Evolution vs Creationism - a Reasoned Debate

[Mandalorian54]

origionaly posted by cjas

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.

 

thats not what I meant.

 

origionally posted by cjas

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

 

Yes absolutly, but similarly if other puroses are discarded the religion falters its all complete, nothing else is required and nothing can be taken away.

 

origionally posted by cjas

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"?

not what I think, what the Bible says. A christian must ask Jesus in his heart and be forgiven of his sins,then he must love and obay GOD. you cant simply be a christian by going to church.

 

origionally posted by cjas

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

you could buy how would you know. youve never read it.

I have read many things about evolution.

 

origionally posted by cjas

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

thats not what I meant. I was refering to what I had quoted from you.

 

origionally posted by cjas

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.

GOD can do whatever he wants, he created us. But we are not suposed to take matters into our own hands, vengance is the LORDS.

 

 

What I meant by Christianity existing as long as history records is the belief in the one true GOD.

the jews were orrigionally the people of GOD and from them it went through several stages before becomeing the modern day Christianity.

 

if you have any questions I'd be happy to answere them to the best of my abuilities.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by man189

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

 

 

Logically if all this is true we should see transition forms in fossils, like a transition between a fish and an amphibian.

 

Early bird evolution seems to have involved little forest climbers and then little forest fliers, both of which are guaranteed to leave very bad fossil records (little animal + acidic forest soil = no remains). Most of the fossil records that can be, or could have been, discovered are either still awaiting (there is MUCH undug geologic strata!) or forever destroyed (natural/man-made destruction). On top of that, only a small, SMALL fraction of the organisms that perished over the millenia did so in environments conducive to leaving fossil trace. Imagine walking down a country road after a brief rain.. you leave footprints. What are the odds that these prints will remain rather than be eroded?

 

The best mediums for fossil preservation appear to have been still water lagoons or shallow seas where carbonite deposition acted as a preservative. In acidic environments, such as coniferus or deciduous forrests, rates of decay exceed fossilization. It is in these environments (sadly) where transition species would be most likely found.

 

 

Originally posted by man189

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.

 

First... this theory assumes that the Sun is shrinking at the same rate today as it did in the past. This initially apparent rate is being measured over an EXTREMELY short period of time! If this source is a High School science project, I commend the effort. It truely is innovative. However, if this as yet unnamed source is not... well.....

 

Second... it seems to be referring to the Kelvin-Heimholz (spelling from memory, so may be incorrect) Contraction theory. This is a theory that attempted to explain the Sun's energy output with gravitational collapse. As I remember, the theory of the Sun's energy was revised with new understandings of nuclear fusion.

 

Third.... evidence of ancient climates is well documented. If the Sun had been considerably larger in the past, it would have significantly affected the Earth's ancient climates.

 

Originally posted by man189

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.

 

You obviously missed or misunderstood my post about paleomagnetic dating. In simple terms, the Earth is similar to a giant dynamo with an iron core. Evidence suggests that the Earth's magnetic field has reversed itself many times in ancient history as evidenced by magnatometer readings, which helped understand seafloor spreading (a tectonic process responsible for continental drift). There is much documentation on this and I recommend Verosub and Roberts, 1995, referranced at the end of this post.

 

Originally posted by man189

mutations could not have caused an organism to evolve unless earth was billion years old. Scientific evidence does not support that theory.

 

4.6 billion is closer... and science supports it very easily. I still have trouble understanding how you keep looking away from this.

 

 

Originally posted by man189

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.

 

I'm no zoologist (but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express over the weekend), but one could argue that the Ostrich is a transitional species. Obviously a bird... but doesn't fly. It's wings don't get in the way.

 

Originally posted by man189

4th genetic or chromosome mutation make plants and animals weaker and less able to reproduce.

 

The Delta-32 deletion, a mutation that occurs on the gene for CCR-5, a receptor on the surface of macrophages is protecting people against HIV much as it did for the bacterium Yersinia pestis, otherwise known as the bubonic plague, during the middle ages. See Am J Hum Genet 1998, 62:1507-1515. This referance is an abstract, you'll have to check the actual journal at your local university library.

