How constructive of you all.
"Welcome all to the new united church of voodoism, my name is Tenbo"
Bill The Galactic Hero
Printable View
How constructive of you all.
"Welcome all to the new united church of voodoism, my name is Tenbo"
Bill The Galactic Hero
Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah, the Savior of the world.
He died for our sins, and was raised to life for our justification.
There are times on this thread when I am convinced that regardless of evidence produced and what it might portend to either argument, it will be basically of the same value as a roschet test. In other words, to the hard-core evolutionist, it will be absolute proof of no Inteligent Design. To the hard-core creationist, it will be absolute proof that any form of evolution is complete nonsense. Each will see what they expect to see, just as with a roschet test, each person finds something personal in the inky blots. The question I have to ask is this: If you go into an investigation with your mind already made up as to what the outcome is going to be, do you have an open or closed mind? http://www.smileyville.net/mellow/mf_sherlock.gif
Theshinzznig,
Firstly, did you realise that you posted the second half of 'your' argument first? Probably not, because it is copied wholesale from the website that you linked to a few threads back (and without credit, I might add). There is a point made about such activities in the rules of this section of the forum. Mods please note!
I seriously doubt that you actually bothered to understand the concepts behind what you say. You certainly didn't take the time to rephrase them in your own words. You were not even particularly selective in the parts you cut and pasted. As an example (one of many):Quote:
No you cannot copy and paste huge tracts of text, you shouldn't need more than a few sentences, or maybe one paragraph in reference to the discussion.
If you are going to refer to or use content from other sites, you must include a link for it. You cannot copy and paste entire articles from other sites as that is copyright infringement, and contributes nothing to discussion. Posts or topics doing such will be edited, deleted, closed, or removed, not always with warning.
The Pliocene and Pleistocene are two different epochs (not periods, they are both contained in the noegene period in fact), the pleistocene epoch occurred roughly from 1.9 million years ago to about 10,000 years ago. Why you describe the timeframe of one epoch and then describe events from another can only be explained by either a lack of understanding, or an attempt to deliberately confuse the issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Theshizznigg
I, among others, have already made my feelings about this website known. Those opinions won't be changed by your quoting huge swathes of it.
For the record, my objections to this site include the following (with examples):
1. It is biased, deliberatly ignoring facts which don't fit it's pet theories (such as the incredible rarity of fossils of land based animals. The conditions for such fossils to be produced are so specific that it is a wonder that there are any at all. Using the absence of 'missing link' fossil evidence as an argument is thus disingenuous.)
2. It gives undue emphasis to others that do (the Coelocanth for example, a single species example of a once diverse group of fish that was believed to be completely extinct. In fact, they are very rare fish, living in waters that are not commercially fished.)
3. It distorts other facts. (Such as it's attack on carbon dating. This method is not as accurate as once thought but nowhere near as inaccurate as it would need to be for dinosaur fossils to really come from a flood only a few thousand years ago.)
Please have the courage to formulate your own arguments, not just copy those of others without checking the facts of them.
"After all, if the theory of evolution is correct, why should brain capacities (which presumably according to evolution, get larger as humans “evolve”), suddenly become smaller after Neanderthal?"
In the words of Arthur Koestler, from "The Ghost in the Machine:"
"The capacities of the computer inside the reptilian and mammalian skull are exploited to the full, and leave no scope for further learning. But the evolution of man.s brain has so wildly overshot man's immediate needs that he is still breathlessly catching up with its unexploited, unexplored possibilities."
"We have still only learned to utilize a very small fraction of the potentials of its estimated hundred thousand million circuits."
"It is entirely unprecedented that evolution should provide a species with an organ which it does not know how to use; a luxury organ far exceeding its owner's immediate primitive needs; an organ which will take the species millennia to learn to put to proper use - if it ever does."
Maybe where we are going is a more significant question than where we came from.
Mine is open.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
I do however believe in the scientific method. Observation of available facts. Basing theories upon those facts. Testing those theories by experimentation. And most importantly, adapting (or even in extreme cases abandonning) the theory, if facts are discovered that do not fit the original model.
In my opinion, the evolutionary theory has undergone this process. It has been adapted over the years, although it's basic premise is still seen as sound.
Evolutionary theory per se is not to be confused with the exact evolutionary paths of individual species and groups of species. Evolution describes the process by which new species come into being, not the exact line of succession in specific cases. Curiously, most arguments against evolution attempt to pick holes in exactly that, usually in the specific evolutionary path of our own species.
