Report, edit, etc...Posted by EzDay281 on 2004-12-28 at 12:23:16
QUOTE
Evolution is a very strong theory, which i support but i also belive in a creator. The whole god created earth in 7 days blah blah is impossible, but i beileve something started life on this earth. who/whatever it was i beleve it "programmed" it to evolve and adapt.
Meh, im ebtween but hey
Meh, im ebtween but hey
Kinda late to post, but, ya, this is kinda what I'm thinking.
QUOTE
You're conflating evolution with abiogenesis. Atomic theory doesn't explain how atoms came into existence, but that doesn't hinder our ability to explain chemistry. Germ theory doesn't explain how the first germ came into existence in order to explain things like sickness and antibiotics. Evolution doesn't need to know how the first life came into existence, but that doesn't mean we can't explain biodiversity now.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that they were the same.
It was more on the side of the [God vs No God] rather than [Evolution vs Creation] arguments.
Also, I'm tired of this thread, I've argued in so many of things kind of god or no god evolution or creation arguments...
But I don't see what the point in believing the bible is.
What proof do you have that it's anymore correct?
Guess what!
If it weren't for the bible, you wouldn't believe!
Why? Because you got the information from the bible!
Now, suppose the bible were different.
Then you'd believe something different then you do now.
So you'd be wrong and go to hell because you were unlucky enough to have me go back and change the bible.
Not to mention translation differences, and the fact that bibles can vary among each other, even of the same religion.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CaptainWill on 2004-12-28 at 13:23:47
Yeah, I'm also one of those people who believe in a hybrid of Evolution and Creation:
1. The Universe was created by...a creator.
2. The laws which govern all inside our Universe were also created. I believe that Evolution was one of these laws.
3. The first life on Earth was introduced by a creator.
4. Evolution took hold after this.
Think about it - we see evidence of evolution every day with the mutations of pathogens - the fact that humans are getting taller etc. If you study genetics (like me) then you begin to realise that it isn't hard for Evolution to be a viable theory.
1. The Universe was created by...a creator.
2. The laws which govern all inside our Universe were also created. I believe that Evolution was one of these laws.
3. The first life on Earth was introduced by a creator.
4. Evolution took hold after this.
Think about it - we see evidence of evolution every day with the mutations of pathogens - the fact that humans are getting taller etc. If you study genetics (like me) then you begin to realise that it isn't hard for Evolution to be a viable theory.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Basan on 2004-12-28 at 14:46:13
Just for fun, tell me what do you think of this posture of the Pope ('bout evolution). 
(Source pulled from a christian site) Hey, if even the Pope believes in Evolution to some extent, why cannot you?
Evolution theory does the job, so I'm an evolutionist myself. Abiogenesis explains it all.
And to me most of the things here (creation side) need refreshing and perhaps more cool headedness (proofs from several sites and sides as we do).
(Source pulled from a christian site) Hey, if even the Pope believes in Evolution to some extent, why cannot you?
Evolution theory does the job, so I'm an evolutionist myself. Abiogenesis explains it all.
And to me most of the things here (creation side) need refreshing and perhaps more cool headedness (proofs from several sites and sides as we do).
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DrunkenWrestler on 2004-12-28 at 15:31:40
QUOTE(Kow)
Micro evolution, not much resembleance other than its a very small scale compared to 'evolution'
In a decade, antigens can become immune to antibiotics, and incects can become immune to pesticides. If small benefical mutations like these can happen within a decade, imagine what can happen in millions of years. Small things add up to become big.
BWMG, this post only shows how little you understand evolution theory.
QUOTE(-BW-Map_God)
when [Darwin] created it he said that "thousands of links should be found proving it" later in his life Mr. Darwin acknowledged that no such links had been found(and none have been found today I might add) and that his theory was probably incorrect. Think about it, if we have all these species "evolving" we should have fossil records that support this however we don't.
See attached image. Also look into horse fossils for a pretty complete transitional series. Also, stop getting info on evolution from creationist sources. You wouldn't get information on Christianity from a Muslim source, would you?
QUOTE
Furthermore Evolution assumes that things are created out of "Chaos" however we know that isn't the case. You don't just throw a bunch of parts together and get a car, or put them all in a room and have an explosion that makes a car.
Of course not. There are tons of transitional phases before something even as complex (and jury-rigged) as the eye can develop. See all of post #8. And things aren't coming out of chaos because the sun is always supplying energy avaliable to do work.
By your logic, it is impossible for a mother to have a baby, because the matter would have to move from a state of chaos to a state of order. This paragraph shows how little you really understand evolution and the second law of thermodynamics.
What intelligent designer would give me 32 teeth when I only have room for 28? Or a useless appendix that can explode on me, causing death from bile infection? See post #4. If there is an intelligent designer, he isn't very intelligent.
QUOTE
I'd much rather trust the Bible is accurate and that God created everything in Six Days.
Then your theory is already predetermined, huh?
QUOTE
http://www.halos.com/index.htm there is a video on that site you can download for free (58 minutes) which refutes evolutionists claims that the earth is ancient and gives evidence for a young (created earth).
Is there a transcript available?
QUOTE
There is alotta evidence and stuff on the site, I wouldn't suggest you try to read it all, just watch one(or both) of the videos and make your own decisions.
I suggest you read a book that accurately represents evolution.
QUOTE
Furthermore the sun is always growing and if it had been around as long as evolutionists would like to think it has it would have already extended to Jupiter making life on Earth impossible.
Where did you hear this claim?
QUOTE
As far as only teaching Evolution in schools, its a mistake, they should teach both sides,
There is a tribe in Congo, Africa, that believes a diety was sick and vomited the universe into existence. Would you approve that supersition being taught in science classrooms? It's just a reasonable alternative, eh?
QUOTE
especially since evolution is only a theory.
I guess you really don't understand science at all. In science, theory is not equated with speculation. Established theories are made of hypotheses and deductions drawn from those hypotheses that are strongly supported by empirical evidence. Such as atomic theory, relativity theory, cell theory, etc. Even the fact that the Earth is round is only a "theory." In science, nothing is proven, the best theory is drawn from the evidence. The only realm in which things are proven are logic and mathematics.
Germ theory explains the phenomena of antibiotics, which is "only a theory," but you aren't skeptical when a doctor prescribes you antibiotics, are you?
QUOTE
Basically they just want God out of the schools and that's the main attraction of evolution it offers a view that takes God out of the picture and that if you don't think too long/hard about it may seem to make sense.
Teaching evolution has nothing to do with seperation of church and state. It is taught because it is a scientific theory.
Evolution does not equal atheism. To believe in evolution, does not mean you must deny the existence of God. See post #9. Kow believes on both God and evolution. Perhaps it is not the bible that is in error, perhaps it's just your interpretation. The bible says God created man, but it does not say how.
ADDITION:
QUOTE(-BW-Map_God)
That doesn't prove anything, just that people can collect a bunch of skulls and put them together.
...
no half legs and no half wings. The Archaeopteryx Fraud
...
no half legs and no half wings. The Archaeopteryx Fraud
Geez, your theories really are predetermined, any any data to the contrary is simply in error. Here's the problem, you have a theory, and you try to find the facts that support it. Anything that contradicts it is somehow in error. This is probably why you let some of the websites you throw slip past your balony detector. If you really can disprove evolution, send us pictures of your Nobel ceremony.
Science works the other way. They have the evidence, and they draw the best theory from it. If they find something that contradicts their theory, they don't change the facts to fit the theory, they change the theory to fit the facts.
The Miller experiment doesn't really relate to evolution. Evolution explains biodiversity, not how the first single celled organism came into existence. Cheeze was actually wrong on that one.
QUOTE
Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect form. The direct effect of mutations is harmful.
Again, you show you don't really have an understanding of evolution to begin with. The only things you know about evolution is the horse manure creationist feed ignorant kids. I suggest you get accurate information on evolution from accurate sources.
Mutations themselves are neither benefical or detrimental. It is the enviornment that determines if the mutation is benefical or detrimental. A mutation that makes a rabbit's fur white in Alaska? Benefical. A mutation that makes the rabbit's fur a conspicious black in Alaska? Detrimental.