 

 

 

Originally posted by man189

Up to today we have no proofs against creation.

 

Unless you take into account the age of the Earth.

 

Originally posted by man189

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.

 

Not even close.

 

Originally posted by man189

Humans are filled with pride and incredulity.

 

And innate fear of the unknown.

 

Originally posted by man189

This is the main reason why man has developed this nonsense theory.

 

Yep... but we're talking about two different theories, huh?

 

Originally posted by man189

it takes a lot of faith to believe in creation ,but this is nothing compared to the faith it takes to believe in evolution

 

And you keep missing my point. It isn't "faith" or "belief" that drives the evolution explaination. It's the best description of observed phenomenon. In other words: the evidence laid before us (be it from god or coincidence) points to the conclusion that all life on our planet (perhaps others as well) is a recent result of several billion years of chemistry and physics. The evidence is there. I've never discounted the possibility of god, only that things aren't as simple or ignorant as creationists would like to believe. (BTW, I did not use "ignorant" as a derogatory term, but rather to mean "lack of knowledge and refusal to seek wisdom. True enough, Whiteraider pointed out that wisdom could reveal that which we may not be ready to see, but that is always the risk).

 

Cheers M8!

 

Cited Referance

 

Verosub, K. L. and A. P. Roberts (1995). "Environmental Magnetism - Past, Present, and Future." Journal of Geophysical Research-Solid Earth 100(B2): 2175-2192.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by man189

Famous Evolution Hoaxes

 

Nebraska Man

 

Piltdown Man

 

Haeckel’s Embryos

 

Peppered Moth

 

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

 

I have no doubt. This goes to prove that there are those within society who have no business calling themselves scientists. The one thing that all of these hoaxes have in common is that they were disspelled by peers. The scientific community cleans up after itself quite well. There's several motivations: one is to maintain credibility, the other is the obtain credibility (disproving theories or poor scientific methods has done this many times).

 

Luckily, I never had to sit through any lectures that included these hoaxes. Still, the American public education system is greatly flawed... with that I will agree. Native Americans are still marginalized in history and, in most instances, characterized as the "bad guys."

 

Your point is well taken.

 

SkinWalker

[C'jais]

Originally posted by 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

 

Yes. For one individual in one individual's timespan. Multiply this by the amount of celled organisms, and 4.5 billion years.

 

Adn regarding "successful" - there's a vast difference between the following:

 

1) A switch from one codon to another, but one that codes for the same amino acid.

 

2) A huge change in the chromosome, involving a new pair of arms etc.

 

You can't lump it all together like that.

[Elijah]

Life, And the Mathematical Proof for the Designer Requirements

 

That a complex structure such as a living organism could

Be formed by chance without intelligent input has never been demonstrated in the lab or anywhere else. Given enough time, the naturalistic world view reasons, anything is at least possible. The problem with this view is that the degree of information and complexity required for living organisms to be able to “live” is such that, aside from the deliberate intelligent design, time alone will not allow for the naturalistic construction of life. Evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould started that even if evolutionary history on earth repeated itself a MILLION times, He doubts whether anything like Homo sapiens would ever develop again.

 

Many researchers have concluded that the probability of life arising by chance is so remote that we have to label it an impossibility. For example, Holy notes that the probability of drawing either ten white or ten black balls out of a large box full of balls that contains equal numbers of black and white balls is five time out of one million! If we increase the number to 100 and draw sets of 100 balls, the probability of drawing 100 black or 100 white balls in succession is now so low as to be for all practical purposes impossible. To illustrate this concept as applied in biology, an ordered structure of just 206 parts will be examined. This is not a large number the adult human skeleton, for example, contains on the average 206 separate bones, all assembled together in a perfectly integrated functioning whole. And all body systems – even our cells’ organelles are far more complex than this.