The creation theory has not been subjected to any such rigour by it's advocates. They point to what they see as holes in evolution as if this proves their case, as if there were only the 2 choices to pick from - "It's not black, so it must be white!" - this ignores the full spectrum in between. What they never do is point to direct evidence for their own theory (except that it is contained in holy books - which is hardly rigourous proof by measurable experimentation).
I am open to persuasion on anything, but I believe that the burden of proof lies with the creationists.
Theshizznigg, please do not copy and paste any more material from clarifyingchristianity.com, unless you are actually Harold Joss to whom the site is registered to?
What is the difference between an evolutionist and a ‘hard-core’ evolutionist?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
Does this apply to any investigation? Is the discussion an ‘investigation’? Does every idea deserve/require open-minded investigation? If I am unwilling to consider the possibility that the moon is made of magic cheese, does that mean I have a closed mind?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
I think that hard-core evolution has a techno sound-track.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unnamable
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unnamable
Magic cheese - love it!
Now it's my turn. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xamonas Chegwe
FYI, magic cheese is similar to ordinary cheese but it's more useful in debates.
Most people would have just said 'cheese', or maybe 'green cheese'. The magic bit just made me laugh out loud. Thanks.
Asiago d´Allevo in large amounts induces hallucinations!
Why do you think I am such a fan of cheese? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Logos
There are evolutionists that will agree that evolution does not rule out a devine being. Then there are those who state that evolution proves that there cannot be a devine being. The latter are what I call hard-core, unbending. The others will at least concede the possibility, even if they do not believe that said being had anything to do with the formation of life. Just as I am not hard-core creationist, for I will accept that man, animals, plant life, etc. has evolved since creation, and that this evolution has shaped us into what we are today, and that church is where you should teach creationism. A hard-core creationist would never do this, they would consider it blasphemy.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unnamable
No, and this is the second quote of mine that has been blown out of context. The first was my statement that people's beliefs were to be respected even if you felt them ridiculous. Suddenly, I am asked if I would respect the Nazis extermanition of the Jews! We're talking about creationism and evolution here. I disagree with and certainly do not feel I must respect any belief that takes away another's right to even exist! Unnameable, we have been to the moon and KNOW it not to be made of ANY type of cheese, so no, I would not call that a closed mind. But when dealing with many things, science closes its mind until something has to jar it open, then they'll believe it. Sadly, so do many religious people, to be perfectly fair. They'll deny sciencetific fact, such as the Earth is round. That's closed minded also. I don't believe they will ever prove a spieces changes into another. I've said before, you can create a mule, but it cannot reproduce itself. But change within the species is a proven fact. Take care.Quote:
Originally Posted by Unnameable
In that case, I don’t think there is that great a difference. For both types of evolutionist, the fact of evolution is primary. The existence of God is a secondary issue. Some might say there might be a God, others that there isn’t. I seriously doubt that either camp is interested in evolution primarily because it either disproves or allows for the existence of God. The application of the phrase ‘hard-core’ serves to represent certain beliefs as extreme and to equate them with other extreme views. In your post you wrote, “to the hard-core evolutionist, it will be absolute proof of no Inteligent Design. To the hard-core creationist, it will be absolute proof that any form of evolution is complete nonsense.” Surely this equates the two positions in terms of what is considered extreme? I don’t feel that they are. An evolutionist who feels that there cannot be a God by virtue of his or her understanding of scientific processes doesn’t strike me as any more extreme than someone who doesn’t believe in leprechauns for the same reason. It’s not as if he or she is setting out to disprove the existence of God. Someone who denies the validity of the facts does strike me as extreme.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
First of all, I was replying to niteskytwilight when I asked the question about respecting Nazism (if that is what you are referring to).Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
I’m sorry that you feel your comments were taken out of context but surely you yourself remove them from their immediate context when you make generalised statements or analogies? You are not saying that only Creationism should be respected but that views that could be considered ridiculous should be respected. This implies a general principle. You seek to gain acceptability for a theory by invoking such a principle. If you use that approach, surely those principles are open to scrutiny and I am allowed to ask about flaws I see in those principles. Similarly, you didn’t say “if you go into this investigation with your mind already made up” but “If you go into an investigation with your mind already made up.” For your principle to be valid it must apply to a situation other than the one you wish it to. Your approach relies on the idea that made up minds are closed. Whether you wish it to or not, such a statement has implications beyond the context in which you applied it. Firstly, you are assuming that the issue is about having an open mind. Secondly, if someone has a closed mind in this particular instance, then that does not therefore mean they have a closed mind generally, which you certainly were implying. Personally I think having a closed mind about certain ideas is sensible and consider it unfair that you suggest that people who have researched, read about, considered and dismissed certain possibilities are closed-minded.
