Rogue15 Posted November 10, 2002 Share Posted November 10, 2002 *steals one of redwing's quotes* How do you know that God is bound by time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elijah Posted November 10, 2002 Share Posted November 10, 2002 Originally posted by Tyrion Wouldnt the holy spirt let me also know if it was god or not? Hey, I have my ears open for god,only problem is he aint givin back no detail. Might I quote myself again? "If you look at something with a negative view your ALWAYS going to get a negative out-come" God has a completely different view of time... we are simple minded humans who base our life around time... God created time so he has been there how ever the heck long he wants to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheWhiteRaider Posted November 10, 2002 Share Posted November 10, 2002 I for the most part don't like rubbing anything in, but. Oh, Darwinist I am waiting for the anwser!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted November 10, 2002 Share Posted November 10, 2002 Hmmm? I have found this debate tireing and pointless. I admit I am losing the argument, but I'd rather show off my matrixed avatar instead of arguing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheWhiteRaider Posted November 10, 2002 Share Posted November 10, 2002 I'd rather show off my matrixed avatar instead of arguing. Then please go somewhere else to do that. This is for people that are debating. And at least you admited to loseing for that I respect you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted November 10, 2002 Share Posted November 10, 2002 Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider Then please go somewhere else to do that. This is for people that are debating. I was responding to your "Oh, Darwinist I am waiting for the anwser!!!". Just so I dont leave you in the cold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheWhiteRaider Posted November 10, 2002 Share Posted November 10, 2002 Originally posted by Tyrion I was responding to your "Oh, Darwinist I am waiting for the anwser!!!". Just so I dont leave you in the cold. I edited my prev post. Take a look at the new part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GonkH8er Posted November 10, 2002 Share Posted November 10, 2002 Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider Tell me something. How did time start? How are we moving forward in time if time was not planned? If god has supposedly been forever, then can something as simple as time have not been forever also? Darwinism doesn not explain the origin of the universe. Darwinism explains the 'origin of the species'. If you could go back and ask darwin how the universe came to be, and how we are moving in time, he wouldnt have the slightest clue. The whole origin of the universe debate really kicked off in the 20th century with physicists. Universal creation is the realm of physicists, not biologists. How life came to be can be explained easily by biologists. Physicists are still working on universal creation. Give it some time Before one finds answers about time, one must understand what time really is. Some say it's the 4th dimension, some say its a constant and we're the ones moving, others say the opposite. Some say the universe is expanding forever, some say it's shrinking back, some say its expanding then giong to shrink back into the ball of plasma it began as, then expand again, making a new universe. Perhaps there have been infinite universi prior to this one, and this one just happened to spawn remotely intelligent life in one area. When you think of the odds in a situation like that, its more than likely for some proteins and amino acids and nucleic acids to get together in a primordial soup and go "Hey, lets make something". Dont ask darwinists about that. Ask a physicist. Oh, and I didnt respond coz I was washing my car. Physics is attempting to explain it. How does god explain it? What the word from the big man himself on time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheWhiteRaider Posted November 10, 2002 Share Posted November 10, 2002 Originally posted by GonkH8er If god has supposedly been forever, then can something as simple as time have not been forever also? Darwinism doesn not explain the origin of the universe. Darwinism explains the 'origin of the species'. If you could go back and ask darwin how the universe came to be, and how we are moving in time, he wouldnt have the slightest clue. The whole origin of the universe debate really kicked off in the 20th century with physicists. Universal creation is the realm of physicists, not biologists. How life came to be can be explained easily by biologists. Physicists are still working on universal creation. Give it some time Before one finds answers about time, one must understand what time really is. Some say it's the 4th dimension, some say its a constant and we're the ones moving, others say the opposite. Some say the universe is expanding forever, some say it's shrinking back, some say its expanding then giong to shrink back into the ball of plasma it began as, then expand again, making a new universe. Perhaps there have been infinite universi prior to this one, and this one just happened to spawn remotely intelligent life in one area. When you think of the odds in a situation like that, its more than likely for some proteins and amino acids and nucleic acids to get together in a primordial soup and go "Hey, lets make something". Dont ask darwinists about that. Ask a physicist. Oh, and I didnt respond coz I was washing my car. Physics is attempting to explain it. How does god explain it? What the word from the big man himself on time? How did those soups get there in the first place? Physics explains it.... you know how? It tells that this is too complex for even all the brain power of all the world put together couldn't even start to explain it. You know what is so amazing about the simple cell.... IT ISN'T SO SIMPLE! The DNA code is complex and if you took all the software ever made and put them together the DNA code would still be about 9 times bigger. So why weren't video games made in that soup? The human brain is the most complex computer ever known and yet it is the lightest computer ever made. And also here is something. 