.
As one of my debate opponents said, "Either there is a God or there is not. Both possibilities are frightening."
True, true.
Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools?
I think the real problem is creationism being presented as a scientific theory. I don't see a problem with educating about religion in schools.
If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks? It is just a religious worldview.
It is? I hadn't noticed.
Aren’t you tired of faith in a system that cannot be true?
It can't? I hadn't noticed.
Am I tired of it? Not particularly. New and unusual things are always welcome, but at the moment this seems true.
Wouldn’t it be great to know the God who made you, and to accept His love and forgiveness?
Not if this requires me to deny my will.
Would you be interested, if I showed you from the Bible, how to have your sins forgiven and how to know for sure that you are going to Heaven? If so, call me.
Only if it was in some way different than the standard Christianity. New information is always good.

The Black Forrest

09-01-2006, 04:19

Desperate Measures']I'm reminded of a passage in the book, "Our Inner Ape" by Frans de Waal where a primatologist takes her newborn baby to the Bonobo Ape cage. A mother bonobo looks at the infant for a moment, turns around and goes back into her cave. She comes back out holding her own infant, holding it in the same way as the woman, obviously making a complex connection. I don't know why.... Just reminded me of it.

I have been meaning to get that book. It's a common thing to share babies. It's a bonding thing.

What is interesting is there have been a couple instances of teaching a Gorilla mother to breast feed by watching a woman do it.

Thanks for sharing that.....

Saint Curie

09-01-2006, 05:24

If Guy 1 wants any help, I'm up for it if there's anything I can do. I must admit that I wouldn't be surprised if the answer was "0" but I would hope that this won't influence me in any way.

(Translating that to real life, the answer to the universe could be 'one', or 'zero', or 'forty-two', and I really don't know which, but while I would find it particularly satisfying if it were 'zero' (assuming a closed system, and all), I will allow that it could be absolutely anything and may not even be calcuable. In the meantime, let us understand the bits that we can check, and that might give us enough clues to help deal with other bits that concern us in practical manners...)

Yep, that was the gist.

Zexaland

09-01-2006, 05:58

:rolleyes:

I have a few questions for Creationists:

* Please use creationism to explain the development of drug-resistant strains of bacteria. Ask your doctor why you need to take all of your antibiotics when prescribed. That is evolution, observable, verifiable and demonstrated in your own body.

* Please provide a creationist explanation of sickle-cell anemia's relationship to malaria, the Peppered Moth, Australian rabbits and myxomatosis, or the presence of gills and tails in the early embryonic stages of virtually all vertebrates (including humans). Use your precious and much vaunted but never demonstrated creation "model" to explain the presence of vestigial hind legs in numerous snakes and whales. Explain why God would have created over 250,000 different species of beetle. Why did God create over 2,000 different varieties of fruit-fly (25% of which can only be found in Hawaii)? Why did God create muscles that allow us to move our ears? What is our appendix for?

* There are some 8,600 species of birds so far described and 3,700 species of mammals. 20,000 species of fish are documented out of an estimated 40,000 believed to exist. Known insect species number over 850,000 and this is estimated as being fewer that 1/5 or even 1/10 of the total number in extant. The number of catalogued flowering plant species is over 286,000 and about 4,000 more are catalogued every year. The number of different species of fungi is in excess of 40,000. If you add it all up you get over 1.6 billion different forms of life on this planet. Since over 99% of all life forms that have ever existed are now extinct we end up with a total species number of as high as 16 billion. Please explain why your creator went to all this effort only to give one species any special favors. How did Noah manage to place at least 3.2 billion different life forms on the ark?

* Which of Noah's children were black? Which were Korean, East Indian, Hispanic? Which had blue eyes, green eyes, hazel eyes, brown eyes? Which were albino? Which of Noah's children had brown hair, black hair, blonde hair? Which of Noah's children had syphilis, AIDS, gonorrhea, tuberculosis, polio, smallpox? Which of Noah's children had congenital heart defects?

Come on, put up or shut up.

Morassa

09-01-2006, 06:32

I really didn't want to add much to the debate, personally I can't answer those questions, I did answer some by laughing at the fact that they don't work, making a false analogy etc. and by saying that there are a lot that are currently unanswered by science. But my main point is this: I don't consider myself to be an 'evolutionist' I perfer to call myself an 'Evolutioneer'

I just wanted to correct the terminology.

Plus, regarding those questions that haven't been thusfar answered by science - It's not as though that's the first time those questions have been posed, in fact I believe that they were origionally posed by evolutioneers like myself, it's not like it's some sort of secret scientists didn't want anyone to know. Also I got mad at that website when I read this at the top of the page:
Evolution is not a good theory—it is just a pagan religion masquerading as science.

Underage Hotties

09-01-2006, 06:53

Regarding the OP.

Pal, it would take an encyclopaedia of science to answer all of those questions sufficiently. It would be like me asking:

Who wrote the Bible?
How did Christianity come to be how it is today?
What is the complete geneology of Jesus, and why are there several in the Bible?
Why does the Bible say that slavery is OK?
Why does the Bible say that the sky is solid?
Why is Satan still alive and free?
Why is sin inherited?
Why was the universe created?
Where did God come from?

And then I go on and on and on with all of those questions, as if they all take only a single line to answer. Just pick one of your favorites and start another thread. When you are satisfied, pick the next one of your favorites.

Candelar

09-01-2006, 11:08

Questions for Evolutionists
A question for you : Have you ever seriously read and understood any professionally-written books on evolution? There are plenty of good popular science books on the subject - try Richard Dawkins, Matt Ridley, Stephen Jay Gould or Steve Jones, for example.
I have to assume that you (or Kent Hovind) haven't done so; otherwise you'd understand just what nonsenscial drivel most of these questions are.

I'll ignore most of the questions, since I've nothing to add to the answers which have already been given :-
Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival?
Most plants and animals don’t have the brainpower to "want" anything : they act according to their biochemical natures.
Does the individual have a drive to surviv e, or the species?
The basic unit of evolution is the gene. Read Dawkins.
When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
Yes they would. They are important parts of the evolutionary survival strategy of many species, where total selfishness and lack of feeling would lead to rapid extinction.
Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have answered? (Do these answers reflect your religion or your science?)
The answers provided by scientists are consistent with the scientific evidence, and have nothing to do with their religion (it couldn't - the majority of research biologists have no religion :))
Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"?
They show vastly less faith, because they are evidence-based, not faith-based.
Is it possible that an unseen Creator designed this universe? If God is excluded at the beginning of the discussion by your definition of science, how could it be shown that He did create the universe if He did?
Everything is excluded from the discussion unless and until it is found in the evidence and/or becomes a necessary part of the explanation of the evidence. It's a fallacy to begin with the answer you want and then shoe-horn the answer into the equation when the evidence doesn't point to it. If God exists but left no evidence of his role in evolution for us to find, that's his own silly fault.

Many evolutionary biologists start off as believers, and then stop believing when what they discover in their research includes neither evidence of god nor a role for god. Even Charles Darwin began as a Christian (training for the priesthood), but the reality of what he saw and learned steered him towards atheism.
Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as fact?
It's wise, fair and honest to present evolutionary theory as the only theory which convincingly explains the available evidence, because it is the only theory which does so. To suggest that Creation Science or ID are viable alternatives would be a lie, because they are not scientific theories.
What is the end result of a belief in evolution (lifestyle, society, attitude about others, eternal destiny, etc.)?
Those who accept the theory of evolution are as moral, law-abiding and altruistic as anyone else (and there are evolutionary theories to explain why they are).

In the absence of any evidence for the existence of "eternal destiny", that part of the question is meaningless.
Do people accept evolution because of the following factors?

It is all they have been taught.
Perhaps, in some cases - in the same way that they accept the roundness of the Earth because it is all they have been taught. Since there is no alternative scientific theory, there's nothing else to teach in a science class.

However, almost all of us have also been exposed to religious creation stories, so it's not as though we're ignorant of them. But they're not science.

