Evolution and Creation

[James-Jacob-Yaqub]

I have never thought that there was any disagreement between the two ideas and cannot now imagine why so many good people argue about it all the time.:eh:

Of course, certainly, absolutely and you're darn right God, the intelligent designer, created the universe and everything in it plus us. Since the moment of creation His divine plan of constant change has been working just as He willed it so very long ago.:lol:

Whoa.... Wait wait. That can't be right. I mean, where are the contentions between non-believer and believers? They cannot agree. They have to be at odds. I mean they always have been right?

I says right here in the Bible in the story of creation what happened. Then later the generations of man are listed so that we can count up all the years and determine how old the planet really is. Is this what "believing in God" is all about? No. This matter has importance only in arguing that the Bible is correct. Then, by extension, if this is not correct, none of the rest of the Bible can be relied upon either. Right? No. Wrong. Allow for the hand of man messing with scripture and concentrate on what is of essential, eternal importance.

The day that we all stop arguing with each other over things that don't matter will be the day that Satan is defeated.:evil: I know this to be true.:dance:

If the old stories, a small part of which make up the Old Testament, survived the 1000's of years without alteration, intact, and if there were not at least two distinct stories of creation in Christian dogma then things might be different. Oh yes folks. There is more than one creation story. The earlier speaks of the Earth being populated with "man" before Adam and Eve in the Garden. This, of course, is the land where Cain went to find a wife. Hey, no more mystery you guys. But why is this important bit not in the King James? Maybe because it was, up till then, found in the Roman (Catholic) version, and still is.

The Bible is "God's Word". OK so who is authorized to change it then? I mean besides God. The original codification of the christian texts, when selections were first made as to what would constitute the New Testament were decided, was also the time when these were appended to the Old. Much of the body of scriptural writings were discarded. Only four gospels were retained. God did not make this decision. Man did. That was a long time ago, about 300 years after Jesus was crucified. Since that time there have been no end to the revisions, editions and modifications. Who is to say that what we have now is even close to being in accord with the original? Who, during the reformation or later, was anointed by God to throw out whole chapters of the Bible so that the resultant book would match the politics of the day? It was not God who ordained these actions. It was fallible men, acting in fear.:hand: In those days each local government included a powerful churchman as a matter of policy. Since these guys were of the Roman persuasion, they had to go because it was desired that the influence of Rome (the pope) be stopped in other countries. This is what is behind the major modifications of that time. Did anyone think about whether they had the right to mess with God's Word? Apparently not. It didn't matter too much then as the rank and file were very uneducated. Most people could not read nor did they travel more than twenty miles from where they were born. This kind of man is easily modified by authority.

Besides this it is a historical fact that the Hebrews, having lost the originals long ago, did during an eighty year period, reassemble from the memories of a group of scholars, what we now see in the Old Testament. This is the reason why there are occasional little tidbits of information that seem to be isolated, with out amplification in the present text.

Despite all this I suppose it is a matter of convenience to sort of ignore the true history of the scriptures and simply claim that it is God's Word. Well almost the way God said it. Close enough?

Here folks is a great distinction between a conservative and a liberal as regards religion. The liberal will be content to realize that God did, indeed, do the creating with a grand plan but he/she will not bother looking for verifications in the Book which they know to be too sullied by the hand of man over the years.:frown:

Jesus had twelve disciples. Peter was their chief. Why do the protestants not preach His word? Well, because he was the one who started the Roman Church and they didn't like the Pope anymore so he, and others, got deleted. Sorry God. It's only Your word when our preachers agree with it.:eh:

Sigh..... Yes I believe in God almighty who created the world. I do not believe the Bible verbatim because it is well known to be far from what it might have originally been.

Is all this important? Not really. Heaven awaits us regardless if the Bible is exactly correct or not. What matters is the way we treat each other and how we seem to prefer driving wedges between people when Jesus taught us all just the opposite.:hand:

It is my sincere belief that God does not give a fig about whether we can find the great truths even when buried in so much distortion or not. The only folk among us who rant on about the need for non-questioning adherence and strict beliefs are those who would stand to lose authority over us if it were known that, well, not everything was exactly correct as presented. The preachers of course. You can be sure their job security is more than a little threatened if we learn to think for ourselves.:think:

Evolution! I forgot evolution! Well, evolution is the merely the continuance of God's creative activities. His will is that the Earth and Humanity advance always and not remain static, but dynamic. This concept is in complete agreement with everything except the flawed story of creation in Genesis.

Einstein did say: "I want to know God's thoughts. The rest are details". No. Sorry. It is not correct that to be a scientist one must be a non-believer. It just means that one embarks upon a journey of discovery in the physical universe with each new realization bringing us closer to God. No intelligent, thinking human can find fault with this.

My critics will attack this logic as they always do when the security of the status quo is threatened, saying that Satan is at work here. But note please that my post serves to bring both camps together in thoughtful agreement, not to divide. Which is the more Godly? Division or Union between men?

God Bless us all in any case. Thank God that in Heaven there will be a common understanding to replace the discord we find here on Earth.

[WildRose]

Good points.

Actually there are seveal theories by which one can conclude that there's really no significant conflict between creationism and scientific evolutionary theory.

The Old Testament was written by men, in language that men of the day could comprehend. The entire sum total of scientific knowledge and understanding at that time, would have fit in a few three ring binder notebooks.

Science fails at a split second prior to the Big Bang to come up with any satisfactory explanation as to what happened. Nothing in Science can accomodate the sudden existence of all of the matter in the universe coming from the collision of particles of energy.

Nothing in evolutionary theory, nor the fossil record actually shows the creation of any genus from another. The similarities are clear, but most of the true "links" are missing.

Creation by intelligent design is the only truly plausible and supportable theory because even in science some things you simply have to take on faith, and many things associated with faith, can be demonstrated by science.

[James-Jacob-Yaqub]

"Science fails at a split second prior to the Big Bang to come up with any satisfactory explanation as to what happened. Nothing in Science can accomodate the sudden existence of all of the matter in the universe coming from the collision of particles of energy."

Most scientists are religious men/women. Very few deny God. They know that behind all the science God waits to be discovered. They do, however, like to see how close they can get. On the second part, nothing YET has explained the great mass evident in creation. Because it is not fully understood nothing will be said of it until reasonable surety is known. This is not a failure of science but quite the opposite. It shows the care which is taken in research and the willingness to say, "we do not yet know". This is the very stuff of investigative science. Science does not make brash and rash assumptions.

"Conservatism is Common Sense Defined... . Liberalism is Common Sense Denied!!!"

It would be interesting to debate the definition of "common sense". I think much would be revealed. Do you know that the liberalism of today is the conservatism of tomorrow? That's the way it works.

example: At the time of the reformation the conservative body of religious thought and practice was with the Roman church. They would/could not abide change. The liberal movement forced that change and Protestantism was born. Now, protestants are largely the conservatives and the so called, "new world religion" is spoken of as being the brainchild of the liberals.

Conservatism is always that which is entrenched and resistant to change. Liberalism is the force which demands change. Strife with resultant small changes is the result. This is the way people are. Conservatism is not always a good thing and neither is liberalism. In all, the center path is the best to follow; the path of least harm. Again if we look for the Hand of God in our behavior, it helps to understand. God does not want us to remain static for where the spirit leads the flesh must follow.

Evolution affects all aspects of life. Not just the physical. Mental abilities and ideas/customs also change over time. The role of the conservative is to moderate the liberal so that the end result is not too much change all at once or not too little. Each viewpoint is necessary for a healthy and viable whole.

Again there is really no conflict between men that unbiased reasoning and faith in the methods of our creator cannot resolve.
"Nothing in evolutionary theory, nor the fossil record actually shows the creation of any genus from another. The similarities are clear, but most of the true "links" are missing."

Creation by intelligent design is the only truly plausible and supportable theory because even in science some things you simply have to take on faith, and many things associated with faith, can be demonstrated by science.


Now, genus to genus. You are correct. A genus is a sub-part of a family. A species is a sub-part of a genus. Once a genus is established it does not change to another. The change that this might be thought of is really a different genus parallel and of the same family. In other words. Cats and dogs are both mammals but a cat will never change into a dog or vice versa. Note: The variations of any genus result in a new species, not a new genus. Variations in family result in new genus. And, there is abundant fossil evidence but also much disagreement about how it all fits together. This disagreement demonstrates the level of care for accuracy that is applied in science rather than the opposite.

There are so many arguments that I've read which plainly are misstatements based upon the arguer not really understanding scientific terminology. It matters if one is interested in being accurate.

I feel strongly that there has always been a boundary between faith and science. But, that boundary moves towards God as we study and learn. In the end the greatness of God will be honored by science by achieving the fullest possible understanding of the physical universe. In the meanwhile it is a pity that the two are so divided by so much confusion and lack of clarity in thinking. There need not be any conflict between men in these matters as they deal with separate aspects of God's being. The trouble we find is directly related to the errors in scripture and they are the work of men, not God.



"Creation by intelligent design is the only truly plausible and supportable theory because even in science some things you simply have to take on faith, and many things associated with faith, can be demonstrated by science."

This statement is based upon the assumption that we must claim one position or the other but they are not mutually exclusive at all. In the world of the human mind there is a progression which works like this: Faith preceedes and results in knowledge. Knowledge then brings us wisdom. In the beginning all was a matter of faith then, as we learned more about our world sure knowledge replaced it. As we move forward more will be leaned and less will be a matter of faith. God, however is known only through His works in creation. The faith of the religious person in God never changes. Here it is different than the faith as applied to the physical world. To meld the two and derive absolutes serves no useful purpose.

Creation marked the beginning of the physical universe. Evolution is that which God designed, in His intelligence, to insure that His creation moved forward always towards His designated conclusion. Not understanding various parts of this does not negate the whole.

[Koushi Shinigami]

Look, on the horizon. What is that? I think it's a Mayflower moving van....

[Greyclouds]

Good points.

Actually there are seveal theories by which one can conclude that there's really no significant conflict between creationism and scientific evolutionary theory.

Creation of a man by silicate dust/microorganisms? Sorry, but we haven't found the gene orthologs in microorganisms that God could have used to create us as a species.


The Old Testament was written by men, in language that men of the day could comprehend. The entire sum total of scientific knowledge and understanding at that time, would have fit in a few three ring binder notebooks.

... really? I thought that the Old Testament was divinely inspired...


Science fails at a split second prior to the Big Bang to come up with any satisfactory explanation as to what happened. Nothing in Science can accomodate the sudden existence of all of the matter in the universe coming from the collision of particles of energy.

Science cannot describe non-physical phenomenon.


Nothing in evolutionary theory, nor the fossil record actually shows the creation of any genus from another. The similarities are clear, but most of the true "links" are missing.

I will not go into further detail here because of RF forum regulations, but suffice it to say that there are common phenotypic traits between MANY genus as well as gene paralogs common to animals at an ORDER level.


Creation by intelligent design is the only truly plausible and supportable theory because even in science some things you simply have to take on faith, and many things associated with faith, can be demonstrated by science.

Who was the intelligent designer and can you prove with physical evidence that he created us in a specific mechanism? If you cannot answer all parts of that question, then no, it's not plausible nor a supportable theory.

[Clintville]

I've always wondered why God would punish someone for getting the story or date wrong, even if they were still Christians.

[James-Jacob-Yaqub]

This supposition reduces the idea of God to nothing more than a jealous, self-centered human.

Further, it is my firm belief that God is quite above such things as religious preference.

Thoughts of God should bring us comfort, not fear.

[Mobulis]

This supposition reduces the idea of God to nothing more than a jealous, self-centered human.

Further, it is my firm belief that God is quite above such things as religious preference.

Thoughts of God should bring us comfort, not fear.


Then why do people refer to themselves as god-fearing?

[Meriweather]

Then why do people refer to themselves as god-fearing?

I was taught that "Fear of the Lord" was not intended to imply fright, but rather awe, wonder, and veneration.

[Mike Griffith]

Evolution is the modern version of The Emperor's New Clothes. It is a downright silly, absurd theory. It assumes something came from nothing and that life came from non-life. The advent of the electron microscope has made evolution look even more absurd than before.

Darwin assumed that microscopic life was simple and primitive. We now know that microscopic life is staggeringly complex, that awesomely complex biomachines exist at levels that can be seen only with the aid of electron microscopes. But does this bother Darwinists? Nah.

Does the fact that no origin-of-life experiment has ever succeeded in "creating" (pun intended) evan a single living cell bother Darwinists? Nah.

Does the fact that all the numerous species that appear in the Cambrian Explosion have not the slightest trace of any "transitional forms" but appear suddenly in the fossil record, drastically contradicting Darwinian theory--does this bother Darwinists? Nah.

One day evolution will be recognized as the greatest hoax in the history of the planet. It makes the flat-earth theory look halfway credible.

[Mobulis]

Evolution is the modern version of The Emperor's New Clothes. It is a downright silly, absurd theory. It assumes something came from nothing and that life came from non-life. The advent of the electron microscope has made evolution look even more absurd than before.

Darwin assumed that microscopic life was simple and primitive. We now know that microscopic life is staggeringly complex, that awesomely complex biomachines exist at levels that can be seen only with the aid of electron microscopes. But does this bother Darwinists? Nah.

Does the fact that no origin-of-life experiment has ever succeeded in "creating" (pun intended) evan a single living cell bother Darwinists? Nah.

Does the fact that all the numerous species that appear in the Cambrian Explosion have not the slightest trace of any "transitional forms" but appear suddenly in the fossil record, drastically contradicting Darwinian theory--does this bother Darwinists? Nah.

One day evolution will be recognized as the greatest hoax in the history of the planet. It makes the flat-earth theory look halfway credible.


No it doesn't.

[Abe]

I was taught that "Fear of the Lord" was not intended to imply fright, but rather awe, wonder, and veneration.Right on with the Hebrew.

[Mikko]

Evolution is the modern version of The Emperor's New Clothes. It is a downright silly, absurd theory. It assumes something came from nothing and that life came from non-life. The advent of the electron microscope has made evolution look even more absurd than before.

1. The advent of the electron microscope has no bearing on the theory of evolution.
2. Evolution makes no assumption about the origin of life.



Darwin assumed that microscopic life was simple and primitive. We now know that microscopic life is staggeringly complex, that awesomely complex biomachines exist at levels that can be seen only with the aid of electron microscopes. But does this bother Darwinists? Nah.
1. There is no such thing as a "Darwinist."
2. Theories are refined and revised in light of new evidence all the time. It is the very essence of science.



Does the fact that no origin-of-life experiment has ever succeeded in "creating" (pun intended) evan a single living cell bother Darwinists? Nah.

1. Actually, amino acids, the building blocks of life, have been produced in a laboratory, so since that is and "origin-of-life" experiment,



Does the fact that all the numerous species that appear in the Cambrian Explosion have not the slightest trace of any "transitional forms" but appear suddenly in the fossil record, drastically contradicting Darwinian theory--does this bother Darwinists? Nah.

Nor should it. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.



One day evolution will be recognized as the greatest hoax in the history of the planet. It makes the flat-earth theory look halfway credible.

Nope. Evolution's claims are supported every time they're put to the test, and just the opposite will happen. It will gain the status of fact, not theory.

[Mikko]

Right on with the Hebrew.

Ah, an old sixties slogan revived. :)

[Drawz]

1. The advent of the electron microscope has no bearing on the theory of evolution.
2. Evolution makes no assumption about the origin of life.




1. There is no such thing as a "Darwinist."
2. Theories are refined and revised in light of new evidence all the time. It is the very essence of science.





1. Actually, amino acids, the building blocks of life, have been produced in a laboratory, so since that is and "origin-of-life" experiment,





Nor should it. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.





Nope. Evolution's claims are supported every time they're put to the test, and just the opposite will happen. It will gain the status of fact, not theory.

:clap:

However, evolution is and always will be, both a fact and a theory. Evolution has been observed, thus it is a fact. The Theory of Evolution is our best explaination of that fact, and can never be "proven" (no scientific theory can be).

[biggles53]

This supposition reduces the idea of God to nothing more than a jealous, self-centered human.

Further, it is my firm belief that God is quite above such things as religious preference.

Thoughts of God should bring us comfort, not fear.

Excuse me...doesn't he desribe himself as "jealous".....?

[biggles53]

Evolution is the modern version of The Emperor's New Clothes. It is a downright silly, absurd theory. It assumes something came from nothing and that life came from non-life. The advent of the electron microscope has made evolution look even more absurd than before.

Please learn what the theory actually says before you criticise it....

Darwin assumed that microscopic life was simple and primitive. We now know that microscopic life is staggeringly complex, that awesomely complex biomachines exist at levels that can be seen only with the aid of electron microscopes. But does this bother Darwinists? Nah.

Knowledge of the micro and the macro has expanded quite a bit in the 150 years since Darwin published his brilliant theory. There were many things he would not have been aware of (Mendellian genetics was a big one!), and his theory has been expanded since that time. This is what science does!

Does the fact that no origin-of-life experiment has ever succeeded in "creating" (pun intended) evan a single living cell bother Darwinists? Nah.

Again, I invite you to learn what his theory does and doesn't assert...

Does the fact that all the numerous species that appear in the Cambrian Explosion have not the slightest trace of any "transitional forms" but appear suddenly in the fossil record, drastically contradicting Darwinian theory--does this bother Darwinists? Nah.

Apart from being in error about 'transitionals', where was the theory contradicted by the Cambrian discoveries...??

One day evolution will be recognized as the greatest hoax in the history of the planet. It makes the flat-earth theory look halfway credible.

Yep, just like that wacky theory of Gravity, and that impossibly stupid germ theory...oh, and don't get me started on all that garbage about electricity.....:rolleyes:

[Jacob_Rising]

James-Jacob-Yaqub

You have an interesting name and it reminds me of the name I named my son because all three mean the same thing.

I like names, I guess it's my favorite thing.

Does yours mean-- Christianity-Judaism-Islam?

Just courious to why you chose 3 versions of the same name.

I'm obsessed with 3's that mean the same thing.

I said ,'' Thing'' 3 times, Oops, there is a hidden 4th, Who would have thunk it?

[James-Jacob-Yaqub]

James-Jacob-Yaqub

You have an interesting name and it reminds me of the name I named my son because all three mean the same thing.

I like names, I guess it's my favorite thing.

Does yours mean-- Christianity-Judaism-Islam?

Just courious to why you chose 3 versions of the same name.

I'm obsessed with 3's that mean the same thing.

I said ,'' Thing'' 3 times, Oops, there is a hidden 4th, Who would have thunk it?






Good question. Here's my answer. One of those three is my actual front name. I have been a member of all three religions during my life.

I firmly believe in God the creator....etc I do not mean to diminish any of the world's religions but regarding the "big three" Christianity, Judaism and Islam well, they all derive from the Prophet Abraham and they all worship the same God. Since there is only ONE God then this is necessarily true.

James, Jacob, Yaqub is my signature intended to convey this belief that those good people of all the aforementioned three should be merged as one spiritual body. I further believe that this will come to pass and when it does, oh sure many will fight against it as they pretty much do everything else that seems new and different, we will see in the world a new basis for a stronger human identity which values diversity instead of the opposite. It is always fear that gets humans into trouble. When the time comes that no one of us will want others to change their religion or their approach to the ONE God fear in the world, and it's cousin violence, will be greatly lessened.

Using that name helps me to remember this ideal and also to be nice on forums...

Good Question:dance:

[James-Jacob-Yaqub]

Excuse me...doesn't he desribe himself as "jealous".....?



He is reported to have described Himself that way but I rather think it was really a human man who said that about Him.

There is a lot more to be said about what that statement implies. Another time. Another topic:).

[James-Jacob-Yaqub]

Ah, an old sixties slogan revived. :)



You remember the sixties! Oh Wow! Far Out! and Right On. Yes the only bad thing about the sixties was the fact that Disco and bell bottoms and hip huggers and totally humongous American cars was still ahead of us. Lord how I couldn't wait for those to die out.

[Jacob_Rising]

Good question. Here's my answer. One of those three is my actual front name. I have been a member of all three religions during my life.

I firmly believe in God the creator....etc I do not mean to diminish any of the world's religions but regarding the "big three" Christianity, Judaism and Islam well, they all derive from the Prophet Abraham and they all worship the same God. Since there is only ONE God then this is necessarily true.

James, Jacob, Yaqub is my signature intended to convey this belief that those good people of all the aforementioned three should be merged as one spiritual body. I further believe that this will come to pass and when it does, oh sure many will fight against it as they pretty much do everything else that seems new and different, we will see in the world a new basis for a stronger human identity which values diversity instead of the opposite. It is always fear that gets humans into trouble. When the time comes that no one of us will want others to change their religion or their approach to the ONE God fear in the world, and it's cousin violence, will be greatly lessened.

Using that name helps me to remember this ideal and also to be nice on forums...

Good Question:dance:I couldn't have said it better, That's why my signature says, '' Cut the Harlot in pieces and World peace will come''

Now you have a riddle.

[James-Jacob-Yaqub]

Excuse me...doesn't he desribe himself as "jealous".....?




No. That was reported by a man writing about God. Think of parables. People often need ordinary language that they understand when being preached to.:eh:

[James-Jacob-Yaqub]

Evolution is the modern version of The Emperor's New Clothes. It is a downright silly, absurd theory. It assumes something came from nothing and that life came from non-life. The advent of the electron microscope has made evolution look even more absurd than before.

Darwin assumed that microscopic life was simple and primitive. We now know that microscopic life is staggeringly complex, that awesomely complex biomachines exist at levels that can be seen only with the aid of electron microscopes. But does this bother Darwinists? Nah.

Does the fact that no origin-of-life experiment has ever succeeded in "creating" (pun intended) evan a single living cell bother Darwinists? Nah.

One day evolution will be recognized as the greatest hoax in the history of the planet. It makes the flat-earth theory look halfway credible.



Darwin looked at nature and saw clearly that in differing, but adjacent, locations along the south American coast finches and other animals were almost the same but not quite. This very real observation lead him to conclude that variation in species was prompted by the need for them to adapt to differing living conditions.

His "Origin of Species" tells about all this in detail, with drawings and various notes.

The subsequent "theory of evolution" states that biological life, not rocks and that stuff, originated on our planet as very simple life forms which then, responding to need and opportunity, became more complex until we have what we see today.

OK guys here's the kicker. Evolution does NOT state that life came from "nothing" and that it is all by chance. I've heard this claim only by those who are antagonistic to evolution, never from a scientist. If we hear from a scientist that they do not know the origin of life they are merely telling the truth. A scientist deals with what is observable and testable. God cannot be quantified but His creation can!


OK Mike G. here are some specific replies.

Evolution is the modern version of The Emperor's New Clothes. It is a downright silly, absurd theory. It assumes something came from nothing and that life came from non-life.

I've already answered this one above. The ultimate source is of course God, the Intelligent designer.


Darwin assumed that microscopic life was simple and primitive.

Simple and primitive microscopic life WAS simple and primitive. Later evolution made it less so until hey what.... complex microscopic life.



Does the fact that all the numerous species that appear in the Cambrian Explosion have not the slightest trace of any "transitional forms" but appear suddenly in the fossil record, drastically contradicting Darwinian theory--does this bother Darwinists? Nah.

In the Cambrian we find the beginnings of microscopic life in fossil records. This is the scientific recognition of the beginnings of life which then began the process of evolution. Where did life come from? God of course. Who else?



Mike, regarding hoaxes, when another theory is advanced which fits the mechanisms of the observable earth which is superior to the present one, science will adopt it and discard the present one.


Important conclusion:

Science cannot ever stop the continuing work of discovery and say that "beyond this point God created" because to do this would be to STOP their inquires and advance knowledge no further.

As I said before, science deals with things that are quantifiable. Science has faith that over time more and more will be known. They who are believers have faith in God and they see the hand of God every time they look into a microscope, inspect a layer in sandstone, bore an ice core or look into the far reaches of space.

God created and immediately the universe began evolution as God's designated method of continuance and growth. This was His Intelligent Design.

There is no conflict between Evolution and Creation EXCEPT the time line given in the Old Testament. To accept this on faith is OK. To go out into the world and try to substantiate it by perverting science to support it is NOT science. It is the same as telling a lie.

The Bible is a collection of books none of which exists today as written so long ago. It is the inspired Word of God true. It is also filtered through the eyes, ears and mind of the men who first told those stories in ages past. Those people could only express divinity within their own capabilities to speak and comprehend using the language of the day. This is why there are so many illogical connections in Genesis.

Does this diminish God in any way? No. Does it diminish Faith? No

Every time I read an article written from a religious standpoint is conveys the message that a great threat to the foundation of their faith is being proposed. A threat that intends to destroy Christianity and replace it with???? Always these arguments are presented from a defensive viewpoint. Defensive? Why so? The answer is Genesis. There is no other possibility. If Genesis is found to be less than the perfect story that it is reported to be then the whole of Christianity is suddenly on perilous footing. Everyone please read a pre-reformation Bible Genesis and you will see that there is another story of the Creation. One that makes a lot more sense. It's still not perfect but it's better than the on in KJV.

Creation followed by Evolution. Plain and simple. Worthy of an almighty God. The only trouble comes from the little minds of we humans when we allow emotions to rule.:hug:

[biggles53]

No. That was reported by a man writing about God. Think of parables. People often need ordinary language that they understand when being preached to.:eh:

Excuse me again....?? Someone else called your god "jealous"?? Doesn't he describe himself that way in one of the Decalogue..??? Aren't these supposed to be the 'word of god', chiselled in stone...??