93% of all mutation cause the new born to be steral. And Why aren't things still changeing today? If you say it takes billions of years... well I think a billion years has past as you guys say. And here is something do you guys think that JK2 came about by chance? I bet not. And also Evolution is not science. And you guys might have a better case if I see a amemba come from a bunch of acids and goo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-s/<itzo- Posted November 10, 2002 Share Posted November 10, 2002 I've gone to church and read the bible here and there. Yet I do not understand why we shun science. Science is a wonderful thing that has brought us out of the stone age. Lets face it the bible was written by man not a god. The time that this book was written was the same time that we thought the world was flat, the same time we thought the sun revolved around us. As far as values the bible is a great book that should be held of the highest importance however as far as facts there are none in this book. We know that the dinosaurs are millions of years old to say that they are only but a couple thousand years old is one of the biggest displays of ignorance since the crusades. If people consider Evolution a fairy tail and rubbish should we not just laugh at the whole idea and turn our heads? No we get defensive and stubborn not because we believe that it is not true but because it conflicts with the bible. Religion has been proved wrong many times however Science only a few. It is key to live by values and to be kind to each other however it is more important to be open minded and let ignorance be a thing of the past. We have no problem with science as everyone on this message board is cleary using a tool created with science, a computer. We drive cars ride planes listen to the weather report. Yet as soon as science states something that just might conflict with the bible people discard it as a tool of the devil. We must also remember who wrote this bible, a primitive man with a primitive mind. We know that the people who lived in that day and age were ignorant to so many, the people who lived in that day and age killed thousands of muslims why? because our god is better than their god thats why. We need to stop being so close minded and wake up to how the world really works, stop forcing our beliefs on other people. That is just horrible. I love the bible for its values and morals but not for its logic because there is none. Now as far as creation vs evolution nobody here knows what happened way back when you were not there. However I think we should take what facts we find and base our conclusion on that. The bible is not fact it is a book written a long time ago by MAN. There are facts supporting evolution yet if you are a creationist you will discard these facts why? Because it opposes your belief not because it is not true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheWhiteRaider Posted November 10, 2002 Share Posted November 10, 2002 And how do you know that dinosaurs are millions of years old? And please C-14 dating is off big time. There is a couple that made a fossil that was only a month old and it was said to be 7,123 years old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Father Torque Posted November 10, 2002 Share Posted November 10, 2002 Originally posted by -s/<itzo- . Lets face it the bible was written by man not a god. Ya but God spoke the words of the bible to John and the other four tellers of Jesus and the other chapters. See the Bible is not just a book its a history book of god and his words to the beleivers and followers he talked too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCanr2d2 Posted November 10, 2002 Share Posted November 10, 2002 How come people make religion and science totally mutally exclusive? This is where this post has headed down, the "if one is true, the other isn't" debate. There are scientific Christians out there, that the Bible ISN'T literal, but seems to fit a lot nicer to "ages" in the development of the world, rather than actual events. Some believe that creation is describing the 6 stages of evolution - they are in the correct order of what is generally accepted. Another point is that there is no proof of the Bible for approx 70-100 years AFTER the death of Jesus. Considering in those times it would be at least 2 or 3 generations removed from those that would've witnessed it. There is plausible evidence that Jesus did exist, and the Bible isn't literal - after all the Jews did write it and they are known to write in parables, rather than literally. So, stop trying to disprove each other, when if some of you look hard enough at the situation, that there is room for both, and they don't necessarily conflict each other... As for Carbon-14 dating, please get some facts before trying to describe it! First of all, Carbon usually has 12 atoms in the nuclei, Carbon-14 has two more. What they are measuring is the amount of radiation given off, to work of where in the Carbon14 halflife it is. They have measured the radiation, and half life of Carbon14, so, when they measure the radiation given off, they can say with some accuracy how old something is. A tree covered in ash from a volcanic burst is like trying to carbon date a chimney - full of ash, which is pure carbon. That is trying to describe something as inaccurate when the situation is known to lead towards misleading results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwing Posted November 10, 2002 Share Posted November 10, 2002 Buh? *unexpectedly dragged in* ^^;; Oh wow...this argument...it's been forever since I've debated about this...I guess I'd better start from the top ^.