They like the freedom from God (no moral absolutes, etc.).
Moral absolutes are a mirage - just look at the history of Christianity to see how unabsolute morality can be.
Many who accept evolution also believe in God, so this question is a straw man.
They are bound to support the theory for fear of losing their job or status or grade point average.
Evolution is totally irrelevant to most people's jobs or status, so this question is a straw man.
They are too proud to admit they are wrong.
No. On the whole, scientists are pretty good at admitting when they're wrong : proving things wrong is an essential part of their discipline.
Evolution is the only philosophy that can be used to justify their political agenda.
What political agenda? Evolution is accepted by people ranging for God-fearing conservatives (e.g. the Pope) to radical liberals and socialists. And I suspect that most evolutionary biologists are not very political anyway.
Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we don’t have a suitable substitute?
No - we should base theories on valid, tested evidence. On that basis, evolution stands firm.
Should parents be allowed to require that evolution not be taught as fact in their school system unless equal time is given to other theories of origins (like divine creation)?
No they shouldn't, because divine creation is not a scientific theory.
What are you risking if you are wrong? As one of my debate opponents said, "Either there is a God or there is not. Both possibilities are frightening."
What are you risking if you are wrong, and either God doesn't exist, or he/they are not the Christian god?

The possibility of no God isn't frightening to an intelligent, adult, mind which is capable of dealing with reality instead of comforting fairy stories.
Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools?
For the same reason they'd be afraid of flat-earthism being taught in public schools : it's wrong, and undermines the teaching of rational scientific thought and method. It would be like teaching that Hitler won the Second World War, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks? It is just a religious worldview.
Bullshit.
Aren’t you tired of faith in a system that cannot be true?
Yes, which is why I'd love to see Christianity and other theistic faith systems fade out of existence :)
Wouldn’t it be great to know the God who made you, and to accept His love and forgiveness?
Wouldn't it be great to be able to fly by flapping our arms, to have X-ray vision, to be able to speak every language on Earth, and to solve the World's problems by the wave of a magic wand?

Unfortunately, the fact that something sounds great doesn't make it true.
Would you be interested, if I showed you from the Bible, how to have your sins forgiven and how to know for sure that you are going to Heaven? If so, call me.
The Bible doesn't show these things. It presents a bunch of myths for which there is little or no evidence.

Commie Catholics

09-01-2006, 11:16

<snip>

You're very convincing. I like you.

:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

Praetonia

09-01-2006, 12:46

these questions can be found at this site
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=76

Questions for Evolutionists
Various

Where did the space for the universe come from?
The Big Bang.

Where did matter come from?
Why does it have to have come from anywhere? There is nothing to suggest that it hasnt always existed and until there is, this is not a question that needs answering.

Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
No one really knows. Where did God come from?

How did matter get so perfectly organized?
Matter is perfectly organised? o_0

Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
The big bang. Oh, disorder =/= entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies to a closed system, which life is not.

When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
3 - 4bn years ago (assuming it hasnt also happened anywhere else in the universe), earth, because of the laws of physics, notably organic chemistry and kinetic theory.

When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
Life did not "learn" to reproduce. DNA is a self-replicating compound, as is RNA in conjunction with biological cells. If anything resembling early life appeared without the ability to reproduce itself, it would have died out after 1 generation which is why it no longer exists (if it ever did).

With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
Cells arent capable of sexual reproduction.

Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to surviv e, or the species? How do you explain this?)
Because if a species is unable to reproduce it will die out after one generation, therefore if an offspring without the ability is created through reproduction, it will not spread its non-reproductive DNA, by definition. Do you even understand evolution? Considering you asked this question, I doubt it.

How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
That's because Chinese uses a different alphabet to English (in fact it has no alphabet). The DNA 'code' is common to all known species. If you rearranged an English book you could conceivably get a German book, but this would be like a chicken giving birth to an allegator. Theoretically possible but in reality it's never going to happen and it is not what evolution predicts. Evolution predicts small changes that build up over time, not one massive change every now and again. Where does your evolution knowledge come from? X Men? In answer to your question, most of the time they dont. Some of the time they do - this has been observed, ie. bacteria resistant to antibiotics where they werent before.

Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
No. There is no evidence for this, and the "Creator" is an unneccessary term when you can explain these occurance without having to resort to magic. Furthermore, there is no reason for a 'creator' to make a progression of species with each step on the rung so similar to the next and last. He doesnt have to, so why does he do this? It doesnt make any sense.

Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable.
This is completely untrue, read: resistant bacteria, differences between humans.

How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occ urred if evolution were true?
As new (useful) abilities are gained by mutation, the genetic code by necessity becomes more complex.

When, where, why, and how did:
Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
We dont know when because single celled organisms do not leave fossils; the oceans, but why does it matter where?; because increased surface area is good for plants.

Single-celled animals evolve?
There is no such thing as a "single-celled animal".

Fish change to amphibians?
Fossil records show this, but I cant tell you off-hand; errr... the sea?; to gain access to a predator-free environment with few competitors.

Amphibians change to reptiles?
See above.

Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birds#Evolution If wikipedia holds the answers, why ask me?

How did the intermediate forms live?
They lived because they were not evolving to the end of becoming "birds" or "reptiles" or whatever, they lived because the incremental changes were all beneficial for them at the time. Evolution =/= metamorphosis.

When, where, why, how, and from what did:
Whales evolve?
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

Sea horses evolve?
http://seahorse.fisheries.ubc.ca/pubs/Casey_etal2004.pdf

Bats evolve?
http://www.batconservation.org/content/Infobatarticles.html

Eyes evolve?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye#Evolution_of_eyes

Incidently, human eyes see in only 3 colours, whereas some eyes in nature see in 5. Some see in IR and ultraviolet as well as the visible spectrum. These things are clearly not needed for humans, but they would be nice, so why did your God not give them to us when they are clearly compatible with our biology? The simple fact is that creationism does not explain anything better than evolution, and at the same time is inherently unscientific (it makes no predictions and cannot be falsified) and at the same time includes blantant inconsistencies like this.

Ears evolve?
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB302.html

Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
As much as I would like to continue to trawl through wikipedia and google to find more articles to link to, I think you're more than capable of doing this yourself. Simply battering your opponents to death with more questions that he or she can possibly be bothered to spend the time answering does not make your silly dogma and superstition any more valid.

Which evolved first (how, and how long; did it work without the others)?
The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
The immune system or the need for it?
All of these are elements of a highly developed organism. Evolution does not work by developing a bacterium attached to a fully working kidney and then trying to develop the rest of the human body, as if it were working to some sort of goal of perfection that is us. There are numerous examples of living animals which have all of these things in various stages of development and some which dont require them at all. If you want answers, look for them in the world yourself rather than trying to beat down people who have by demanding that they point out in impossible detail staringly obvious facts of the real world that you cant be bothered or are too bloody minded to look for and accept yourself.

There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?
Examples? Citations?

How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?
None of them. Intelligent choice does not drive evolution, neither does chance. Animals mimick others only where there is an evolutionary benefit in doing so. Ie. a non-poisonous snake mimicking a poisonous one is much less likely to be attacked and eaten, allowing it to better propegate its blood line. The actual changes can easily have taken place by simply genetic variation of colour, and then the successful (ie. mimick) colours were the ones that survived best.

When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
Feelings help us to react to our environment, ie. if we are afraid of predators then we will run from them. A clear evolutionary advantage over a creature that just walks blindly towards them.

*How did photosynthesis evolve?
Photosynthesis is seen in even single celled organisms and is based on simple chemical reactions.

*How did thought evolve?
Do you really want me to explain to you how thought is evolutionarily advantageous?

*How did flowering plants evolve, and from that?
http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/evolution/plantEvolution.shtml

*What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?
Errr... what?

What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?
This has nothing to do with evolution, it has to do with extinction due to a non-evolution related mechanism. By the way, you might want to say 70 years rather than 50 (how old is this box-o-questions that you obviously copy/pasted from somewhere else?)

*Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?
One? There are dozens. Where to start?

- The existance of life.
- The existance of life with incremental changes between chronologically contiguous and related species.
- Increasing levels of complexity in organisms through time.
- The development of new species over time.
- A fossil record showing the above.
- The existance of DNA (which was not known about when Darwin wrote 'The Origin of Species')

Etc.