Right now, you have 1-5 mutations in you, but they are so benign and so subtle that you'll never notice them. A few ways mutations occur is from ultraviolet rays from the Sun, or from the crossing over of chromosomes during meiosis. Mutations are random, but not always harmful. Most are benign. It's like adding 0's and 1's to random places in a computer program. Sometimes nothing noticable happens, sometimes harmful things happen, and every once in a while, "benefical" things happen (it is the enviornment that determines if a mutation is benefical). In a recent example, elephants being born without tusk are being naturally selected (I hope you know what natural selection is) over elephants with tusk, since poachers hunt them for those ivory tusk.
QUOTE
Nuclear...I googled Hypothesis of Evolution and got 909 results whereas Theory of Evolution got me 588k+ so let's just call it a theory. That's what all the University websites called it.
Try Gravity theory.
EDIT: The universe isn't tuned for life. Life is tuned for the universe. If we had a different universe with different constants, we might have a different kind of life. The main flaw with intelligent design is that they predict things "as they are." Gravity, precipitation, position of planets, etc. If A didn't happen, B wouldn't result. So what? What if C happned? D would result, and perhaps if whatever exist in there is sentient and capable of thought, they might start saying the universe is tuned for THEIR life. And out of ignorance, they might just conclude it's some sort of god. This universe could have just been an accident, nothing in science says that that is impossible.
Solipsism, the idea that the entire universe is just a by-product of your imagination, or the hypothesis that the universe just popped into existence 5 minutes ago with even our memories of "earlier" events intact, can explain the design of the universe just as well as "Goddidit." But anyway, back to evolution.
http://www.talkorgins.org <---Good place to start reading on evolution.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2004-12-28 at 18:16:05
QUOTE(-BW-Map_God)
A Mutation occurs when a DNA gene is damaged or changed in such a way as to alter the genetic message carried by that gene.
That is called evolution, where the gentic information is altered and a didferent organism or cell is created.
QUOTE(-BW-Map_God)
You seem to think we all have mutations when were born which is far from the truth, mutations are rare and usually result in rare illnesses/diseases...hardly a way for our species to evolve.
Like what DrunkenWrestler said, there are quite a few mutations. If there were none, then every pair of parents would create similar children, they would all create similar children, and it would never change. These mutations are why everyone is different. If you are not convinced, look at brothers or sisters. Two brothers will have the same set of genes, twins too, but they will be different. The genes will have evolved or altered slightly in each of them, so they are not copies of each other.
QUOTE(-BW-Map_God)
The most important proof that mutations lead only to damage, is the process of genetic coding. Almost all of the genes in a fully developed living thing carry more than one piece of information.
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/mechanisms07.html
Because of this characteristic of the genetic structure of living things, any coincidental change because of a mutation, in any gene in the DNA, will affect more than one organ. Consequently, this mutation will not be restricted to one part of the body, but will reveal more of its destructive impact. Even if one of these impacts turns out to be beneficial, as a result of a very rare coincidence, the unavoidable effects of the other damage it causes will more than outweigh those benefits.
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/mechanisms07.html
Because of this characteristic of the genetic structure of living things, any coincidental change because of a mutation, in any gene in the DNA, will affect more than one organ. Consequently, this mutation will not be restricted to one part of the body, but will reveal more of its destructive impact. Even if one of these impacts turns out to be beneficial, as a result of a very rare coincidence, the unavoidable effects of the other damage it causes will more than outweigh those benefits.
It doesn't ahppen immediately. Cancer is an example of this altering happening badly. If someone has malignant Leukemia, their whole body won't immediatly become a pile of cancerous cells. It hapens slowly. if they have a benign tumor, this is an example of it not screwing everything up. One change in something won't cause everything to collapse, limits sometimes occur. Let's say Mr. Joeington dies in the town of jesusville, everyone in the community is affected and upset, but Mr. Random Name in China is not affected at all. Perhaps 1300 years down the road, the effect could make an impact on Mr. Random Name's kids, because perhaps they may have married Mr. Joeington's kids, if they had been able to be born. This is a pretty crappy example..., but it shows how the cause and effect system happens slowly.
QUOTE(-BW-Map_God)
To summarize, there are three main reasons why mutations cannot make evolution possible:
l- The direct effect of mutations is harmful: Since they occur randomly, they almost always damage the living organism that undergoes them. Reason tells us that unconscious intervention in a perfect and complex structure will not improve that structure, but will rather impair it. Indeed, no "useful mutation" has ever been observed.
l- The direct effect of mutations is harmful: Since they occur randomly, they almost always damage the living organism that undergoes them. Reason tells us that unconscious intervention in a perfect and complex structure will not improve that structure, but will rather impair it. Indeed, no "useful mutation" has ever been observed.
... There are many examples. There's that tuskless elephant example, there are killer bees, which developed poisonous fluids. The bees don't seem to mind it. How about influenza. Sure it pisses people off, but the influenza evolves, so it is not affected by last year's antibodies. Also, it may become immune to a certain antibiotic or antiviral medicine, that seems rather helpful for it.
QUOTE(-BW-Map_God)
2- Mutations add no new information to an organism's DNA: The particles making up the genetic information are either torn from their places, destroyed, or carried off to different places. Mutations cannot make a living thing acquire a new organ or a new trait. They only cause abnormalities like a leg sticking out of the back, or an ear from the abdomen.
Let me quote you... as you are being controversial with yourself.
QUOTE(-BW-Map_God)
A Mutation occurs when a DNA gene is damaged or changed in such a way as to alter the genetic message carried by that gene.
Mutations are cell division errors that occur in the genes, which are part of DNA, like chromosomes. If all the DNA was untouched, there wouldn't be these mutations and we wouldn't exist to post in this thread.
QUOTE(-BW-Map_God)
3- In order for a mutation to be transferred to the subsequent generation, it has to have taken place in the reproductive cells of the organism: A random change that occurs in a cell or organ of the body cannot be transferred to the next generation. For example, a human eye altered by the effects of radiation, or by other causes, will not be passed on to subsequent generations.
That genetic data is pulled from the DNA around the body. The reproductive produsing cells don't make up data. Also, the damages occur to the reproductive cells sometimes. So, eye damage caused by radiation may not be passed on, but if the reproductive and core cells were damaged which caused the faulty eyes, they'll be passed on.
QUOTE(-BW-Map_God)
I hope that clears up some of your confusion on mutations.
I hope this did the same for you....
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Kow on 2004-12-28 at 19:58:01
QUOTE
These mutations are why everyone is different.
Its called meiosis and conception. A cell splits and splits again, leaving it with four haploid cells. Each parent has one that merges with the other parents... THAT rather than mutations causes diversity in species.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DrunkenWrestler on 2004-12-28 at 20:14:44
QUOTE
Its called meiosis and conception. A cell splits and splits again, leaving it with four haploid cells. Each parent has one that merges with the other parents... THAT rather than mutations causes diversity in species.
When the chormotids "merge," I think the correct term is crossing over, new combinations of genes are formed. So meiosis is just another mutating agent.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by -BW-Map_God on 2004-12-29 at 01:09:54
QUOTE
Wow, your resources are the same place. A creationist side. Try a variety of sites before you post things you know about.
If you read any of those articles I linked you'd notice that alot of their information is from leading evolutionists. Kudos though coming up with the best argument against that information...that its from the same site. I'd rather get alot of information from a site that is scientifically sound than run around pointing out this and that link and then having someone point out that its out of date or disproven already.
QUOTE
Here are some sites you should check out before giving out wrong data:
www.wikipedia.org
www.google.com (for everything!)
www.talkorigins.org/ (<-- very important)
www.wikipedia.org
www.google.com (for everything!)
www.talkorigins.org/ (<-- very important)
So its wrong because you disagree with it? Basically it's my opinion vs your's and I've backed mine up with facts. You've backed yours up with old arguments that have been disproven already. I have used google and that site I "overused" was the top site on the list when I google searched the topic.
Mutations are permanent, transmissible changes to the genetic material (usually DNA or RNA) of a cell (wikipedia.org).
A permanent change in genetic material is not no real effect. I also find it odd they let anyone edit the page...
As for the other site I've checked it out, it has some good links on it.
QUOTE
It's only a couple of random skulls of carbon dating or whatever the method was used was wrong. Now, I don't know what's wrong with your eyes, but I can clearly see a small difference between each generation in the skulls. Given the dating to be accurate, it's pretty easy to conclude they were within our own class.