Touche, amigo. I did not set out to offend you or anyone else. Thus we see the truth of "It depends on your point of view." Please accept my apologies and thanks for a lesson in logical dessertation. Have a wonderful day. :nod:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unnamable
There are many that say we never went to the moon and that it was all filmed in Hollywood. Some even believe this as strongly as creationists & evolutionists believe in their respective ideas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
Scientists perform experiments to prove their theories. Sadly, some ignore ambiguous results or even falsify evidence to keep their pet theories going. But this is a minority. The history of science is one of continuous refinement of theories, each one fitting the world better. Science only 'closes it's mind' to theories that do not fit the facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
Religious people perform no such experiments, they just point to the bit in the bible where it says, "Though shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." (or the equivalent in whatever book they believe in - I'm not singling out christians here) and look smug.
Lastly, the scientific community contains the same proportion of religious people as the rest of society. To discuss the 2 as somehow separate is disingenuous.
Actually, the Earth is an oblate spheroid. Flat-Earthers come into the absurd category in my book.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
Where do new viruses and bacteria come from then? The process of evolution is much easier to see in these little critters because the timescales are much shorter. Was the H.I.V. virus hanging around, not infecting anyone, for thousands of years? No, it evolved. Whether naturally, from a monkey disease in Africa, or artificially, in a CIA lab in a bunker in the Mojave, I have no idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
Similarly with bird flu. At present, human to human infection does not occur. Should we just assume that God created this bug at the beginning of time, to attack avian species only, and take no precautions?
Well, XC, despite their evolving, and note that I say that they have, they are still viruses and bacteria. They haven't bumped up the evolutionary chart into something different entirely, like, say, an ameoba. Certainly we should take precautions. I said once that somewhere on this planet is a cure for every illness. But science has to find it, and that takes a lot of work. I saw a research scientist the other day on TV talking about how hard that is to do. He was standing in a snowstorm and said "Only one of these snowflakes will be the right forumla to cure a disease and be able to be taken by humans. We have to find it." That put things into perspective. Similiarly, the very DNA codes discovered by science make it harder for me to accept chance evolution. For example: They print out a DNA code for a certain man. It comes out as a sequence of bars, kind of like a bar code. Now, here in VA, a man was up for execution for the rape and murder of his sister-in-law--happened about 100 miles from here. It made National news as he swore he was innocent. He had given blood for a DNA test, then had his lawyer block it. On the day of his execution, the Governor gave him a final chance--a lie-detector test. He failed, and was executed. People protested. They finally did the DNA. It was 1 in an number to big to write against them executing the wrong man. He had a rare signature in his DNA which they said there was probably not another match for in the whole USA. That's unique. Can chance produce human DNA, given that every line has to come up true? Given enough tries, yes. Possibe, but unlikely. But I concede it's possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xamonas Chegwe
Are you saying that all bacteria are of the same species? All Viruses? In that case, why not all birds? All mammals? Are humans just a variation on shrews?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
Do you mean a 'natural' cure, already in existence? Or that a cure can be developed by medical science? If the former, is there also a cure out there for the diseases that haven't evolved yet? Or has the cure yet to evolve too?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
I really don't follow your argument here. What do you mean by, "Can chance produce human DNA, given that every line has to come up true?" Chance didn't produce human DNA, evolution and natural selection did. The exact DNA sequence is unique to each individual, in every species. A species is merely a group of individuals with sufficiently similar DNA, that they can breed and produce viable offspring. There are 23 pairs of chromosones in every human cell. Every single one of these can be inherited from either the father or mother. The number of possible different individuals produced by combining the chromosones of the same parents is 25,852,016,738,884,976,640,000. That is the chance of you having the same genetic code of your sibling (unless you are an identical twin.) When you multiply this by the number of possible parents in the world, the numbers get really big and scary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
Not at all. Just still all bacteria and still all viruses. They did not become something else entirely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xamonas Chegwe
Developed from things already here by medical research. And perhaps, if the disease is caused by a viruses that has mutated or evolved, a plant or something may have to evolve also for the cure to be found. I'm flexible to a certain extent, since I do believe we evolved since the dawn of time and continue to do so as new things arise for us to either adapt to or perish.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xamonas Chegwe
That scary number, called "helliacious" by my math prof., is why I discount chance as the begining of the evolution process. That is what I meant. Actually trying an experiment with primorial soup an infinate number of times could beat chance. To prove a theory, however, I was always taught that you must be able to discount random chance. My own opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xamonas Chegwe
Actually, there is a greater similarity between the genetic makeup of a human and a cat than there is between some species of bacteria and others. The two mammals share over 75% of their DNA. Two separate bacteria species can have less than 10% in common. Which species evolved most? Saying that because they are still bacteria, they haven't 'become something else entirely' is inaccurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
I don't follow your logic here. That hellacious number is exactly why chance must be involved. With such a incredible number of possible outcomes from every successful mating, species are bound to diversify.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
But what I really don't get, is how this ties in with the origins of life. No-one is suggesting that humans sprang from the primordial soup fully formed. The first 'life' was probably more akin to viruses. These can contain as little as a few dozen genes.
