Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: Dos Equis on May 04, 2008, 08:20:09 PM
-
What is the scientific explanation for how life began according to the theory of evolution?
-
What is the scientific explanation for how life began according to the theory of evolution?
There is none. Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis. ::) And we have said this many, many times.
Don't pull your 'troll' nonsense here. Read it again. Evolution makes no claims about abiogenesis.
-
There is none. Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis. ::) And we have said this many, many times.
Don't pull your 'troll' nonsense here. Read it again. Evolution makes no claims about abiogenesis.
I was going to say the same thing, but i dont know if he was using this to illustrate that evolution is wrong in his mind or that there is no way to create life from nothing as we know it now. Which one is Beach?
-
I was going to say the same thing, but i dont know if he was using this to illustrate that evolution is wrong in his mind or that there is no way to create life from nothing as we know it now. Which one is Beach?
Neither tony. Mcway mentioned some believe in spontaneous generation. That just got me thinking about the question I posed. I'm really asking about the scientific explanation for the beginning of life on earth according to Darwinists.
-
Neither tony. Mcway mentioned some believe in spontaneous generation. That just got me thinking about the question I posed. I'm really asking about the scientific explanation for the beginning of life on earth according to Darwinists.
AHHH in that case there is none...lol that probably doesnt help much but ya...lol, actually im sure there is some postulation about it but i havent ever heard of any
-
AHHH in that case there is none...lol that probably doesnt help much but ya...lol, actually im sure there is some postulation about it but i havent ever heard of any
Isn't spontaneous generation one?
-
Isn't spontaneous generation one?
hmmm no as far as I know darwin actually helped to disprove spontaneous generation. Perhaps Im thinking of another subject but spontaneous generation states that life forms from decaying living materials which wouldnt explain how the living materials came to be in the first place. right?
-
hmmm no as far as I know darwin actually helped to disprove spontaneous generation. Perhaps Im thinking of another subject but spontaneous generation states that life forms from decaying living materials which wouldnt explain how the living materials came to be in the first place. right?
Nope, sure wouldn't.
I'm trying to get at what science teaches and what people believe about the origins of life on earth (not including any intelligent design beliefs).
-
Nope, sure wouldn't.
I'm trying to get at what science teaches and what people believe about the origins of life on earth (not including any intelligent design beliefs).
Scientists have theories; however the answer to the question of abiogenesis is an unknown one. When scientists don't know something, they admit it. Unlike some people who believe ancient mythology is fact.
-
Nope, sure wouldn't.
I'm trying to get at what science teaches and what people believe about the origins of life on earth (not including any intelligent design beliefs).
well to be fair though spontaneous generation has been disproven for sometime now and isnt taught anymore other than maybe a side note.
-
Scientists have theories; however the answer to the question of abiogenesis is an unknown one. When scientists don't know something, they admit it. Unlike some people who believe ancient mythology is fact.
lol LET IT GO BROTHER HAHAHAH
-
lol LET IT GO BROTHER HAHAHAH
Let what go? There are many things scientists don't know yet or understand. Does this mean that an ancient Semitic fertility deity is the explanation for these unknown things? Is that the default position?
-
Let what go? There are many things scientists don't know yet or understand. Does this mean that an ancient Semitic fertility deity is the explanation for these unknown things? Is that the default position?
why does it bother you so that people believe in god, god of any kind?
AGAIN the default position is not knowing, not religion and not atheism...are we to believe that everything in this world is arbitrary is that the default position? NOOOOOO its being open to either side
-
Scientists have theories; however the answer to the question of abiogenesis is an unknown one. When scientists don't know something, they admit it. Unlike some people who believe ancient mythology is fact.
I'm not talking about ancient mythology. I'm not talking about God. I'm not talking about religion. I'm not talking about intelligent design. I'm talking about the scientific basis for the origin of life on earth and what people believe about the origin of life on earth (outside of intelligent design).
You say it's unknown. What do you believe?
-
why does it bother you so that people believe in god, god of any kind?
AGAIN the default position is not knowing, not religion and not atheism...are we to believe that everything in this world is arbitrary is that the default position? NOOOOOO its being open to either side
The very fact that the science of statistics works is indication of the fact that very much in the world in indeed arbitrary.
For the record I don't care that people believe in a god but rather that they have to go around proselytising and preaching, making claims about the origins and development of life that no scientist would ever make.
-
The very fact that the science of statistics works is indication of the fact that very much in the world in indeed arbitrary.
For the record I don't care that people believe in a god but rather that they have to go around proselytising and preaching, making claims about the origins and development of life that no scientist would ever make.
even though things seem arbitrary doesnt mean there isnt something behind it a hurricane might seem arbitrary unless you understand the science behind it, the reasonf for a hurrican might seem arbitrary unless you understand the reasons behind them and so on and so on.
LOL you mean kinda like you do on this board specifically designated for religion, it seems to me that you are the one seeking out the religious ppl not the other way around.
-
even though things seem arbitrary doesnt mean there isnt something behind it a hurricane might seem arbitrary unless you understand the science behind it, the reasonf for a hurrican might seem arbitrary unless you understand the reasons behind them and so on and so on.
LOL you mean kinda like you do on this board specifically designated for religion, it seems to me that you are the one seeking out the religious ppl not the other way around.
I have already stated that relgious lunacy is very funny and provides enormous entertainment value.
-
I have already stated that relgious lunacy is very funny and provides enormous entertainment value.
Enormous entertainment to enter into the same arguement time and time again and obtain the same outcome time and time again sounds fairly crazy
-
Neither tony. Mcway mentioned some believe in spontaneous generation. That just got me thinking about the question I posed. I'm really asking about the scientific explanation for the beginning of life on earth according to Darwinists.
As I’ve said previously and contrary to Deicide's claim, the idea that “evolution doesn’t deal with origin” is (or, at least, was) a falsehood. Origin was addressed, when the theory of evolution was first formulated. But, the tenet behind it (spontaneous generation) was shown to be, at the very least faulty. Yet, many evolutionists (whether they admit it or not) still hold to SG as having occurred. Otherwise, they are left with the one option that don’t float their boat:
The beginning of the evolutionary process raises a question which is as yet unanswerable. What was the origin of life on this planet? Until fairly recent times there was a pretty general belief in the occurrence of ‘spontaneous generation.’ It was supposed that lowly forms of life developed spontaneously from, for example, putrefying meat. But careful experiments, notably those of Pasteur, showed that this conclusion was due to imperfect observation, and it became an accepted doctrine that life never arises except from life. So far as actual evidence goes, this is still the only possible conclusion.
But since it is a conclusion that seems to lead back to some supernatural creative act, it is a conclusion that scientific men find very difficult of acceptance. It carries with it what are felt to be, in the present mental climate, undesirable philosophic implications, and it is opposed to the scientific desire for continuity. It introduces an unaccountable break in the chain of causation, and therefore cannot be admitted as part of science unless it is quite impossible to reject it. For that reason most scientific men prefer to believe that life arose, in some way not yet understood, from inorganic matter in accordance with the laws of physics and chemistry” - J. W. N. Sullivan. The Limitations of Science
How ironic is it that some atheists, who get on Christians fore believing in things "without scientific evidence", turn right around and do the same thing, when it comes to the origin of life on this planet. It happened then; it still happens now.
-
The very fact that the science of statistics works is indication of the fact that very much in the world in indeed arbitrary.
For the record I don't care that people believe in a god but rather that they have to go around proselytising and preaching, making claims about the origins and development of life that no scientist would ever make.
Instead, some scientists proselytise and preach about accidentally coming from lifeless goo 5-billion years ago, despite lack of evidence that such occured.
I have already stated that relgious lunacy is very funny and provides enormous entertainment value.
You think that's entertaining. Atheist lunacy gives me countless belly laughs, especially the "Jesus-myth" posse. Who else gets discombobulated about Something/Someone they don't believe to exist?
-
...
How ironic is it that some atheists, who get on Christians fore believing in things "without scientific evidence", turn right around and do the same thing, when it comes to the origin of life on this planet. It happened then; it still happens now.
That's not how theoretical physicists describe the origins of the universe.
"The picture Jim Hartle and I developed, of the spontaneous quantum creation of the universe, would be a bit like the formation of bubbles of steam in boiling water."
"The idea is that the most probable histories of the universe, would be like the surfaces of the bubbles. Many small bubbles would appear, and then disappear again. These would correspond to mini universes that would expand, but would collapse again while still of microscopic size. They are possible alternative universes, but they are not of much interest since they do not last long enough to develop galaxies and stars, let alone intelligent life. A few of the little bubbles, however, with grow to a certain size at which they are safe from recollapse. They will continue to expand at an ever increasing rate, and will form the bubbles we see. They will correspond to universes that would start off expanding at an ever increasing rate. This is called inflation, like the way prices go up every year."
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2007/03/16_hawking_text.shtml
The spontaneous quantum creation of the universe is not the spontaneous generation to which you refer.
-
That's not how theoretical physicists describe the origins of the universe.
"The picture Jim Hartle and I developed, of the spontaneous quantum creation of the universe, would be a bit like the formation of bubbles of steam in boiling water."
"The idea is that the most probable histories of the universe, would be like the surfaces of the bubbles. Many small bubbles would appear, and then disappear again. These would correspond to mini universes that would expand, but would collapse again while still of microscopic size. They are possible alternative universes, but they are not of much interest since they do not last long enough to develop galaxies and stars, let alone intelligent life. A few of the little bubbles, however, with grow to a certain size at which they are safe from recollapse. They will continue to expand at an ever increasing rate, and will form the bubbles we see. They will correspond to universes that would start off expanding at an ever increasing rate. This is called inflation, like the way prices go up every year."
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2007/03/16_hawking_text.shtml
The spontaneous quantum creation of the universe is not the spontaneous generation to which you refer.
Im not sure exactly where you were going with this decker although that article was interesting it doesnt address the question of Life, on the theorizes on the issue of the origin of the universe.
-
As I’ve said previously and contrary to Deicide's claim, the idea that “evolution doesn’t deal with origin” is (or, at least, was) a falsehood. Origin was addressed, when the theory of evolution was first formulated. But, the tenet behind it (spontaneous generation) was shown to be, at the very least faulty. Yet, many evolutionists (whether they admit it or not) still hold to SG as having occurred. Otherwise, they are left with the one option that don’t float their boat:
The beginning of the evolutionary process raises a question which is as yet unanswerable. What was the origin of life on this planet? Until fairly recent times there was a pretty general belief in the occurrence of ‘spontaneous generation.’ It was supposed that lowly forms of life developed spontaneously from, for example, putrefying meat. But careful experiments, notably those of Pasteur, showed that this conclusion was due to imperfect observation, and it became an accepted doctrine that life never arises except from life. So far as actual evidence goes, this is still the only possible conclusion.
But since it is a conclusion that seems to lead back to some supernatural creative act, it is a conclusion that scientific men find very difficult of acceptance. It carries with it what are felt to be, in the present mental climate, undesirable philosophic implications, and it is opposed to the scientific desire for continuity. It introduces an unaccountable break in the chain of causation, and therefore cannot be admitted as part of science unless it is quite impossible to reject it. For that reason most scientific men prefer to believe that life arose, in some way not yet understood, from inorganic matter in accordance with the laws of physics and chemistry” - J. W. N. Sullivan. The Limitations of Science
How ironic is it that some atheists, who get on Christians fore believing in things "without scientific evidence", turn right around and do the same thing, when it comes to the origin of life on this planet. It happened then; it still happens now.
MC while I can see your point I think that decides point is that evolution is not dependent on the origin of life, no matter how life came to be evolution still exists.
-
Im not sure exactly where you were going with this decker although that article was interesting it doesnt address the question of Life, on the theorizes on the issue of the origin of the universe.
I chose the beginning of the beginning where time and the laws of physics come into existence.
Science tries to explain things in a manner consistent with materialism. To import a supernatural god as the cause is just the 'god of gaps' making the rounds. It goes like this: we don't know the origins of life, then god must have done it.
Which god would that be?
The only honest answer to the question of what brought life about on our planet is, "I don't know." Now science, in time, may be able to develop a rational explanation of that mystery. Religion is not so predisposed.
-
I chose the beginning of the beginning where time and the laws of physics come into existence.
Science tries to explain things in a manner consistent with materialism. To import a supernatural god as the cause is just the 'god of gaps' making the rounds. It goes like this: we don't know the origins of life, then god must have done it.
Which god would that be?
The only honest answer to the question of what brought life about on our planet is, "I don't know." Now science, in time, may be able to develop a rational explanation of that mystery. Religion is not so predisposed.
LOL well I dont think anybody here is trying to make the claim that b/c we dont know why or how it happened it must be b/c God did it. i think he is pointing out the fact that nobody knows how life created which does mean that religion is a possiblity does it not? why do ppl start threads and pointless never ending arguements over God not existing? Religion is not necissarily full of uncompremising, ignorant ppl as you may seem to think. Religion will in all reality probably never be proven wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt as new info will just be worked into the belief system.
-
LOL well I dont think anybody here is trying to make the claim that b/c we dont know why or how it happened it must be b/c God did it. i think he is pointing out the fact that nobody knows how life created which does mean that religion is a possiblity does it not? why do ppl start threads and pointless never ending arguements over God not existing? Religion is not necissarily full of uncompremising, ignorant ppl as you may seem to think. Religion will in all reality probably never be proven wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt as new info will just be worked into the belief system.
I have no problem with religious thinking. I do it all the time. It is the attendant organization that takes up the cause of religious doctrine that I have problems with.
There will always be religion. Science is one explanation of things. Not THE explanation of things. Same goes for religion in the sense that religious thinking deals with questions of purpose, meaning and the like in the face of nothing.
-
As I’ve said previously and contrary to Deicide's claim, the idea that “evolution doesn’t deal with origin” is (or, at least, was) a falsehood. Origin was addressed, when the theory of evolution was first formulated. But, the tenet behind it (spontaneous generation) was shown to be, at the very least faulty. Yet, many evolutionists (whether they admit it or not) still hold to SG as having occurred. Otherwise, they are left with the one option that don’t float their boat:
The beginning of the evolutionary process raises a question which is as yet unanswerable. What was the origin of life on this planet? Until fairly recent times there was a pretty general belief in the occurrence of ‘spontaneous generation.’ It was supposed that lowly forms of life developed spontaneously from, for example, putrefying meat. But careful experiments, notably those of Pasteur, showed that this conclusion was due to imperfect observation, and it became an accepted doctrine that life never arises except from life. So far as actual evidence goes, this is still the only possible conclusion.
But since it is a conclusion that seems to lead back to some supernatural creative act, it is a conclusion that scientific men find very difficult of acceptance. It carries with it what are felt to be, in the present mental climate, undesirable philosophic implications, and it is opposed to the scientific desire for continuity. It introduces an unaccountable break in the chain of causation, and therefore cannot be admitted as part of science unless it is quite impossible to reject it. For that reason most scientific men prefer to believe that life arose, in some way not yet understood, from inorganic matter in accordance with the laws of physics and chemistry” - J. W. N. Sullivan. The Limitations of Science
How ironic is it that some atheists, who get on Christians fore believing in things "without scientific evidence", turn right around and do the same thing, when it comes to the origin of life on this planet. It happened then; it still happens now.
Thanks Mcway. So what is the current viewpoint/teaching?
-
MC while I can see your point I think that decides point is that evolution is not dependent on the origin of life, no matter how life came to be evolution still exists.
Can you do me a favour and start spelling my name right? Unless it is meant as irony?!
-
Ive seen some info on M theory, and they seem to have some theories on the beginning of our universe....I havent heard the latest on their findings....
-
Can you do me a favour and start spelling my name right? Unless it is meant as irony?!
muhahahfafha its my way of getting into your head ;D...LOL no its been completely accidental my apologies
-
Here is a great theory with computer models that work and theoretical backing. it also has some criticisms of darwinism which is not to be confused with evolution.
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho32.htm
read this beach bum and tell me your criticisms.
-
What is the scientific explanation for how life began according to the theory of evolution?
you are confusing abiogenesis with the theory of evolution. The prevailing theory of how life began is that elements released from stars that went supernova gathered on one of the planets that is hospitable for life, such as Earth, and combined to form molecules that combined to form amino acids, which evolved into very simple cells, and thus life began.
It is believed the earliest signs of life appeared 600 million years after the earth formed. These life forms were possibly derived from self-reproducing RNA molecules. The replication of these organisms required resources which soon became limited, resulting in natural selection. DNA molecules then took over as the main replicators. They began to develop inside enclosed membranes which provided a stable environment for replication: proto-cells. 100 million years passed before cells resembling prokaryotes appeared. These organisms were chemoautotrophs.
Another 900 million years passed before photosynthesizing cyanobacteria evolved which produced oxygen. The oxygen concentration in the atmosphere subsequently rose. Eventually, more complex cells began to appear: the eukaryotes. After 2 billion years, the first multicellular organisms evolved. Natural selection fueled the evolutionary radiation that occurred during the last 1 billion years. Homo sapiens (modern humans) didn't appear until about 200,000 years ago.
-
What is the scientific explanation for how life began according to the theory of evolution?
Here's a hint: the answer is not to be found on a bodybuilding message board.
-
Here is a great theory with computer models that work and theoretical backing. it also has some criticisms of darwinism which is not to be confused with evolution.
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho32.htm
read this beach bum and tell me your criticisms.
Is there a Cliff's Notes version? :D
-
you are confusing abiogenesis with the theory of evolution. The prevailing theory of how life began is that elements released from stars that went supernova gathered on one of the planets that is hospitable for life, such as Earth, and combined to form molecules that combined to form amino acids, which evolved into very simple cells, and thus life began.
It is believed the earliest signs of life appeared 600 million years after the earth formed. These life forms were possibly derived from self-reproducing RNA molecules. The replication of these organisms required resources which soon became limited, resulting in natural selection. DNA molecules then took over as the main replicators. They began to develop inside enclosed membranes which provided a stable environment for replication: proto-cells. 100 million years passed before cells resembling prokaryotes appeared. These organisms were chemoautotrophs.
Another 900 million years passed before photosynthesizing cyanobacteria evolved which produced oxygen. The oxygen concentration in the atmosphere subsequently rose. Eventually, more complex cells began to appear: the eukaryotes. After 2 billion years, the first multicellular organisms evolved. Natural selection fueled the evolutionary radiation that occurred during the last 1 billion years. Homo sapiens (modern humans) didn't appear until about 200,000 years ago.
So you disagree with Mcway that Darwinists/evolutionists didn't believe in spontaneous generation?
It sounds like what you've described could never be tested if these suddenly appearing "self-reproducing RNA molecules" hung around 900 million years.
-
Here's a hint: the answer is not to be found on a bodybuilding message board.
::)
-
So you disagree with Mcway that Darwinists/evolutionists didn't believe in spontaneous generation?
evolutionists may have believed in spontaneous generation a long, long time ago but not anymore.
It sounds like what you've described could never be tested if these suddenly appearing "self-reproducing RNA molecules" hung around 900 million years.
probably not. I would imagine it's very difficult to simulate a billion years on primordial Earth in a lab.
-
So you disagree with Mcway that Darwinists/evolutionists didn't believe in spontaneous generation?
It sounds like what you've described could never be tested if these suddenly appearing "self-reproducing RNA molecules" hung around 900 million years.
There can never be a scientific explanation if there are no theories with scientific pretensions.
Otherwise we might as well scrap the whole endeavor and embrace any number of creationist myths.
-
evolutionists may have believed in spontaneous generation a long, long time ago but not anymore.
probably not. I would imagine it's very difficult to simulate a billion years on primordial Earth in a lab.
What is your theory about how it all began?
-
There can never be a scientific explanation if there are no theories with scientific pretensions.
Otherwise we might as well scrap the whole endeavor and embrace any number of creationist myths.
Same question to you: how do you believe life originally began on Earth?
-
Same question to you: how do you believe life originally began on Earth?
Personally, I believe that we are the product of a universe that, for whatever reason, needed awareness in its makeup. I believe it happened on the quantum level where 'spontaneous generation' takes on a new meaning.
-
Personally, I believe that we are the product of a universe that, for whatever reason, needed awareness in its makeup. I believe it happened on the quantum level where 'spontaneous generation' takes on a new meaning.
Thanks Decker. Just to be clear, I'm asking about day 1 of life on earth (whenever that was). You adopt the spontaneous generation viewpoint?
-
What is your theory about how it all began?
I have no theory about how life began.
-
I have no theory about how life began.
What is your belief?
-
God always lays out the stumbling block.
You all are trying to figure out what can not be figured out with finite wisdom or understanding.
It takes infinite wisdom and intelligence to understand the how and the why of creation. It's time for you to submit and have faith in what has been revealed! Nothing more, nothing less, just believe!
John 1:1-5 says it all!
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was with God in the beginning.
3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men.
5 The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.
Believe this and you will be okay!
-
Thanks Decker. Just to be clear, I'm asking about day 1 of life on earth (whenever that was). You adopt the spontaneous generation viewpoint?
If 'spontaneous generation' means at some point on the subatomic level, the building blocks of matter are configured in such a way as to take on organic characteristics, then yes I believe in spontaneous generation.
If SG means presto! life appears. No, I don't believe that.
-
If 'spontaneous generation' means at some point on the subatomic level, the building blocks of matter are configured in such a way as to take on organic characteristics, then yes I believe in spontaneous generation.
If SG means presto! life appears. No, I don't believe that.
But isn't "presto!" required to believe "the building blocks of matter are configured in such a way as to take on organic characteristics"?
-
But isn't "presto!" required to believe "the building blocks of matter are configured in such a way as to take on organic characteristics"?
I have no idea. That's my guess at what happened.
"Presto" refers to a gap where x becomes y. I think science will be able to fill that gap mathematically some day. It can't do it empirically. An quantum reality can suffer the same fate as string theory for that reason.
-
I have no idea. That's my guess at what happened.
"Presto" refers to a gap where x becomes y. I think science will be able to fill that gap mathematically some day. It can't do it empirically. An quantum reality can suffer the same fate as string theory for that reason.
O.K. Understood. Thanks for answering.
-
But isn't "presto!" required to believe "the building blocks of matter are configured in such a way as to take on organic characteristics"?
matter was never created, it has always been.
its obvious that something is eternal from deduction, however this could be flawed.
what i dont understand is why you would accept something without evidence. There is no evidence of a god on this planet, and everything that has been elucidated has a material, scientific explanation. The stuff we havent figured out yet more then likely does as all of history, science, and observation is on its side.
-
matter was never created, it has always been.
its obvious that something is eternal from deduction, however this could be flawed.
what i dont understand is why you would accept something without evidence. There is no evidence of a god on this planet, and everything that has been elucidated has a material, scientific explanation. The stuff we havent figured out yet more then likely does as all of history, science, and observation is on its side.