[Mikko]

Excuse me again....?? Someone else called your god "jealous"?? Doesn't he describe himself that way in one of the Decalogue..??? Aren't these supposed to be the 'word of god', chiselled in stone...??

The operative words in the above are "supposed to be." The operative question is "Supposed to be by whom?"

[Abe]

Ah, an old sixties slogan revived. :)And revised. :))

[davetexas]

:clap:

However, evolution is and always will be, both a fact and a theory. Evolution has been observed, thus it is a fact. The Theory of Evolution is our best explaination of that fact, and can never be "proven" (no scientific theory can be).


No fossil evidence. Think about it,there should be not only tons of fossils but strange things in the process and failed evolving everywhere.

A chicken disproves evolution. We need a working prototype from day one. This is impossible. there can be no "oops" nature forgot the egg thing,so the first chicken is extinct.
Oh well a few million tears of trial and error must now follow.

there is no margin that evolutionists imagine possible to create a species.

Look at the "plumbing" of a mammal. Just one thing out of whack and that creature dies.It could not possibly evolve.

Where are the monkeys with one eye socket skull bones that were waiting for a second eye to evolve?
The skull says to itself "I nee another eye"........so a million years go by waiting for that second eyeball to form.

So we have thousands of one eye socket skulls discovered all over the place?

NO NOT ONE OF ANY TRANSITION ANYPLACE.

FACE IT EVOLUTION IS A RELIGION THAT REQUIRES MORE FAITH THAT 50 RELIGIONS PUT TOGETHER.

[Abe]

Excuse me...doesn't he desribe himself as "jealous".....?Mistranslation. In Hebrew, "Jealous" and "Zealous" are spelled alike קנאי (Kanai). There is, however, a difference in how they're pronounced. One is pronounced "Mil'eil" style, (penultimate syllable), and the other is pronounced "Milra'" style, (ultimate syllable).

The translators saw the written words and translated them, apparently not understanding the difference in pronunciation. This is why idiomatic knowledge is so important.

[James-Jacob-Yaqub]

Excuse me again....?? Someone else called your god "jealous"?? Doesn't he describe himself that way in one of the Decalogue..??? Aren't these supposed to be the 'word of god', chiselled in stone...??


Jealousy is an emotional trait common to the human being. The lower mind of the typical man is home to these. God is a being so far advanced to man, so much higher on the scale of life, that "emotions" do not exist. "Desire" does not exist. God is beyond the ultimate that we can imagine. The purest expression of mind. In this there are no contradictions, no questions, no oppositions and no expressions except the highest of all, Divine Will.

Like the parables show us it is often necessary to depict God in a familiar light. Look beyond these though for a higher truth. When we learn to do this we find that our understanding is "up" and our inclination for debate "down".:surprised

JJY

[davetexas]

I have never thought that there was any disagreement between the two ideas and cannot now imagine why so many good people argue about it all the time.:eh:

Of course, certainly, absolutely and you're darn right God, the intelligent designer, created the universe and everything in it plus us. Since the moment of creation His divine plan of constant change has been working just as He willed it so very long ago.:lol:

Whoa.... Wait wait. That can't be right. I mean, where are the contentions between non-believer and believers? They cannot agree. They have to be at odds. I mean they always have been right?

I says right here in the Bible in the story of creation what happened. Then later the generations of man are listed so that we can count up all the years and determine how old the planet really is. Is this what "believing in God" is all about? No. This matter has importance only in arguing that the Bible is correct. Then, by extension, if this is not correct, none of the rest of the Bible can be relied upon either. Right? No. Wrong. Allow for the hand of man messing with scripture and concentrate on what is of essential, eternal importance.

The day that we all stop arguing with each other over things that don't matter will be the day that Satan is defeated.:evil: I know this to be true.:dance:

If the old stories, a small part of which make up the Old Testament, survived the 1000's of years without alteration, intact, and if there were not at least two distinct stories of creation in Christian dogma then things might be different. Oh yes folks. There is more than one creation story. The earlier speaks of the Earth being populated with "man" before Adam and Eve in the Garden. This, of course, is the land where Cain went to find a wife. Hey, no more mystery you guys. But why is this important bit not in the King James? Maybe because it was, up till then, found in the Roman (Catholic) version, and still is.

The Bible is "God's Word". OK so who is authorized to change it then? I mean besides God. The original codification of the christian texts, when selections were first made as to what would constitute the New Testament were decided, was also the time when these were appended to the Old. Much of the body of scriptural writings were discarded. Only four gospels were retained. God did not make this decision. Man did. That was a long time ago, about 300 years after Jesus was crucified. Since that time there have been no end to the revisions, editions and modifications. Who is to say that what we have now is even close to being in accord with the original? Who, during the reformation or later, was anointed by God to throw out whole chapters of the Bible so that the resultant book would match the politics of the day? It was not God who ordained these actions. It was fallible men, acting in fear.:hand: In those days each local government included a powerful churchman as a matter of policy. Since these guys were of the Roman persuasion, they had to go because it was desired that the influence of Rome (the pope) be stopped in other countries. This is what is behind the major modifications of that time. Did anyone think about whether they had the right to mess with God's Word? Apparently not. It didn't matter too much then as the rank and file were very uneducated. Most people could not read nor did they travel more than twenty miles from where they were born. This kind of man is easily modified by authority.

Besides this it is a historical fact that the Hebrews, having lost the originals long ago, did during an eighty year period, reassemble from the memories of a group of scholars, what we now see in the Old Testament. This is the reason why there are occasional little tidbits of information that seem to be isolated, with out amplification in the present text.

Despite all this I suppose it is a matter of convenience to sort of ignore the true history of the scriptures and simply claim that it is God's Word. Well almost the way God said it. Close enough?

Here folks is a great distinction between a conservative and a liberal as regards religion. The liberal will be content to realize that God did, indeed, do the creating with a grand plan but he/she will not bother looking for verifications in the Book which they know to be too sullied by the hand of man over the years.:frown:

Jesus had twelve disciples. Peter was their chief. Why do the protestants not preach His word? Well, because he was the one who started the Roman Church and they didn't like the Pope anymore so he, and others, got deleted. Sorry God. It's only Your word when our preachers agree with it.:eh:

Sigh..... Yes I believe in God almighty who created the world. I do not believe the Bible verbatim because it is well known to be far from what it might have originally been.

Is all this important? Not really. Heaven awaits us regardless if the Bible is exactly correct or not. What matters is the way we treat each other and how we seem to prefer driving wedges between people when Jesus taught us all just the opposite.:hand:

It is my sincere belief that God does not give a fig about whether we can find the great truths even when buried in so much distortion or not. The only folk among us who rant on about the need for non-questioning adherence and strict beliefs are those who would stand to lose authority over us if it were known that, well, not everything was exactly correct as presented. The preachers of course. You can be sure their job security is more than a little threatened if we learn to think for ourselves.:think:

Evolution! I forgot evolution! Well, evolution is the merely the continuance of God's creative activities. His will is that the Earth and Humanity advance always and not remain static, but dynamic. This concept is in complete agreement with everything except the flawed story of creation in Genesis.

Einstein did say: "I want to know God's thoughts. The rest are details". No. Sorry. It is not correct that to be a scientist one must be a non-believer. It just means that one embarks upon a journey of discovery in the physical universe with each new realization bringing us closer to God. No intelligent, thinking human can find fault with this.

My critics will attack this logic as they always do when the security of the status quo is threatened, saying that Satan is at work here. But note please that my post serves to bring both camps together in thoughtful agreement, not to divide. Which is the more Godly? Division or Union between men?

God Bless us all in any case. Thank God that in Heaven there will be a common understanding to replace the discord we find here on Earth.



This is your quote;
"Jesus had twelve disciples. Peter was their chief. Why do the protestants not preach His word? Well, because he was the one who started the Roman Church and they didn't like the Pope anymore so he, and others, got deleted. Sorry God. It's only Your word when our preachers agree with it."

Peter was so traitorous (as a disciple) he denied Jesus 3 times.

It was so bad the angel had to tell them "5And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.

6And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. 7But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you. "

Peter was not their chief.

Was he their greatest apostle?

Note where he was chastised by Paul for his hypocrisy

Gal 2
11But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

12For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. 13And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.


You should know what is in your bible before you indict a whole segment of the body.

[natalie addict]

No fossil evidence. Think about it,there should be not only tons of fossils but strange things in the process and failed evolving everywhere.

A chicken disproves evolution. We need a working prototype from day one. This is impossible. there can be no "oops" nature forgot the egg thing,so the first chicken is extinct.
Oh well a few million tears of trial and error must now follow.

there is no margin that evolutionists imagine possible to create a species.

Look at the "plumbing" of a mammal. Just one thing out of whack and that creature dies.It could not possibly evolve.

Where are the monkeys with one eye socket skull bones that were waiting for a second eye to evolve?
The skull says to itself "I nee another eye"........so a million years go by waiting for that second eyeball to form.

So we have thousands of one eye socket skulls discovered all over the place?

NO NOT ONE OF ANY TRANSITION ANYPLACE.

FACE IT EVOLUTION IS A RELIGION THAT REQUIRES MORE FAITH THAT 50 RELIGIONS PUT TOGETHER.

You need to read a decent book on early vertebrate evoulution. May I recommend "Your Inner Fish" by Neil Shubin.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0307277453/ref=s9_simz_gw_s2_p14_i1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-4&pf_rd_r=1JRNYK69KBC8YQ8P44V9&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=470939031&pf_rd_i=507846

[James-Jacob-Yaqub]

No fossil evidence. Think about it,there should be not only tons of fossils but strange things in the process and failed evolving everywhere.

A chicken disproves evolution. We need a working prototype from day one. This is impossible. there can be no "oops" nature forgot the egg thing,so the first chicken is extinct.
Oh well a few million tears of trial and error must now follow.

there is no margin that evolutionists imagine possible to create a species.

Look at the "plumbing" of a mammal. Just one thing out of whack and that creature dies.It could not possibly evolve.

Where are the monkeys with one eye socket skull bones that were waiting for a second eye to evolve?
The skull says to itself "I nee another eye"........so a million years go by waiting for that second eyeball to form.

So we have thousands of one eye socket skulls discovered all over the place?

NO NOT ONE OF ANY TRANSITION ANYPLACE.

FACE IT EVOLUTION IS A RELIGION THAT REQUIRES MORE FAITH THAT 50 RELIGIONS PUT TOGETHER.



I do not understand this post reply. Do you mean to say that one eye preceded two? Does a chicken disprove evolution? How so? No transition? Where? From what to what?

The last point is easy. Scientists do not deal in faith but in observable data. If evolution were found to be flawed they would readily abandon it and follow the new evidence to another set of ideas which would then lead them to a new theory.

Whoever wrote that quote above about the "50 RELIGIONS" is someone I'd like to meet.

Please be careful. Do not allow yourself to be blinded by the religious voices which seem to claim that they must defend "God's Word" from the atheists at all costs. Evolution is nothing to do with religion but it has much to do with the Hand of God in His works.:lol:

YYJ

[captusa]

Good points.

.......
Science fails at a split second prior to the Big Bang to come up with any satisfactory explanation as to what happened. Nothing in Science can accomodate the sudden existence of all of the matter in the universe coming from the collision of particles of energy.
The originator of the Big Bang Theory was a Catholic theologian who made no connection to religion for his theory.
The theory was opposed by Atheist scientist (there are some Atheist scientists) who claimed it was '"Creationism"

Nothing in evolutionary theory, nor the fossil record actually shows the creation of any genus from another. The similarities are clear, but most of the true "links" are missing.
The change from one genus to another has definitely been observed.
The differences between 2 genuses is small.
The lungfish and mudskipper are living transitional "links" between fish and amphibians.
The euglena is a transitional "link" between kingdoms.
The plant kingdom and the animal kingdom.

Creation by intelligent design is the only truly plausible and supportable theory because even in science some things you simply have to take on faith, and many things associated with faith, can be demonstrated by science.

The concept of intelligent design is contradicted by the digestive system of rabbits.
It indicates decendents of a carnivore reinherited characteristics of an ungulate.
You might be able to find the explaintion on youtube.

[davetexas]

I do not understand this post reply. Do you mean to say that one eye preceded two? Does a chicken disprove evolution? How so? No transition? Where? From what to what?

The last point is easy. Scientists do not deal in faith but in observable data. If evolution were found to be flawed they would readily abandon it and follow the new evidence to another set of ideas which would then lead them to a new theory.

Whoever wrote that quote above about the "50 RELIGIONS" is someone I'd like to meet.

Please be careful. Do not allow yourself to be blinded by the religious voices which seem to claim that they must defend "God's Word" from the atheists at all costs. Evolution is nothing to do with religion but it has much to do with the Hand of God in His works.:lol:

YYJ

how is your defending something as ridiculous as evolution qualify you to call me blinded?

You and I both know evolution is a farce. It could not possibly have happened.
And it HAS to be a religion for anybody to possibly defy all reason to make the astronomical jump to think something evolved,

Especially since you have no prototypes.
You seriously don't believe an eyeball can evolve do you.?

But you believe 2 did simultaneously?
Tell me ,where are the human babies born with a monkey tail? If the gene for the monkey was in man,we would see thousands of mutations of humans born with monkey feet,tails,etc.

[davetexas]

You need to read a decent book on early vertebrate evoulution. May I recommend "Your Inner Fish" by Neil Shubin.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0307277453/ref=s9_simz_gw_s2_p14_i1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-4&pf_rd_r=1JRNYK69KBC8YQ8P44V9&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=470939031&pf_rd_i=507846


Thats like saying one should read a good book on 911 conspiracy.

One would need little proof.

Same thing here ...........There should be proof in the fossil and skeletal record. There would be literally thousands and thousands of failed mammals,etc.

But lo..........there are none..

[Stantz]

how is your defending something as ridiculous as evolution qualify you to call me blinded?

You and I both know evolution is a farce. It could not possibly have happened.
And it HAS to be a religion for anybody to possibly defy all reason to make the astronomical jump to think something evolved,

Especially since you have no prototypes.
You seriously don't believe an eyeball can evolve do you.?

But you believe 2 did simultaneously?
Tell me ,where are the human babies born with a monkey tail? If the gene for the monkey was in man,we would see thousands of mutations of humans born with monkey feet,tails,etc.

To correct the misinformation and misconceptions you have about evolution would take years of biology im affraid.
but to people can always be put on the right track, weather you think evolution was guided by god or another supernatural being, well i guess you can chose to believe that, i however do not based on lack of evidence..

in anycase you are bringing up some classic examples here as far as misunderstanding of evolution, we can take a few of those one at a time

Mutation - mutation does not happen in the same way it does on X-men, you do not suddenly get a generation of humans born with monkey feet, or even a single dog born with a cat tail.
If you ever do want to invest the time i suggest reading a little bit on somatic and germ line mutations.

The Eye- this has been a huge strawman for creationists for a while, especially because of something Charles Darwin himself had said:

"To suppose that the eye [...] could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree"

which leads people to believe - hey even Darwin did not think the eye evolved.

if you look at his next few sentences, the picture changes a bit:

"When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. "

Regardless of Darwin's thought on the matter, the evolution of the eye has been explained thoroughly and have been supported by fossil records,as well as DNA evidence

Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.

Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.

In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.


Babies with Monkey Tails - Again this shows a lack of understanding of how evolution works. Humans did not evolve from monkeys, however they did evolve from a common ancestor. which again has been proved by both fossil records, as well as DNA evidence.

A comparison of a chimp's genetic blueprints with that of the human genome shows that our closest living relatives share 96 percent of our DNA. The number of genetic differences between humans and chimps is ten times smaller than that between mice and rats.
Scientists also discovered that some classes of genes are changing unusually quickly in both humans and chimpanzees, as compared with other mammals. These classes include genes involved in the perception of sound, transmission of nerve signals, and the production of sperm.
Despite the similarities in human and chimp genomes, the scientists identified some 40 million differences among the three billion DNA molecules, or nucleotides, in each genome.
The vast majority of those differences are not biologically significant, but researchers were able to identify a couple thousand differences that are potentially important to the evolution of the human lineage.

[caels]

I'm not interested in debating people who aren't capable of reading the scientific literature (either out of religious indoctrination or plain stupidity). If you can't read the literature and ascertain the obvious true, you are not worth debating. I could spend all day debunking every one of these pseudo-scientific fellows, but what would be the point? They wouldn't give into fact or reason, they would just assume I was wrong and spout more nonintellectual nonsense. Natural Selection is fact. Get over it.

However, I would like to point out how humorous it is that this topic is featured under "Religion." That really does tell you where the false debate comes from doesn't it? It's not from scientific disagreement, it's from religious dogma.

[James-Jacob-Yaqub]

I'd like to restate my premise, my firm belief, that God created then established evolution as His chosen mechanism for the universe to grow to maturity. I mean to include everything in the physical realm in this. In addition I include spirit which, I believe, underlies and informs matter. As spirit grows and matures in God it is essential for matter to follow along. This is the factor which drives the evolution that we see. This position necessarily judges the Biblical account of the Creation as being distorted and misleading (because of human involvement in it's telling).

There is no intent to demean or to bring down the beliefs of others but when those beliefs are stated in ways which clearly indicate a lack of education there is little else which can be done. We all should be careful to insure that, in stating our beliefs, we do not simply repeat things that we have heard by someone else who may or may not know what he /she is talking about. Just because a man/woman quotes the Bible does not mean that what they say is trustworthy.

If we want to know about Mexican food we had best ask a Mexican. If is true also that if we want to know what Catholics believe we should ask one of them. Should we ask a Baptist what Jehovah's Witnesses believe? No. The point is simple. All of us, to an extent, have conflicts of interest which seek to influence what we declare to be true. When I listen to a certain kind of protestant preaching about the shortcomings of another denomination I should immediately be aware of the strong possibility that this person is pre-disposed to be antagonistic towards that other group viewing them as being competitive to his/her own. Politics is always like that. Should religion be like politics?

Jesus certainly did know that his work to establish new religious thought on the planet would result in the broad assortment of churchs that we see today. He knew. He knew that men work to fine tune and perfect beliefs all with the highest of motives. He knew also that men are competitive and that there would always be tension between groups. In heaven though, there is none of this. Part of being "saved" is the moving away from petty issues, which tend to divide, and towards a more mature position and expression of faith.

Please folks. When I say "Evolution" I do not mean "from nothing" I mean "from God". And when I claim that evolution is perfectly compatible with Creation I mean that the one preceded the other. There is no magic here. There is the Mind of God in expression. I imply that the Bible is in error as are those who contend so resolutely that God is somehow in variance with the scientific mind of man which is also an important part of His Creation. The strong mind of man is our greatest gift from God. We use it, through scientific inquiry, to celebrate and honor God not to contradict Him.

Please note that it is seldom a scientist who speaks against God. Almost always it is the devout Christian who claims that scientists do these things apparently to win souls away from God. Remember please what I said in my first paragraph above and do not ask a fundamentalist preacher to teach evolution. You may not hear the truth. Ask a scientist about science, not someone in a different profession. Genesis was not written as a scientific work. It was written to serve as a testimony to God. To fulfill this need it need only be in a form which can be understood by the everyman of any time. It need not reflect truth in any strict sense of the word.

[James-Jacob-Yaqub]

The Bible has been changed to reflect the prejudices of the day, many times. What you state about Peter is common belief in Protestant circles. Of course they have to have reason to avoid his memory otherwise the separation from Rome and the Catholic Church could not have been as effective as it was desired.

Study Paul an institution which does not favor any one branch of Christianity. Read him in Greek and find what he really said.

You advise me to study the Bible. I say: which one? There are many. This is part of the problem. The thinking man/woman will study them all and even those obscure texts which were omitted, like the Book of Enoch.

Peace Brother. None of us has all knowledge. Neither do any of the various Bibles.

[natalie addict]

Thats like saying one should read a good book on 911 conspiracy.

One would need little proof.

Same thing here ...........There should be proof in the fossil and skeletal record. There would be literally thousands and thousands of failed mammals,etc.

But lo..........there are none..

Like I said, read the book, the first couple of chapters he talks about the kinds of fossils he's looking for and the science he uses to locate where he might find them. Fossils are around you just have to know where to look for them.

Another good read is The Ancestor's Tale by Richard Dawkins. In this book he takes the human branch and runs it backwards to see where and when we join up with our other ancestors on the phylogenetic tree. You can learn alot from reading that book just about biology and how other forms of life exist.

[davetexas]

Like I said, read the book, the first couple of chapters he talks about the kinds of fossils he's looking for and the science he uses to locate where he might find them. Fossils are around you just have to know where to look for them.

Another good read is The Ancestor's Tale by Richard Dawkins. In this book he takes the human branch and runs it backwards to see where and when we join up with our other ancestors on the phylogenetic tree. You can learn alot from reading that book just about biology and how other forms of life exist.

This evolving is totally impossible due to the separation of species and genetics.

Take a look at modern man. You can walk down the streets of a city and see all kinds of different skull shapes. Some elongated with almost no forehead.

Now some evolutionist finds a skull and it is elongated with a low forehead and they make that the model of early man.

But again NO PROOF. Not one fossil or skeleton in transition. Not one.

What that theory wants you to believe is that you have nobody to answer to.If there is no creator then I owe this 'non entity' zero. He doesn't exist,therefore I evolved. This is the core of the evolution theory. Evolution is a religion. A God-less religion.


Like I said ,a chicken disproves evolution. In order for it to evolve,it would necessitate trial and error. So we would have an imperfect chicken at first. One wing,one foot.one eyeball,non working beak,etc. . But no eggs are laid so the prototype failed in just a few hours.

So after another 9000 trillion years another defective non egg laying chicken formed and it lasted a whole day................

Nope ,all of us put together don't have enough faith to get evolution off the ground.

You cannot make the vast biological jumps into a more complex species.

Even if there were only bluebirds on the planet,no other species,it would have been impossible to evolve that bird. You would need a working prototype from the very beginning.

Inotherwords the egg is the whole in the evolution theory. And we have thousands of species? there are now at this point in my argument not enough exponents for the odds you need

[Mikko]

Thats like saying one should read a good book on 911 conspiracy.

One would need little proof.

Same thing here ...........There should be proof in the fossil and skeletal record. There would be literally thousands and thousands of failed mammals,etc.

But lo..........there are none..
One does not find "proof" in science; one finds evidence. The evidence in the fossil record supports the theory of evolution.

[Jacob_Rising]

One does not find "proof" in science; one finds evidence. The evidence in the fossil record supports the theory of evolution.Unless of Course that God just set everything in it's place allready being in motion to prove himself wrong.;)

He could have just made those bones and fossils to make us think they existed a Trillion years ago just to mess with our heads.

[natalie addict]

This evolving is totally impossible due to the separation of species and genetics.

Take a look at modern man. You can walk down the streets of a city and see all kinds of different skull shapes. Some elongated with almost no forehead.

Now some evolutionist finds a skull and it is elongated with a low forehead and they make that the model of early man.

But again NO PROOF. Not one fossil or skeleton in transition. Not one.

What that theory wants you to believe is that you have nobody to answer to.If there is no creator then I owe this 'non entity' zero. He doesn't exist,therefore I evolved. This is the core of the evolution theory. Evolution is a religion. A God-less religion.


Like I said ,a chicken disproves evolution. In order for it to evolve,it would necessitate trial and error. So we would have an imperfect chicken at first. One wing,one foot.one eyeball,non working beak,etc. . But no eggs are laid so the prototype failed in just a few hours.

So after another 9000 trillion years another defective non egg laying chicken formed and it lasted a whole day................

Nope ,all of us put together don't have enough faith to get evolution off the ground.

You cannot make the vast biological jumps into a more complex species.

Even if there were only bluebirds on the planet,no other species,it would have been impossible to evolve that bird. You would need a working prototype from the very beginning.

Inotherwords the egg is the whole in the evolution theory. And we have thousands of species? there are now at this point in my argument not enough exponents for the odds you need

Where did you get your ideas from about chicken evolution? Chick Tracts?

But really no theory of evolution I've read about, and I mean ever, ever read about, espouses anything even remotely close to your febrile ramblings.

Please do some serious reading about the subject, and then come back to argue at least from some level of understand of what the topic of evolution is actually about.

[natalie addict]

Unless of Course that God just set everything in it's place allready being in motion to prove himself wrong.;)

He could have just made those bones and fossils to make us think they existed a Trillion years ago just to mess with our heads.

If that were true then I'd submit to you that God then is a liar and therefore unworthy of us.

And also if that were true then how do you know if you were just created last Thursday or even just 5 minutes ago?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism#Other_formulations

[biggles53]

Mistranslation. In Hebrew, "Jealous" and "Zealous" are spelled alike קנאי (Kanai). There is, however, a difference in how they're pronounced. One is pronounced "Mil'eil" style, (penultimate syllable), and the other is pronounced "Milra'" style, (ultimate syllable).

The translators saw the written words and translated them, apparently not understanding the difference in pronunciation. This is why idiomatic knowledge is so important.

"You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,"

This makes more sense when you replace "jealous" with "zealous"...???

[Marquus]

:clap:

However, evolution is and always will be, both a fact and a theory. Evolution has been observed, thus it is a fact. The Theory of Evolution is our best explaination of that fact, and can never be "proven" (no scientific theory can be).

I can tell you believe in global warming. They (global warmists) say it is a fact that the climate changes therefore global warming is true.

Evolutionts say it is a fact things change, therefore evolution is true.

I say it is a fact I've heard a duck quack, therefore that proves that a space alien is taking me on an all expense paid vacation to loonyville.:))

[biggles53]

No fossil evidence. Think about it,there should be not only tons of fossils but strange things in the process and failed evolving everywhere.

