Evolution vs Creationism - a Reasoned Debate

[Tyrion]

Originally posted by Mandolorian54

thats wonderfull and all tyrian exept that science doesnt prove evolution.

 

thats the only problem.

 

you seem to have selective memory, did you only read half of evry post or why do you ignore the sun and insect facts?

 

Look..I didnt say that we have correct science..we might be wrong..I am just saying..we are doing this to try to make actual proof and that stuff...

[BCanr2d2]

As far as the reliance on the Sun and insect fact, it is just as invalid as the "Aerodynamics says a bumblebee can't fly - but it does". We are talking about the incorrect application and extrapolation of fact to make a macro, or micro scientific theory fit. The science of fixed wing objects is different to those that flap their wings - which showed how the bumblebee exploited the vortexes created by the flapping of the wings to stay in the air...

 

Let's look at the sun - how long have we been studying the sun in serious depth, and have had the equipment to understand it? Not that long, perhaps 50-60 years max. With science, it is important to remember that many "facts" we are finding out now are based over a relative short period of time, that extrapolating them so far back is taking the results out of context.

 

It's like saying that if we take the rate of "global warming" - BTW not a proven fact - and take it off the average temperature this year, that 1000's, even millions of years ago the world would've been so cold that it was well below Absolute Zero...

Anything taken out of context, can be made to look bad. We have no idea IF it is man-made global warming - we don't have the depth of data to prove anything, other than ever since we recorded temperatures, it has been getting warmer.

 

Science, in the scheme of things is relatively new, and we know such an insignificant amount about our world. Extrapolation of scientific theory in those that want to twist it is dangerous - it can be made to prove or disprove anything....

 

It is the same as taking the teachings of any religion and taking them out of context, we have seen first hand the misinterpretation of religious texts.....

 

I can only say is that how it seems that the Bible itself seems well out of context, with those that originally wrote it. Somehow a book that was written and taught in a parable manner in the early years of the Christian religion, is now taken literally......

[C'jais]

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider

One thing I find impossible is that even if a cell came from goo is that the cell would be able to live. Just like if you made a computer it would not work with out programs correct? So where would the cell find how to stay alive? How would it even learn how to stay alive? How would the cell operate? What would it live off of? Also how would the world change from complete chaos to a world where it can support life? How did all the laws of the universe come about and so perfectly.

But I bet you could not answer these.

 

And may I remind you if you are going to call evolution science it must be subject to all things science.

 

What you don't understand, is that the cell didn't just pop up out of nowhere. Before the first cell formed, the necessary building blocks had formed: RNA, phospholipids, mitochondries etc.

So, when the RNA had crept into a sphere of lipids, it was protected. Later, a mitochondrie(sp?) found its way in, and used the "cell" for it's own end; the cells in our body are really not working towards one goal, they're little egoistical creatures exploiting the community to their own ends.

 

What would it live off? The necessary elements already existed back in the day, and it is not a conscious act to eat.

 

You are using the Boeing 747 trick again, White; a computer is endlessly more complicated than a primitive cell. You don't program a cell to feed or live, it just naturally does - it's a natural response to the environment.

 

Was the primitive world chaos at first? How do you define chaos? Unsuitable for living? Yes, for humans; not to microscopic strings of RNA.

 

How did the laws of nature come about so perfectly? Well gee, I don't know... Don't confuse the unexplained with the unexplainable.

 

And may I remind you that if anyone insists on calling creation science, it must be subject to all things science, too.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by man189

listen people ..... there's a chance on 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 (this is not just a number i guessed .....its been proved ....its a one with 64 zeros after )

for a 200 compound organism to perform ONE successful mutation ...... the simplest organisms on earth have more than 1000000 compounds .......... so just imagine the chances for .... the billions of mutation that brought us here ...

 

In what timespan? In one day? One second?

 

What do you mean with "succesful" mutation?

 

Once again, you mistake mutations for errors upon which you can slap that "graduated" or "failed" mark. Don't think this way, think as nature.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Mandolorian54

Cjas said somthin about right and wrong, that there is no wright and wrong only opinions.

 

for one man killing is wrong and for another it is survival. Well even for the man who kills for survival don't you think the first time he did it he felt bad and somewhere deep down he knew it was wrong?