*What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?
Appeal to ridicule. Not only is this a logical fallacy (not, say, an "argument"), but the implication that people are made entirely of hydrogen is just wrong. People are also made of oxygen, iron, carbon, thyomine and many, many other compounds. And it's "so scientific" because experiments conducted voer short time scales involving the chemicals present roughly 4bn years ago on earth have produced organic compounds - amino acids. It's scientific because it makes predictions which can be verified through observation and experimentation. It's scientific because it's falsifieable. It's scientific because it's based on existing chemical principles. Creationism, sorry "intelligent design", does none of these things. What is so scientific about saying "a wizard did it" when faced with a complex problem?

*Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?
No, because this is impossible. No one with even a high school education in science would claim such absurdities. Well, except creationists, who believe that God created everything out of nothing.

After you have answered the preceding questions, please look carefully at your answers and thoughtfully consider the following questions.
Now, before we go into the vague attempt to convert me: I have answered every one of your questions. I have nothing more than a GCSE-level (high school level for the yanks) education in biology, Wikipedia and Google. Your post, however, exemplifies creationists absolutely - dont do your own research, propose why your view fits the evidence better than anyone else's or suggest why your view is the best theory to explain what we see, just ask dozens of stupid, easily answered questions that in reality show nothing but your own lack of understanding of science in the hope that your opponent cant be bothered to respond or is battered into submission by your sheer copy and pasting skills. Pathetic.

Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have answered? (Do these answers reflect your religion or your science?)
I dont consider myself religious. I am quite sure that all of my answers were rational and based on observationally and experimental verifiable fact. Thanks for asking.

Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"?
My answers have nothing to do with faith. In addition, I actually backed up my answers with reasoning rather than just making vague assertions.

Is it possible that an unseen Creator designed this universe?
Yes, of course it is. Is it possible that a magical pink pony is hovering right in front of my face this very minute? To the same degree. It is impossible to absolutely disprove things, but in science you also have to prove or at least present some semblence of reasonable evidence rather than just saying "My theory is impossible to disprove therefore you must teach it to all your children. HA!" If you did that then anything, however ludicrous, could be presented as a theory. "God" as a term in a theory is completely unnecessary as he has no predictive capabilities (whatever is the case, you can just claim that God is omnipotent and he can make it like that if he wants to) and is impossible to falsify. In short, he does not meet any of the requirements to be inserted into logical thinking, as Occam (of Occam's Razor fame) proved himself (he was a priest) to show that God required faith alone and could not be backed up by science. If you want to have your dogma, sure, but dont ask me to accept it as logical reasoning and have it taught in school science classes, because it is not logical and it is not science.

If God is excluded at the beginning of the discussion by your definition of science, how could it be shown that He did create the universe if He did?
Strawman. God is not excluded from the beginning in "my definition of science", but there needs to be some evidence or at least a theoretical need for his existance. There is none.

Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as fact?
No, because it is not fact. That is why it is called a "theory". Is it wise and fair to present intelligent design to students at all outside of a Religious Studies class? No, because it is not science and many of the claims made to support it are simply wrong.
What is the end result of a belief in evolution (lifestyle, society, attitude about others, eternal destiny, etc.)?
Appeal to consequences, another logical fallacy. "If X then Y will happen, and Y is bad, therefore X is wong." It doesnt follow. As an aside, I do not "believe" in evolution, I accept it as the most likely method by which life occured, as that is what the evidence and reasoning presented leads to.

Do people accept evolution because of the following factors?
It is all they have been taught.
Probably, because most people are ignorant and dont care about scientific method. Does that make the theory of evolution "wrong"? No. Does it mean that if they were fairly presented ID alongside, they would accept ID instead? No.

They like the freedom from God (no moral absolutes, etc.).
Moral absolutes like "An eye for an eye, an tooth for a tooth." and "If your son has been disrespectful take him to the city gates and stone him to death"? Morality does not require God. In my opinion, the further morality is from the Old Testament, the better.

They are bound to support the theory for fear of losing their job or status or grade point average.
This is just too silly. People will lose their job for saying evolution is incorrect? Dont be absurd.

They are too proud to admit they are wrong.
Yeah the thing about that is that they have to actually be wrong to be too proud to admit it. You have presented no evidence that they are.

Evolution is the only philosophy that can be used to justify their political agenda.
Errr... what? Scientists dont have a shared "political agenda" which they cleverly weave into (co-incidentally not as yet disproved) theories.

Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we don’t have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation, archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, vestigial organs, etc.)?
No. Should we generalise a handful of incorrect or fraudulant studies to cover the entire fields of biology, geology and astrophysics? Again, no.

Should parents be allowed to require that evolution not be taught as fact in their school system unless equal time is given to other theories of origins (like divine creation)?
*shrug* America is democracy so I guess so. If you lot want to rip yourselves apart by injecting silly dogma into every area of your lives, even where inappropriate and destructive, I shall simply sit here on the other side of the Atlantic and laugh. If your question is "Should parents decide to demand to require..." then no, because divine creation is not a "theory" nor is it "science" it is an "unsubstantiated hypothesis" and deserves no more time in a science lesson than the Greeks' belief in the 4 elements or the belief that the unvierse revolves around the earth.

What are you risking if you are wrong? As one of my debate opponents said, "Either there is a God or there is not. Both possibilities are frightening."
I dont understand this point. Is it meant to be a veiled threat that if I dont believe in creationism then God will punish me? :rolleyes: As an aside, it is not "My God exists or there is no God." Clearly, other religions' Gods could also exist.

Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools?
Im afraid of creationism being put into state school text books because it is not science, and teaching it to children will thoroughly confuse them about the nature of science and scientific method and also teach them something which is, based on the available evidence, simply wrong.

If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks?
Because evolution is backed up by observable and recreatable experimental evidence. It is falsifiable and it makes predictions. It is science, and no better theory current exists.

It is just a religious worldview.
If you define "religious" as "based on reason and valid, observable evidence brought together to form falsifiable theories with predicitve qualities" then yes, evolution is religious. On the other hand, Christianity and intelligent design are not. I dont see why you are even trying this "evolution is just as dogmatic as creationism" tact because not only is evolution blatantly not just as dogmatic and faith-based as creationism, but you previously argued in the same post on scientific terms about evolution, thus undeniably accepting yourself that evolution was science.

Aren’t you tired of faith in a system that cannot be true?
I dont have "faith" in any system, nor do I believe that I subscribed to any system which "cannot possibly be true".

Wouldn’t it be great to know the God who made you, and to accept His love and forgiveness?
Sure. Wouldnt it be great to win the lottery? Does that mean it's going to happen? Nope. By the way, if it's the Old Testament "Obey me or I slaughter your first born" God then I'd rather not get to know him, thanks.

Would you be interested, if I showed you from the Bible, how to have your sins forgiven and how to know for sure that you are going to Heaven? If so, call me.
How will I "know for sure"? The Bible presents no evidence of anything, it is just an inaccurate, biased historical text that has been editted, changed, destroyed, translated and retranslated so many times that it bears little resemblence to the source material.

Rotovia-

09-01-2006, 14:14

God told me that Evolution is true. There. Eat it.
I so want that for a bumper sticker

Cabra West

09-01-2006, 14:30

NianNorth

09-01-2006, 14:36

Now let me start of by saying I have often berated many a pseudo scientist for stating evolution or natural selection were facts rather than very convincing theories. And that I accept they have a great deal of virtue my mind is open to other possibilities.

And the next bit goes for both sides in the creation, evolution argument.

‘the greatest fool may ask more than the wisest man can answer.’ Charles C Colton.

So just because a question cannot be full answered does not invalidate the whole idea or principle. What it would do would provide an opportunity for further testing of an idea.

Ask me how light can be a wave and a particle and I would struggle to fully explain. That would not make light stop acting like both waves and particles.

