Evolution vs. Creation

So I suppose you ignore wolves, sharks, snakes, murderers, lawmakers, and various other things, creatures as I call em, to have dominion over you? I know I don't control most of those things, nor do I really control any animals I've ever had as pets. I keep them happy and they don't kill me, that's all life is when it comes to control and dominion. I'm not the master of my dogs because they could quite easily kill me, though perhaps you have smaller animals than I.

Then again, maybe you meant to focus entirely on intellect, rather than sheer power of will. I'm fed and worked by my boss, though I wouldn't exactly say he has a higher intellect than I, so perhaps that's a type of dominion we're talking about.

In any case, I'd say the main difference between us at this point is that I'm willing to be apart of the creatures around me as equals insofar as I don't degrade their position in society and because of that I don't fear them having control over my life. All things control us, be it weather, the bills, or the angry dog next door, but that isn't a reason to fear them, but to merely respect their ability to wield some power over our lives. You just regard your respect to a higher power than I, whereas I have no belief that that power exists, so I delegate my own to more individual sources. Just different perspectives on the same concepts.

<CoCo sure was a wiz!But if you put your mind to it I'm sure you too could conquer the art of mimmicking.>

We all do. Do you seriously think anything original is created otherwise? Most of what we do and say has no originality to it. What little originality we may display in our lives, is a direct result of the amount of mimicking we have indulged in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

<CoCo sure was a wiz!But if you put your mind to it I'm sure you too could conquer the art of mimmicking.>

We all do. Do you seriously think anything original is created otherwise? Most of what we do and say has no originality to it. What little originality we may display in our lives, is a direct result of the amount of mimicking we have indulged in.

---

You cant create an original mimmick!That is why you are not a mimmick of an Ape.You are descendant of Man not an evolution of a species that is incapable of expounding.

Quote:

---

You cant create an original mimmick!That is why you are not a mimmick of an Ape.You are descendant of Man not an evolution of a species that is incapable of expounding.

---

It is possible combine two or more 'mimmicks' and create something original by adding something of your own. Animals do this to. Your failure to see this does not mean it does not happen, but I guess ignorance is bliss.

Okmit, I hope this does not offend you but when you were a kid you mimmicked your parents in order to learn how to do the common things you do every day. You cannot seriously believe that animals do not have a different kind of intelligence then you do. What is so scary about the thought of evolving from a ape? Many species that have evolved do not resemble what they originally looked like. Learning sign language is all mimmickering especially when a sentence is form completely on their own. Personally since I was not alive during the time man evolve I could not tell you what or whom we evolved from but I do know we sure did not look like we do today back then. Lucy is a good example of that.

:banana: :banana:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by okmit

You cant create an original mimmick!That is why you are not a mimmick of an Ape.You are descendant of Man not an evolution of a species that is incapable of expounding.

---

I do think that too!!! Maybe I can't express myself freely and expound more on my ideas but youhave said it right. I support you there!!! :banana:

AimusSage,a mimmick is a copy and can never be original.Granted when you add something of your own it would be original but it would no longer be a copy.So tell me,what magical animal feats have I missed?CoCo didnt add any new,or original signs or begin teaching other primates her new skills has she?

It has been said,"God is knowledge,and evil is ignorance."You have no need to become offensive.

Ancestor,I am familiar with that nasty looking creature (Lucy.)I'm certain that had that species had the adaptation skills God gave us they would learn sign language much quicker than CoCo.

There is nothing scary about the thought of evolving from an ape...its just wrong!

tiny explorer,I thank You.I have enjoyed reading your posts also...particularly the last one!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by okmit

Ancestor,I am familiar with that nasty looking creature (Lucy.)I'm certain that had that species had the adaptation skills God gave us they would learn sign language much quicker than CoCo.

There is nothing scary about the thought of evolving from an ape...its just wrong!

---

If Great Spirit had made it that we did actually in fact evolve from a ape how then is it wrong? I am trying to understand your way of thinking here. Chimpazee's who have learned sign language has passed it down to their children without humans encouragment. You cannot judge intelligence based on communication skills that humans use. Animals have a totally different communication skills on their own. You cannot base what we look like today to what we looked like hundreds of thousands of years ago. Iceman that was found a decade ago has been proven to be human and he does not look like the humans of today. Without science backing us up one way or the other how can you stand by your convictions. Mine are always opened to being proven wrong because I do not know for sure if I am correct. I would not be a insult to me if someone to prove me wrong it would be a learning stone I gladly step on. Nothing is written in stone as you go through life for tomorrow is always unwritten. Besides as someone who has learned some sign language I can tell you that is not simple to learn and in fact has more then one dialect.