 

but in time we push out our consience.

 

Our concience is there for a reason.

 

evryone knows that steeling is wrong weather they tell themselves it's right or not they still know it's wrong.

 

This subdebate warrants its own thread soon.

 

If I am pro-abortion, I'm merely pushing my conscience out?

 

Our "conscience" is a product of our society and religion. In one community it may be alright to kill another man if he steals from you, and killing him doesn't make you feel bad. It's the accepted norm.

 

Don't be so egoistical to assume that your religion and community is the center of the world, nor think that man is above and beyond animals when it comes to surviving in a community.

 

I don't have any God watching me, I have no conscience - I am free.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider

 

 

And there is a difference how?

 

There is.

 

Putting your faith and life into a book you have not written yourself, is not trusting your senses and, as Templar put it, not relying on your external references.

 

I could very well believe in the bible, but why should I? Because it tells me to? Why not trusting solely in what I can sense and how the world appears to work, instead of putting my faith into something higher because it feels good?

 

EDIT: People once believed that the earth was flat. It was disproved. Now some people believe that the Genesis is literally true and that we are not "descended" from an ape-like creature. IMHO, this will some time in the future be unquestionably disproved as well - It's only a matter of time.

 

Christians need to "update" their beliefs to the current scientific standard or their belief will surely surrender to more sound religions (eg scientology) - In other words: it's fine to believe in God, but putting your belief in a literally translated bible is going to put more weight on the sinking ship.

[TheWhiteRaider]

Originally posted by Cjais

 

 

What you don't understand, is that the cell didn't just pop up out of nowhere. Before the first cell formed, the necessary building blocks had formed: RNA, phospholipids, mitochondries etc.

So, when the RNA had crept into a sphere of lipids, it was protected. Later, a mitochondrie(sp?) found its way in, and used the "cell" for it's own end; the cells in our body are really not working towards one goal, they're little egoistical creatures exploiting the community to their own ends.

 

But where did it learn to live once it was funtional? And how do you know this? With no proof it is still a theory is it not? And I do understand that the cell did not just pop out of nowhere. But where would the cell get the information to survive??

 

Christians need to "update" their beliefs to the current scientific standard or their belief will surely surrender to more sound religions (eg scientology) - In other words: it's fine to believe in God, but putting your belief in a literally translated bible is going to put more weight on the sinking ship.

 

What do you define as "literally"?

 

 

Was the primitive world chaos at first? How do you define chaos? Unsuitable for living? Yes, for humans; not to microscopic strings of RNA.

 

But how did it change all of a sudden to a world that can support multi-celled animals?

 

What would it live off? The necessary elements already existed back in the day, and it is not a conscious act to eat.

 

You don't program a cell to feed or live, it just naturally does - it's a natural response to the environment.

 

I also remind you just because it is not a conscious act to do an action doesn't mean you did not have to learn it. You can tie your shoes with out thinking correct, but you did not always know did you? Those "nautral reactions" had to come from somewhere did they not?

 

Don't confuse the unexplained with the unexplainable.

 

And if you can not explain it I will not believe evolution is true.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider

 

But where did it learn to live once it was funtional? And how do you know this? With no proof it is still a theory is it not? And I do understand that the cell did not just pop out of nowhere. But where would the cell get the information to survive??

 

I'm not a biologist and I wan't terribly interested in biology, but the whole primordial soup to first cell thing, as I understood it in college, was a process that took quite a while. Possibly a million or more years. Once conditions were met with the right parameters, life emerged as order out of chaos. (Chaos theory may have lots to say here). But I do know that scientists are making good ground in understanding this and I've seen publications (primary and secondary) that deal with the subject.

 

 

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider

What do you define as "literally"?

 

1) Jonah was swallowed by a fish... lived for three days;

 

2) God stopped the Sun from moving with the purpose of lengthening the day (the Earth "revolves" the Sun does not orbit us);

 

3) In Genesis 6:19, the Lord tells Noah to take two (one male and one female) of every living thing aboard the ark, but in Genesis 7:2, Noah is commanded to take seven males and seven females of each of the "clean" beasts aboard the ark

 

4) Man is the salt of the Earth.... obviously not true and obviously a metaphor, but cannot be taken literal all the same.