And exactly how long did the original experiment with primordial soup last? How many times was it repeated? I don't know, do you? No-one has any idea how long the conditions were right for life to begin before it finally did - Maybe it happened really quickly, say 10,000 years; maybe 100s of millions of years, that's time enough for a lot of experimenting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpse
Hey, here's a loop for ya. I believe in both creation AND evolution. I tried to explain this to one of my friends but she's a little close-minded when it comes to stuff like that. Okay, the scriptures merely say, and God made this and that but it never says HOW he made anything. There's the whole made them from the dusts of the earth somewhere, but I don't think it was exactly dirt. The scriptures are very old, written before anyone knew what DNA was or molecules so wouldn't they put what they saw and heard the way they understood it with what little knowledge they had back then?
So, God made this and that by using a chemistry set far more superior than any known to man... (okay, I'm being a bit sarcastic). He used these molecules and those and put them together to make different things (Okay, again, a little sarcastic and far more complicated than I'm putting things) . If you don't want to believe in a God or higher being, just use the same "they explained things the way they understood it with what little knowledge they had" idea again just say natural occurances brought across creation.
Okay, and where does evolution fit into this whole belief of mine? As far as I'm concerned, evolution can also be referred to as change. Humans have changed over the years. They've gotten taller (except for me :mad: ), things have changed a bit. We're not talking about evolution like X-men super-human evolution, just minor changes over the years that have added up to a slightly different appearance of humans over time. For example, my parents have/had wisdom teeth but lo and behold... I wasn't born with any. So, there ya go. Evolution, in a small way.
Wisdom teeth are so-called because you don't grow them until you are older (and presumably wiser, although that is not always the case). Were you born with any teeth at all for that matter? That would be evolutionarily interesting!Quote:
Originally Posted by Green Lady
Must...control...laughter.... :lol: ..........Quote:
Originally Posted by Xamonas Chegwe
.......
.........
Okay... I was going to look up the technical term for wisdom teeth but I'm too lazy to do that even though it would probably be a simple google away. I've heard that story about wisdom teeth though. I can assure you that I wasn't born with teeth already sprouting but I did after awhile get baby teeth and then my permanent teeth, though my mouth is so messed up (I blame it on my father) that I'm still waiting for one tooth to come down and I'm almost 18. I have to agree though, being born without any teeth whatsoever would be intriguing though annoying.
I didn't get my first wisdom tooth till I was about 20. But I was real wise like way before that! ;)
So if you have your wisdom teeth pulled, does your wisdom drop instantly or do you gradually devolve?
What a cute little demoniod that Cthulhu is.
Actually I find the evidence, and myth surrounding the elder gods extremely interesting when held up against the teachings of Christianity.
I wish that there was an unbiased collection of evidence somewhere that one could examine oneself and come to ones own conclusions. But it seems like whenever there's an anti-ecolutionary book out there it's written by someone with strong and unwavering religious convictions. And on the other side, "hard-core evolutionists" (if I may borrow Pendragon's terminology) don't seem to be willing to aknowledge the possibility of the other side, and their very belief in evolution causes them to automatically discount any "evidence" that may go against it. Us humans have the ability to rationalize anything we want to. And it just seems to me like everyone chose their side on the issue and then looked at the evidence.