Great Spirit...Hmmm.
In my second post I stated I was a Christian.We believe God made man in his own image.We dont believe the Great Spirit looks like CoCo,or even Lucy.I'm not seeking converts,only dialogue.I also believe we all have a God given right to be wrong.

On the animal intellect,I am truly amazed by their God given survival instinct.It is a shame they were never able to sharpen those skills to survive the terror of humans.

On not looking now like we looked hundreds of thousands of years ago.I'm affraid your preaching to the choir on that point! I'm 57 years old and every time I shave I wonder where the good looking young guy went that use to look back?

I still look the same as I did when I was in my twenties and now I am in my late thirties. I do not believe in trying to convert anyone to my beliefs or way of thinking and I am looking to be converted either. That for me is morally wrong especially if some is happy with their own faith. Great Spirit is how I choose to call God by and I have no problems you being Christian. Do you know what the Great Spirit looks like? Knowing that humans skeletal remains have shown several different structal changes for humans over a thousands of years. How can we say for sure that the first human being truly looked like the Great Spirit? Do we today look like the Great Spirit? Was it meant to be taken so literal? I am not doubting the Bible only man's interpretation of the Bible. Great Spirit's words may be true but humans are not always so. I meant no disrespect but merely trying to point out that without hard scienfic proof we cannot say what we truly looked like all those years ago. The true question is what does the Great Spirit truly look like. Did he also not creat all life on Earth? I believe that he did create all life and we all are truly different and I thank the Great Spirit for that.

On that same line of thought, it's very possible that the preverbial "Adam" that God spoke to was merely the first man who God got around to talking to. The story about him being made in God's image could've been much more loosely meant, in that God said "I made you in my image" (once upon a time, but you've evolved into who you are now). In any case the idea that a superficial appearance of the deity being closer to us than animals merely overshadows a point of arrogance, more so than accuracy. It doesn't matter if God's image looks like man or if man looks like God because, supposedly, we're all God's creatures. Just because he might've told us he loved us and we rounded up some books and a few dialogues around the globe to get a popular opinion going, doesn't necessarily make it so.

There's just as much possibility of any Great Spirit being plausable as there is for God, and the image of each is just as diverse, because of that interpretation given book. Man writing a book "inspired" by God is about as loose as you can get. I've read Star Wars books "inspired" by the original movies, but all they are are a military novel about an adventure. It holds true to some inspired lines of thought, but that doesn't make it exact in any sense. For man to go pulling the strings on how things worked in literature for something even as important as creation isn't that far fetched.

Seeing as most mankind has a certain air of ego about it, I wouldn't put it past the authors to have gone and made man just the first thing God loved, rather than the animals around man. It inspires mankind to believe more so and any other story might lead them down a path of low self esteem that some can't handle, of being looked at as just another creature of God, here to be loved. Mankind is but a brother or sister to nature and everything in it. We can't accept that "daddy loves his children the same" because we're all brats that want to know in our hearts that He loves us the most.

Anyways, yeah.. had that musing of thought after reading a few replies above and grasping onto what the concept being described was. Moving somewhat backwards, I guess, but trying to keep us on the idea being discussed of evolving creatures and the place it has in religion and/or the world rationally.

Regarding the learning behaviours of chimpanzees and apes: Michael Cook in his book A Brief History of the Human Race, tells how scientists have discovered over 30 learned behaviours in apes. Also see the link below:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4166756.stm

Besides, how do we know that God isn't a monkey, after all? Has anybody ever seen him?
[I know that man was made in God's image and all that, but some people really do look like monkeys :D]

<a mimmick is a copy and can never be original.Granted when you add something of your own it would be original but it would no longer be a copy.>

Okmit,

Originality is merely a variant of a copy. When the copy differs from its predecessors, then that difference is what we call original. A bit like evolution itself.