 

5) There are also many inconsistencies within the bible.

 

 

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider

But how did it change all of a sudden to a world that can support multi-celled animals?

 

It didn't change "all of a sudden," it changed over millions of years. Single celled animals began to appear 4600-570 Million Years Ago. The Earth is approximately 4.6 Billion years old (+/- a few million). It took over 3 billion years for life to "find a way."

 

 

 

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider

I also remind you just because it is not a conscious act to do an action doesn't mean you did not have to learn it. You can tie your shoes with out thinking correct, but you did not always know did you? Those "nautral reactions" had to come from somewhere did they not?

 

I don't recall learning to beat my own heart. I've never forgot to breath, yet I was not taught. Evolution is responsible for autonomic functions. Survival is instinctive. Procreation is instinctive. Organisms that did not procreate or survive did not evolve.... they "refused." Once this type of behavior is imprinted on DNA, it is carried to the next generation until the next mutation succeeds. If a mutation fails.... it isn't carried on. It dies with it's host.

 

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider

And if you can not explain it I will not believe evolution is true.

 

If I or Cjais had Ph.d.'s in either Biology or Genetics, neither of us could propose a convincing argument to you. We don't "believe" in evolution.... we merely observe it to be the best, current explaination for our planet's proliferation of life.

 

You, on the other hand, are a "believer" in something else. To convince you that we are right would mean that you have to substitute your belief for another. Sad.... God truely must be sorry he included the closed-mind when he created man in his own image. Then again, perhaps he/she is entertained by these warm-hearted debates ;-)

 

BTW.... I never said throughout this thread that I did not believe in God.

 

SkinWalker

[TheWhiteRaider]

(1) Jonah was swallowed by a fish... lived for three days;

 

2) God stopped the Sun from moving with the purpose of lengthening the day (the Earth "revolves" the Sun does not orbit us);

 

3) In Genesis 6:19, the Lord tells Noah to take two (one male and one female) of every living thing aboard the ark, but in Genesis 7:2, Noah is commanded to take seven males and seven females of each of the "clean" beasts aboard the ark

 

4) Man is the salt of the Earth.... obviously not true and obviously a metaphor, but cannot be taken literal all the same.

 

5) There are also many inconsistencies within the bible.

 

1. There was a case in India where a man was eaten by a whale and spit out. His skin was completely white.

 

2. So?

 

3. Your point is?

 

4. Again your point is?

 

5. Name them with source.

 

It didn't change "all of a sudden," it changed over millions of years. Single celled animals began to appear 4600-570 Million Years Ago. The Earth is approximately 4.6 Billion years old (+/- a few million). It took over 3 billion years for life to "find a way."

 

And you know this how? Prove it.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider

 

1. There was a case in India where a man was eaten by a whale and spit out. His skin was completely white.

 

Source? I'm not disputing it.... it just sounds like interesting reading!

 

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider

2. So?

 

3. Your point is?

 

4. Again your point is?

 

I was pointing out that taken literally, the bible disproves itself. It therefore must be read with the mindset that many individual authors had many individual points of view.

 

My point, if I had to make it is: there are inconsistencies that are obvious, therefore, as a source to support creationism, the bible is flawed. It is tertiary literature at best. Because of this, scientific observation and primary literature on scientific matters that support these observations are better sources for describing our universe.

 

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider

5. Name them with source.

 

Okay.. but if it's okay with you, I won't name them all. I haven't read the bible in a while, so it'll take a little effort to locate even just a few items for you, but here goes:

 

1) a. Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding. Pro 4:7

b. For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. Ecc 1:18

 

Is wisdom "the principle thing" and therefore most important, or is to be avoided?

 

2) a. And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, ..... And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat. Lev 11:13-19 and I think again in Deuteronomy.

 

The bat is not a bird. It's a mammal. But it flew, so man, with his limited science called it a bird.

 

3) a. In Genesis 1, creation is explained in this order

Day 1: Sky, Earth, light

Day 2: Water, both in ocean basins and above the sky

Day 3: Plants

Day 4: Sun, Moon, stars

Day 5: Sea monsters, fish, birds, land animals, creepy-crawlies (reptiles, insects, etc.)