To determine the possible number of different ways 206 parts could be connected, consider a system of one part which can be lined up in only one way (1 x 1); or a system of two parts in two ways (1 x 2) or 1,2 and 2,1; a system of three parts, which can be aligned in six ways (1 x 2 x 3), or 1,2,3; 2,3,1; 2,1,3; 1,3,2; 3,1,2; 3,2,1; one of four parts in 24 ways (1 x 2 x 3 x 40 and so on. Thus, a system of 206 parts could be aligned in 1 x 2 x 3 … x 206. This number is called “206 factorial” and is written “206!”.

The Value 206! Is an enormously large number, approximately 10388, which is a “1” fallowed by 388 zeros.

Achievement of only the correct general position required (ignoring for now where the bones came from, their upside-down or right-side-up placement, their alignment, the origin of the tendons, ligaments, and other supporting structures) for all 206 parts will occur only once out of 10388 random assortments. This means one chance out of 10388 exists of the correct order being selected on the first trial, and each and every other trial afterwards, given all the bones as they presently exist in our body.

If one new trial could be completed each second for every single second available in all of the estimated evolutionary view of astronomic time (about 10 to 20 billion years), using the most conservative estimate gives us 1018 seconds; the chances that the correct general position will be obtained in random is lass than once in 10 billion years. This will produce a probability of only one out of 10(388 – 18) or one in 10370.

If each part is only the size of an electron, one of the smallest know particles in the universe, and the entire know universe were solidly packed with sets of bones, this area conservatively estimated at 100 billion cubic light years could contain only about 10130 sets of 206 parts each. What is the possibility that just one of these 10130 sets, each arranging their members by chance, will achieve correct alignment just in ten billion years? Suppose also that we invent a machine capable of making not one trial per second, but a billion-billion different trials each second on ever single one of the 10130 sets. The maximum number of possible trials that anyone could possibly conceive being made with this type of situation would permit a total of 10166 trials (10130 x 1018 x 1018). Even given these odds, the chance that one of these 10166 trials would produce the correct result is only one out of 10388, or only one in 10222 trials for all sets

Further, all the parts must both first exist and be instantaneously assembled properly in order for the organism to function. For all practical purposes, a zero possibility exists that the correct general position for only 206 parts could be obtained simultaneously by chance – and the average human has about 75 trillion cells! The human cerebral cortex alone contains over 10 billion cells, all arranged in the proper order, and each of these cells is itself infinitely complex from a human standpoint. Each of the cells in the human body consists of multi-thousands of basic parts such as organelles and multi-millions of complex proteins and other parts, all of which must be assembled both correctly and instantaneously as a unit in order to function. This required balance and assembly must be maintained even during cell divisions.

 

This illustration indicates that the argument commonly used by evolutionists – “given enough time, anything is possible” – is wanting. Evolutionary naturalism claims that the bone system happened as a result of time, luck and “natural” forces, the last element actually holding the status of a God. Time for the chief escape that naturalism must reply on to support its theory, is thus a false god.

Complex ordered structures of any kind (of which billions must exist in the body for it to work) cannot happen except by design and intelligence, and they must have occurred simultaneously for the unit to function. Scientists recognize this problem, and this is why Stephen Jay Gould concluded that humans are a glorious evolutionary accident which required 60 trillion contingent events.

 

- in six days John f. ashton PhD

[Mandalorian54]

Kinwalker you are giving a theory contradictory to Man189 buy are not proving him wrong.

 

If you had posted all your stuff first he could have simply contradicted you by posting his second, but this does not prove anything they are simply two different theorys.

 

 

see what I'm getting at?

 

well I have one of those degrading in time theorys that I'm pretty sure canot be contradicted with a nother simple theory.

 

The gravity of the Earth slowly degrades, and the moon is slowly inching away from the earth becoming farther and farther away in its orbit.

 

are you going to say at one point millions or billions of years ago the Earths gravity never decreased, it just for some reason started decreasing?

 

The likelyness of evolution is like a printing factory exploding and all the ink fell onto many sheets of paper forming letters righting the definitions of words, and those papers fell into bindings and as the dust settled a dictionary had formed.