Do you seriously suggest that other animals do not show original behaviours? What about the blue tits that peck through the tin foil found on milk bottles in the UK, in order to get the milk. Is this not original? Do you think they saw some bird that was trained to do this and copied it exactly?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Besides, how do we know that God isn't a monkey, after all? Has anybody ever seen him?
[I know that man was made in God's image and all that, but some people really do look like monkeys :D]

---

Look at the miror and see for yourself. Then you will get the answer. A painter, whatever a skill He/she may have, can never paint as the original. We are a copy of the original. A copy or a prototipe that has a mission on this limited world in time and space. The physica apearance changes from the time of birth to the time of death. It's a chimical and a biological process. But to evolve from a creature to become another that for me doesn't exist. Why monkeys doesn't. Evolution is only in our minds and our way of living. Look at senturies that have passed and see the difrence for yourself. There is no sign of evolution but only in our way of living and the inteligence that we have reached because we have learned from our parents as they did from theirs. We can shape our bodies as we like but I'm still longing for the day that we evolve to become like angels and fly without the edd of technology. :angel:

<There is no sign of evolution>

There is plenty of evidence for evolution: fruitflies, moths and bacteria all supply evidence of it. Take any creature that has a short lifespan, play around with its environment in specific ways and you will see evolution in action. Why do you think viruses are so good at combatting antibiotics?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miss Darcy

And we have EVIDENCE, yes, evidence, of creatures who lived millions of years ago; this is proof, not faith. Science, yes, only measures, only observes, and puts things together using measurement, observation, and reasoning. But there is at least grounds for belief, not simply books, but actual fossils. And it also makes sense!

---

You have evidence, you say. I say, evidence according to whom? Is this something you have witnessed with your own eyes, or do you rely on the word of SCIENTISTS who report their findings? How is this different from a Christian who relies on the Bible to tell him or her of things unseen? Can you not see that SCIENCE is a religion itself, with scientists taking the place of prophets, telling the laity of things beyond comprehension? If they say, "This fossil is a hundred-millon years old, we can prove it by carbon dating.", the sheep follow without question. Now me, I question EVERYTHING. It thus becomes easier for me to belive in a surpreme God, than in say, the primordal soup theory, since if it were correct, we could certainly duplicate it in a controled labroratory environment. But we can't. And re the 7 days. The Bible says "For a day is as a thousand years with the Lord, and a thousand years is as a day." II Peter 3:8 :angel: :) :idea:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blp

How is reading the Bible going to convince someone who doesn't think the Bible is true? There's no argument there, just a series of statements made without any evidentiary proofs.

---

On the other hand, how is reading books on evolution going to convince someone who doesn't believe either? And BTW, I HAVE read Darwin. If you are going to disagree with someone, you at least owe them the courtesy of finding out where they stand. He said apes and men had a "common ancestor" but evolved in different directions, so I do wish people would get it right! :smash: As I said before, I believe God created everything, but things have happened that have caused animals, yes and man as well, to adapt to new environments. This is true evolution. And I believe science supports it. Notice how often they use the word "designed.", as in "a frog's legs are perfectly designed to jump." So whom do they think "designed" them, pray tell?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by okmit

AimusSage,a mimmick is a copy and can never be original.Granted when you add something of your own it would be original but it would no longer be a copy.So tell me,what magical animal feats have I missed?CoCo didnt add any new,or original signs or begin teaching other primates her new skills has she?

It has been said,"God is knowledge,and evil is ignorance."You have no need to become offensive.

---

I know what a mimmic is. And I am sorry for offending you. Also, what I meant was combining two things into something new, which is something that was not thaught. I will further refrain from commenting in this thread.

Pendragon,

If you question everything, and only rely only on evidence you yourself have seen, I presume then that you do not believe in the resurrection? Or all the other magical mumbo-jumbo that the bible asks you to swallow without question.

Also, Pendragon, in order to disbelieve evolutionary science, don't you have to believe that all the scientists involved in it, including Darwin, whose own Christianity caused him to sit on his discoveries for decades and his immediate successor Mendel, who was a Christian monk, are colluding in some gigantic lie?

Quote:

---

On the other hand, how is reading books on evolution going to convince someone who doesn't believe either?

---

Well, it actually seems to us that there is a difference between books like Bible and works of Darwin. Bible dictates what is true and what is not. Books of evolution are in some point like math books - they don't dictate the truth, but help you to deduct it yourself - a sort of knowledgical midwife.
It is quite similar between believing the Pythagoras theorem without evidence and believing it, because you, with the help of a math book, proved it.

Quote:

---

If they say, "This fossil is a hundred-millon years old, we can prove it by carbon dating.", the sheep follow without question. Now me, I question EVERYTHING. It thus becomes easier for me to belive in a supreme God, than in say, the primordal soup theory, since if it were correct, we could certainly duplicate it in a controled labroratory environment.