Please don't post blatant falsehoods. There are tons and tons of fossil evidence. Go to any natural history museum....please! "Failed evolving"..???? What the heck is that supposed to mean?

A chicken disproves evolution. We need a working prototype from day one. This is impossible. there can be no "oops" nature forgot the egg thing,so the first chicken is extinct.
Oh well a few million tears of trial and error must now follow.

Ummm....birds (including the chicken!) evolved from dinosaurs. They were already egg-laying creatures!


Look at the "plumbing" of a mammal. Just one thing out of whack and that creature dies.It could not possibly evolve.

Oh really?? Ever had your appendix removed? Your tonsils? Had a vasectomy? Ever donated a kidney to someone?

Where are the monkeys with one eye socket skull bones that were waiting for a second eye to evolve?
The skull says to itself "I nee another eye"........so a million years go by waiting for that second eyeball to form.

So we have thousands of one eye socket skulls discovered all over the place?

Someone REALLY needs to do some study of the subject if someone is going to attempt a SERIOUS critique of the subject......:rolleyes:

NO NOT ONE OF ANY TRANSITION ANYPLACE.

FACE IT EVOLUTION IS A RELIGION THAT REQUIRES MORE FAITH THAT 50 RELIGIONS PUT TOGETHER.

No faith required. Just a SERIOUS examination of the abundant evidence......

[biggles53]

I can tell you believe in global warming. They (global warmists) say it is a fact that the climate changes therefore global warming is true.

Evolutionts say it is a fact things change, therefore evolution is true.

I say it is a fact I've heard a duck quack, therefore that proves that a space alien is taking me on an all expense paid vacation to loonyville.:))

That's one of the more atrocious misrepresentations of a scientific theory I've ever read...!

Congratulations....

The two statements are not linkd in the manner you infer. Evolution is a fact. An observable fact. The THEORY attempts to explain the how and why of that fact, by drawing upon the available evidence which supports that theory, AND, much more importantly, by searching for evidence which would disprove the theory.

The current theory is the BEST explanation we have to explain that fact, - ie, that change in living things occurs over time.

[Marquus]

Unless of Course that God just set everything in it's place allready being in motion to prove himself wrong.;)

He could have just made those bones and fossils to make us think they existed a Trillion years ago just to mess with our heads.

JR I'm surprised you believe in EVO, when Y'shua and his disciples plainly taught otherwise as well as spoke out against uniformitarianism. 2 Peter 3.

G-d wrote with his own finger "...for in six days G-d created the heavens and the earth the sea and eveything in them..."

The fossils show G-d's judgment for man's sin not his creative power.

Adam sinned and death occurred through sin. Hence creation needs a redeemer.

How could G-d look at billions of years of death and destruction and declare it all to be good?

No there is no proof for EVO, although there can be evidence construed to fit with EVO, but the evidence clearly favors special creation.

Creationists have done more to advance scientific advancements then what evos could only hope to accomplish. No apologies needed.

[Marquus]

That's one of the more atrocious misrepresentations of a scientific theory I've ever read...!

Congratulations....

The two statements are not linkd in the manner you infer. Evolution is a fact. An observable fact. The THEORY attempts to explain the how and why of that fact, by drawing upon the available evidence which supports that theory, AND, much more importantly, by searching for evidence which would disprove the theory.

The current theory is the BEST explanation we have to explain that fact, - ie, that change in living things occurs over time.

Creationists postulated the same thing before Darwin came along. ie, that changes occur in living things over time (Linnaeus). Sorry to burst your baloon, but your fact is a vacuous statement, therefore my inference is correct.

You need to read about true science and not fairy tales.

[biggles53]

No there is no proof for EVO, although there can be evidence construed to fit with EVO, but the evidence clearly favors special creation.

Nor is there any "proof" for gravity theory, for germ theory, for atomic theory, for electrical theory, etc, etc. Because science NEVER deals with "proof"! I'm surprised no-one has pointed this out to you before...? And you've got the evidence thing backwards too...evidence is NOT "construed to fit with" ANY scientific theory. We leave the process of force-fitting reality into a pre-conceived dogma to creationists.......

Creationists have done more to advance scientific advancements then what evos could only hope to accomplish. No apologies needed.

Oh really??? Perhaps you might like to give a short list of peer-reviewed publications produced by these people...?

No..that's OK...I'll wait.........:whistle:

[TaylorW65]

Nor is there any "proof" for gravity theory, for germ theory, for atomic theory, for electrical theory, etc, etc. Because science NEVER deals with "proof"! I'm surprised no-one has pointed this out to you before...? And you've got the evidence thing backwards too...evidence is NOT "construed to fit with" ANY scientific theory. We leave the process of force-fitting reality into a pre-conceived dogma to creationists.......



Oh really??? Perhaps you might like to give a short list of peer-reviewed publications produced by these people...?

No..that's OK...I'll wait.........:whistle:

Careful with the absolute word NEVER. So science hasn't proved yet that the heart pumps blood throughout the circulatory system? That the Earth revolves around the sun?

So much for NEVER.

[biggles53]

Creationists postulated the same thing before Darwin came along. ie, that changes occur in living things over time (Linnaeus). Sorry to burst your baloon, but your fact is a vacuous statement, therefore my inference is correct.

You need to read about true science and not fairy tales.

Indeed they did. In fact, the term was first used by the ancient Greeks as recognition of the changes they observed in living things.

There has been little opposition to the observation that living things change - or put more correctly, that allele frequencies vary over time.

HOWEVER, your misrepresentative statement completely ignores the development of the THEORY which BEST explains this fact! The years of painstaking work, the amassing of literally tons of evidence and the publishing of hundreds of thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers have contributed to the formation of a theory which is now regarded as not only the most robust in ALL of science, but is regarded as the 'lens' through which all biology should be viewed, if it is to make sense...

TRUE science mate.....TRUE science!

[biggles53]

Careful with the absolute word NEVER. So science hasn't proved yet that the heart pumps blood throughout the circulatory system? That the Earth revolves around the sun?

So much for NEVER.


Indeed it has not! Science does not operate that way. Because of the inductive nature of its reasoning, nothing can ever be declared 'proved' in science. What we can say is that the current theories for planetary orbits and blood circulation are the BEST explanations we can give. To declare 'proof' is to shut the door on further knowledge being admitted to our understanding.....

If you want 'proofs', limit your study to mathematics, logic and the distillation of Irish whiskey....:)

[biggles53]

Creationists postulated the same thing before Darwin came along. ie, that changes occur in living things over time (Linnaeus). Sorry to burst your baloon, but your fact is a vacuous statement, therefore my inference is correct.



By the way, as a creationist, you might want to be a little wary of relying on Linnaeus as a supporting reference! You do realise that he stated the following don't you....?

It does not please (you) that I've placed Man among the Anthropomorpha,[22] but man learns to know himself. Let's not quibble over words. It will be the same to me whatever name we apply. But I seek from you and from the whole world a generic difference between man and simian that [follows] from the principles of Natural History. I absolutely know of none. If only someone might tell me a single one! If I would have called man a simian or vice versa, I would have brought together all the theologians against me. Perhaps I ought to have by virtue of the law of the discipline.

You see, it isn't only the nasty EVILutionists who charge than man is an ape....one of your 'own' came to that conclusion already......!:dance:

[Marquus]

Nor is there any "proof" for gravity theory, for germ theory, for atomic theory, for electrical theory, etc, etc. Because science NEVER deals with "proof"! I'm surprised no-one has pointed this out to you before...? And you've got the evidence thing backwards too...evidence is NOT "construed to fit with" ANY scientific theory. We leave the process of force-fitting reality into a pre-conceived dogma to creationists.......

I'm surprised no one has pointed out to you about fact and proof. You claim evolution is a fact and then proclaim science never deals with proof. That seems scitzo to me.

Oh really??? Perhaps you might like to give a short list of peer-reviewed publications produced by these people...?

No..that's OK...I'll wait.........:whistle:

Well ever since Von Braun led NASA to the moon and then left NASA, NASA has gone downhill.

It was after his reign ended that scientists stopped allowing creationists to their peer reviewed boards and associations.

And I doubt you would accept peer reviews among creationists as evidence since your obviously open minded.:think:

[biggles53]

I'm surprised no one has pointed out to you about fact and proof. You claim evolution is a fact and then proclaim science never deals with proof. That seems scitzo to me.

Then I respectfully suggest you study some science.

"Facts" does NOT equal "proof"! "Facts" are the observable phenomena we may detect, measure, analyse. That allele frequencies change over time is an observable FACT. We can see it happening.

The THEORY that is developed to explain that fact is what's confusing you. Theories are developed as a result of scientists postulating an hypothesis, and then collecting evidence to support that hypothesis. In addition, they attempt to find evidence which will show their hypothesis to be untrue. If an hypothesis is tested in this manner, and the results of that testing are further examined by the peers within that field, and the hypothesis is found to be still valid, it may eventually reach the standard of 'theory', which, in science, is the highest level of confidence which can be expressed for a particular understanding.

Clearer now.....?



Well ever since Von Braun led NASA to the moon and then left NASA, NASA has gone downhill.

It was after his reign ended that scientists stopped allowing creationists to their peer reviewed boards and associations.

And I doubt you would accept peer reviews among creationists as evidence since your obviously open minded.:think:

That's OK. Go back before von Braun if you wish, and list the peer reviewed papers of creationists.....

[Marquus]

By the way, as a creationist, you might want to be a little wary of relying on Linnaeus as a supporting reference! You do realise that he stated the following don't you....?

It does not please (you) that I've placed Man among the Anthropomorpha,[22] but man learns to know himself. Let's not quibble over words. It will be the same to me whatever name we apply. But I seek from you and from the whole world a generic difference between man and simian that [follows] from the principles of Natural History. I absolutely know of none. If only someone might tell me a single one! If I would have called man a simian or vice versa, I would have brought together all the theologians against me. Perhaps I ought to have by virtue of the law of the discipline.

You see, it isn't only the nasty EVILutionists who charge than man is an ape....one of your 'own' came to that conclusion already......!:dance:

He did not charge man was an ape, but he placed them in the same classification.

[biggles53]

He did not charge man was an ape, but he placed them in the same classification.

He knows of no "generic difference between man and simian"! No generic difference!
Pretty big admission for a creationist, but then, given the times, it would almost been unthinkable NOT to have been a creationist. How far we've thankfully come...........

[Marquus]

Then I respectfully suggest you study some science.

"Facts" does NOT equal "proof"! "Facts" are the observable phenomena we may detect, measure, analyse. That allele frequencies change over time is an observable FACT. We can see it happening.

The THEORY that is developed to explain that fact is what's confusing you. Theories are developed as a result of scientists postulating an hypothesis, and then collecting evidence to support that hypothesis. In addition, they attempt to find evidence which will show their hypothesis to be untrue. If an hypothesis is tested in this manner, and the results of that testing are further examined by the peers within that field, and the hypothesis is found to be still valid, it may eventually reach the standard of 'theory', which, in science, is the highest level of confidence which can be expressed for a particular understanding.

Clearer now.....?

Why then did Huxley at the great Darwinian Centennial declare that, "Evolution is no longer a theory, but a fact." Evidently he placed a higher emphasis on "fact" then "theory."

Also if evo is correct we should not be able to measure anything ie everything changes.


That's OK. Go back before von Braun if you wish, and list the peer reviewed papers of creationists.....

I can, but why should I waste my time it wouldn't impress you or change your mind.

I went to a creationist symposium at Ohio State University where a creationist was called into service from our navy to design our boilers for the nuclear submarine. He talked about him and Von Braun being chided for being creationists, but all that changed in the 80's to pure intagonism.

Let me just say that evos have always been in the majority throughout history, but creationists have made the greatest impact. These are facts.

[Marquus]

He knows of no "generic difference between man and simian"! No generic difference!
Pretty big admission for a creationist, but then, given the times, it would almost been unthinkable NOT to have been a creationist. How far we've thankfully come...........

Evos were in the majority, The Catholic church taught theistic evolution. Geocentrism was an evolutionary greek system.

That's different from no specific difference!

[captusa]

This evolving is totally impossible due to the separation of species and genetics.

Take a look at modern man. You can walk down the streets of a city and see all kinds of different skull shapes. Some elongated with almost no forehead.

Now some evolutionist finds a skull and it is elongated with a low forehead and they make that the model of early man.

But again NO PROOF. Not one fossil or skeleton in transition. Not one.

What that theory wants you to believe is that you have nobody to answer to.If there is no creator then I owe this 'non entity' zero. He doesn't exist,therefore I evolved. This is the core of the evolution theory. Evolution is a religion. A God-less religion.


Like I said ,a chicken disproves evolution. In order for it to evolve,it would necessitate trial and error. So we would have an imperfect chicken at first. One wing,one foot.one eyeball,non working beak,etc. . But no eggs are laid so the prototype failed in just a few hours.

So after another 9000 trillion years another defective non egg laying chicken formed and it lasted a whole day................

Nope ,all of us put together don't have enough faith to get evolution off the ground.

You cannot make the vast biological jumps into a more complex species.

Even if there were only bluebirds on the planet,no other species,it would have been impossible to evolve that bird. You would need a working prototype from the very beginning.

Inotherwords the egg is the whole in the evolution theory. And we have thousands of species? there are now at this point in my argument not enough exponents for the odds you need

Get your theory published with some reasonable evidence that is as consistent with the fossil record, biological stucture, related DNA and win a Nobel prize.
I'll wait for you here.

[captusa]

This supposition reduces the idea of God to nothing more than a jealous, self-centered human.

Further, it is my firm belief that God is quite above such things as religious preference.

Thoughts of God should bring us comfort, not fear.

The 1st 3 commandments contradict that.

[TaylorW65]

Indeed it has not! Science does not operate that way. Because of the inductive nature of its reasoning, nothing can ever be declared 'proved' in science. What we can say is that the current theories for planetary orbits and blood circulation are the BEST explanations we can give. To declare 'proof' is to shut the door on further knowledge being admitted to our understanding.....

If you want 'proofs', limit your study to mathematics, logic and the distillation of Irish whiskey....:)

But some theories, such as the theory that the earth revolves around the sun, can be considered fact and have the books closed on them. I can pretty much say with 100% certainty that no theory will come along to replace the one that states the earth revolves around the sun. I am sure we can at least settle that case.

[biggles53]

Why then did Huxley at the great Darwinian Centennial declare that, "Evolution is no longer a theory, but a fact." Evidently he placed a higher emphasis on "fact" then "theory."

If Huxley did indeed make such a statement, I would have two responses...

1. I would very much like to see the context in which these remarks were made - do you have a link to the complete speech...?

2. So what! That the utterances of one man might be at odds with the view of the scientific community in general matters nought, unless the community at large can be shown arguments as to why that statement should be accepted. If Huxley made such a statement, it in no way invalidates what science is about....

Also if evo is correct we should not be able to measure anything ie everything changes.

Groan...you mean we can't measure change...???


I can, but why should I waste my time it wouldn't impress you or change your mind.

I went to a creationist symposium at Ohio State University where a creationist was called into service from our navy to design our boilers for the nuclear submarine. He talked about him and Von Braun being chided for being creationists, but all that changed in the 80's to pure intagonism.

Let me just say that evos have always been in the majority throughout history, but creationists have made the greatest impact. These are facts.

Oh c'mon...after all, as the repository of the 'real truth', why wouldn't you want to share it? Knowing that much of what I contend won't be accepted by others on this site does not prevent me from expressing my view. Why are you so shy to produce some peer-reviewed papers from the 'real scientists'...??

[captusa]

.....
NO NOT ONE OF ANY TRANSITION ANYPLACE.

FACE IT EVOLUTION IS A RELIGION THAT REQUIRES MORE FAITH THAT 50 RELIGIONS PUT TOGETHER.

I have cited transitional species that still exist.
The lungfish and mudskipper.
The platypus and echinda.
The euglena.
And of course no new viruses or bacteria have evolved since Noah landed.
Rats are still vulnerable to warfarin poisons.
Mammals were always around.
There are no billion year old mammal fossils because they were all eaten by trilobites.

[biggles53]

But some theories, such as the theory that the earth revolves around the sun, can be considered fact and have the books closed on them. I can pretty much say with 100% certainty that no theory will come along to replace the one that states the earth revolves around the sun. I am sure we can at least settle that case.

Sorry, but if you make such a statement, then you aren't speaking scientifically! Science NEVER "closes the books", because there is always the possibility that either new knowledge can be added to a theory or that conflicting evidence may overturn one. We may act with a very high level of confidence that we have a heliocentric planetary system, but we are constantly adding new knowledge to this understanding all the time - the books remain open!

Now, I agree with you to the extent that we can organise our lives with a high degree of certainty about many theories. I demonstrate this every time I step into a plane, every time I plug an appliance into a socket, every time I take an antibiotic, every time I drop something on my foot!

The interesting thing though is that every one of the theories represented above has LESS of a level of confidence than does the Theory of Evolution....!

[liberalman22]

Of coarse their is no conflict between Creationism and evolution. Creationism is how everything started and evolution explains the diversity of life.

[liberalman22]

Evolution is the modern version of The Emperor's New Clothes. It is a downright silly, absurd theory. It assumes something came from nothing and that life came from non-life. The advent of the electron microscope has made evolution look even more absurd than before.
.2 things

First you are talking about two different fields of science

Second science does not say we were created out of nothing.

[Thor]

No fossil evidence. Think about it,there should be not only tons of fossils but strange things in the process and failed evolving everywhere.

A chicken disproves evolution. We need a working prototype from day one. This is impossible. there can be no "oops" nature forgot the egg thing,so the first chicken is extinct.
Oh well a few million tears of trial and error must now follow.

there is no margin that evolutionists imagine possible to create a species.

Look at the "plumbing" of a mammal. Just one thing out of whack and that creature dies.It could not possibly evolve.

Where are the monkeys with one eye socket skull bones that were waiting for a second eye to evolve?
The skull says to itself "I nee another eye"........so a million years go by waiting for that second eyeball to form.

So we have thousands of one eye socket skulls discovered all over the place?

NO NOT ONE OF ANY TRANSITION ANYPLACE.

FACE IT EVOLUTION IS A RELIGION THAT REQUIRES MORE FAITH THAT 50 RELIGIONS PUT TOGETHER.

Your lack of scientific understanding is absolutely staggering.

[Thor]

Evolution is the modern version of The Emperor's New Clothes. It is a downright silly, absurd theory.

"Silly" and "absurd", huh? Sounds like something that you should be able to easily refute. Please do so. If you can, you'll become a giant in the scientific community and probably win a Nobel Prize!

It assumes something came from nothing and that life came from non-life.

Ummmm..... isn't this what YOU believe? That an invisible deity waved his hand and created something from nothing and life from non-life? Aren't you calling your OWN "theory" silly and absurd? Because I would agree.

[Greyclouds]

how is your defending something as ridiculous as evolution qualify you to call me blinded?

You and I both know evolution is a farce. It could not possibly have happened.
And it HAS to be a religion for anybody to possibly defy all reason to make the astronomical jump to think something evolved,

Especially since you have no prototypes.
You seriously don't believe an eyeball can evolve do you.?

But you believe 2 did simultaneously?
Tell me ,where are the human babies born with a monkey tail? If the gene for the monkey was in man,we would see thousands of mutations of humans born with monkey feet,tails,etc.

This is a picture of a human embryo at approx 4-5 weeks of development. Due to hox gene regulation, the sacrum/lumbar area of the spinal cord is distended and actually looks akin to a tail. This is SIMILAR to the development of tails in other mammalian species, albeit with the difference that certain COMMON developmental proteins are attenuated in the HUMAN embryo's "tail," therefore leaving it static while the rest of the hip develops.

http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/wwwhuman/stages/Images/CSt15.gif

Also, look up the SACRUM, and tell me with a straight face that it isn't a vestigial remnant of stunted embryonic development of a tail-bone.


An addendum: Humans share one common mutation with many species of apes that you're completely ignoring. That is a deficiency of vitamin C production by a "dead" version of the l-Gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase with the EXACT SAME mutation in all affected primate species including humans.

Nearly all other mammals produce their own vitamin C, and scientists have found a way to restore function of this gene to human cells by using genetic engineering. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14962674

[James-Jacob-Yaqub]

Hi guys,

One of the most common preconceptions that serve to define and continue the debate 'tween "creationists" and "evolutionists" is about what science is thought to believe.

I recently posted an opinion that we should not ask a person about science if they are not in a scientific field of work. Unless you just want their opinion. Remember not to ask a Catholic or a Baptist about what Jehovah's Witnesses believe. Ask a Jehovah's Witness instead.

OK so ask a scientist what they believe as well. Do not ask a preacher to expound on the platform of a professor of biology or geology. What makes them an authority in science? Check their credentials.

Also be really careful about accepting what you might hear on talk religion radio about science. Many of those guys are way out of their areas but get away with it because they are all about sensationalism and nothing more. If you do this you will be practicing what scientists do all the time. They never accept anything on faith alone. They always seek verification. That is the difference.

Failure to observe this caution is where we get things like, "science denies God" or "science teaches everything came from nothing".

I am continually amazed at what I hear from preachers on radio. So often they are just plain wrong. Can they be doing this on purpose thinking that it is somehow their duty to save us all from the godlessness of the classroom and laboratory?

It is impossible for something to come from nothing. In fact, the idea of "nothing" itself is quite untenable. There is no place in the universe that contains "nothing". If the universe goes away there is still God however. He is the ultimate scientist. Who will try to deny this? Can He create so much without knowing what it is or how it works? No.

Please folks, before you type in what you believe to be "gospel" about science, do a search on the idea to see what real scientists think. It's OK not to know something. It's not OK to just repeat popular stuff without thinking.

There is no conflict between God and Science but there seemingly is a conflict between Religion and Science. Can we all appreciate the difference here? Religion is "of man". It is thus fallible. God is not. It takes willful effort to sort this out but it should be apparent to anyone who tries.

Religion and church attendance should be about worshiping and singing and enjoying the company of neighbors on a day off etc..... It should not be about driving a wedge between people with bizarre suggestions.

The only area in Christianity which seems incompatible with present scientific thought is Genesis. That's all. Give this some thought please. Genesis is a loosely bound collection of bits and fragments of stories that were verbal for hundreds of years before anyone knew how to write. It reflects a time when people were not capable of understanding their world in any other way. We can honor those times by knowing how far we've come and each step brings us closer to God. Refusing to see that the mind of man changes over time is the same as denying everything that our Creator has done for us.

Seems to me it would be of more interest to try to understand why people lived for hundreds of years normally a long time ago and they don't today. That would be a good topic for the inquisitive among us. "There were giants in the Earth in those days...." This would be of interest too. What is their story? I really would like to understand these tidbits. No joke. Science is not qualified to comment so they don't. Those who are experts on the Bible stay away from these things like they were the plague. I really would like something more than, "take it on faith".

JJY

[Greyclouds]

That is a very thoughtful and respectable position, JJY.

[adroit]

:clap:

However, evolution is and always will be, both a fact and a theory. Evolution has been observed, thus it is a fact. The theory of evolution is our best explaination of that fact, and can never be "proven" (no scientific theory can be).

+∞

[Drawz]

+∞

+ :lopsided boobs:?
That's a new one on me...are you coming on to me? ;) :)

[cooky]

But again NO PROOF. Not one fossil or skeleton in transition. Not one.



Numerous transition species have been found. Look at this table on human evolution and look at the numerous transitions species that have been found.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Homo

[davetexas]

Here is evolution exposed

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1530991418786520310#

[Greyclouds]

Here is evolution exposed

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1530991418786520310#

I turned to 2:10:53 and decided to listen to the guy's arguments from there.

First of all: hox gene development is similar in many orders of multi-cellular Eukaryotes, therefore making his contention that development similarity does not support the theory of common ancestry incorrect.

Secondly: he raises a POSSIBILITY of a common designer, but there's no evidence of such a thing. Instead he raises a hypothesis with no way to test for it and he does not call himself out for it!

Finally: this is an old, old, old video given the hair-styles, dress and instruments. You might want to read up on the current scientific literature if you really would like to see the modern theory of Evolution. Also, ID has been rejected scientifically as well as legally.

[davetexas]

I turned to 2:10:53 and decided to listen to the guy's arguments from there.

First of all: hox gene development is similar in many orders of multi-cellular Eukaryotes, therefore making his contention that development similarity does not support the theory of common ancestry incorrect.

Secondly: he raises a POSSIBILITY of a common designer, but there's no evidence of such a thing. Instead he raises a hypothesis with no way to test for it and he does not call himself out for it!

Finally: this is an old, old, old video given the hair-styles, dress and instruments. You might want to read up on the current scientific literature if you really would like to see the modern theory of Evolution. Also, ID has been rejected scientifically as well as legally.


You need to stop cherry picking and look at the facts presented in the video.
He completely destroys and exposes evolution.

Edit: I cannot believe that you,as a closed minded evolutionist would use the analogy of "old" and "modern" and yet the facts ,no matter how old or modern ,remain facts

[Greyclouds]

You need to stop cherry picking and look at the facts presented in the video.
He completely destroys and exposes evolution.

Hahah!

I only had time to watch a small portion, and I commented on that portion. He displayed a large misunderstanding of the modern state of developmental genetics (which is a given, considering the time period that I assume the video was made) and raised a hypothesis that has since been PROFOUNDLY trounced by the scientific community: ID.

The "exposure" is flawed in that one segment of the video that I watched. While it might not reflect on the rest of the video, I'd advise you to take that one section under extreme scrutiny and to do your OWN independent research using scientific literature to ensure that you're getting the facts.