So does that mean your going to provide a link other than the pictures now? One that talksa bout the facts of the studies down on these skulls, how they were dated and such.
QUOTE
Second Law of Thermodynamics. Misconception.
You assume the earth to be a closed system. Of course, a closed system can only result in organisms to be "worse" than the generations before it. But our planet is not a closed system, as we receieve energy from the sun.
http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings/thermo.html
You assume the earth to be a closed system. Of course, a closed system can only result in organisms to be "worse" than the generations before it. But our planet is not a closed system, as we receieve energy from the sun.
http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings/thermo.html
At the bottom of that page:
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this essay are the opinion of the author of this essay alone and should not be taken to represent the views of any other person or organization.
QUOTE
You're saying it's 100% impossible for life to come from non-life?
I've already touched on this previously, and yes I am saying that non-life does not come from life.
QUOTE
'He always existed' you might say.
If this god always existed, then what about other dieties such as Zeus, who, at one time was believed to be just as real as the current god. Those people believed in a different god, will those people go to hell? They lived to the standards of their time. They led the perfect life. But only failed to show faith in god because he did not even give evidence of his presense.
If this god always existed, then what about other dieties such as Zeus, who, at one time was believed to be just as real as the current god. Those people believed in a different god, will those people go to hell? They lived to the standards of their time. They led the perfect life. But only failed to show faith in god because he did not even give evidence of his presense.
I am a believer in one God. I won't attempt to judge people I've never met that lived centuries ago its between them and God where there going. If they didn't have relationship with Him then I doubt they will mind eternal seperation from him forever so much(hell).
QUOTE
Something that hasn't been done does not mean it cannot be done.
That's true but until it actually happens we shouldn't just assume it will be done.
QUOTE
Something that hasn't been found does not mean it cannot be found.
Yea, but after 100's of years of searching for it by many scientists and considering how common missing links "should be" if all our species evolved it puts quite a dent on the theory when they still haven't found any.
QUOTE
What does this have to do with anything?
Why don't you read it and find out? It's more information for a younger Earth.
QUOTE
That's basically asking how we learned to breathe.
So if it's too hard to explain how a function evolved we should just ignore that difficulty and try to rationalize less complicated things. I guess it takes less faith than believing a big bang created our Universe.
QUOTE
Your 'proof on god existing' sites gave me a laugh. Keep it up, I like sites that make me laugh.
Yea, sometimes I laugh too when I see how much evidence they can collect and how people can still cling to evolution.
QUOTE
Also, I'm tired of this thread, I've argued in so many of things kind of god or no god evolution or creation arguments...
Agreeded there's enough information in this thread now that people can look stuff up themselves and checkout the facts and then figure out which side of the argument they want to believe.
QUOTE
Just for fun, tell me what do you think of this posture of the Pope ('bout evolution).
(Source pulled from a christian site) Hey, if even the Pope believes in Evolution to some extent, why cannot you?
(Source pulled from a christian site) Hey, if even the Pope believes in Evolution to some extent, why cannot you?
Well, I'm not catholic and the Pope's made mistakes before. He's not an expert on anything and quite frankly I don't care what he thinks.
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-chat/767711/posts
For more facts against evolution.
QUOTE
Evolution theory does the job, so I'm an evolutionist myself. Abiogenesis explains it all.
It might try to explain it all but it does so incorrectly, checkout this:
There is a tremendous amount of proof against abiogenesis. First of all is Pasteur's proof that life does not come from inert matter (and this was of course at one time the prediction of materialists). Then came the discovery of DNA and the chemical basis of organisms. This poses a totally insurmountable problem to abiogenesis. The smallest living cells has a DNA string of some one million base pairs long and some 600 genes, even cutting this number by a quarter as the smallest possible living cell would give us a string of some 250,000 base pairs of DNA. It is important to note here that DNA can be arranged in any of the four basic codes equally well, there is no chemical or other necessity to the sequence. The chances of such an arrangement arising are therefore 4^250,000. Now the number of atoms in the universe is said to be about 4^250. I would therefore call 4^250,000 an almost infinitely impossible chance (note that the supposition advanced that perhaps it was RNA that produced the first life has this same problem).
The problem though is even worse than that. Not only do you need two (2) strings of DNA perfectly matched to have life, but you also need a cell so that the DNA code can get the material to sustain that life. It is therefore a chicken and egg problem, you cannot have life without DNA (or RNA if one wants to be generous) but one also has to have the cell itself to provide the nutrients for the sustenance of the first life. Add to this problem that for the first life to have been the progenitor of all life on earth, it necessarily needs to have been pretty much the same as all life now on earth is, otherwise it could not have been the source of the life we know. Given all these considerations, yes, abiogenesis is impossible.
(This is on the above site but posted it since you probably won't scroll down far enough to find it).
QUOTE
See attached image. Also look into horse fossils for a pretty complete transitional series. Also, stop getting info on evolution from creationist sources. You wouldn't get information on Christianity from a Muslim source, would you?
Yea, it would be awful if people read Creationist sources wouldn't it? I mean we better surpress them all before people stumble across them and read the truth. That's why we only want to teach Evolution right? If we can teach evolution as a "fact" in schools then maybe nobody will question it or go looking and find out about its holes.
QUOTE
Solipsism, the idea that the entire universe is just a by-product of your imagination, or the hypothesis that the universe just popped into existence 5 minutes ago with even our memories of "earlier" events intact, can explain the design of the universe just as well as "Goddidit." But anyway, back to evolution.
Ideally an intro course would cover the major ideas I would think other ideas like those above mentioned would be covered in a more advanced course. Otherwise its like taking an Intro to Philosophy Course that tries to cover every Philosopher in it in a semester no matter how obscure their ideas are.
DrunkenWrestler I'm assuming your other quotes are off the top of your head since you teach some sort of science courses. For documentation purposes though you might want to post some links for supporting stuff for other people checking out this thread. I mean you can't just expect strangers to accept you as an expert without giving them sources.
QUOTE
That is called evolution, where the gentic information is altered and a didferent organism or cell is created.
Mutations don't create cells they change them as described in some previously listed links.
Well, I've got classes to study for that I start next semester and a 4.0 GPA to keep up
. The Creation/Evolution argument can be found on numerous sites and I suggest if anyone wishes to continue arguing it they do so on another site. There's enough information on this forum now for the casual person who wanders across the thread so we might as well spend our time on Starcraft for these forums. I don't have time to reply to pages of comments every day on this issue, look at the facts, make your own decision and it was nice discussing this with ya'll but I have to start getting back in school mode so 
. There, now we all have a few extra hours in our day to spend on other things .Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2004-12-29 at 01:35:27
QUOTE
At the bottom of that page:
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this essay are the opinion of the author of this essay alone and should not be taken to represent the views of any other person or organization.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this essay are the opinion of the author of this essay alone and should not be taken to represent the views of any other person or organization.
I wish the bible said that.
QUOTE
I've already touched on this previously, and yes I am saying that non-life does not come from life.
Where did god come from? If god has unlimited energy, then he must have unlimited
mass, which means he would have collapsed on himself, which means god exploded as the big bang! w00t!
QUOTE
That's true but until it actually happens we shouldn't just assume it will be done.
No evidence shows god creating earth; therefore, god did not create earth.
QUOTE
Yea, but after 100's of years of searching for it by many scientists and considering how common missing links "should be" if all our species evolved it puts quite a dent on the theory when they still haven't found any.
DrunkenWrestling: u know
DrunkenWrestling: i don't believe i decended from my dad, there aren't enough transitionals!
QUOTE
Why don't you read it and find out? It's more information for a younger Earth.
My house isn't more there 10 years old, therefore, earth cannot be more than 10 years old.
QUOTE
So if it's too hard to explain how a function evolved we should just ignore that difficulty and try to rationalize less complicated things. I guess it takes less faith than believing a big bang created our Universe.
You didn't even try to read the color eye link I gave you.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vision.html
QUOTE
Yea, sometimes I laugh too when I see how much evidence they can collect and how people can still cling to evolution.
Yeah, I don't see it either. I mean, the evidence that god exists is simply overwhelming!
But, that has nothing to do with anything, oh well.