What is the "material, scientific explanation" for the origin of life on earth? (The Cliff's Notes version :)).
-
What is the "material, scientific explanation" for the origin of life on earth? (The Cliff's Notes version :)).
i gave it to you. There are many theories, its a very difficult topic to talk about for obvious reasons as replication is very difficult.
also, what is your theory? god did it, then left it for evolution to take over? why wait so, why such a big universe for just us?
-
matter was never created, it has always been.
its obvious that something is eternal from deduction, however this could be flawed.
what i dont understand is why you would accept something without evidence. There is no evidence of a god on this planet, and everything that has been elucidated has a material, scientific explanation. The stuff we havent figured out yet more then likely does as all of history, science, and observation is on its side.
What's the difference between you saying that "matter was never created; it has always been" and a Christian's belief that "God was never created; He has always been" or as the Bible describes, "From everlasting to everlasting, thou art God"?
-
What's the difference between you saying that "matter was never created; it has always been" and a Christian's belief that "God was never created; He has always been" or as the Bible describes, "From everlasting to everlasting, thou art God"?
The trappings of scientific inquiry--rational analysis/assumption/conclusions, mathematical proofs--make the difference. The pretension to science--reason & math--in formulating hypotheses is all the difference. The answer we get from science is "we don't know but we think X based on our understanding of physics, biology, chemistry and math." The possiblity of arriving at a reasonable explanation through refinement of analysis exists even though the answer today is still a mystery.
That concession of truth is not found in creation mythologies b/c God created everything...period.
I notice you choose the JudaeoChristin quotes to illustrate your case. Why not choose Egyptian mythology or Indian mythology or Norse mythology? They have the same truth value.
Unless you believe differently.
-
The trappings of scientific inquiry--rational analysis/assumption/conclusions, mathematical proofs--make the difference. The pretension to science--reason & math--in formulating hypotheses is all the difference. The answer we get from science is "we don't know but we think X based on our understanding of physics, biology, chemistry and math." The possiblity of arriving at a reasonable explanation through refinement of analysis exists even though the answer today is still a mystery.
That concession of truth is not found in creation mythologies b/c God created everything...period.
Says who? People don't stop being scientists or exploring and forming hypothesis, simply because they believe that God created life on this planet. That is yet another mischaracterization. And the point being made is that, no matter how you slice, people have the belief that something or Someone HAS ALWAYS EXISTED.
I notice you choose the JudaeoChristin quotes to illustrate your case. Why not choose Egyptian mythology or Indian mythology or Norse mythology? They have the same truth value.
Unless you believe differently.
That's because I know that quote from memory. Again, the point is that, regardless of which deity you do or don't worship, the belief that an entity (sentient or not) has always existed remains.
-
Says who? People don't stop being scientists or exploring and forming hypothesis, simply because they believe that God created life on this planet. That is yet another mischaracterization. And the point being made is that, no matter how you slice, people have the belief that something or Someone HAS ALWAYS EXISTED.
Who is mischaracterizing what? I'm pointing out that science may one day be able to explain in a rational manner the mystery of life through scientific pretensions. Maybe that discovery will be a power called god.
Biblical explanations of creation are mythologies from beginning to end...you either believe them or you don't.
Genesis is a story written to deal with the unknown origins of life. Having a magical alien create life on earth is just as valid as Genesis.
That's because I know that quote from memory. Again, the point is that, regardless of which deity you do or don't worship, the belief that an entity (sentient or not) has always existed remains.
That's a belief all right.
-
What's the difference between you saying that "matter was never created; it has always been" and a Christian's belief that "God was never created; He has always been" or as the Bible describes, "From everlasting to everlasting, thou art God"?
one is a scientific law that can be tested, and has never been falsified and has a multitude of supporting evidence. The other one is a flawed hypothesis which cannot be supported nor tested.
-
i gave it to you. There are many theories, its a very difficult topic to talk about for obvious reasons as replication is very difficult.
also, what is your theory? god did it, then left it for evolution to take over? why wait so, why such a big universe for just us?
You did? Where?
I don't have a theory. I have a belief. I believe God created the heavens and earth. But that's not why I created this thread. I wanted to hear from people like you.
It seems as though folks like you, Decker, etc. cannot talk about the origins of life from a scientific standpoint without mentioning God, Christianity, religion, etc. in the next breath (in a negative light). I'm asking specifically about non-ID/God/religion-related theories/beliefs about the origins of life on earth.
Decker said he has no idea and I respect that. What is your theory and/or belief about the origins of life on earth?
-
Is there a Cliff's Notes version? :D
"'Autocatalytic set theory' is a theory about the origin of life (19). Autocatalytic set theory is an absolute simple model with absolutely non-trivial properties. It is a very useful model because it is implemented in a computer program (the model is executable). The idea behind the model is that life is a collection of molecules catalysing each others formation. (In §4 more about reductionism!). And further that every molecule (peptide, protein) has the capacity to catalyse some reaction. The model enables us to explore what happens when molecules in a prebiotic chemical mixture are catalysing each others formation. This is impossible without the help of a computer program. The model is without knowledge of which molecules need to be present in the mixture, and without knowledge which specific molecule is catalysing which reaction. An important assumption is that, if enough different molecules are present, molecules will catalyse the formation of other molecules by chance. Thereby becoming members of the set. In a collectively auto-catalytic set the molecules speed up the very reactions by which they themselves are formed. Now, if there are enough different molecules and assuming a fixed probability that any reaction in the mixture is catalysed by at least one molecule in the mixture, the model demonstrates that the mixture will suddenly transform into a collectively autocatalytic whole. In other words: there is a threshold. The formation of every member is catalysed by at least one other member. And so the set as a whole is stable.
Translated into 'real-life': assuming enough food and energy, high enough concentrations and a fixed probability for chance catalysis, the mixture of molecules can transform into a stable and self-sustaining set. In other words: will be alive!"
I see that usmoke believes that matter has always "been." Do the other atheists here believe the same?
-
"'Autocatalytic set theory' is a theory about the origin of life (19). Autocatalytic set theory is an absolute simple model with absolutely non-trivial properties. It is a very useful model because it is implemented in a computer program (the model is executable). The idea behind the model is that life is a collection of molecules catalysing each others formation. (In §4 more about reductionism!). And further that every molecule (peptide, protein) has the capacity to catalyse some reaction. The model enables us to explore what happens when molecules in a prebiotic chemical mixture are catalysing each others formation. This is impossible without the help of a computer program. The model is without knowledge of which molecules need to be present in the mixture, and without knowledge which specific molecule is catalysing which reaction. An important assumption is that, if enough different molecules are present, molecules will catalyse the formation of other molecules by chance. Thereby becoming members of the set. In a collectively auto-catalytic set the molecules speed up the very reactions by which they themselves are formed. Now, if there are enough different molecules and assuming a fixed probability that any reaction in the mixture is catalysed by at least one molecule in the mixture, the model demonstrates that the mixture will suddenly transform into a collectively autocatalytic whole. In other words: there is a threshold. The formation of every member is catalysed by at least one other member. And so the set as a whole is stable.
Translated into 'real-life': assuming enough food and energy, high enough concentrations and a fixed probability for chance catalysis, the mixture of molecules can transform into a stable and self-sustaining set. In other words: will be alive!"
I see that usmoke believes that matter has always "been." Do the other atheists here believe the same?
they would have to unless the think matter can be created, namely energy.
-
You think that's entertaining. Atheist lunacy gives me countless belly laughs, especially the "Jesus-myth" posse. Who else gets discombobulated about Something/Someone they don't believe to exist?
I find that interesting also. I wonder if there are people who don't believe in Leprochauns that spend hours debating their inexistence.
-
"'Autocatalytic set theory' is a theory about the origin of life (19). Autocatalytic set theory is an absolute simple model with absolutely non-trivial properties. It is a very useful model because it is implemented in a computer program (the model is executable). The idea behind the model is that life is a collection of molecules catalysing each others formation. (In §4 more about reductionism!). And further that every molecule (peptide, protein) has the capacity to catalyse some reaction. The model enables us to explore what happens when molecules in a prebiotic chemical mixture are catalysing each others formation. This is impossible without the help of a computer program. The model is without knowledge of which molecules need to be present in the mixture, and without knowledge which specific molecule is catalysing which reaction. An important assumption is that, if enough different molecules are present, molecules will catalyse the formation of other molecules by chance. Thereby becoming members of the set. In a collectively auto-catalytic set the molecules speed up the very reactions by which they themselves are formed. Now, if there are enough different molecules and assuming a fixed probability that any reaction in the mixture is catalysed by at least one molecule in the mixture, the model demonstrates that the mixture will suddenly transform into a collectively autocatalytic whole. In other words: there is a threshold. The formation of every member is catalysed by at least one other member. And so the set as a whole is stable.
Translated into 'real-life': assuming enough food and energy, high enough concentrations and a fixed probability for chance catalysis, the mixture of molecules can transform into a stable and self-sustaining set. In other words: will be alive!"
I see that usmoke believes that matter has always "been." Do the other atheists here believe the same?
Thanks Stella. :) "Autocatalytic set theory" is based on a computer program? Doesn't sound very scientific to me.
-
Thanks Stella. :) "Autocatalytic set theory" is based on a computer program? Doesn't sound very scientific to me.
it is based on the foundations of complexity/chaos theory. It is based on mathematics and computer models with high predictive capacity and internal/external validity.
you see this universe is self organizing, using autocatalytic sets and bootstrapping to propel itself to further complexity which is inevitable.
all bullshit aside, evolution is highly supported and has yet to be falsified, give me an example of its falsification, namely an animal that does not suit a nested hierarchy?
beleiving that evolution is wrong shows less support for a god that uses this creation method imo. It is pervasive in all of science, medicine could not operate without its theoretical backing.
also the title of your thread should be changed as the ignorance you present(no offense) is apparent within the first few words, as evolution does not involve origins.
Mcway, if we dont know how life started you stated that we would, or scientists would have to adopt a view that makes them uncomfortable. Dont you see how close minded this is? why do we have only one option? and if you want that option to be god, which god of the thousands that have existed?
give me some axioms for god creating the universe.
-
give me some axioms for god creating the universe.
axiom. A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as
true without proof as the basis for argument.
faith
-
one is a scientific law that can be tested, and has never been falsified and has a multitude of supporting evidence. The other one is a flawed hypothesis which cannot be supported nor tested.
Nothing in the evolutionary theory can be tested because according to what you call science takes millions upon millions of years. You can't explain where matter came from, you can't explain where the light originates, you can't explain how we have all these elements that can't interchange, you can't explain how life originated, you can't explain cosmic evolution. No macro- evolution has ever been observed, this is a fact. Since you can't explain steller, chemical, or organic evolution and the changing of one species to another has never been seen what supporting evidence are you referring to. This nothing but a theory that at first glance looks good on paper, nothing more.
-
Nothing in the evolutionary theory can be tested because according to what you call science takes millions upon millions of years. You can't explain where matter came from, you can't explain where the light originates, you can't explain cosmic evolution. No macro- evolution has ever been observed, this is a fact, you can't explain how life originated, you can't explain cosmic evolution. No macro- evolution has ever been observed, this is a fact. Since you can't explain steller, chemical, or organic evolution and the changing of one species to another has never been seen what supporting evidence are you referring to. This nothing but a theory that at first glance looks good on paper, nothing more.
no, he was talking about the second law of thermodynamics which is quite objective and repeatable. as for your post.
"
"You can't explain where matter came from, "
no where, it was neither created nor destroyed it is eternal.
"you can't explain cosmic evolution. No macro- evolution has ever been observed, this is a fact"
what is cosmic evolution? macro is micro, of course it hasnt been observed it takes billions of years, no one witnessed star formation, the big bang etc.. we have multiple mathematical models, and other predictive laws and ideas which elucidate these aspects.
"you can't explain where the light originates"
light? electromagnetic radiation? sure it is matter.
"you can't explain how we have all these elements that can't interchange"
sure they can, its well documented, are you referring to decay? chemical reactions, acid-bases, salts?
"This nothing but a theory that at first glance looks good on paper, nothing more.'
honest question now, you didnt go to university did you? seriuosly? what do you know of any science? do you know that there are literally millions of papers supporting evolution. Do you know how many people would love to topple evolution and become the most famous scientist in history perhaps? when you say nothing more what are your specific criticisms of evolutionary theory?
a theory comprises facts so it is a theory of facts, a descriptive with explanatory power.
-
axiom. A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as
true without proof as the basis for argument.
faith
please re read the definition as you clearly do not understand it.
-
what are you guys so hoped up on what we dont know, ever hear of god of the gaps? more and more gaps are closing. your why questions are useless as they add no information, how is much better.
just because science doesnt have all the answers doesnt make your god any more likely.
-
Nothing in the evolutionary theory can be tested because according to what you call science takes millions upon millions of years. You can't explain where matter came from, you can't explain where the light originates, you can't explain how we have all these elements that can't interchange, you can't explain how life originated, you can't explain cosmic evolution. No macro- evolution has ever been observed, this is a fact. Since you can't explain steller, chemical, or organic evolution and the changing of one species to another has never been seen what supporting evidence are you referring to. This nothing but a theory that at first glance looks good on paper, nothing more.
what scientific finding having to do with biology/evolution doesnt fall into line with evolution? What information of any kind do you have that contradicts evolution? The concept of evolution is a sound concept, what you might be having trouble with is the idea that we evolved from a primate like ancestor. Which by the way has no bearing on religion or believing in God, Darwin and Mendell were both clergy.
-
no, he was talking about the second law of thermodynamics which is quite objective and repeatable. as for your post.
"
"You can't explain where matter came from, "
no where, it was neither created nor destroyed it is eternal.
"you can't explain cosmic evolution. No macro- evolution has ever been observed, this is a fact"
what is cosmic evolution? macro is micro, of course it hasnt been observed it takes billions of years, no one witnessed star formation, the big bang etc.. we have multiple mathematical models, and other predictive laws and ideas which elucidate these aspects.
"you can't explain where the light originates"
light? electromagnetic radiation? sure it is matter.
"you can't explain how we have all these elements that can't interchange"
sure they can, its well documented, are you referring to decay? chemical reactions, acid-bases, salts?
"This nothing but a theory that at first glance looks good on paper, nothing more.'
honest question now, you didnt go to university did you? seriuosly? what do you know of any science? do you know that there are literally millions of papers supporting evolution. Do you know how many people would love to topple evolution and become the most famous scientist in history perhaps? when you say nothing more what are your specific criticisms of evolutionary theory?
a theory comprises facts so it is a theory of facts, a descriptive with explanatory power.
Macro is not micro, no matter how many times micro evolution occurs it will never equal one macro. By elements I mean Elements on the periopdic table. Regardless of how many univerusity students are interested in evolution it is far from a fact.
-
Macro is not micro, no matter how many times micro evolution occurs it will never equal one macro. By elements I mean Elements on the periopdic table. Regardless of how many univerusity students are interested in evolution it is far from a fact.
how do you figure this?
-
what scientific finding having to do with biology/evolution doesnt fall into line with evolution? What information of any kind do you have that contradicts evolution? The concept of evolution is a sound concept, what you might be having trouble with is the idea that we evolved from a primate like ancestor. Which by the way has no bearing on religion or believing in God, Darwin and Mendell were both clergy.
No actually I have problem with whole theory. When it hides behind billions of years ago I guess anything is possible without an explanation ::) All kinds of information condradict evolution. The human population doesn't fit, the rotation of the earth slowing down, the moon gradully pulling itself away from the earth the sun losing energy at a rapid paste, planets that rotate in different directions. Meteors craters not being evenly distributed on other heavenly bodies, tropical atmosphere underneath the glaciers. Of course all kinds of false assumption in dating methods, hence their severly flawed. But its not the condratictions I have a problem with its simply the lack of evidance, pardon my spelling.
-
how do you figure this?
Because we know and have observed one dog change into a variation of itself but its still a dog, there are limitations to micro evolution thats why its called micr-evolution, a change with limitations. Never has a dog ever changed into a cat, this type of thinking assumes there is no limits and this simply isn't true nor has it ever been observed. No such a thing as macro evolution, monkeys are monkey and humans are humans, this is why scientest have been caught putting the bones of the 2 species together and calling it the missing link. Shame on them. Why are the 2 similer, probably because they have a common designer.
-
Because we know and have observed one dog change into a variation of itself but its still a dog, there are limitations to micro evolution thats why its called micr-evolution, a change with limitations. Never has a dog ever changed into a cat, this type of thinking assumes there is no limits and this simply isn't true nor has it ever been observed. No such a thing as macro evolution, monkeys are monkey and humans are humans, this is why scientest have been caught putting the bones of the 2 species together and calling it the missing link. Shame on them. Why are the 2 similer, probably because they have a common designer.
then why is it that we dont see normal human remains from billions of yrs ago? why is it that none of the species of animals living today have fossils that are represented in the fossil record from billions of yrs ago? If monkeys have always been monkeys and humans always humans then we would see the same fossil remains that are present in mondern day monkeys and humans present billions of years ago.
Just b/c we have never observed it doesnt mean that it hasnt occured
have you ever studied evolution onetime? i mean in college?
-
then why is it that we dont see normal human remains from billions of yrs ago? why is it that none of the species of animals living today have fossils that are represented in the fossil record from the billions of yrs ago? If monkeys have always been monkeys and humans always humans then we would see the same fossil remains that are present in mondern day monkeys and apes present billions of years ago.
Just b/c we have never observed it doesnt mean that it hasnt occured
Are you religious onetime?
Because there is no billions of years. Do the math.....6 500 000 000 as in 6.5 billion people today 300 years ago there were less then a billion living on earth an some would estimate 150 million 2 000 years ago, does it sound like the earth is even 10 000 years olds? We also have found human remains in the 10-12 foot range, but still humans, we know humans don't grow that tall today, but different atmosphere as in more oxygen mean a slightly different variation within the same species, but always the same species.
-
Because there is no billions of years. Do the math.....6 500 000 000 as in 6.5 billion people today 300 years ago there were less then a billion living on earth an some would estimate 150 million 2 000 years ago, does it sound like the earth is even 10 000 years olds? We also have found human remains in the 10-12 foot range, but still humans, we know humans don't grow that tall today, but different atmosphere as in more oxygen mean a slightly different variation within the same species, but always the same species.
LOL OMG your not one of those nuts are you?...what is your education level onetime? Im not trying to be a dick head but you seem to have over looked demographic trends in reference with your population estimates, mainly the effects of agriculture on hunter/gatherers.
Do you believe that believing in evolution contradicts believing in God?
-
LOL OMG your not one of those nuts are you?...what is your education level onetime? Im not trying to be a dick head but you seem to have over looked demographic trends in reference with your population estimates, mainly the effects of agriculture on hunter/gatherers.
Do you believe that believing in evolution contradicts believing in God?
You are asking questions and I am answereing them seriously. Why are you being rude? Evolution is funny to me as my post was funny to you. I did one year in University and dropped out because I need to support my family. I've heard you talk about this ( human pop.) you reffered to someone speaking of this in the past and I looked him up, his explanations are vague and don't cover a lot ground, I think it was you. No I am not a religiouse nut. A lot of intelligent people believe what I believe. You can't believe in both the Bible and and evolution without it contradicting one another. The Bible clearly speaks indicates 6000 years of existing and calls Eve( the first woman) the mother of all living.
-
LOL OMG your not one of those nuts are you?...what is your education level onetime? Im not trying to be a dick head but you seem to have over looked demographic trends in reference with your population estimates, mainly the effects of agriculture on hunter/gatherers.
Do you believe that believing in evolution contradicts believing in God?
This thread is hysterical...Tommy...One time is one of your fellow believers...he believes in Jebus too! ;D
-
This thread is hysterical...Tommy...One time is one of your fellow believers...he believes in Jebus too! ;D
Your hysterical too ;)
-
You are asking questions and I am answereing them seriously. Why are you being rude? Evolution is funny to me as my post was funny to you. I did one year in University and dropped out because I need to support my family. I've heard you talk about this ( human pop.) you reffered to someone speaking of this in the past and I looked him up, his explanations are vague and don't cover a lot ground, I think it was you. No I am not a religiouse nut. A lot of intelligent people believe what I believe. You can't believe in both the Bible and and evolution without it contradicting one another. The Bible clearly speaks indicates 6000 years of existing and calls Eve( the first woman) the mother of all living.
im not trying to be rude or a dick head if i came across that way i apologize. You might have heard me refer to malthus and some of his statements are somewhat vague but there are ppl out there that go into more detail as well. Pls post the verse in the bible that says the earth is 6000 yrs old. Im not sure i see your point on the eve comment either. Do you take a literal view of the bible? Why is it that you say that you cant believe in evolution and the bible? b/c of the time discrepency? what do you make of charles darwin the father of evolution as he was clergy?
-
im not trying to be rude or a dick head if i came across that way i apologize. You might have heard me refer to malthus and some of his statements are somewhat vague but there are ppl out there that go into more detail as well. Pls post the verse in the bible that says the earth is 6000 yrs old. Im not sure i see your point on the eve comment either. Do you take a literal view of the bible? Why is it that you say that you cant believe in evolution and the bible? b/c of the time discrepency? what do you make of charles darwin the father of evolution as he was clergy?
Perhaps he is speaking of mitochondrial Eve?! ;D
-
Perhaps he is speaking of mitochondrial Eve?! ;D
Decide are you on here for any parcticuler reason because you flote around here acting like your not interested in the the Bible which we both know isn`t the case, something must have caught your attention, you should try reading it sometime.
-
Perhaps he is speaking of mitochondrial Eve?! ;D
LOL was that a shot at me?
I actually dont mind decide that much, i dont think that you can truely understand you beliefs until you have examined your faith and decide does at times make you question things that are uncomfortable to question. Its his i know better than you do and im better than you are attitude that gets old.
-
im not trying to be rude or a dick head if i came across that way i apologize. You might have heard me refer to malthus and some of his statements are somewhat vague but there are ppl out there that go into more detail as well. Pls post the verse in the bible that says the earth is 6000 yrs old. Im not sure i see your point on the eve comment either. Do you take a literal view of the bible? Why is it that you say that you cant believe in evolution and the bible? b/c of the time discrepency? what do you make of charles darwin the father of evolution as he was clergy?
bump i think you looked over this onetime?
-
im not trying to be rude or a dick head if i came across that way i apologize. You might have heard me refer to malthus and some of his statements are somewhat vague but there are ppl out there that go into more detail as well. Pls post the verse in the bible that says the earth is 6000 yrs old. Im not sure i see your point on the eve comment either. Do you take a literal view of the bible? Why is it that you say that you cant believe in evolution and the bible? b/c of the time discrepency? what do you make of charles darwin the father of evolution as he was clergy?