[Greyclouds]

<snip>

Edit: I cannot believe that you,as a closed minded evolutionist would use the analogy of "old" and "modern" and yet the facts ,no matter how old or modern ,remain facts

Therein lies the red herring of your argument: I'm not an "evolutionist" nor am I "closed minded."

I'm a scientist and if you can produce data that supports your own theory or is not predicted by the Theory of Evolution, then I will subscribe to your theory or revise the current one.

Also, I only brought up the age of the video as a metric by which our understanding of Molecular Biology matured. Alot more literature has been released on recent experiments. We've also sequenced many full genomes; a feat that was not done in entirety back then.

[davetexas]

Therein lies the red herring of your argument: I'm not an "evolutionist" nor am I "closed minded."

I'm a scientist and if you can produce data that supports your own theory or is not predicted by the Theory of Evolution, then I will subscribe to your theory or revise the current one.

Also, I only brought up the age of the video as a metric by which our understanding of Molecular Biology matured. Alot more literature has been released on recent experiments. We've also sequenced many full genomes; a feat that was not done in entirety back then.


Except my belief is in harmony with the obvious,that the complex machine,the human body,is created by a person much more advanced than a scientist.

Not one scientist can create even a plant seed. But trust all seeds simply "happened"
That is truly faith. Faith in the religion of evolution

[Greyclouds]

Except my belief is in harmony with the obvious,that the complex machine,the human body,is created by a person much more advanced than a scientist.

The obvious (to those who don't have access to spaceflight, satellite images and telescopes) is that the Earth is flat.

Despite that harmonious belief which corresponds to the obvious, human beings contested that belief with evidence that supported the theory of a "rounded Earth" prior to direct observation. After direct observation, it became fact that is only contended by people of the Flat Earth society.


Not one scientist can create even a plant seed. But trust all seeds simply "happened"
That is truly faith. Faith in the religion of evolution

You're using the popular definition of the word, "faith." Faith has nothing to do with the Theory of evolution, and you're not even attacking the Theory of Evolution with your statement. The theory of evolution does not necessarily include the theory of common ancestry, and this is a strawman that many people bring to the table. It's intellectually dishonest at the worst.

Here is a question for you: why can human beings find inefficiencies in plant and animal metabolism that could be corrected using genetic engineering?

[davetexas]

Question;
Can any evolutionist show me where one eyeball existed in an ancient animal,or did the animals in transition blindly walk about for a million or billion years and then POOF two eyeballs formed.

Did an eye socket exist before the eyeball? (assuming the need for the one eyeball was there)

Also,how did the need for the eye get to the biological mechanism that "decided to evolve" the eyeball?

How did the atom pop into existence?

[Thor]

Here is evolution exposed

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1530991418786520310#

Kent Hovind, huh? :rolleyes:

You really want to use a guy who's in prison as the poster child for your cause?

[davetexas]

The obvious (to those who don't have access to spaceflight, satellite images and telescopes) is that the Earth is flat.

Despite that harmonious belief which corresponds to the obvious, human beings contested that belief with evidence that supported the theory of a "rounded Earth" prior to direct observation. After direct observation, it became fact that is only contended by people of the Flat Earth society.



You're using the popular definition of the word, "faith." Faith has nothing to do with the Theory of evolution, and you're not even attacking the Theory of Evolution with your statement. The theory of evolution does not necessarily include the theory of common ancestry, and this is a strawman that many people bring to the table. It's intellectually dishonest at the worst.

Here is a question for you: why can human beings find inefficiencies in plant and animal metabolism that could be corrected using genetic engineering?


Nice deflection.
Now wthout using any faith or belief. Answer the question of how not one example of monkey mutations,which should be common,show up as birth defect in humans

[davetexas]

Kent Hovind, huh? :rolleyes:

You really want to use a guy who's in prison as the poster child for your cause?


Deflection
Rabbit Trail
Irrelevant

[Thor]

Question;
Can any evolutionist show me where one eyeball existed in an ancient animal,or did the animals in transition blindly walk about for a million or billion years and then POOF two eyeballs formed.


Why do you think evolution would dictate that two eyeballs would develop from creatures with one eyeball? This is a silly argument on par with "where are the one legged creatures"?

The evolution of the eyeball is observable today. There are light sensitive eyespots in certain unicellular organisms. Creatures like the planaria have "cup" eyespots that can distinguish the direction and intensity of light. The nautilus has an eye similar to a pinhole camera. Then we see eyes that have lenses which provide sharper images. These range from providing weak eyesight with no color definition up to that of a hawk which has incredibly sharp eyesight which allows it to spot prey from hundreds of feet away. There are even cavefish that have evolved sightless eyes due to living in darkness for many generations.

The creationists point to the eye and go, "Ah ha! Something as complex as an eye could not evolve on its own!'. The scientist understands how this is possible.

[Thor]

Now wthout using any faith or belief. Answer the question of how not one example of monkey mutations,which should be common,show up as birth defect in humans

Why would they? We did not evolve from monkeys.

[Greyclouds]

Question;
Can any evolutionist show me where one eyeball existed in an ancient animal,or did the animals in transition blindly walk about for a million or billion years and then POOF two eyeballs formed.

Nematodes have light sensitive tissues that allow them to detect where light sources originate from.

http://www.biolbull.org/cgi/content/full/212/3/206

Also, rhodopsin, one of the major macromolecules of your retina, has many analogs in the bacterial world.

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


Did an eye socket exist before the eyeball? (assuming the need for the one eyeball was there)

Very simple to explain, but only if you understand hox genes and developmental biology. Then you'd realize that eukarotic cells (in multicellular organisms) grow based on their proximity to other cells.

Think of it this way: does the "hole" around the cancer tumor develop before the tumor, or after the tumor starts to grow? Cells recognize when they must stop growing and therefore undergo apoptosis (or cell death). Tumor cells initiate apoptosis of surrounding tissues illegitimately.


Also,how did the need for the eye get to the biological mechanism that "decided to evolve" the eyeball?

Selective pressures. Ability to perceive wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum (eyes, photoreceptive glands/tissues) gave an organism with a need to detect food/predators a large advantage! Prior to that, chemical detection ("smell") was a beneficial trait to detect other organisms. Imagine if you were in a room with blind people and there's only one tray of food. They can only smell the food but you can see it. Who is most likely to make it to the food first?

Who's most likely to survive and propagate after that hypothetical situation?

In response to your question about two eyes, depth perception is an advantage of having more than one eye. For example, some insects have many eyes. Mammals generally only have two. Chalk one or the other up to the disadvantages of having symmetrical development patterns as evidenced by developmental genetic studies.


How did the atom pop into existence?

This has absolutely nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution. I believe you should consult a physicist for this one.

[davetexas]

Why do you think evolution would dictate that two eyeballs would develop from creatures with one eyeball? This is a silly argument on par with "where are the one legged creatures"?

The evolution of the eyeball is observable today. There are light sensitive eyespots in certain unicellular organisms. Creatures like the planaria have "cup" eyespots that can distinguish the direction and intensity of light. The nautilus has an eye similar to a pinhole camera. Then we see eyes that have lenses which provide sharper images. These range from providing weak eyesight with no color definition up to that of a hawk which has incredibly sharp eyesight which allows it to spot prey from hundreds of feet away. There are even cavefish that have evolved sightless eyes due to living in darkness for many generations.


The creationists point to the eye and go, "Ah ha! Something as complex as an eye could not evolve on its own!'. The scientist understands how this is possible.


Who decided what the creatures needed?
You are saying that life was not progressive in evolving?
Why hasn't science policed itself in asking itself questions?

In order for something to evolve,according to evolution,it is simply responding to need.

Are you saying the eyeball slowly developed?
Are you saying2 eyeballs slowly developed?
How did anything living "know" it "needed" an eyeball?

And then the "need" for perception,and the second eyeball began?

[Thor]

Except my belief is in harmony with the obvious,that the complex machine,the human body,is created by a person much more advanced than a scientist.


Then why did this "incredibly advanced person" create us with eyes that have blood vessels running across the surface of the retina instead of beneath it (it's easy for the vessels to proliferate or leak and impair vision)? Why did this "incredibly advanced person" give us a windpipe that is also used for the ingestion of food (making it easy to choke to death)? Why did this "incredibly advanced person" give us a useless vestige of an organ (the appendix) which occasionally becomes inflamed and bursts? Seems like this "incredibly advanced person" is a pretty lousy designer.

[davetexas]

why would they? We did not evolve from monkeys.


+1

[Greyclouds]

Nice deflection.

It was an illustration.


Now wthout using any faith or belief. Answer the question of how not one example of monkey mutations,which should be common,show up as birth defect in humans

You're incorrect. There is a very very common Chimpanzee mutation that is present in the human genome.

...

Humans and the great apes share a unitary pseudogene of great interest in the scientific community and provides good evidence for evolution. A working example of pseudogene evolution is the gene sequence known as, L-gulonolactone oxidase. Commonly known as the GULO pseudogene or the GULOP gene in humans. The GULO gene is a gene that allows most mammals to create vitamin C on their own. However, humans and the other great apes, cannot create vitamin C on their own. This is because apes and humans have a broken GULO gene. At one point, the GULO gene allowed certain chemical products to be produced that allowed the synthesis of vitamin C, but it has now mutated to the point where it no longer serves the same purpose (Fairbanks, 2007). Not only do apes and humans share the same broken GULO gene, but the GULO pseudogene itself is also broken in the exact same place between humans and chimpanzees. The GULO gene is 98% identical and this is true of most of the genes shared between chimps and humans (Fairbanks, 2007).

...

From http://www.infidelguy.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=14

Where are you drawing your information from? Are you making it up or reiterating falsehoods from other sites? This is a serious question.

[davetexas]

Then why did this "incredibly advanced person" create us with eyes that have blood vessels running across the surface of the retina instead of beneath it (it's easy for the vessels to proliferate or leak and impair vision)? Why did this "incredibly advanced person" give us a windpipe that is also used for the ingestion of food (making it easy to choke to death)? Why did this "incredibly advanced person" give us a useless vestige of an organ (the appendix) which occasionally becomes inflamed and bursts? Seems like this "incredibly advanced person" is a pretty lousy designer.

God does hear complaints. And answers them. He is awesome and the bible says he is my friend.
I don't know those answers you present. But God does

[davetexas]

It was an illustration.



You're incorrect. There is a very very common Chimpanzee mutation that is present in the human genome.



From http://www.infidelguy.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=14

Where are you drawing your information from? Are you making it up or reiterating falsehoods from other sites? This is a serious question.

I am doing what evolution science does not. I am asking why there is no evidence.

C'mon I got a few dendrites left.:):):):)

[Thor]

Who decided what the creatures needed?
You are saying that life was not progressive in evolving?
Why hasn't science policed itself in asking itself questions?

In order for something to evolve,according to evolution,it is simply responding to need.

Are you saying the eyeball slowly developed?
Are you saying2 eyeballs slowly developed?
How did anything living "know" it "needed" an eyeball?

And then the "need" for perception,and the second eyeball began?

You really don't seem to understand evolution at all. It has nothing to do with "need". It has to do with mutations that provide an advantage to an organism in its struggle to survive. If that mutation is advantageous, the organism will survive and pass on that mutation to the next generation. If the mutation is harmful, that organism will not survive and the mutation will not be passed on. As eyes developed, they provided a definite advantage to creatures as they tried to find food and survive. Greyclouds provided a good analogy with his example of being in a room with blind people and a tray of food.

And, yes, eyeballs slowly developed over many millions of years. This is how evolution works.

[Greyclouds]

Who decided what the creatures needed?

Noone did. It was a logical adaptation of a population.


You are saying that life was not progressive in evolving?

Nope. Evolutionary theory posits that allelic frequencies in populations adapt to environmental niches. There is no "end-goal" of Evolutionary Theory.


Why hasn't science policed itself in asking itself questions?

You haven't read a single scientific journal article in your life, have you?


In order for something to evolve,according to evolution,it is simply responding to need.

No. In order for something to "evolve," it must sustain a mutation/epigenetic factor and that characteristic must be beneficial to the organism in its environment. If it is beneficial, then it is more likely that the individual that has that mutation will reproduce.


Are you saying the eyeball slowly developed?

Replace "slowly" with "gradually." Also, there are divergent patterns of electromagnetic spectrum detection. For example, snakes can detect infrared whereas we cannot.


Are you saying2 eyeballs slowly developed?

Less likely the case, but it involves developmental biology knowledge to best explain.


How did anything living "know" it "needed" an eyeball?

Nothing "knew." Light sensory proteins conveyed a selective advantage. From those proteins, gradual changes resulted in dedicated light sensory organs in response to environmental need.


And then the "need" for perception,and the second eyeball began?

Again, "need' implies lamarkianism. That's not what we're discussing here.

[Greyclouds]

I am doing what evolution science does not. I am asking why there is no evidence.

C'mon I got a few dendrites left.:):):):)

There is a mountain of evidence, you're just not putting effort into seeing it.

Have you ever tried searching through an actual science textbook?

[Thor]

God does hear complaints. And answers them.


And your evidence to support this statement is..........????

He is awesome and the bible says he is my friend.


The Bible also says that women should remain silent and that you can own slaves.

I don't know those answers you present. But God does

I don't think an imaginary deity can "know" anything.

[davetexas]

Noone did. It was a logical adaptation of a population.




Nope. Evolutionary theory posits that allelic frequencies in populations adapt to environmental niches. There is no "end-goal" of Evolutionary Theory.



You haven't read a single scientific journal article in your life, have you?



No. In order for something to "evolve," it must sustain a mutation/epigenetic factor and that characteristic must be beneficial to the organism in its environment. If it is beneficial, then it is more likely that the individual that has that mutation will reproduce.



Replace "slowly" with "gradually." Also, there are divergent patterns of electromagnetic spectrum detection. For example, snakes can detect infrared whereas we cannot.



Less likely the case, but it involves developmental biology knowledge to best explain.



Nothing "knew." Light sensory proteins conveyed a selective advantage. From those proteins, gradual changes resulted in dedicated light sensory organs in response to environmental need.



Again, "need' implies lamarkianism. That's not what we're discussing here.


You and I both know an eyeball cannot progressively develop.

That is precisely why there are no skulls,animal or human with one eye socket or no socket ever found..

It is faith that anyone would believe evolution.

[davetexas]

And your evidence to support this statement is..........????



The Bible also says that women should remain silent and that you can own slaves.



I don't think an imaginary deity can "know" anything.

God is spirit and he does talk to his people.

I don't know of God. I know God.

If a "man in the next cell" never saw the man,but talked to him,they could still be friends.

[Thor]

You and I both know an eyeball cannot progressively develop.

That is precisely why there are no skulls,animal or human with one eye socket or no socket ever found..

It is faith that anyone would believe evolution.

Your understanding of science here is just incredibly poor. Have you EVER taken a science course? Read a scientific journal? Do you even comprehend the posts from Greyclouds?

[Thor]

God is spirit and he does talk to his people.


Again, your evidence for this statement is..........???

I don't know of God. I know God.


You know "God"?

So, he's been to your house for dinner? You've actually met him?

If a "man in the next cell" never saw the man,but talked to him,they could still be friends.

Yes, IF THE OTHER MAN TALKED BACK. You saying that "God is your friend" carries as much weight as me saying that "Zeus is my friend".

[davetexas]

Your understanding of science here is just incredibly poor. Have you EVER taken a science course? Read a scientific journal? Do you even comprehend the posts from Greyclouds?


Go back and read the answers to my questions and with all their big words they do not simply show any proof .

Its like telling someone you never read one single book on aeronautic engineering theory when they themselves cannot figure out how the bumble bee can fly

I don't need to explore the 911 gov. did it theory to know it is bogus.

Evolution is the biggest hoax ever to descend on the youth of society. Indoctrinating the young into a Godless religion. Attempting to eliminate through deception the God that created the visible and invisible

[davetexas]

It just occurred to me,what is being said by the evolutionist is a refined dialogue with degrees and a really nice understanding and command of the English language that admits it has no proof,but conveys the notion that the refining of its doctrine and knowledge have been honed to a razor edge and simply HAS to be right because they (in thier superior research) ,even if its wrong,give them exclusive rights to the playing field.

[Thor]

Go back and read the answers to my questions and with all their big words they do not simply show any proof .


There is a mountain of evidence to support evolutionary theory. You simply refuse to see it.

Its like telling someone you never read one single book on aeronautic engineering theory when they themselves cannot figure out how the bumble bee can fly


Pretty poor example. Aeronautics can explain how the bumble bee can fly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumblebee

Evolution is the biggest hoax ever to descend on the youth of society

So, because evolutionary theory doesn't square with your Bible, ET is a "hoax"?

Indoctrinating the young into a Godless religion.

Evolutionary theory has NOTHING to do with religion. It merely explains observable phenomena in nature.

Attempting to eliminate through deception the God that created the visible and invisible

ET is completely silent on whether or not a god exists. Why does ET scare you so much? Because it exposes holes in your beliefs?

[Thor]

It just occurred to me,what is being said by the evolutionist is a refined dialogue with degrees and a really nice understanding and command of the English language that admits it has no proof,but conveys the notion that the refining of its doctrine and knowledge have been honed to a razor edge and simply HAS to be right because they (in thier superior research) ,even if its wrong,give them exclusive rights to the playing field.

And the winner for "Run-on Sentence of the Week" goes to......

[Greyclouds]

You and I both know an eyeball cannot progressively develop.

That is precisely why there are no skulls,animal or human with one eye socket or no socket ever found..

It is faith that anyone would believe evolution.

Dude, we've shown you that a simple protein complex, rhodopsin, can measure photons of specific wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum! You're making a big fallacy here by claiming that a complex structure that has useful constituent parts could not ever develop through a trial and error based mechanism that deals with a malleable "blue-print" material. There is a statistical probability for it happening.

[Greyclouds]

It just occurred to me,what is being said by the evolutionist is a refined dialogue with degrees and a really nice understanding and command of the English language that admits it has no proof,but conveys the notion that the refining of its doctrine and knowledge have been honed to a razor edge and simply HAS to be right because they (in thier superior research) ,even if its wrong,give them exclusive rights to the playing field.

This is a complete misunderstanding of what we were discussing, born of your own perceptions.

Have you even TRIED to understand some of the terms and subjects we've discussed? Have you even TRIED to pick up a Genetics textbook, a Biochemistry textbook or a Developmental Biology textbook? I actually HAVE read the bible. Now, will you try to understand what you're attempting to fight, or do you simply lack the desire to mount an intellectual offense?

[Clintville]

+1
You probably are mistaken on what he was saying. No one says we evolved from monkeys, evolution does not say that, just that we have a common ancestor.

[captusa]

You and I both know an eyeball cannot progressively develop.
The eyeball has been used as an example of a concept of "Intelligent" Design called Irreducible Complexity.
The concept as well as the example has been thoroughly discredited by the many examples of progressive developement of visual sensory organs.

That is precisely why there are no skulls,animal or human with one eye socket or no socket ever found..
The evolutionary development of two eyes was established long before humans.
Actually somewhere after the ameoba.

It is faith that anyone would believe evolution.
Faith in the ability of man to question his history and to find and interpet evidence and of course faith in the ability of man to think.
And as others have pointed out, you have no idea of the theory of evolution and comparative anatomy and biology and scientific theory in general.
Maybe if you knew what the theory of evolution presently says you might even believe it but it makes no sense to accept or reject it if you don't know what it says!

[Jacob_Rising]

Y''all better quit picking on my Buddy Dave before I break out of my place with my right eye opened carrying the Jawbone of a monkey in my hand.

[Drawz]

Y''all better quit picking on my Buddy Dave before I break out of my place with my right eye opened carrying the Jawbone of a monkey in my hand.

Settle down, Samson. We're not Philistines, just rational, informed individuals.

[Abe]

Y''all better quit picking on my Buddy Dave before I break out of my place with my right eye opened carrying the Jawbone of a monkey in my hand.Hush now, J_R. The grown-ups are talking...:))

[CID_0687]

:))

[Abe]

davetexas, this is Abe(Texas).

I don't know why you see evolution as a threat to your religion. The Tanakh does not, (Absolutely Not!!!), negate evolution. It needs to be understood as it was written.

I am a Theist, (Jewish), and I fully accept the theory of evolution. It does not conflict with my faith at all.

As a scuba instructor, I'm very familiar with flatfish like the Sole. They are flat and swim along the bottom. One of their eyes has, over the millenia, "travelled" from one side of their body to the other. This gives them two eyes on the same side. Both eyes are "on top" since the fish swims on its side. The fish can now evade attackers because it sees them coming. It can also see prey from its postion, and can hunt and Survive.

The Sole didn't "decide" to move its eye. A fish with one eye that was just slightly off towards the other one, saw attackers and prey a tiny bit more easily. It's eggs hatched, and a few carried the same mutation. One or two, may even have had the eye a tiny bit nearer the other one. These had a tendency to survive since they saw both attackers and prey even more easily. This went on...

Today we see the Sole with two eyes very close to each other, flat as a pancake, and surviving just fine.

Instead of attacking evolution, you should be marveling at the system put into place that makes all this possible. I see evolution as the engine that brings Atheists and Theists together, if they have the courage.

[James-Jacob-Yaqub]

OK guys,

May I bring us back to the premise of my thread by stating that I have never seen any reason why creation and evolution cannot be in perfect agreement. Except for Genesis. Really, it is this which I would like to discuss. In my next topic thread I am going to get inside of Genesis some more. I want to try to establish a basis for agreement between everyone which will put away the long standing arguments in the area of the beginnings of man on earth. I really do think that science and religion can be harmonious. Why not? God's creation includes our minds which we should use to best advantage and that can't be done when we let emotional desire get in the way.

In the next thread the story of Adam and Eve will be looked at more closely to see what there might be that is yet unknown.

From this point onward on this thread kindly keep it as regarding religion. Maybe Christian Science?

Thanks,:hug:

JJY

[biggles53]

davetexas, this is Abe(Texas).

I don't know why you see evolution as a threat to your religion. The Tanakh does not, (Absolutely Not!!!), negate evolution. It needs to be understood as it was written.

I am a Theist, (Jewish), and I fully accept the theory of evolution. It does not conflict with my faith at all.

As a scuba instructor, I'm very familiar with flatfish like the Sole. They are flat and swim along the bottom. One of their eyes has, over the millenia, "travelled" from one side of their body to the other. This gives them two eyes on the same side. Both eyes are "on top" since the fish swims on its side. The fish can now evade attackers because it sees them coming. It can also see prey from its postion, and can hunt and Survive.

The Sole didn't "decide" to move its eye. A fish with one eye that was just slightly off towards the other one, saw attackers and prey a tiny bit more easily. It's eggs hatched, and a few carried the same mutation. One or two, may even have had the eye a tiny bit nearer the other one. These had a tendency to survive since they saw both attackers and prey even more easily. This went on...

Today we see the Sole with two eyes very close to each other, flat as a pancake, and surviving just fine.

Instead of attacking evolution, you should be marveling at the system put into place that makes all this possible. I see evolution as the engine that brings Atheists and Theists together, if they have the courage.

"Post of the Week"...!! :clap:

[Abe]

"Post of the Week"...!! :clap:

Aww, shucks... :redface:

[captusa]

Go back and read the answers to my questions and with all their big words they do not simply show any proof .

Its like telling someone you never read one single book on aeronautic engineering theory when they themselves cannot figure out how the bumble bee can fly

I don't need to explore the 911 gov. did it theory to know it is bogus.

Evolution is the biggest hoax ever to descend on the youth of society. Indoctrinating the young into a Godless religion. Attempting to eliminate through deception the God that created the visible and invisible
And the Godless Roman Catholic Church have accepted the concept that evolution has occurred because............
The fact that many scientist of various theism including Christian demominations beside Catholics accept evolution (99.8% of all natural scientists)
As a staunch Atheist with a stong background in logic, science and philosophy there is nothing in the theory of evolution that denies the existance of a Deity.

[Abe]

...there is nothing in the theory of evolution that denies the existance of a deity.+1

[captusa]

It just occurred to me,what is being said by the evolutionist is a refined dialogue with degrees and a really nice understanding and command of the English language that admits it has no proof,but conveys the notion that the refining of its doctrine and knowledge have been honed to a razor edge and simply HAS to be right because they (in thier superior research) ,even if its wrong,give them exclusive rights to the playing field.

Of course one should not trust the opinion of people with advanced degrees who have studied the subject matter they teach and discuss and use to develop theories that have brought progress in the human condition.
Those biologist that have claimed to have learned about life and have perpetrated the hoax that invisible little plants and animals cause diseases.
They also perpatrated the hoax that they have discovered ways to cure diseases with chemicals they manufacture an sell.
They sell imaginary "vaccines" that prevent those imaginary invisible plants and animals from killing people with disease.

I guess when you are sick you avoid people with medical degrees that have studied medicine and use a fancy dialogue and claim to have refined their knowledge of medicine.

By your logic no one should trust a doctor unless he can prove he is NOT a high school graduate.

[James-Jacob-Yaqub]

Some really good points in the last few posts.

Proof? Who wants proof? Please take a number and be seated because "proofs" of almost anything are hard to come by. I can prove to you that 2 plus 2 does not necessarily equal 4. I can also prove that it does. This is germane because mathematics is a language in it's own right with rules for expression. Science usually falls short in this area. They do, however, get pretty close and when they do they call the result a reliable probability. When enough peer agreement is present then a "theory" can be put forth.

The above, in itself, should illustrate the difference between scientific and religious thought as religion does not deal in any searching but rather acceptance through faith that some thing is probably true. The religious mind accepts dogma without verification for the most part. Why then, do they ask science for proofs in any area? I want to bring this divide a bit closer in this and the next thread. Just to see what happens.