Too tired to do any research, so I'll just post the stuff that I've already used before against the arguements I'm hearing from you.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CaptainWill on 2004-12-29 at 02:21:07
Just to clear up this mutation argument:
Mutations can occur during mitosis or meiosis. They are the result of free radical damage or ionisation caused by radiation etc. during replication of DNA, resulting in incorrect replication, which has different effects, depending on if it occurred during mitosis or meiosis.
If the mutation happened during mitosis, it probably created a rogue cell. This rogue cell will probably be spotted and then contained/destroyed by the immune system, but if it is allowed to divide and multiply, it will become a cancerous tissue. Ever wondered what beauty-spots/moles are? They are areas of controlled or destroyed skin cancer - the darkness of the area is caused by the dead cancerous cells, I believe.
If the mutation happened during meiosis, then you're going to end up with an abnormal egg or sperm cell. If this cell becomes a zygote (i.e. it becomes one with the cell of the opposite sex), then the resulting embryo will probably be quietly aborted by the body before it becomes a foetus (British spelling). Of course, occasionally the embryo will survive if the mutation is not severe, and may actually be born. In this case, the child rarely survives long enough to pass on the mutation.
Also, mutation is very different from variation. Variation is when the genes of the parents are mixed to produce offspring similar, but also different to the mother and father. That's all about dominant and negative alleles - and is how genetic diseases and mutations are passed on.
ADDITION:
I hate to double-post, but this one is replying to Cheeze:
Actually, that's the kind of science/religion hybrid theory I would put forward. Read Angels and Demons by Dan Brown, it has some factually based stuff on that in its pages.
Here's a dilemma for you anyway: Photons have energy but no mass.
Also, in extremely high energy situations, matter simultaneously appears out of nothing. This has been demonstrated in antimatter annihilations.
Mutations can occur during mitosis or meiosis. They are the result of free radical damage or ionisation caused by radiation etc. during replication of DNA, resulting in incorrect replication, which has different effects, depending on if it occurred during mitosis or meiosis.
If the mutation happened during mitosis, it probably created a rogue cell. This rogue cell will probably be spotted and then contained/destroyed by the immune system, but if it is allowed to divide and multiply, it will become a cancerous tissue. Ever wondered what beauty-spots/moles are? They are areas of controlled or destroyed skin cancer - the darkness of the area is caused by the dead cancerous cells, I believe.
If the mutation happened during meiosis, then you're going to end up with an abnormal egg or sperm cell. If this cell becomes a zygote (i.e. it becomes one with the cell of the opposite sex), then the resulting embryo will probably be quietly aborted by the body before it becomes a foetus (British spelling). Of course, occasionally the embryo will survive if the mutation is not severe, and may actually be born. In this case, the child rarely survives long enough to pass on the mutation.
Also, mutation is very different from variation. Variation is when the genes of the parents are mixed to produce offspring similar, but also different to the mother and father. That's all about dominant and negative alleles - and is how genetic diseases and mutations are passed on.
ADDITION:
I hate to double-post, but this one is replying to Cheeze:
QUOTE
Where did god come from? If god has unlimited energy, then he must have unlimited
mass, which means he would have collapsed on himself, which means god exploded as the big bang! w00t!
mass, which means he would have collapsed on himself, which means god exploded as the big bang! w00t!
Actually, that's the kind of science/religion hybrid theory I would put forward. Read Angels and Demons by Dan Brown, it has some factually based stuff on that in its pages.
Here's a dilemma for you anyway: Photons have energy but no mass.
Also, in extremely high energy situations, matter simultaneously appears out of nothing. This has been demonstrated in antimatter annihilations.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by EzDay281 on 2004-12-29 at 02:28:12
Hm.
"I am a believer in one God. I won't attempt to judge people I've never met that lived centuries ago its between them and God where there going. If they didn't have relationship with Him then I doubt they will mind eternal seperation from him forever so much(hell)."
Between them and God? No, it's between God and God for deciding they aren't worthy of even having the Bible to referance from.
True, true, you are not worthy of judging people by the same basis by which God would decide to impose upon them the worst fate he could dream up, torture for eternity.
Just as they are bad because no one showed them your bible, and thus they never even thought of God as Christianity takes him to be.
Oh, and by the way, sucks for you.
You're going to hell.
You see, Christianity is wrong, and Kemism is correct.
In Kemism, if you believe that non-believers go to hell, then, regardless of the fact that you're applying that belief to Christianity, not Kemism, because, well, that's just the way Kem is.
In case you're wondering what Kemism is, it's this religion I made up.
I don't really believe in it, but I use it for examples such as this.
Looks like when I die, I'm going to go up into some spiritual arcade in a higher plane of existance.
Lucky me
"I am a believer in one God. I won't attempt to judge people I've never met that lived centuries ago its between them and God where there going. If they didn't have relationship with Him then I doubt they will mind eternal seperation from him forever so much(hell)."
Between them and God? No, it's between God and God for deciding they aren't worthy of even having the Bible to referance from.
True, true, you are not worthy of judging people by the same basis by which God would decide to impose upon them the worst fate he could dream up, torture for eternity.
Just as they are bad because no one showed them your bible, and thus they never even thought of God as Christianity takes him to be.
Oh, and by the way, sucks for you.
You're going to hell.
You see, Christianity is wrong, and Kemism is correct.
In Kemism, if you believe that non-believers go to hell, then, regardless of the fact that you're applying that belief to Christianity, not Kemism, because, well, that's just the way Kem is.
In case you're wondering what Kemism is, it's this religion I made up.
I don't really believe in it, but I use it for examples such as this.
Looks like when I die, I'm going to go up into some spiritual arcade in a higher plane of existance.
Lucky me
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Halo(MC) on 2004-12-29 at 06:28:35
QUOTE(CaptainWill @ Dec 28 2004, 11:23 AM)
Yeah, I'm also one of those people who believe in a hybrid of Evolution and Creation:
1. The Universe was created by...a creator.
2. The laws which govern all inside our Universe were also created. I believe that Evolution was one of these laws.
3. The first life on Earth was introduced by a creator.
4. Evolution took hold after this.
Think about it - we see evidence of evolution every day with the mutations of pathogens - the fact that humans are getting taller etc. If you study genetics (like me) then you begin to realise that it isn't hard for Evolution to be a viable theory.
[right][snapback]116070[/snapback][/right]
1. The Universe was created by...a creator.
2. The laws which govern all inside our Universe were also created. I believe that Evolution was one of these laws.
3. The first life on Earth was introduced by a creator.
4. Evolution took hold after this.
Think about it - we see evidence of evolution every day with the mutations of pathogens - the fact that humans are getting taller etc. If you study genetics (like me) then you begin to realise that it isn't hard for Evolution to be a viable theory.
[right][snapback]116070[/snapback][/right]
Captain I've been looking for you everywhere!
And I also beleive in a Hybrid, and Will stated my opinion perfectly. I couldn't have said It better.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Basan on 2004-12-30 at 07:46:47
Before goin' to reply to post #33, I'm reviewing a few basics in your post #19.
If you want ot teach or be taught the creationism, go to a religious school. Since creationism isn't any near proving so far, we'd stick to better explanations and aprtially proven theories, ok?
Well... from what i've seen those sites (fetching links in post #24) are from fellas tryin' to prove the christian doctrines. And the other is connected to another religion's view point. Not totally unbiased towards scientific studies, is the best thing I can hand out to you.
So, there's goes the scientifically sound arguement out the window...
Many sources are only the reinforcement of a theory and you can't even contradict that.
With the risk of dragging back the issue here, what have you disproven in fact?
We proved our point with and you instead associated the denial attempt of those facts with proving yours. That's called inference and not really sound proof like we (evolucionists and/or mild creationists) want.
And the results of a search only depend on what you're really searching... try evolution instead. By the mere looks of it, it presents more results (number) than a similar search to creationism. So, what's your point afterall?
And I find it amusing that you only quoted the mutations part that could be easily refutted from the wikipedia (one of the net's encyclopedias). Here's the real thing (fully) quoted:
The source (of the above quotation).
Note that it contains links from within the quoted text and that it goes on into further detailing of more specific mutations below.