 

or me scribbling on a piece of paper with my eyes closed and the scribling coming out as perfect cursivewriting.

 

you and your theories, tell me one thing you know for sure about evolution. If you can name anything other than that it should not be taught in schools your smater than any scientist in the world or mistaken.

 

so cut the balonie, you don't know that the earth is millions or billions of years old cause you can't prove it.

[Mandalorian54]

The Bible says adam and eve were created on the same day but not at the same time, not too important but just thought I should specify.

 

The Bible doesnt contradict itself, like you yourself said(whoever said it) Some things are metaphorical. Many people find the Bible confusing but I can understand it quite well and there are plenty of other books writen by scholars to help you out.

 

 

sorry tyrion I didn't read your post to carefully the first time.

 

Just because the Bible says somthing doesn't mean its true,well the Bible has been proven to be extreamly accurate despite its origional text being no less than 4000 years old, and some date 6000 and later.

 

But for you guys you can only believe what you can prove about the Bible I guess. well it's up to you to decide, myself I would bet my life on it in an instant without a second thought.

 

The Bible says it is the word of God and all christians believe this.

We believe evrything the Bible says and if it told us to jump off a bridge we would. Thank heavens it doesnt.

 

Please ask away as many questions as you want I would be honord, and re-ask questions which have not yet been answered.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Mandolorian54

Kinwalker you are giving a theory contradictory to Man189 buy are not proving him wrong.

 

If you had posted all your stuff first he could have simply contradicted you by posting his second, but this does not prove anything they are simply two different theorys.

 

 

see what I'm getting at?

 

Nope.... not really. I'll have to browse back a few posts and see if get what you mean. But evolution itself is a theory comprised of many. Theories involving genetics for instance.

 

Originally posted by Mandolorian54

well I have one of those degrading in time theorys that I'm pretty sure canot be contradicted with a nother simple theory.

 

The gravity of the Earth slowly degrades, and the moon is slowly inching away from the earth becoming farther and farther away in its orbit.

 

Well... just to be clear, "gravity" cannot in itself degrade. Gravity is a product of the effect one object's mass has on another. All objects that have mass also have a gravitational pull on all other objects. The larger the object the larger the pull. The closer the object, the larger the pull. More correctly in both of these instances, the greater the energy needed to separate the two objects. The objects can be atomic particles or planetary bodies.

 

The Moon's orbit is, in fact, getting larger. Today's measurements put it at 3.8 cm/yr. Certainly as it gets farther away, the gravitational pull the Moon and the Earth share will decrease, thus increasing the rate of orbital expansion. Having said that, it is important to note that the closer the Moon was to Earth the more powerful the gravitational pull and, therefore, the rate of expansion was less. I'm no Astrophysicist, so I don't know the formulae used in these measurements. I'm sure your local university library will have appropriate texts if you wish to research it.

 

Originally posted by Mandolorian54

are you going to say at one point millions or billions of years ago the Earths gravity never decreased, it just for some reason started decreasing?

 

Again, gravity is a function of mass and distance. So knowing this we can say with certainty that Earth's gravity in relation to the Moon increases and decreases twice a month. This is because the Moon's orbit is eliptical. The Earth's tides are good examples of the effect. The same is true for the Earth's gravitational relationship with the Sun. I would suggest that just as the Moon's orbit is expanding around the Earth, so is the Earth's around the Sun.

 

Originally posted by Mandolorian54

you and your theories, .

 

LOL! They're not my theories. I'm only relaying what I learned in various college courses, past research papers, and readings I've made in my current interest in science.

 

Originally posted by Mandolorian54

 

tell me one thing you know for sure about evolution. If you can name anything other than that it should not be taught in schools your smater than any scientist in the world or mistaken.