We are less than perfect beings living in a less than perfect world that some say is illusory. This is, though, what God has given us for the time being so really we should not expect too much from it, or ourselves.

Using absolutes in debate is almost always asking for trouble. Always. Never. Truth. Fact. Proof. Those are heavy duty words that invite criticism. We get as close as we can to understanding something then run with it knowing that refinement or total rejection in favor of something new will occur sooner or later.

Complex words and sentences in debate? Yes. We are given minds capable of abstract thought by God. To not use that great facility is an insult to Him.

This is not about debunking the Holy Bible. It is about gaining a better understanding of it, and ourselves.

Thanks,:hug:

JJY

[davetexas]

Of course one should not trust the opinion of people with advanced degrees who have studied the subject matter they teach and discuss and use to develop theories that have brought progress in the human condition.
Those biologist that have claimed to have learned about life and have perpetrated the hoax that invisible little plants and animals cause diseases.
They also perpatrated the hoax that they have discovered ways to cure diseases with chemicals they manufacture an sell.
They sell imaginary "vaccines" that prevent those imaginary invisible plants and animals from killing people with disease.

I guess when you are sick you avoid people with medical degrees that have studied medicine and use a fancy dialogue and claim to have refined their knowledge of medicine.

By your logic no one should trust a doctor unless he can prove he is NOT a high school graduate.

Did you come to that "by your logic" illation from someone else?
I recently spent $400 on my dog for "kennel cough" to 4 vets who couldn't cure my dog of a chronic cough. All prescribed powerful antibiotics,and we religiously administered the antibiotics.
She got even worse. Every time I took her in I pointed out "don't you think that dog's gums look white?" (a possible sign of worms)
"nope,they look good and pink" was every vets reply.
I handed my wife yet another hundred dollars and told her "Go get this dog wormed with another vet"

I get a phone call about an hour later as I was on the road. My wife says the vet wants to talk to you. (mind you he is a real educated fellow like you). In a similar condescending diatribe as your own,he tells me "this dog has distemper and is going to die,we need to put her down"
I know it must have hurt having this country boy straighten him out. "My dog does NOT have distemper"

"how do you know?"

"I have brought dogs back from distemper. My dog is not sick enough. Besides,they won't eat if they have distemper,and my dog eats like a horse"

"Your right ,your dog does not have distemper"

"But the cough is chronic and we will step up the antibiotics"

That night my boy saw a worm crawl out of her rectum.

Well we took her back again and got the wormer. $5 later she started winning.

Now why did I not go by my "gut"?

All those degree didn't help that poor dog. Now 1 year later the poor dog has issues from the massive anti biotic nightmare.
SHE IS A BOUT 1 1\2 YRS OLD and her teeth all rotted out!

SOOOOO......I found me a older "country vet" THAT KNOWS AND HAS A "FEEL" FOR DOCTORING ANIMALS.
He charged me $ 200 to pull the bad teeth.

Guess what he told me? You can't give those types of antibiotics to a puppy.
It effects their teeth and bones.
Those smart men and their degrees ruined my dogs life..

Oh,BTW, that night a friend of my wife came over. The dog coughed and she turned,glanced at the dog,and said "that dogs got worms"

Should of gave her the $700

Give me a man with experience any day,any time,over somebody that thinks he's something because of a piece of paper.

Wonder if any of them educated men would give me a refund?

[davetexas]

Some really good points in the last few posts.

Proof? Who wants proof? Please take a number and be seated because "proofs" of almost anything are hard to come by. I can prove to you that 2 plus 2 does not necessarily equal 4. I can also prove that it does. This is germane because mathematics is a language in it's own right with rules for expression. Science usually falls short in this area. They do, however, get pretty close and when they do they call the result a reliable probability. When enough peer agreement is present then a "theory" can be put forth.

The above, in itself, should illustrate the difference between scientific and religious thought as religion does not deal in any searching but rather acceptance through faith that some thing is probably true. The religious mind accepts dogma without verification for the most part. Why then, do they ask science for proofs in any area? I want to bring this divide a bit closer in this and the next thread. Just to see what happens.

We are less than perfect beings living in a less than perfect world that some say is illusory. This is, though, what God has given us for the time being so really we should not expect too much from it, or ourselves.

Using absolutes in debate is almost always asking for trouble. Always. Never. Truth. Fact. Proof. Those are heavy duty words that invite criticism. We get as close as we can to understanding something then run with it knowing that refinement or total rejection in favor of something new will occur sooner or later.

Complex words and sentences in debate? Yes. We are given minds capable of abstract thought by God. To not use that great facility is an insult to Him.

This is not about debunking the Holy Bible. It is about gaining a better understanding of it, and ourselves.

Thanks,:hug:

JJY

I absolutely have a totally reverse view of this. I must have absolutes

[Greyclouds]

I absolutely have a totally reverse view of this. I must have absolutes

Well, depending on your view of absolutes, how do you find them?

I also want to apologize for my statements before. I did not mean to burst out and accuse you; I was merely frustrated.

See, I too was a die-hard literalist creationist in my grammar and high school years. Watched the Hovind and Ham videos. Thought that evolution was a literal impossibility. Until I actually learned what the theory itself predicted and what the evidence actually was all about, I was exactly like you. I WANTED to prove the theory wrong. I thought that scientists and learned people were STUPID.

But then, I was confronted with the sheer scale of the evidence, and I was unable to refute or explain it in a logical fashion. I realized that the Theory of Evolution WAS the best explanation of the data that we currently have.

I also realized that many people mistakenly believe that Evolutionary Theory is a direct antagonist to spirituality (both militant atheist and theist alike). It is not. Evolutionary theory CAN be an antatonist to RELIGION, but this is far different from spirituality. I am not an atheist, and I can tell you that Evolutionary theory is the best scientific theory on the dispersal and distribution of alleles in animal populations that we have at this present moment in time.

I'd also like to offer you the chance to ask me any questions about it that you might have, but on two conditions:

1. That we discuss it in the GI forum so as to not derail this thread.

2. That the discussion does not turn into a "gotcha" style of debate. Socratic method is fine and preferable.

Deal?

[davetexas]

Well, depending on your view of absolutes, how do you find them?

I also want to apologize for my statements before. I did not mean to burst out and accuse you; I was merely frustrated.

See, I too was a die-hard literalist creationist in my grammar and high school years. Watched the Hovind and Ham videos. Thought that evolution was a literal impossibility. Until I actually learned what the theory itself predicted and what the evidence actually was all about, I was exactly like you. I WANTED to prove the theory wrong. I thought that scientists and learned people were STUPID.

But then, I was confronted with the sheer scale of the evidence, and I was unable to refute or explain it in a logical fashion. I realized that the Theory of Evolution WAS the best explanation of the data that we currently have.

I also realized that many people mistakenly believe that Evolutionary Theory is a direct antagonist to spirituality (both militant atheist and theist alike). It is not. Evolutionary theory CAN be an antatonist to RELIGION, but this is far different from spirituality. I am not an atheist, and I can tell you that Evolutionary theory is the best scientific theory on the dispersal and distribution of alleles in animal populations that we have at this present moment in time.

I'd also like to offer you the chance to ask me any questions about it that you might have, but on two conditions:

1. That we discuss it in the GI forum so as to not derail this thread.

2. That the discussion does not turn into a "gotcha" style of debate. Socratic method is fine and preferable.

Deal?

The erroneous claims and lack of evidence,proof,facts or whatever compell illuminattion.

We both had our say,and I as a born again believer,trust Gods word with my life,spirit ,soul,and body.

My goal is to trust him even more.To not look back,and to fulfill my destiny.

My "dog in this fight" is the youth,and my children. I believe 1000% that they are misled through evolution teaching that the purpose of life is not in and through their creator but abstract and meaningless with no God to answer to.

I will never relent or even give one inch to the theory..
I have no problem with you believing it . Only wish goodness,and prosperity for you and your family. I am saddened for anyone to position themselves so as not to have a "avenue" to their creator, which I feel,evolution does.

You are to be commended for your graciousness :):):):)

[Greyclouds]

The erroneous claims and lack of evidence,proof,facts or whatever compell illuminattion.

Which is why I believe that Science, as an ideal pursuit, will lead to enlightenment of our physical world. The more knowledge that we can obtain, the more likely we are to understand what is happening around us.

Science can also bring spiritual enlightenment, albeit indirectly. For example, the internet is the largest method of dispersal of knowledge that we've ever created as a species. It is impossible or us to construct without scientific knowledge, but it's after-effects have spread more ideas more efficiently than any other method in the history of man-kind.


We both had our say,and I as a born again believer,trust Gods word with my life,spirit ,soul,and body.

My goal is to trust him even more.To not look back,and to fulfill my destiny.

I understand, but I still do not see the theory of evolution as being antagonistic to God's word.


My "dog in this fight" is the youth,and my children. I believe 1000% that they are misled through evolution teaching that the purpose of life is not in and through their creator but abstract and meaningless with no God to answer to.

But, see, that's an association that is not made by the theory, nor is readily apparent from the teaching of it. I find it perfectly acceptable for one to believe that the generation of proto-life was such a statistically unlikely event (but still possible) as to be the dominion of God's actual influence on the generation of life. I personally do not believe that, and prefer to conceptualize God as an Aristotelian unmoved contemplative figure, but it is a decent molding of scientific theory and religious belief.

One can still derive religious, philosophical and/or ethical purpose from life regardless of one's belief of its origins. Again, the origin of life is NOT predicted by the Theory of Evolution; that's the theory of abiogenesis.

Answers in Genesis also HAD to make this distinction, because they themselves have adopted the Theory of Evolution (they call it "natural selection," which is absolutely true, albeit misleading; natural selection IS Evolutionary theory). They just don't subscribe to the Theory of Abiogenesis and they make ridiculous claims about "barahm" archetypes of animals that have genetic and phenotypic similarities. It's like saying that a tangerine and a mandarin orange aren't similar in the least.


I will never relent or even give one inch to the theory..

I'm not sure why...


I have no problem with you believing it . Only wish goodness,and prosperity for you and your family. I am saddened for anyone to position themselves so as not to have a "avenue" to their creator, which I feel,evolution does.

I wish the same for your family, but I'd argue that as a human being, I have every means of determining a spiritual meaning of life regardless of my acceptance of Evolutionary Theory. It's just that when I put on my scientist cap, I cannot accept speculation and assumption. Much in the same way, I'm sure, that when you work at your job, you don't wear your Sabbath cap prominently, and instead you wear your "work" cap.


You are to be commended for your graciousness :):):):)

Thank you. The offer still stands.

[captusa]

Did you come to that "by your logic" illation from someone else?
I recently spent $400 on my dog for "kennel cough" to 4 vets who couldn't cure my dog of a chronic cough. All prescribed powerful antibiotics,and we religiously administered the antibiotics.
She got even worse. Every time I took her in I pointed out "don't you think that dog's gums look white?" (a possible sign of worms)
"nope,they look good and pink" was every vets reply.
I handed my wife yet another hundred dollars and told her "Go get this dog wormed with another vet"

I get a phone call about an hour later as I was on the road. My wife says the vet wants to talk to you. (mind you he is a real educated fellow like you). In a similar condescending diatribe as your own,he tells me "this dog has distemper and is going to die,we need to put her down"
I know it must have hurt having this country boy straighten him out. "My dog does NOT have distemper"

"how do you know?"

"I have brought dogs back from distemper. My dog is not sick enough. Besides,they won't eat if they have distemper,and my dog eats like a horse"

"Your right ,your dog does not have distemper"

"But the cough is chronic and we will step up the antibiotics"

That night my boy saw a worm crawl out of her rectum.

Well we took her back again and got the wormer. $5 later she started winning.

Now why did I not go by my "gut"?

All those degree didn't help that poor dog. Now 1 year later the poor dog has issues from the massive anti biotic nightmare.
SHE IS A BOUT 1 1\2 YRS OLD and her teeth all rotted out!

SOOOOO......I found me a older "country vet" THAT KNOWS AND HAS A "FEEL" FOR DOCTORING ANIMALS.
He charged me $ 200 to pull the bad teeth.

Guess what he told me? You can't give those types of antibiotics to a puppy.
It effects their teeth and bones.
Those smart men and their degrees ruined my dogs life..

Oh,BTW, that night a friend of my wife came over. The dog coughed and she turned,glanced at the dog,and said "that dogs got worms"

Should of gave her the $700

Give me a man with experience any day,any time,over somebody that thinks he's something because of a piece of paper.

Wonder if any of them educated men would give me a refund?

I have encountered a few poor vets also.
It surprises me because of the difficulty to get in vet school but they do exist.
Are you telling me that older "country vet" THAT KNOWS AND HAS A "FEEL" FOR DOCTORING ANIMALS did NOT have a veterinarian degree ?
Experience, talent and intuition added to education makes a better doctor, vet and academician.
All of these fields do have practitioners that rely on education without adding thought and are close minded and therefore dangerous but fortunately they are the minority in all the professions mentioned.

The example you present shows an unbelievable level of incompetence of the vets you cited.
I forgot whether kennel cough is a virus but if it is then antibiotics would have no effect and weaken the bodies natural immunities and every medical practitioner should know that.

I lost a dog to parvo before there was a vaccine and parvo is a severe form of distemper.
The year the virus hit, older dogs and puppies were the major casualties but many dogs did survive so the idea that vet said distemper can't be treated is a surprise.
Perhaps those degrees on the walls of the first 4 vets were phony.
It was often common for MDs to give human patients antibiotics for colds and flues so there are incompetent docs as well as vets.


BTW there is a vaccine for parvo because scientists with lots of degrees that studied the parvo virus and when they found out had parvo EVOLVED from a mutated cat distemper they were able to develop an effective vaccine.

I did some research:
Kennel cough is most commonly caused by a bacteria called bordatella bronchiseptica.
Obviously bordatella bronchiseptica could be treated with antibiotics but other causes were listed which were mostly viruses.
The most reasonable articles recommended isolation and treatment of the symtoms.
Bordatella bronchiseptica while extremely contagious is not particularly serious while many of the virally causes for kennel cough were so unless one was sure only Bordatella was the cause and no viruses were involved antibiotics should not be used.

[biggles53]

The erroneous claims and lack of evidence,proof,facts or whatever compell illuminattion.

We both had our say,and I as a born again believer,trust Gods word with my life,spirit ,soul,and body.

My goal is to trust him even more.To not look back,and to fulfill my destiny.

My "dog in this fight" is the youth,and my children. I believe 1000% that they are misled through evolution teaching that the purpose of life is not in and through their creator but abstract and meaningless with no God to answer to.

I will never relent or even give one inch to the theory..
I have no problem with you believing it . Only wish goodness,and prosperity for you and your family. I am saddened for anyone to position themselves so as not to have a "avenue" to their creator, which I feel,evolution does.

You are to be commended for your graciousness :):):):)

I understand your position dave. And you're in illustrious company. Henry Morris, of the Discovery Institute says much the same thing as you - when reality and the scriptures are in conflict, reality must give way to doctrine.

But surely this is a path to madness? Just imagine what this means for the committed believer who holds a faith in the literal 'word'. It would mean that we would still have people insisting that the sun orbits the earth, because that's where their faith led them. That the earth is flat, because that's where their faith led them. That illness is caused by demons, that there was/is a layer of water suspended above the earth's atmosphere, and so on.

We know now that these propositions are ridiculous, but, following yours and Henry's insistence, we should still believe them...!

Ask yourself this.....if the theory of evolution is such an evil proposition, if it really does try to gainsay the existence of a god, then how come the biggest Christian church on the planet is comfortable in accepting it? How come some of the leading figures in promoting the theory are also committed believers (Ken Miller?)?

Surely you reach a point dave, where what yours eyes, ears and brain tell you to be real, is accepted as REAL......!?

[Jacob_Rising]

davetexas, this is Abe(Texas).

I don't know why you see evolution as a threat to your religion. The Tanakh does not, (Absolutely Not!!!), negate evolution. It needs to be understood as it was written.

I am a Theist, (Jewish), and I fully accept the theory of evolution. It does not conflict with my faith at all.

As a scuba instructor, I'm very familiar with flatfish like the Sole. They are flat and swim along the bottom. One of their eyes has, over the millenia, "travelled" from one side of their body to the other. This gives them two eyes on the same side. Both eyes are "on top" since the fish swims on its side. The fish can now evade attackers because it sees them coming. It can also see prey from its postion, and can hunt and Survive.

The Sole didn't "decide" to move its eye. A fish with one eye that was just slightly off towards the other one, saw attackers and prey a tiny bit more easily. It's eggs hatched, and a few carried the same mutation. One or two, may even have had the eye a tiny bit nearer the other one. These had a tendency to survive since they saw both attackers and prey even more easily. This went on...

Today we see the Sole with two eyes very close to each other, flat as a pancake, and surviving just fine.

Instead of attacking evolution, you should be marveling at the system put into place that makes all this possible. I see evolution as the engine that brings Atheists and Theists together, if they have the courage.Good Post Abe, It's a much easyer world when you figure out that the Bible does not negate evolution because Nothing makes sense when you think the world is only 6000 years old.

[Jacob_Rising]

Hush now, J_R. The grown-ups are talking...:))You should see the crickets outside my house this morning, I thought they were bad yesterday, But today, I can literally go outside and scoop up a 5 gallon bucket of them in two min.

Tomorrow will be 10 times worst because of the rain.

[Mikko]

You should see the crickets outside my house this morning, I thought they were bad yesterday, But today, I can literally go outside and scoop up a 5 gallon bucket of them in two min.

Tomorrow will be 10 times worst because of the rain.
I'll bet they're noisy, too.

[davetexas]

I have encountered a few poor vets also.
It surprises me because of the difficulty to get in vet school but they do exist.
Are you telling me that older "country vet" THAT KNOWS AND HAS A "FEEL" FOR DOCTORING ANIMALS did NOT have a veterinarian degree ?
Experience, talent and intuition added to education makes a better doctor, vet and academician.
All of these fields do have practitioners that rely on education without adding thought and are close minded and therefore dangerous but fortunately they are the minority in all the professions mentioned.

The example you present shows an unbelievable level of incompetence of the vets you cited.
I forgot whether kennel cough is a virus but if it is then antibiotics would have no effect and weaken the bodies natural immunities and every medical practitioner should know that.

I lost a dog to parvo before there was a vaccine and parvo is a severe form of distemper.
The year the virus hit, older dogs and puppies were the major casualties but many dogs did survive so the idea that vet said distemper can't be treated is a surprise.
Perhaps those degrees on the walls of the first 4 vets were phony.
It was often common for MDs to give human patients antibiotics for colds and flues so there are incompetent docs as well as vets.


BTW there is a vaccine for parvo because scientists with lots of degrees that studied the parvo virus and when they found out had parvo EVOLVED from a mutated cat distemper they were able to develop an effective vaccine.

I did some research:
Kennel cough is most commonly caused by a bacteria called bordatella bronchiseptica.
Obviously bordatella bronchiseptica could be treated with antibiotics but other causes were listed which were mostly viruses.
The most reasonable articles recommended isolation and treatment of the symtoms.
Bordatella bronchiseptica while extremely contagious is not particularly serious while many of the virally causes for kennel cough were so unless one was sure only Bordatella was the cause and no viruses were involved antibiotics should not be used.


My new vet is legit.

According to what I reaserched myself,most vets give antibiotics for the pet owner.
(to make them think they are doctoring their pet) Like you say ,the antibiotics do zero to a virus.

Here's another story;

About 1976 My rat terrier had 7 puppies. When they were about 4 weeks old they got very sick. I put 3 or 4 of them in a box and went to my vet (the best vet I have ever known) He took one look at them and said "do ya'll have the flue?" i told him we were all down with it.

He said "those puppies have the flue,they will be okay"

He evidently was right. They all got better when we did.

[keratin]

....Science fails at a split second prior to the Big Bang to come up with any satisfactory explanation as to what happened. Nothing in Science can accomodate the sudden existence of all of the matter in the universe coming from the collision of particles of energy.

That's largely a power constriction....and the fact that a damned huge event horizon rather limits the transmission of data....And nothing prior to the Big Bang matters, because it was a big quantum-gravitational ball of wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey acausality and wouldn't make any sense anyways due to the fact that things were happening before they were initiated...

Nothing in evolutionary theory, nor the fossil record actually shows the creation of any genus from another. The similarities are clear, but most of the true "links" are missing.

Creation by intelligent design is the only truly plausible and supportable theory because even in science some things you simply have to take on faith, and many things associated with faith, can be demonstrated by science.

Except of course the derivation of early stem reptiles to synapsid reptiles to mammals (Insanely well documented in the fossil record; one of the best), or you know diaspid reptiles, to archosaurs to birds (another that's relatively well documented in the fossil record). They've even made a fossil prediction of a transitional form between sarcopterygii fish and amphibians....they even predicted where it would be found using retro-biogeography and then they found a fossil with those precise traits that they were looking for at where they were looking for it (To say that evolution can't be tested or can't make predictions or other such flim-flammery is a great mischaracterization of the knowledge and work being done). And before anyone goes on about missing links...the term missing links is not used anymore...largely because there are always missing links and will always be unless you have every representative from every population between two species. And the whole 'well they haven't shown any extant transition between genera' well of course not speciation can take millenia-millions of years in the general sense (it can also take days, months, years or decades if given the right gene pool, species and environmental factors, plants can speciate absurdly fast) the creation of genera would take even longer.

While there are some assumptions to be made in science, those assumptions aren't taken on by faith but by circumstance...those assumptions are constantly argued and when they can be tested. Phylogenetics and taxonomy are two such instances in evolutionary science. It is assumed by the community that current taxonomic trees are correct...however that assumption is constantly tested as new evidence is brought to the fore and integrated into the current theory...when the evidence doesn't fit scientists don't change the facts to fit the theory they have to modify the theory to fit the facts.

However, Creation by intelligent design doesn't even do that. Regardless of the facts presented those that have proposed ID and creationism have maintained a mantra of 'nope my designer of choice did it', oh they may play at being scientists (Behe) or scientific-philosophers (Demski[sp]) but overall they make the same unfalsifiable arguments that have no predictive power (Because how can you predict the mind of the creator....Behe can't even tell us what an irreducibly complex object looks like in any specifics, going by a 'when I find it I'll know it' scheme of searching for one).


WildRose though is basically correct, if there is a need to justify or resolve one's issues between their religion and the world around them; it can be done. However, religions tend not to be so very interested in how their specific being went about making them but rather on what that being suggested we do to live our lives...and that maybe...just maybe that being in a flash of wisdom decided to tell the ignorant and easily confused early adherents a nice little simple story about how they sung a song or danced a jig or spoke really forcibly so as to make everything. I mean really you're going to sit and reject 150 years of evidence gathering (and yes evidence gathering), testing and thought for a biologically, physically, and (sometimes) historically ignorant 6,000 year old text (that's engaged in massive outside manipulation) that at the best of times can be self-contradictory? Especially if you use that text as you're supposed to, as a manual on how you're supposed to live your life in context to the rest of society and not as a completely flawless historical text of the universe...which it isn't.

[davetexas]

That's largely a power constriction....and the fact that a damned huge event horizon rather limits the transmission of data....And nothing prior to the Big Bang matters, because it was a big quantum-gravitational ball of wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey acausality and wouldn't make any sense anyways due to the fact that things were happening before they were initiated...



Except of course the derivation of early stem reptiles to synapsid reptiles to mammals (Insanely well documented in the fossil record; one of the best), or you know diaspid reptiles, to archosaurs to birds (another that's relatively well documented in the fossil record). They've even made a fossil prediction of a transitional form between sarcopterygii fish and amphibians....they even predicted where it would be found using retro-biogeography and then they found a fossil with those precise traits that they were looking for at where they were looking for it (To say that evolution can't be tested or can't make predictions or other such flim-flammery is a great mischaracterization of the knowledge and work being done). And before anyone goes on about missing links...the term missing links is not used anymore...largely because there are always missing links and will always be unless you have every representative from every population between two species. And the whole 'well they haven't shown any extant transition between genera' well of course not speciation can take millenia-millions of years in the general sense (it can also take days, months, years or decades if given the right gene pool, species and environmental factors, plants can speciate absurdly fast) the creation of genera would take even longer.

While there are some assumptions to be made in science, those assumptions aren't taken on by faith but by circumstance...those assumptions are constantly argued and when they can be tested. Phylogenetics and taxonomy are two such instances in evolutionary science. It is assumed by the community that current taxonomic trees are correct...however that assumption is constantly tested as new evidence is brought to the fore and integrated into the current theory...when the evidence doesn't fit scientists don't change the facts to fit the theory they have to modify the theory to fit the facts.

However, Creation by intelligent design doesn't even do that. Regardless of the facts presented those that have proposed ID and creationism have maintained a mantra of 'nope my designer of choice did it', oh they may play at being scientists (Behe) or scientific-philosophers (Demski[sp]) but overall they make the same unfalsifiable arguments that have no predictive power (Because how can you predict the mind of the creator....Behe can't even tell us what an irreducibly complex object looks like in any specifics, going by a 'when I find it I'll know it' scheme of searching for one).


WildRose though is basically correct, if there is a need to justify or resolve one's issues between their religion and the world around them; it can be done. However, religions tend not to be so very interested in how their specific being went about making them but rather on what that being suggested we do to live our lives...and that maybe...just maybe that being in a flash of wisdom decided to tell the ignorant and easily confused early adherents a nice little simple story about how they sung a song or danced a jig or spoke really forcibly so as to make everything. I mean really you're going to sit and reject 150 years of evidence gathering (and yes evidence gathering), testing and thought for a biologically, physically, and (sometimes) historically ignorant 6,000 year old text (that's engaged in massive outside manipulation) that at the best of times can be self-contradictory? Especially if you use that text as you're supposed to, as a manual on how you're supposed to live your life in context to the rest of society and not as a completely flawless historical text of the universe...which it isn't.