And if you used it more often (wikipedia), you'd realized that it's carefully watched site by it's admins, when you try to place/edit articles in there. It also says for you to provide the sources. If they still find it isn't a 'tasteful' article (read good, science based or similar), it will be dealt with proper measures. So, it goes into my Internet expectations, that are self-learning and/or auto-improvement along with the potencial of aiding others.
ADDITION:
Those (studies) are all around the Internet and if you search correctly, it should end up in somethin' useful (to both sides). And I do look the sources... from both sides.
The use of scientific techniques to assist in those studies is a tool and method of science, like for instance Carbon 14 dating. Yours is? Calvinism (purism) perhaps!?! *Irony*
And you said already that you don't buy into abiogenesis. Since the only other option is biogenesis care to explain me how did God appeared? He always existed you'll prob'ly say, but none the less someone or some thing (non living) must have created him/her once upon a time...
The missing link... Aww, that's tuff. Same as proving that God exists. But both are being searched. And from the current human development I can almost bet that the missing link will be found earlier than God. If he still didn't showed him/herself 'till now and since he seems to care enough for us to prevent disasters (for example, like the last one in Asia), the pattern drawn from that infers that he prob'ly won't exist (at least as God anyway).
And that chances are very hard to get, not impossible (abiogenesis). Perhaps sheer luck was involved at the time (primordial soup)? Or even other entities.
It would be a terrible waste of space (in the universe) if we're the only ones 'round (me thinks Carl Sagan, said it).
Sorry, but I don'y buy that almighty 'perfect design' thingy. If he's perfect, why it changes his/her stands from the Old Testament into the New?
Conclusion: Perfection comes through change, thus addaptation. Therefore evolution.
Please, just prove me where the Bible is correct in that one (Adam n' Eve).
No fussing around that the Bible is correct in other matters, like the food we can eat (as you tried with your links already). I can take those conclusions for myself after experimenting and observing, btw two of the basic scientifical methods. And could have written it later as some scholars (similar to the Bible, as a book).
The Bible as a good set of principles, I can grant that, but those are getting outdated with the advancement of society. The Church, and many religion's view points as well, needs to addapt into the new ages. That's what I tried to imply with my 1st link related to the Pope, on my 1st post here.
Relating the previous paragraph (abiogenesis hypothesis of occurring) with the following, but on the other side:
And what are the chances of God existing? We can't even put it in numbers, since we don't have any proof (yet) that he existed or exists.
So just don't assume it exists. It's your faith telling you that, not facts. Facts, on the other hand began to support the evo's theory.
From the 1st paragraph in the link supplied within the group of your quotes above:
Beating the proverbial dead horse... again. So, where are the proofs of the creationist theory?
Nope, plain n' simple. Flight evolved in many different forms as many other functions. Same much as breathing (insects, fish and birds as examples) or the brain function. Hopefully, the corals (and their specialization) could explain it better than me.
ADDITION:
Same as you cling to creationism. And yes, unfortunetly I always recall Galileo and his theory when 'cussing religious related matters.
I'm not worried (that anyone sees the creationist theory). Are you?
---------------
Sorry for any casual messing with the paragraph order but just grouped'em in similar topics. Similar happened to some of the simillies in quotes.
Now let's see if the max posting limit isn't depleted.
Edit reason: Some links text coding got screwed or I've made mistakes... *Cursess posting at the office*
QUOTE(BW-M.God in post #19)
... As far as only teaching Evolution in schools, its a mistake, they should teach both sides, especially since evolution is only a theory. Schools shouldn't lie to students and act like evolution is proven and for sure true. ...
If you want ot teach or be taught the creationism, go to a religious school. Since creationism isn't any near proving so far, we'd stick to better explanations and aprtially proven theories, ok?
QUOTE(BW-M.God on post #33 downwards)
If you read any of those articles I linked you'd notice that alot of their information is from leading evolutionists. Kudos though coming up with the best argument against that information...that its from the same site. I'd rather get alot of information from a site that is scientifically sound than run around pointing out this and that link and then having someone point out that its out of date or disproven already.
QUOTE(BW-M.God)
So its wrong because you disagree with it? Basically it's my opinion vs your's and I've backed mine up with facts. You've backed yours up with old arguments that have been disproven already. I have used google and that site I "overused" was the top site on the list when I google searched the topic.
Mutations are permanent, transmissible changes to the genetic material (usually DNA or RNA) of a cell (wikipedia.org).
A permanent change in genetic material is not no real effect. I also find it odd they let anyone edit the page...
As for the other site I've checked it out, it has some good links on it.
Mutations are permanent, transmissible changes to the genetic material (usually DNA or RNA) of a cell (wikipedia.org).
A permanent change in genetic material is not no real effect. I also find it odd they let anyone edit the page...
As for the other site I've checked it out, it has some good links on it.
Well... from what i've seen those sites (fetching links in post #24) are from fellas tryin' to prove the christian doctrines. And the other is connected to another religion's view point. Not totally unbiased towards scientific studies, is the best thing I can hand out to you.
So, there's goes the scientifically sound arguement out the window...
Many sources are only the reinforcement of a theory and you can't even contradict that.
With the risk of dragging back the issue here, what have you disproven in fact?
We proved our point with and you instead associated the denial attempt of those facts with proving yours. That's called inference and not really sound proof like we (evolucionists and/or mild creationists) want.
And the results of a search only depend on what you're really searching... try evolution instead. By the mere looks of it, it presents more results (number) than a similar search to creationism. So, what's your point afterall?
And I find it amusing that you only quoted the mutations part that could be easily refutted from the wikipedia (one of the net's encyclopedias). Here's the real thing (fully) quoted:
QUOTE(Mutations in Wikipedia.org)
This article is about mutation in biology, for other meanings see: mutation (disambiguation).
Mutations are permanent, transmissible changes to the genetic material (usually DNA or RNA) of a cell. Mutations can be caused by copying errors in the genetic material during cell division and by exposure to radiation, chemicals, or viruses, or can occur deliberately under cellular control during the processes such as meiosis or hypermutation. In multicellular organisms, mutations can be subdivided into germline mutations, which can be passed on to progeny and somatic mutations, which (when accidental) often lead to the malfunction or death of a cell and can cause cancer. Mutations are considered the driving force of evolution, where less favorable (or deleterious) mutations are removed from the gene pool by natural selection, while more favorable (or beneficial) ones tend to accumulate. Neutral mutations do not affect the organism's chances of survival in its natural environment and can accumulate over time, which might result in what is known as punctuated equilibrium; the modern interpretation of classic evolutionary theory. It should be noted that, contrary to science fiction, the overwhelming majority of mutations have no real effect.
Mutations are permanent, transmissible changes to the genetic material (usually DNA or RNA) of a cell. Mutations can be caused by copying errors in the genetic material during cell division and by exposure to radiation, chemicals, or viruses, or can occur deliberately under cellular control during the processes such as meiosis or hypermutation. In multicellular organisms, mutations can be subdivided into germline mutations, which can be passed on to progeny and somatic mutations, which (when accidental) often lead to the malfunction or death of a cell and can cause cancer. Mutations are considered the driving force of evolution, where less favorable (or deleterious) mutations are removed from the gene pool by natural selection, while more favorable (or beneficial) ones tend to accumulate. Neutral mutations do not affect the organism's chances of survival in its natural environment and can accumulate over time, which might result in what is known as punctuated equilibrium; the modern interpretation of classic evolutionary theory. It should be noted that, contrary to science fiction, the overwhelming majority of mutations have no real effect.
The source (of the above quotation).
Note that it contains links from within the quoted text and that it goes on into further detailing of more specific mutations below.
And if you used it more often (wikipedia), you'd realized that it's carefully watched site by it's admins, when you try to place/edit articles in there. It also says for you to provide the sources. If they still find it isn't a 'tasteful' article (read good, science based or similar), it will be dealt with proper measures. So, it goes into my Internet expectations, that are self-learning and/or auto-improvement along with the potencial of aiding others.
ADDITION:
QUOTE(BW-M.God)
So does that mean your going to provide a link other than the pictures now? One that talksa bout the facts of the studies down on these skulls, how they were dated and such.
QUOTE(BW-M.God)
I've already touched on this previously, and yes I am saying that non-life does not come from life.