Righteous Munchee-Love

09-01-2006, 14:46

- snip -

Thank you, sir. :)

Laerod

09-01-2006, 14:52

these questions can be found at this site
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=76

Questions for Evolutionists
VariousJust looking at the list, the title should be "Questions for Astrophyisicists, Abiogeneticists, and Evolutionists."
Where did the space for the universe come from? Irrelevant to evolution.
Where did matter come from? Irrelevant to evolution
Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)? Irrelevant to evolution
How did matter get so perfectly organized? Belongs to physical chemistry (in other words: Irrelevant to evolution)
Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing? Chemistry and Physics, although, again, irrelevant to evolution
When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter? This is dealt with in abiogenesis, and not evolution
When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself? Biochemistry, perhaps, but irrelevant to evolution
With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce? Irrelevant to evolution
Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to surviv e, or the species? How do you explain this?)Easy answer: Sex is fun.
How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.) Don't forget that we only have four letters in our genetic alphabet. Likewise, English and Chinese belong to language classes and not evolution.
Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor? "Design"? If animals were designed, then it would be possible. You need to find conclusive evidence for that first.
Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occ urred if evolution were true? Mutation, as you mentioned before. We're constantly being bombarded with radiation and sometimes the damages to our genetic code can't be fixed.
When, where, why, and how did:
Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
Single-celled animals evolve?
Fish change to amphibians?
Amphibians change to reptiles?
Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
How did the intermediate forms live?
When, where, why, how, and from what did:
Whales evolve?
Sea horses evolve?
Bats evolve? I'm not an expert on the individual evolutionary paths of these.
Eyes evolve?Last I heard, photosensitive membranes on the skin eventually receeded into the head and closed, forming eyes.
Ears evolve? Compare mammilian ears to reptilian ears. You'll see the eardrums have changed and ours are much more reduced.
Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve? I'm not an expert on the evolution of these.
Which evolved first (how, and how long; did it work without the others)?
The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)? The obvious answer is "The food to be digested."
The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce? There is no fossil record for feelings.
The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs? Well, the mixture of gasses we breath is far from perfect. Anything that wasn't capable of living in our highly toxic environment didn't evolve or died out when it changed.
DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts? DNA. (Bacteria have it)
The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
The immune system or the need for it? I'm not an expert on these.
There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships? Because we don't have evidence for any other...
How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design? Mutation and they got lucky and weren't eaten.
When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution. Why not? They are part of a massive evolution of a communal conscioussness, and groups tend to survive much longer than individuals.
*How did photosynthesis evolve?
*How did thought evolve?
*How did flowering plants evolve, and from that? I'm not an expert on these (and there is no fossil record for thought)
*What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds? What do some of these questions have to do with evolution?
What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?That I would be thrilled to see a "living fossil" that had supposedly died out.
*Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true? Did macroevolution make predictions?
*What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human? That scientists use a lot of time.
*Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing? Do you honestly believe that I believe we came from nothing?
After you have answered the preceding questions, please look carefully at your answers and thoughtfully consider the following questions.

Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have answered? (Do these answers reflect your religion or your science?)These answers reflect on the education I have received.
Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"? My answers have nothing to do with faith. They show my willingness not to flee into delusions to avoid a potentially painful truth.
Is it possible that an unseen Creator designed this universe? If God is excluded at the beginning of the discussion by your definition of science, how could it be shown that He did create the universe if He did? Simple: It can't. It cannot be proven that God designed the universe. It can be interpreted, but that no longer deals with science.
Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as fact? Is it fair to twist actual facts in order to present one's own viewpoint?
What is the end result of a belief in evolution (lifestyle, society, attitude about others, eternal destiny, etc.)? Will someone spill hot coffee on my pants in three days time?
Do people accept evolution because of the following factors?
It is all they have been taught. No.
They like the freedom from God (no moral absolutes, etc.). Um... this has nothing to do with evolution. I like "freedom from God", but that doesn't mean I don't believe in moral absolutes.
They are bound to support the theory for fear of losing their job or status or grade point average.Least of my worries.
They are too proud to admit they are wrong.I am often too proud to admit I am wrong. But I am confident that this is not one of those cases.
Evolution is the only philosophy that can be used to justify their political agenda. I try not to mix natural sciences with philosophy.
Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we don’t have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation, archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, vestigial organs, etc.)? No. One could take a look at the new evidence that's been brought up in the last ten years.
Should parents be allowed to require that evolution not be taught as fact in their school system unless equal time is given to other theories of origins (like divine creation)? No.
What are you risking if you are wrong? As one of my debate opponents said, "Either there is a God or there is not. Both possibilities are frightening."
Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools? If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks? It is just a religious worldview.
Aren’t you tired of faith in a system that cannot be true? Wouldn’t it be great to know the God who made you, and to accept His love and forgiveness?
Would you be interested, if I showed you from the Bible, how to have your sins forgiven and how to know for sure that you are going to Heaven? If so, call me.It would be nice if you learned about what evolution is instead of hating it so much.

An archy

09-01-2006, 14:58

That's an interesting one. I don't know the answer to that, how single-celled organisms which produce identical offspring can actually evolve. Anyone care to answer it for me?
I'm not a professional biologist, but I have a little bit of knowledge on the subject, so I hope I can give a decent answer to this question. The first sexually reproducing organism was probably produced by a mutation in its mother cell which caused the mother cell to produce the variant phenotype of sexual reproduction through asexual reproduction. Thus, the mother cell produced mutliple specimens of this type and the first sexually reproducing organism reproduced with one of the other cells produced by its mother through asexual reproduction.

Whallop

09-01-2006, 15:27

Has the OP at least had the curtesy to reply now and then during the last 10 pages to all those people who took the time and trouble to provide him with the facts his school obviously was unable to provide?

I doubt there are a lot of schools who go into detail about everything that Hovind (A.K.A. Dr Dino) asks.
But then again we got someone (Dr Dino) who tries to use a PhD in christian education he needed to get from a degree mill (No real uni would have accepted his thesis it's not even high school grade even though the place has been acredited to give out theological degrees) to assert he's an expert in biology. And cheerfully claims you can kill a T-Rex by pulling it's arm (http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/jmeert/back.jpg) of oh and they breathe fire as well (link (http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/jmeert/front.jpg) to front of this placemat for more goodness). Those arms were at least as large as human arms and I don't see myself pulling an arm from another person without quite a bit of technical help.

Then you read on and see that he thinks evolution equates denying that God exists (it does not) therefore evolution has to explain things like creation of the universe and creation of life (it does not on either count).
Then he starts spouting of about 4 'facts' a minute (if you try to debate him) most of which either have been refuted so often that the other Creationists/IDists have them on a list of things they should never argue. Or there are explanations for it already. Or shouldn't be debated in a debate about evolution. Or are ad hominems and other logical fallacies.

I'd suggest that the OP distance himself as far as he can from Hovind most other Creationists/IDists do it too.

Oh and here is a link (http://www.kent-hovind.com/) to a site that should have an uptodate rebuttal for every argument made by Dr Dino

Luporum

09-01-2006, 15:38

Bottle

09-01-2006, 16:37

Faith is believing in your own path not discrediting others. If you believe in modern medicine then you have to put some stock in evolution, big bang, etc, etc. Science isn't something you can pick and choose when it's convient for you.
Sure you can. People do that all the time. They're hypocrites, of course, as well as willfully-ignorant cowards, but they also can completely get away with it. That's one of the most fundamental freedoms, at least in America: the freedom to be completely full of crap.

You can spend every waking hour insulting scientists and science, and then toddle into your doctor's office and let modern science protect your life and health. You can spit on the scientific method each and every day, and you'll still get to enjoy the comforts that have been generated using that method. You can rant against "Darwinism," and scream about the virtues of replacing science with Dark Ages mythology, but you'll still be allowed to use all the technologies and medicines and luxuries that would never have been invented if people like you ruled the world. You can taunt "Evolutionists" with painfully stupid or misrepresentative questions, rather than cracking a damn book and reading for yourself, and then milk those "evolutionists" for all the biological technologies that will be saving your life in years to come. You can claim that faith is the most important thing to have, insist that praying is more useful than doing, and then kick back while the grown-ups of the world use their real-live human powers to make your prayers into realities.

You can do all those things, and you can do them knowing that about 60% of your fellow Americans are doing exactly the same thing. You can be secure about your ignorance, because one in five Americans believes that the sun orbits the Earth. You don't have to worry about smart people giving you a hard time, because America is a country that is increasingly up-front about its hatred of the educated and the intelligent. The War On Reason is turning into a rout, and you certainly won't lose anything if you decide to join the winning team...hell, you'll probably get elected to public office if you're willing to stand up and say that the evil Newtonists are trying to retroactively abort Baby Jeebus by pushing their sinful notion of non-Intelligent Falling on our nation's children.