Anyways, there's my speel. I was just reading through all this, and had a big moment of internal conflict. I've learned so much more about evolution recently, and have leaned towards accepting it, as my past posts may have suggested. But right now I'd really rather forget about it all, and live in a state of perpetual indecision. Blah!
I got my wisdom teeth removed in the summer, maybe they're the key to all of this. Maybe with them, everything would seem clearer. Maybe its some massive conspiracy of the dentist industry. They want to be the only "wise" ones, so they can make smart investments and things and dupe the rest of us into paying for oral surgery.
Water Lily,
You seem to be falling into the trap that so many have found in this thread. You assume that there are "the religious" on one side and "the scientists" on the other. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Many scientists hold deep religious views. Many christians (and those of other faiths) can quite happily hold both a belief in evolution and a belief in God. My arguments in here have never been directed against those believers and I doubt that those of others have either. The argument is against dogmatic, literal belief in the creation legend, as laid out in the Bible.
I also refute the claim that the minds of those that believe in evolution are closed to any evidence against it. Science doesn't work like that - if it did, we'd still be living on a flat Earth. Science demands proof of it's theories. Religion doesn't.
I suggest that you seek out the views of someone that shares your religious convictions but also believes in evolutionary theory. I'm sure there are many websites offering those kinds of views.
You are completely right about dentists though - they are all evil!
What about evolution? Is there any way evolution and the Bible can both be true? The answer would depend on your definition of evolution. The simple answer is no! If one takes as his or her definition the full-blown atheistic version of evolution, it might go something like this. From some early inanimate environment on the earth, a living thing spontaneously arose by some sort of random, natural process without any interference by any supernatural power. The atheistic version of this theory would continue to claim that this one-celled initial life form was transformed into every species of plant, animal and so forth which has ever inhabited through a process of organic evolution.
This definition is really more a dogmatic, semi-religious assumption than a provable scientific hypothesis. Nevertheless, if it is true, then there is absolutely no way that the atheistic full-blown neo-Darwinist evolutionary assumption can be reconciled with the Bible. Genesis chapter one, and indeed the entire Bible creates the clear impression that life was created by the supernatural command of God. Genesis one further seems to imply that at different times, God created various "kinds" (to use the non-technical Hebrew term) of plants, animals and so forth. Again, this is absolutely irreconcilable with the atheistic definition above.
So the radical atheistic formulation of the evolutionary concept is incompatible with the Bible. A better question, perhaps, is whether some sort of limited evolution is compatible with what the Bible teaches. The answer would depend on one's view of Genesis one (see question 1). If one interprets Genesis chapter one to imply an earth only a few thousands of years old--one which was created in six literal twenty-four hour periods, then the answer is again no. There is no way that any really significant evolutionary change could occur in such a short time frame. Perhaps a dog could have been "evolved" from wolves in that time frame, but certainly humans and chimps could not have evolved from some common primate ancestor in that amount of time, never mind mammals from fish.
If, on the other hand, one allows for the "days" of Genesis chapter one to represent great periods of time for God's creation, then perhaps some sort of limited evolution may become possible. The question of the actual mechanism by which evolution occurs would still remain, but that would be something for the scientists to solve. The fact is that the fossil record is quite consistent with a forest rather than a single tree of evolution. In other words, the fossil record would be consistent with the possibility that a creator produced various species at various times in the distant past of the earth, followed by some sort of evolution of those created species. In fact, Darwin himself, in his earlier editions of Origin of Species allowed for the possibility that there may have been a number of different original species. The most famous example in the fossil record of species seeming to appear virtually out of nothing on geological timescales is what is known as the Cambrian explosion. At a point in the very distant past, every major body form appears in the fossil record, seemingly with no obvious precursors, in virtually zero time. Naturalistic evolutionary theories struggle mightily with the fossil record.
Do cats and lions have a common ancestor? Perhaps. Could all fish have evolved from some sort of original created fish? Possibly. Did the original one-celled organism evolve into human beings? The Bible clearly seems to say no! The fact remains that the Bible does not answer each of these questions in detail. Therefore it would be wise for individuals to investigate the question carefully and reach their own conclusions, but to not be overly dogmatic about areas which are debatable.
I believe the evidence for creation of life and the recreation by our saviour Jesus Christ is overwhelming, and that the evidence for godless evolution is questionable.