QUOTE(BW-M.God)
I am a believer in one God. I won't attempt to judge people I've never met that lived centuries ago its between them and God where there going. If they didn't have relationship with Him then I doubt they will mind eternal seperation from him forever so much(hell).
QUOTE(BW-M.God)
That's true but until it actually happens we shouldn't just assume it will be done.
QUOTE(BW-M.God)
Yea, but after 100's of years of searching for it by many scientists and considering how common missing links "should be" if all our species evolved it puts quite a dent on the theory when they still haven't found any.
QUOTE(BW-M.God)
It might try to explain it all but it does so incorrectly, checkout this:
There is a tremendous amount of proof against abiogenesis. First of all is Pasteur's proof that life does not come from inert matter (and this was of course at one time the prediction of materialists). Then came the discovery of DNA and the chemical basis of organisms. This poses a totally insurmountable problem to abiogenesis. The smallest living cells has a DNA string of some one million base pairs long and some 600 genes, even cutting this number by a quarter as the smallest possible living cell would give us a string of some 250,000 base pairs of DNA. It is important to note here that DNA can be arranged in any of the four basic codes equally well, there is no chemical or other necessity to the sequence. The chances of such an arrangement arising are therefore 4^250,000. Now the number of atoms in the universe is said to be about 4^250. I would therefore call 4^250,000 an almost infinitely impossible chance (note that the supposition advanced that perhaps it was RNA that produced the first life has this same problem).
The problem though is even worse than that. Not only do you need two (2) strings of DNA perfectly matched to have life, but you also need a cell so that the DNA code can get the material to sustain that life. It is therefore a chicken and egg problem, you cannot have life without DNA (or RNA if one wants to be generous) but one also has to have the cell itself to provide the nutrients for the sustenance of the first life. Add to this problem that for the first life to have been the progenitor of all life on earth, it necessarily needs to have been pretty much the same as all life now on earth is, otherwise it could not have been the source of the life we know. Given all these considerations, yes, abiogenesis is impossible.
(This is on the above site but posted it since you probably won't scroll down far enough to find it).
There is a tremendous amount of proof against abiogenesis. First of all is Pasteur's proof that life does not come from inert matter (and this was of course at one time the prediction of materialists). Then came the discovery of DNA and the chemical basis of organisms. This poses a totally insurmountable problem to abiogenesis. The smallest living cells has a DNA string of some one million base pairs long and some 600 genes, even cutting this number by a quarter as the smallest possible living cell would give us a string of some 250,000 base pairs of DNA. It is important to note here that DNA can be arranged in any of the four basic codes equally well, there is no chemical or other necessity to the sequence. The chances of such an arrangement arising are therefore 4^250,000. Now the number of atoms in the universe is said to be about 4^250. I would therefore call 4^250,000 an almost infinitely impossible chance (note that the supposition advanced that perhaps it was RNA that produced the first life has this same problem).
The problem though is even worse than that. Not only do you need two (2) strings of DNA perfectly matched to have life, but you also need a cell so that the DNA code can get the material to sustain that life. It is therefore a chicken and egg problem, you cannot have life without DNA (or RNA if one wants to be generous) but one also has to have the cell itself to provide the nutrients for the sustenance of the first life. Add to this problem that for the first life to have been the progenitor of all life on earth, it necessarily needs to have been pretty much the same as all life now on earth is, otherwise it could not have been the source of the life we know. Given all these considerations, yes, abiogenesis is impossible.
(This is on the above site but posted it since you probably won't scroll down far enough to find it).
QUOTE(BW-M.God)
Well, I'm not catholic and the Pope's made mistakes before. He's not an expert on anything and quite frankly I don't care what he thinks.
http://%5dhttp://209.157.64.200/focus/f-chat/767711/posts%5b
For more facts against evolution.
http://%5dhttp://209.157.64.200/focus/f-chat/767711/posts%5b
For more facts against evolution.
QUOTE(BW-M.God)
Well, I've got classes to study for that I start next semester and a 4.0 GPA to keep up. The Creation/Evolution argument can be found on numerous sites and I suggest if anyone wishes to continue arguing it they do so on another site. There's enough information on this forum now for the casual person who wanders across the thread so we might as well spend our time on Starcraft for these forums. I don't have time to reply to pages of comments every day on this issue, look at the facts, make your own decision and it was nice discussing this with ya'll but I have to start getting back in school mode so sad. There, now we all have a few extra hours in our day to spend on other things.
Those (studies) are all around the Internet and if you search correctly, it should end up in somethin' useful (to both sides). And I do look the sources... from both sides.
The use of scientific techniques to assist in those studies is a tool and method of science, like for instance Carbon 14 dating. Yours is? Calvinism (purism) perhaps!?! *Irony*
And you said already that you don't buy into abiogenesis. Since the only other option is biogenesis care to explain me how did God appeared? He always existed you'll prob'ly say, but none the less someone or some thing (non living) must have created him/her once upon a time...
The missing link... Aww, that's tuff. Same as proving that God exists. But both are being searched. And from the current human development I can almost bet that the missing link will be found earlier than God. If he still didn't showed him/herself 'till now and since he seems to care enough for us to prevent disasters (for example, like the last one in Asia), the pattern drawn from that infers that he prob'ly won't exist (at least as God anyway).
And that chances are very hard to get, not impossible (abiogenesis). Perhaps sheer luck was involved at the time (primordial soup)? Or even other entities.
It would be a terrible waste of space (in the universe) if we're the only ones 'round (me thinks Carl Sagan, said it).
Sorry, but I don'y buy that almighty 'perfect design' thingy. If he's perfect, why it changes his/her stands from the Old Testament into the New?
Conclusion: Perfection comes through change, thus addaptation. Therefore evolution.
Please, just prove me where the Bible is correct in that one (Adam n' Eve).
No fussing around that the Bible is correct in other matters, like the food we can eat (as you tried with your links already). I can take those conclusions for myself after experimenting and observing, btw two of the basic scientifical methods. And could have written it later as some scholars (similar to the Bible, as a book).
The Bible as a good set of principles, I can grant that, but those are getting outdated with the advancement of society. The Church, and many religion's view points as well, needs to addapt into the new ages. That's what I tried to imply with my 1st link related to the Pope, on my 1st post here.
Relating the previous paragraph (abiogenesis hypothesis of occurring) with the following, but on the other side:
And what are the chances of God existing? We can't even put it in numbers, since we don't have any proof (yet) that he existed or exists.
So just don't assume it exists. It's your faith telling you that, not facts. Facts, on the other hand began to support the evo's theory.
From the 1st paragraph in the link supplied within the group of your quotes above:
QUOTE(Site BW-M.God provided)
The basis of a valid scientific theory is that it be able to explain all the scientific data in the field it is concerned with and that no evidence contradicting the theory be true. This is a harsh test, but one which all legitimate scientific theories must pass. This is a test which the theory of evolution has failed in spades as the following abundantly shows.
Beating the proverbial dead horse... again. So, where are the proofs of the creationist theory?
QUOTE(BW-M.God)
So if it's too hard to explain how a function evolved we should just ignore that difficulty and try to rationalize less complicated things. I guess it takes less faith than believing a big bang created our Universe.
Nope, plain n' simple. Flight evolved in many different forms as many other functions. Same much as breathing (insects, fish and birds as examples) or the brain function. Hopefully, the corals (and their specialization) could explain it better than me.
ADDITION:
QUOTE(BW-M.God)
Yea, sometimes I laugh too when I see how much evidence they can collect and how people can still cling to evolution.
QUOTE(BW-M.God)
Agreeded there's enough information in this thread now that people can look stuff up themselves and checkout the facts and then figure out which side of the argument they want to believe.
QUOTE(BW-M.God)
Yea, it would be awful if people read Creationist sources wouldn't it? I mean we better surpress them all before people stumble across them and read the truth. That's why we only want to teach Evolution right? If we can teach evolution as a "fact" in schools then maybe nobody will question it or go looking and find out about its holes.
Same as you cling to creationism. And yes, unfortunetly I always recall Galileo and his theory when 'cussing religious related matters.
I'm not worried (that anyone sees the creationist theory). Are you?
---------------
Sorry for any casual messing with the paragraph order but just grouped'em in similar topics. Similar happened to some of the simillies in quotes.
Now let's see if the max posting limit isn't depleted.