First off God says that all men know of the existence of God by the testimony of creation itself.

You nor any evolutionist can discern the word of God through you mental faculties.
It was not written to you,it was written to Christians and Jews.

God is a spirit,not a carbon unit.

Here is an example of an evolutionist trying to reason out Gods word

Does Isaiah 40:22 really say that Earth is Round?
It is quite clear that the above Biblical Verses suggest and claim that the Earth is flat, has Edges, has Four Corners, has Pillars, and has Foundations. No unbiased person would deny the straight forward quotes above. Only the desperate biased Jews and Christians would.
Some desperate Christians have gone as far as presenting Isaiah 40:22 to try to prove that the Bible claims that the earth is round.
Let us look at what the Verse says:
"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in. (From the NIV Bible, Isaiah 40:22)"
First of all, a circle is not a ball or sphere or an egg-shaped object. A circle is a flat round surface, similar to flat rectangular, or square, or triangular surfaces. So if the Bible claims that the Earth is a circle, then this is still bogus because the earth is obviously not a flat surface.

Who cares anyway what man wants to believe concerning evolution? Nobody can stop them.
But when they take their religion to the public school,and teach such absurd nonsense to our kids,it has to be an agenda.
Evolution is a thief. It reduces man to an animal.
Animals have no moral compass
Morals are removed,and thus absolutes along with them.
Since now,at this point,teens will fornicate as animals,we must teach "safe fornication."
These classes remove the God given modesty mechanism that would help females resist a males advances.

The resulting shame and guilt follows them for a lifetime
(it is a spiritual attachment......bad) only broken off by the power of the Holy Spirit

Evolution is the god of secular humanism. A thief of Americas youth.

In the end they will say"I never knew there was a God" when they die and stand before him.
God will answer "All creation was set before as a testimony to my existence"

[captusa]

My new vet is legit.

According to what I reaserched myself,most vets give antibiotics for the pet owner.
(to make them think they are doctoring their pet) Like you say ,the antibiotics do zero to a virus.

Here's another story;

About 1976 My rat terrier had 7 puppies. When they were about 4 weeks old they got very sick. I put 3 or 4 of them in a box and went to my vet (the best vet I have ever known) He took one look at them and said "do ya'll have the flue?" i told him we were all down with it.

He said "those puppies have the flue,they will be okay"

He evidently was right. They all got better when we did.

Has your present vet been contaminated by getting one those veterinarian degrees or associating with the cabal of those with refined dialogue with degrees and a really nice understanding and command of the English language that admits it has no proof that inhabit the colleges including vet schools ?

Does your present vet accept and use the biological and medical progress that have been achieved through the use and acceptance the principles of evolution ?

Does your present vet believe species have evolved from other species and if he does will you seek a vet that doesn't ?

[Thor]

Evolution is the god of secular humanism. A thief of Americas youth.


How do you figure this?

In the end they will say"I never knew there was a God" when they die and stand before him.
God will answer "All creation was set before as a testimony to my existence"

So, we're supposed to believe that "God" exists simply because we exist? Sorry, ya gotta do better than that.

[keratin]

Who cares anyway what man wants to believe concerning evolution?
I would for one, and if you value not having our nation's fields overrun by insects, our bodies overrun by pathogens or have us incapable of understanding the fundemental condition of our own biology....you would too. But then evolution isn't real so there can't be anything like antibodic resistance or pesticide resistance...nope, if we all close our eyes we won't die from resistant tuberculosis...Shame on those nasty biologists for trying to keep us from understanding the processes that result in people dying...gosh we're an evil bunch aren't we?

Nobody can stop them.
But when they take their religion to the public school,and teach such absurd nonsense to our kids,it has to be an agenda.
Evolution is a thief. It reduces man to an animal.

Which is a lie. Evolution isn't a religion....I mean...I'm sure to those who don't have any actual conception of what the theory of natural selection is, or understands evolution at all...it may seem like a religion, in the same way that a lightning bolt may seem like an act of an angry deity instead of being the result of increased segregation of positive and negative charges in a thunderhead caused by frictional action between waterdroplets.


Animals have no moral compass
Morals are removed,and thus absolutes along with them.
Since now,at this point,teens will fornicate as animals,we must teach "safe fornication."
These classes remove the God given modesty mechanism that would help females resist a males advances.

Wait, fornication...you mean enact sex...it's rather hard to be fruitful and multiply if one doesn't enact sex...you see it as a sin, I would see it as the ultimate attempt to follow God's first real commandment to all things...And most certainly with practice comes efficiency...so most assuredly if God wants us to be fruitful and multiply...then we should attempt to do so as efficiently as possible....which means we should applaud those who practice those acts...and not admonish them.

Then again there is new research in animal behavior that shows that many social animals have a form morality within their society...but I somehow doubt you noticed them since they tend to be based on evolution of eusocial activity in animals...

The resulting shame and guilt follows them for a lifetime
(it is a spiritual attachment......bad) only broken off by the power of the Holy Spirit


Strange I thought the shame came because in some circles premarital sex tend to shame them which forces them not to be educated in these matters which allows things like HIV and Syphillis to spread from ignorance...which would actuallly result in a larger number of deaths...but as long as God's satisfied that we're listening to heavily modified text that 6,000 odd years old I guess he can see that as Abraham's real sacrifice of his son....

[Mikko]

First off God says that all men know of the existence of God by the testimony of creation itself.

You nor any evolutionist can discern the word of God through you mental faculties.
It was not written to you,it was written to Christians and Jews.
Change that to "written by Christians and Jews," and you're on to something.

[davetexas]

Has your present vet been contaminated by getting one those veterinarian degrees or associating with the cabal of those with refined dialogue with degrees and a really nice understanding and command of the English language that admits it has no proof that inhabit the colleges including vet schools ?

Does your present vet accept and use the biological and medical progress that have been achieved through the use and acceptance the principles of evolution ?

Does your present vet believe species have evolved from other species and if he does will you seek a vet that doesn't ?


Rhetorical questions?
These are your views,not mine

But without evolution all bible belevers would think the eartth is flat?

Evolution has no principles. Only faith based theories.

[davetexas]

Change that to "written by Christians and Jews," and you're on to something.


There lies your misunderstanding.

Lets say you drive a chevy suburban.

I don't like anything modern,so I drive strictly antique Packards.

You show me your owners manual and it has "air bags" "antilock brakes" etc in it for your undrstanding,service,operation etc.

I laugh at those terms and commence to tell you that is ridiculous.

That manual was written to you ,not me. It means zero to me.

That is the word of God in a nutshell. It is the believers manual. That is why only a believer understands it

[captusa]

Rhetorical questions?
These are your views,not mine

But without evolution all bible belevers would think the eartth is flat?

Evolution has no principles. Only faith based theories.

Would you change vets if your vet believed in evolution and used vaccines and medicines that were developed by biologists whose research and discoveries were directly based on their belief in evolution ?
Yes or No ?

[captusa]

There lies your misunderstanding.

Lets say you drive a chevy suburban.

I don't like anything modern,so I drive strictly antique Packards.

........

If you don't like anything modern, why don't you drive a horse ?

[davetexas]

How do you figure this?



So, we're supposed to believe that "God" exists simply because we exist? Sorry, ya gotta do better than that.


Humans,animals,insects,sea life,trees,planets,water,the sun etc.,all were created by him and for him.

Not just man,but man (humans) are his masterpiece. Created in the very image of God.

That adds to the misconception of evolution.

Ever asked yourself why Darwin,in his crisis of faith,chose as he did,when he did?

[davetexas]

If you don't like anything modern, why don't you drive a horse ?


Under our current leader ,we may all be buying some saddles.:D:D:D

[Drawz]

There lies your misunderstanding.

Lets say you drive a chevy suburban.

I don't like anything modern,so I drive strictly antique Packards.

You show me your owners manual and it has "air bags" "antilock brakes" etc in it for your undrstanding,service,operation etc.

I laugh at those terms and commence to tell you that is ridiculous.

That manual was written to you ,not me. It means zero to me.

That is the word of God in a nutshell. It is the believers manual. That is why only a believer understands it
One of the most ridiculous propostions I've ever seen.

The Bible is written only for believers.

Only people who believe the Bible are believers.

If you haven't read the Bible you aren't a believer.

So, the Bible is written for no one.

Brilliant.

[captusa]

There lies your misunderstanding.

Lets say you drive a chevy suburban.

I don't like anything modern,so I drive strictly antique Packards.

You show me your owners manual and it has "air bags" "antilock brakes" etc in it for your undrstanding,service,operation etc.

I laugh at those terms and commence to tell you that is ridiculous.

That manual was written to you ,not me. It means zero to me.

That is the word of God in a nutshell. It is the believers manual. That is why only a believer understands it

Are you saying that driving a Packard makes you illiterate ?
My present car was manufactured before air-bags were required.
I am sure I could read and understand a Lexus owner's manual if it was written in English.

[davetexas]

Would you change vets if your vet believed in evolution and used vaccines and medicines that were developed by biologists whose research and discoveries were directly based on their belief in evolution ?
Yes or No ?


No,in fact he probably does believe in evolution. I don't discount your,or any evolutionist training or talent. Only the deviation from true science into faith for a Godless religion of evolution.

Only this theory,as used in public schools by Secular humanists for indoctrination of our youth.

My own biology teacher told us we were animals and nothing separated us from animals.

[davetexas]

One of the most ridiculous propostions I've ever seen.

The Bible is written only for believers.

Only people who believe the Bible are believers.

If you haven't read the Bible you aren't a believer.

So, the Bible is written for no one.

Brilliant.


ever heard of an illustration?

Was never meant to be a true story for you to muddy up.

Now do you see why your conclusions are faith and not fact?:D:D:D

[davetexas]

Are you saying that driving a Packard makes you illiterate ?
My present car was manufactured before air-bags were required.
I am sure I could read and understand a Lexus owner's manual if it was written in English.


We can each post an illustration and blow all kinds of technical holes in it aside from the point of the illustration.

Reread the illustration but focus on the point made.(you can make up new vehicles)

Man,it is tedious teaching you guys.:D:D:D:D:D

[captusa]

No,in fact he probably does believe in evolution. I don't discount your,or any evolutionist training or talent. Only the deviation from true science into faith for a Godless religion of evolution.

Only this theory,as used in public schools by Secular humanists for indoctrination of our youth.

My own biology teacher told us we were animals and nothing separated us from animals.

I hope he explained that there were differences between all animals and humans have developed a civilization partly because of the evolution of the human brain to conceive ideas.
Was your biology teacher less than human because he believed he was an animal Genus Homo, Species Sapian ?
And it has been explained to you many times.
Evolution is not Godless.
Are you accusing the entire Catholic hierarchy of being Godless ?

BTW The theory of evolution does not deal with whether the world if flat.
This sentence confused me:
But without evolution all bible belevers (sic.)would think the eartth (sic.)is flat?
Are you saying that since you do not believe in evolution and are a Bible believer that you DO believe the world is flat (as described in Job)?

[Andrew_980]

We can each post an illustration and blow all kinds of technical holes in it aside from the point of the illustration.

Reread the illustration but focus on the point made.(you can make up new vehicles)

Man,it is tedious teaching you guys.:D:D:D:D:D

Evolution might be flawed but it is based in science alone
Creation is faith alone with no science.

It comes down to if you prefer science or religion to answer lifes problems

[captusa]

We can each post an illustration and blow all kinds of technical holes in it aside from the point of the illustration.

Reread the illustration but focus on the point made.(you can make up new vehicles)

Man,it is tedious teaching you guys.:D:D:D:D:D

No where near as frustrating it would be to try to teach you anything.
Your biology teacher didn't seem to have much luck and your circular reasoning about you have to be believer to understand the bible and you must believe the Bible to become a believer a shows that if anyone tried to teach you logic they didn't have much success either.

[Drawz]

ever heard of an illustration?

Was never meant to be a true story for you to muddy up.

Now do you see why your conclusions are faith and not fact?:D:D:D

I didn't address your car analogy, I addressed your assertion that the Bible is written only for believers and the fact that there can't be believers until they've been exposed to what the Bible says. Therefore the Bible was written for no one.

Care to address the real issue?

[Abe]

There lies your misunderstanding.

Lets say you drive a chevy suburban.

I don't like anything modern,so I drive strictly antique Packards.

You show me your owners manual and it has "air bags" "antilock brakes" etc in it for your undrstanding,service,operation etc.

I laugh at those terms and commence to tell you that is ridiculous.

That manual was written to you ,not me. It means zero to me.

That is the word of God in a nutshell. It is the believers manual. That is why only a believer understands it

And there lies your misunderstanding...the manual was written by man for man.

[keratin]

But without evolution all bible belevers would think the eartth is flat?

Only those Bible believers that aren't clouded enough to see that a literal translation of the Bible is mostly insane...

Evolution has no principles. Only faith based theories.

Evolution has no moral principles...because it isn't a study in morality. The only time evolution has a single mention of morality is when it actively studies the derivation of morality scientifically (Which I suspect is an alien concept for you). Actually Evolution isn't a theory at all it's a fact. The theory of natural selection is not based upon faith, the idea that it is, is laughable at best and woefully depressing at worst. It has a hundred and fifty years of experimental and observational evidence, it has predicted and provided an explanation in every mode of biology present and is a central synthesizing concept for the entirety of biology. Without evolution there is no antibiotics, no vaccinations, no advanced GMO crops, no growth supplements no hog valve replacements...no moderation of game species for hunting. Now if you would like to provide one hundred and fifty years worth of independently corroborated, objective evidence with additional predictive power that God did a creation event, without using the hearsay of a 6,000 year old text that is scientifically gibberish then go on and do it. I suspect you won't because of some contrived excuse....and then complain that I'm being unfair or refusing to even acknowledge the point made.

I know you're probably reeling from the fact that evolution isn't a theory...it's a fact. The real theory is that of the mode of evolution, how it does the work. People have known evolution occurs since just about half a century before Darwin was born (Lamark, Goethe, Cuvier all of them concluded that there's a transition of form)...Darwin only provided a theory that would framework how that transition takes place amongst populations (Natural Selection). He synthesized this theory from multiple different sources: Charles Lyell, the above mentioned pre-Darwin evolutionists, Rev. Thomas Malthus....in fact Darwin himself was a pastor of some sort, got his degree in Theology if I remember from Cambridge no less (so the idea that Darwin was some godless heathen is also...wrong).

But then we won't get anywhere until people realize that evolution isn't a religion...:wall::rolleyes:

[Abe]

No,in fact he probably does believe in evolution. I don't discount your,or any evolutionist training or talent. Only the deviation from true science into faith for a Godless religion of evolution.

Only this theory,as used in public schools by Secular humanists for indoctrination of our youth.

My own biology teacher told us we were animals and nothing separated us from animals.Show me where, in the Tanakh, it says that evolution is "Godless".

[davetexas]

I didn't address your car analogy, I addressed your assertion that the Bible is written only for believers and the fact that there can't be believers until they've been exposed to what the Bible says. Therefore the Bible was written for no one.

Care to address the real issue?


The bible is the manual for believers.It was written to them.

It is God's word to his people..

Although it was written to God's people,anyboby can read it. But aside from the history it contains,and interesting stories,only a Born again christian sees the panoramic picture.

And yes men did the actual writing. Moved by God's Holy Spirit.

To you this pollutes the bible. To me it adds even more awe to it.

I never cared about the bible prior to being born again. Now it is a living book and God's word comes through it.

Ephesians 3:5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+3:5&version=KJV)
Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

1 Corinthians 2:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Corinthians+2:13&version=KJV)
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

Gal 1;
11But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Thessalonians+2:13&version=KJV)
For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

[davetexas]

Show me where, in the Tanakh, it says that evolution is "Godless".


I doubt they believed in evolution.

At first I thought your phrase was an oxymoron ,like "Jumbo shrimp"

But it is just what it is, a true phrase "Godless evolution"

That is the purpose behind it. No creation,no God,no morals,all is relative,we are simply animals

[captusa]

Humans,animals,insects,sea life,trees,planets,water,the sun etc.,all were created by him and for him.

Not just man,but man (humans) are his masterpiece. Created in the very image of God.

That adds to the misconception of evolution.

Ever asked yourself why Darwin,in his crisis of faith,chose as he did,when he did?

And why the scientific community eventually accepted and refined Darwin's theory with 150 years of research that supports the fact that evolution has occurred..
A scientific theory can make a conclusion that the possibility that some portions of that theory is so small that it can said to be impossible.
It is unreasonable to assume that evolution has not occurred given 150+ years of supporting evidence with no credible alternative consistant theories.
As pointed out if anyone came up with a consistant alternative theory they would be world famous and win at least one Nobel prize.
Newton gained fame by contradicting Aristotle and Einstein's fame came when he found inconsistancies with Newton's theory.
It was the religious community that objected to FACTS that contradicted theories by Aristotle and Ptolomy that the church had accepted.

[davetexas]

And there lies your misunderstanding...the manual was written by man for man.


An artist uses a brush. God happened to use man..

Makes it that much more awesome to me

[captusa]

I doubt they believed in evolution.

At first I thought your phrase was an oxymoron ,like "Jumbo shrimp"

But it is just what it is, a true phrase "Godless evolution"

That is the purpose behind it. No creation,no God,no morals,all is relative,we are simply animals

Evolution HAS OCCURRED.
There is no way any Atheist can prove that evolution is not the modus operendi God used to originate species.
Again, do the scientists that believe in both God and evolution believe in Godless evolution.
You haven't responded to the question,
Are all the theologians in the Catholic Church that have accepted evolution as a fact, Godless ?

I guess Atheists that believe in evolution believe in Godless evolution and the Theists believe in God directed evolution and the Deist believe that the creator finished creation billions of years before evolution (or the earth) started.

[davetexas]

Only those Bible believers that aren't clouded enough to see that a literal translation of the Bible is mostly insane...



Evolution has no moral principles...because it isn't a study in morality. The only time evolution has a single mention of morality is when it actively studies the derivation of morality scientifically (Which I suspect is an alien concept for you). Actually Evolution isn't a theory at all it's a fact. The theory of natural selection is not based upon faith, the idea that it is, is laughable at best and woefully depressing at worst. It has a hundred and fifty years of experimental and observational evidence, it has predicted and provided an explanation in every mode of biology present and is a central synthesizing concept for the entirety of biology. Without evolution there is no antibiotics, no vaccinations, no advanced GMO crops, no growth supplements no hog valve replacements...no moderation of game species for hunting. Now if you would like to provide one hundred and fifty years worth of independently corroborated, objective evidence with additional predictive power that God did a creation event, without using the hearsay of a 6,000 year old text that is scientifically gibberish then go on and do it. I suspect you won't because of some contrived excuse....and then complain that I'm being unfair or refusing to even acknowledge the point made.

I know you're probably reeling from the fact that evolution isn't a theory...it's a fact. The real theory is that of the mode of evolution, how it does the work. People have known evolution occurs since just about half a century before Darwin was born (Lamark, Goethe, Cuvier all of them concluded that there's a transition of form)...Darwin only provided a theory that would framework how that transition takes place amongst populations (Natural Selection). He synthesized this theory from multiple different sources: Charles Lyell, the above mentioned pre-Darwin evolutionists, Rev. Thomas Malthus....in fact Darwin himself was a pastor of some sort, got his degree in Theology if I remember from Cambridge no less (so the idea that Darwin was some godless heathen is also...wrong).

But then we won't get anywhere until people realize that evolution isn't a religion...:wall::rolleyes:

My starting place is heaven.What God says. Is it backed by nature and all visible things? yes.

In fact without God live is totally meaningless.

All nature has a theme. A rhythm.
Look at the discipline of the planets and moons,and their relationships to each other and the sun. A precise discipline.
The awesome miracle of water. Life giving water.
Even your fingernail has a grain,so a hangnail can simply be peeled off and discarded.
Even the temperature is correct for man and life. Meaning God distanced us the correct distance from the sun

[captusa]

........Although it was written to God's people,anyboby can read it. But aside from the history it contains,and interesting stories,only a Born again christian sees the panoramic picture.

.........
You changed the views that you held after your first birth.

Perhaps you might experience am 3rd birth that will contradict the misconceptions you got from your 2nd birth.

You wouldn't have predicted your 2nd birth.
Let's hope that a 3rd birth will clear things up for you.

One birth was sufficient for me.

[davetexas]

Evolution HAS OCCURRED.
There is no way any Atheist can prove that evolution is not the modus operendi God used to originate species.
Again, do the scientists that believe in both God and evolution believe in Godless evolution.
You haven't responded to the question,
Are all the theologians in the Catholic Church that have accepted evolution as a fact, Godless ?

I guess Atheists that believe in evolution believe in Godless evolution and the Theists believe in God directed evolution and the Deist believe that the creator finished creation billions of years before evolution (or the earth) started.




The OP is evolution/creation

There are Christians that don't even believe in hell,the virgin birth,the devil,and so on

I will never be able to figure all that out,but they are somehow able to come to their conclusions.And I am sure I am wrong about a few things myself:D:D:D

[captusa]

My starting place is heaven.What God says. Is it backed by nature and all visible things? yes.

In fact without God live is totally meaningless.

All nature has a theme. A rhythm.
Look at the discipline of the planets and moons,and their relationships to each other and the sun. A precise discipline.
The awesome miracle of water. Life giving water.
Even your fingernail has a grain,so a hangnail can simply be peeled off and discarded.
Even the temperature is correct for man and life. Meaning God distanced us the correct distance from the sun

Life evolved to fit the conditions of the planet.
AND there is life that exists on Earth where superheated water is correct for that life.

[captusa]

ever heard of an illustration?

Was never meant to be a true story for you to muddy up.

Now do you see why your conclusions are faith and not fact?:D:D:D

What you presented with the owner's manual was not an illustration.
It was an analogy.
The problem is your analogy was not analogous.

[davetexas]

You changed the views that you held after your first birth.

Perhaps you might experience am 3rd birth that will contradict the misconceptions you got from your 2nd birth.

You wouldn't have predicted your 2nd birth.
Let's hope that a 3rd birth will clear things up for you.

One birth was sufficient for me.

The Father gave his only Son as a ransom for man. It is so awesome it defies all reason.
This is the backdrop to the Re-Birth

John 3


1There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
2The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
3Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
8The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
9Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
10Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
11Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
12If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
13And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
14And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

[captusa]

No,in fact he probably does believe in evolution. I don't discount your,or any evolutionist training or talent. Only the deviation from true science into faith for a Godless religion of evolution.

Only this theory,as used in public schools by Secular humanists for indoctrination of our youth.

My own biology teacher told us we were animals and nothing separated us from animals.
You are correct and believers should eliminate the teaching of Godless gravity as well as the Godless theory of evolution.
Why is the theory of evolution any less Godly than the theory of Gravity ?
Gravity is a theory supported by secular humanists.

The theory of gravity is similarly used in public schools by Secular humanists for indoctrination of our youth.

Gravity must be Godless since it has no moral guidance.
My own physics teacher told that gravity effects me the same as it does animals even though I am made in God's image and they are not.
Is God effected by gravity?
If I am in God's image why would I be effected by gravity in the same way as a plant or an oragutang.

[captusa]

The Father gave his only Son as a ransom for man. It is so awesome it defies all reason.
..............
This is the backdrop to the Re-Birth
No need to quote scripture.
I read the book (and saw the movie).
Yes the story that The Father gave his only Son as a ransom for is so awesome it defies all reason.
That's the main reason for not believing it.

As far as comparing your born again experience to the ressurection of Christ, to me seems at the least presumptuous and at most blasphemous.

As a Christian I assume you believe in the birth of Christ, ressurection of Christ and the eventual return of Christ.
If the birth represents being born once and the ressurrection represents being born again the Christ's return should represent being born again again.
Who knows what revelations are in store for you 3rd birth.
Maybe when Jesus returns HE will explain how evolution works better than you biology teacher.

[keratin]

My starting place is heaven.What God says. Is it backed by nature and all visible things? yes.

In fact without God live is totally meaningless.

You're starting place is an unverifiable metareality...no wonder we aren't communicating...because the last time I checked on was on Earth.

Is it backed by all visible things? What the Bible says suggests that things should be immutable yet we find a very mutable biosphere...(and universe) you must be seeing in wavelengths I'm not...or one of us is suffering from optical hallucinations...(I prefer mine because mine makes objective sense).

All nature has a theme. A rhythm.

Yes, it does, generally running twenty-two to twenty-three hours and on at least two hemi-annual seasons depending on the effects of solar radiation at the latitudes of the planet...these seasons tend to focus on two things A: breeding to recruit genetic material to the next generation and B: to survive until season A. This 'rhythm' is augmented by a strain of competition that causes some suites of tones to be canceled out into nothing whilst others are amplified...and proceed into the next movement....

In other words. The rhythm is both the planetary rotation and revolution and the theme that ties all life together is Evolution by Natural Selection....

Look at the discipline of the planets and moons,and their relationships to each other and the sun. A precise discipline.

Yes, Mercury doesn't obey Newtonian physics, Venus rotates backwards, Uranus is lopsided, and then there's the chaos of the ring systems of the gaseous planets (especially Saturn) and that's before we get into the very imprecise orbits of the flotsam and jetsam of the solar system's afterbirth. Yes, precision like a broken clock...it gets it right twice a day.