^ How do you explain the dinosaurs? What do you mean? Dinosaurs don't fit with the Bible? Huh? Carbon-14 tests have been run on some geological/palaeolithic materials dating back way before God created the world. No one knows when God created the world. As per the Bible, the Earth existed, without form and void (empty), for who knows how long. Life existed for an unknown amount of time; there are geneologies in the Bible that some people use to get approximate dates, but for all we know the genealogies could have only the 'important' members listed. Besides that, Carbon-14 dating does not work after the span of a few ten thousand years. As there is no more accurate dating method, it is impossible to accurately date the world. The best people can do is use educated guesses to create a timeline. There are two prevailing theories: old Earth and young Earth. Old Earth is billions of years old. Most evolutionists ascribe to this theory because simply, it makes more sense for life to have evolved over an enormous period of time than a small amount. Most creationists tend to ascribe to young Earth. However, neither can be scientifically proved, lacking a completely accurate dating method. *scrolls further down* Uhhh. WhiteRaider just said all that. I should probably read the thread all the way first. darwin, the creation was must a load of old cobbler sthat the priests came up with to explain what was inexplicable. What? Creationism existed before priests did. Darwin... The man SAID on his death bed that everything he said was pure speculation and was NOT TRUE, the stories by him where published by his wife and soon who got a hold of some fictional stories he made... they where not true and have absolutely no evidence to back them up Buh? O.o Since when? Darwinism IS correct we evolved from monkeys we share 99.9% of our genes with them (not 86 whoever said that) we share about 80 or 90% with a banana btw. How do you know that doesn't mean we were just created by the same designer? ^_^ to the person who says we stopped evolving .... WE HAVENT ... on average we are alot taller than people in the 17th 18th and 19th centuries (and all the others 2) we KNOW this ... this is us evolving its not a quick process. You are right. Although it cannot be proved without the passage of much more time - evolution - as defined a) Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species. b) The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny. does fit with a Biblical creation model. Especially when you consider that Earth's original form was encased in what is called the firmament, a greenhouse layer of water around the atmosphere. The firmament collapsing is what caused the Flood. (Which is why the Flood could not be duplicated.) The climate, obviously, drastically changed, causing mass extinctions. The only things that survived were those that could adapt. This requires evolution. (Also, the Ark would have only held representatives of major species - subspecies would have had to branch off afterwards.) Note that I only refer to evolution as I defined above. ^.^ Proof of evolution Bacteria ... viruses the like .... they procreate so quickly they have many generations in a day ... this enables them to evolve in a matter of months ... they evolve to be resistant to drugs. What I said above. ^_^ I believe when others here in this thread have argued against evolution, they mean all the other theories associated with it as well; popular science theory as a whole ^.^ Big Bang Right ... we know this happened ... we can see it we can prove that the universe is expanding from a single point. Why does that require a Big Bang to have created the universe? And I cant wait until the day you are on your deathbed, weeping because of all that time wasted praying to some non-existant god.. O.o Tyrion, that was very mean...^^;; I can assure you that has never happened...but the reverse has happened with dying atheists...I'm not saying that proves anything, it just is... Carbon-14 dating: Scientists have measured the half-life of Carbon-14. Given available data, C-14 dating is extremely accurate concerning the material in question, and certainly does document the fact that the earth is several billion years old. C-14 does not accurately document the earth as being several billion years old, like I said earlier. ^.^ The datings become less accurate as age goes up. (they become inconsistent with each other) Of course, you could assume that we do not know how much carbon-14 a material started out with, but then again - this makes my theory just as good as yours. True. Except we have faith. If you cannot prove either evolution nor creation, then we are on a level ground. ^_^ Math, Genetics, Age Of Earth: On human development, the theory I read said 8 mil. years - and I'd like to know where you pulled that number from and the time interval that it covers (because you can make the number in question infinitly large if you make the time interval it covers correspondingly small). If, for example, the figure covers the chance of a spontaneus mutation occuring within an hour, then it is entirely useless - we're talking about 4 billion years 'ere. Yes, it is all seemingly impossible that life evolved, but if we're talking about an infinte amount of time then it suddenly becomes very plausible. And if it is plausible, then it could just happen. But so could God. I believe evolution happens, but I believe God created the world and everything in it, and set up his creations with the ability to change to suit their surroundings. I don't believe in spontaneous generation - that something came from nothing. (And I mean NOTHING, because in popular science, where did empty space come from?) Viola: A system where the whole is greater than the sum of the part, yet the sum did evolve from the parts. But where did it start? Where did the parts come from? In scientific terms, a "Theory" is a confirmed hypothesis - the way you use it, it seems as though you think it is merely a hypothesis. What? No it isn't. ^.