 

I'm not sure exactly the context of the rest of this statement.... I've mentioned so many things I know for sure about evolution already in this thread. But here's something new:

 

Look at the adaptation of life in thermal vents far below the depth that one would normally expect to find any life. Far deeper than any warmth can be found without help from the vents. There are species of crab and shrimp, as well as planktons and bacterium that have adapted to the harsh environment presented by temperature extremes, heavy metals and acidic compounds created by the vents themselves. Most of the crabs and shrimp of more hospitable waters would quickly perish if suddenly thrust into this environment. Perhaps a very, very few would have some individual traits that would allow there survival. Traits that would otherwise be considered random mutations, but in this environment allow for survival. These traits are passed through the DNA to the next generation, etc.

 

Originally posted by Mandolorian54

so cut the balonie, you don't know that the earth is millions or billions of years old cause you can't prove it.

 

Science has done a magnificent job at proving the age of the Earth. There are perhaps dozens of indicators that point to that age being 4.6 billion years.

 

SkinWalker

[Tyrion]

The Bible says it is the word of God and all christians believe this.

We believe everything the Bible says and if it told us to jump off a bridge we would. Thank heavens it doesnt.

 

 

Er...dont you think that's a little..fanaticle...?

 

Believing so much in a book only because it says so that you end your end if it says to?

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Mandolorian54

The Bible says it is the word of God and all christians believe this.

 

I have always maintained that creation and evolution can co-exist as "theories" about how things came to be.

 

There appears to be evidence that exists which validates the idea that life on Earth evolved. If there is a God (and I believe there is... shh.... don't tell Cjais ), then this evidence exists as part of his will. That means that the evidence is either valid, or he planted it. Either explaination states that God had a purpose for the evidence (I'm talking about genetic mutations, paleomagnetism, dating methods, chemistry, nuclear science, astronomic observation, etc.).

 

If God told man how he created the universe as we know to men who lived 4000 + years ago, why would he want to bother with trying to educate man on concepts of genetics, organic chemistry, and nuclear physics? That's why God gave us brains, free-will, innate curiosity, etc.... To paraphrase one of my attempts to point out that literal interpretation of the Bible yields no progress: "seek knowledge, but beware of the consequences associated with knowing." (the wisdom thing I posted a while back).

 

God, IMHO, wants us to find the answers as a way of becoming more enlightened. For a God, in whose image I was created, I surely hope to make him proud. I use my ability to observe, discern, and test theory. I support others that do the same, even if I doubt their methods.

 

Sorry to go on so many "rambling tirades,"... :-)

 

Originally posted by Mandolorian54

Please ask away as many questions as you want I would be honord, and re-ask questions which have not yet been answered.

 

Thanks... I'll mull that over and ask if something comes to mind. The same to you, btw... I'll attempt to answer with what little I know and seek to find sources for that which I do not.

 

I was pleased to read your bit about the Moon's orbit... I hadn't thought of that in some time.

 

SkinWalker

[BCanr2d2]

Let's get it clear: No one here is doubting the HISTORICAL aspect, and chronological order of things in the Bible. They have proven to be in the correct order, or close enough that it is inconsequential...

 

The further you look into major events in the Bible, and cross reference them with other texts of the same time, they all report of similar incidents. So, don't come at us saying that we don't believe the Bible to be a fake. We are saying that outside of it's metaphorical - and ALL of it is metaphorical - interpretation, many pieces of the Bible do not stand up to investigation.

 

I do not know how Catholics are not considered Christians. Christianity is such a wide and enveloping name for ALL religions that worship Christ. That includes Roman Catholicism, Anglican, Baptist, etc. That is like saying that the one form of Muslim is "real" Muslim and the other isn't. They are all Muslim, just based on different interpretations of the same texts.

 

Interesting words from lexiline.com

 

Antioch (Turkish Antakya) was the FIRST Christian city

- anywhere. Moreover, it was the "School of Antioch"

- as opposed to the "School of Alexandria"... -

"which stressed the literal interpretation of the Bible

and the completeness of Christ's humanity." (Encyclopaedia Britannica)

 

The Western world has followed the School of Alexandria,

"which emphasized the allegorical interpretation of the Bible

and stressed Christ's divinity". This has led to consequent

historical, calendric and religious errors.