You can believe in both but it simply wouldn`t make any sense. In Gen. the bible gives the ages of every person and also gives the ages they were when they had their son that carried them into the next generation. the amount of years that past from Adam to flood was appro. 1600 years. Then Noah and the flood occured and it give ages again in the sam manner. 500 years past from Noah to Abraham then came Isaac, Jacob and Judah... from this lineage came King David which was appro. 900 years after Abraham then it gives a time line from David until the babylonian exile when they took Jurasalem, which we know to be 550 bc.
summery Adam 4000 bc
Noah and flood 2400 bc
Abraham 1950 bc
Moses 1400 bc
King David 1000 bc
Babylonian exile 550 bbc
persian rule 450 bc
Alexander the great
and greek rule 330bc
Roman rule 50 bc
Jesus birth 4-7bc
Getbig 2008 Ad ;D
Eve being the mother of all living means there could not be living species before her example dinosaurs.
-
You can believe in both but it simply wouldn`t make any sense. In Gen. the bible gives the ages of every person and also gives the ages they were when they had their son that carried them into the next generation. the amount of years that past from Adam to flood was appro. 1600 years. Then Noah and the flood occured and it give ages again in the sam manner. 500 years past from Noah to Abraham then came Isaac, Jacob and Judah... from this lineage came King David which was appro. 900 years after Abraham then it gives a time line from David until the babylonian exile when they took Jurasalem, which we know to be 550 bc.
summery Adam 4000 bc
Noah and flood 2400 bc
Abraham 1950 bc
Moses 1400 bc
King David 1000 bc
Babylonian exile 550 bbc
persian rule 450 bc
Alexander the great
and greek rule 330bc
Roman rule 50 bc
Jesus birth 4-7bc
Getbig 2008 Ad ;D
Eve being the mother of all living means there could not be living species before her example dinosaurs.
so you do take a literal view of the bible then ill assume...what scientific findings do you have to contradict modern dating techniques? In all of time lets use your time line for this the bible has been written down, translated, rewritten by man what makes you think that the bible is the way it was when it was originally written?, what makes you think that it is not skewed? as with anything man sets his hand to they eventually will become skewed, imagine playing a game of telephone that stretches 6000 yrs you cant possibly think that the ending message is exactly the same as the beginning. So you are saying that all creatures lived together, dinosaurs, humans etc.. right? why then do the dating methods show different ages? if they are from the same time frame then they should give the same date. What if Eve was a single celled organism? and God creating eve from Adams rib was that single celled organism reproducing itself? why does the bible have to be interpreted in one way? that seems very arrogant to me to think that in all the world and all of time and of all different interpretations of the bible that yours is correct.
-
so you do take a literal view of the bible then ill assume...what scientific findings do you have to contradict modern dating techniques? In all of time lets use your time line for this the bible has been written down, translated, rewritten by man what makes you think that the bible is the way it was when it was originally written?, what makes you think that it is not skewed? as with anything man sets his hand to they eventually will become skewed, imagine playing a game of telephone that stretches 6000 yrs you cant possibly think that the ending message is exactly the same as the beginning. So you are saying that all creatures lived together, dinosaurs, humans etc.. right? why then do the dating methods show different ages? if they are from the same time frame then they should give the same date. What if Eve was a single celled organism? and God creating eve from Adams rib was that single celled organism reproducing itself? why does the bible have to be interpreted in one way? that seems very arrogant to me to think that in all the world and all of time and of all different interpretations of the bible that yours is correct.
Bro this is non- nogotiable, wether you think its arrogant or not, the Bible has 42 human generation between Adam and Jesus, this cannot be interpreted to equal millions of years. wether its true or not is a different point, the questioon was can you belive in the Bilble that gives clearly under anyones interpretaion a 6000 year acount of mankind and evolution and the answere is no. Dating methods would not be accepted in a court room, they are not accurate. All the species lived together in one period,. WHY NOT.
-
Decide are you on here for any parcticuler reason because you flote around here acting like your not interested in the the Bible which we both know isn`t the case, something must have caught your attention, you should try reading it sometime.
My name, for the thousandth time, is Deicide, not 'Decide'...oy vey.
Yes, I do enjoy reading the Bible; I find it to be an excellent manual on the sorts of war crimes and atrocities that ought to be brought to the attention of the court in Den Hague in the Netherlands. In this sense it, with its unmitigated brutality, barbaricism and cruelty, can be quite practical.
Do you have a university education Mr. Onetimehard?
-
Bro this is non- nogotiable, wether you think its arrogant or not, the Bible has 42 human generation between Adam and Jesus, this cannot be interpreted to equal millions of years. wether its true or not is a different point, the questioon was can you belive in the Bilble that gives clearly under anyones interpretaion a 6000 year acount of mankind and evolution and the answere is no. Dating methods would not be accepted in a court room, they are not accurate. All the species lived together in one period,. WHY NOT.
Very sad. :'(
-
Very sad. :'(
Sorry about your name, but I only said it once not a thousand times, anyway I was referring to time line, of course there are different interpretations to certain meanings in the Bible but not from Adam to Jesus, glad to see you read the Bible.
-
Bro this is non- nogotiable, wether you think its arrogant or not, the Bible has 42 human generation between Adam and Jesus, this cannot be interpreted to equal millions of years. wether its true or not is a different point, the questioon was can you belive in the Bilble that gives clearly under anyones interpretaion a 6000 year acount of mankind and evolution and the answere is no. Dating methods would not be accepted in a court room, they are not accurate. All the species lived together in one period,. WHY NOT.
sorry it took so long i had hit the hay for a little bit
Do you understand dating methods? all things being equal if man and dinosaur lived within the same time period they would yield the same age. I am uneducated on the bible and must do something about that, I would suggest to you to educate yourself in certain areas as well.
LOL again you believe that you know better than Darwin, lyell, mendell? all of whom have played great roles in our better understanding of evolution and our place in this world as well as God?
ever heard of platos euthyphro? you should look it up and get back to me or i can elaborate here if you are to busy.
How big was noah's ark? arent there measurements for that in the bible?
-
sorry it took so long i had hit the hay for a little bit
Do you understand dating methods? all things being equal if man and dinosaur lived within the same time period they would yield the same age. I am uneducated on the bible and must do something about that, I would suggest to you to educate yourself in certain areas as well.
LOL again you believe that you know better than Darwin, lyell, mendell? all of whom have played great roles in our better understanding of evolution and our place in this world as well as God?
ever heard of platos euthyphro? you should look it up and get back to me or i can elaborate here if you are to busy.
How big was noah's ark? arent there measurements for that in the bible?
You are very thourough, wich I like, but sometime it seems that you don't read my entire posts. The dating methods make assumptions that are inaccurate so they are flawed. When you see a bone in the ground in order to find a date for this bone you have to know how his atmosphere was ( the ration of oxygen, carbon nitrogen etc) and you have to know what kind of activities occured throughout time in that environment. You can't assume these thing or your numbers will be off.
Dinosaurs live with man up until the flood, then they were discontinued. You reffered to dinosaurs and their dates, the dates are measured in what layer of rock they are found in as in geographic column. These layer of rocks have their aged stamped on them by a human like me or you that is justing sticking these enormous numbers (dates) on them with no proof.
As for Noah ark, well if you are suggesting that all the animals don't fit, they not only fit but 5 sets would fit as well. It is 1 500 000 square feet, any idea of how may baby elephants can fit in this figure, at least 100 000 comfortably.
-
What is the scientific explanation for how life began according to the theory of evolution?
-
Exactly
-
PLEASE READ, then we can discuss the problems you have with radiometric dating. this is quite simple and straightforward, and is the most elementary account i could find, good old wiki.
Radiometric dating
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Radiometric dating (often called radioactive dating) is a technique used to date materials, usually based on a comparison between the observed abundance of a naturally occurring radioactive isotope and its decay products, using known decay rates.[1] It is the principal source of information about the absolute age of rocks and other geological features, including the age of the Earth itself, and can be used to date a wide range of natural and man-made materials. Among the best-known techniques are radiocarbon dating, potassium-argon dating and uranium-lead dating. By allowing the establishment of geological timescales, it provides a significant source of information about the ages of fossils and the deduced rates of evolutionary change. Radiometric dating is also used to date archaeological materials, including ancient artifacts.
Different methods of radiometric dating vary in the timescale over which they are accurate and the materials to which they can be applied.
Contents [hide]
1 Fundamentals of radiometric dating
1.1 Blocking temperature
1.2 The age equation
1.3 Limitation of techniques
2 Modern dating techniques
2.1 U-Pb long time scale method
2.2 Other long time scale methods
3 Short-range dating techniques
3.1 Carbon-14 method
3.2 Other short time scale methods
4 Dating with shortlived extinct radionuclides
5 Types of radiometric dating
6 See also
7 References
8 External links
[edit] Fundamentals of radiometric dating
All ordinary matter is made up of combinations of chemical elements, each with its own atomic number, indicating the number of protons in the atomic nucleus. Additionally, elements may exist in different isotopes, with each isotope of an element differing in the number of neutrons in the nucleus. A particular isotope of a particular element is called a nuclide. Some nuclides are inherently unstable. That is, at some point in time, an atom of such a nuclide will spontaneously transform into a different nuclide. This transformation may be accomplished in a number of different ways, including radioactive decay, either by emission of particles (usually electrons (beta decay), positrons or alpha particles) or by spontaneous fission, and electron capture.
While the moment in time at which a particular nucleus decays is unpredictable, a collection of atoms of a radioactive nuclide decays exponentially at a rate described by a parameter known as the half-life, usually given in units of years when discussing dating techniques. After one half-life has elapsed, one half of the atoms of the nuclide in question will have decayed into a "daughter" nuclide or decay product. In many cases, the daughter nuclide itself is radioactive, resulting in a decay chain, eventually ending with the formation of a stable (nonradioactive) daughter nuclide; each step in such a chain is characterized by a distinct half-life. In these cases, usually the half-life of interest in radiometric dating is the longest one in the chain, which is the rate-limiting factor in the ultimate transformation of the radioactive nuclide into its stable daughter. Isotopic systems that have been exploited for radiometric dating have half-lives ranging from only about 10 years (e.g., tritium) to over 100 billion years (e.g., Samarium-147).
In general, the half-life of a nuclide depends solely on its nuclear properties; it is not affected[2] by external factors such as temperature, pressure, chemical environment, or presence of a magnetic or electric field. (For some nuclides which decay by the process of electron capture, such as Beryllium-7, Strontium-85, and Zirconium-89, the decay rate may be slightly affected by local electron density, therefore these isotopes may not be as suitable for radiometric dating.) But in general, the half-life of any nuclide is essentially a constant. Therefore, in any material containing a radioactive nuclide, the proportion of the original nuclide to its decay product(s) changes in a predictable way as the original nuclide decays over time. This predictability allows the relative abundances of related nuclides to be used as a clock that measures the time from the incorporation of the original nuclide(s) into a material to the present.
The processes that form specific materials are often conveniently selective as to what elements they incorporate during their formation. In the simplest case, the material will incorporate a parent nuclide and reject the daughter nuclide. In this case, the only atoms of the daughter nuclide present in a sample must have been deposited by radioactive decay since the sample formed. When a material incorporates both the parent and daughter nuclides at the time of formation, a correction must be made for the initial proportion of the radioactive substance and its daughter; generally this is done by construction of an isochron, e.g. in Rubidium-strontium dating.
Accurate radiometric dating generally requires that neither the parent nuclide nor the daughter product can enter or leave the material after its formation, that the parent has a long enough half-life that it will still be present in significant amounts at the time of measurement (except as described below under "Dating with shortlived extinct radionuclides"), the half-life of the parent is accurately known, and enough of the daughter product is produced to be accurately measured and distinguished from the initial amount of the daughter present in the material. The procedures used to isolate and analyze the parent and daughter nuclides must be precise and accurate.[citation needed]
[edit] Blocking temperature
If a material that selectively rejects the daughter nuclide is heated, any daughter nuclides that have been accumulated over time will be lost through diffusion, setting the isotopic "clock" to zero. The temperature at which this happens is known as the blocking temperature or closure temperature and is specific to a particular material and isotopic system. These temperatures are experimentally determined in the lab by artificially resetting sample minerals using a high-temperature furnace.
[edit] The age equation
Considering that radioactive parent elements decay to stable daughter elements [3], the mathematical expression that relates radioactive decay to geologic time, called the age equation, is [4]:
where
t = age of the sample
D = number of atoms of the daughter isotope in the sample
P = number of atoms of the parent isotope in the sample
λ = decay constant of the parent isotope
ln = natural logarithm
The decay constant (or rate of decay[5]) is the fraction of a number of atoms of a radioactive nuclide that disintegrates in a unit of time. The decay constant is inversely proportional to the radioactive half-life of the parent isotope, which can be obtained from tables such as the one on this page.
[edit] Limitation of techniques
Although radiometric dating is accurate in principle, the precision is very dependent on the care with which the procedure is performed. The possible confounding effects of initial contamination of parent and daughter isotopes have to be considered, as do the effects of any loss or gain of such isotopes since the sample was created.
Precision is enhanced if measurements are taken on different samples from the same rock body but at different locations. Alternatively, if several different minerals can be dated from the same sample and are assumed to be formed by the same event and were in equilibrium with the reservoir when they formed, they should form an isochron. Finally, correlation between different isotopic dating methods may be required to confirm the age of a sample.
The precision of a dating method depends in part on the half-life of the radioactive isotope involved. For instance, carbon-14 has a half-life of about 6000 years. After an organism has been dead for 60,000 years, so little carbon-14 is left in it that accurate dating becomes impossible. On the other hand, the concentration of carbon-14 falls off so steeply that the age of relatively young remains can be determined precisely to within a few decades. The isotope used in uranium-thorium dating has a longer half-life, but other factors make it more accurate than radiocarbon dating.[citation needed]
[edit] Modern dating techniques
Radiometric dating can be performed on samples as small as a billionth of a gram using a mass spectrometer. The mass spectrometer was invented in the 1940s and began to be used in radiometric dating in the 1950s. The mass spectrometer operates by generating a beam of ionized atoms from the sample under test. The ions then travel through a magnetic field, which diverts them into different sampling sensors, known as "Faraday cups", depending on their mass and level of ionization. On impact in the cups, the ions set up a very weak current that can be measured to determine the rate of impacts and the relative concentrations of different atoms in the beams.
[edit] U-Pb long time scale method
The uranium-lead radiometric dating scheme is one of the oldest available, as well as one of the most highly respected. It has been refined to the point that the error in dates of rocks about three billion years old is no more than two million years.[citation needed]
Uranium-lead dating is often performed on the mineral "zircon" (ZrSiO4), though it can be used on other materials. Zircon incorporates uranium atoms into its crystalline structure as substitutes for zirconium, but strongly rejects lead. It has a very high blocking temperature, is resistant to mechanical weathering and is very chemically inert. Zircon also forms multiple crystal layers during metamorphic events, which each may record an isotopic age of the event. In situ micro-beam analysis can be achieved via laser ICP-MS or SIMS techniques [6] .
One of its great advantages is that any sample provides two clocks, one based on uranium-235's decay to lead-207 with a half-life of about 700 million years, and one based on uranium-238's decay to lead-206 with a half-life of about 4.5 billion years, providing a built-in crosscheck that allows accurate determination of the age of the sample even if some of the lead has been lost.
[edit] Other long time scale methods
Two other radiometric techniques are used for long-term dating. Potassium-argon dating involves electron capture or positron decay of potassium-40 to argon-40. Potassium-40 has a half-life of 1.3 billion years, and so this method is applicable to the oldest rocks. Radioactive potassium-40 is common in micas, feldspars, and hornblendes, though the blocking temperature is fairly low in these materials, about 125°C (mica) to 450°C (hornblende).
Rubidium-strontium dating is based on the beta decay of rubidium-87 to strontium-87, with a half-life of 50 billion years. This scheme is used to date old igneous and metamorphic rocks, and has also been used to date lunar samples. Blocking temperatures are so high that they are not a concern. Rubidium-strontium dating is not as precise as the uranium-lead method, with errors of 30 to 50 million years for a 3-billion-year-old sample.
[edit] Short-range dating techniques
There are a number of dating techniques that have short ranges and are so used for historical or archaeological studies. One of the best-known is the carbon-14 (C14) radiometric technique.
[edit] Carbon-14 method
Carbon-14 is a radioactive isotope of carbon, with a half-life of 5,730 years (very short compared with the above). In other radiometric dating methods, the heavy parent isotopes were synthesized in the explosions of massive stars that scattered materials through the Galaxy, to be formed into planets and other stars. The parent isotopes have been decaying since that time, and so any parent isotope with a short half-life should be extinct by now.
Carbon-14 is an exception. It is continuously created through collisions of neutrons generated by cosmic rays with nitrogen in the upper atmosphere. The carbon-14 ends up as a trace component in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2).
An organism acquires carbon from carbon dioxide during its lifetime. Plants acquire it through photosynthesis, and animals acquire it from consumption of plants and other animals. When an organism dies, it ceases to intake new carbon-14 and the existing isotope decays with a characteristic half-life (5730 years). The proportion of carbon-14 left when the remains of the organism are examined provides an indication of the time lapsed since its death. The carbon-14 dating limit lies around 58,000 to 62,000 years.[7]
The rate of creation of carbon-14 appears to be roughly constant, as cross-checks of carbon-14 dating with other dating methods show it gives consistent results. However, local eruptions of volcanoes or other events that give off large amounts of carbon dioxide can reduce local concentrations of carbon-14 and give inaccurate dates. The releases of carbon dioxide into the biosphere as a consequence of industrialization have also depressed the proportion of carbon-14 by a few percent; conversely, the amount of carbon-14 was increased by above-ground nuclear bomb tests that were conducted into the early 1960s. Also, an increase in the solar wind or the earth's magnetic field above the current value would depress the amount of carbon-14 created in the atmosphere. These effects are corrected for by the calibration of the radiocarbon dating scale. See the article on radiocarbon dating.
[edit] Other short time scale methods
Another relatively short-range dating technique is based on the decay of uranium-238 into thorium-230, a substance with a half-life of about 80,000 years. It is accompanied by a sister process, in which uranium-235 decays into protactinium-231, which has a half-life of 34,300 years.
While uranium is water-soluble, thorium and protactinium are not, and so they are selectively precipitated into ocean-floor sediments, from which their ratios are measured. The scheme has a range of several hundred thousand years.
Natural sources of radiation in the environment knock loose electrons in, say, a piece of pottery, and these electrons accumulate in defects in the material's crystal lattice structure. Heating the object will release the captured electrons, producing a luminescence. When the sample is heated, at a certain temperature it will glow from the emission of electrons released from the defects, and this glow can be used to estimate the age of the sample to a threshold of approximately 15 percent of its true age. The date of a rock is reset when volcanic activity remelts it. The date of a piece of pottery is reset by the heat of the kiln. Typically temperatures greater than 400 degrees Celsius will reset the "clock". This is termed thermoluminescence.
Finally, fission track dating involves inspection of a polished slice of a material to determine the density of "track" markings left in it by the spontaneous fission of uranium-238 impurities.
The uranium content of the sample has to be known, but that can be determined by placing a plastic film over the polished slice of the material, and bombarding it with slow neutrons. This causes induced fission of 235U, as opposed to the spontaneous fission of 238U. The fission tracks produced by this process are recorded in the plastic film. The uranium content of the material can then be calculated from the number of tracks and the neutron flux.
This scheme has application over a wide range of geologic dates. For dates up to a few million years micas, tektites (glass fragments from volcanic eruptions), and meteorites are best used. Older materials can be dated using zircon, apatite, titanite, epidote and garnet which have a variable amount of uranium content. Because the fission tracks are healed by temperatures over about 200°C the technique has limitations as well as benefits. The technique has potential applications for detailing the thermal history of a deposit.
Large amounts of otherwise rare 36Cl were produced by irradiation of seawater during atmospheric detonations of nuclear weapons between 1952 and 1958. The residence time of 36Cl in the atmosphere is about 1 week. Thus, as an event marker of 1950s water in soil and ground water, 36Cl is also useful for dating waters less than 50 years before the present. 36Cl has seen use in other areas of the geological sciences, including dating ice and sediments.
[edit] Dating with shortlived extinct radionuclides
At the beginning of the solar system there were several relatively shortlived radionuclides like 26Al, 60Fe, 53Mn, and 129I present within the solar nebula. These radionuclides—possibly produced by the explosion of a supernova—are extinct today but their decay products can be detected in very old material such as meteorites. Measuring the decay products of extinct radionuclides with a mass spectrometer and using isochronplots it is possible to determine relative ages between different events in the early history of the solar system. Dating methods based on extinct radionuclides can also be calibrated with the U-Pb method to give absolute ages.
[edit] Types of radiometric dating
argon-argon (Ar-Ar)
fission track dating
helium (He-He)
iodine-xenon (I-Xe)
lanthanum-barium (La-Ba)
lead-lead (Pb-Pb)
lutetium-hafnium (Lu-Hf)
neon-neon (Ne-Ne)
optically stimulated luminescence dating
potassium-argon (K-Ar)
radiocarbon dating
rhenium-osmium (Re-Os)
rubidium-strontium (Rb-Sr)
samarium-neodymium (Sm-Nd)
uranium-lead (U-Pb)
uranium-lead-helium (U-Pb-He)
uranium-thorium (U-Th)
uranium-uranium (U-U)
-
You are very thourough, wich I like, but sometime it seems that you don't read my entire posts. The dating methods make assumptions that are inaccurate so they are flawed. When you see a bone in the ground in order to find a date for this bone you have to know how his atmosphere was ( the ration of oxygen, carbon nitrogen etc) and you have to know what kind of activities occured throughout time in that environment. You can't assume these thing or your numbers will be off.
Dinosaurs live with man up until the flood, then they were discontinued. You reffered to dinosaurs and their dates, the dates are measured in what layer of rock they are found in as in geographic column. These layer of rocks have their aged stamped on them by a human like me or you that is justing sticking these enormous numbers (dates) on them with no proof.
As for Noah ark, well if you are suggesting that all the animals don't fit, they not only fit but 5 sets would fit as well. It is 1 500 000 square feet, any idea of how may baby elephants can fit in this figure, at least 100 000 comfortably.