Day 6: Humans (apparently both sexes at the same time)

Day 7: Nothing

 

b. In Genesis 2 the order is a bit different

Earth and heavens

Adam, the first man (on a desolate Earth)

Plants

Animals

Eve, the first woman (from Adam's rib)

 

It's also interesting to note that in Genesis 1, God is referred to as "Elohim", which is a plural, thus the literal translation, "the Gods".... Oh well, I'm sure it wasn't meant to be taken literally.

 

4) a. And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham. Gen 22:1

b. Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man. Jam 1:13

 

Does God tempt men or doesn't he?

 

5) a. The Israelites traveled from the wells of the Jaakanites to Moserah. There Aaron died and was buried, and Eleazar his son succeeded him as priest. Deu 10:6

b. At the LORD's command Aaron the priest went up Mount Hor, where he died on the first day of the fifth month of the fortieth year after the Israelites came out of Egypt. Num 33:38

 

They are two different mountains... could there be two different Aarons?

 

6) a. Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli... Luk 3:23-24

b. and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. Mat 1:16

 

Huh? Somebody's wrong here.

 

I'm not saying that the bible isn't of value. It certainly has wonderful anthropological value as it can tell us much about ancient history. But it doesn't appear to be able to tell us much about science, since man's ability to accurately describe his observations was crippled by his ignorance. Someday, future societies will say the same about our current scientists in their search to explain the human genome.

 

 

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider

And you know this how? Prove it.

 

I'm not going to bother. You won't accept my evidence. "Believers" generally seem to have difficulty substituting their beliefs for what they perceive to be another matter of belief. Even though, I've argued that it isn't about belief, but rather about the best observed evidence.

 

Now I challenge you: Name one source of primary literature that supports creation as a theory.

 

Couple of quick definitions for you:

 

Primary literature: a peer reviewed document written by scholars for scholars. It includes original research, also called primary literature, that reports new research. In scientific disciplines, original research is most often published as an article in a scholarly journal.

 

Secondary Literature: (popular magazine, reference or textbook, review article), is written for a general audience although not peer reviewed.

 

There is not enough time in the day for me to begin attempting to teach you evolutionary theory. If you want to challenge me to support one or two key points that scientists claim and are disputed by creationists, I'll do my best. Otherwise, I would advise you to seek higher education in the sciences. No matter what discipline you take up (Liberal Arts, Engineering, etc.) you'll benefit from a science such as chemistry.

 

SkinWalker

[TheWhiteRaider]

Source? I'm not disputing it.... it just sounds like interesting reading!

 

I will try to find the artical again. It even had a picture of the man. He looked like a ghost. He was whiter than my new bed sheets. It was very interesting.

 

Is wisdom "the principle thing" and therefore most important, or is to be avoided?

 

That is not conflicting. It is not saying that it should be avoided, but that sometimes knowing too much can be harmful. Sort of knowing that your girl friend cheated on you. Though of course that is knowage not wisdom, but same rules. Like knowing what war is like seeing tons of your friends die, but then you know to what to stay out of after you have been in it. You learn danger over time, but sometimes learning or just remembering it can be painful.

 

Does God tempt men or doesn't he?

 

I think more of allowing a temptation to happen not that God made it happen.

 

3) a. In Genesis 1, creation is explained in this order

Day 1: Sky, Earth, light

Day 2: Water, both in ocean basins and above the sky

Day 3: Plants

Day 4: Sun, Moon, stars

Day 5: Sea monsters, fish, birds, land animals, creepy-crawlies (reptiles, insects, etc.)

Day 6: Humans (apparently both sexes at the same time)

Day 7: Nothing

 

b. In Genesis 2 the order is a bit different

Earth and heavens

Adam, the first man (on a desolate Earth)

Plants

Animals

Eve, the first woman (from Adam's rib)

 

It's also interesting to note that in Genesis 1, God is referred to as "Elohim", which is a plural, thus the literal translation, "the Gods".... Oh well, I'm sure it wasn't meant to be taken literally.

 

Genesis 2 is mostly the making of the garden of eden not the world. And it did not say directly that male and female were made at the same time in Genisis 1.

 

6) a. Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli... Luk 3:23-24

b. and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. Mat 1:16

 

You misquoted Mat 1:16

 

"And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Chirst." Mat 1:16

 

That makes all the difference.