 

Lexilines interpretation of History RE: Mt Nemrut - Nemrut Dag, Turkey

[C'jais]

ZDawg: What that guy is writing is essentially the "Boeing 747" trick, only switching examples and beating the same drum. He assumes the 206 bones and their position come about by chance each time a human is created. Do you realize how simply a nucliec acid is? It does not involve 206 different parts etc.

Do you truly believe that when a sperm and egg cell unites, the genetics are generated completely randomly in a jumbled mess? No, they're passed on for each generation (with occuring mutations) so nature is capable of producing very complex structures very quickly with DNA.

 

Of course, it is unlikely we can prove the "spontaneous" generation of cells from "goo" in my lifetime - partly because it's likely it took at least a billion years to do it - partly because it has only ever happened "once", and partly because the circumstances leading up to it have changed radically. However, it's a much more plausible theory still, than if "God" created everything.

 

As Shadowtemplar asked me to point out: When a man claims to have talked to a pink elephant, we call him crazy and put him in a little rubbery cell. When a man claims that God spoke to him, we worship him and call him religious. Where is the line between the two?

 

Where do you draw the line between "soul" and body? Modern neurological science has proven that what is classically called "soul" is to a great extent connected with electrical circuits in the mind. Nervecells are your conscience, your God and your soul.

 

"God-gapping" is constantly giving way to science, as science can explain more and more of previous "divine interference".

 

The Bible says it is the word of God and all christians believe this. We believe everything the Bible says and if it told us to jump off a bridge we would. Thank heavens it doesnt.

 

And what if it told you to fly into tall buildings with passenger planes? What you are doing here is circular reasoning: You believe the bible because it's holy which you know from the bible. In short, you believe it because it tells you to.

 

If there is a God (and I believe there is... shh.... don't tell Cjais)

 

Believe what you want as long as you remember this: Once God proves itself, it will be classified a natural law of science. You surprise me by saying this, as you still advocate the possibility of life appearing by chance (or do you?), and that the earth is 4.6 billion years old (then again, you aren't Christian ) - what kind of God do you believe in Skin?

 

The only way a God could exist IMVHO is if it was a kind of force ala Starwars - coexisting, not creating, but shaping.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Cjais

Believe what you want as long as you remember this: Once God proves itself, it will be classified a natural law of science.

 

Agreed.

 

Originally posted by Cjais

You surprise me by saying this, as you still advocate the possibility of life appearing by chance (or do you?),

 

Absolutely. The billions of years Earth had to develop, + the billions of other planets similar to ours, + the billions of other galaxies that exist.... the accident of life was bound to happen at least once!

 

Originally posted by Cjais

and that the earth is 4.6 billion years old (then again, you aren't Christian )

 

For the record (and no, I don't believe in modern christian dogma... no much anyway), there are christians who share the belief that the earth is 4.6 billions of years old. They propose "the Gap Theory" as a way of explaining the time span inconsistencies of early chapters of the bible.

 

Originally posted by Cjais

- what kind of God do you believe in Skin?

 

Hey... we have 5th Amendment rights in this country! If I go into that, the Christian right will start feeling the urge to convert a heathen and gang up on me!.... you're all the way in Denmark! How are you going to get my back?

 

** j/k.... everyone just sit down. Go back to normal business.... please.

 

Skin

[Elijah]

If the sun is shrinking 6 someodd inches a year... wouldnt the earth be gone if its been around for someodd billion years?

[C'jais]

Originally posted by ZDawg

If the sun is shrinking 6 someodd inches a year... wouldnt the earth be gone if its been around for someodd billion years?

 

*Sigh*

 

Do I really need to repeat myself this many times?

 

Look at my, Skinwalker's and Shadowtemplar's previous posts.

[Elijah]

Originally posted by Cjais

 

*Sigh*

 

Do I really need to repeat myself this many times?

 

Look at my, Skinwalker's and Shadowtemplar's previous posts.

 

That didnt answer my question.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by ZDawg

 

That didnt answer my question.

 

Do you have the necessary timeframe? No.