^ A hypothesis is a tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation. A theory is a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. In other words, an investigated hypothesis. Not a confirmed hypothesis. im not attacking yoda (even tho hes attacking me) :eyeraise: I'm sorry, but that quote is great im working towards making him realise he believes in god because he WANTS to As you do not, because you want to. Humans are defined by their free will. It is how thing are. ^_^ we share 99.9% with apes (not monkeys as most people say) not 80 genes Like I said earlier, how do you know it just doesn't point to one designer? whats life if not alot of chemicals in 1 place ... in 1 order ... there was alot of chemicals about after the big bang ... it was just dumb luck that they ended up in the right order. im not talking about it taking 15 mins to do it ... it took Millions of years just for the first life to be born from the chemicals But if life -> chemicals, and chemicals -> Big Bang, then Big Bang -> what? Proof of evolution .... READ MY POST BE4 U KNOCK IT FOOL ... i have provided proof! (if u dont believe the taller proof .... read the bacteria proof) The idea of evolution does not disprove the idea of creation. ^_^ also back on mother teresa .... she wasnt a great person because she believed in god .... she was a great person because she was a great person This doesn't relate to the argument, but....huh?? Do you know what an insane person is? It's a person who have excluded a lot of options - has narrowed his view of the world down to something set on a rail. His vision of the world is a singular course, and he won't deviate from it. I'm not calling you insane here, even though this might sound like it - I'm trying to warn you against assuming something is impossible. Well that was...odd...I don't remember insane meaning...*goes to check Handy Online Dictionary ^_^ Insanity: Persistent mental disorder or derangement. No longer in scientific use. Ummmm...what were you talking about? I'm not calling you narrow minded, I'm just saying you should be careful of using the word "impossible". God isn't impossible at all - but all evidence points toward that some higher power did not create the earth. No it doesn't. What do you mean? Show me something, anything, that means God does not exist, please. take the theory that the earth is flat It is flat ... i can see its flat ... isnt that great .... next theory then .... sum1 sails to the edge and fails miserably at falling off and they suggest its round and this is evidence new theory argued lots but gradually accepted we goto space ... see world .... have proof LOL! Okay, this doesn't fit into my argument, but that was really funny First where have you been? The big band theory has been thrown out 4-10 years ago. If you are going to defend evolution you better be up to date. And where is your proof? I don't see any. So far it is disproven by science. Well it hasn't been disproven per se ^.^ Ok....let me give you something... Let's say about 2000 years ago I make a book. It's called,the rible. I am trying to get some power. So I make a book. It's called the rible. So I make it. And people started to believe in it. Now I have some power. So blah blah blah, I died. But people still kept believing in the rible. That could be of the Bible. That's a nice theory, but no one person or group of persons created the Bible ^.^ Christianity is only popular because the english and spanish went on crusades,inquisitions, and journeys to spread it. *!?!?!* I think you have Catholicism mixed up with Christianity as a whole. Then who made that god? then who made that god? Then who made that god? then who made that god? Then who made that god? then who made that god? Then who made that god? then who made that god? Then who made that god? then who made that god?Then who made that god? then who made that god?Then who made that god? then who made that god?Then who made that god? then who made that god?Then who made that god? then who made that god? See where I am getting at? You could go on and on. I try not to think of that though. It's hurts my head Rogue15- And thesist need to stop thinking Mr. God is the be-all-and-end-all solution. You don't understand. Having a beginning and an end would not be required if time did not exist. God created time, and thus doesn't need a beginning or end. Now, pardon me for noticing, but this oh-so-common view seems to say that all non-christians are doomed to a fiery eternity. Isn't far less than half the worlds population actually christian. Half the worlds population alone is in china/india. Is that to say that all these people, who may never have been EXPOSED to christianity, are condemned to hell forever? Is it their fault they never learned the christian way of life? Certainly you cant say they deserve what is supposedly coming to them. I don't. I have faith that God, being an all-powerful Supreme Being, will somehow give everyone who wants to a chance to find out about him. Creationists believe the bible as the word of god, right down to the biblical creation. They disregard any scientific view on creation, and believe that all rules for life and truths have been laid out for us by god, in the bible. Creationists believe the Bible is the word of God, yes. That doesn't mean they disregard any scientific view on creation! In fact, why bother being a creationist (creation scientist) if you're going to ignore science? Creationism is simply believing that God created us. Anyway, the document... Someone mentioned the perfection of the human eye, and how it could come about in a choatic world. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- First, creationists trot out that old saw about how nothing as complex as an eye could evolve in stages, since a half-eye is no good at all. Darwin himself trounced that one roundly by merely observing that there are creatures alive today with eyes in all "stages of development", from a few light-sensitive cells, to a cup-shaped receptor with no proper lens, to eagle eyes far sharper than ours. Other creatures seem to get along fine with half-eyes and even 1/100 eyes. Then for the final insult, human (the pinnacle of creation) eyes are clearly an engineering mistake! The retinas are inside out. The nerves and blood vessels come out through the light-sensitive area of the retina, producing a blind spot, then spread over the front of the light-receptor cells, so that light has to get past the fibers into the receptors. Why aren't the nerves and capillaries behind the receptors, where they would be out of the way and there would be no need for a blind spot? Squid eyes are arranged just that way. Since ours aren't, one is reminded of the maxim that evolution has to work with the materials at hand, adapting systems already in place, with results that often seem jury-rigged or needlessly complicated. Would an Ultimate Engineer make such an obvious blunder, especially having got it right in creatures created earlier? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Eh? I don't understand why the author decides the human eye is a mistake, considering how well it works and all. I doubt the author investigated the human eye, so I don't know if his idea of rearranging it would work better. Science is an ever-changing field of knowledge - how does he know that eliminating the blind sport would make the human eye better? quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "In our image" That's how God made man, according to Genesis, and therefore according to creationists. But every moderately bright 8-year-old immediately comes up with two questions which are never satisfactorily answered. If any answers are offered, they are usually cobbled-up rationalizations from outside the Bible. Generally, the kid gets the message that he's better off not asking such things. The first is whom the One and Only God meant by "our"--but that's really a theological question, not related directly to creationism. The second question, however, is right on target: If man was made "in [God's] image", then Adam must have looked just like God--right? But wait--it gets more confusing. Man is immediately referred to as "them", so maybe it's not just Adam who looks like God. Then to further confound literal-minded youngsters, "...in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." If God is male (the assumption of 97.83% of all creationists), then how could a female be made in His image? Let's grant the general creationist assumptions (correct me if I'm wrong): God is male; men are made "in [His] image" in only a general way (maybe even Adam didn't look exactly like Him); and women were made with necessary differences to enable reproduction. Still a load of embarrassing questions arise. Much has been made of Adam's navel, and why he would have one, having never been attached to a placenta. I want to know if God has one. I want to know if He has a digestive tract. If so, why? Does He eat? If so, what, and why would He need to? Does He excrete? Where? What happens to it? Does He have lungs? Why would He need them? Does He have sweat glands? And naughty stuff: does He have genitals? Why would He need those? Does He even have two legs, and feet, and toes? Why would He need them, unless He's bound by gravity, as we are? Childish questions? Of course, but only because they arise from a literal (i.e., childish) reading of Genesis. But the point is profound: either God has human-like organs and glands and body parts, or He doesn't. If He does, why, and what does He use them for? If He doesn't, then made "in [His] image" has no literal meaning. (For those creationists tempted to inform me that the human soul was what was made in God's image, let me save you the trouble and thank you ahead of time for backing up my point: the phrase has no literal [physical] meaning. I would point out that a great many generations of Judaeo-Christians have taken the phrase to mean physical resemblance, and that most fundamentalist believers still do. Ever see a painting that showed God with anything but a human form? Let me also direct you to the section of Exodus wherein Moses is covered with God's hand, and then allowed to view His backside. Note also numerous other biblical references to God's hands, face, and other apparently human-like body parts. One of my favorites is Jacob's wrestling match with God, in which Jacob didn't recognize the Lord of All Creation until later, and God couldn't win until He cheated by using magic!) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That's a very lame argument. Anyone who understands art (artist right here ^_^) knows that "image" can mean alot. A piece of wood can be made to look like a lizard, for example. How does the author know Adam had a navel? Does the Bible ever say so? The author has a valid point with the male/female thing, but like I said earlier, "image" can mean alot. As for - "But the point is profound: either God has human-like organs and glands and body parts, or He doesn't" - that's a foolish statement considering we have no idea what God's makeup is. As for - "Ever see a painting that showed God with anything but a human form?" - what on earth is that supposed to prove? Is the Bible illustrated? "Note also numerous other biblical references to God's hands, face, and other apparently human-like body parts" - hence the in his image part. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Truth This isn't about the things creationists are just wrong about, like how old the Earth is, but about things that I suspect a good many know are not true, or gross distortions of the truth. The general one is that there is a great debate among scientists about whether species have evolved. A joyous update is that only a few die-hards still believe in the Big Bang. There are plenty of other amusing examples: • human footprints alongside dinosaurs • human artifacts found among dinosaur bones • a geological column that is almost never in the "proper" order described by geologists • proof from all over the world of a worldwide Flood • the "NASA computer" that revealed the "extra day" when the sun stopped to give the Israelites more time to conquer Jericho • the deep hole geologists drilled and then had to fill in hurriedly when they heard the screams from Hell • Darwin's "deathbed recantation" (the "Lady Hope" story) Nothing seems too silly or too obviously wrong to pass along. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *scratches head* I don't see how using obviously silly arguments used by the rather...odd...section of the opposite side disproves the idea of the other side as a whole. I thought this was a debate on science? (Although a couple of those examples might be correct - like the Paluxy River footprints which may or may not have been human - I notice the author lists that there without saying it has been proved wrong, assuming his target audience will "know" it is ridiculous) As far as I'm aware, Darwin calling his work a falacy on his death bed is a crock of you know what. Yes. Note that I found this out from a creationist magazine. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Beetles Does God have a beetle fixation? Why else would He create so many different kinds? Maybe He loves them more than man. After all, can a beetle sin? --Noah Riggins -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- An amusing point, but one to think about That's not even an argument. ^_~ Here's one for the 747 comments quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tornadoes, Junkyards, and 747's It used to be a pocket watch that "proved" evolution can't happen. Now that lame creationist analogy has apparently evolved to demand that it be possible for a tornado to assemble a 747 out of a junkyard before we can admit the possibility of evolution. What the creationist always conveniently leaves out of the analogy is the power of NON-random selection on repeated events. Allow a little leeway here for differences between mechanical assembly and natural systems (chemistry and life). Have the tornado roar through repeatedly, several times an hour (representing the speed of chemical reactions, or of cells multiplying). Allow selection pressures to "favor" parts or accidental assemblies that could function as part of a 747 (they're allowed to "survive", i.e. not torn apart). Let the experiment run a few million years and you will have your wide-body jet. Admittedly, that's still a pretty lame analogy, but it represents evolution way better than the creationists' single windstorm. This would make it even closer to evolution: Don't demand a specific product at the end (like a plane or a human). Instead, "favor" any chance assembly that would be useful for any purpose. Allow assemblies to reproduce with occasional random changes. Select the most useful. Hey, that is evolution. Give it some time and you will have some amazingly "well-adapted" and useful mechanisms. Granted, the chances of one being a 747 are effectively zero (unless it was intentionally selected for), but no biologist I know of ever claimed that evolution "intended" to produce a person -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The whole argument comes down to whether spontaneous generation occured, to begin evolution. Does the bible explain about Australiopithicas,Homo-Habilis, Homo Erectus, Homo Sapien, and Homo Sapien Sapiens? We evolutionist/anagontists/anthesits have our "bibles" too. Buh? Australopithecus wasn't human. I don't know what Homo Habilis is - will someone please explain? The others all fit into the category of human. So you're willing to say that god is eternal and always has been, but you blatently deny the possibility of a creational point in the universe where everything came to be, without the aid of a supernatural force? What exactly was god doing in that eternity before he made man? "Before" is a term that indicates time. Since God created time, that's a pointless question. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by ZDawg If God was created than would he be God? What comes before beggining? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But who created him. He could not have created himself, because he was non-existant before he created himself. And, if he did create himself, then why did he take so ass long to make humans? You're thinking inside of time again. God doesn't need a creation without time. "Long" is another term that requires time. YAY! I'm done! I hope no one posted another argument while I was typing this. ^_^;;; Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Father Torque Posted November 10, 2002 Share Posted November 10, 2002 Redwing i agree with you 100% on everything you posted i respect that:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted November 10, 2002 Share Posted November 10, 2002 ........that was awesome Redwing...... I dont even care you said that what I said was mean. (actually, what I said was mostly me being pissed at Darth Yoda ^_^) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheWhiteRaider Posted November 10, 2002 Share Posted November 10, 2002 As for Carbon-14 dating, please get some facts before trying to describe it! I have. There are some rare cases that C-14 will become C-13 or C-11 or becoming a free radical causeing it to change the half-life of the C-14. And you have to know how much C-14 you started with. That is trying to describe something as inaccurate when the situation is known to lead towards misleading results. DUH! And what about that meteor, flood, blizard, or stuff like that? You just shot yourself in the foot there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GonkH8er Posted November 10, 2002 Share Posted November 10, 2002 I'll answer your questions as best I can, 1 by 1 Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider How did those soups get there in the first place? The world was created 4 billion or so years ago. The primordial world came about after matter swirled into a spherical shape. Silod matter formed, gases became the atmosphere. It was a stormy, watery, incredibly volcanic world, with electrical charges present from the large amount of lightning, different temperatures within the ocean and an environment full of the basic molecules that make up building blocks of life, so it wouldnt be hard for things to come about. Simple carbohydrates, water, proteins even, but most important of all, nucleic bases. Purines and Pyramidines. Chemically speaking, they arent very complex, and only a fairly simple seires of chemical reactions would need to take place for them to come about. You've got your 5 carbon sugars floating round (Ribose and Deoxyribose)... Cross them with your base and youve got a nucleosides. DNA and RNA are both constructed from tri-phosphate nucleosides. Throw in some phosphates with your NS's and let it sit. Give it some time (We're talking billions of years. Life didnt happen straight away), you've suddenly got a small string of nucleic acid. What then you ask? A membrane just might form around this little glob of NA. You've pretty much got a Prokaryote at this point. Prokaryotic cells lack subcellular "organelles" within their membrane, but may contain membrane systems inside a cell wall. Evolution later lead to Eukaryotes, which had their characteristic membrane bound organelles. How did these mutations into higher forms of life occur? At fairly high frequencies, spontaneous mutations can occur, altering the very nature of the lifeform, much of the time only in a gender altering way, but often other mutations occur. That was one of the most prevalent alterations that occurred. You know what is so amazing about the simple cell.... IT ISN'T SO SIMPLE! The DNA code is complex and if you took all the software ever made and put them together the DNA code would still be about 9 times bigger. Actually, the very first NA strands werent very complex at all. They didnt have to code for physical features, like in more evolved species. All they had to code for was A) Replication, often mitosal B) Obtaining nutrients for survival and occaisionally C) Transportation, as many single celled organisms have tails for movement. Over time, the NA's got more complex. So why weren't video games made in that soup? Video games require computer programming to be interpretted by electrical machines. Hey, maybe they were made, but the soup just wasnt skilled enough to make a medium to place the games onto, or a method of burning them onto that medium. Go ask the soup. The human brain is the most complex computer ever known and yet it is the lightest computer ever made. Well gee, you'd expect something after a few million years of humans evolving. 93% of all mutation cause the new born to be steral. So? as far as I know, that helps our argument, not yours And Why aren't things still changeing today? If you say it takes billions of years... well I think a billion years has past as you guys say. Billions of years HAVE passed, but not billions of years of human evolution. We havent been around that long at all in terms of Earth. Only a few million years. Things ARE still changing. We're losing more hair generation by generation as we get further away from our hirsuite primate ancestors. Maybe in 100,000 years we'll have no hair on our heads. Just don't expect change overnight. It is happening. And here is something do you guys think that JK2 came about by chance? I bet not. Actually, yes. It was purely chance that the events in Lucas's life lead him to think at one exact moment an idea which he did. Every little tiny thing that has occurred in his life lead to the creation of star wars, and hence, jk, then jk2. If when he was 9 years old, a mosquito had bitten him 1 second later than it did, the world may be very different. The butterfly effect is all around us. Chaos exists. Evolution is not science. You are correct. Evolution is a theory. Evolutionary science is a science based around that theory. And you guys might have a better case if I see a amemba come from a bunch of acids and goo. Have you got a