 

5) a. The Israelites traveled from the wells of the Jaakanites to Moserah. There Aaron died and was buried, and Eleazar his son succeeded him as priest. Deu 10:6

b. At the LORD's command Aaron the priest went up Mount Hor, where he died on the first day of the fifth month of the fortieth year after the Israelites came out of Egypt. Num 33:38

 

It does not say "Mount Moserah" does it? Moserah was a area not a mountain(Though there may have been one call Moserah, but it is like Mt. Washington and Washington are two different things.).

 

Now I challenge you: Name one source of primary literature that supports creation as a theory.

 

Will one from 300 years ago work? J/K

 

I will look.

 

 

Also one thing that is interesting is that if you take the names of Adam's offspring down to Noah and use the meaning of the names it makes a sentence that points to Jesus. Let me find it again.

 

I will try to find one verse where is say something like

"Go unto the worker ant and learn her way." I remeber seeing it, but I just have to find it.

[BCanr2d2]

Would some Creationists, please read about Nemrut Dag in Turkey, and it's connections to this discussion. After getting an email for a potential tour into Eastern Turkey - after doing Western Turkey last year - this place offers more questions than it does answers for the origins of Christianity.........

[C'jais]

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider

 

But where did it learn to live once it was funtional? And how do you know this? With no proof it is still a theory is it not? And I do understand that the cell did not just pop out of nowhere. But where would the cell get the information to survive??

 

 

Those "nautral reactions" had to come from somewhere did they not?

 

 

How did the basic elements "learn" to keep their electrons tight so they didn't fall out? How did they learn to include photons to "counterweight" those electrons? See, it's not about learning, it's a natural force. Just as plants absorb C-14 naturally (which we then eat, and absorb as well), the first "life" simply involuntarily consumed the nearby elements.

 

Please don't compare a cell to a computer, again.

 

 

if you can not explain it I will not believe evolution is true.

 

1) We are not discussing evolution now - evolution deals with how life evovled after it got here, not how it got here. What I've gathered so far is that most Christians believe in evolution - or adaptation if that's what you want to call it. If there's anyone left who still doesn't, notify me.

 

2) I'm inclined to take your word for it: Once I've explained how, you'll stop being Christian. But I'm not that naive, you'll probably dismiss all "evidence" we dig out. Furthermore, I cannot show you the "truth" (your religion can, however) - I can only show you the most probable theory.

 

BTW, have you ever considered the implications of the earth stopping in it's tracks suddenly (thx for the link Skin)? It'd turn into a molten mass instantly, disintegrating everyone on it. Or did God take account of that as well?

 

One last thing - Is anyone here interested in a "quick 'n dirty" guide to the chaos theory? Nothing to do with the subject, but I thought it might interest some of you.

[Mandalorian54]

origionally posted by cjas

Which is exactly why religion is dangerous. Those opinions are clearly defined by an ancient book and they dictate your life. How far will you go to make certain you please God? Insult me? Insult non-believers? Burn the heretics? You're exemplifying the danger of religion here, 54.

 

 

wow there cjas, did you fail history or somthin?

you got it backwards, Catholics have pursicuted but they arn't christians, it's always been the christians who have been pursecuted.

 

The Bible tells us to do good to those who do wrong to us.

 

if a christian does somthing mean to you or teases you, myself included, he is sining and doing wrong.

 

I said our purpose is to make the world a better place.

 

You think chistianity will be disproven, its existed as far back as history has been recorded, believe me scientists are trying there hardest to disprove the bible, so far no luck, not even close.

 

by trying to disprove the Bible they are discovering just how historically accurate it is.

 

and you yourself are putting your faith in a scientifically disproven theory.

 

this is like the third time I've said it and I'll probably have to say it many more times.

 

It doesn't surprise me that you ignore this, after all they still teach it in school and on tv.

 

I hope this thread isn't getting to hostile for some people, wouldn't want the thread to be closed. So far I'm okay with it but I havent read evry post.

 

If you have questions about the Bible and Creation don't hesitate to ask.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Mandolorian54

origionally posted by cjas

 

wow there cjas, did you fail history or somthin?

you got it backwards, Catholics have pursicuted but they arn't christians, it's always been the christians who have been pursecuted.