 

The sun is most likely going through a cycle of shrinking and expanding. Even 100 years to measure this phenomena is but a minute detail in the sun's life. Again: You cannot make that kind of extrapolations without the necessary timespan - if you could, you project God into virtually anything.

[TheWhiteRaider]

Ok here is something I found.

 

A mutation will cause the animal to be unable to reproduce unless.

 

A. An error happened inside the parents

 

B. An error happened before the first cell divided.

 

Other wise the cell with the correct DNA will conflict with the cells with the mutation.

 

This makes random chances even lower that it happened.

 

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

 

They died long before Christianity too.

 

Might I make a note that also Christianity has had the most trouble as a religion. Even from the start it has been under fire. Also most of the holidays are Christain.

 

Of course Christmas notice the "Chirst" in "Christ-mas".

 

St. Vanitine's day was made after a man named Vanitine, who was a Christain, was killed by lions in the Roman theater.

 

Again: You cannot make that kind of extrapolations without the necessary timespan

 

And you say your dating methods are correct when you have only been trying them for 50-100(at most) years. How do you test your theory's accuracy? How do you know that they work over long periods?

 

 

P.S. SkinWalker I found the artical on the man getting eaten by a whale in a news paper. I will see if they have a website you can go to.

[TheWhiteRaider]

It'd turn into a molten mass instantly, disintegrating everyone on it.

 

If it stopped for weeks on in yes.

 

By your way of thinking, none are Christians except if they've been approved by you. What are your criteria of being a "Christian"?

 

Beliveing that Christ came and died for us and that God is real. And truely believe it not just saying it. I can say I am a millionair, but that does not make it true does it?

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider

And you say your dating methods are correct when you have only been trying them for 50-100(at most) years. How do you test your theory's accuracy? How do you know that they work over long periods?

 

Many of the dating methods rely on constants. Some of these constants include half-lives, others include magnetic anomalies that can be compared to records left by sea-floor spreading.

 

"Shrinking sun" relies on a current phenomenon rather than observing past phenomenon. It's rather like saying that the arctic ice caps are melting at rate x., therefore the Earth was covered with snow at year y. If the sun's shrinkage had left "rings" like in a tree, then comparisons could be made.

 

Astronomists explain the lives of stars such as ours this way: a region of high density called a nebula is matter that condenses and forms protostars, regions within the nebula that are very hot and give off visible light. If the protostars contain enough matter, the temperature rises to a point at which hydrogen fuses to create helium. All the while a contraction is occurring. Once the helium is formed, contractions slows or stops and the star begins to shine, becoming a main sequence star. It remains in main sequence for about 10 billion years until all of the helium is formed from fusing hydrogen. The core begins to contract and and helium fuses to form carbon. The outer layers, meanwhile, expand, cool and give off much less light. At this point a Red Giant is formed. The helium runs out, the outer shell dissapates into planetary nebula and the core, in it's final stages, is known as a white dwarf. It eventually cools and dims. After it stops giving off light its referred to as a black dwarf.

 

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider

P.S. SkinWalker I found the artical on the man getting eaten by a whale in a news paper. I will see if they have a website you can go to.

 

Can't wait to see it! Can you scan & post?

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider

Ok here is something I found.

 

A mutation will cause the animal to be unable to reproduce unless.

 

A. An error happened inside the parents

 

B. An error happened before the first cell divided.

 

Other wise the cell with the correct DNA will conflict with the cells with the mutation.

 

This makes random chances even lower that it happened.

 

I'm not entirely sure where you're going with this, but I'm assuming that you're pointing out that genetic mutation is harmful to the species and never helpful.

 

Actually, there is much to suggest just the opposite is often true, although the obvious is that mutations are harmful, such as in Down's Syndrome, which is a result of a non-disjunction. This is when the spindle fibres fail to seperate during meiosis, resulting in gametes with one extra chromosome and other gametes lacking a chromosome.

 

Other mutation types that can occur are Deletions (mentioned in an earlier post), Insertions, Inversions, and Substitutions.