high tech lab and a few million years to wait and watch? Didn't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheWhiteRaider Posted November 10, 2002 Share Posted November 10, 2002 So? as far as I know, that helps our argument, not yours How? I am saying that they can't reporduce. Billions of years HAVE passed, but not billions of years of human evolution And what other animals stop changing after a new ones is made? Have you got a high tech lab and a few million years to wait and watch? Didn't think so. And you do? And why do I need a high tec lab? Acording to you it happended in nature. And nice imagnation, but were is the proof? You have yet to give me that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GonkH8er Posted November 10, 2002 Share Posted November 10, 2002 Originally posted by Redwing That's a nice theory, but no one person or group of persons created the Bible ^.^ Really? I thought it was a bunch of people. Matthew, Mark, Luke John, and all those dudes. Who wrote it then? And Redwing, I respect everything you said, but you must remember that in todays society, creationists are not those who study creation, but those who take the word of the bible as gospel and disregard science. Afaik this is a widely accept term. Christians may not have problems with certain things, like yourself, but creationsists would. Oh, and the eye argument is in fact correct, strangely enough. I'll get some more references. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GonkH8er Posted November 10, 2002 Share Posted November 10, 2002 Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider And what other animals stop changing after a new ones is made? And you do? And why do I need a high tec lab? Acording to you it happended in nature. No animals stop changing. They either die out, or continue changing. Sometimes separate paths are taken, and new species evolve, but the old ones keep evolving. And no, i dont have a high tech lab, but to simulate the environment of the soup we'd need one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheWhiteRaider Posted November 10, 2002 Share Posted November 10, 2002 Really? I thought it was a bunch of people. Matthew, Mark, Luke John, and all those dudes. Who wrote it then? They did, but they only wrote 4-7 books. There were alot of people who wrote it. And some were before Jesus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheWhiteRaider Posted November 10, 2002 Share Posted November 10, 2002 No animals stop changing. They either die out, or continue changing. Sometimes separate paths are taken, and new species evolve, but the old ones keep evolving. So why can't you find missing links? And no, i dont have a high tech lab, but to simulate the environment of the soup we'd need one. Also with the so called soup Right-handed molecules and Left-handed molecules are what come out of this. The right-handed is what is needed for life, but the left-handed is toxic to life. This type of goo would make both of them. And I am still waiting for proof. You have given theorys, but no proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jah Warrior Posted November 10, 2002 Share Posted November 10, 2002 Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider And maby Darwinism was just something that Darwin came up with to mislead the world. See I can say the same about your stuff too. lol but darwin actually makes sense and has proof to back it up rather than "god" running round with his magic wand creating a myriad of slightly different creatures and plants... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwing Posted November 10, 2002 Share Posted November 10, 2002 Originally posted by GonkH8er The world was created 4 billion or so years ago. [trunc.] I understand evolutionary theory. ^.^ (Personally, I believe it's too implausible that evolution extended that far back, to the prelevel of single cells - life - coming from primordial sludge, but I can't prove that any more than you can prove that it's not too implausible.) But what about what happened first? Where did all this stuff come from? The Big Bang? What caused that? Originally posted by GonkH8er The world was created 4 billion or so years ago. Really? I thought it was a bunch of people. Matthew, Mark, Luke John, and all those dudes. Who wrote it then? And Redwing, I respect everything you said, but you must remember that in todays society, creationists are not those who study creation, but those who take the word of the bible as gospel and disregard science. Afaik this is a widely accept term. Christians may not have problems with certain things, like yourself, but creationsists would. Oh, and the eye argument is in fact correct, strangely enough. I'll get some more references. According to the educated guess that are still, unfortunately, guesses. Until we find a completely, unarguably accurate dating method that works as well as Carbon 14 for long periods of time. ^.^ Nah, they just wrote the Gospels. ^_^ There's 66 books in the Bible, with a few sharing authors. Bah! I refuse to fit in someone else's box. ^_^ But I do take the word of the Bible as gospel. But no way do I disregard science - I am a Christian because I believe they coincide. If someone can prove that Christianity is scientifically wrong, then I would certainly give it up. *goes to Handy Online Dictionary* cre·a·tion·ism n. Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- cre·ation·ist adj. & n. Bah...well I don't really like tha definition. It doesn't say it all. I suppose "creation scientist" would be more accurate. Hmph. I always considered the two terms synonymous. ^.^ I dun understand what you mean about the eye argument? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.