 

Catholics aren't Christians?

 

Just as Muslim really don't believe in God? And that no religion is true except your own?

 

I take it that you are a Protestant.

 

The Bible tells us to do good to those who do wrong to us.

 

if a christian does somthing mean to you or teases you, myself included, he is sining and doing wrong.

 

I said our purpose is to make the world a better place.

 

There's a big difference between theory and practice. So far, I haven't met a protestant who made the world a better place, only average Joes.

 

You do not need Christianity to make the world a better place, and your purpose (whether you like it or not) is to worship God.

 

You think chistianity will be disproven, its existed as far back as history has been recorded, believe me scientists are trying there hardest to disprove the bible, so far no luck, not even close.

 

No luck?! Explain the dating methods that Skinwalker presented - Strontium dating can prove the world is millions of years old.

 

by trying to disprove the Bible they are discovering just how historically accurate it is.

 

Historically, I honestly don't know (never read very much of the bible), but it is scientifically inaccurate from page 1.

 

and you yourself are putting your faith in a scientifically disproven theory.

 

What scientifically disproven theory?

 

this is like the third time I've said it and I'll probably have to say it many more times.

 

It doesn't surprise me that you ignore this, after all they still teach it in school and on tv.

 

And with good reason. Why should I let some ignorant (albeit good-hearted) people indoctrinate the children of my country?

 

I hope this thread isn't getting to hostile for some people, wouldn't want the thread to be closed. So far I'm okay with it but I havent read evry post.

 

If you have questions about the Bible and Creation don't hesitate to ask.

 

I've a question. How come it is advocated in the bible that it's perfectly alright to kill, maim and burn non-believers? Doesn't seem to make the world a better place in my eyes.

[Tyrion]

Originally posted by Mandolorian54

origionally posted by cjas

 

wow there cjas, did you fail history or somthin?

 

You think chistianity will be disproven, its existed as far back as history has been recorded [/b]

 

Did you fail history? The religions of the mesopotamias were around 1-3000 years before christianity,and it's recorded.

 

Get's your facts straight.

[Mandalorian54]

I see were your comming from but your not hearing me properly.

 

You do not need Christianity to make the world a better place, and your purpose (whether you like it or not) is to worship God.

 

One of our purposes is worshiping God but there are more than one.

 

 

 

Origionally posted by Cjas

quote

Catholics aren't Christians?

 

Just as Muslim really don't believe in God? And that no religion is true except your own?

 

I take it that you are a Protestant.

unquote

 

I didnt say catholics don't believe in God I said they arnt christians, theres a big differnce. Not all protastants are either.

 

I'm a Baptist, and not all baptists are Christians either.

 

Just cause someone says they are a christian doesnt mean they are and if they are just average Joes mabee they arnt christians.

 

origionally posted by cjas

No luck?! Explain the dating methods that Skinwalker presented - Strontium dating can prove the world is millions of years old.

 

And I mean more than just dates, I mean events such as king david and bethsheba, sodom and gomora and noas ark.

I didnt read that post but I'll believe it when I see it. Just cause some scientist says it's true doesnt mean its true.

 

 

origionally posted by cjas

What scientifically disproven theory?

 

evolution.

 

originally posted by cjas

Historically, I honestly don't know (never read very much of the bible), but it is scientifically inaccurate from page 1.

 

As a matter of fact it is scientifically proven, dating methodes used by scientists have proven that the earth is no more than 15000 years old.

 

orrigionally posted by cjas

And with good reason. Why should I let some ignorant (albeit good-hearted) people indoctrinate the children of my country?

 

what is teaching evolution in school?

 

origionally posted by cjas

I've a question. How come it is advocated in the bible that it's perfectly alright to kill, maim and burn non-believers? Doesn't seem to make the world a better place in my eyes.

 

it doesnt, did you acctually read it for yourself?

 

 

hey tyrion I didnt say christianity was the only religion recorded so far back I just said it was. you need to read more carefully.

[Tyrion]

Originally posted by Mandolorian54

hey tyrion I didnt say christianity was the only religion recorded so far back I just said it was. you need to read more carefully.

 

It ISNT the religion recorded the longest ago, mesoptamian was.

 

Christianity came after greek, egyptian, and mesoptoamian religions.