---

So you are suggesting that scientists are lying to us? Excuse me, but to me, it seems a bit like some strange conspiracy theory.
And about questioning everything (a good thing, Descartes did the same) do you also question the existence of God and the creation theory?
And if we are not mistaken, they have achieved at least proteins in laboratory conditions, if not life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pendragon

You have evidence, you say. I say, evidence according to whom? Is this something you have witnessed with your own eyes, or do you rely on the word of SCIENTISTS who report their findings? How is this different from a Christian who relies on the Bible to tell him or her of things unseen? Can you not see that SCIENCE is a religion itself, with scientists taking the place of prophets, telling the laity of things beyond comprehension? If they say, "This fossil is a hundred-millon years old, we can prove it by carbon dating.", the sheep follow without question. Now me, I question EVERYTHING. It thus becomes easier for me to belive in a surpreme God, than in say, the primordal soup theory, since if it were correct, we could certainly duplicate it in a controled labroratory environment. But we can't. And re the 7 days. The Bible says "For a day is as a thousand years with the Lord, and a thousand years is as a day." II Peter 3:8 :angel: :) :idea:

---

No one is following science like a sheep, outside of the few idiots that just believe what they read right off the bat, but there are plenty of each on both sides of this idea. The way you word it shows that no matter what kind of evidence we show you, you'll never believe it in any case. Unless God himself came down and said "Evolution is true, knock off all the crap about me doing it in 6 days" I doubt you'd believe anything. Once you call science a religion your whole basis for reality goes out the window. Science is a gathering of evidence to prove theories that share a possibility of being correct. They're constantly reviewed by thousands upon millions of people daily and checked and changed to better fit new evidence gathered. It's only a religion to the ignorant person that claims science is somehow infallible. Science admits to being wrong all the time, but they also reiterate being right many times over as well in varying arrays of the world around us.

Not everyone follows science blindly on their findings, as atiguhya padma said: "There is plenty of evidence for evolution: fruitflies, moths and bacteria all supply evidence of it. Take any creature that has a short lifespan, play around with its environment in specific ways and you will see evolution in action. Why do you think viruses are so good at combatting antibiotics?" There are plenty of things anyone can try to prove evolution, but some people would rather dispute it outright in favor of some magical sky pixie doing the job of their thinking it through dialectically for them.

In the time to make this post three other replies popped up, so I'll leave it to them more so about your other points and posts.

I believe that Darwin's mechanism for evolution doesn't doesn't explain much of what is seen under a microscope.Cells are much too complex to have evolved randomly;intelligence was required to produce them.

The word "evolution" carries many associations.Usually it means common descent--the idea that all organisms living and dead are related by common ancestry. I have no problem with the idea of common descent,and believe it explains similarities among species.By itself however,common descent doesnt explain the vast differences among species.

Thats where Darwin's mechanism comes in."Evolution" also sometimes implies that a random mutation and natural selection powered the changes in life.The idea is that just by chance an animal was born that was slightly faster or stronger than its siblings.Its descendants inherited the change and eventually won the contest of survival over the descendants of other members of the species.Over time,repetition of the process resulted in great changes--and,indeed,wholly different animals.

That's the theory.A practical difficulty,however,is that one cant test the theory from fossils.To really test the theory,one has to observe contemporary change in the wild,in the laboratory or at least reconstruct a detailed pathway that might have led to a certain adaptation.

Darwianian theory successfully accounts for a variety of modern changes.Scientists have shown that the average beak size of Galapagos finches changed in response to altered weather patterns.Likewise,the ratio of dark-to light-colored moths in England shifted when pollution made light colored moths more visible to predators.Mutant bacteria survive when they become resistant to antibiotics.These are all clear examples of natural selection in action.But these examples involve only one or a few mutations,and the mutant organism is not much different from its ancestor.Yet to account for all of life,a series of mutations would have to produce very different types of creatures.That has not yet been demonstrated.

Darwin's theory encounters its greatest difficulties when it comes to explaining the development of the cell.Many cellular systems are"irreducibly complex."That means the system needs several componets before it can work properly.An everyday example is a mouse trap,built of several pieces(platform,hammer,spring and so on.)Such a system probably cannot be put together in a Darwinian manner,gradually improving its function.You cant catch a mouse with just the platform and then catch a few more by adding the spring.All the pieces have to be in place before you catch any mice.

An example of an irreducible complex cellular system is the bacterial flagellum:a rotary propeller,powered by a flow of acid,that bacteria use to swim.The flagellum requires a number of parts before it works--a rotor,stator and motor.Furthermore,genetic studies have shown that about 40 different kinds of proteins are needed to produce a working flagellum.