The awesome miracle of water. Life giving water.
Even your fingernail has a grain,so a hangnail can simply be peeled off and discarded.
Even the temperature is correct for man and life. Meaning God distanced us the correct distance from the sun

In other words the universe is made because it's perfectly specified to us....it couldn't possibly be that we're the ones that are perfectly adapted for the universe because those organisms that weren't never survived long enough to produce offspring....no the universe must be designed to the absurd point that it is designed precisely to us...and us not being, via natural processes, physiological adapted to this planet's ecosystem.

Water isn't a miracle, it's a chemical compound bound by the laws of electromagnetism and strong and weak forces to exude certain properties.

And the Earth is in the position it is because of gravitational forces that would've acted upon it regardless of some invisible hand of God.

And you are doing life a very unpleasant misjustice. There is life that could survive completely without the sun...all they require is the Earth to have a rotating core and an active mantle...in other words if the star that is our sun were to spontaneously condensed to a black hole or be swapped out with an equally massive non-luminous object, we'd all die....but those little archaebacteria, and ancient bacteria and the food webs that they are the roots of wouldn't even notice the sun disappearing or at least they'd survive long enough to adapt perfectly to the situation (so perfectly that if they were to convergently evolve sentience they'd probably how perfect is it that we don't have a giant fireball in the sky to burn us with UV radiation).

In fact it's possible that life could be started in utterly UnEarth habitats like Europa or Titan or Triton (this life may not be as fast living [due to there being not as much energy]) but it'd be life.

[Clintville]

Evolution has no principles. Only faith based theories.
You do know a theory isn't a guess?

[Clintville]

Who cares anyway what man wants to believe concerning evolution? Nobody can stop them.
But when they take their religion to the public school,and teach such absurd nonsense to our kids,it has to be an agenda.
Evolution is a thief. It reduces man to an animal.
Animals have no moral compass
Morals are removed,and thus absolutes along with them.
Since now,at this point,teens will fornicate as animals,we must teach "safe fornication."
These classes remove the God given modesty mechanism that would help females resist a males advances.
So evolution is to blame for fornication? Fascinating.

[keratin]

He doesn't get that Evolution isn't a religion...so my hopes are low for this one....

[keratin]

So evolution is to blame for fornication? Fascinating.
In a way he is right...in that often times fornicators are those that obtain evolutionary fitness since they are the ones recruiting the most genes into the next generation....wait...that's not what you meant is it? :p

[Clintville]

My own biology teacher told us we were animals and nothing separated us from animals.
Well, he is both right and wrong.

[markd]

He doesn't get that Evolution isn't a religion...so my hopes are low for this one....Man you wouldve LOVED wayne. :D

[keratin]

Man you wouldve LOVED wayne. :D

I enjoy pointing things out though...so it's not so bad.

[biggles53]

Who cares anyway what man wants to believe concerning evolution? Nobody can stop them.
But when they take their religion to the public school,and teach such absurd nonsense to our kids,it has to be an agenda.

Dave, would you consider the teaching of gravitational theory, atomic theory, germ theory in public schools to be likewise an "agenda"...?? Remember, the theory of evolution enjoys MORE evidentiary support than any of those other scientific theories...!

Evolution is a thief. It reduces man to an animal.

No 'theft' required. I am a eukaryote. I am a vertebrate. I am a mammal. I am a hominid. I AM an animal....!

Animals have no moral compass

Not so. Many of the higher orders of vertebrates have very well developed and observable 'rules' of behaviour for both their offspring and other members of their groups.

Morals are removed,and thus absolutes along with them.

No morals are absolute. If they were, we'd still be keeping slaves and burning witches....

Since now,at this point,teens will fornicate as animals,we must teach "safe fornication."
These classes remove the God given modesty mechanism that would help females resist a males advances.

And how's that "modesty mechanism" strategy workin'...? My understanding is that, under the Bush years of 'abstinence first', teen pregnancies soared, as did the rates of std infection...

The resulting shame and guilt follows them for a lifetime
(it is a spiritual attachment......bad) only broken off by the power of the Holy Spirit

Most of the "shame and guilt" I see being promoted by those with a religious agenda...

Evolution is the god of secular humanism. A thief of Americas youth.

Now you're just being silly....

In the end they will say"I never knew there was a God" when they die and stand before him.
God will answer "All creation was set before as a testimony to my existence"

But, dammit, what if it's the WRONG god you're standing before.....!!

[biggles53]

Humans,animals,insects,sea life,trees,planets,water,the sun etc.,all were created by him and for him.

Not just man,but man (humans) are his masterpiece. Created in the very image of God.

That adds to the misconception of evolution.

Ever asked yourself why Darwin,in his crisis of faith,chose as he did,when he did?

Chose what....???

[biggles53]

No,in fact he probably does believe in evolution. I don't discount your,or any evolutionist training or talent. Only the deviation from true science into faith for a Godless religion of evolution.

Only this theory,as used in public schools by Secular humanists for indoctrination of our youth.

My own biology teacher told us we were animals and nothing separated us from animals.

I'm sorry, but he/she was right! There's nothing other than unsupported beliefs which distinguishes us from the rest of the animal kingdom.....

[captusa]

So evolution is to blame for fornication? Fascinating.
Conversely
Fornication (in higher animals) IS to blame for evolution.

[captusa]

Originally Posted by davetexas
My starting place is heaven.What God says. Is it backed by nature and all visible things? yes.

In fact without God live is totally meaningless.
Speak for yourself!!
If your life is meaningless without God, I can't argue with you but my life is at least as meaningful as yours and it is without God.
Einstein's life was least as meaningful as yours and it was without God.(a Theistic God)
Spinoza's life was at least as meaningful as yours and it was without God.
Bertran Russell's life was at least as meaningful as yours and it was without God.
Hegel's life was at least as meaningful as yours and it was without God.
David Hume's life was at least as meaningful as yours and it was without God.
.......
.......
.......

[THE LIGHT]

I have never thought that there was any disagreement between the two ideas and cannot now imagine why so many good people argue about it all the time.

Of course, certainly, absolutely and you're darn right God, the intelligent designer, created the universe and everything in it plus us. Since the moment of creation His divine plan of constant change has been working just as He willed it so very long ago.:lol:

Whoa.... Wait wait. That can't be right. I mean, where are the contentions between non-believer and believers? They cannot agree. They have to be at odds. I mean they always have been right?

They always will be because it isn't the believers fault. Satan doesn't like God and until every mention of God is gone he will always be at odds with believers.

I says right here in the Bible in the story of creation what happened. Then later the generations of man are listed so that we can count up all the years and determine how old the planet really is. Is this what "believing in God" is all about? No. This matter has importance only in arguing that the Bible is correct. Then, by extension, if this is not correct, none of the rest of the Bible can be relied upon either. Right? No. Wrong. Allow for the hand of man messing with scripture and concentrate on what is of essential, eternal importance.

So who determines which scriptures are true and which ones are not?:think:

The day that we all stop arguing with each other over things that don't matter will be the day that Satan is defeated.:evil: I know this to be true.:dance:

You "know this to be true" :wall: I thought truth was relative. :wall:

Satan will be happy when the whole Bible is thrown in the trash. So compromising the Word of the living GOD would only put you one step closer to that objective. You won't obtain bliss with Satan until you give up your entire Bible.

If the old stories, a small part of which make up the Old Testament, survived the 1000's of years without alteration, intact, and if there were not at least two distinct stories of creation in Christian dogma then things might be different. Oh yes folks. There is more than one creation story. The earlier speaks of the Earth being populated with "man" before Adam and Eve in the Garden. This, of course, is the land where Cain went to find a wife. Hey, no more mystery you guys. But why is this important bit not in the King James? Maybe because it was, up till then, found in the Roman (Catholic) version, and still is.

They have survived thousands of years.

<snip>

Besides this it is a historical fact that the Hebrews, having lost the originals long ago, did during an eighty year period, reassemble from the memories of a group of scholars, what we now see in the Old Testament. This is the reason why there are occasional little tidbits of information that seem to be isolated, with out amplification in the present text.

Despite all this I suppose it is a matter of convenience to sort of ignore the true history of the scriptures and simply claim that it is God's Word. Well almost the way God said it. Close enough?

Ahhhhh so we should look to you to determine what is true and what is not. The Bible HAS withstood the test of time. No need to change it unless, that is, there is something in it that doesn't agree with your life style.

Here folks is a great distinction between a conservative and a liberal as regards religion. The liberal will be content to realize that God did, indeed, do the creating with a grand plan but he/she will not bother looking for verifications in the Book which they know to be too sullied by the hand of man over the years.:frown:

wrong and wrong

Jesus had twelve disciples. Peter was their chief. Why do the protestants not preach His word? Well, because he was the one who started the Roman Church and they didn't like the Pope anymore so he, and others, got deleted. Sorry God. It's only Your word when our preachers agree with it.:eh:

"Denominations" exist because people try to remove things from the Bible or add to it.


Sigh..... Yes I believe in God almighty who created the world. I do not believe the Bible verbatim because it is well known to be far from what it might have originally been.

That's a shame you believe in a god that lies to you.

Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
-2 Thessalonians 2:3

I believe that our church is falling away from grasping the truth that Jesus IS Lord and that He is the Truth as the Bible says. Just one more example that we are approaching our Lord's return.

Is all this important? Not really. Heaven awaits us regardless if the Bible is exactly correct or not. What matters is the way we treat each other and how we seem to prefer driving wedges between people when Jesus taught us all just the opposite.:hand:

Um NO.

Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:
-Luke 12:51


In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
-John 1:1


Either those scriptures are just some of those lies or maybe that's why Paul says, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" (2 Timothy 3:16)



It is my sincere belief that God does not give a fig about whether we can find the great truths even when buried in so much distortion or not. The only folk among us who rant on about the need for non-questioning adherence and strict beliefs are those who would stand to lose authority over us if it were known that, well, not everything was exactly correct as presented. The preachers of course. You can be sure their job security is more than a little threatened if we learn to think for ourselves.:think:

Um no...

And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
-John 8:32

If you don't know the Truth you aren't free. And what is the Truth?

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
-John 14:6

Without Jesus we are lost. So yeah, God gives a big crap whether or not we know the truth.

Satan gets a little scared when you know the TRUTH that's why he tries to deceive people into believing that the Bible has lies in it.

Evolution! I forgot evolution! Well, evolution is the merely the continuance of God's creative activities. His will is that the Earth and Humanity advance always and not remain static, but dynamic. This concept is in complete agreement with everything except the flawed story of creation in Genesis.

I believe in evolution and most Bible believing Christians do. But you don't have to throw out Genesis to believe in it.

Einstein did say: "I want to know God's thoughts. The rest are details". No. Sorry. It is not correct that to be a scientist one must be a non-believer. It just means that one embarks upon a journey of discovery in the physical universe with each new realization bringing us closer to God. No intelligent, thinking human can find fault with this.

So are there or aren't there absolutes?

My critics will attack this logic as they always do when the security of the status quo is threatened, saying that Satan is at work here. But note please that my post serves to bring both camps together in thoughtful agreement, not to divide. Which is the more Godly? Division or Union between men?

Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:
-Luke 12:51


God Bless us all in any case. Thank God that in Heaven there will be a common understanding to replace the discord we find here on Earth.

And no, heaven cannot be a place of common understanding because that would mean that God would have to force you to believe something you didn't want to believe.

[THE LIGHT]

I'm sorry, but he/she was right! There's nothing other than unsupported beliefs which distinguishes us from the rest of the animal kingdom.....

Like beliefs in evolutionism.:D

[Abe]

Spinoza's life was at least as meaningful as yours and it was without God.

To be fair, Barukh Spinoza believed in a God. He just didn't believe in God the way other Jews do.

[THE LIGHT]

You do know a theory isn't a guess?

Theory
THE'ORY, n. [L. theoria; Gr. to see or contemplate.]

1. Speculation; a doctrine or scheme of things, which terminates in speculation or contemplation, without a view to practice. It is here taken in an unfavorable sense, as implying something visionary.

2. An exposition of the general principles of any science; as the theory of music.

3. The science distinguished from the art; as the theory and practice of medicine.

4. The philosophical explanation of phenomena, either physical or moral; as Lavoisier's theory of combustion; Smith's theory of moral sentiments.

Theory is distinguished from hypothesis thus; a theory is founded on inferences drawn from principles which have been established on independent evidence; a hypothesis is a proposition assumed to account for certain phenomena, and has no other evidence of its truth, than that it affords a satisfactory explanation of those phenomena.

Theory may not be a blind guess but it still is a guess

[Clintville]

That adds to the misconception of evolution.

No it doesn't. How?

Ever asked yourself why Darwin,in his crisis of faith,chose as he did,when he did?
You mean the story of him renouncing his views and committing to Jesus on his deathbed. Sorry, that is a false. It was made up by an evangelist. She wasn't with him when he died. Darwin died with the same beliefs he lived with.

Just goes to show you have far some will go to try and discredit evolution. The whole "death bed conversion" thing wasn't a unique thing among fundamentalist Christians. In fact, they did the same to Darwin's dad.

[davetexas]

Dave, would you consider the teaching of gravitational theory, atomic theory, germ theory in public schools to be likewise an "agenda"...?? Remember, the theory of evolution enjoys MORE evidentiary support than any of those other scientific theories...!



No 'theft' required. I am a eukaryote. I am a vertebrate. I am a mammal. I am a hominid. I AM an animal....!



Not so. Many of the higher orders of vertebrates have very well developed and observable 'rules' of behaviour for both their offspring and other members of their groups.



No morals are absolute. If they were, we'd still be keeping slaves and burning witches....



And how's that "modesty mechanism" strategy workin'...? My understanding is that, under the Bush years of 'abstinence first', teen pregnancies soared, as did the rates of std infection...



Most of the "shame and guilt" I see being promoted by those with a religious agenda...



Now you're just being silly....



But, dammit, what if it's the WRONG god you're standing before.....!!

there is only one God

The prophet Elijah proved that

[Clintville]

Theory may not be a blind guess but it still is a guess
Okay, I should have said "scientific theory". It isn't a guess. It is the only credible explanation to a phenomenon. Saying "it is just a theory" does not weaken any credibility. A theory can only be discredited with evidence that disproves it.

[Clintville]

Like beliefs in evolutionism.:D
Except that is supported. By pretty much everyone.

[davetexas]

No it doesn't. How?

You mean the story of him renouncing his views and committing to Jesus on his deathbed. Sorry, that is a false. It was made up by an evangelist. She wasn't with him when he died. Darwin died with the same beliefs he lived with.

Just goes to show you have far some will go to try and discredit evolution. The whole "death bed conversion" thing wasn't a unique thing among fundamentalist Christians. In fact, they did the same to Darwin's dad.


You don't have to discredit it. It can not be proven. It only exists in the minds of men

[captusa]

there is only one God

The prophet Elijah proved that

How?
Is it because of something written in an old text of dubious origin ?
The Iliad is a text older than the Bible that proves there were lots of Gods.
All immortal so whenyou die and are faced with Gods you will have to contend with several Deities that you have called imaginary.
And Posiedon can kick YHVH's butt and his big brother is tougher.
You have your beliefs in your Deity.
The concepts of those beliefs are subject of discussion on a religion forum.
I don't expect you to accept my point of view.
There is absolutely no reason for me to accept your point of view.
You believe the Bible is the word of God.
Several of those that do not share your belief point out that there are facts theat seem to contradict some of those beliefs which you described as beyond reason.
It is certain that I know more about the history and literate background of several versions of the Bible (not as much as several others on the forum) than you know about science.
When you insist that your point of view is the only one possible, there is no reason why I should not make you aware of equally credible or incredible beliefs.

[captusa]

You don't have to discredit it. It can not be proven. It only exists in the minds of men

Not unlike the belief that the Bible was divinely inspired or that it is not a collections of folk tales and exaggerations.

[Clintville]

You don't have to discredit it. It can not be proven. It only exists in the minds of men
And God exists where?

And no, it actually has a lot of evidence supporting it. And evolution has been proven. Creationists call it micro evolution, but in reality they are the same thing.

[natalie addict]

This thread is beginning to remind me of the Argument Clinic Sketch from Monty Python.....
(Walk down the corridor)
M: (Knock)
A: Come in.
M: Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?
A: I told you once.
M: No you haven't.
A: Yes I have.
M: When?
A: Just now.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't
A: I did!
M: You didn't!
A: I'm telling you I did!
M: You did not!!
A: Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
M: Oh, just the five minutes.
A: Ah, thank you. Anyway, I did.
M: You most certainly did not.
A: Look, let's get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you.
M: No you did not.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't.
A: Did.
M: Oh look, this isn't an argument.
A: Yes it is.
M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
A: No it isn't.
M: It is!
A: It is not.
M: Look, you just contradicted me.
A: I did not.
M: Oh you did!!
A: No, no, no.
M: You did just then.
A: Nonsense!
M: Oh, this is futile!
A: No it isn't.
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
A: Yes it is!
M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
A: No it isn't.
M: It is.
A: Not at all.
M: Now look.
A: (Rings bell) Good Morning.
M: What?
A: That's it. Good morning.
M: I was just getting interested.
A: Sorry, the five minutes is up.
M: That was never five minutes!
A: I'm afraid it was.
M: It wasn't.
Pause
A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue anymore.
M: What?!
A: If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.
M: Yes, but that was never five minutes, just now. Oh come on!
A: (Hums)
M: Look, this is ridiculous.
A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid!
M: Oh, all right.
(pays money)
A: Thank you.
short pause
M: Well?
A: Well what?
M: That wasn't really five minutes, just now.
A: I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid.
M: I just paid!
A: No you didn't.
M: I DID!
A: No you didn't.
M: Look, I don't want to argue about that.
A: Well, you didn't pay.
M: Aha. If I didn't pay, why are you arguing? I Got you!
A: No you haven't.
M: Yes I have. If you're arguing, I must have paid.
A: Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.
M: Oh I've had enough of this.
A: No you haven't.
M: Oh Shut up.

[THE LIGHT]

Except that is supported. By pretty much everyone.

:)) Yeah that's real scientific.

It is supported by pretty much everyone that supporst it. :))

Yep... okay

[THE LIGHT]

Okay, I should have said "scientific theory". It isn't a guess. It is the only credible explanation to a phenomenon. Saying "it is just a theory" does not weaken any credibility. A theory can only be discredited with evidence that disproves it.

but remains a theory until evidence is found to prove it as fact.

[captusa]

This thread is beginning to remind me of the Argument Clinic Sketch from Monty Python.....

My chairperson pointed out that:
An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition
is an excellent definition of an arguement.
BTW My son has a similar sense of humor to mine and he was surprised that the Flying Circus would work live when I told him about Monty Python at the Hollywood Bowl.
Have you seen it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_WRFJwGsbY

Questionable language and a knowledge of philosphy necessary.

[natalie addict]

My chairperson pointed out that:

is an excellent definition of an arguement.
BTW My son has a similar sense of humor to mine and he was surprised that the Flying Circus would work live when I told him about Monty Python at the Hollywood Bowl.
Have you seen it.

I've sections of it on the bonus feature bits on the A&E DVD's of the the show. It's rather different to see the boys doing it live...

Speaking of which I just finished watching season 4 of SNL on DVD and Eric Idle was the host for a show. The musical guest was Kate Bush who rarely did TV appearences then and now. I always was a Kate Bush fan and those early performances of hers in the late 70's were simply staggering. I had to watch them over and over again.

[Clintville]

:)) Yeah that's real scientific.

It is supported by pretty much everyone that supporst it. :))

Yep... okay
No, I mean it is supported by everyone. And by everyone, I mean people that actually matter on the issue, not regular people like me and you.

[captusa]

but remains a theory until evidence is found to prove it as fact.

It is accepted as a fact until any reasonable amount of contrary evience emerges to contradict 150+ years of supporting evidence or a theory with a reasonable amount of supporting evidence emerges that give an explaination of the origin of species that are at least as consistant with observable facts as the present theory of evolution.

[Clintville]

but remains a theory until evidence is found to prove it as fact.
Something such as evolution cannot become a law. Theories and laws are two different things. Evolution so far is the only real explanation for the how life is the way it is.

[THE LIGHT]

Something such as evolution cannot become a law. Theories and laws are two different things. Evolution so far is the only real explanation for the how life is the way it is.

Besides Intelligent Design, yes it is an explanation.

[THE LIGHT]

No, I mean it is supported by everyone. And by everyone, I mean people that actually matter on the issue, not regular people like me and you.

They only matter as long as they support the issue. :))

[Clintville]

Besides Intelligent Design, yes it is an explanation.
No, it isn't.

[THE LIGHT]

It is accepted as a fact until any reasonable amount of contrary evience emerges to contradict 150+ years of supporting evidence or a theory with a reasonable amount of supporting evidence emerges that give an explaination of the origin of species that are at least as consistant with observable facts as the present theory of evolution.

Evolutionism has no supporting evidence. Just a slew of hoaxes waiting for the subsequent to be disproven.

[Clintville]

They only matter as long as they support the issue. :))
No, they only matter if they are scientists and use the scientific method. Evolution has passed that. Any attempt to run any religion through there would not.

Come to think of it, evolution has been confirmed, micro-evolution can be seen.

[THE LIGHT]

No, it isn't.

Evolution isn't an explanation?

[Clintville]

Evolutionism has no supporting evidence. Just a slew of hoaxes waiting for the subsequent to be disproven.
Well, how do you know they are hoaxes if they are not yet disproved. That is what distinguishes a scientist from you. They wouldn't think something is a hoax unless they had evidence that it is one.

[natalie addict]

No, it isn't.

Monthy Python strikes again!

[THE LIGHT]

No, they only matter if they are scientists and use the scientific method. Evolution has passed that. Any attempt to run any religion through there would not.

Come to think of it, evolution has been confirmed, micro-evolution can be seen.

Yes!!!! we agree! :hug:

I believe in micro evolution too! That is the ONLY scientific part of evolution and it happens to be a part of ID as well.

[Clintville]

Evolution isn't an explanation?
No, I was saying intelligent design is not a theory.

[Clintville]

Yes!!!! we agree! :hug:

I believe in micro evolution too! That is the ONLY scientific part of evolution and it happens to be a part of ID as well.
And there isn't a difference of micro evolution and macro evolution, they are terms used by creationists to try and discredit evolution (or the part of evolution that would disprove a part of their religious book).

[Clintville]

Monthy Python strikes again!
Hey, at least I am right! So that makes it okay, right?

[natalie addict]

Hey, at least I am right! So that makes it okay, right?

No, it doesn't.

[natalie addict]

Yes!!!! we agree! :hug:

I believe in micro evolution too! That is the ONLY scientific part of evolution and it happens to be a part of ID as well.

That's like saying you're only a little pregnant.

[THE LIGHT]

Well, how do you know they are hoaxes if they are not yet disproved. That is what distinguishes a scientist from you. They wouldn't think something is a hoax unless they had evidence that it is one.


Well, if they created the hoax then yeah, I guess they wouldn't think it was a hoax.

There have been many hoaxes in the line of evolutionism's history.

[THE LIGHT]

No, I was saying intelligent design is not a theory.

Please tell me what the difference is between the two that makes evolutionism a theory and ID not a theory. Because scientifically everything that is applied to the facts is a theory. Some just explain the phenomenon better and have a closer fit to the data. And don't tell me it's loads of evidence because the only facts that exist are those of micro evolution.

[THE LIGHT]

And there isn't a difference of micro evolution and macro evolution, they are terms used by creationists to try and discredit evolution (or the part of evolution that would disprove a part of their religious book).

There is a big difference. Micro evolution is change within a kind and CAN be OBSERVED which is what makes it scientific. Macro evolution is what evolutionists think happened. They hope it happened. They believe it happened, but all the hoping, praying, and believing in the world doesn't make it fact because it is neither observable nor disprovable, thus it is NOT scientific.

[Clintville]

Well, if they created the hoax then yeah, I guess they wouldn't think it was a hoax.

There have been many hoaxes in the line of evolutionism's history.
Those hoaxes were found out by scientists. Are there any investigations problems with current fossils?

[Clintville]

Please tell me what the difference is between the two that makes evolutionism a theory and ID not a theory. Because scientifically everything that is applied to the facts is a theory. Some just explain the phenomenon better and have a closer fit to the data. And don't tell me it's loads of evidence because the only facts that exist are those of micro evolution.
Can ID pass the scientific method?

[Clintville]

There is a big difference. Micro evolution is change within a kind and CAN be OBSERVED which is what makes it scientific. Macro evolution is what evolutionists think happened. They hope it happened. They believe it happened, but all the hoping, praying, and believing in the world doesn't make it fact because it is neither observable nor disprovable, thus it is NOT scientific.
Except for all the fossils.

[James-Jacob-Yaqub]

Please tell me what the difference is between the two that makes evolutionism a theory and ID not a theory. Because scientifically everything that is applied to the facts is a theory. Some just explain the phenomenon better and have a closer fit to the data. And don't tell me it's loads of evidence because the only facts that exist are those of micro evolution.



It is understandable that one should ask this question. There are two definitions of the word, "theory" at play here.

First: In common usage "theory" can refer to an idea or a supposition that might explain something. eg: "I have a theory about who stole my car."

Second: In science, "theory" means something quite different. A theory is born of a series of discoveries which lead the inquisitor to a certain solution to the question. But, before that solution can be accepted as a theory it must first pass much rigorous testing by other independent scholars, scientists. Part of this testing are attempts to prove it false. If the supposed solution survives all this and if it passes through all the arguing that will follow to the point it is accepted by most institutions then it most likely will become a "scientific theory".