 

Christianity is relativly new,actually.

 

Edit-

 

I didnt read that post but I'll believe it when I see it. Just cause some scientist says it's true doesnt mean its true.

 

Yet a book is true...

[Acrylic]

Jewish is before Christianity isnt it???

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Mandolorian54

I see were your comming from but your not hearing me properly.

 

Where I'm from, there I've met no creationists so far. Must be an alien concept to you, to be able to walk in the city without meeting a single Christian or creationist.

 

One of our purposes is worshiping God but there are more than one.

 

But that is the ultimate purpose, no? As soon as you stop believing in God, your purpose falters.

 

I didnt say catholics don't believe in God I said they arnt christians, theres a big differnce. Not all protastants are either.

 

I'm a Baptist, and not all baptists are Christians either.

 

Just cause someone says they are a christian doesnt mean they are and if they are just average Joes mabee they arnt christians.

 

I won't stand for this. By your way of thinking, none are Christians except if they've been approved by you. What are your criteria of being a "Christian"?

 

And I mean more than just dates, I mean events such as king david and bethsheba, sodom and gomora and noas ark.

I didnt read that post but I'll believe it when I see it.

 

Interesting....... makes you wonder, doesn't it?

 

Just cause some scientist says it's true doesnt mean its true.

 

Scientists do not preach the truth. And I could say the same for your vaunted book.

 

 

what is teaching evolution in school?

 

What? Do you mean Who? The teachers are, naturally enough. I don't quite get it though...

 

it doesnt, did you acctually read it for yourself?

 

I should say I've read enough. http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

 

Several places it is mentioned that God will destroy this and that, and these and them shall suffer because they do not believe in God.

[man189]

to reply to the question asked to me on page 7 ....when scientists talk 'bout "succesful mutations "it means any form that was modified but can still survive long enough to reproduce and keep on 4 next generations

[man189]

i made some searches and found this text ...lokks carefully ...sounds logical.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘Evolution’ means complexion and growing of organisms originating from dead, inorganic form. This theory presented by Charles Darwin in 1859 by publishing his book called THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES BY MEAN OF NATURAL SELECTION. He made some collegial studies but only in theology not in biochemistry. This theory states that all living organisms developed from inorganic material. It also states that all animals come from a main ancestor that developed by series

Of micro mutations over billions of years

 

 

Logically if all this is true we should see transition forms in fossils, like a transition between a fish and an amphibian. Ex: an animal with 5% legs and feet and 95% fins… none have been found yet.

 

Evolution is contrary to many scientific laws like the law of entropy, which states that energy become less and less available for use. This clearly shows that the universe is running down instead of up, and every thing tend to go from a complex to a simple point. This contradicts the theory in itself in which every thing started from a simple point to a more complex one.A group of scientists in 1960’s proved that the sun contracts under its own gravity. They calculated that the sun contracted 5 feet per hours. Projecting this rate back only 12 million years ago the sun would have swallowed earth.I hope our chimpanzee ancestors enjoyed flaming liquid hydrogen.Earth magnetism is also decreasing. Scientist proved that earth’s magnetic field is decreasing by half every 1400 years. According to this a insect a million years ago would have weighted a couple of tons. So logically earth cannot be more than 10,000 years old because it still has an extensive magnetic field.The observable findings in genetics sciences prove that an organism is the product of its ancestor’s genes and that offspring contains no genes not found in its ancestors. Scientific evidence proved the Darwinian theory of evolution was false, but evolutionists held to their theory and claimed an accident must have occurred that caused offspring to possess new or altered genes. Later they came up with the findings of HUGG DE VRIES who discovered that occasional mutations occurred in genes. He theorized them as the basis for evolution. If all this is right an organism should have evolved by billions of micro mutations, but science proved that an organism of only 200 compounds (a one-celled amoeba has more than 1million compounds) has a chance on one trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion to perform successful mutations. It is about the same as saying that there could be an explosion in an old print shop in which paper, ink, and typeset letters are blown in the air and come down as a printed bound dictionary. Although this might be possible the odds against it are beyond imagination. So evolution is unsound for 4 main reasons 1stthere is no evidence of transition forms. 2nd mutations could not have caused an organism to evolve unless earth was billion years old. Scientific evidence does not support that theory.3rd transition forms could not have survived long enough to reproduce and pass the genetic change to the next generation EX: a partial wing would hinder more than help a reptile changing into a bird.4th genetic or chromosome mutation make plants and animals weaker and less able to reproduce.