But you owe it to yourself to at least examine the evidence that stands to say that this is a matter of life and death and determine for yourself whether it is or not, if you look at it from the Adventist(now this is the church that I belong to but by no means is salvation restricted to a particular church, the best knowledge regarding it however does seem to be) perspective accompanied with an objective outlook you will become a Christian. Prove me wrong, I dare you, it will simply be heaven's gain if you try, for you will come to find you have eternal life if you but reach for it
Christian,
You make a very big assumption.
You assume that all christians believe in Genesis chapter 1, or indeed in any of Genesis. I know many devout christians who hold that it is nothing more than it appears to be; the attempt by technologically simple people to describe the origin of the world around them. A legend, nothing more. I quite agree that evolutionary theory is incompatible with Genesis; that is the whole purpose of this thread!
I would also question why only 'limited' evolution would be possible if the 'days' of Genesis were in fact great periods of time? Kindly explain these limits.
Scientists have explained the mechanism of evolution. Or do you deny the existence of DNA, that characteristics can be passed down from parents to offspring and the occurence of mutations? This was not part of Darwin's original theory. For many years, the genetic theories of Gregor Mendel were deemed incompatible with Darwin's own. The two were only merged at the turn of the 20th century. DNA was not found to be the 'stuff' of heredity until the 1960s (by Watson & Crick) and the exact mapping of the human genome has only been completed this century.
Science has happily adapted it's theory to fit all of these new facts. Each one has proved to reinforce Darwin's ideas. That he developed them without the knowledge that we possess now is remarkable. That there are those that still refuse to accept his theories, I find more remarkable still.
And, one final point, the Cambrian explosion marks the point at which the first hard shelled, marine creatures evolved. These fossilise relatively easily. Prior to that, all living things were soft bodied, with neither shells nor skeletons. These do not fossilise because their bodies rot completely, or are eaten, before they getr the chance. Fossils from before this period do exist, but they are extremely rare. There is no mystery here.
And there is no struggle with the fossil record, only in the minds of those desperate to force it into an ancient model of thought.
I have read the Bible. Please consider reciprocating and read a decent modern biology textbook. Base your ideas on evolutionary theory on what the theorists actually think rather than on the half-baked rantings on some fundamentalist christian website.
And the Bible doesn't answer all of the questions in detail because they didn't exist when it was written. Jesus himself had a lot of positive things to say aboiut the way that human beings should treat each other. The rest is just myth and legend; smoke and mirrors.
May I ask one simple question without hopefully angering anyone? Most people that have posted have at one point or other made a stand as to how they believe. I have myself, several times, stated that I belive in a Creator (not necessarily the exact way Genesis is written, see XC's statement above)
and in Evolution that continues to this very day. Others have stated no Intelligent Design, just Evolution, period. Some have stated Creationism only. Fine. Isn't this horse dead enough yet? We keep beating on it with the same round-robin of arguments like it's going to get up and walk. It's fossilized by now from being buried in the retoric of cessless arguments. If you are happy with what you believe, stick to it like glue. But in all reality, this has been argued for years with no end in sight. With that in mind, and still standing firm on what I believe, which in no way affects my friendship with those with opposing views, I'm going to bow out now, keeping my dignity intact. Good luck to everyone and may you find your own answers to the question a rock to stand on and be proud to defend. Pendragon, always a friend to anyone and everyone who needs a friend... :nod:
ust sharing what I think.
The bible story is a poem. A wonderful poem written by a man trying to grasp what we all try to grasp. The stanza is repeated in poetic effect. "and the evening and the morning were the ..... day" Listen closely and hear him cry out in awe at what his soul has apprehended. There are thousands of these poems in the bible and religious texts all over the world. This is an example of the heart speaking to the mind. The science is poor, the world here just appeared... magic... but it is of no consequence. A deeper need is being expressed.
Science is not the same thing. Science is based on evidence. If you postulate the existance of a creator, then you must be able to perform a test, an experiment, to prove the hypothesis. You need to find direct evidence ot the creator. Not indirect evidence like creationism or intelligent design attempts to do. In law it would be called circumstancial evidence. Science is the study of nature. God is supernatural ... beyond nature... not scientifically testable... Evolution is a theory or nature, hypothesis with evidence to support it. However more than anything else evolution is a discovery. There is a dynamic for change. Would you honestly believe that an intellegent being would create a static unchanging place? Would you? If you believe in God... it is simply a choice and nothing more, be at peace with it... then is it possible that evolution was built into the natural world by the supernatural inventor as a natural mechanism for change. Hmmm new hypothesis. No evidence. Does it matter? At the most fundimental level we don't understand life. We have studied the mechanics very well. The chemicals interact according to the patterns written in the dna and in complete accord with natural law. When however a cell dies what is missing? The chemicals are present, the RNA, DNA, water are all still there at the moment of death. The mechanism stops. Sometimes it stops because something in the mechanism is broken. Like a car that has been drive too many miles. Sometimes not. What force, energy, compulsion has gone? where has it gone. We still don't know.