Let me add here that if we want "Intelligent Design" to be given equal status then it must first pass the SAME testing that any other proposition is subjected to. This is unlikely to happen since we can find no evidence in nature of it.

Last: If the time comes that reasonable scientific evidence of ID is discovered I give you my personal guarantee that scientists will treat it as plausible and will subject it to the same harsh testing that they do any other body of evidence. :angel:

Scientists do not play favorites when it comes to discovery. They "go" where the evidence leads them. Period.

JJY

[keratin]

There is a big difference. Micro evolution is change within a kind and CAN be OBSERVED which is what makes it scientific. Macro evolution is what evolutionists think happened. They hope it happened. They believe it happened, but all the hoping, praying, and believing in the world doesn't make it fact because it is neither observable nor disprovable, thus it is NOT scientific.

Ok, A: there is no such thing as kind. Kind is some pseudo-classification that defies all definition and is plastic enough that it can be moved about to say 'ah but yadda-yadda is till a yadda-yadda'. B: Macroevolution is by definition the accumulation of microevolutionary events that result in speciation.

This has been proven, observed, etc...multiple times...mostly in plants but still there are some proposed animal examples especially when it comes to insects and parasites.

And then as Clint has said there is an exceedingly large amount of fossil evidence that shows transition between taxon. They even experimented and tested the idea. They saw the fish-amphibian fossil evidence had a gap of about 20 million years, between Eustenopteron and Icthyostega. The scientists being scientists didn't freak out they knew about the hit and miss nature of the fossil record, but being scientists they also thought about it. They knew what traits this transitional organism should have and what kind of locations they had found its predecessors and antecedents so they used plate tectonics to predict the location of the fossils. They then went and looked for the fossil at the suggested sites...and wouldn't it beat all that they actually found a fossil organism with the traits predicted by the scientists....So tell me again how evolution can't be tested, make predictions or have experiments done?

ID has no such predictive ability. Behe has tried making predictions in the past and the evidence has proved him wrong. This has resulted in his prediction being 'when I find an irreducibly complex organ I'll know and you'll be sorry....you'll all be sorry, MWAHAHAHAHA!" *Mwahahahas added by me for effect*. What tests it has proffered have failed...and it's basic tennent is one that is more or less unverifiable. In other words at best it's a theory that is no longer viable due to its own experimental failings and at worst was never viable due to it's very non-scientific nature.

[keratin]

Something such as evolution cannot become a law. Theories and laws are two different things. Evolution so far is the only real explanation for the how life is the way it is.

Actually the use of the word law has gone out of fashion...there is no real transition between a exceptionally well evidenced theory and a law. This can be shown in Newton's Laws of Motion which....are actually complete crap...when you get down to being accurate and correct explanations of the universe (useful in everyday life...and some of the big things) but they make for poor explanations of a good chunk of the universe (hence the need for Einsteinian physics). I suspect there are certain mathmatical laws....but that's math.

[THE LIGHT]

Ok, A: there is no such thing as kind. Kind is some pseudo-classification that defies all definition and is plastic enough that it can be moved about to say 'ah but yadda-yadda is till a yadda-yadda'. B: Macroevolution is by definition the accumulation of microevolutionary events that result in speciation.

Kind means that a plant will always be a plant and an animal will always be an animal. Furthermore it means that a dog will always be a dog no matter how much it evolves. Yes a wolf looks different than a Chihuahua and yes they probably did have a common ancestor but no it was not a rock, it was a DOG. That is what kind means and kind IS scientifically observable. On the other hand, macroevolution has NEVER been observed and NEVER can be. Ask an evolutionist to show you an example and he will always show you an example of microevolution and say, just as you did, that macro evolution is a culmination of many small changes. But that is completely unobservable, unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific. No one has seen a dog turn into a horse (or whatever else).

This has been proven, observed, etc...multiple times...mostly in plants but still there are some proposed animal examples especially when it comes to insects and parasites.

It has only been observed that the plants evolve into plants but they are still plants, and the insects evolve into insects but they are still insects. That is all that has been observed and proven and in no way proves that Humans came from slime.

And then as Clint has said there is an exceedingly large amount of fossil evidence that shows transition between taxon.

Oooo bold print term boys and girls. That will for sure be on the exam. :lol:

And taxonomists can't even agree on what belongs in each taxonomic group so don't even go there.

They even experimented and tested the idea. They saw the fish-amphibian fossil evidence had a gap of about 20 million years, between Eustenopteron and Icthyostega.

Wow:drool: 20 miiiiiiiillion years :drool:

Hmmm how did they know it was 20 million years? Are you sure it wasn't 21 million or maybe 19?

The scientists being scientists didn't freak out they knew about the hit and miss nature of the fossil record,

There is no fossil "record" there are just fossils in the ground.

but being scientists they also thought about it. They knew what traits this transitional organism should have

How would you know what a transitional organism would look like if you have never seen one?

and what kind of locations they had found its predecessors and antecedents so they used plate tectonics to predict the location of the fossils. They then went and looked for the fossil at the suggested sites...and wouldn't it beat all that they actually found a fossil organism with the traits predicted by the scientists....So tell me again how evolution can't be tested, make predictions or have experiments done?

Wouldn't it beat all, they didn't tell you that they found them everywhere else too. That proves nothing.

ID has no such predictive ability. Behe has tried making predictions in the past and the evidence has proved him wrong. This has resulted in his prediction being 'when I find an irreducibly complex organ I'll know and you'll be sorry....you'll all be sorry, MWAHAHAHAHA!" *Mwahahahas added by me for effect*. What tests it has proffered have failed...and it's basic tennent is one that is more or less unverifiable. In other words at best it's a theory that is no longer viable due to its own experimental failings and at worst was never viable due to it's very non-scientific nature.

When I say ID I am talking about there being someone that created us and not specifically the Judeo Christian God. The proof of that as being the "someone" that created us can be left for another discussion. Having said that, ID is much more observable in that just like micro evolution it can be observed that all things in our environment must be created by a creator. No, solar panels can not create themselves and if I set all of the components in a pile out in the sun no amount of millions of billions of years would assemble those components into a working solar panel.

[THE LIGHT]

It is understandable that one should ask this question. There are two definitions of the word, "theory" at play here.

First: In common usage "theory" can refer to an idea or a supposition that might explain something. eg: "I have a theory about who stole my car."

Second: In science, "theory" means something quite different. A theory is born of a series of discoveries which lead the inquisitor to a certain solution to the question. But, before that solution can be accepted as a theory it must first pass much rigorous testing by other independent scholars, scientists. Part of this testing are attempts to prove it false. If the supposed solution survives all this and if it passes through all the arguing that will follow to the point it is accepted by most institutions then it most likely will become a "scientific theory".

Theory
THE'ORY, n. [L. theoria; Gr. to see or contemplate.]

1. Speculation; a doctrine or scheme of things, which terminates in speculation or contemplation, without a view to practice. It is here taken in an unfavorable sense, as implying something visionary.

2. An exposition of the general principles of any science; as the theory of music.

3. The science distinguished from the art; as the theory and practice of medicine.

4. The philosophical explanation of phenomena, either physical or moral; as Lavoisier's theory of combustion; Smith's theory of moral sentiments.

Theory is distinguished from hypothesis thus; a theory is founded on inferences drawn from principles which have been established on independent evidence; a hypothesis is a proposition assumed to account for certain phenomena, and has no other evidence of its truth, than that it affords a satisfactory explanation of those phenomena.

Yes, as we can see by the definition, "theory" is more often denoted as a hypothesis but in no way requires extensive peer review. Anyone can come up with a hypothesis to describe a phenomenon and only through testing and observing can one be found to be a better fit than another. In this case ID is a much better fit and is much more observable.

Let me add here that if we want "Intelligent Design" to be given equal status then it must first pass the SAME testing that any other proposition is subjected to. This is unlikely to happen since we can find no evidence in nature of it.

It would pass if it were given a FAIR chance and you know that. You can see it with Global Warming (which is a religion by the way) today. Three hundred plus "scientists" can stand up against the minority of frauds and say that Global Warming is a lie and yet they are told to shut up and that if you don't "believe" yep thats right "believe" in Global Warming then you aren't a "scientist." So give me a break.

Last: If the time comes that reasonable scientific evidence of ID is discovered I give you my personal guarantee that scientists will treat it as plausible and will subject it to the same harsh testing that they do any other body of evidence. :angel:


“Getting rid of the idea of God freed me up to my erotic desires.” | Bertrand Russell

“[I suppose the reason that] we all jumped at the origin [of species] was that the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores.” | Sir Julian Huxley, Leading Evolutionist of his day and first Director-General of UNESCO

“Evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of God...and if Jesus was not the redeemer who dies for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.” | G. Richard Bozarth, American Atheist

There is more evidence for a creator than for macroevolution and you know that. They just do not want to accept it because they want to believe the way they want to believe and that is it PERIOD.

Scientists do not play favorites when it comes to discovery. They "go" where the evidence leads them. Period.

They go where their own lusts lead them and that is to stamping out all existence of the idea of a creator. They will even create hoaxes so that they don't have to face the reality that their theory is a lie.

[THE LIGHT]

Except for all the fossils.

Fossils in the ground prove nothing.

[Clintville]

When I say ID I am talking about there being someone that created us and not specifically the Judeo Christian God. The proof of that as being the "someone" that created us can be left for another discussion. Having said that, ID is much more observable in that just like micro evolution it can be observed that all things in our environment must be created by a creator. No, solar panels can not create themselves and if I set all of the components in a pile out in the sun no amount of millions of billions of years would assemble those components into a working solar panel.
Okay, explain how it passes the scientific method.

[Clintville]

Fossils in the ground prove nothing.
Transition fossils millions of years old don't. Fossils of early man don't? What, do you think dinosaurs and every other species that ever existed (about 99% of those are extinct) were walking the Earth with humans? Then they all somehow went extinct for no reason.

[Clintville]

It would pass if it were given a FAIR chance and you know that.

How? Please explain how it can get passed being a hypothesis?


They go where their own lusts lead them and that is to stamping out all existence of the idea of a creator. They will even create hoaxes so that they don't have to face the reality that their theory is a lie.
Yeah, the hoaxes were more likely them trying to gain fame, not a conspiracy to destroy religion. And we have already been over Christians trying to create false stories about Darwin's death.

[keratin]

Kind means that a plant will always be a plant and an animal will always be an animal. Furthermore it means that a dog will always be a dog no matter how much it evolves. Yes a wolf looks different than a Chihuahua and yes they probably did have a common ancestor but no it was not a rock, it was a DOG. That is what kind means and kind IS scientifically observable. On the other hand, macroevolution has NEVER been observed and NEVER can be.

Note how the definition of kind is such that if you did find a population of dogs that were no longer in fact dog-like (they evolved claws that allowed them to climb trees and didn't bark but rather communicated by whistles) and that they didn't reproduce with dogs, the definition is lax enough for the creationist to say 'but they're still mammals; it doesn't count' so then you find a group that are obviously actually mammals but don't have mammalian characteristics (cold-blooded, multi-boned lower jaws, no milk production, no hair) the definition is lax enough for the creationist to say 'well that doesn't count their still animals' and so you find an organism that in fact photosynthesises (via endosymbiotic union with a parasitic cyanobacteria) doesn't move save for in a short larval stage, the creationist can still say 'well it's still a kind of eukaryote so doesn't count' on and on and on...until you'd have find something that had at one time been a living thing and then evolved a derived state of abioticness (and even then certain creationists would say 'it's still a kind of matter...doesn't count'). Hence, why 'kind' is a useless word and only the use of precisely defined terms should be used.

So you're saying that a dog...which is a different species than a wolf....had a common ancestor and since then have diverged to the point of speciation? Thank you for proving my point that macroevolution has been observed.

I note that you completely ignored my proper definition of macroevolution as well...because of course...once you realize that macroevolution is simply speciation and that speciation has been observed...then you can't say that macroeveolution hasn't been observed.

For that matter there's a whole suite of organisms that one would find hard to define as plant or animal (many Protists exhibit both plant and animal physiology).

Ask an evolutionist to show you an example and he will always show you an example of microevolution and say, just as you did, that macro evolution is a culmination of many small changes. But that is completely unobservable, unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific. No one has seen a dog turn into a horse (or whatever else).

No, he'll show you an example of macroevolution, of one population of a species diverging to such an extent that it's a new species...at which point, in a bout of frustrated ignorance you'll state that it doesn't count because you think it should turn into an abiotic lump of matter like a rock!

It has only been observed that the plants evolve into plants but they are still plants, and the insects evolve into insects but they are still insects. That is all that has been observed and proven and in no way proves that Humans came from slime.

Well, if you want to wait around another 3 billion years to see if your moldy bread slaps you in the face for making absurd demands be my guest...I on the other hand am quite happy with the genetic and historical data collected by fellow biologists that show that humans are derived from primates (genetics, fossils), which are derived from a tree shrew (which aren't true shrews but are in another group of mammals, again genetics and fossils), which in turn were derived from ancestral mammals which were derived from synaspid reptiles (absurd amount of fossil evidence as well as extant evidence such as monotremes have characteristics of both reptiles [reptilians eggs, somewhat ectothermic] as well as mammals [mammary glands but no nipple, fur, complete set of inner ear bones]), those synapsid reptiles were derived from reptile-like amphibians (a group that is ill defined due to the fact that scientists can't decide if the fossil is that of an amphibian or a reptile...), reptile-like amphibians were derived from amphibians which were derived from sarcopterygian fish (extensive fossil and genetic evidence) which were derived lower fish such as lamprey; Vertebrata split from Cephlachordata from a likely most common ancestor which was a paedomorphic Urochordate, which along with Echinoderms possibly split away from the other animals (proteostomes) at a common ancestor that was not unlike the extant Chaetegnatha (biochemical and developmental evidence), after that it admittedly gets muddy....but in other parts of the lower animal kingdom there is plenty of extant evidence that animals like sponges (Porifera) are derived from choanoflagellates (a single-celled organism).

And then there's the chlorella that in the course of a weekend went from a single-celled organism to a colonial organism due to pressures from a predatory paramecium population (which I mean colonial organisms are thought to be one of the stepping stones towards multicellularism...so if a group of organisms under intense natural selection can go from single-celled to colonial...in a weekend....think of what can be done in three billion years of weekends....).

Oooo bold print term boys and girls. That will for sure be on the exam. :lol:

And taxonomists can't even agree on what belongs in each taxonomic group so don't even go there.

Yes, there are disagreements in taxonomy, but that's not because taxonomists don't know what they are doing, but rather because over the course of the last 20 years the absolute explosion in genetic and cytological and physiological data being collected (some of which disproves early classification by superficial traits). But I'm pretty sure that taxonomists have birds in a monophyletic group...in fact they have tetrapods in a monophyletic group. And there have been observation of speciation in birds and other tetrapods....so...my point still stands.

Wow:drool: 20 miiiiiiiillion years :drool:

Hmmm how did they know it was 20 million years? Are you sure it wasn't 21 million or maybe 19?


It was by dating the fossils of the previously known ancestral species and then looking back at the next fossil specimen, and subtracting those two dates...but maybe we shouldn't expect too much of kindergarten mathmatics....it could be a little overtaxing.


There is no fossil "record" there are just fossils in the ground.

Let's see...fossils are mineralized bones of organisms that have perished....furthermore many are bones of organisms no longer extant...that would suggest to me...a record...of fossilization which would suggest a fossil record. Nevermind that it's been shown that strata and radiometric dating are very stable forms measuring time passage when used properly.

How would you know what a transitional organism would look like if you have never seen one?

Well, I would look at the two organisms at the either side of the gap, analyze comparable physiology and surmise the changes needed to get from group A to group B (it wouldn't be that difficult in fact I find it slightly sad that I'd have explain something this simple since it's basic deductive reasoning). Bit like surmising birds are derived from reptiles. We know what a bird is, we know what a reptile is and we hypothesized what changes would need to be made to get from birds to reptiles...and found such an organism.

Wouldn't it beat all, they didn't tell you that they found them everywhere else too. That proves nothing.

Except of course they didn't.


When I say ID I am talking about there being someone that created us and not specifically the Judeo Christian God.

Actually so did Behe....multiple times. Didn't change the fact that the eyeball isn't irreduceably complex, nor the flagella of a bacteria, but that's largely because Behe's theory flatly ignores the fact that evolution isn't simply additive but it's reductive as well and capable of creating and then losing auxillary components....

The proof of that as being the "someone" that created us can be left for another discussion. Having said that, ID is much more observable in that just like micro evolution it can be observed that all things in our environment must be created by a creator. No, solar panels can not create themselves and if I set all of the components in a pile out in the sun no amount of millions of billions of years would assemble those components into a working solar panel.

It is? I have never observed or found any evidence for a creation event...I've found plenty of evidence for natural forces modifying multiple organisms to fit niches and adapt to environments, some of the organisms making great changes in form over course of millions of years. But never once any kind of evidence for a creator.

Well the components of a solar panel don't tend to reproduce or have a reproductive component to them now do they? The analogy is fallacious.

However, if those components did reproduce, and say if some of the components that were capable of undergoing symbiosis with other components reproduced more efficiently than those that did not (Because they could capture and store more solar energy)....and thusly produced more symbiotic solar panel components than the non-symbiotic solar panel components then over a course of time (probably surprisingly fast if the selection pressures were strong enough) you'd have a completely symbiotic complex that collected and stored energy from the sun by bringing a photoelectric plate to bare towards the sun...ie a solar panel.

[keratin]

It would pass if it were given a FAIR chance and you know that.



It was given a fair chance. Behe made a charge that the eye, the immune complement system and the flagella of bacterium were irreducibly complex, and that only a creator could explain it....Unfortunately for Behe, a scientist 80 years before him had already proposed and shown that all of those things were in fact quite capable of developing without the ineffable help of a creator (and then Behe was shown it again by scientists working on complement systems and eyes and bacterium flagella). Dr. Behe then cried about how that's not what he meant and that he meant something else and then was forced to admit that maybe those particular examples weren't in fact irreducibly complex but that when he found an irreducibly complex complex that it would prove that there was an intelligent designer...



They will even create hoaxes so that they don't have to face the reality that their theory is a lie.


You mean like John Morris of ICR and his continued use of the Paluxy River tracks as evidence that man and dinosaur walked the same path....oh wait...no....sorry ICR is a creationist outfit....

[captusa]

Actually the use of the word law has gone out of fashion...there is no real transition between a exceptionally well evidenced theory and a law. This can be shown in Newton's Laws of Motion which....are actually complete crap...when you get down to being accurate and correct explanations of the universe (useful in everyday life...and some of the big things) but they make for poor explanations of a good chunk of the universe (hence the need for Einsteinian physics). I suspect there are certain mathmatical laws....but that's math.

There are inconsistancies in Newton's Laws of Motion and Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation but they supplied science with useful information that has been extremely useful.
Actually crap is a very poor description of principles that have guided science and technology for several centuries.

To my knowledge the Pythagorean Theorem cannot be proven without proving Euclid parallel postulate which has been proven to be unprovable.
Even if it is not provable it is extremely useful.
Actually considered the most important mathematic equation in history.

[keratin]

There are inconsistancies in Newton's Laws of Motion and Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation but they supplied science with useful information that has been extremely useful.
Actually crap is a very poor description of principles that have guided science and technology for several centuries.

To my knowledge the Pythagorean Theorem cannot be proven without proving Euclid parallel postulate which has been proven to be unprovable.
Even if it is not provable it is extremely useful.
Actually considered the most important mathematic equation in history.

Useful yes, providing an actual working model of the universe as a whole, no, it does a crappy job of it...I never stated it was useless, just no longer as valid as the word 'law' would suggest...if it was a law it would be a crap law because it wouldn't be applicable to all instances.

[captusa]

Please tell me what the difference is between the two that makes evolutionism a theory and ID not a theory. Because scientifically everything that is applied to the facts is a theory. Some just explain the phenomenon better and have a closer fit to the data. And don't tell me it's loads of evidence because the only facts that exist are those of micro evolution.

A theory is an assumption or set of assumptions based on the developement of a hypothesis.
A hypothesis is an organized assumption that has been refined to a point where it can be examined and evidence can be gathered that either supports or denies the hypothesis.
Intelligent Design is a conjecture.
It has not been formulated into a clear hypothesis.
Some examples used to supply evidence to concepts proposed by those promoting ID like irreducable complexity have been shown to be invalid.

If Intelligent Design is developed into a theory with evidence that is consistant with observable or perceivable reality and explains the origin of species it can be evaluted.

Darwin's original theories were quite primitive and 150+ years of scientific discovery have corrected and refined many of his original hypotheses.

Read Newton's treatises on physics and gravity and see how his theories differ from a conjecture that is equal in validity as Intelligent Design and might even have less of a chance of being developed into a hypothesis or theory than ID.


Things fall because there is an intelligent being that wants them to fall.
An Intelligent designer has created thiings that he wants to pull down and things he doesn't.
It must have been an intelligent designer because everything that falls is consistant with the fact that it should have fallen.
I will call it Intelligent Falling and introduce it as an alternative to Newton's and Einstein's theories of gravity.

[captusa]

Useful yes, providing an actual working model of the universe as a whole, no, it does a crappy job of it...I never stated it was useless, just no longer as valid as the word 'law' would suggest...if it was a law it would be a crap law because it wouldn't be applicable to all instances.

How about settling on the statement that identifying the conclusions from Newton's research as laws is a misnomer.

I am not the most tactful person in the world but I think my statement is more accurate than Newton's laws are a crap.

Discretion keeps me from describing indentifying of conjectures like Intelligent Designs as hypotheses or theories as crap, even if they might be crap.

[THE LIGHT]

There are inconsistancies in Newton's Laws of Motion and Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation but they supplied science with useful information that has been extremely useful.
Actually crap is a very poor description of principles that have guided science and technology for several centuries.

To my knowledge the Pythagorean Theorem cannot be proven without proving Euclid parallel postulate which has been proven to be unprovable.
Even if it is not provable it is extremely useful.
Actually considered the most important mathematic equation in history.

Pray tell, how is Macro evolution useful? Oh yes, how could I forget. The final solution.:doh:

[captusa]

Originally Posted by Greyclouds
.......2. That the discussion does not turn into a "gotcha" style of debate. Socratic method is fine and preferable.
Isn't the Socratic method of debate to ask questions to get you to contradict your own original premises ?
Essential to get someone supply his own gotcha to his ideas.

It is not surprising that he made enough enemies to have a consensus of making him drink the hemlock cocktail.
Of course the representation of his wife did give him reason to join the consensus.

Xanthippe is often used as the synonym for bitch in many cultures.




Not unlike the dialogue between Churchill and Lady Astor.

Lady Astor: Winston, If I was married to you, I would poison your tea.
Churchill: If I was married to you, I would drink it.

[THE LIGHT]

How? Please explain how it can get passed being a hypothesis?


Yeah, the hoaxes were more likely them trying to gain fame, not a conspiracy to destroy religion. And we have already been over Christians trying to create false stories about Darwin's death.

You mean Darwin didn't die from eating a friends apple pie? Where have I been all these years?:D

[keratin]

Pray tell, how is Macro evolution useful? Oh yes, how could I forget. The final solution.:doh:

Hitler's final solution is a horrible use of evolution and gene theory. Because Hitler was attempting to restrict the gene pool into recessive genes...and thusly evolution would've proved his plan to be a failure of cancer and other genetic diseases thus showing that Hitler wasn't any more of a practitioner of evolution than you.

Macroevolution's use is in its ability to explain the relationship between organisms which allows us to understand them better and thusly allows us to better understand how they exist in their ecosystems and why they interact the way they do with biotic things like pathogens.

PS: I'd like to thank you for conceding your defeat...Everyone loves a good Godwin...I especially like one that is completely wrong like yours....it makes your concession even better...

[biggles53]

Pray tell, how is Macro evolution useful? Oh yes, how could I forget. The final solution.:doh:

What are you talking about....!?

What do you mean by "useful"? Are you trying to suggest that there has to be some 'purpose' to the whole process of mutation and natural selection? Why is it so difficult to simply observe that it 'just is'....?

When creationists argue "Micro, yes....macro, impossible", to me it's like saying you can take the steps necessary to get to the corner store, but there's no way that you could walk across town....:rolleyes:

[keratin]

What are you talking about....!?

What do you mean by "useful"? Are you trying to suggest that there has to be some 'purpose' to the whole process of mutation and natural selection? Why is it so difficult to simply observe that it 'just is'....?

When creationists argue "Micro, yes....macro, impossible", to me it's like saying you can take the steps necessary to get to the corner store, but there's no way that you could walk across town....:rolleyes:

Exactly, you can reach for the door knob, turn the knob, push the door open and then simply can't walk in....it's silly...

[THE LIGHT]

<snip>

Read Newton's treatises on physics and gravity and see how his theories differ from a conjecture that is equal in validity as Intelligent Design and might even have less of a chance of being developed into a hypothesis or theory than ID.


Things fall because there is an intelligent being that wants them to fall.
An Intelligent designer has created thiings that he wants to pull down and things he doesn't.
It must have been an intelligent designer because everything that falls is consistant with the fact that it should have fallen.
I will call it Intelligent Falling and introduce it as an alternative to Newton's and Einstein's theories of gravity.


Oooo let me try.

Things fall because they evolve and lose unessecary wings thus causeing them to fall.
Things used to not fall but now they do because they have evolved the ability to fall.
Because we can observe that an object falling through air continues to gain velocity it must therefore reach an infinite speed if there is millions of years for it to fall. (False assumption BTW) i.e. a whole bunch of micro-evolutionary steps must equal macro-evolution right?

WRONG