Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperborean
I have watched the first three of the lectures. It is interesting to see Dawkins make that "from ages 8 to 80" cliche come alive, i.e., he explains evoltion in simple enough terms that a bright child can understand but it is still interesting for the adults who are interesting in learning.
I'll have to take a look at those, thanks, JGL57.
I'm sure this has been mentioned before, but what about dinosaurs? We have yet to find any kind of human remains that trace back to before 64 million years ago because we aren't that old. And the Bible said nothing about dinosaurs roaming around with Adam and Eve nor was their extinction mentioned, which I think would be a big enough event to be worthy enough to be put in the ultimate book. And neanderthals?
My apologies about the lack of contribution to this thread. I have been busy, and I am usually just an observer when it comes to forums.
Neanderthals are just humans stigmatised by evolutionists
Dinosaurs weren't roaming around with Adam.
I don't know how long a day is to God agus tha mi coma.
Must leave to work. I know how long my day is - very short!
I don't pretend to know everything about the Bible, however I do seem to remember several referances to Leviathans in the Bible which some scholars have said may refer to dinosaurs. The fact that they are not longer here today may have something to do with the change in climate after the flood. Or simply because humans hunted them to extinction. How many species of animals have we never seen because of that very reason. And there are dinosaurs still among us. Crocodillians, iguanas, komodo dragons. Who's to say these are actually dinosaurs, just for some reason we cannot fathom, the only species of dinosaurs to survive. I am a firm believer in Creation, for the simple reason, that when I look at the splendor of the world, I don't see a random event, I see cohesiveness, order, a plan.
Also, we are living on a dying planet. If evolution were true, we would be getting better, elevating to perfection, because in essence that is what evolution's function is. To shed weakness, to adapt, to perfect until no weakness exists. That's the theory behind survival of the fittest, isn't it?
actually science can explain the order of the universe more ligically and reasonably than god.
as for evolution, do you understand any science at all? humans have become the dominant species. we live on a dying planet becuase humans have ruined it. when and if humans die off, new species will take over. the dinosaurs are a good example. they took over, but they had a weakness, so they died, evolution tryed again and got people. now we will see if we have a weakness. if we do, it will go again. if we die off, we simply werent the fittest.
Neanderthals were in fact humans, but they were of different species. That's a fact. We don't even know if they could talk. Not to mention their skulls were quite different looking from ours.
So ennison, are you saying that dinosaurs are in fact younger than us?
Leviathans are actually, according to the Bible, water creatures. So what about Mr. T-Rex and his land friends? Like I said, we haven't found (and will never find) human remians as old as dinosaur remains. It's pretty obvious there is a relation between dinosaurs and iguanas, etc. becuase they are all reptiles, but then that connects with evolution, doesn't it? Dinosaurs also evolved into birds. There are clear similarities between them. Not to mention that leviathans are also called "whales".
In response to your "we should be getting better" comment, evolution takes place over millions of years. So it's a bit of a slow process. If we don't blow ourselves up in the near future, maybe we'll see some changes in a few million years. Evolution is driven by natural selection, and you can't naturally select if some bone head if going to decide to blow us up or if the Earth "collapses" so to speak because of our constant waste and abuse, so we all pay for it. So there's a response to what you're already probably thinking.
besides, humans have somewhat short circuited evolution. we keep the failures alive with medicine, surgery, wheelchairs and such. other examples are glasses, which i have, and hearing aids. im not saying this is wrong necessarily, but it does damage evolution somewhat. its hard to evolve when the failures return to the genepool instead of dying off without reproducing.
Not without the use of numbers and coincedences so astronomical in nature as to become almost as incomprehensible as God.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matrim Cuathon
Another tired argument. We disagree with the validity of some of science's conclusions and suddenly we don't "understand" it. Nice. I'd be willing to counter with "Do you understand the Bible or God at all?" I'm pretty certain that the Christians posting here are fairly familiar with the science behind evolution; just because we question the validity of some of its assumptions and conclusions doesn't mean we don't get it. We may just not completely "buy" it. But how much of our position do you get?Quote:
Originally Posted by Matrim Cuathon
so you believe in Creation then?
well, there is an idea that humanshave evolved intellectually to utilize tools to sustain themselves, imo, evolution is not limited to the physical, but to the intellectual as well, smarter species will survive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matrim Cuathon
(before you go ranting, I am a bio major, not a fanatic, I have chrisitian beliefs, but I have thouroghly studied the evolutionary theory.) In the terms of physical, and even mental, humans are starting/have been stagnating. and it seems that projected, we are not going much further, unless there is some major catastrophe. And as for dying planet...you are correct, our planet has never been healthier, harmfull mutations have never been less, and I for one am damn proud of the fact that we humans have managed to cleanup the toxic environment created by thosed damned suv driving dinosaurs.
Quote:
Also, we are living on a dying planet. If evolution were true, we would be getting better, elevating to perfection, because in essence that is what evolution's function is. To shed weakness, to adapt, to perfect until no weakness exists. That's the theory behind survival of the fittest, isn't it?
Some of the recent posts have been edited/deleted due to their inflammatory nature or they quoted such posts.
Matrim> Next time you personally insult others in your posts or use unacceptable language in your arguments, you will be banned from the Religious Text discussions temporarily or permanently.
Please re-read the Forum Rules: http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=15410
Like Matrim says, a dying planet is extremely unlikely. Life is very hard to eradicate. In the past 96% of life has been eradicated in one catastrophic era (in the Permian-Triassic extinction around 251 million years ago), yet today life still flourishes.