Pls explain to me indepth how dating methods are flawed, carbon dating which is the one you are refering to is only good to about 70,000 yrs but is considered to be very accurate. The problem i see is that they do compare the fossil to the surronding rock so they do take into account atmosphere, and by studying the surronding rock you can find enviromental activities as well. There are also other methods of dating the simplest i think you hit on is stratographic dating in which the oldest fossil is generally further down in the rock than the youngest one and by the way the dates assigned to layer of rock are not arbitrary.
Why did noah not take the dinosaurs on the ark? what happend to the flying swimming dinosaurs? they would have survived.
Ok up till now weve have gone over the arguements for the earth being 4.5 billion years old and the problems as you see them in that theory.
what evidence do you have that say the earth is as old as you say it is?
-
You are very thourough, wich I like, but sometime it seems that you don't read my entire posts. The dating methods make assumptions that are inaccurate so they are flawed. When you see a bone in the ground in order to find a date for this bone you have to know how his atmosphere was ( the ration of oxygen, carbon nitrogen etc) and you have to know what kind of activities occured throughout time in that environment. You can't assume these thing or your numbers will be off.
Dinosaurs live with man up until the flood, then they were discontinued. You reffered to dinosaurs and their dates, the dates are measured in what layer of rock they are found in as in geographic column. These layer of rocks have their aged stamped on them by a human like me or you that is justing sticking these enormous numbers (dates) on them with no proof.
As for Noah ark, well if you are suggesting that all the animals don't fit, they not only fit but 5 sets would fit as well. It is 1 500 000 square feet, any idea of how may baby elephants can fit in this figure, at least 100 000 comfortably.
what assumptions that are flawed? half lifes? radio active decay, they have never once been different in the history of man kind.
"When you see a bone in the ground in order to find a date for this bone you have to know how his atmosphere was ( the ration of oxygen, carbon nitrogen etc) and you have to know what kind of activities occured throughout time in that environment. You can't assume these thing or your numbers will be off. "
where are you getting this misinformation? temperature, pressure has no effect on decay of sub atomic particles. You are lying or grossly misinformed.
"As for Noah ark, well if you are suggesting that all the animals don't fit, they not only fit but 5 sets would fit as well. It is 1 500 000 square feet, any idea of how may baby elephants can fit in this figure, at least 100 000 comfortably."
how did the animals from different continents get to noah? did they swim the ocean? what about insects? to beleive this story is literally is to beleive that first off your ALL LOVING god killed the entire populace out of venegence(there goes the perfect theory).
"Dinosaurs live with man up until the flood, then they were discontinued. You reffered to dinosaurs and their dates, the dates are measured in what layer of rock they are found in as in geographic column. These layer of rocks have their aged stamped on them by a human like me or you that is justing sticking these enormous numbers (dates) on them with no proof."
what? we know the active decay of particular isotopes or half lifes, so the rocks depending on how much isotope they have can be fit into a isotope decay formula relevant to those isotopes and extrapolated. This method is very accurate, within a couple decades for some methods. What you do is you indepentdently test the samples using multiple methods and multiple researchers and see if the age correlates. This is how they date, they just dont make wild assumptions, one test etc.. they throughly test the samples using multiple methods and equipment as well as the surrounding samples to verify there numbers. Please learn about science.
-
"But in general, the half-life of any nuclide is essentially a constant. Therefore, in any material containing a radioactive nuclide, the proportion of the original nuclide to its decay product(s) changes in a predictable way as the original nuclide decays over time. This predictability allows the relative abundances of related nuclides to be used as a clock that measures the time from the incorporation of the original nuclide(s) into a material to the present."
present some evidence against evolution
-
Pls explain to me indepth how dating methods are flawed, carbon dating which is the one you are refering to is only good to about 70,000 yrs but is considered to be very accurate. The problem i see is that they do compare the fossil to the surronding rock so they do take into account atmosphere, and by studying the surronding rock you can find enviromental activities as well. There are also other methods of dating the simplest i think you hit on is stratographic dating in which the oldest fossil is generally further down in the rock than the youngest one and by the way the dates assigned to layer of rock are not arbitrary.
Why did noah not take the dinosaurs on the ark? what happend to the flying swimming dinosaurs? they would have survived.
Ok up till now weve have gone over the arguements for the earth being 4.5 billion years old and the problems as you see them in that theory.
what evidence do you have that say the earth is as old as you say it is?
It isn't my field so I will not go in depth about dating, but I do know that scientist don't consider them 100% accurate, hence they wouldn't be accepted in a court of law,
Noah did not take the dinos in the ark because, man this is a long answere, only if you isist.
The earth cannot be old for reasons I stated above. One being that the earth is slowing down by a few seconds every 10 years witch means it used to be faster, over the course of 10 000 years it would only be faster by 1 hour or so, if you do the math over 100 000 years the earth would've been a wreck, The sun losses weight every day how much weight would you have to put on the sun for are temp. to be higher. If thats sun has been burning up for 4 billion years it would have easily have been exponentially bigger, our earth would have been way to hot to sustain life
-
decaying has never been different, you don't have a clue what your talking about. Of course the rate of decay will vary signifcantly in the case of a catostrophic event.
-
"But in general, the half-life of any nuclide is essentially a constant. Therefore, in any material containing a radioactive nuclide, the proportion of the original nuclide to its decay product(s) changes in a predictable way as the original nuclide decays over time. This predictability allows the relative abundances of related nuclides to be used as a clock that measures the time from the incorporation of the original nuclide(s) into a material to the present."
present some evidence against evolution
Evolution has yet to be proven, you have to present evidence not us present evidence that it isn't true.
Present evidence that I can't bench 500 pounds, how about that
-
It isn't my field so I will not go in depth about dating, but I do know that scientist don't consider them 100% accurate, hence they wouldn't be accepted in a court of law,
Noah did not take the dinos in the ark because, man this is a long answere, only if you isist.
The earth cannot be old for reasons I stated above. One being that the earth is slowing down by a few seconds every 10 years witch means it used to be faster, over the course of 10 000 years it would only be faster by 1 hour or so, if you do the math over 100 000 years the earth would've been a wreck, The sun losses weight every day how much weight would you have to put on the sun for are temp. to be higher. If thats sun has been burning up for 4 billion years it would have easily have been exponentially bigger, our earth would have been way to hot to sustain life
why would they ever need to be accepted in a court of law? how do you know they arent accepted in a court of law?
what does man is the long answer mean?
Did you know that the human body is set to a 25 hour day more so than a 24 hour day?
You are assuming that the earth slowed down at a consistent pace for all these years as well as the sun dying out at the same pace for all these years...life is supposedly 3.5 billion years old not 4.5, 4.5 is the estimated age of the earth.
Plz give me the people/sources responsible for your beliefs.
-
Evolution has yet to be proven, you have to present evidence not us present evidence that it isn't true.
Present evidence that I can't bench 500 pounds, how about that
please present evidence that things are as you say then?
-
please present evidence that things are as you say then?
Man this is the way some people see it. The reason you are surprised is because evolution has been unopposed for so long but now their are people out their pointing their flaws, people like Ben Stein for example who is definately qualified to do so. Everything I said is possible, name one thing that I said about the earth being young that you think ios stupid, you think its stupid to think that a creature like a dinosaur live here with man, why is that stupid, why
-
It isn't my field so I will not go in depth about dating, but I do know that scientist don't consider them 100% accurate, hence they wouldn't be accepted in a court of law,
Noah did not take the dinos in the ark because, man this is a long answere, only if you isist.
The earth cannot be old for reasons I stated above. One being that the earth is slowing down by a few seconds every 10 years witch means it used to be faster, over the course of 10 000 years it would only be faster by 1 hour or so, if you do the math over 100 000 years the earth would've been a wreck, The sun losses weight every day how much weight would you have to put on the sun for are temp. to be higher. If thats sun has been burning up for 4 billion years it would have easily have been exponentially bigger, our earth would have been way to hot to sustain life
"It isn't my field so I will not go in depth about dating, but I do know that scientist don't consider them 100% accurate, hence they wouldn't be accepted in a court of law"
where are you getting this non sense to? of course it would be accepted in a court of law, 100s of researchers could date a rock and if all the methods and calculations point to the same age, then its obvious that its correct. Consider the fact that every isotope has a set decay rate that has always been the same and a equally accurate half life, both based on observation and theoretics then you have a sealed deal.
, only if you isist.
"Noah did not take the dinos in the ark because, man this is a long answere
The earth cannot be old for reasons I stated above. One being that the earth is slowing down by a few seconds every 10 years witch means it used to be faster, over the course of 10 000 years it would only be faster by 1 hour or so, if you do the math over 100 000 years the earth would've been a wreck, The sun losses weight every day how much weight would you have to put on the sun for are temp. to be higher. If thats sun has been burning up for 4 billion years it would have easily have been exponentially bigger, our earth would have been way to hot to sustain life"
man not this shit again. What website did you get this off, please quote what is not yours. Do i really need to point out the pre teen logic evoked here? Do you seriously beleive what you are saying? I cant fathom how you could question a fact supported by almost every independent scientist on this planet yet use this hogwash. Do you think anyone is trying to hide the truth, must be some massive conspiracy. You realize that all this info is public and anyone wishing to discredit this information can do so and would be rewarded handily.
ever hear of the doppler effect, redshift? well this disproves your young universe notion, and does so handily, unless we have the electromagnetic spectrum wrong, but wait every single person verifys the same thing. Another massive conspiracy.
i have quite and interest in cosmology so any insights you can give me would be appreciated. :D
-
Man this is the way some people see it. The reason you are surprised is because evolution has been unopposed for so long but now their are people out their pointing their flaws, people like Ben Stein for example who is definately qualified to do so. Everything I said is possible, name one thing that I said about the earth being young that you think ios stupid, you think its stupid to think that a creature like a dinosaur live here with man, why is that stupid, why
Ben stein is not qualified LMAO. does he have a PHD in biology, genomics, zoology? you are one funny dude. creationism lost in a court of law lmao.......
-
Man this is the way some people see it. The reason you are surprised is because evolution has been unopposed for so long but now their are people out their pointing their flaws, people like Ben Stein for example who is definately qualified to do so. Everything I said is possible, name one thing that I said about the earth being young that you think ios stupid, you think its stupid to think that a creature like a dinosaur live here with man, why is that stupid, why
LOL there are many aspects of evolution that i dont exactly agree with and ppl have been opposing evolution since its conception. what degree does ben stein hold or what point of authority does he hold that qualifies him to give advice or new evidence on evolution? Well dating methods the very same dating methods used in many other fields and accepted in many other fields show the earth being much older. Again like you said its not your place to prove evolution wrong its ours to prove it right, the same for you . Prove your stance right, dinosaurs lived with humans prove it, the earth is younger than thought, prove it. Man and every animal every created were created as they were now, prove it.
-
If you can't accept other peoples believes why bother asking, I don't stand alone in what I believe and since I don't have a Phd then I am automatically wrong... A kinder garden kid would understand the under different types of presure decaying can be speed up or slowed down this is common sense you don't need a degree to figure this out and since we don't know what type of natural disasters have occured then we can't really know the age of a remain. Evolution is not real if this bothers you then find a way to prove it, maybe I can't [prove everything i say but neither can you so all we have at the end is faith.
-
If you can't accept other peoples believes why bother asking, I don't stand alone in what I believe and since I don't have a Phd then I am automatically wrong... A kinder garden kid would understand the under different types of presure decaying can be speed up or slowed down this is common sense you don't need a degree to figure this out and since we don't know what type of natural disasters have occured then we can't really know the age of a remain. Evolution is not real if this bothers you then find a way to prove it, maybe I can't [prove everything i say but neither can you so all we have at the end is faith.
I never said you are wrong b/c you dont have a phd, you said ben stein is qualified, so i would like to know his qualifications.
you cant prove anything you say...every scientific finding related to biology has lended itself to evolution. what you do is pick and choose at certain aspects of evolution and claim it to be false. Why is it that the vast vast majority of the scientific community agree with dating methods and their accuracy? I thought it wasnt your field, but a kindergardener can understand it but you cant explain it? so pls explain in detail why dating methods are false. So what your saying is that all the dating methods are wrong do to enviromental disasters...every single one that says a fossil or the earth is older than say 10000 years old? I could understand a small percentage but all of them really? Again you cant prove anything you say, again scientific findings point to evolution as being real.
-
If you can't accept other peoples believes why bother asking, I don't stand alone in what I believe and since I don't have a Phd then I am automatically wrong... A kinder garden kid would understand the under different types of presure decaying can be speed up or slowed down this is common sense you don't need a degree to figure this out and since we don't know what type of natural disasters have occured then we can't really know the age of a remain. Evolution is not real if this bothers you then find a way to prove it, maybe I can't [prove everything i say but neither can you so all we have at the end is faith.
ive already corrected you, pressure has no bearing on half life.
no one has to accept anyones beleif without proof, so far you have provided none and your objections are infantile, obviously pointing to the fact that you know nothing of evolution. explain some of the issues with genomics, the correlation of the genome and the nested hierarchies we use to catagorize species. do you have any insight.
ben stein has no qualification and knows nothing of evolution in the slightest, he has not studied it nor has he been involved in any of the previous or past findings.
-
ive already corrected you, pressure has no bearing on half life.
no one has to accept anyones beleif without proof, so far you have provided none and your objections are infantile, obviously pointing to the fact that you know nothing of evolution. explain some of the issues with genomics, the correlation of the genome and the nested hierarchies we use to catagorize species. do you have any insight.
ben stein has no qualification and knows nothing of evolution in the slightest, he has not studied it nor has he been involved in any of the previous or past findings.
ive already corrected you, pressure has no bearing on half life.
no one has to accept anyones beleif without proof, so far you have provided none and your objections are infantile, obviously pointing to the fact that you know nothing of evolution. explain some of the issues with genomics, the correlation of the genome and the nested hierarchies we use to catagorize species. do you have any insight.
ben stein has no qualification and knows nothing of evolution in the slightest, he has not studied it nor has he been involved in any of the previous or past findings.
You win ::)
-
"But in general, the half-life of any nuclide is essentially a constant. Therefore, in any material containing a radioactive nuclide, the proportion of the original nuclide to its decay product(s) changes in a predictable way as the original nuclide decays over time. This predictability allows the relative abundances of related nuclides to be used as a clock that measures the time from the incorporation of the original nuclide(s) into a material to the present."
present some evidence against evolution
Well I think you skipped a very important part in this puzzle as in how it all works together before your theory takes place.
To go from a barren lifeless planet to a one filled with living things, our planet would have to pass through a number of stages correct?
The atmophere needs to be a favorable environment for life to evolve and be sustained.
There needs to be a means of constructing the building blocks of life, e.g. simple molecules.
The simple molecules must be assembled into biologically useful large molecules, i.e. (proteins, DNA, RNA, etc.)
A biological system such as energy conversion must be in place.
And finally, all these molecules and systems must be assembled together to form a highly complex living cell.
So to explain the origin of life by non-supernatural means you must have a reasonable explanation for each of these stages. Do you?
My daughter (the wiz kid) chimed in and told me to ask you this:
Consider the ozone layer which protects the earth from ultraviolet rays. She says without this layer, organic molecules would be broken down and life would soon be eliminated. She also said but if you have oxygen, it will prevent life from starting. Simply put, an atmosphere with oxygen means no amino acids which means no life possible! Atmosphere without oxygen means no ozone layer which means no life possible!" She says now explain how life evolved with this scenario?
Is this true, I don't know I am just dad?
HM
Tried to keep this short.
-
He isn't going to listen to you Hustle Man because he only listens to people with a PHD. Anyone that studies evolution will freely admit that there is no explanation for certain evolutionary processess, but he just doesn't get it. He thinks that the half life of a remain decays at the same rate no what kind of presure its under. Tell me then Mr. smokepole does the half life decay at the same rate frozen under ice?
-
please re read the definition as you clearly do not understand it.
and I contend you only read enough of the definition to dispute me
and display some of your status quo.
-
If modern scientific dating methods were flawed, then Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have never happened; put it that way. If you don't get what I am implying...then...oh well...
-
I see Diecide and the Pole-smoker only want to cause hate and discontent on the religious board.
I say ignore these infidels! Let them deal with God in their own time, which is coming soon! Surely they will be the ones asking for a drop of water from our finger tips to cool their tongues!
So let it be written, so let it be done!
HM
-
I see Diecide and the Pole-smoker only want to cause hate and discontent or the religious boards.
I say ignore these infidels! Let them deal with God in their own time, which is coming soon! Surely they will be the ones asking for a drop of water from our finger tips to cool their tongues!
So let it be written, so let it be done!
HM
Ya I know its hard to take these 2 guys serious because if its not name calling then its sarcasm, I don't mind MCtones. i think he is actually looking into things. I was looking through at least a dozen websites that talk abpout dating methods being completely inaccurate and they even referenced 100's of people with PHd that believe this, so its obviously a valid argument. I just read an article about dinosaur bone being carbon dated without knowing they were dinosaur bones, and the ages vary between 14000 - 40000, then they will say it doesn't apply because they can only date back til 70k years. see they attached thier own rules to things. Another article I read from only 2005 in china showing how they found a small baby dino. in the stomach of a mammal. But I thought mammals and Dinos didn't live together. Another in the National geographic saying that a freshly killed seal carbon dated to be 20 000 years old, so long for their dating methods.
-
I see Diecide and the Pole-smoker only want to cause hate and discontent on the religious board.
I believe
the hate and discontent is proof of God is working within them.
have faith the mods will censor as needed, otherwise let God do his thing :)
and thanks goes to the person who pmed me. how right you are
God bless
-
what sarcasm or name calling? i merely stated that you where ignorant with respect to science and truth. you then claimed an axiom was faith, which is the farthest thing from and axiom. it is external truth, not your beleifs, something that is taken as truth such as reality exists. arguments are based on them, faith is not one.
HM, you called me polesmoker? lol, then precedded to drivle off some non sense about what would have had to happen. You guys cant even discuss the facts you distort and use fallacy after fallacy, clearly intelligence and beleif correlate, oh wait they do.
ONEtime, post the links to your articles, hope they are peer reviewed. if you want to be a grown up then present your evidence, otherwise you guys are wasting my time has nothing i have said has sunk in.
also may i point out the fact that you have not offered a single bit of evidence for your beleifs, how hypocritical.
-
HM, you called me polesmoker? lol, then precedded to drivle off some non sense about what would have had to happen. You guys cant even discuss the facts you distort and use fallacy after fallacy, clearly intelligence and beleif correlate, oh wait they do.
also may i point out the fact that you have not offered a single bit of evidence for your beleifs, how hypocritical.
That's right I called you "polesmoker" not very nice is it. Is what I drivled off untrue or unreasonable? I distorted nothing I merely asked a question that you chose to avoid answering.
One more thing I am a different kind of Christian, I am a present day "Simon Peter" I don't take crap from anyone especially those that speak against my Lord; I will fire back! You and your boy Diecide need to be careful how you talk to my people, show them respect and I will return the favor.
Now, pay attention! The question that was asked of me by your partner in crime (Diecide) I answered to the best of my ability with some help. If my daughter and I were incorrect then show us otherwise, if not then accept it!
HM (Christian Soldier)
-
what sarcasm or name calling? i merely stated that you where ignorant with respect to science and truth. you then claimed an axiom was faith, which is the farthest thing from and axiom. it is external truth, not your beleifs, something that is taken as truth such as reality exists. arguments are based on them, faith is not one.
HM, you called me polesmoker? lol, then precedded to drivle off some non sense about what would have had to happen. You guys cant even discuss the facts you distort and use fallacy after fallacy, clearly intelligence and beleif correlate, oh wait they do.
ONEtime, post the links to your articles, hope they are peer reviewed. if you want to be a grown up then present your evidence, otherwise you guys are wasting my time has nothing i have said has sunk in.
also may i point out the fact that you have not offered a single bit of evidence for your beleifs, how hypocritical.
First of all you did mock and you said "lmao" and you think we are funny, how is that for debating intellegently. Do you actually think for one second I would be stupid enough to make something like this (the articles I read) up. I'm through with handing you type of guys information on a silver platter. Google it yourself, "flawed dating methods" you will see for yourself that there are lots of websites and people who have PHd backing me up on flawed dating methods. This isn't new, its old news but maybe your to stuborn to realize that they been challanged effectively. Personally I don't care if you believe in evolution, but to me its like believing in santa clause.
BTW without dateing methods your evolution fantasy falls apart... Here is a challange, come up with some sort of evidance without using any dates that will help evolution, it can't be done because the whole foundation of evolution is based on false dating methods.
-
Do you actually think for one second I would be stupid enough to make something like this (the articles I read) up. I'm through with handing you type of guys information on a silver platter. Google it yourself, "flawed dating methods" you will see for yourself that there are lots of websites and people who have PHd backing me up on flawed dating methods. This isn't new, its old news but maybe your to stuborn to realize that they been challanged effectively. Personally I don't care if you believe in evolution, but to me its like believing in santa clause.
BTW without dateing methods your evolution fantasy falls apart... Here is a challange, come up with some sort of evidance without using any dates that will help evolution, it can't be done because the whole foundation of evolution is based on false dating methods.
you havent provided any references as of yet plz give me name. You can find somebody to argue any point that doesnt make it right. Please post a link for me i have researched a tad bit of some of your stuff and again it seems like your picking and choosing certain things not taking into account the entire idea so please give me a link that shows me what you feel is correct.
Again do you feel that every single finding that is over say 10,000 years old is false? Like i said there will always be a few that are off as with anything but that doesnt mean you can discount all of them.
-
you havent provided any references as of yet plz give me name. You can find somebody to argue any point that doesnt make it right. Please post a link for me i have researched a tad bit of some of your stuff and again it seems like your picking and choosing certain things not taking into account the entire idea so please give me a link that shows me what you feel is correct.
Again do you feel that every single finding that is over say 10,000 years old is false? Like i said there will always be a few that are off as with anything but that doesnt mean you can discount all of them.
I don't think you are understanding what I am trying to say. So let me try this for the last time. If you take the process of aging of a bone over the course of 50 000 years under an environment with absolutely no preasure, minimum winds no sunlight and no water, when you carbon date it, for example, it will show 50 000 years correct, OK we are on the same page so far. Now take that exact same bone and put it under the most extreme conditions on this planet, we are talking the worst of the worst, obvisouly it will age a thousand time quicker, this is common sense. All I am saying is something can read 10 000 after only 500 years under the roughest conditions. We thought petrification takes thousands of years until someone found a petrified cowboy boot that said made in the USA. You want sources, are you lazy? look it up yourself, tons of information on the subject that methods of dating are not reliable.