Edit reason: Some links text coding got screwed or I've made mistakes... *Cursess posting at the office*
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2004-12-30 at 12:28:26
QUOTE(-BW-Map_God)
Yea, but after 100's of years of searching for it by many scientists and considering how common missing links "should be" if all our species evolved it puts quite a dent on the theory when they still haven't found any.
Ok, let's see you find the remains of Jesus or Moses, their only a few thousand years old compared to the millions of years for a link between apes and humans.
QUOTE(EzDay2)
Hm.
"I am a believer in one God. I won't attempt to judge people I've never met that lived centuries ago its between them and God where there going. If they didn't have relationship with Him then I doubt they will mind eternal seperation from him forever so much(hell)."
Between them and God? No, it's between God and God for deciding they aren't worthy of even having the Bible to referance from.
True, true, you are not worthy of judging people by the same basis by which God would decide to impose upon them the worst fate he could dream up, torture for eternity.
Just as they are bad because no one showed them your bible, and thus they never even thought of God as Christianity takes him to be.
Oh, and by the way, sucks for you.
You're going to hell.
You see, Christianity is wrong, and Kemism is correct.
In Kemism, if you believe that non-believers go to hell, then, regardless of the fact that you're applying that belief to Christianity, not Kemism, because, well, that's just the way Kem is.
In case you're wondering what Kemism is, it's this religion I made up.
I don't really believe in it, but I use it for examples such as this.
Looks like when I die, I'm going to go up into some spiritual arcade in a higher plane of existance.
Lucky me
"I am a believer in one God. I won't attempt to judge people I've never met that lived centuries ago its between them and God where there going. If they didn't have relationship with Him then I doubt they will mind eternal seperation from him forever so much(hell)."
Between them and God? No, it's between God and God for deciding they aren't worthy of even having the Bible to referance from.
True, true, you are not worthy of judging people by the same basis by which God would decide to impose upon them the worst fate he could dream up, torture for eternity.
Just as they are bad because no one showed them your bible, and thus they never even thought of God as Christianity takes him to be.
Oh, and by the way, sucks for you.
You're going to hell.
You see, Christianity is wrong, and Kemism is correct.
In Kemism, if you believe that non-believers go to hell, then, regardless of the fact that you're applying that belief to Christianity, not Kemism, because, well, that's just the way Kem is.
In case you're wondering what Kemism is, it's this religion I made up.
I don't really believe in it, but I use it for examples such as this.
Looks like when I die, I'm going to go up into some spiritual arcade in a higher plane of existance.
Lucky me
That was a great post,
. -BW-Map_God, if you had been born to say a Jewish family, you would be Jewish and would be supporting Judaism, you wouldn't be supporting Christianity. If you were born into a Muslim family, you would be following the Quran. You just happened to be born to a Christian family, so magically, you have to be right. [/scsm]edit: Fixed the quote tag, I messed it up -.-
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DrunkenWrestler on 2004-12-30 at 13:41:41
Does refuting evolution in lieu of experimentation and positive evidence for creationism, actually verify creationism? I believe 1+1 is 7, but instead of verifying that, I'll refute the proponets who believe 1+1 is 3. Since 3 is falsified, 7 will win by process of elimination.
Shifting goalpost now? Here you go: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
And if that's the level of detail you want, then your theory of of creationism is nuked.
And you're still wrong about order coming from chaos, by the way. If you think order can't arrive from disorder, you must also think that it is impossible for a mother to have a baby, because the matter in her womb would have to go from a state of chaos, to a state of order. However, since we're always getting energy from the sun available to do work, the 2nd law of thermodynamics is irrelevant.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html
http://hometown.aol.com/darwinpage/transit...m#Transitionals
How old do you think the Earth is? 6,000 to 10,000 years?
I guess you missed post #8.
Yeah, it's just a theory anyway, so why do people pass it on as a fact!?
You know, you're right. All science is is a huge atheistic conspiracy. There's no such thing as a theistic scientist! The Earth is actually flat. My theories are already predetermined, and the Bible is unchallangable, anything that contradicts it, is erroneous - so those NASA pictures of a round Earth are obviously fraud. Don't get your information on a round Earth from a blasphemous scientist, they'll blind you from the truth - OUR truth! Get it from the good ol' church (we'll feed you strawman arguments that don't even remotely depict the arguments for a round Earth), they're always right.
The theory, not fact that the Earth orbits the Sun violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics! How can it constantly be moving in a perfect eclipse, when there's no energy supplying it for work!? How can this order come from chaos? Space is frictionless? Hah, that's a lie, as this website says, that made it past my balony detector.
I'd much rather believe that there are four corners to the Earth. It takes a lot of faith to believe that the people below us aren't falling off the Earth, and the mass of the Earth is keeping them on the ground.
My point was, even if you falsify evolution, intelligent design isn't verified by default.
And if I did use the 5min creation hypothesis, solipsism, Goddidit, to exlplain the order of the universe, it is only an agrument from ignorance. Don't know how those crop circles formed? Must be an alien. Don't know how thunder works? It's all Zeus. Death? Anubis can account for that. The order of the universe? Some diety vomited it into existence.
Absence of evidence is not evidence for the absent.
http://www.talkorigins.org/ Check out the FAQ and Index.
Also, to everyone reading this thread: I would recommend supplementing what you read on the internet with a teacher (a qualifed science teacher, obviously).
QUOTE
So does that mean your going to provide a link other than the pictures now? One that talksa bout the facts of the studies down on these skulls, how they were dated and such.
Shifting goalpost now? Here you go: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
And if that's the level of detail you want, then your theory of of creationism is nuked.
And you're still wrong about order coming from chaos, by the way. If you think order can't arrive from disorder, you must also think that it is impossible for a mother to have a baby, because the matter in her womb would have to go from a state of chaos, to a state of order. However, since we're always getting energy from the sun available to do work, the 2nd law of thermodynamics is irrelevant.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html
QUOTE
Yea, but after 100's of years of searching for it by many scientists and considering how common missing links "should be" if all our species evolved it puts quite a dent on the theory when they still haven't found any.
http://hometown.aol.com/darwinpage/transit...m#Transitionals
QUOTE
Why don't you read it and find out? It's more information for a younger Earth.
How old do you think the Earth is? 6,000 to 10,000 years?
QUOTE
So if it's too hard to explain how a function evolved we should just ignore that difficulty and try to rationalize less complicated things.
I guess you missed post #8.
QUOTE
Yea, sometimes I laugh too when I see how much evidence they can collect and how people can still cling to evolution.
Yeah, it's just a theory anyway, so why do people pass it on as a fact!?
QUOTE
Yea, it would be awful if people read Creationist sources wouldn't it? I mean we better surpress them all before people stumble across them and read the truth. That's why we only want to teach Evolution right? If we can teach evolution as a "fact" in schools then maybe nobody will question it or go looking and find out about its holes.
You know, you're right. All science is is a huge atheistic conspiracy. There's no such thing as a theistic scientist! The Earth is actually flat. My theories are already predetermined, and the Bible is unchallangable, anything that contradicts it, is erroneous - so those NASA pictures of a round Earth are obviously fraud. Don't get your information on a round Earth from a blasphemous scientist, they'll blind you from the truth - OUR truth! Get it from the good ol' church (we'll feed you strawman arguments that don't even remotely depict the arguments for a round Earth), they're always right.
The theory, not fact that the Earth orbits the Sun violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics! How can it constantly be moving in a perfect eclipse, when there's no energy supplying it for work!? How can this order come from chaos? Space is frictionless? Hah, that's a lie, as this website says, that made it past my balony detector.
I'd much rather believe that there are four corners to the Earth. It takes a lot of faith to believe that the people below us aren't falling off the Earth, and the mass of the Earth is keeping them on the ground.
QUOTE
Ideally an intro course would cover the major ideas I would think other ideas like those above mentioned would be covered in a more advanced course.
My point was, even if you falsify evolution, intelligent design isn't verified by default.
And if I did use the 5min creation hypothesis, solipsism, Goddidit, to exlplain the order of the universe, it is only an agrument from ignorance. Don't know how those crop circles formed? Must be an alien. Don't know how thunder works? It's all Zeus. Death? Anubis can account for that. The order of the universe? Some diety vomited it into existence.