The intracellular transport system is also quite complex.Plant and animal cells are divided into many discrete compartments;supplies,including enzymes and protiens,have to be shipped between these compartments.Some supplies are packaged into molecular trucks,and each truck has a key that will fit only the lock of its particular cellular destination.Other protiens act as loading docks,opening the truck and letting the contents into the destination compartment.

Many other examples could be cited. The bottom line is that the cell--the very basis of life--is staggeringly complex.Science has no answers,or partial answers,for how these systems originated.James Shapiro,a biochemist at the University of Chicago wrote,"There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system,only a variety of wishful speculations."

Whenever we see interactive systems(such as a mouse trap)in the everyday world,we assume that they are the products of intelligent activity.We should extend the reasoning to cellular systems. We know of no other mechanism,including Darwin's,which produces such complexity.Only intelligence does.

Intelligent design may mean that the ultimate explanation for life is beyond scientific explanation.I dont want the best scientific explanation for life;I want the correct explanation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by okmit

I believe that Darwin's mechanism for evolution doesn't doesn't explain much of what is seen under a microscope.Cells are much too complex to have evolved randomly;intelligence was required to produce them.

The word "evolution" carries many associations.Usually it means common descent--the idea that all organisms living and dead are related by common ancestry. I have no problem with the idea of common descent,and believe it explains similarities among species.By itself however,common descent doesnt explain the vast differences among species.

Thats where Darwin's mechanism comes in."Evolution" also sometimes implies that a random mutation and natural selection powered the changes in life.The idea is that just by chance an animal was born that was slightly faster or stronger than its siblings.Its descendants inherited the change and eventually won the contest of survival over the descendants of other members of the species.Over time,repetition of the process resulted in great changes--and,indeed,wholly different animals.

That's the theory.A practical difficulty,however,is that one cant test the theory from fossils.To really test the theory,one has to observe contemporary change in the wild,in the laboratory or at least reconstruct a detailed pathway that might have led to a certain adaptation.

Darwianian theory successfully accounts for a variety of modern changes.Scientists have shown that the average beak size of Galapagos finches changed in response to altered weather patterns.Likewise,the ratio of dark-to light-colored moths in England shifted when pollution made light colored moths more visible to predators.Mutant bacteria survive when they become resistant to antibiotics.These are all clear examples of natural selection in action.But these examples involve only one or a few mutations,and the mutant organism is not much different from its ancestor.Yet to account for all of life,a series of mutations would have to produce very different types of creatures.That has not yet been demonstrated.

Darwin's theory encounters its greatest difficulties when it comes to explaining the development of the cell.Many cellular systems are"irreducibly complex."That means the system needs several componets before it can work properly.An everyday example is a mouse trap,built of several pieces(platform,hammer,spring and so on.)Such a system probably cannot be put together in a Darwinian manner,gradually improving its function.You cant catch a mouse with just the platform and then catch a few more by adding the spring.All the pieces have to be in place before you catch any mice.

An example of an irreducible complex cellular system is the bacterial flagellum:a rotary propeller,powered by a flow of acid,that bacteria use to swim.The flagellum requires a number of parts before it works--a rotor,stator and motor.Furthermore,genetic studies have shown that about 40 different kinds of proteins are needed to produce a working flagellum.

The intracellular transport system is also quite complex.Plant and animal cells are divided into many discrete compartments;supplies,including enzymes and protiens,have to be shipped between these compartments.Some supplies are packaged into molecular trucks,and each truck has a key that will fit only the lock of its particular cellular destination.Other protiens act as loading docks,opening the truck and letting the contents into the destination compartment.

Many other examples could be cited. The bottom line is that the cell--the very basis of life--is staggeringly complex.Science has no answers,or partial answers,for how these systems originated.James Shapiro,a biochemist at the University of Chicago wrote,"There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system,only a variety of wishful speculations."

Whenever we see interactive systems(such as a mouse trap)in the everyday world,we assume that they are the products of intelligent activity.We should extend the reasoning to cellular systems. We know of no other mechanism,including Darwin's,which produces such complexity.Only intelligence does.

Intelligent design may mean that the ultimate explanation for life is beyond scientific explanation.I dont want the best scientific explanation for life;I want the correct explanation.

---

Before I reply to this: Quote your sources that you plagiarize next time. http://www.catholiceducation.org/art...ce/sc0017.html

And a beautiful question to ask you, since you uphold that complex organisms or anything complex means it has to be designed: Who made God? If you say no one, why? Does God somehow not fit into your elaborately complex idea of intelligent design? How is it that complexity is merely a subjective point of view to those who can't wrap their heads around a concept too hard for them to understand probability wise?