 

 

 

The account of creation, unlike evolution, simple, clear and easy to understand it says that a supreme all-powerful God created us to worship and serve him. He also made plant and animals for our purpose. As clearly shown in Genesis, God was all-powerful and he created everything in seven days not billions years. He made everything perfect until man sinned and broke the fellowship with God. Up to today we have no proofs against creation. Some people added all present ages in the bible and approximated all other unknown ages. All these calculations make the earth from Adam and Eve to us today about 7000 years old which is scientifically logical.Humans are filled with pride and incredulity. This is the main reason why man has developed this nonsense theory. Because accepting that god is the creator would make them realize that he is also the greatest master and he has complete control on our lives. It would also make them realize that we own him respect and fear Him ..... it takes a lot of faith to believe in creation ,but this is nothing compared to the faith it takes to believe in evolution

[C'jais]

^False use of backwards extrapolating, false use of the concept of entropy, the second law of thermodynamics and blindness to the myriad of transitional fossiles which have been found.

 

Also, disbelief of dating methods etc, and the guy who wrote this thinks belief has something to do with evolution and science. Bah.

 

I'll get back to this tomorrow, I'm too tired right now.

[man189]

Famous Evolution Hoaxes

 

Nebraska Man

 

In 1922, scientists discovered a fossil tooth. Reported to be 1 million years old, it was heralded as the "missing link" in human evolution and called "Nebraska Man" since in was found in the state of Nebraska. Henry Fairfield Osborn, an eminent paleontologist, said it combined characteristics of chimpanzees and man. This fossil became famous because it was used as evidence for evolution in the 1925 Scopes trial. Later, it was discovered that the tooth did not belong to any type of human or ape. It was found to be the tooth of a pig!

 

Piltdown Man

 

This famous hoax fooled scientists for nearly fifty years. A portion of a human skull and the jaw of an orangutan were pieced together to form a "missing link". Scientists studied casts or models of this specimen and numerous reports were published on it. Later it was found to be an absolute fraud. On the original specimen, which was rarely seen, one could easily see where the teeth had been filed down to look more human like!

 

Haeckel’s Embryos

 

Ernst Haeckel was a German developmental biologist who studied embryos. He proposed an evolutionary theory "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny". According to this view, as a fertilized egg develops to form an embryo, it repeats evolutionary history. As evidence, Haeckel examined and drew pictures of embryos of a fish, frog, chicken, pig and human. In the pictures, there was remarkable similarity among the different animals. However, these pictures were later shown to be deceptively altered! Further, it was also shown that his recapitulation theory was untrue. Nonetheless, it is still occasionally used as evidence for evolution and Haeckel’s fraudulent drawings are still placed in biology textbooks today. One book commonly used in graduate schools, Molecular Biology of the Cell by Bruce Alberts (president of the National Academy of Sciences), includes Haeckel’s embryos in the chapter "The Evolution of the Cell."

 

Peppered Moth

 

The peppered Moth is a classic example used to show evolution in action. In England, scientists observed increasing numbers of a dark variety and decreasing numbers of a lighter variety of the moth. This change was originally attributed to better camouflage ability since there was a decrease in light colored lichens on tree trunks due to pollution. As pollution decreased, the colors reversed. Supposedly, those moths with better camouflage would escape predation by birds and leave more offspring. Recently, it has become known that pictures of these moths in textbooks have been staged because the moths do not rest on tree trunks as they are often portrayed! In addition, the change in coloration was observed in other areas without a similar change in lichen. Presently scientists do not know what caused the difference in coloration but they know that it is not by the Darwinian model which had been previously proposed. Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist, described his reaction to finding out this information about the moths in a book review in Nature. "My own reaction resembles the dismay attending my discovery, at the age of six, that it was my father and not Santa who brought the presents on Christmas Eve."

 

 

 

 

 

These and other examples were taught to generations of students as "facts" of evolution.

[TheWhiteRaider]

Piltdown Man

 

An extra note is that fossilized chewing gum was found in one of the teeth.