Absence of evidence is not evidence for the absent.
QUOTE
DrunkenWrestler I'm assuming your other quotes are off the top of your head since you teach some sort of science courses. For documentation purposes though you might want to post some links for supporting stuff for other people checking out this thread. I mean you can't just expect strangers to accept you as an expert without giving them sources.
http://www.talkorigins.org/ Check out the FAQ and Index.
Also, to everyone reading this thread: I would recommend supplementing what you read on the internet with a teacher (a qualifed science teacher, obviously).
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Basan on 2004-12-31 at 12:51:17
QUOTE(Drunken Wrestler)
Also, to everyone reading this thread: I would recommend supplementing what you read on the internet with a teacher (a qualifed science teacher, obviously).
Fully concur. That, or go to a library and confirm what you've seen over the Net. :tup:
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2005-01-20 at 01:52:18
I have a solution! Read the Jurrassic Park series. It explains it all. but i forget it now mostly...sadly...i guess ill have to read it again.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-01-20 at 01:57:34
QUOTE(Trogdor @ Jan 20 2005, 02:52 AM)
I have a solution! Read the Jurrassic Park series. It explains it all. but i forget it now mostly...sadly...i guess ill have to read it again.
[right][snapback]128612[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]128612[/snapback][/right]
I saw the movie... I don't see how the book would explain anything :\
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Revelade on 2005-01-20 at 02:25:34
We just need one thread of these Christianity arguments... If you look we have too many.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Basan on 2005-01-20 at 05:56:33
QUOTE(Trogdor)
I have a solution! Read the Jurrassic Park series. It explains it all. but i forget it now mostly...sadly...i guess ill have to read it again.
Or have I missed somethin' in the mid-time or has Jurassic Park really nothing to do with the current debate?
Just in case you didn't noticed, this is the Serious Debate section. In here, you're supposed to do more elaborate reasoning amidst your logical process (read thinking).
Devilesk, I fully agree with ya in this one.
QUOTE(Revelade)
We just need one thread of these Christianity arguments... If you look we have too many.
Maybe it's a job for the super... *Errm* modders (or even admins).
Merging thread skills are perhaps in due order. *Hint, hint*
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Nozomu on 2005-01-20 at 10:15:17
QUOTE(devilesk @ Jan 20 2005, 02:57 AM)
I saw the movie... I don't see how the book would explain anything :\
[right][snapback]128617[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]128617[/snapback][/right]
Actually, the book is incredibly scientific. Don't judge a book by its movie. Compared to the book, the movie is trash.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Basan on 2005-01-21 at 15:20:47
QUOTE(Nozumu)
Actually, the book is incredibly scientific. Don't judge a book by its movie. Compared to the book, the movie is trash.
Just another of those 'lost in translation' cases that happen a lot within the movie industry.
If it's sound or similar scientificaly, I'll try to read it. Novels with factual basis capture me in sight. I'll try to find it at the library where I usually go to. *Meh*
Report, edit, etc...Posted by PrOLoGiC on 2005-01-21 at 16:21:20
Sorry I haven't had the time to post in this topic: My discussion issues...
Evolution contradicts itself, here are some evidences.
from non-creationism websites
Death of the Sun
This is obviously saying that the sun is 4.5 billions years old, its in the middle of its life.
Now on the same site they begin to say this
Size of the Sun
The sun is a big blob of burning gas mainly hydrogen (ok ...ok ...really big ) So, by logic, (no pun intended) the sun used to be bigger in size and by extensive research I discovered it is in fact shrinking 5 ft per hour.**
Shrinking Sun
Now the calculations.
5 ft per hour = 120 ft per day
120 ft per day = 43800 ft a year
43800 ft a year = 197,100,000,000,000 ft in 4.5 billion years.
That is 37,329,545,454 miles in 4.5 billion years.
No sarcasm, but the sun used to be pretty big.
The distance of the earth to the sun has a maximum of 94.5 million (94,500,000) miles
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/statistics.html
So, uhm, the sun would be where the earth is and like... really big.
Now, there is an exception that must be noted, if the sun used to be bigger, it had more surface area allowing it to burn faster however logically, this would:
1. Create more heat
2. The sun was so frickin huge anyways it doesnt really matter.
**Most evolutionists will not believe that the sun is shrinking because it disproves evolution, heaven forbid... however, the experiments performed to prove the shrink rate of the sun were performed over a period of 80 years.**
Sorry I had only time to prove one contradiction, this took a little more time then I had liked, more will come....
May God bless you in your research in finding the truth.
Evolution contradicts itself, here are some evidences.
from non-creationism websites
QUOTE
The Sun is about 4.5 billion years old. it has used up about half of its nuclear fuel (hydrogen). In about 5 billion years from now, the sun will begin to die.
Death of the Sun
This is obviously saying that the sun is 4.5 billions years old, its in the middle of its life.
Now on the same site they begin to say this
QUOTE
The Sun's diameter is 864,938 miles (1,391,980 km).
Size of the Sun
The sun is a big blob of burning gas mainly hydrogen (ok ...ok ...really big
) So, by logic, (no pun intended) the sun used to be bigger in size and by extensive research I discovered it is in fact shrinking 5 ft per hour.**Shrinking Sun
Now the calculations.
5 ft per hour = 120 ft per day
120 ft per day = 43800 ft a year
43800 ft a year = 197,100,000,000,000 ft in 4.5 billion years.
That is 37,329,545,454 miles in 4.5 billion years.
No sarcasm, but the sun used to be pretty big.
The distance of the earth to the sun has a maximum of 94.5 million (94,500,000) miles
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/statistics.html
So, uhm, the sun would be where the earth is and like... really big.
Now, there is an exception that must be noted, if the sun used to be bigger, it had more surface area allowing it to burn faster however logically, this would:
1. Create more heat
2. The sun was so frickin huge anyways it doesnt really matter.
**Most evolutionists will not believe that the sun is shrinking because it disproves evolution, heaven forbid... however, the experiments performed to prove the shrink rate of the sun were performed over a period of 80 years.**
Sorry I had only time to prove one contradiction, this took a little more time then I had liked, more will come....
May God bless you in your research in finding the truth.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2005-01-21 at 18:28:24
Please, show me a site that says the sun is shrinking from a non-creation site.
If anything, the sun is growing as it slowly becomes a red giant.
Also, your calculation assumes the changes in size to be a constant. There is no way we know exactly how much changes since we've been studying this for less than 1000 years.
If anything, the sun is growing as it slowly becomes a red giant.
Also, your calculation assumes the changes in size to be a constant. There is no way we know exactly how much changes since we've been studying this for less than 1000 years.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by PrOLoGiC on 2005-01-21 at 19:46:42
I addressed both those issues. You have no real standpoint...do not make bland explanations.
Logically, as something is consumed it gets smaller. Name something in nature that gets bigger as it gets older, since all nature is similar. (Created by the same author...explained at a different time)
2nd Law of thermodynamics
1st Law of thermodynamics
As highlighted with bold lettering the theory of evolution breaks the first and second law of thermodynamics. In saying this, you are left with two options:
1. Evolution happened supernaturually (with a higher power, unrestricted to the laws of science)
2. Creationism
Both options point to a higher power; however, which one would you rather take a risk believing when option 2 promises eternal life as where option 1 promises nothing.
Logically, as something is consumed it gets smaller. Name something in nature that gets bigger as it gets older, since all nature is similar. (Created by the same author...explained at a different time)
2nd Law of thermodynamics
QUOTE
This law also predicts that the entropy of an isolated system always increases with time. Entropy is the measure of the disorder or randomness of energy and matter in a system. Because of the second law of thermodynamics both energy and matter in the Universe are becoming less useful as time goes on.
1st Law of thermodynamics
QUOTE
This law suggests that energy can be transferred from one system to another in many forms. However, it can not be created nor destroyed. Thus, the total amount of energy available in the Universe is constant.
As highlighted with bold lettering the theory of evolution breaks the first and second law of thermodynamics. In saying this, you are left with two options:
1. Evolution happened supernaturually (with a higher power, unrestricted to the laws of science)
2. Creationism
Both options point to a higher power; however, which one would you rather take a risk believing when option 2 promises eternal life as where option 1 promises nothing.