There's proof already that this world exists, as far as the evidence shows through what we have discovered; that this world wasn't designed, but actually did grow into what it is today. So no matter how complex and impossible this life around us supposedly is; we've still got the fact that it did happen and until you can spot God's fingerprints on the ground itself, it'll have to do as an accurate representation.

Obviously we can't watch an organism grow into a whole different species because that takes thousands of years to do, but we can watch it adapt and evolve through its generations into something more efficient. The fact of the matter is, the only argument or point intelligent design makes is: It is too complex to be random, god must have done it.

Personally that sort of logic seems flawed, but if you can accept it, good for you. The great part about creationism is that it offers no evidence of its own theories being correct; it only critiques evolution. There is no evidence of creationism out there and I've never seen any outside of "This is too complex to be random!" which isn't evidence at all: merely supposing facts on already real things.

Plagerize!This comming from an athiest(belief in nothing) that has already proclaimed Nothing is original,everything is a mimick.Should I have used quotation marks to denote you said it?I thought you said a copy or two with a twist of your own made it original?How many ways do you want it?I concur with the text.
By the way,it came from Michael J Behe files,associate professor of biochemistry at Leigh ,author of "Darwins Black Box:The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution."

I only used a Scientist text because you expressed a faith..or a belief..or a trust in what they bring to the table as opposed to Scripture.However it is clear that you have decided to ignore science when it flies in the face of what you believe..or think...or theorize.

As for the faithless heaping acolades on on those that have vaporized 280 thousand men, women,and children with their brilliant invention,stated ddt was environmentaly safe,that their was no danger in dumping agent orange on my head in nam,that said if we put catylitic converters on our gas powered push mowers and cut in the mornig or evening the hole in the ozone would heal itself...while they continue burning hundreds of thousands of pounds of rocket fuel thru it.Good luck

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by okmit

Plagerize!This comming from an athiest(belief in nothing) that has already proclaimed Nothing is original,everything is a mimick.Should I have used quotation marks to denote you said it?I thought you said a copy or two with a twist of your own made it original?How many ways do you want it?I concur with the text.
By the way,it came from Michael J Behe files,associate professor of biochemistry at Leigh ,author of "Darwins Black Box:The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution."

---

We're on a literature forum, plagiarism is serious stuff. I'm fine with posting someone else's ideas, just cite them. By the way, atheism is only a lack of belief in gods. You're thinking nihilism, which believes in "nothing" so to speak. An atheist can be anyone, believe in anything, do anything they want, so long as it involves them not believing in gods. But hey, way to act original and bring up the ole' "atheists believe in nothing" idea. Really, good job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by okmit

As for the faithless heaping acolades on on those that have vaporized 280 thousand men, women,and children with their brilliant invention,stated ddt was environmentaly safe,that their was no danger in dumping agent orange on my head in nam,that said if we put catylitic converters on our gas powered push mowers and cut in the mornig or evening the hole in the ozone would heal itself...while they continue burning hundreds of thousands of pounds of rocket fuel thru it.Good luck

---

Oh, so it's just a personal problem. Well there's your problem right there. Just because some douche makes a nuclear weapon, develops a biological agent to destroy lives, creates some weapon of any sort of destruction, doesn't make science evil. If you were an adult about these sort of things, you might know that. Blame the warmongers, blame the stupid governments that made it legal to use, blame the industrialists and capitalists that stiffled environmentalism all these years-but do not, and I repeat, do not blame all science for your own personal disagreements with a particular branch of science.

Here I thought I was dealing with someone who at least could manage to defend themselves without resorting to personal attacks or dealing with their problems with science in a more objective sense, but it appears you've gone and based your entire dislike for science on a completely personal problem. Get some counseling, stop arguing, it's just absurd. And no this isn't an attack, it's a simple truth of the situation you've brought up. I'm fine discussing a thought on evolution and even defending evidence v. no evidence, even bringing the bible into a discussion, but at no point will anything get done if it's just one big conspiracy hatefest against science in general for some personal cause.

I wonder why life cannot be made up of both creation and evolution but it appears that it has to be one or the other here. I believe we were created first then we evolve with each passing breath we take. Evolution does not have to always mean a physical, biological, or even turning into a whole species to happen. Evolving is growing beyond what you were in the past in my opinion not Darwin's or anyone else's. The big picture is not how intelligent we are or how stupid we are but that we strive to continue to learn each day about who we are and the world around us. Scientific proof not matter whether it is disproved down the road give us a start to where to look for the answers. Which is at least a beginning and I think we should question theories as well as the Bible. In order to find truth but truth is not always easy for all us to find but at least I seek it.