Luporum

09-01-2006, 16:54

-snip-

That just summed up everything I was thinking and then some. Reason and logic aren't so popular because they weren't introduced in a coloring book with happy stories.

Cynefin

09-01-2006, 17:00

1) How do you know god is not evil?
Evil is an absence of compassion, etc. God is perfect, therefore cannot have an absence of anything, therefore is not evil.

2) How many times are angels mentioned in the bible? The Koran?
What difference does it make?

3) Why is it wrong to eat bacon wrapped scallops?
Under the new covenant, it isn't. See Peter's vision.

4) Which version of the bible is the divinely inspired one and why?
If you are referring to version as in NIV, King James, etc, none of them, they are interpretations of the divinely inspired version.

5) Why doesn't god ever show up for dinner?
If God isn't showing up for dinner with you, perhaps you haven't invited Him. I invited him into my life and he is always there.

6) If god created every species, why are there catterpillars in Hawaii that only eat plants that were introduced 1000 years ago?
Isn't this an argument for creation instead of evolution?

7) If you mix up the letters in your mother's maiden name does it provide evidence of a virgin birth?
As much as the ice cream cone on your nose.

8) If someone stole your wallet, who would that someone be?
A thief.

9) How many roads must a man walk down before he wears out his shoes?
One more than he should have.

10) Do monkeys think humans are cute?
Not usually. Why don't you ask them?

11) Did god experiment with other intelligent life forms on other planets?
God doesn't need to experiment. Who knows what god needs to do?

12) Is it inhumane to eat meat?
Humane or inhumane is a human perspective. It is not against God's law.

13) Why do we drive on a parkway and park on a driveway?
Because of flaws in our language (a result of linguistic evolution).

14) If god loves people, why does he let awful stuff happen to them?
Because humans chose to be "free" from his guidance.

15) What's fermat's last theorem?
This sounds like a mathmatical question, not a theological one.

16) What kind of dog should everyone get?
The one they like.

17) Where did god come from?
God is eternal (no start or stop). I suspect god is a figment of your imagination.

18) Is god male?
See previous answer. I can't answer for you.

19) Who is god having sex with?
See answer on 17, I can't answer for you.

If you can't answer all those questions to my satisfaction in 10 minutes or less I can assume that all theists are full of shit.[/QUOTE]

You can assume this as much as you want, but these are the answers a Christian (I guess you are confusing me with a theist) gave in 8.5 minutes.

Cynefin

09-01-2006, 17:07

Faith is believing in your own path not discrediting others. If you believe in modern medicine then you have to put some stock in evolution, big bang, etc, etc. Science isn't something you can pick and choose when it's convient for you.

Two problems. First, you significantly expand the definition of faith. Faith, according to Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary (electronic version) is:

1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs *the Protestant faith*

Doesn't mention anything about not discrediting others.

Second one can believe in and practice, even expand the boundaries of medicine without believing in the big bang at all and, given some of the medical researchers I've worked with, without believing in evolution. In face one of the most ardent creationists I know is a medical researcher.

Luporum

09-01-2006, 17:22

Bottle

09-01-2006, 17:30

I think the point being that the reason most people don't believe in evolution is because it goes against their faith ,rather than because they have logical reasons not to belive in it. That's what upsets me the most.
Me too. People decide what they are going to believe in, and then try to warp reality to conform to their wishes. Crackpot theories like "Intelligent Design" are so disgustingly selfish that it makes me embarassed to be a member of the same species that thought up such tripe. When you have to deny reality to maintain your delusion, that's when you know that you're not just crazy...you're a coward, too.

Hakartopia

09-01-2006, 17:33

1) How do you know god is not evil?
Evil is an absence of compassion, etc. God is perfect, therefore cannot have an absence of anything, therefore is not evil.

So does God have an absence of evil?

Cynefin

09-01-2006, 17:33

I'm not a professional biologist, but I have a little bit of knowledge on the subject, so I hope I can give a decent answer to this question. The first sexually reproducing organism was probably produced by a mutation in its mother cell which caused the mother cell to produce the variant phenotype of sexual reproduction through asexual reproduction. Thus, the mother cell produced mutliple specimens of this type and the first sexually reproducing organism reproduced with one of the other cells produced by its mother through asexual reproduction.

Let's just take this one. I'm not a professional biologist either, but I am required to look for internal logic in my work. Let's see if this holds together.

First, there needs to be a mutation in the mother cell. To the best of my knowledge, mutations are primarily point changes in the AGCT bases of the DNA. I'm going to assume that this hypothetical cell had DNA since I can't recall an example of sexual reproduction in RNA organisms. Now, all of the point mutations that have been observed have resulted in either no structural changes in the cell (most) or defects, but we'll assume that this was different despite the fact that it is a statistical improbability. That single point mutation would need to activate sexual reproduction. Let us assume the simplist form of sexual reproduction - genetic exchange as practiced by certain bacteria. No need for extensive systems to spring into place, just the simple tubule, ability to cut out part of the cell's DNA, send it through the tubule, and receive and integrate the other cell's DNA. All from the change in a single base that would either change an amino acid in a synthesized protein, cut that protein short, or fuse two proteins together. Hmmm, maybe that is why all the mutations observed so far have no effect or are detrimental. Theoretically, we could find a minimal number of mutations that, pieced together, would result in all the necessary structures. Of course we would also probably have to put them into an "unused" portion of the genome until they were ready to activate, but when you are living in a theoretical world, that isn't a problem. So, theoretically, we could get a few mutations, dozens or thousands, doesn't matter, and have them all fall into place correctly to create sexual reproduction in bacteria. Then it becomes a simple matter of statistical probability. Now here I am on a little firmer ground since I'm an applied statistician (that means I use them as tools, not that I discuss them in the Ivory Tower of academia). I will readily admit that there is a statistical chance of all these mutations falling into place in one of the possible sequences that would result in a new, beneficial characteristic appearing, but the chance is so vanishingly small, that, IMHO, people who believe in evolution resulting in these sorts of things should forego their salary in favor of a lottery ticket each week. You have a much better chance of making a living from lottery winnings than for random mutation to produce a single positive trait that would be selected for by natural selection.

In short, random mutation, the engine that drives diversity in the evolutionary model, is such a statistical improbability that belief in literal Genesis creation, given the accessory evidence of God, requires far less "blind" faith than belief in non-directed evolution.

Liskeinland

09-01-2006, 17:37

In short, random mutation, the engine that drives diversity in the evolutionary model, is such a statistical improbability that belief in literal Genesis creation, given the accessory evidence of God, requires far less "blind" faith than belief in non-directed evolution. Incorrect. Believing that mutation has driven every development of life would require a certain "leap of faith", since there are gaps, but taking the theory of evolution as a whole to be broadly correct requires no faith.

Praetonia

09-01-2006, 17:42

Cynefin - I agree. Freedom of speech means you can try to discredit whatever you want and when creationists with bogus degrees in completely irrelevent subjects try to disprove science, it's always good for a laugh.

EDIT: On the probability thing, read this - http://www.creationtheory.org/Probability/

Hata-alla

09-01-2006, 17:48

To Bottle: Second that. Extremely well said!

My thoughts about christianity: How big is your ego when you think you're absolutley perfect? Since God is perfect, and we're created in his image, then we must be perfect. Otherwise God failed when he created us, which he cannot do, since he is God. So either humans are perfect(YEAH RIGHT!) or God is imperfect and a general asshole, like all humans. How do you explain something like that?

And another thing: Why do these christian nutcases always think evolution has to do with the creation of the universe? Example:

Christian Nutcase: Evolution is wrong. The universe cannot have formed by itself.

Me: That's not Evolution. And if God created it, what created God? Did he create himself?

Christian Nutcase: That's beside the point. You will burn in hell.

Grave_n_idle

09-01-2006, 17:57

Let's just take this one. I'm not a professional biologist either, but I am required to look for internal logic in my work. Let's see if this holds together.