-
I don't think you are understanding what I am trying to say. So let me try this for the last time. If you take the process of aging of a bone over the course of 50 000 years under an environment with absolutely no preasure, minimum winds no sunlight and no water, when you carbon date it, for example, it will show 50 000 years correct, OK we are on the same page so far. Now take that exact same bone and put it under the most extreme conditions on this planet, we are talking the worst of the worst, obvisouly it will age a thousand time quicker, this is common sense. All I am saying is something can read 10 000 after only 500 years under the roughest conditions. We thought petrification takes thousands of years until someone found a petrified cowboy boot that said made in the USA. You want sources, are you lazy? look it up yourself, tons of information on the subject that methods of dating are not reliable.
come on onetime you just said you were looking at references, so please list them here for us whats the harm? I dont see how your point i could see if you were saying extreme conditions might make it seem younger but not older so plz post a link.
-
come on onetime you just said you were looking at references, so please list them here for us whats the harm? I dont see how your point i could see if you were saying extreme conditions might make it seem younger but not older so plz post a link.
I will Pm you tomarrow with a few websites so you can check thier opinions out OK. ;)
-
polesmoke, is it safe to have faith you will not either read this nor reply?
but in case my faith proves me wrong
you then claimed an axiom was faith
no I claimed faith was an axiom
it is external truth, not your beleifs, something that is taken as truth such as reality exists
faith qualifies by that definition quite well. ask most any christian
also may i point out the fact that you have not offered a single bit of evidence for your beleifs
um yes I did.
faith
oh and btw I will now always call you polesmoke
and add you to my elite friends list along with decide and hader and pray for you.
wanna know why?
because I can
and
what can you do about it?
not one pole smoking thing
-
I see Diecide and the Pole-smoker only want to cause hate and discontent on the religious board.
I say ignore these infidels! Let them deal with God in their own time, which is coming soon! Surely they will be the ones asking for a drop of water from our finger tips to cool their tongues!
So let it be written, so let it be done!
HM
Still can't spell my name right, fundy fucktard?!
I am still waiting for your local Canaanite storm/war deity to make a showing....many of us have...for several millenia now...the results have been appalling...I personally think Thor and Odin have had better records...at least there are cool comic books about them.
I feel sorry for you, wasting your time, crawling on your hands and knees in the dirt and filth praying and talking to the nonexistent; even sadder given the fact that it is 2008.
-
If you can't accept other peoples believes why bother asking, I don't stand alone in what I believe and since I don't have a Phd then I am automatically wrong... A kinder garden kid would understand the under different types of presure decaying can be speed up or slowed down this is common sense you don't need a degree to figure this out and since we don't know what type of natural disasters have occured then we can't really know the age of a remain. Evolution is not real if this bothers you then find a way to prove it, maybe I can't [prove everything i say but neither can you so all we have at the end is faith.
Since you seem to have immense difficulty writing the English language, I think it appropriate to ask the question if you have a high school diploma; well, do you?
-
polesmoke, is it safe to have faith you will not either read this nor reply?
but in case my faith proves me wrongno I claimed faith was an axiom
faith qualifies by that definition quite well. ask most any christian
um yes I did.
faith
oh and btw I will now always call you polesmoke
and add you to my elite friends list along with decide and hader and pray for you.
wanna know why?
because I can
and
what can you do about it?
not one pole smoking thing
Haider? Hah! He is a Muslim. Awesome; not only do you play the 'I hate the atheist card' but also 'my god has a bigger dick than your god card as well'...this is better than standup. Keep it coming...laughter is the best medicine! :)
-
First of all you did mock and you said "lmao" and you think we are funny, how is that for debating intellegently. Do you actually think for one second I would be stupid enough to make something like this (the articles I read) up. I'm through with handing you type of guys information on a silver platter. Google it yourself, "flawed dating methods" you will see for yourself that there are lots of websites and people who have PHd backing me up on flawed dating methods. This isn't new, its old news but maybe your to stuborn to realize that they been challanged effectively. Personally I don't care if you believe in evolution, but to me its like believing in santa clause.
BTW without dateing methods your evolution fantasy falls apart... Here is a challange, come up with some sort of evidance without using any dates that will help evolution, it can't be done because the whole foundation of evolution is based on false dating methods.
ummmmmmmm all of GENETICS. LMAO... ok heres another one, natural selection, adaptation, nested hierarchies and their obvious unique characteristics.
want more? i already corrected you on the dating methods, please refrain from lying. Pressure does not affect half lifes.
-
Still can't spell my name right, fundy fucktard?!
Fat finger typo sorry. Anyway you side stepped my question to you and the polesmoker about the ozone layer.
You should change your name you might get more respect and not taken as a joke around here.
Christ is your cure!
HM
-
Haider? Hah! He is a Muslim. Awesome; not only do you play the 'I hate the atheist card' but also 'my god has a bigger dick than your god card as well'...this is better than standup. Keep it coming...laughter is the best medicine! :)
ok decide, anything to make a friend happy :)
btw which of you is the so called atheist?
Keep it coming...laughter is the best medicine!
Indeed I will my friend. it's not like God is going to just let
you stay away.
have a blessed day
buffdnet
-
Deicide could'nt stay away if he wanted to, God is drawing him. Deicide probably scratches his head daily wondering why he keeps coming back (he must be a glutton for punishment).
A word from our sponsor.
Romans 10:16-17
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?"
17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
If he is one of Christ he will come, who can resist Gods calling or will; Definitely not Mr. Deicide or Mr. MeatSmoker?! Anyway they can't even breath without God. Time will deal with them one way or another.
Now let the church say AAAAAAAAAAMMMMMEEEEEEEEE EEEN!
HM
-
A word from our sponsor.
I loved that
amen!
-
Deicide could'nt stay away if he wanted to, God is drawing him. Deicide probably scratches his head daily wondering why he keeps coming back (he must be a glutton for punishment).
A word from our sponsor.
Romans 10:16-17
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?"
17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
If he is one of Christ he will come, who can resist Gods calling or will; Definitely not Mr. Deicide or Mr. MeatSmoker?! Anyway they can't even breath without God. Time will deal with them one way or another.
Now let the church say AAAAAAAAAAMMMMMEEEEEEEEE EEEN!
HM
I come back for the laughs...
-
I come back for the laughs...
that's ok decide whatever reason in your brain that justifies
hanging out with christians is cool by me
I'll remember you, your family and friends in my prayers this evening.
I'll also pray for that one bodybuilder, who does not know God that may die tonight
Have a blessed evening decide.
buffdnet
-
that's ok decide whatever reason in your brain that justifies
hanging out with christians is cool by me
I'll remember you, your family and friends in my prayers this evening.
I'll also pray for that one bodybuilder, who does not know God that may die tonight
Have a blessed evening decide.
buffdnet
Oh blessed god, he LOVES YOU but if you dont worship him you will burn forever in torment, feel the love, feel the love. God created all, so he created hell, what a perfect being lets worship him or forever suffer.
-
Oh blessed god, he LOVES YOU but if you dont worship him you will burn forever in torment, feel the love, feel the love. God created all, so he created hell, what a perfect being lets worship him or forever suffer.
Clearly you do not understand salvation or what it means to have a relationship with God. But it's true dead men can't hear!
BTW Hell was created for the devil and his angels
Matthew 25:41
41 Then the king will say to those on his left, "Get away from me! You are under God's curse. Go into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels!
-
that's ok decide whatever reason in your brain that justifies
hanging out with christians is cool by me
I'll remember you, your family and friends in my prayers this evening.
I'll also pray for that one bodybuilder, who does not know God that may die tonight
Have a blessed evening decide.
buffdnet
Deicide... ::)
-
Deicide... ::)
no your decide to me
I could call you polesmoke2.
how that be?
decide and let me know ok decide.
-
Deicide... ::)
The remedy to your dilemma of incorrect spelling is to change your name to what it means, (God Killer) I promise the occurence of someone mispelling your name will be significantly reduced.
HM
-
if you dont worship him you will burn forever in torment,
usmoke, could you please state the scripture(s) to which you are referring regarding this statment?
-
usmoke, could you please state the scripture(s) to which you are referring regarding this statment?
Stella, I truly believe this guy or his brother (God Killer) in defamation has never read the scriptures in their entirety.
Many scoffers that I have met have (by God's grace) converted after reading the scriptures carefully and in context.
I would even invite them to participate in exploring the bible with me/us (any other GB Christian) and I can assure you it would have an impact.
Remember the scriptures are like a two edged sword; either they will be cut or healed.
Hebrews 4:12
12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
-
Stella, I truly believe this guy or his brother (God Killer) in defamation has never read the scriptures in their entirety.
I believe usmoke has stated that he has never read the bible in it's entirety and I appreciate his honesty about that. I think some people try to read it but for whatever reason(s) put it back down again.
Many scoffers that I have met have (by God's grace) converted after reading the scriptures carefully and in context.
Same here.
I would even invite them to participate in exploring the bible with me/us (any other GB Christian) and I can assure you it would have an impact.
I agree but it seems as though they'd need to have a desire to explore it sincerely....and I don't know how many people here are willing to do so...it'd be great though :)
-
I agree but it seems as though they'd need to have a desire to explore it sincerely....and I don't know how many people here are willing to do so...it'd be great though :)
Surely they have questions, everyone has questions!
I challenge the scoffers to ask questions!
-
Surely they have questions, everyone has questions!
I challenge the scoffers to ask questions!
ok
why did god create evil?
-
usmoke, could you please state the scripture(s) to which you are referring regarding this statment?
Here you go Stella, one of the many 'hellfire' statements in the NT;
Luke 12:5 But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.
Fear the Canaanite storm god because he can not only kill you but send you into everlasting torment... ::)
-
hello polesmoke2.
jesusfreak
-
ok
why did god create evil?
bump for an answer to this question and for onetime to pm those links.
-
bump for an answer to this question and for onetime to pm those links.
www.tim-thompson.com/young-earth.html
this one has good points
www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c012.html
www.ayoungearth.com/ - If you go to references on this site you will see tons of people with PHd's, since all you guys seem to care about ios whether tehy are educated or nmot and they certainly are.
Thousands more yet, and this topic is becomeing more main stream, and its just going to get bigger and bigger. I garuntee you that the average person won't be easily as convinced at your silly theory anymore.
-
www.tim-thompson.com/young-earth.html
this one has good points
www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c012.html
www.ayoungearth.com/ - If you go to references on this site you will see tons of people with PHd's, since all you guys seem to care about ios whether tehy are educated or nmot and they certainly are.
Thousands more yet, and this topic is becomeing more main stream, and its just going to get bigger and bigger. I garuntee you that the average person won't be easily as convinced at your silly theory anymore.
thank you sir i will do my reading...what is your take on why there is evil?
-
thank you sir i will do my reading...what is your take on why there is evil?
Actually thank you for taking the subject seriously. I believe evil is a spiritual being (the devil) and it exist because when God made him he gave him freedom to be evil in the same way we have the freedom to do good or bad. The devil clearly lives in a different dimension (one that we cannot fully comprehend) and he is free to enter the hearts of humans if they allow him in. People ask if God loves us why does he allow horrible things to occur in this world, I asnwere this question by asking people if they love thier child. When they say they do, then I ask why did they bring him or her into this world knowing that he or she is going to suffer severely. See God is not at fault for allowing pain to occur just like I am not at fault for letting my son into this world of pain. God has shown us the way through scripture on how to be good and how not to let evil into our lives, but he doesn't restrict our freedom of choice.
-
www.tim-thompson.com/young-earth.html
this one has good points
www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c012.html
www.ayoungearth.com/ - If you go to references on this site you will see tons of people with PHd's, since all you guys seem to care about ios whether tehy are educated or nmot and they certainly are.
Thousands more yet, and this topic is becomeing more main stream, and its just going to get bigger and bigger. I garuntee you that the average person won't be easily as convinced at your silly theory anymore.
Is English your mother tongue?! :o
-
I asked usmoke for scripture references for this:
if you dont worship [God] you will burn forever in torment,
usmoke, could you please state the scripture(s) to which you are referring regarding this statment?
Here you go Stella, one of the many 'hellfire' statements in the NT;
Luke 12:5 But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.
Fear the Canaanite storm god because he can not only kill you but send you into everlasting torment... ::)
The scripture you referenced doesn't cover what I asked. Do you have one that does?
-
Is English your mother tongue?! :o
We realize you're an English teacher but people tend to make typos, misspellings and grammatical errors on message boards.....even you.
Seriously, it's OK. Don't let it bother you so much! :)
-
We realize you're an English teacher but people tend to make typos, misspellings and grammatical errors on message boards.....even you.
Seriously, it's OK. Don't let it bother you so much! :)
Onetimehard seems to have mastered this skill to a far greater extent than all the rest of us.
-
What is the scientific explanation for how life began according to the theory of evolution?
And you ask this question on GB? A quick Google search got me:
http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/
Besides, everyone knows a super hero did it in 6 days.... ::)
-
I asked usmoke for scripture references for this:
The scripture you referenced doesn't cover what I asked. Do you have one that does?
Matthew 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
I personally think you will continually twist it to say what you want it to say Stella but here it is again; the righteous (worshipful) have eternal life and the unworshipful shall go away into everlasting torment; in other words your deity's offer in nonnegotiable.
Luke 3:17 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable.
The chaff consists of the atheists, the Hindus and all the other nonbelievers. This is quite clear.
John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
Don't believe in Jesus and incur his 'wrath'. Sounds like fun.
John 15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. 15:6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned
Clearly if we do not abide in Jesus we will burn. I can keep on doing this all day.
2 Thessalonians 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: 1:9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power
Flaming fire, vengeance, everlasting destruction; damn, sounds like a real party.
2 Peter 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
Fire on the day of judgement for the ungodly.
Etc....like I said, your deity's offer is nonnegotiable. I feel sorry for people who actually believe this silliness, living their lives in terror of the possibility of eternal fire and gnashing of teeth...
-
Actually thank you for taking the subject seriously. I believe evil is a spiritual being (the devil) and it exist because when God made him he gave him freedom to be evil in the same way we have the freedom to do good or bad. The devil clearly lives in a different dimension (one that we cannot fully comprehend) and he is free to enter the hearts of humans if they allow him in. People ask if God loves us why does he allow horrible things to occur in this world, I asnwere this question by asking people if they love thier child. When they say they do, then I ask why did they bring him or her into this world knowing that he or she is going to suffer severely. See God is not at fault for allowing pain to occur just like I am not at fault for letting my son into this world of pain. God has shown us the way through scripture on how to be good and how not to let evil into our lives, but he doesn't restrict our freedom of choice.
heres my problem with that...God is all good, right? and in being all good does not have the capacity for evil in him. God is also all powerful, right? and in being all powerful has the ability to do anything. This means that whatever God lays his hand to would be good regardless of being given freewill b/c God is all powerful and all good. Logically for a being to be capable of evil while being created by a being that is all good and all powerful the being doing the creating must either be not all good or not all powerful.
-
I personally think you will continually twist it to say what you want it to say Stella but here it is again; the righteous (worshipful) have eternal life and the unworshipful shall go away into everlasting torment; in other words your deity's offer in nonnegotiable.
I think the above explains why you are confused at what I am requesting.
It looks as though you may think that righteous = worshipful.
According to the bible a person is made righteous by God's grace and nothing that we do. ("You are saved by Grace through faith and not of works, so that no one can boast." Eph 2:8,9)
The moment a person becomes a believer they become "righteous." If a person is a believer, it follows they would worship God at some point...eventually or immediately, but worshipping or being "worshipful" does not save them.
There are people that worship other people or things or themselves. This does not make a person righteous.
So I see becoming "righteous" as a gift of God...it is something we cannot attain or sustain.
I hope that's not too confusing :-\
if you dont worship him you will burn forever in torment,
So can you see why the other scriptures you have posted also do not cover this statement for me?
I think it could because you and I have different definitions of righteousness and worship.
-
I think the above explains why you are confused at what I am requesting.
It looks as though you may think that righteous = worshipful.
According to the bible a person is made righteous by God's grace and nothing that we do. ("You are saved by Grace through faith and not of works, so that no one can boast." Eph 2:8,9)
The moment a person becomes a believer they become "righteous." If a person is a believer, it follows they would worship God at some point...eventually or immediately, but worshipping or being "worshipful" does not save them.
There are people that worship other people or things or themselves. This does not make a person righteous.
So I see becoming "righteous" as a gift of God...it is something we cannot attain or sustain.
I hope that's not too confusing :-\
So can you see why the other scriptures you have posted also do not cover this statement for me?
I think it could because you and I have different definitions of righteousness and worship.
No, Stella, you are just playing with words...believing is what I meant and you know it.
-
No, Stella, you are just playing with words...believing is what I meant and you know it.
No I didn't but thanks for the assumption.
If I thought you meant believing or even thought you may have meant it..I wouldn't have written all that in my other post.
-
No I didn't but thanks for the assumption.
If I thought you meant believing or even thought you may have meant it..I wouldn't have written all that in my other post.
So you agree then, don't believe in your storm god and you are punished with everlasting fire?
-
Onetimehard seems to have mastered this skill to a far greater extent than all the rest of us.
This is what people do when they cannot intelligently win a debate. I work 50 hours a week and take care of my 2 year old son, I read minimum 5 chapters a day of the Bible as mandatory and attend church. I train 5 days a week and I am getting ready for a bodybuilding show in Nov to top it all off and you want me to spell correctly, if this is not a big enough excuse for you I type 5 words per minute on a good day. Go finds sopmething better to do with your time, this is a rerligion board and their isn't room here for you to technical here. You know how childish your end of the argument is with Stella the only reason she is even replying is because your putting Gods words in your own contents (twisting them in other words) and you clearly have a wrong perpective of God, why don't you try reading the Bible before you talk.
-
This is what people do when they cannot intelligently win a debate. I work 50 hours a week and take care of my 2 year old son, I read minimum 5 chapters a day of the Bible as mandatory and attend church. I train 5 days a week and I am getting ready for a bodybuilding show in Nov to top it all off and you want me to spell correctly, if this is not a big enough excuse for you I type 5 words per minute on a good day. Go finds sopmething better to do with your time, this is a rerligion board and their isn't room here for you to technical here. You know how childish your end of the argument is with Stella the only reason she is even replying is because your putting Gods words in your own contents (twisting them in other words) and you clearly have a wrong perpective of God, why don't you try reading the Bible before you talk.
are you serious, intelligently debate?
you have no knowledge of science yet you try to debate it. You have been proven wrong on every account and when i corrected you for the umpteenth time you gave me the old ::).
There can be no evil if god is all loving, OR he is not all powerful and could not stop evil from occuring, there is absolutely no way around this.
your god does not exist, im sure of it. ALL perfect, yet imperfection exists. ALL LOVING, yet suffering and evil exists, ALL KNOWING, yet man is cursed by the original sin HE knew would happen. This is absolute hogwash and insulting to my intelligence.
hustle man wheres my answer i would like to ask you more questions.
-
are you serious, intelligently debate?
you have no knowledge of science yet you try to debate it. You have been proven wrong on every account and when i corrected you for the umpteenth time you gave me the old ::).
There can be no evil if god is all loving, OR he is not all powerful and could not stop evil from occuring, there is absolutely no way around this.
your god does not exist, im sure of it. ALL perfect, yet imperfection exists. ALL LOVING, yet suffering and evil exists, ALL KNOWING, yet man is cursed by the original sin HE knew would happen. This is absolute hogwash and insulting to my intelligence.
hustle man wheres my answer i would like to ask you more questions.
Calm down Mr " know it all" . i have not been proven wrong in anything and you are clearly to stuborn to even consider any other point of veiw but your own. Why are people debating about Gods existence without even reading the Bible. I have looked into evolution, in fact I used to believe in it. I have nothing against you guys and I have given you proof at the vary least that there are intelligent people that believe in what I believe in, why the big ego trip, if you do not want to learn anything on this board and all you want to do is put down and say your a hundred percent certain there is no God you are wasting your time.
-
Calm down Mr " know it all" . i have not been proven wrong in anything and you are clearly to stuborn to even consider any other point of veiw but your own. Why are people debating about Gods existence without even reading the Bible. I have looked into evolution, in fact I used to believe in it. I have nothing against you guys and I have given you proof at the vary least that there are intelligent people that believe in what I believe in, why the big ego trip, if you do not want to learn anything on this board and all you want to do is put down and say your a hundred percent certain there is no God you are wasting your time.
no try using a thing called logic, logically your god cannot exist in the incarnation you ascribe. Also you beleive in things like noahs ark, another ridiculous myth. HOW DID THE TIGERS GET TO THE ARK, DID THEY SWIM THE OCEANS?
ANSWER my questions, there is nothign to beleive in, in evolution it is the best explanation we have supported by evidence for the diversity of life.Your viewpoint has no evidence, case closed.
im more open minded then you, you cannot even fathom anything other then god, i however accept all sorts of explanations, theories and scientific premises.
-
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=009_1198085630
-
from deicides link
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/creationists_and_scientific_logic.htm
Creationists and Scientific Logic
Scott Anderson
Creationists are of the opinion that creationism constitutes a better explanation of the evolutionary process? By what standard would they consider it better? Creationism demands that the logic of the scientific method be abandoned in favor of whatever logic one might be able to scrape out of the Bible.
Special creationism demands that we believe that some six thousand years ago the universe was magically created, with the sun appearing long after plants, and man apparently living concurrently with carnivorous animals (perhaps including dinosaurs). It demands that all the planetary evidence that coincides with evolutionary theory (the geologic table, continental drift, erosion, et cetera), all the biological evidence (DNA, biochemistry, microbiology, anthropology, et cetera), all the historical evidence (the fossil record, archaeology, anthropology, et cetera), all the astronomical evidence (quantum singularities, the age of stars, the history of the universe, et cetera) has been misinterpreted. The evidence from physics and chemistry (the speed of light, the laws of thermodynamics, amino acids and proteins, et cetera, et cetera, ad infinitum, ad absurdum) have all been misinterpreted. And I'm even leaving out several fields.
They are all in error, I take it? Why, then, has it all seemed to fit so well? Was it a conspiracy, or was it simply science's way of hiding the fact that they had no idea?
Creationists still have to show that science is, in fact, wrong. This must first occur before they can begin postulating how the errors (as they must call them) persisted for so long. Creationists are more than happy to accept scientific reasoning but are unwilling to accept the conclusions. That's why the battle is not creation versus evolution. Perhaps many creationists believe that, but it is not the case.
The same thoughts and processes thereof that led to the theory of evolution exist in all branches of science. It's called the scientific method. In addition, evolution gets direct and indirect support from a thousand different facts from every constellation in the sky of science. In addition, evolution gives direct and indirect support to every constellation. Science is not a batch of unrelated theories - science is a unit.