 

Another obviously harmful mutation is the Sickle Cell trait, which can lead to anemia among those of African heritage. The interesting thing about this mutation is that it orginated among people who lived in an area in which malaria was common. A substantiated link was made noting those who suffer sickle cell trait or anaemia were immune to the effects of malaria. This is an example of a mutation that had a benificial effect by helping a species survive.

 

The idea of mutation in evolution is that an organism that is best suited for it's environment will have greater chances of survival than one that is less suited. If a mutation occured that was helpful, the organism survived and passed this mutation down to the next generation. If not, the organism's chances of surviving long enough to pass the mutation along was impaired. These mutations could have been anything from beak shape to color.

 

Regardless, they did not occur quickly, but rather of LONG periods of time.

 

SkinWalker

[C'jais]

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider

 

If it stopped for weeks on in yes.

 

No - have you any idea fast the the earth is moving about in space? If it suddenly just stopped up (or even slowed down) the inertia would do some pretty nasty things to every living thing on earth, not to mention itself.

 

 

 

Beliveing that Christ came and died for us and that God is real. And truely believe it not just saying it. I can say I am a millionair, but that does not make it true does it?

 

And if you believe in God, that does still not make him true, no?

Just because a lot of people believe as you, doesn't mean you're more right.

 

I see what I believe and vice versa.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider

Ok here is something I found.

 

A mutation will cause the animal to be unable to reproduce unless.

 

A. An error happened inside the parents

 

B. An error happened before the first cell divided.

 

Other wise the cell with the correct DNA will conflict with the cells with the mutation.

 

This makes random chances even lower that it happened.

 

As Skinwalker, I have trouble seeing where you're getting at. When I talk about mutations, I'm referring to the ones happening in meiosis, the ones that happen when a sperm and egg cell unite. Mutations happen every day in our bodily cells, but guess why we never see them? The cells are eliminated to prevent spread - how nature works.

 

They died long before Christianity too.

 

Might I make a note that also Christianity has had the most trouble as a religion. Even from the start it has been under fire. Also most of the holidays are Christain.

 

Of course Christmas notice the "Chirst" in "Christ-mas".

 

St. Vanitine's day was made after a man named Vanitine, who was a Christain, was killed by lions in the Roman theater.

 

Are you trying to justify your religion by saying it's the greatest and therefore most true?

 

When Christian monks moved in to convert the old "vikings", they also converted a pagan harvest tradition called "Jul" placed conveniently on the 24th December to let them keep their old customs but also slightly adjust them to the Christian beliefs. That is why Danes celebrate christmas the 24th and call it Jul to this very day - not christmas.

 

I'll restate this: What's up with imprisoning a guy that claims to have seen pink elephants, yet revere the ones who claim that something called "God" spoke to them? They're equally mentally sick.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Cjais

 

I'll restate this: What's up with imprisoning a guy that claims to have seen pink elephants, yet revere the ones who claim that something called "God" spoke to them? They're equally mentally sick.

 

The protestants AND the catholics had a cow when Joan of Arc said she was spoken to by god.... they set her on fire rather than believe their own dogma.

 

Back then... christians didn't want ANYone communicating with god. I don't think I've met a preacher yet (these days) that hasn't said at some point, "god spoke to me/called me/etc."

 

My coffee pot speaks to me every morning..... "you need me..., I'll make you feel good..., forget the juice..., drink me black...."

 

SkinWalker

[Tyrion]

They died long before Christianity too.

 

Might I make a note that also Christianity has had the most trouble as a religion. Even from the start it has been under fire. Also most of the holidays are Christain.

 

Of course Christmas notice the "Chirst" in "Christ-mas".

 

St. Vanitine's day was made after a man named Vanitine, who was a Christain, was killed by lions in the Roman theater.

 

But also, wensday and thursday are named after Odin and Thor, and Tuesday is name after Tyr I think.

 

So does that mean everyone believes in Norse? No.

 

That also aplies to that statement about Christmas and St. Valintines.

 

Also,you have to remember christianity is a relatively new religion. I'd be suprised for it to last another 10,000 years relativley the same...