First, there needs to be a mutation in the mother cell. To the best of my knowledge, mutations are primarily point changes in the AGCT bases of the DNA. I'm going to assume that this hypothetical cell had DNA since I can't recall an example of sexual reproduction in RNA organisms. Now, all of the point mutations that have been observed have resulted in either no structural changes in the cell (most) or defects, but we'll assume that this was different despite the fact that it is a statistical improbability. That single point mutation would need to activate sexual reproduction. Let us assume the simplist form of sexual reproduction - genetic exchange as practiced by certain bacteria. No need for extensive systems to spring into place, just the simple tubule, ability to cut out part of the cell's DNA, send it through the tubule, and receive and integrate the other cell's DNA. All from the change in a single base that would either change an amino acid in a synthesized protein, cut that protein short, or fuse two proteins together. Hmmm, maybe that is why all the mutations observed so far have no effect or are detrimental. Theoretically, we could find a minimal number of mutations that, pieced together, would result in all the necessary structures. Of course we would also probably have to put them into an "unused" portion of the genome until they were ready to activate, but when you are living in a theoretical world, that isn't a problem. So, theoretically, we could get a few mutations, dozens or thousands, doesn't matter, and have them all fall into place correctly to create sexual reproduction in bacteria. Then it becomes a simple matter of statistical probability. Now here I am on a little firmer ground since I'm an applied statistician (that means I use them as tools, not that I discuss them in the Ivory Tower of academia). I will readily admit that there is a statistical chance of all these mutations falling into place in one of the possible sequences that would result in a new, beneficial characteristic appearing, but the chance is so vanishingly small, that, IMHO, people who believe in evolution resulting in these sorts of things should forego their salary in favor of a lottery ticket each week. You have a much better chance of making a living from lottery winnings than for random mutation to produce a single positive trait that would be selected for by natural selection.

In short, random mutation, the engine that drives diversity in the evolutionary model, is such a statistical improbability that belief in literal Genesis creation, given the accessory evidence of God, requires far less "blind" faith than belief in non-directed evolution.

The 'flaw' here... is that it assumes that ALL the mutations required MUST arrive simultaneously, or in some preferential order.

On the contrary... Mutation A might be useful, in and of itself.... as might Mutation B. Of course, once you have Mutation A and Mutation B, you have a compound effect that is ALSO beneficial.

Also - loking at mutation as 'random' is fair enough on a single-instance level... but ignores the reality of the overview.

Sure - each mutation may be random... but the mutations which are more adverse, lead to a filtering out of that material.... while the mutations which are more helpful (or even, just irrelevent) do not apply a negative pressure.

Last point: How can one make probability guesses about Creation by God? Either it DID happen, or it didn't... there is no 'probability'. It is statistically dishonest to say that a Divine Creation is 'more probable' than evolution... because your assumption, in that calculation, replaces any mathematical 'value'.

i.e. If you assume (interventionist) God is fiction: 'Genesis' is LESS probable than evolution... no matter how you massage the numbers.

i.e. If you assume (interventionist) God is 'real': 'Genesis' is MORE probable than evolution... no matter how you massage the numbers.

Bottle

09-01-2006, 18:04

Cynefin

09-01-2006, 18:56

The 'flaw' here... is that it assumes that ALL the mutations required MUST arrive simultaneously, or in some preferential order.

On the contrary... Mutation A might be useful, in and of itself.... as might Mutation B. Of course, once you have Mutation A and Mutation B, you have a compound effect that is ALSO beneficial.

Also - loking at mutation as 'random' is fair enough on a single-instance level... but ignores the reality of the overview.

Sure - each mutation may be random... but the mutations which are more adverse, lead to a filtering out of that material.... while the mutations which are more helpful (or even, just irrelevent) do not apply a negative pressure.

Last point: How can one make probability guesses about Creation by God? Either it DID happen, or it didn't... there is no 'probability'. It is statistically dishonest to say that a Divine Creation is 'more probable' than evolution... because your assumption, in that calculation, replaces any mathematical 'value'.

i.e. If you assume (interventionist) God is fiction: 'Genesis' is LESS probable than evolution... no matter how you massage the numbers.

i.e. If you assume (interventionist) God is 'real': 'Genesis' is MORE probable than evolution... no matter how you massage the numbers.

OK. What, less than complete structure in E. coli is helpful before providing the structure necessary for bacterial conjunction? I'd appreciate specific examples in this instance. For that matter if anyone has examples of any structures/systems that are used for sexual reproduction that provide an evolutionary advantage before they can support sexual reproduction, I'd like to hear about them.

The "reality of the overview" is that beneficial mutations, although a statistical possibility, have not been observed. If we are looking for proof, please show me an example of an observed mutation that was beneficial. Note, a characteristic shared by a minority of a species and then selected for by a change in the environment doesn't count. I want a new characteristic that is selected for (or at least could be selected for).

Perhaps I misstated myself about the "probability" of creation. It tends to be an occupational hazard when you use statistics as tools instead of worrying about the academic purity of the usage. Let me restate: It is more likely (based on the evidence) that creation as presented in Genesis is true then it is for Evolution based on random mutation to be true. Granted those aren't the only possibilities, but I used only the two most extreme for illistrative purposes.

Final note. I read the post and websited "refuting" the use of statistical improbability to question the viability of abiogenisis. Although the webpage author does an excellent job of refuting one creationist's poor use of statistics, it is not a general refutation of the statistical improbability of evolution by random mutation.

Cynefin

09-01-2006, 19:01

Incorrect. Believing that mutation has driven every development of life would require a certain "leap of faith", since there are gaps, but taking the theory of evolution as a whole to be broadly correct requires no faith.

Curious. In my schooling, mutation driving every development was fundamental to the presentation of evolution. When you say "the theory of evolution" which you believe to be broadly correct, what parts are you talking about?

Lazy Otakus

09-01-2006, 19:03

Skunkswood

09-01-2006, 19:07

I don't know if anyone has said this, but I've just looked at all the questions so...

The bible is merely a huge metaphor for guiding you along one path of life that you may choose to take.

Skunkswood

09-01-2006, 19:11

Also, God requires faith. If he exists, there is no faith, just knowledge. Therefore, God cannot exist.

An archy

09-01-2006, 19:13

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grave_n_idle
The 'flaw' here... is that it assumes that ALL the mutations required MUST arrive simultaneously, or in some preferential order.

On the contrary... Mutation A might be useful, in and of itself.... as might Mutation B. Of course, once you have Mutation A and Mutation B, you have a compound effect that is ALSO beneficial.

Also - loking at mutation as 'random' is fair enough on a single-instance level... but ignores the reality of the overview.

Sure - each mutation may be random... but the mutations which are more adverse, lead to a filtering out of that material.... while the mutations which are more helpful (or even, just irrelevent) do not apply a negative pressure.

Last point: How can one make probability guesses about Creation by God? Either it DID happen, or it didn't... there is no 'probability'. It is statistically dishonest to say that a Divine Creation is 'more probable' than evolution... because your assumption, in that calculation, replaces any mathematical 'value'.

i.e. If you assume (interventionist) God is fiction: 'Genesis' is LESS probable than evolution... no matter how you massage the numbers.

i.e. If you assume (interventionist) God is 'real': 'Genesis' is MORE probable than evolution... no matter how you massage the numbers.

OK. What, less than complete structure in E. coli is helpful before providing the structure necessary for bacterial conjunction? I'd appreciate specific examples in this instance. For that matter if anyone has examples of any structures/systems that are used for sexual reproduction that provide an evolutionary advantage before they can support sexual reproduction, I'd like to hear about them.

The "reality of the overview" is that beneficial mutations, although a statistical possibility, have not been observed. If we are looking for proof, please show me an example of an observed mutation that was beneficial. Note, a characteristic shared by a minority of a species and then selected for by a change in the environment doesn't count. I want a new characteristic that is selected for (or at least could be selected for).

Perhaps I misstated myself about the "probability" of creation. It tends to be an occupational hazard when you use statistics as tools instead of worrying about the academic purity of the usage. Let me restate: It is more likely (based on the evidence) that creation as presented in Genesis is true then it is for Evolution based on random mutation to be true. Granted those aren't the only possibilities, but I used only the two most extreme for illistrative purposes.