To replace evolution with creationism would dictate that we throw out all the data we have about the age of the universe (all of it points to billions of years, not thousands). We would have to throw away the psychological data gained from testing on, for instance, lab rats. How could the data from rats relate in any way to the inspired, specially created souls of human beings? Anthropology would have to be dispensed with. Archaeology would find itself in the trash bin. Biology books would be so much toilet paper. In short, a thousand different independent but strangely cohesive facts and theories - a million tidbits of knowledge about ourselves and our world - would have to be destroyed in favor of magic and mysticism.
We've been through that before - it was called the Dark Ages. I see no logical reason why we should return to them.
I THOUGHT THIS WAS SPOT ON
-
So you agree then, don't believe in your storm god and you are punished with everlasting fire?
If what you mean by believe is to "accept as true or real" then, no I don't agree. Even the devil believes in God. According to the bible, the devil will be going to hell.
On the other hand, if you were referring to someone being a "believer" meaning that person has accepted the free gift of forgiveness by God's Grace through faith, then yes, I believe these people will be going to heaven.
-
If what you mean by believe is to "accept as true or real" then, no I don't agree. Even the devil believes in God. According to the bible, the devil will be going to hell.
On the other hand, if you were referring to someone being a "believer" meaning that person has accepted the free gift of forgiveness by God's Grace through faith, then yes, I believe these people will be going to heaven.
What about this? I think the Bible is a load of bullshit and a pack of lies. I also think there is rather obviously no god/there are no gods of any sort. What happens to me?
Oh Yes, I deny the Holy Spirit...which can't be forgiven...anyway...
-
What about this? I think the Bible is a load of bullshit and a pack of lies. I also think there is rather obviously no god/there are no gods of any sort. What happens to me?
Oh Yes, I deny the Holy Spirit...which can't be forgivem...anyway...
:'(, oh man stop crying about everything, if you think life is so hard and you can't handle it then jump off a building or something. Why go out of your way and try to stop people from believing what they do, do you feel the you MUST tell people that there is no God, is this some sort of comfort or escape from your lack of spirituality.
Are you a grade school teacher. You know the Bilble says it would be better for a mill stone to be attached to you and thrown into water then for the consequences of harming one of his children. You have a negative outlook on life, not because you don't believe in God, but because you can't stand for the next person to be happy and for the millionth time we know you don't believe in God, are you going to keep telling us this......Oh, I get it, maybe I'll say this..........."I don't believe in God anymore because decide think there is no God" ::)
-
:'(, oh man stop crying about everything, if you think life is so hard and you can't handle it then jump off a building or something. Why go out of your way and try to stop people from believing what they do, do you feel the you MUST tell people that there is no God, is this some sort of comfort or escape from your lack of spirituality.
Are you a grade school teacher. You know the Bilble says it would be better for a mill stone to be attached to you and thrown into water then for the consequences of harming one of his children. You have a negative outlook on life, not because you don't believe in God, but because you can't stand for the next person to be happy and for the millionth time we know you don't believe in God, are you going to keep telling us this......Oh, I get it, maybe I'll say this..........."I don't believe in God anymore because decide think there is no God" ::)
I was asking Stella if I am going to burn or not.. ::)
-
If you think life is so hard and you can't handle it then jump off a building or something.
That doesn't sound very Christian to me.
Are you seriously making your believes dependent on whether certain scientific interpretations of the bible fit today's scientific findings?
-
I was asking Stella if I am going to burn or not.. ::)
If you have not been saved by the time you die then yes, I believe you will be separated from God for eternity. God will be in heaven, you will be in hell.
And in regard to if you committed "The Unforgivable Sin," please check this thread out when you have time:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=227955.0
-
If you have not been saved by the time you die then yes, I believe you will be separated from God for eternity. God will be in heaven, you will be in hell.
And in regard to if you committed "The Unforgivable Sin," please check this thread out when you have time:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=227955.0
Awesome! Now, can you kindly tell me where heaven and hell are located?
-
That doesn't sound very Christian to me.
Are you seriously making your believes dependent on whether certain scientific interpretations of the bible fit today's scientific findings?
If he is going to ruin other peoples faith because he sees them rejoicing in their own happiness just because he is empty inside then it would be better for others that he did not exist. I was only speaking this way to get my point across, of course I don't want him to jump off a building, nor do I wish him any sufferment what so ever, in fact I would gladly go out of my way to teach him regarding the Bible if he wishes. There is a difference when someone doesn't believe in God versus someone who doesn't believe in God and spends a fraction of his day trying to convince people to not believe and has signs of hatred, we know this because he mocks and makes fun.
I am not making believes based on science, but I truly feel that no science has proved the Bible wrong in any way to date and for a recorded scriptures to add up to well over a million words and not have a provable flaw is a feet that copuld not be duplicated in a billion years. If there is mistakes in the Bible then lets here them right now, yes this is a challange.
-
If there is mistakes .
are
-
are
must I go through with this with everybody every single day, my grammer isn't going to get any better and yes I know it sucks :)
-
must I go through with this with everybody every single day, my grammer isn't going to get any better and yes I know it sucks :)
You should try to improve it. :)
Or watch porn. Lol.
-
You should try to improve it. :)
Or watch porn. Lol.
I'll pass, but thanks for the advise :)
-
If he is going to ruin other peoples faith because he sees them rejoicing in their own happiness just because he is empty inside then it would be better for others that he did not exist. I was only speaking this way to get my point across, of course I don't want him to jump off a building, nor do I wish him any sufferment what so ever, in fact I would gladly go out of my way to teach him regarding the Bible if he wishes. There is a difference when someone doesn't believe in God versus someone who doesn't believe in God and spends a fraction of his day trying to convince people to not believe and has signs of hatred, we know this because he mocks and makes fun.
How could he ever ruin other people's faith? If anything you should be glad that he's there to show you how strong your faith is. If he could manage to ruin someone's faith that easily, that someone's faith wasn't worth anything in the first place anyway.
I am not making believes based on science, but I truly feel that no science has proved the Bible wrong in any way to date and for a recorded scriptures to add up to well over a million words and not have a provable flaw is a feet that copuld not be duplicated in a billion years. If there is mistakes in the Bible then lets here them right now, yes this is a challange.
The question is, does it matter if science would prove the Bible wrong - scientifically? Every legitimate scientist of today will tell you that certain parts of the bible, if interpreted scientifically, are wrong. Of course there will always be fundamentalist motivated counter theories, but in the end, that's a futile battle.
-
must I go through with this with everybody every single day, my grammer isn't going to get any better and yes I know it sucks :)
Indeed, you are a sterling exemplar of Christian apologetics.
-
Indeed, you are a sterling exemplar of Christian apologetics.
Delete all posts from anyone that is a self-proclaimed God killer as their only goal is to tear down peaceful existence between the nations!
P.S. Especially if they perpetuate the beliefs of certain Fascist Austrian-born German politicians.
The world needs to rid itself of this evil mindset and the distruction left in it's wake!
HMIC
-
Delete all posts from anyone that is a self-proclaimed God killer as their only goal is to tear down peaceful existence between the nations!
P.S. Especially if they perpetuate the beliefs of certain Fascist Austrian-born German politicians.
The world needs to rid itself of this evil mindset and the distruction left in it's wake!
HMIC
Jaja...
You are the fascist here, imploring the mods to practise censorship of ideas.
Why are you making references to Hitler? Is he a personal hero of yours? He was a devout Christian after all who loved censorship....
My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited.
-
Is he a personal hero of yours? He was a devout Christian after all who loved censorship....
He wasn't devout, he was on and off.
He appeased both atheism and Christians depending on the social requirements at the given time.
My personal guess is that he believed in a God, but somehow saw himself as acting on providence.
-
He wasn't devout, he was on and off.
He appeased both atheism and Christians depending on the social requirements at the given time.
My personal guess is that he believed in a God, but somehow saw himself as acting on providence.
I was just pointing to the silliness of making an allusion to Hitler. I have never referenced him or made mention of him so it just seems silly.
-
Delete all posts from anyone that is a self-proclaimed God killer as their only goal is to tear down peaceful existence between the nations!
P.S. Especially if they perpetuate the beliefs of certain Fascist Austrian-born German politicians.
The world needs to rid itself of this evil mindset and the distruction left in it's wake!
HMIC
how come you wont answer my questions ?
why is there evil? didnt god create ALL?
-
Bump.
Necrosis I don't think you ever answered this question. What is the scientific theory for the origin of life on earth?
-
Bump.
Necrosis I don't think you ever answered this question. What is the scientific theory for the origin of life on earth?
i have posted autocatalytic theory before. read about it.
-
i have posted autocatalytic theory before. read about it.
So your belief in how life on earth originated is based on a computer program?
-
So your belief in how life on earth originated is based on a computer program?
what's yours based on?A book?
-
what's yours based on?A book?
Al CapOWNED
-
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=261113.msg4153415#new
GC/DEA_AGENT
-
So your belief in how life on earth originated is based on a computer program?
no it is the integration of many theories. self replicating peptides have been demonstated. It combines basic abiogenesis into a possible working model
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment
The studies have been more refined and now 22 amino acids can be made, which can from peptides of small proteins then on and on. It is not 100% exact and is very complex stuff but there is alot of evidence for it.
I dont believe this, i look at the evidence and see it is plausible, while it could be wrong. What evidence do you have?
-
what's yours based on?A book?
::)
-
no it is the integration of many theories. self replicating peptides have been demonstated. It combines basic abiogenesis into a possible working model
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment
The studies have been more refined and now 22 amino acids can be made, which can from peptides of small proteins then on and on. It is not 100% exact and is very complex stuff but there is alot of evidence for it.
I dont believe this, i look at the evidence and see it is plausible, while it could be wrong. What evidence do you have?
Where did the "self replicating peptides" originate? How did they get here?
I'm not trying to ask "gotcha" questions. My belief in how life originated on earth is clearly faith based. I think any theory about how life originated is faith based. I'm unaware of any scientifically based/proven explanation for the origination of life on earth. That's really what I'm asking about.
-
Where did the "self replicating peptides" originate? How did they get here?
I'm not trying to ask "gotcha" questions. My belief in how life originated on earth is clearly faith based. I think any theory about how life originated is faith based. I'm unaware of any scientifically based/proven explanation for the origination of life on earth. That's really what I'm asking about.
there is no consensus, its a very difficult field like cosmology. The big bang prevails but it could be wrong. We can try to re create the conditions of early earth and run the experiments in the lab, we have formed most of the essentials of life in the lab, time is the key variable we cannot manipulate much.
either way you are just going to keep asking how did that get there, which is not even a correct question.
It likely came from the elements that formed the planet and universe, which forms inorganic and organic compounds.
-
there is no consensus, its a very difficult field like cosmology. The big bang prevails but it could be wrong. We can try to re create the conditions of early earth and run the experiments in the lab, we have formed most of the essentials of life in the lab, time is the key variable we cannot manipulate much.
either way you are just going to keep asking how did that get there, which is not even a correct question.
It likely came from the elements that formed the planet and universe, which forms inorganic and organic compounds.
Why isn't it a correct question?
At the end of the day, it sounds like you have a faith-based belief in how life originated. It definitely isn't scientific, which requires: (1) observation; (2) hypothesis formulation; (3) prediction; and (4) testing of predictions.
This isn't a criticism of you or anyone else.
-
::)
what a classic getbig comeback.
-
what a classic getbig comeback.
Reserved specifically for dumb comments. :-*
-
Why isn't it a correct question?
At the end of the day, it sounds like you have a faith-based belief in how life originated. It definitely isn't scientific, which requires: (1) observation; (2) hypothesis formulation; (3) prediction; and (4) testing of predictions.
This isn't a criticism of you or anyone else.
wha.. it contains all of those, we can observe self catalytic molecules, we can conduct the experiments in the lab, we can form hypothesis based on all of this, we can test it.
No faith about it. math,experimentation, chemistry,biochemistry all go into it. Just because something happened in the past doesnt mean you cant find evidence for it.
you just want it to be like that, and if faith is the best charge you can level then your position is pretty weak dont you think?
-
wha.. it contains all of those, we can observe self catalytic molecules, we can conduct the experiments in the lab, we can form hypothesis based on all of this, we can test it.
No faith about it. math,experimentation, chemistry,biochemistry all go into it. Just because something happened in the past doesnt mean you cant find evidence for it.
you just want it to be like that, and if faith is the best charge you can level then your position is pretty weak dont you think?
O Rly? When have we replicated the creation of life in a lab?
We're not talking about my position. We're talking about the position of those we believe in the big bang, spontaneous generation, etc.
-
Reserved specifically for dumb comments. :-*
How so?you're questioning the origin of necrosis beliefs from the autocatalytic theory.But it's a dumb comment if I do the same about the origin of your beliefs originating from a book?
-
How so?you're questioning the origin of necrosis beliefs from the autocatalytic theory.But it's a dumb comment if I do the same about the origin of your beliefs originating from a book?
You don't need to question my beliefs, because I've clearly stated that my belief in the origin of life is based on faith. I think what I said earlier in this thread, a long time ago, bears repeating:
I don't have a theory. I have a belief. I believe God created the heavens and earth. But that's not why I created this thread. I wanted to hear from people like you.
It seems as though folks like you, Decker, etc. cannot talk about the origins of life from a scientific standpoint without mentioning God, Christianity, religion, etc. in the next breath (in a negative light). I'm asking specifically about non-ID/God/religion-related theories/beliefs about the origins of life on earth.
Decker said he has no idea and I respect that. What is your theory and/or belief about the origins of life on earth?
Did you have something to add or are you limited to one-liners that criticize God, the Bible, religion, etc.?
-
You don't need to question my beliefs, because I've clearly stated that my belief in the origin of life is based on faith. I think what I said earlier in this thread, a long time ago, bears repeating:
Did you have something to add or are you limited to one-liners that criticize God, the Bible, religion, etc.?
I didn't question your beliefs.I asked the origin of your beliefs.(from a book?).And as far as adding something I realized along time ago It's just spinning your wheels with regards to any kind of rational debate with certain people(won't name any names).
-
I didn't question your beliefs.I asked the origin of your beliefs.(from a book?).And as far as adding something I realized along time ago It's just spinning your wheels with regards to any kind of rational debate with certain people(won't name any names).
Your question was obviously rhetorical (and sarcastic), because I've made no secret that my belief in the origin of life is faith based.
But this thread isn't about my beliefs, or the origin of my beliefs (which I've clearly stated on several occasions). It's about the scientifically based belief in the origin of life on earth. Do you have one?
-
Your question was obviously rhetorical (and sarcastic), because I've made no secret that my belief in the origin of life is faith based.
But this thread isn't about my beliefs, or the origin of my beliefs (which I've clearly stated on several occasions). It's about the scientifically based belief in the origin of life on earth. Do you have one?
no.
-
O Rly? When have we replicated the creation of life in a lab?
We're not talking about my position. We're talking about the position of those we believe in the big bang, spontaneous generation, etc.
so now i believe in spontaneous generation?
we have created most of the necessary ingredients, we have found a mechanism that works and is observable. It could be wrong, im open to that, however it has repeatable falsifiable evidence behind it.
-
so now i believe in spontaneous generation?
we have created most of the necessary ingredients, we have found a mechanism that works and is observable. It could be wrong, im open to that, however it has repeatable falsifiable evidence behind it.
I don't know what you believe. I made a general comment.
We have not created life in a lab. We have never observed the creation of life in a lab. We have never successfully tested whatever theories there are that exist regarding the beginning of life on earth. I have yet to hear a scientifically proven explanation for the beginning of life on earth (on day 1).
-
I don't know what you believe. I made a general comment.
We have not created life in a lab. We have never observed the creation of life in a lab. We have never successfully tested whatever theories there are that exist regarding the beginning of life on earth. I have yet to hear a scientifically proven explanation for the beginning of life on earth (on day 1).
You're looking for something that is 100% absolute, which does not exist anywhere in the universe. We know gravity is here but how does it actually work? Newton himself couldn't figure it out. Almost 200 years went by before Einstein solved how gravity really works (spacetime), and even so, it is still just a theory. Who the hell would've figured gravity would bend even light?
Point is, Necrosis has been saying all along that there are countless of studies and evidence that suggest how life on earth came about. But since no one could go back in time (yet) to actually record it, what else can you go by but evidence? Meanwhile, the bible tells you everything was made in 6 days, about 6000 years ago. I know its a literal translation, but that's where you lose me. I can interpret it so differently than anyone else. Even if I 'had Christ in my life' I really doubt I'd still interpret it the same way you do or any other Christian for that matter.
-
You're looking for something that is 100% absolute, which does not exist anywhere in the universe. We know gravity is here but how does it actually work? Newton himself couldn't figure it out. Almost 200 years went by before Einstein solved how gravity really works (spacetime), and even so, it is still just a theory. Who the hell would've figured gravity would bend even light?
Point is, Necrosis has been saying all along that there are countless of studies and evidence that suggest how life on earth came about. But since no one could go back in time (yet) to actually record it, what else can you go by but evidence? Meanwhile, the bible tells you everything was made in 6 days, about 6000 years ago. I know its a literal translation, but that's where you lose me. I can interpret it so differently than anyone else. Even if I 'had Christ in my life' I really doubt I'd still interpret it the same way you do or any other Christian for that matter.
lol. As I've said many times, it's funny how people who embrace the "goo to you" type theories are just incapable of discussing the origins of life without talking about God, the Bible, etc. (in a negative light).
We absolutely know gravity exists. That's not something we need to question at all. My point is (unless someone can show me otherwise) we have no way of scientifically proving, testing, etc. the origins of life on earth. That's a pretty big "puka" (hole). It requires faith. But people seem afraid to use that word. Just like the gaping holes in the evolution theory (e.g., no proof of macroevolution and the absence of transitional fossils), the theory of the origins of life on earth from a non-religious standpoint has a huge hole. Its sort of like starting a book after skipping the first few chapters.
-
lol. As I've said many times, it's funny how people who embrace the "goo to you" type theories are just incapable of discussing the origins of life without talking about God, the Bible, etc. (in a negative light).
We absolutely know gravity exists. That's not something we need to question at all. My point is (unless someone can show me otherwise) we have no way of scientifically proving, testing, etc. the origins of life on earth. That's a pretty big "puka" (hole). It requires faith. But people seem afraid to use that word. Just like the gaping holes in the evolution theory (e.g., no proof of macroevolution and the absence of transitional fossils), the theory of the origins of life on earth from a non-religious standpoint has a huge hole. Its sort of like starting a book after skipping the first few chapters.
When you break something, anything down to the quantum level, nothing is absolute. You can touch something and feel certain you're touching it, but the reality is there is a fraction of space in between you and the object you're touching.
Anyway, sorry if I'm straying from the topic. It is really beyond me to tell you the truth. I just hope I'm still alive when someone finally figures it out.
-
I don't know what you believe. I made a general comment.
We have not created life in a lab. We have never observed the creation of life in a lab. We have never successfully tested whatever theories there are that exist regarding the beginning of life on earth. I have yet to hear a scientifically proven explanation for the beginning of life on earth (on day 1).
abiogenesis has a ton of research ::)
what do you consider life?
-
I, personally, am leaning towards the idea of extremophiles being our "ancestors." It makes sense to me because no other organisms can survive during the earth's early years.
-
Meanwhile, the bible tells you everything was made in 6 days, about 6000 years ago.
Not necessarily. I've seen this claim before, however, I can't see where the Bible is stating this notion as absolute. Do you have the specific location where this assertion would be? I would like to ponder it if it is saying this. Thanks in advance.
GC/DEA_AGENT
-
lol. As I've said many times, it's funny how people who embrace the "goo to you" type theories are just incapable of discussing the origins of life without talking about God, the Bible, etc. (in a negative light).
We absolutely know gravity exists. That's not something we need to question at all. My point is (unless someone can show me otherwise) we have no way of scientifically proving, testing, etc. the origins of life on earth. That's a pretty big "puka" (hole). It requires faith. But people seem afraid to use that word. Just like the gaping holes in the evolution theory (e.g., no proof of macroevolution and the absence of transitional fossils), the theory of the origins of life on earth from a non-religious standpoint has a huge hole. Its sort of like starting a book after skipping the first few chapters.
if i provide you papers showing observed macroevolution and intact "transitional fossils" will you then stop spewing lies and rhetoric, or are you so close minded that you will try and change the facts etc..
you dont even know the mathmatics behind gravity the how of gravity, just like you dont evolution, both are widely accepted facts in science.
by the way gravity is probably wrong in its mechanism.. still doesnt mean gravity doesnt exist.
-
Not necessarily. I've seen this claim before, however, I can't see where the Bible is stating this notion as absolute. Do you have the specific location where this assertion would be? I would like to ponder it if it is saying this. Thanks in advance.
GC/DEA_AGENT
Someone did the painstaking task of tracing back the time of the creation through people in the bible. Of course it's not absolute but if you take the bible literally (like a lot of Christians do) then the Earth really is 6000 years old.
-
Someone did the painstaking task of tracing back the time of the creation through people in the bible. Of course it's not absolute but if you take the bible literally (like a lot of Christians do) then the Earth really is 6000 years old.
I think I see where those Christians are skewed in there view of that account. The Bible is teaching that man is around 6000 years old, however, it's not indicating that the earth is 6000 years old. When God created the earth, He did this first, the other creations came later. Man was created later on. The animals, insects, vegetation,etc. were all created before man. Therefore, the Bible leaves open earth being older than man. So then, the Christians that I know believe just that. We have a written record from the conception of man's beginning, and this record confirms that man is around 6000 years old. Hope this helps.
GC/DEA_AGENT
-
by the way gravity is probably wrong in its mechanism.. still doesnt mean gravity doesnt exist.
This makes a good point about the existence of God. You obviously agree that there are things that exist that cannot be seen with the naked eye or advanced devices?. Same with God, just because we can't see Him, doesn't mean He's nonexistent.
What's your take on this notion regarding evolution? What chance is there that the correct amino acids would come together to form a protein molecule? It could be likened to having a big, thoroughly mixed pile containing equal numbers of red beans and white beans. There are also over 100 different varieties of beans. Now, if you plunged a scoop into this pile, what do you think you would get? To get the beans that represent the basic components of a protein, you would have to scoop up only red one's -- no white ones at all! Also, your scoop must contain only 20 varieties of the red beans, and each one must be in a specific, preassigned place in the scoop. In the world of protein, a single mistake in any one of these requirements would cause the protein that is produced to fail to function properly. Would any amount of stirring and scooping in our hypothetical bean pile have given the right combination? If the answer is no, then how would it have been possible in the hypothetical organic soup evolution?