<Not without the use of numbers and coincedences so astronomical in nature as to become almost as incomprehensible as God.>
Redzeppelin saying god is incomprehensible?? Will wonders ever cease? The astronomical figures you talk about are nowhere near the astronomical chance of there being a god. As I have said before, given an infinite number of Universes, or an infinite time, whatever is possible will happen. As this Universe has happened, then everything within it, no matter how improbable, can be explained by the postulation of an astronomical amount of Universe-forming in the past. It is a much better argument than god creating the Universe, because, as we are only trying to explain what already exists, we have all the evidence before us, and just require a more reasonable hypothesis than the existence of god.
Sometimes, the level of ignorance on this thread regarding evolution can be very frustrating. Someone said that survival of the fittest was all about reaching perfection. That is a prime example. The phrase survival of the fittest was not coined by Darwin, but by Spencer, who used it to promote his dubious social philosophy. Darwin was very much against it.
The most perfect species do not always survive. Survival is more about generalisation (jack of all trades) than specialisation (experts). When you become a specialist, you narrow down your survival parameters. A generalist like man, is more likely to survive because his conditions for survival are much more flexible and adaptive. We can live on any continent, in any land mass on earth. That can be said of few species.
<Another tired argument. We disagree with the validity of some of science's conclusions and suddenly we don't "understand" it. Nice. I'd be willing to counter with "Do you understand the Bible or God at all?" I'm pretty certain that the Christians posting here are fairly familiar with the science behind evolution; just because we question the validity of some of its assumptions and conclusions doesn't mean we don't get it. We may just not completely "buy" it. But how much of our position do you get?>
It would help if you put forward a coherent argument for why you disagree with the validity of some of science's findings. It would also help if you could give good reasons for disagreeing with scientific findings that do not impinge on your religious beliefs, as this would counteract any claim of bias. Equating a poor understanding of god (which you have already called incomprehensible) and the bible with a poor understanding of science is just typical of religious people who try to use the success of science to bolster their own ridiculous beliefs. The Bible and the whole of science are not equivalent I'm afraid - dream on!
AP
Well, I'm operating on a selfish definition of life...If I cease to exist, life ceases to exist for me...so it is dead to me...Quote:
Like Matrim says, a dying planet is extremely unlikely. Life is very hard to eradicate. In the past 96% of life has been eradicated in one catastrophic era (in the Permian-Triassic extinction around 251 million years ago), yet today life still flourishes.
"Incomprehensible" ultimately because His existence is defined in terms that humans cannot comprehend (i.e all-knowing, all-powerful, all-present and always existing). Temporal as we are, such terms are beyond our ability to comprehend. Hence "incomprehensible." However, that does not mean God is completely unknowable: the Bible and the leading of the Holy Spirit gives us certain revelations as to the nature of God. That we can know, to a limited extent.Quote:
Originally Posted by atiguhya padma
And what exactly are the odds that God does/not exist? Anybody calculated that? I kind of see the issue as 50/50. That's probably simplistic, but I'm not a numbers guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by atiguhya padma
Based on the ASSUMPTION that there are an infinite number of universes and/or an infinite amount of time has passed - neither of which is empirically provable; such ideas are based along the same lines of faith that Christians use to point to the existence of God.Quote:
Originally Posted by atiguhya padma
If you had "all the evidence" then there would be no argument in this thread. Evolution has yet to bridge certain gaps in its theory. You position strikes you as "reasonable" because it seems so to you; to me, the astronomical numbers, coincedences and random occurences that needed to align to make human life possible is just as absurd in the leaps of faith I'm required to make to accept such ideas.Quote:
Originally Posted by atiguhya padma
The problem is that I really cannot put forth an argument to counter science - for a number of reasons. I'm appealing to the idea that evolutionists tend to identify creationists as "ignorant" of science simply because we choose - by faith - to believe what God tells us - God who - if He is who He says He is - must know more than we do (even with all our cool scientific toys). Science has made definitive claims as to the nature of reality in the past, and many of those ideas have been proven wrong. Every generation of scientists uses the best technology available, but new technology often reveals "layers" of reality that render prior judgments invalid.Quote:
Originally Posted by atiguhya padma
I do not disagree with science in total: I question its conclusions as to the origins of the universe and life on earth. Both of those ideas require a certain faith because neither is observable or provable: evolution attempts to do a CSI-style autopsy - here's the body - how'd it get here? But the universe is much more complicated, and the clues lying around for us to see do not have to point to the conclusions that science has arrived at. "Evidence" quite often requires interpretation. And, once interpretation enters the picture, we now have to deal with subjective tools and attitudes. Welcome to uncertainty.
The bible is about FAITH. You can't compare faith with science. I can't wait to hear the straw man comeback for this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
My own theology professor once said "heaven and god are imaginary. FAITH makes it real". There shouldn't be an argument here...the topic should be renamed "Do you believe in Evolution?". Not "Evolution vs Creationism [faith]". But then again, that wouldn't classify this topic as one to be in the "religion texts forum". I clearly remembering reading the rules about respecting other people's beliefs. Well, how can we do that if evolution contradicts Christian creationism?
I wouldn't call dinosaur bones and mutations..."coincidences".Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Let's stop letting our personal faith influence evolution's validity. If you people insist on trying to debunk evolution, then lets have a secular debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html