Final note. I read the post and websited "refuting" the use of statistical improbability to question the viability of abiogenisis. Although the webpage author does an excellent job of refuting one creationist's poor use of statistics, it is not a general refutation of the statistical improbability of evolution by random mutation.
The Nylon Bug (http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm)

Praetonia

09-01-2006, 19:30

For that matter if anyone has examples of any structures/systems that are used for sexual reproduction that provide an evolutionary advantage before they can support sexual reproduction, I'd like to hear about them.
Simple plants use gametes for A-sexual reproduction (sperm cells are gametes) which are dispersed simply by water. This is a "transitional stage" which uses gametes in the same way as an animal that reproduces sexually would do, but just disperses them into the environment without needing another plant to reproduce. Clearly you can see that this could easily evolve into 'male and female' plants which need two gametes from each to combine (quite easy in a group of plants sharing the same war for dispersal). This would provide them the advantage of increased genetic diversity over an A-sexual reproducing plant which, although not immediately advantageous and not overwhelmingly advantageous, over a period of time would be signficantly advantageous, which is why we see both A-sexually and sexually reproducing plants in nature. A lack of imagination on behalf of creationists does not equal proof that evolution is wrong, it just means that evolution hasnt explained that one characteristic we see yet which, consdering how many characteristics there are to explain, but sadly usually works in debates such as this as no one as the time and few have the knowledge required to write up the treatise-length proof required for, say, explaining how in the bounds of evolution sexual reproduction in mammals evolved from extremely simple mitosis.

Grave_n_idle

09-01-2006, 19:30

Perhaps I misstated myself about the "probability" of creation. It tends to be an occupational hazard when you use statistics as tools instead of worrying about the academic purity of the usage. Let me restate: It is more likely (based on the evidence) that creation as presented in Genesis is true then it is for Evolution based on random mutation to be true. Granted those aren't the only possibilities, but I used only the two most extreme for illistrative purposes.

Obfuscation, my friend.

Again - there is still no 'probability' attached to Creation, per Genesis.

Unless you believe you have a statistical figure for how likely it is that 'god' would create dirt, for example.....

The way I see it... that number can either be 0, or 1.... and you have decided that number already when you decide how to answer the question.

Anyone who ever claims to use 'probability' as their justification for choosing Creationism over Evolution is being fundamentally dishonest... since there is NO 'probability' of 'god' having created the world, either way.

Praetonia

09-01-2006, 19:33

It is more likely (based on the evidence) that creation as presented in Genesis is true then it is for Evolution based on random mutation to be true.
This is a silly statement to make from any vaguely scientific standpoint. Evolution makes the assumption that:

1) The probabilities are such that it is not impossible to get an end result of the complexity of humans after 4bn years, as explained here - http://www.creationtheory.org/Probability/

The Genesis thing makes the assumptions that:

1) There is a God.
2) This God is omnipotent and can manipulate matter and energy at will.
3) This God is completely undetectable, yet real.
4) This God has chosen, for whatever reason, to falsify evidence of evolution (why?) when in fact none has taken place.

Within the bounds of science, the latter seems to have a probability approaching '0' regardless of any other explanation.

Centrist States

09-01-2006, 20:33

I have read the majority of the posts on the evolution (and less i missed it ) the truth behind evolution( in my opinion ) is that evolution in itself is a religion. i know you sciencetist(forgive myspelling) will diagree with me though that is what i believe, for even if evolution can be followed all the way to the begining of the universe, there is only one thing left....a leap of faith, a person's belief in a system, wheather life started on its own ..or the creator created the universe and life .... that is my belief

The Black Forrest

09-01-2006, 20:40

Bottle

09-01-2006, 20:43

Translation: You guys are wrong. You are a Religion. Nothing you can say will ever change my mind.

Thank you for playing.
I think it's cute that the religious try to insult evolutionary theory by calling it a religion. Particularly when they are simultaneously stamping their little feets and yelling, "I'm not a monkey's cousin! I'm not a monkey's cousin!"

Candelar

10-01-2006, 01:51

I think it's cute that the religious try to insult evolutionary theory by calling it a religion. Particularly when they are simultaneously stamping their little feets and yelling, "I'm not a monkey's cousin! I'm not a monkey's cousin!"
I bet the monkeys are relieved to hear that :)

Straughn

10-01-2006, 03:41

Krakozha

10-01-2006, 03:46

Why can't there be room in religious belief for scientific fact. As a scientist, I leave room for religious faith in my life...

Straughn

10-01-2006, 03:54

So does God have an absence of evil?
Not in Genesis ....

6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
So ... "god" phucked up and everyone else pays for it?
7:4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.
6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
18:23 And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked? (18:23-25)
"Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?"
Abraham begs God not to kill everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah. [Which is odd, since later (Gen.22:2-10) Abraham doesn't even question God's request that he kill his own son.] He asks God two good questions: "Wilt thou destroy the righteous with the wicked?" and "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?"
18:24 Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein?
18:25 That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?
18:26 And the LORD said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes.
So, meaning God doesn't know everything.
Or in Exodus ....
7:17 Thus saith the LORD, In this thou shalt know that I am the LORD: behold, I will smite with the rod that is in mine hand upon the waters which are in the river, and they shall be turned to blood.
7:18 And the fish that is in the river shall die, and the river shall stink; and the Egyptians shall lothe to drink of the water of the river.
7:19 And the LORD spake unto Moses, Say unto Aaron, Take thy rod, and stretch out thine hand upon the waters of Egypt, upon their streams, upon their rivers, and upon their ponds, and upon all their pools of water, that they may become blood; and that there may be blood throughout all the land of Egypt, both in vessels of wood, and in vessels of stone.
7:20 And Moses and Aaron did so, as the LORD commanded; and he lifted up the rod, and smote the waters that were in the river, in the sight of Pharaoh, and in the sight of his servants; and all the waters that were in the river were turned to blood.
7:21 And the fish that was in the river died; and the river stank, and the Egyptians could not drink of the water of the river; and there was blood throughout all the land of Egypt.

Hmmm evil or misunderestimated?

There's PLENTY more instances of god being significantly evil, and more to the point ... LACKING COMPASSION.
Funny how the conservatives needed to alter their nom de guerre to "COMPASSIONATE conservative LOL

Straughn

10-01-2006, 04:06

Let's just take this one. I'm not a professional biologist either, but I am required to look for internal logic in my work. Let's see if this holds together.

First, there needs to be a mutation in the mother cell. To the best of my knowledge, mutations are primarily point changes in the AGCT bases of the DNA. I'm going to assume that this hypothetical cell had DNA since I can't recall an example of sexual reproduction in RNA organisms. Now, all of the point mutations that have been observed have resulted in either no structural changes in the cell (most) or defects, but we'll assume that this was different despite the fact that it is a statistical improbability. That single point mutation would need to activate sexual reproduction. Let us assume the simplist form of sexual reproduction - genetic exchange as practiced by certain bacteria. No need for extensive systems to spring into place, just the simple tubule, ability to cut out part of the cell's DNA, send it through the tubule, and receive and integrate the other cell's DNA. All from the change in a single base that would either change an amino acid in a synthesized protein, cut that protein short, or fuse two proteins together. Hmmm, maybe that is why all the mutations observed so far have no effect or are detrimental. Theoretically, we could find a minimal number of mutations that, pieced together, would result in all the necessary structures. Of course we would also probably have to put them into an "unused" portion of the genome until they were ready to activate, but when you are living in a theoretical world, that isn't a problem. So, theoretically, we could get a few mutations, dozens or thousands, doesn't matter, and have them all fall into place correctly to create sexual reproduction in bacteria. Then it becomes a simple matter of statistical probability. Now here I am on a little firmer ground since I'm an applied statistician (that means I use them as tools, not that I discuss them in the Ivory Tower of academia). I will readily admit that there is a statistical chance of all these mutations falling into place in one of the possible sequences that would result in a new, beneficial characteristic appearing, but the chance is so vanishingly small, that, IMHO, people who believe in evolution resulting in these sorts of things should forego their salary in favor of a lottery ticket each week. You have a much better chance of making a living from lottery winnings than for random mutation to produce a single positive trait that would be selected for by natural selection.