GC/DEA_AGENT
-
if i provide you papers showing observed macroevolution and intact "transitional fossils" will you then stop spewing lies and rhetoric, or are you so close minded that you will try and change the facts etc..
you dont even know the mathmatics behind gravity the how of gravity, just like you dont evolution, both are widely accepted facts in science.
by the way gravity is probably wrong in its mechanism.. still doesnt mean gravity doesnt exist.
Actually, show me the entire missing fossil record showing the transition from one species to another, including all of the mistakes during the supposed macroevolutionary process. Will this be another getbig.com exclusive? :)
Gravity is fact. Take any item off your desk and let it go. Macroevolution is widely accepted as fact, but is full of gaping holes.
-
Actually, show me the entire missing fossil record showing the transition from one species to another, including all of the mistakes during the supposed macroevolutionary process. Will this be another getbig.com exclusive? :)
Gravity is fact. Take any item off your desk and let it go. Macroevolution is widely accepted as fact, but is full of gaping holes.
all i need is one transitional fossil, why do need the whole fossil record. If i prove macroevolution of one species along with the other evidence for evolution proves it. 100 Examples are good enough.
no holes, what holes?
-
all i need is one transitional fossil, why do need the whole fossil record. If i prove macroevolution of one species along with the other evidence for evolution proves it. 100 Examples are good enough.
no holes, what holes?
You need an entire fossil record, because one fossil proves nothing. Just like if you unearthed the bones of Siamese twins 10,000 years from now it wouldn't prove that humans once had two heads.
Billions of holes. I'll update this thread one of these days with more info from the book. http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=179381.0
-
You need an entire fossil record, because one fossil proves nothing. Just like if you unearthed the bones of Siamese twins 10,000 years from now it wouldn't prove that humans once had two heads.
Billions of holes. I'll update this thread one of these days with more info from the book. http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=179381.0
no it proves that humans can have two heads ::), however, the other skulls of humans and the study of anatomy allows us to make inferences, your simplistic view is entirely inccorect. We know the structure of the human skeleton and possible deformities, we also know homology of tons of other animals, which are quite similar.
You do not need the entire fossil record because, one, that is impossible, two we could already have every fossil as fossils are hard to come by, and the corroborating evidence confounds the fossil record.
we have hundreds of transitional fossils, clear exmaples of macroevolution etc..
let me geuss the guy who wrote this book is religious?
-
Fossils are hard to find. And there aren't many people looking for them. Heck, America's Most Wanted depicts criminals each week to MILLIONS of people each week, and we haven't gotten these guys rounded up with all that help yet. I can guarantee you that we don't have millions of people searching for fossils in the world. So the fossils are there I'm sure, it's just going to take time to find them.
-
Fossils are hard to find. And there aren't many people looking for them. Heck, America's Most Wanted depicts criminals each week to MILLIONS of people each week, and we haven't gotten these guys rounded up with all that help yet. I can guarantee you that we don't have millions of people searching for fossils in the world. So the fossils are there I'm sure, it's just going to take time to find them.
its impossible to estimate how many fossils are there also, therefore, the argument... you need all the fossils will always apply as is as illogical as i can imagine.
-
This makes a good point about the existence of God. You obviously agree that there are things that exist that cannot be seen with the naked eye or advanced devices?. Same with God, just because we can't see Him, doesn't mean He's nonexistent.
What's your take on this notion regarding evolution? What chance is there that the correct amino acids would come together to form a protein molecule? It could be likened to having a big, thoroughly mixed pile containing equal numbers of red beans and white beans. There are also over 100 different varieties of beans. Now, if you plunged a scoop into this pile, what do you think you would get? To get the beans that represent the basic components of a protein, you would have to scoop up only red one's -- no white ones at all! Also, your scoop must contain only 20 varieties of the red beans, and each one must be in a specific, preassigned place in the scoop. In the world of protein, a single mistake in any one of these requirements would cause the protein that is produced to fail to function properly. Would any amount of stirring and scooping in our hypothetical bean pile have given the right combination? If the answer is no, then how would it have been possible in the hypothetical organic soup evolution?
GC/DEA_AGENT
Well, the odds are astronomical! The proteins needed for life have very complex molecules. What is the chance of even a simple protein molecule forming at random in an organic soup? Evolutionists acknowledge it to be only one in 10113 (1 followed by 113 zeros). But any event that has one chance in just 1050 is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening. An idea of the odds, or probability, involved is seen in the fact that the number 10113 is larger than the estimated total number of all the atoms in the universe!
With even evolutionist acknowledging this point, how can they still cling to this theory?
GC/DEA_AGENT
-
Well, the odds are astronomical! The proteins needed for life have very complex molecules. What is the chance of even a simple protein molecule forming at random in an organic soup? Evolutionists acknowledge it to be only one in 10113 (1 followed by 113 zeros). But any event that has one chance in just 1050 is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening. An idea of the odds, or probability, involved is seen in the fact that the number 10113 is larger than the estimated total number of all the atoms in the universe!
With even evolutionist acknowledging this point, how can they still cling to this theory?
GC/DEA_AGENT
what theory?
evolution says nothing about origins, the whole title of this thread is incorrect, and you further the ignorance by making a claim.
abiogenesis is the study of origins a totally seperate theory.
-
what theory?
evolution says nothing about origins, the whole title of this thread is incorrect, and you further the ignorance by making a claim.
abiogenesis is the study of origins a totally seperate theory.
Hey friend, I didn't mean to agitate you in anyway, shape, or form. Just trying to defend my faith, with a touch of reasonableness.
So, please know that I'm not trying to compete with you, in hopes of having a fine conversation, with all due respect!.
I do apologize for not separating abiogenesis from macro evolution. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't it be necessary for the example that was given, to have happened first?. And I emphasize, just asking? :)
GC/DEA_AGENT
-
its impossible to estimate how many fossils are there also, therefore, the argument... you need all the fossils will always apply as is as illogical as i can imagine.
Your right! However, it seems like there would be at least one transitional fossil found connecting one kind to another.
GC/DEA_AGENT
-
Your right! However, it seems like there would be at least one transitional fossil found connecting one kind to another.
GC/DEA_AGENT
there is, would you like some examples?
-
Hey friend, I didn't mean to agitate you in anyway, shape, or form. Just trying to defend my faith, with a touch of reasonableness.
So, please know that I'm not trying to compete with you, in hopes of having a fine conversation, with all due respect!.
I do apologize for not separating abiogenesis from macro evolution. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't it be necessary for the example that was given, to have happened first?. And I emphasize, just asking? :)
GC/DEA_AGENT
no problem,sorry if i come across as a dick, i am.
but yes, abiogenesis would have to come first.
what i find astounding is that everything we have ever discovered has a natural process, a demonstratable process. So if god created the universe everything we know about it has a natural process, it is self sufficient. Thus, god intended this.
if what some christians believe is a hiccup and that abiogenesis never occured, then why would god all of a sudden use a miracle in place of a natural process.
Based on probability and history it is reasonable to conclude that we will find a natural process for the origins of life. It makes no sense for god to use all these intricate natural phenomenon, then all of a sudden use a miracle to start it all. Also, he waited billions of years for some reason to create the earth, then billions more to create man. Seems implausible no?
what seperates people like you and people like me is that i will admit i do not have the answers. I could be wrong, in fact i would love for there to be a god. Honestly, an afterlife etc.. sounds great to me, knowing everything will be alright and someone is going to take care of me sounds grand. But i cant spend my life on delusion and want, especially if this is the only life i get. So if god wanted me to know about him he is doing a good job of hiding. Absolutely no evidence exists for his existence, and looking at creation i see beauty and awe, but i also see hatred, death, disease.
One i see in line with random chaos, the other is not compatible with a loving god.
-
Your right! However, it seems like there would be at least one transitional fossil found connecting one kind to another.
GC/DEA_AGENT
There are literally thousands of transitional fossils recovered, and that includes human transitional fossils. People will believe what they want to believe even with the evidence in front of them.
-
no problem.
:)
but yes, abiogenesis would have to come first.
Then how could evolution have occurred? Perhaps there is a new theory on this?
what i find astounding is that everything we have ever discovered has a natural process, a demonstrable process. So if god created the universe everything we know about it has a natural process, it is self sufficient. Thus, god intended this.
I agree!
if what some Christians believe is a hiccup and that abiogenesis never occurred, then why would god all of a sudden use a miracle in place of a natural process.
Well the way the Christians that I know, view this in a rational fashion. It may "appear" to be a miracle to us, but for God, it's not a miracle at all. A miracle, amazing to the eye of the beholder, is something beyond his ability to perform or even to understand fully, eh? It is also a powerful work, requiring greater power or knowledge than he (beholder)has. But from the viewpoint of the one who is the source of such power, it is not a miracle. He understands it and has the ability to do it. Thus, many acts that God performs are amazing to humans beholding them but are merely the exercise of His power. If a person believes in a deity, particularly in the God of creation, he cannot consistently deny God's power to accomplish things awe-inspiring to the eyes of men.
How, then, can anyone say that God violated His own laws in performing powerful works that seemed amazing and miraculous to men? Surely the Creator of the physical universe has perfect control of that which he created and can maneuver these things within the framework of the laws he has made inherent in them. (Job 38) He can bring about the condition necessary for the performance of these works; he can speed up, slow down, modify, or neutralize reactions. Or angels, with greater power than man, can do so in carrying out God's will.
Certainly the scientist is not superseding or going beyond physical laws when he applies more heat or cold, or more oxygen, and so forth, to speed up or slow down a chemical process, right? Nevertheless, skeptics challenge the Bible miracles, including the "miracle" of creation. These challengers are asserting, in effect, that they are familiar with all conditions and processes that ever took place. They are insisting that the operations of the Creator must be limited by the narrow confines of their understanding of the laws governing physical things.
This weakness on the part of scientists is acknowledged by a Swedish professor of plasma physics, who pointed out: "No one questions the obedience of the earth's atmosphere to the laws of mechanics and atomic physics. All the same, it may be extremely difficult for us to determine how these laws operate with respect to any given situation involving atmospheric phenomena." (Worlds-Antiworlds, by H. Alfven, 1966, p. 5) The professor applied this thought to the origin of the universe. God established the physical laws governing the earth, sun, and moon, and within their framework men have been able to do marvelous things. Surely God could bring the laws to play so as to produce a result unexpected by humans; it would present no problem for him to split the Red Sea so that "the waters were a wall" on each side. (Ex 14:22) Though, to man, walking on water is an astounding feat, with what ease it could be accomplished in the power of "the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gauze, who spreads them out like a tent in which to dwell." Further, God is described as creating, and having control of, all the things in the heavens, and it is said that "due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one of them is missing." (Isa 40:21, 22, 25, 26).
Since the acknowledgment of the existence of law, such as the law of gravity, presupposes a lawmaker of surpassing, superhuman intelligence and power, why question his ability to do marvelous things? Why try to limit his operation to the infinitesimally narrow scope of man’s knowledge and experience? The patriarch Job describes the darkness and foolishness into which God lets these go who thus pit their wisdom against his. (Job 12:16-25; compare Ro 1:18-23).
Based on probability and history it is reasonable to conclude that we will find a natural process for the origins of life. It makes no sense for god to use all these intricate natural phenomenon, then all of a sudden use a miracle to start it all.
See above.
Also, he waited billions of years for some reason to create the earth, then billions more to create man. Seems implausible no?
Well, I'm not sure on the billions, trillions, millions etc. From what I understand, these dating methods are not accurate. However, the Bible does support the order of creation as u mentioned. Now I'm not saying that these methods are astronomically off, just that from my research, they can be quiet skewed.
As far as implausible to create in the mentioned order/time frame, no it doesn't have any bearing on the validity/creditability of Creation. You've got me on this one. Why would you think this to be implausible?
what seperates people like you and people like me is that i will admit i do not have the answers. I could be wrong, in fact i would love for there to be a god. Honestly, an afterlife etc.. sounds great to me, knowing everything will be alright and someone is going to take care of me sounds grand. But i cant spend my life on delusion and want, especially if this is the only life i get. So if god wanted me to know about him he is doing a good job of hiding. Absolutely no evidence exists for his existence, and looking at creation i see beauty and awe, but i also see hatred, death, disease.
If God was real to you, you had no doubts about his existence, what is your view regarding Him using humans to bring about His message? Don't you think He would use us to do so? The Bible is loaded with this evidence you are looking for. Remember I ask you if you had genuinely studied it throughly? Try this first, then make your final decision. If you continue to listen just to people, you will always be tossed about, like a rowboat in the ocean during a tempest.
GC/DEA_AGENT
-
There are literally thousands of transitional fossils recovered, and that includes human transitional fossils. People will believe what they want to believe even with the evidence in front of them.
I have to agree with the bolded. So, can you point me to the sources of these fossils? I would definitely be interested in taking a look see! Peace!
GC/DEA_AGENT
-
:)
Then how could evolution have occurred? Perhaps there is a new theory on this?
I agree!
Well the way the Christians that I know, view this in a rational fashion. It may "appear" to be a miracle to us, but for God, it's not a miracle at all. A miracle, amazing to the eye of the beholder, is something beyond his ability to perform or even to understand fully, eh? It is also a powerful work, requiring greater power or knowledge than he (beholder)has. But from the viewpoint of the one who is the source of such power, it is not a miracle. He understands it and has the ability to do it. Thus, many acts that God performs are amazing to humans beholding them but are merely the exercise of His power. If a person believes in a deity, particularly in the God of creation, he cannot consistently deny God's power to accomplish things awe-inspiring to the eyes of men.
How, then, can anyone say that God violated His own laws in performing powerful works that seemed amazing and miraculous to men? Surely the Creator of the physical universe has perfect control of that which he created and can maneuver these things within the framework of the laws he has made inherent in them. (Job 38) He can bring about the condition necessary for the performance of these works; he can speed up, slow down, modify, or neutralize reactions. Or angels, with greater power than man, can do so in carrying out God's will.
Certainly the scientist is not superseding or going beyond physical laws when he applies more heat or cold, or more oxygen, and so forth, to speed up or slow down a chemical process, right? Nevertheless, skeptics challenge the Bible miracles, including the "miracle" of creation. These challengers are asserting, in effect, that they are familiar with all conditions and processes that ever took place. They are insisting that the operations of the Creator must be limited by the narrow confines of their understanding of the laws governing physical things.
This weakness on the part of scientists is acknowledged by a Swedish professor of plasma physics, who pointed out: "No one questions the obedience of the earth's atmosphere to the laws of mechanics and atomic physics. All the same, it may be extremely difficult for us to determine how these laws operate with respect to any given situation involving atmospheric phenomena." (Worlds-Antiworlds, by H. Alfven, 1966, p. 5) The professor applied this thought to the origin of the universe. God established the physical laws governing the earth, sun, and moon, and within their framework men have been able to do marvelous things. Surely God could bring the laws to play so as to produce a result unexpected by humans; it would present no problem for him to split the Red Sea so that "the waters were a wall" on each side. (Ex 14:22) Though, to man, walking on water is an astounding feat, with what ease it could be accomplished in the power of "the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gauze, who spreads them out like a tent in which to dwell." Further, God is described as creating, and having control of, all the things in the heavens, and it is said that "due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one of them is missing." (Isa 40:21, 22, 25, 26).
Since the acknowledgment of the existence of law, such as the law of gravity, presupposes a lawmaker of surpassing, superhuman intelligence and power, why question his ability to do marvelous things? Why try to limit his operation to the infinitesimally narrow scope of man’s knowledge and experience? The patriarch Job describes the darkness and foolishness into which God lets these go who thus pit their wisdom against his. (Job 12:16-25; compare Ro 1:18-23).
See above.
Well, I'm not sure on the billions, trillions, millions etc. From what I understand, these dating methods are not accurate. However, the Bible does support the order of creation as u mentioned. Now I'm not saying that these methods are astronomically off, just that from my research, they can be quiet skewed.
As far as implausible to create in the mentioned order/time frame, no it doesn't have any bearing on the validity/creditability of Creation. You've got me on this one. Why would you think this to be implausible?
If God was real to you, you had no doubts about his existence, what is your view regarding Him using humans to bring about His message? Don't you think He would use us to do so? The Bible is loaded with this evidence you are looking for. Remember I ask you if you had genuinely studied it throughly? Try this first, then make your final decision. If you continue to listen just to people, you will always be tossed about, like a rowboat in the ocean during a tempest.
GC/DEA_AGENT
no abiogenesis fits perfectly with evolution, i think you are confused abit.
ill read the rest later as im toasted.
-
no abiogenesis fits perfectly with evolution, i think you are confused abit.
ill read the rest later as im toasted.
but yes, abiogenesis would have to come first.
Well, abiogensis from what I'm understanding is not possible to have occurred, how could the "rest" of evolution occurred? Doesn't macro evolution need abiogensis to have happened first? (see your above quote)
See below reference regarding impossibility for abiogensis to have occurred.
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=213504.msg4178984#msg4178984
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=213504.msg4178984#msg4178984)
I'm I making sense now?
GC/DEA_AGENT
-
there is, would you like some examples?
Yes.
GC/DEA_AGENT
-
I have to agree with the bolded. So, can you point me to the sources of these fossils? I would definitely be interested in taking a look see! Peace!
GC/DEA_AGENT
-
I may not have understood, but I just don't see the conncection. What I deemed lesson wise from that is the fact that the species do have similarities. However, I'm not seeing the transistion to another species, especially into humans with this example.
GC/DEA_AGNENT
-
I may not have understood, but I just don't see the conncection. What I deemed lesson wise from that is the fact that the species do have similarities. However, I'm not seeing the transistion to another species, especially into humans with this example.
GC/DEA_AGNENT
What don't you see? We all know that whales are mammals yet they live in the water. Knowing that fact, you should at least have thought that they were land animals at one point in time. This is just a fossil of one transition. This is not the only transitional fossil for whales, there were many others that weren't quite right for the environment so they went extinct, never transforming into the modern whale. You are falling into the trap of the term "species." In between "species" is a whole lot of transition that spans millions or billions of years, so if you are set on looking for a human fossil with an ape tail, you will be disappointed. They might find it one day, but maybe not in your lifetime.
-
What don't you see? We all know that whales are mammals yet they live in the water. Knowing that fact, you should at least have thought that they were land animals at one point in time. This is just a fossil of one transition. This is not the only transitional fossil for whales, there were many others that weren't quite right for the environment so they went extinct, never transforming into the modern whale. You are falling into the trap of the term "species." In between "species" is a whole lot of transition that spans millions or billions of years, so if you are set on looking for a human fossil with an ape tail, you will be disappointed. They might find it one day, but maybe not in your lifetime.
I see your point. However, until we find the final transition fossil of one species/kind to another, and the fact that abiogensis couldn't of occurred, which means evolution (macro) couldn't have happened, then I have to stick with creation being the way life began.
Also, don't you find it odd that they can find all these older fossils, yet can't find the "last" step/transitional fossil to bridge the gap between one species to another? It seems like they would at least have found one. Wouldn't the "last" transitional fossils be more abundant, due to the fact they would be the youngest in the fossil record?
GC/DEA_AGENT
-
I see your point. However, until we find the final transition fossil of one species/kind to another, and the fact that abiogensis couldn't of occurred, which means evolution (macro) couldn't have happened, then I have to stick with creation being the way life began.
Also, don't you find it odd that they can find all these older fossils, yet can't find the "last" step/transitional fossil to bridge the gap between one species to another? It seems like they would at least have found one. Wouldn't the "last" transitional fossils be more abundant, due to the fact they would be the youngest in the fossil record?
GC/DEA_AGENT
You make it sound like it's that easy to recover fossils. Luck is the number one factor in finding good fossils. There are way too many scenarios to happen for someone to eventually find a fossil. Just think about it.
The critter has to die, it's body cannot be scavenged by other animals, it has to be buried somehow by dirt or mud, or ice, its bones cannot be scattered, it should be buried deep enough that erosion wouldn't get to it before someone finds it, and that someone has to be from our time because people from 1-2 million years ago could care less what it was they were looking at, etc... there are many more scenarios involved. I'm not about to go to that "safe" bet of "creation" considering there are plenty more feasible scenarios.
-
Well, abiogensis from what I'm understanding is not possible to have occurred, how could the "rest" of evolution occurred? Doesn't macro evolution need abiogensis to have happened first? (see your above quote)
See below reference regarding impossibility for abiogensis to have occurred.
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=213504.msg4178984#msg4178984
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=213504.msg4178984#msg4178984)
I'm I making sense now?
GC/DEA_AGENT
well the statistics there are wrong. It happened, we know this because we can see self replicating rna peptides, single cells forming eukryotic cells. The debate is not wether it happened, but how.
-
I see your point. However, until we find the final transition fossil of one species/kind to another, and the fact that abiogensis couldn't of occurred, which means evolution (macro) couldn't have happened, then I have to stick with creation being the way life began.
GC/DEA_AGENT
haha hilarious....until I see transitional fossils (proof) I will stick to creation being the way of life.What's the proof for creation?some old scrolls people found and decided to add some and leave some out then translated and put them in book form and called it the holy bible...Really?
-
I see your point. However, until we find the final transition fossil of one species/kind to another, and the fact that abiogensis couldn't of occurred, which means evolution (macro) couldn't have happened, then I have to stick with creation being the way life began.
Also, don't you find it odd that they can find all these older fossils, yet can't find the "last" step/transitional fossil to bridge the gap between one species to another? It seems like they would at least have found one. Wouldn't the "last" transitional fossils be more abundant, due to the fact they would be the youngest in the fossil record?
GC/DEA_AGENT
you know what the probability is of the the physical natural laws obtaining there values are? much more unrealistic, yet it happened. Abiogenesis happened.
we have all kinds of transitional fossils of humans.
-
well the statistics there are wrong. It happened, we know this because we can see self replicating rna peptides, single cells forming eukryotic cells. The debate is not wether it happened, but how.
Where did the energy come from to fuel the production of the RNA molecules. I know they had it in the lab, but where did it come from if this scenario happened to start life? Did these RNA peptides replicate themselves from scratch? There is also the issue of where RNA came from in the first place.
Also, since a protein needs information from DNA molecules, and DNA needs several forms of specialized RNA molecules, not to mention the various enzymes, each performing a distinct and vital role, it requires copies of all three components --- DNA, RNA, and protein. Take away any one of the three and life grinds to a halt. Or take this a step further. Without a complete and functioning team, life could not have come about.
It just seems like with the example you have given, it's still not conceivable/possible for life to have begin. Is it reasonable that each of those three molecular team players arose spontaneously at the same time, in the same place, and so precisely tuned that they could combine to work their wonders? Just asking? :)
Even in the simplest forms of life, the DNA chain is still extremely complex. For example, around 1971 biologists mapped out only about one third of the genes along the DNA spiral in the elementary intestinal bacterium known as Escherichia coli.