Didn't we note that both of them at the same time is quite fine a few pages ago? There are just some folks that can't accept evolution, just as there are some that can't accept creationism. Life starting from God is fine, when it's looked on as a belief, in my opinion. If it is attempted to be looked at as a fact, then science has to come up to check said facts, which will only end up disputing the facts presented, which is why I said (in a sense) "creationism's sole purpose is to disprove evolution" in today's age at least. No one ever minds that God might've created earth, started evolution, etc, but when creationism spends 99% of its time arguing about evolution's many proven facets rather than presenting its own "evidence" the problem arises.

I agree that psychological evolution is but a concept we all must take, to grow as people into what we feel is best for our lives, be they guided by faith or reason or both. Question everything, but don't be afraid to take a stance on something that might be wrong. I state all the time that I don't know everything, but I don't hear enough from the other side stating similar. I may not know if anything is true, but I can still believe that things are true. That's how we have a discussion, we pick a side and try to poke holes in the other side, to better understand how our side works and the other works. Works well enough, so long as one tries to remain somewhat objective in their own subjective truths.. heh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dyrwen

Didn't we note that both of them at the same time is quite fine a few pages ago? There are just some folks that can't accept evolution, just as there are some that can't accept creationism. Life starting from God is fine, when it's looked on as a belief, in my opinion. If it is attempted to be looked at as a fact, then science has to come up to check said facts, which will only end up disputing the facts presented, which is why I said (in a sense) "creationism's sole purpose is to disprove evolution" in today's age at least. No one ever minds that God might've created earth, started evolution, etc, but when creationism spends 99% of its time arguing about evolution's many proven facets rather than presenting its own "evidence" the problem arises.

I agree that psychological evolution is but a concept we all must take, to grow as people into what we feel is best for our lives, be they guided by faith or reason or both. Question everything, but don't be afraid to take a stance on something that might be wrong. I state all the time that I don't know everything, but I don't hear enough from the other side stating similar. I may not know if anything is true, but I can still believe that things are true. That's how we have a discussion, we pick a side and try to poke holes in the other side, to better understand how our side works and the other works. Works well enough, so long as one tries to remain somewhat objective in their own subjective truths.. heh.

---

If it was stated a few pages back forgive me my brain is working on stress right now. There are people out there who refuse to consider other theories and stand by their own as solid truth. I feel that if you do not explore others ideals, beliefs, cultures, and theories how are you going to grow as a person. I know there is a good chance everything I know is wrong but I also know that there is a good chance I am right. I feel that answers are going to come from many sources and in the end I decide whether they are true or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by okmit

Plagerize!This comming from an athiest(belief in nothing) that has already proclaimed Nothing is original,everything is a mimick.Should I have used quotation marks to denote you said it?I thought you said a copy or two with a twist of your own made it original?How many ways do you want it?I concur with the text.

---

Whether you agree with someone else's words or not if you copy their words you should be respectful enough to say so. For they where not written or said by you first. Also being a athiest has nothing to with plagiarism. I apologize for my comments but you appeared to be not respecting the opinions of others.

Do you think we truly can find the truth about evolution vs creation through either science or the Bible? I am curious about what people think about this for me I believe both can lead us to those answers but in the end don't we really decide what is true for ourselves?

Of course we decide ourselves, and no one will ever truly convince the other side completely because there will always be someone to believe God did it in 6 days, no evolution required. And so long as God remains unprovable, as gods usually are since they don't leave behind evidence outside of testimonies, that sort of thought will continue forever.

It's a difference of those that will always choose to follow their emotions, their faith, their feelings, and those that are willing to take what they see as reasonable as a good justification of their beliefs being corect. I'm not saying there isn't a middle ground, I'm just saying no one is ever going to prove the other side entirely wrong, because there are always holes in the theory and there are always arguments from the other side. So long as one side has evidence and the other side faith, by definition no need for evidence, the discussion will continue on forever and ever.

I see fossils, I see adaptation, I see carbon and radiometric dating, I see plate tectonics, and abiogenesis in molecules being proven again and again. The age of the universe, of the earth, of the creatures around us and their inevitable changes through the eons being proven again and again. And I find it reasonable, I accept it as true because I haven't seen anything to show otherwise. I haven't been approached by a feeling of God in my heart, nor have I read the Bible and thought "Gee, sounds beautiful, so right." We all follow what feels best to us, whether it be some long complex reasonable explanation or some short, to the point, idea that feels right no matter the lack of empirical proof.