In short, random mutation, the engine that drives diversity in the evolutionary model, is such a statistical improbability that belief in literal Genesis creation, given the accessory evidence of God, requires far less "blind" faith than belief in non-directed evolution.
You don't seem to understand the pervasion of circumstance. You also don't have the entire parameters for which to define statistical chances of this sort. It requires variables that you aren't including in your thinking and in that sense you are deluding yourself into thinking your answer is sound.

Krakozha

10-01-2006, 04:11

From the Book, may I quote:

'Hey Ford, there's something wrong with your monkey'

-Zaphod Beeblebrox

Bakamongue

10-01-2006, 04:28

Why can't there be room in religious belief for scientific fact. As a scientist, I leave room for religious faith in my life...I think there are 'zealots' on both sides, but I seem to see (perhaps biased, as one who is over on the scientific side, by some degree or other I could not hope to personally qyuantify) a lot more "absolute theists" than I do "absolute non-theists".

Quite interesting was a TV programme over here in the UK tonight *checks clock... no it was last night, it's now tomorrow morning* from a guy who was a bit 'hardball anti-God', arguing that all religion leads to undesirable fanaticisim, and with quite a few good points.

He was a bit pointed, though, and I'm not entirely sure the editing of the people he was talking to was unbiased by his hardline hard-atheistic POV (I'm more a soft-atheistic/agnostic sort of person, for reference) and so I felt he was a bit unfair (if not technically correct) to the person he interviewed at Lourdes, when the "80-odd confirmed miracles out of umpteen-thousand attendeed per year for many decades isn't really statistically significant, is it" point was made, and he probably meant to be antagnostic when the first thing he said to $famous_chaplain (reputed to have the ear of Dubya, as well as the mouth of God) about his service was "Very impressive, reminded me of Neuremburg". For this reason, I feel he was being a bit over-the-top, though he did report some rather OTT responses back ("You're calling my children monkeys!") that sound like an existing resentment.

But then he went to visit a Jew-converted-to-Islam in the Palestinian territories (if I understand the situation correctly) and he didn't even finish saying something like "Well, I'm an atheist, but could you tell me..." to instantly get rebuked by the attitude "I hate atheists, they are the problem in the world, it is because of you that etc, etc".

In that latter encounter, I cannot conceive of any editing that, alone, could have been used to create such religiously-inspired hatred, and while I might have doubts about the way that he went about the earlier interviews (there were also some with Americans who were 'thinkers' not 'believers' who told of what a revelation of atheism/agnosticism would do to their career prospects/search for accomodation/general relations with the community at large, and he was obviously was more sympathetic with them) this latter character was so religiously fervered that the interview seemed to make the point on its own.

But that's incidental (and probably not brilliantly recounted) to the fact that though there are probably as many things about someone who (mis-)uses cold-hard logic to extremes (the Godwinated one and his euthinasia of the crippled, even though stuff like his Final Solution were dressed up in a form of religion) as one who applies such a belief as "one who does not believe the same as me can and, especially if $Deity allows me to accelerate the process, will go to $netherworld_of_punishment", you just seem to get more people willing to suspend morality in the name of their religion against those not of their religion (maybe of another, maybe of none, maybe even ostensibly of their own but deemed as 'cast out' by dint of sexual orientation or something equally trivial) than you do of those who are hardline anti-religious in nature.

As an example, while I have an open mind as to the possibility of an afterlife, I don't count on it and antiicipate that oblivion will be my fate when I die, and as such value others' lives be the same standard (someone who is killed is lost to the world), whereas there are provably those who will speed a person to their death either so that their eternity in damnation is a few years longer (as if that matters) or perhaps even (and this is where I really think there's a twisted logic) so that they may ascend to a hallowed kind of afterlife absolved of the sins they'd have normally been subject to. The closest non-theiestic POV one can compare that to is the person who is already beyond morals who treats people as mere 'meat', and there's enough religious types who treat others (non-religious, other-religious, minorities, even the females of the species) as essentially 'lumps of meat' to counterbalance-aplenty the 'wierd shit' swingometer to the side of the uber-religious....

Or so is my experience. And how many times have we essentially heard "God loves you. Believe in Him or go to Hell" on these fora? The worst I've noticed from the 'other side' (and again, I regret any bias I may intrinsically have, in this assessment) is "Might you not be at least partly wasting your life, if He doesn't exist, denying yourself pleasures that harm no-one?"

Straughn

10-01-2006, 04:32

I think there are 'zealots' on both sides, but I seem to see (perhaps biased, as one who is over on the scientific side, by some degree or other I could not hope to personally qyuantify) a lot more "absolute theists" than I do "absolute non-theists".

Quite interesting was a TV programme over here in the UK tonight *checks clock... no it was last night, it's now tomorrow morning* from a guy who was a bit 'hardball anti-God', arguing that all religion leads to undesirable fanaticisim, and with quite a few good points.

He was a bit pointed, though, and I'm not entirely sure the editing of the people he was talking to was unbiased by his hardline hard-atheistic POV (I'm more a soft-atheistic/agnostic sort of person, for reference) and so I felt he was a bit unfair (if not technically correct) to the person he interviewed at Lourdes, when the "80-odd confirmed miracles out of umpteen-thousand attendeed per year for many decades isn't really statistically significant, is it" point was made, and he probably meant to be antagnostic when the first thing he said to $famous_chaplain (reputed to have the ear of Dubya, as well as the mouth of God) about his service was "Very impressive, reminded me of Neuremburg". For this reason, I feel he was being a bit over-the-top, though he did report some rather OTT responses back ("You're calling my children monkeys!") that sound like an existing resentment.

But then he went to visit a Jew-converted-to-Islam in the Palestinian territories (if I understand the situation correctly) and he didn't even finish saying something like "Well, I'm an atheist, but could you tell me..." to instantly get rebuked by the attitude "I hate atheists, they are the problem in the world, it is because of you that etc, etc".

In that latter encounter, I cannot conceive of any editing that, alone, could have been used to create such religiously-inspired hatred, and while I might have doubts about the way that he went about the earlier interviews (there were also some with Americans who were 'thinkers' not 'believers' who told of what a revelation of atheism/agnosticism would do to their career prospects/search for accomodation/general relations with the community at large, and he was obviously was more sympathetic with them) this latter character was so religiously fervered that the interview seemed to make the point on its own.

But that's incidental (and probably not brilliantly recounted) to the fact that though there are probably as many things about someone who (mis-)uses cold-hard logic to extremes (the Godwinated one and his euthinasia of the crippled, even though stuff like his Final Solution were dressed up in a form of religion) as one who applies such a belief as "one who does not believe the same as me can and, especially if $Deity allows me to accelerate the process, will go to $netherworld_of_punishment", you just seem to get more people willing to suspend morality in the name of their religion against those not of their religion (maybe of another, maybe of none, maybe even ostensibly of their own but deemed as 'cast out' by dint of sexual orientation or something equally trivial) than you do of those who are hardline anti-religious in nature.

As an example, while I have an open mind as to the possibility of an afterlife, I don't count on it and antiicipate that oblivion will be my fate when I die, and as such value others' lives be the same standard (someone who is killed is lost to the world), whereas there are provably those who will speed a person to their death either so that their eternity in damnation is a few years longer (as if that matters) or perhaps even (and this is where I really think there's a twisted logic) so that they may ascend to a hallowed kind of afterlife absolved of the sins they'd have normally been subject to. The closest non-theiestic POV one can compare that to is the person who is already beyond morals who treats people as mere 'meat', and there's enough religious types who treat others (non-religious, other-religious, minorities, even the females of the species) as essentially 'lumps of meat' to counterbalance-aplenty the 'wierd shit' swingometer to the side of the uber-religious....

Or so is my experience. And how many times have we essentially heard "God loves you. Believe in Him or go to Hell" on these fora? The worst I've noticed from the 'other side' (and again, I regret any bias I may intrinsically have, in this assessment) is "Might you not be at least partly wasting your life, if He doesn't exist, denying yourself pleasures that harm no-one?"
A good, thought-provoking post.

NationStates Jolt Archive

Questions For Evolutionists