So my hebrew friend and I both cry out where did you go my friend? Why have you left me? What truely were you anyway? Who may I petition to understand? Evolution is science. It simply says this is what we have observed to support our speculation. This is the mechanism of nature. The mechanics of biology. If you believe in God doesn't this make it all more amazing than ever? If you study science you will be compelled to the same level of awe as the hebrew poet. You will then understand the meaning of a truely religuous experience. Ask John Glen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
This forum is a microcosm of the world. The arguing never stops completely... I wish people would "stop beating the horse" though. It won't happen until some dramatic, solid proof proves one belief and one only.
*sigh* another thread, like ones in forums i previously had joined...another argument...another debate...another winding road to nothingness...
::looks at the smoking wreckage and dead bodies which lie upon the intellectual battleground:...yeah, we're done here. I'm calling a draw, anybody disagree?
SHGQuote:
Originally Posted by Xamonas Chegwe
WTF? Smoke and mirrors, your comment here doesn't make any sense. Are you saying that the enitre bible is smoke and mirrors? Or the old testament? or just Genesis? Because to state that its just smoke and mirrors would be extremely ignorant of you. Because, by saying that your saying that, Sodom and Gommorah didn't exist, yet they've found the plains where they were, which I might add still don't grow anything on them due to salt, brimstone, and sulphur impacts in the ground.
Or that King David didn't exist, or that Solomon was a fictional character? How can you possibly state this, when old records of other histories are showing the bible to be historically accurate?
Didn't Xerxes exist, and rule the persian empire? Didn't he fight the Greeks, and was defeated.
Are you saying then that the Greek histories are all fairy tales, smoke and mirrors?
You cannot possibly state, (without looking like a very ignorant person) that the bible isn't based on historical fact, because it has been proven through the ages, again, and again that it is both historically accurate, and well detailed for a book of its time.
Shaking my head at you XGM.
Something YOU ALL NEED TO REMEMBER ABOUT GENESIS! Is that the book of Genesis was created and written by the largest contributor to the old Testament, MOSES, and that Moses merely wrote Genesis as a quick summary of the things that had happened so far.
Hence the lack of great details, like what Adam was wearing, what he looked like, how big Eves bust size was, yadi yah yah, don't appear in the book of Genesis.
Moses was catching up on thousands of years of human history, simply stating to the followers of Israel, this is what happened so far in order, and its signifigance to the Israelites.
Adam's line begat Noah, Noah's line begat Abraham, Abraham's line begat Israel, Israels children = Present day Jews, so on and so forth.
And as for it being a fairy tale, I'd like to remind you that almost every culture no matter how primitive even by todays standards, has a story of a great flood, and many also have tales about the first man, who as I've read was born from mud, spittle mixed in dirt, tear drops mixed with dust, and has had such wonderous names as Adam, Adamus, Adamanti, Eman, Amani, Oman.
Yet even more amazing is that all of these different cultures have had absolutely no pyshical interaction with Jews, Christians, Moslems, or any other culture that follow Genesis as truth.
So, how exactly do you explain the co-incedences of different mythologies and histories, not contradicting the biblical theory yet supporting it?
As for my views on evolution, I refuse to waste my precious time constantly arguing about something to people who won't believe a word, (won't even consider my arguements,) I say, regardless of how knowledgeable it is. Such is human nature. So I say this, lets agree to disagree, and those are my final thoughts on the subject.
Take care everybody.
Shizz.
"Bye bye daddy, have a wonderful day." Perfect Prudence.
I was preparing a long rebuttal of most of what you posted Thzng. But why bother. Search any of the subjects you mention above on Wikipedia, or try the Encyclopaedia Britannica at your local library, if you consider wiki too biased. Either way, you'll get a more balanced view of all the possible interpretations than from your friendly neighbourhood christian propoganda site.
One thing I'll point out for free though - Brimstone is Sulphur.
;) XC