Although I stand by my assertion that creationism is a belief, not a theory, which only exists to disprove evolution rather than prove itself. The creation story is a different idea, but to use it to prove evolution false is about as sane as me using Lord Of the Rings to prove the Earth has more than one realm to it. Literature and scientific studies are two different things entirely, but until people get around to thinking differently, I don't expect the contrast to arise anytime soon.

<You cant catch a mouse with just the platform and then catch a few more by adding the spring.All the pieces have to be in place before you catch any mice. >

This assumes that at all stages of development, the goal remains the same. This is a false assumption.

Halt!

I think that a point is missing here.

Creationism is a belief, nobody could disagree.

Darwinism is a hypothesis, an explanation, not exactly a theory.

The Reason is simple: you cannot think of a way to contradict evolution and more, you cannot make reliable predictions on evolution.

For a Physicist these two lacking features undermine a theory theoretically as well as experimentally.

Anyway creationism is still a step below, since it isn't any kind of explanation, that is, it does not include a huge amount of phenomena, which Darwinism does.

And, anyway, you must remember that Evolutionism was worked out from the statistical point of view, typical of the 19th century; just like, more or less, Maxwell and Marx, and the three shared the same beard!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

Pendragon,

If you question everything, and only rely only on evidence you yourself have seen, I presume then that you do not believe in the resurrection? Or all the other magical mumbo-jumbo that the bible asks you to swallow without question.

---

OK, I see you misunderstand me. The point I was trying to make is that whether we accept creationism or evolution sooner or later it is going to come down to accepting something without knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt. When I say I question everything, then that makes me search for WHY I believe it. I certainly believe in the resurrection (kudus for using the correct word, the rapture does not appear in the Bible!) and a lot of the other "magical mumbo-jumbo" I believe you termed it. But not without question. Blind faith is no faith. You must ask yourself why you believe these things as opposed to others. :) That's all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blp

Also, Pendragon, in order to disbelieve evolutionary science, don't you have to believe that all the scientists involved in it, including Darwin, whose own Christianity caused him to sit on his discoveries for decades and his immediate successor Mendel, who was a Christian monk, are colluding in some gigantic lie?

---

I've read Mendel as well, and I don't think you can discount his genetic work. No, I'm not one of these "It's all a giant conspiracy!" nutballs. Science certainly is responsible for many of the things we enjoy, this computer we are communicating on for example. But life is God's domain. I do not believe science will ever reproduce the spark that gives life by artifical means. And you're not reading me right. I do believe that animals and man have evolved as I stated BEFORE, simply that God created them in the beginning. Cataclysims have changed the Earth since and EVERYTHING has had to adapt to survive. If man had never changed since Eden, there would only be one race worldwide, correct? So man has changed. The supercontinent broke up. In Genesis, it's called "dry land". There was continential drift. Man had to adapt to survive. New races of man appeared. Evolution? Now, do I disbelieve everything because I question? I saw none of this. No other explaination fits. Sermon over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Well, it actually seems to us that there is a difference between books like Bible and works of Darwin. Bible dictates what is true and what is not. Books of evolution are in some point like math books - they don't dictate the truth, but help you to deduct it yourself - a sort of knowledgical midwife.
It is quite similar between believing the Pythagoras theorem without evidence and believing it, because you, with the help of a math book, proved it.


So you are suggesting that scientists are lying to us? Excuse me, but to me, it seems a bit like some strange conspiracy theory.
And about questioning everything (a good thing, Descartes did the same) do you also question the existence of God and the creation theory?
And if we are not mistaken, they have achieved at least proteins in laboratory conditions, if not life.

---

Whew, I stirred the proverbial hornet's nest! Math is an exact science, which you can prove. Evolution is a theory, which is "best guess" at best. Do I think scientist delibertly lie to us? NO, I AM NOT A CONSPIRACY NUT! I am simply saying that sooner or later you will have to accept something without seeing it for yourself, be it religious or scientific. By definition, that is faith.

Yes, I even question the existence of God and "the creation theory", as you term it, that's why I belive it. Protiens produced under laboratory conditions? Possibly, but nothing that can reproduce itself. The spark of life remains a mystery. They can clone, grow a baby in a test-tube for in-vetro (pardon my spelling, I'm deslexic), but life cannot be give back to dead tissue, even if that body has nothing really wrong with it except it's not alive. Many a doctor has helplessly drawn the sheet over a face having done all science can do. When God calls time...