If man with his intelligence takes twenty years just to map the composition of a few genes, how would blind forces ever gather the needed material, put it together and make it operate in this complex way? If its DNA chain was only, say, three-quarters or nine-tenths complete, not even a one-celled animal could come to life. The creature would have had to appear whole, all together, at once, or not at all.
I don't know, maybe u can direct to me where there is new evidence showing that these 3 componets of life could have spontaneously formed at the same time.
GC/DEA_AGENT
-
you know what the probability is of the the physical natural laws obtaining there values are? much more unrealistic, yet it happened. Abiogenesis happened.
we have all kinds of transitional fossils of humans.
Where are these fossils? Laws usually require a lawmaker, eh? I hope you don't gamble. U are putting allot of "faith" in those odds.
GC/DEA_AGENT
-
.What's the proof for creation?some old scrolls people found and decided to add some and leave some out then translated and put them in book form and called it the holy bible...Really?
Well, big L dawg, have you ever studied the Bible in depth? With a sincere open mind attitude? Until you do, wouldn't it be reasonable to try it?
GC/DEA_AGENT
-
Well, big L dawg, have you ever studied the Bible in depth? With a sincere open mind attitude? Until you do, wouldn't it be reasonable to try it?
GC/DEA_AGENT
actually I have..but thats not the point.your saying you need proof regarding transitional fossils yet you don't need proof of creation.Right?...I mean no more proof than a book & some preachers to back it up..Am I correct in this?If not please elaborate.
-
actually I have..but thats not the point.your saying you need proof regarding transitional fossils yet you don't need proof of creation.Right?...
It is the point for me. And yes, I do need proof of creation. The Bible provides that, also life itself attest to it. To much design in the world. Also, review the post regarding origin of life. The odds are just to staggering, to accept it all started without a designer/intellect.
I mean no more proof than a book & some preachers to back it up..Am I correct in this?If not please elaborate.
I have studied the Bible for around 17 years now, and yet have been able to find it in error. What the main problem with these "preachers" is, they are not accurate in portraying what the Bible teaches. No wonder people don't trust it. Maybe you could study with someone who really teaches what the Bible says, then make your decision.
GC/DEA_AGENT
-
You make it sound like it's that easy to recover fossils. Luck is the number one factor in finding good fossils. There are way too many scenarios to happen for someone to eventually find a fossil. Just think about it.
The critter has to die, it's body cannot be scavenged by other animals, it has to be buried somehow by dirt or mud, or ice, its bones cannot be scattered, it should be buried deep enough that erosion wouldn't get to it before someone finds it, and that someone has to be from our time because people from 1-2 million years ago could care less what it was they were looking at, etc... there are many more scenarios involved. I'm not about to go to that "safe" bet of "creation" considering there are plenty more feasible scenarios.
This just makes my argument more likely. Like you are saying the odds are high for finding fossils to begin with. So, how can they only find the older fossils, and not the younger? Wouldn't the "last"/"younger" transitional fossils be more likely to find being that they should be more abundant?
GC/DEA_AGENT
-
This just makes my argument more likely. Like you are saying the odds are high for finding fossils to begin with. So, how can they only find the older fossils, and not the younger? Wouldn't the "last"/"younger" transitional fossils be more likely to find being that they should be more abundant?
GC/DEA_AGENT
what do you think the odds are of a being more complex then the universe. IF you are saying that the universe is to complex to arisen by chance then you must logically apply this argument to an even more complex being ie god.
your argument doesnt answer anything and clouds the picture more. Everything we have ever discovered started simple, and builds in complexity. look at technology for a microcosm of the universe. Yet you want to place a super complex being creating simple, basically rearranging the process. There are two arguments why your argument makes no sense.
To top it off, the fact that one thing may be wrong, doesnt make another right. The default position is not god. Also, complexity isnt an argument for your god in particular to begin with and using the bible as proof of the bible is circular logic to the core.
the odds dont matter. in fact there is a good video of a mathematician explaining probability that you might want to view, ill see if i can find it. It reminds me of the plane in a junkyard argument that get debunked over and over.
so if the universe based on complexity beegs creation, then a more complex being ie god does to, you cant have it both ways.
-
This just makes my argument more likely. Like you are saying the odds are high for finding fossils to begin with. So, how can they only find the older fossils, and not the younger? Wouldn't the "last"/"younger" transitional fossils be more likely to find being that they should be more abundant?
GC/DEA_AGENT
You have some reading comprehension problems. Either that or you're purposely not reading what I'm typing.
I already stated why.
-
This just makes my argument more likely. Like you are saying the odds are high for finding fossils to begin with. So, how can they only find the older fossils, and not the younger? Wouldn't the "last"/"younger" transitional fossils be more likely to find being that they should be more abundant?
GC/DEA_AGENT
what do you think the odds are of a being more complex then the universe. IF you are saying that the universe is to complex to arisen by chance then you must logically apply this argument to an even more complex being ie god.
I do, God is more complex.
your argument doesnt answer anything and clouds the picture more. Everything we have ever discovered started simple, and builds in complexity. look at technology for a microcosm of the universe.
I don't understand how you can say that. The simplest life form, is loaded with complexity.
To top it off, the fact that one thing may be wrong, doesnt make another right.
True, however I wasn't trying to conclude that is the case. My point is that evolution is not possible, especially when abiogenesis couldn't have happened. Of course I'm going to default to God, simply because I believe in His existence.
Even if I wasn't a believer in God, my points are good. There is still no way that evolution (macro) is a possibility. I would have to look for some other vehicle.
The default position is not god. Also, complexity isnt an argument for your god in particular to begin with and using
It is for a believer. If your not a believer, then you have to search for some other way that life originated. Evolution isn't plausible.
the bible as proof of the bible is circular logic to the core.
If you haven't studied the bible with the attitude I had mentioned earlier, then how can you be so sure about what the Bible teaches.
However, I'm not using the Bible to prove the Bible. Where did you get that from? The truth is that Christians find the Bible's viewpoint on basic facts to be logical and in harmony with observable realities. Again, I encourage you to study it in depth, and with a open mind.
the odds dont matter.
It should when they are outrageously astronomical.
so if the universe based on complexity beegs creation, then a more complex being ie god does to, you cant have it both ways.
Our minds cannot fully comprehend it. But that is not a sound reason for rejecting it. Consider examples: (1) Time. No one can point to a certain moment as the beginning of time. And it is a fact that, even though our lives end, time does not. We do not reject the idea of time because there are aspects of it that we do not fully comprehend. Rather, we regulate our lives by it. (2) Space. Astronomers find no beginning or end to space. The farther they probe into the universe, the more there is. They do not reject what the evidence shows; many refer to space as being infinite. The same principle applies to the existence of God.
Other examples: (1) Astronomers tell us that the heat of the sun at its core is 27,000,000 degrees Fahrenheit (15,000,000° C.). Do we reject that idea because we cannot fully comprehend such intense heat? (2) They tell us that the size of our Milky Way is so great that a beam of light traveling at over 186,000 miles per second (300,000 km/sec) would require 100,000 years to cross it. Do our minds really comprehend such a distance? Yet we accept it because scientific evidence supports it.
Which is more reasonable ---that the universe is the product of a living, intelligent Creator? or that it must have arisen simply by chance from a nonliving source without intelligent direction? Some persons adopt the latter viewpoint because to believe otherwise would mean that they would have to acknowledge the existence of a Creator whose qualities they cannot fully comprehend. But it is well known that scientists do not fully comprehend the functioning of the genes that are within living cells and that determine how these cells will grow. Nor do they fully understand the functioning of the human brain. Yet, who would deny that these exist? Should we really expect to understand everything about a Person who is so great that he could bring into existence the universe, with all its intricate design and stupendous size?
So, where are these "younger/last step transitional fossils? They should be more abundant due to the fact that they would HAVE been the last fossil to have formed? How can they only find older fossils, which create huge gaps between these species?
GC/DEA_AGENT
-
This just makes my argument more likely. Like you are saying the odds are high for finding fossils to begin with. So, how can they only find the older fossils, and not the younger? Wouldn't the "last"/"younger" transitional fossils be more likely to find being that they should be more abundant?
You have some reading comprehension problems. Either that or you're purposely not reading what I'm typing.
I already stated why.
Where?
GC/DEA_AGENt
-
look at technology for a microcosm of the universe.
What is your reasoning on this? How are you seeing technology as being a microcosm of the universe. Just curious.
GC/DEA_AGENt
-
no it proves that humans can have two heads ::), however, the other skulls of humans and the study of anatomy allows us to make inferences, your simplistic view is entirely inccorect. We know the structure of the human skeleton and possible deformities, we also know homology of tons of other animals, which are quite similar.
You do not need the entire fossil record because, one, that is impossible, two we could already have every fossil as fossils are hard to come by, and the corroborating evidence confounds the fossil record.
we have hundreds of transitional fossils, clear exmaples of macroevolution etc..
let me geuss the guy who wrote this book is religious?
Actually, what's simplistic is the view that if you find one fossil you can make an assumption about macroevolution of multiple species. Makes no sense, at least from a scientific standpoint.
No, the guy who wrote the book isn't religious. But so what if he was? He doesn't talk about religion at all in his book. He believes the earth is billions of years old. You should try broadening your horizons and read the book. It will challenge much of what we have been taught and believe about life on earth.
-
what theory?
evolution says nothing about origins, the whole title of this thread is incorrect, and you further the ignorance by making a claim.
abiogenesis is the study of origins a totally seperate theory.
Pure hair splitting. Sounds to me like there is no scientific theory for the origin of life on earth.
-
Richard Dawkins said aliens from outer space came to earth and planted the goo from which the first single cell emerged, from which all living things later evolved.
-
Richard Dawkins said aliens from outer space came to earth and planted the goo from which the first single cell emerged, from which all living things later evolved.
jesus not you to, he said it is more of a possibility then a ultra powerful god creating life from nothing.
-
Pure hair splitting. Sounds to me like there is no scientific theory for the origin of life on earth.
ive given you one, which has shown to work theoretically. You are unwillingly to accept anything other then god, admit this to yourself at least, you are completely closed minded. You think that god is an appropriate hypothesis meanwhile everything on earth screams at you, there is no god.
You come up with weird rationalizations to make it fit, but it never will and when all else fails you claim faith as if it makes you immune to justification.
evolution is not abiogenesis, you asking for evolution to supply the answer is like asking gravity to supply the answer.
-
ive given you one, which has shown to work theoretically. You are unwillingly to accept anything other then god, admit this to yourself at least, you are completely closed minded. You think that god is an appropriate hypothesis meanwhile everything on earth screams at you, there is no god.
You come up with weird rationalizations to make it fit, but it never will and when all else fails you claim faith as if it makes you immune to justification.
evolution is not abiogenesis, you asking for evolution to supply the answer is like asking gravity to supply the answer.
You said that abiogenesis HAD to happen first, remember? I don't know, maybe you are ahead of the times here, however, there is a source, besides Christians that disagree with you.
no problem,sorry if i come across as a dick, i am.
but yes, abiogenesis would have to come first.
"–noun Biology. the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation." --- Dictionary.com
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=213504.msg4178984#msg4178984
GC/DEA_AGENT
-
jesus not you to, he said it is more of a possibility then a ultra powerful god creating life from nothing.
No, that's not what he said. The video has been posted here before. He said that aliens from outer space came to earth and planted the goo from which the first single cell emerged, from which all living things later evolved. And he said that those aliens themselves would have evolved in the same way that all living things on earth have.
-
No, that's not what he said. The video has been posted here before. He said that aliens from outer space came to earth and planted the goo from which the first single cell emerged, from which all living things later evolved. And he said that those aliens themselves would have evolved in the same way that all living things on earth have.
I would actually believe that b 4 I would the fairy tails Christians believe.
-
I would actually believe that b 4 I would the fairy tails Christians believe.
It's okay, big dog! Nobody is perfect!
-
No, that's not what he said. The video has been posted here before. He said that aliens from outer space came to earth and planted the goo from which the first single cell emerged, from which all living things later evolved. And he said that those aliens themselves would have evolved in the same way that all living things on earth have.
Please say you're joking, Loco!!. You mean to tell me, that the atheist poster-boy-flavor-of-the-month, Mr. Logic-and-Reason, who (to skeptics) is tantamount to what the Jonas Brothers are to pre-teen girls, believes that alien goo randomly evolved into life on Earth?
And, this guy has the gall to take potshots at Creationists? <<<<pause for hysterical, belly-busting laughter>>>>
I've heard of "Goo-to-you-by-way-of-the-zoo". But, forget the cake; this takes the whole darn bakery.
I would actually believe that b 4 I would the fairy tails Christians believe.
The words is, "TALES", Rhodes scholar!! And what Christians believe are anything but that.
-
Please say you're joking, Loco!!. You mean to tell me, that the atheist poster-boy-flavor-of-the-month, Mr. Logic-and-Reason, who (to skeptics) is tantamount to what the Jonas Brothers are to pre-teen girls, believes that alien goo randomly evolved into life on Earth?
And, this guy has the gall to take potshots at Creationists? <<<<pause for hysterical, belly-busting laughter>>>>
I've heard of "Goo-to-you-by-way-of-the-zoo". But, forget the cake; this takes the whole darn bakery.
The words is, "TALES", Rhodes scholar!! And what Christians believe are anything but that.
I'm not joking, MCWAY! I don't remember the exact words, but that's pretty much what he said. He then rushed to his website RichardDawkins.net to defend and to explain to his fans what he had said on the video.
I thought you had seen the video before. I'll see if I can dig it up and re-post it.
-
I'm not joking, MCWAY! I don't remember the exact words, but that's pretty much what he said. He then rushed to his website RichardDawkins.net to defend and to explain to his fans what he had said on the video.
I thought you had seen the video before. I'll see if I can dig it up and re-post it.
That, along with comment like those from L Dawg, just verify that this issue isn't so much about science. It's about PHILOSOPHY, namely a God-centered philosophy vs. a man-centered one.
The mere fact that they would believe in "goo" from aliens (who don't hold them accountable for their actions and behavior and don't have any standards of right and wrong), shows that their beef lied with Scripture and with religious institutions. We know that's a fact with Dawkins, based on several factors, among them unfortunately his being molested by a parishoner.
-
That, along with comment like those from L Dawg, just verify that this issue isn't so much about science. It's about PHILOSOPHY, namely a God-centered philosophy vs. a man-centered one.
The mere fact that they would believe in "goo" from aliens (who don't hold them accountable for their actions and behavior and don't have any standards of right and wrong), shows that their beef lied with Scripture and with religious institutions. We know that's a fact with Dawkins, based on several factors, among them unfortunately his being molested by a parishoner.
why do you make the pressumption that we are held accountable? you guys are missing his point as usual, it is infinitly more likey that if life was created here, aliens that live in the universe are themore likely candidates for obvious reasons.
-
why do you make the pressumption that we are held accountable? you guys are missing his point as usual, it is infinitly more likey that if life was created here, aliens that live in the universe are themore likely candidates for obvious reasons.
The "obvious reasons" are your disdain for Scripture and for the existence of God.
The point you are missing is that there is but little difference between the belief that aliens dropped "goo" on this planey and the belief that God created live on this planet, in that BOTH hold that a being higher than man is responsible for life on Earth.
Again, aliens don't have commandments and laws; nor do they hold you accountable for such. That's why Dawkins would rather make his alien claim.
-
you don't need Scripture or commandments to live a decent life and be a good person....I'm just good for goodness sake.
-
ive given you one, which has shown to work theoretically. You are unwillingly to accept anything other then god, admit this to yourself at least, you are completely closed minded. You think that god is an appropriate hypothesis meanwhile everything on earth screams at you, there is no god.
You come up with weird rationalizations to make it fit, but it never will and when all else fails you claim faith as if it makes you immune to justification.
evolution is not abiogenesis, you asking for evolution to supply the answer is like asking gravity to supply the answer.
You have given me a theory called abiogenesis, which hasn't been observed in a lab, has not been tested, and cannot be proved.
And there you go bringing up God and religion again. You and people who share your beliefs simply cannot discuss this issue without bringing up God and religion. Is it really that hard to discuss your faith-based belief in the origin of life on earth without bringing up God, the Bible, etc.?
-
Richard Dawkins: "A higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe" possibly designed and seeded a form of life into this planet.
-
you don't need Scripture or commandments to live a decent life and be a good person....I'm just good for goodness sake.
"Good" as defined by whom or what? In order for you or anyone else to be deemed "good" vs. "bad", there must be a certain standard, against which such is measured.
The issue here is that the alien 'goo' proponents don't particularly care for the prospect of a being accountable to a being higher than themselves.
-
Richard Dawkins: "A higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe" possibly designed and seeded a form of life into this planet.
still missing the point,doctored video also.
the whole documentary is a sham.
the proponents of "goo" are rational and realize that we have never found a supernatural explanation for anything, thus it is logical to conclude there likely isn't. On top of that saying god did it explains nothing and further complicates the scenario, why do you not see that?
-
still missing the point,doctored video also.
the whole documentary is a sham.
the proponents of "goo" are rational and realize that we have never found a supernatural explanation for anything, thus it is logical to conclude there likely isn't. On top of that saying god did it explains nothing and further complicates the scenario, why do you not see that?
Necrosis,
This particular video is not doctored. After this got out, Richard Dawkins rushed to his website with some lame, drawn out excuse to explain to his fans what he meant, and to deny that he really believes what he himself claimed on the video. See below.
Notice how he does not deny anything he said on the video, while conveniently leaving out certain things he did say, like him saying that we can probably find evidence of a "designer" in our DNA.
Richard Dawkins:
"Toward the end of his interview with me, Stein asked whether I could think of any circumstances whatsoever under which intelligent design might have occurred. It's the kind of challenge I relish, and I set myself the task of imagining the most plausible scenario I could. I wanted to give ID its best shot, however poor that best shot might be. I must have been feeling magnanimous that day, because I was aware that the leading advocates of Intelligent Design are very fond of protesting that they are not talking about God as the designer, but about some unnamed and unspecified intelligence, which might even be an alien from another planet. Indeed, this is the only way they differentiate themselves from fundamentalist creationists, and they do it only when they need to, in order to weasel their way around church/state separation laws. So, bending over backwards to accommodate the IDiots ("oh NOOOOO, of course we aren't talking about God, this is SCIENCE") and bending over backwards to make the best case I could for intelligent design, I constructed a science fiction scenario. ... I patiently explained to him that life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar -- semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent 'crane' (to quote Dan Dennett). My point here was that design can never be an ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity. Even if life on Earth was seeded by intelligent designers on another planet, and even if the alien life form was itself seeded four billion years earlier, the regress must ultimately be terminated (and we have only some 13 billion years to play with because of the finite age of the universe). Organized complexity cannot just spontaneously happen. That, for goodness sake, is the creationists' whole point, when they bang on about eyes and bacterial flagella! Evolution by natural selection is the only known process whereby organized complexity can ultimately come into being. Organized complexity -- and that includes everything capable of designing anything intelligently -- comes LATE into the universe. It cannot exist at the beginning, as I have explained again and again in my writings.
This 'Ultimate 747' argument, as I called it in The God Delusion, may or may not persuade you. That is not my concern here. My concern here is that my science fiction thought experiment -- however implausible -- was designed to illustrate intelligent design's closest approach to being plausible. I was most emphatically NOT saying that I believed the thought experiment. Quite the contrary. I do not believe it (and I don't think Francis Crick believed it either). I was bending over backwards to make the best case I could for a form of intelligent design. And my clear implication was that the best case I could make was a very implausible case indeed. In other words, I was using the thought experiment as a way of demonstrating strong opposition to all theories of intelligent design.
Well, you will have guessed how Mathis/Stein handled this. I won't get the exact words right (we were forbidden to bring in recording devices on pain of a $250,000 fine, chillingly announced by some unnamed Gauleiter before the film began), but Stein said something like this. "What? Richard Dawkins BELIEVES IN INTELLIGENT DESIGN." "Richard Dawkins BELIEVES IN ALIENS FROM OUTER SPACE." I can't remember whether this was the moment in the film where we were regaled with another Lord Privy Seal cut to an old science fiction movie with some kind of android figure — that may have been used in the service of trying to ridicule Francis Crick (again, dutiful titters from the partisan audience)."
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins
-
Richard Dawkins: "A higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe" possibly designed and seeded a form of life into this planet.
Bump. If you haven't watched this clip, please do. Avowed atheist Richard Dawkins says no one knows how life on earth originated, but that the seed could have been planted here by a "higher intelligence."
-
Bump. If you haven't watched this clip, please do. Avowed atheist Richard Dawkins says no one knows how life on earth originated, but that the seed could have been planted here by a "higher intelligence."
ive seen the whole movie, dawkins is saying that it is possible life was engineered on earth by other beings who themselves a product of evolution and natural causes. He never, ever states that it is a supernatural being nor god, what does your quote prove? It proves he is rational, willingly to admit when he does not know something, entertain possibilities but not jump to conclusions.
could life have been made on earth? he answered the question with a truthful rational response.
-
ive seen the whole movie, dawkins is saying that it is possible life was engineered on earth by other beings who themselves a product of evolution and natural causes. He never, ever states that it is a supernatural being nor god, what does your quote prove? It proves he is rational, willingly to admit when he does not know something, entertain possibilities but not jump to conclusions.
could life have been made on earth? he answered the question with a truthful rational response.
Necrosis he said a civilization could have evolved from some Darwinian means somewhere in the universe and then planted the seeds of life on earth. Do you agree with him?
-
Richard Dawkins: "A higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe" possibly designed and seeded a form of life into this planet.
Ben Stein: What do think is the possibility that there then, intelligent design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics... or in evolution?
Richard Dawkins: Well... it could come about in the following way: it could be that uh, at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization e-evolved... by probably by some kind of Darwinian means to a very very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto... perhaps this... this planet. Um, now that is a possibility. And uh, an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the um, at the detail... details of our chemistry molecular biology you might find a signature of some sort of designer.
Ben Stein: [voice over] Wait a second. Richard Dawkins thought intelligent design might be a legitimate pursuit?
Richard Dawkins: Um, and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. But that higher intelligence would itself would have to come about by some explicable or ultimately explicable process. It couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That's the point.
Ben Stein: [voice over] So professor Dawkins was not against intelligent design, just certain types of designers. Such as God.
-
Necrosis he said a civilization could have evolved from some Darwinian means somewhere in the universe and then planted the seeds of life on earth. Do you agree with him?
no i dont agree with him, abiogenesis is a very complex topic, he is not an expert in the field.
Loco:
suggesting something inside the universe is ok, once you suggest something outside the universe you are now speculating and spitting conjecture. I still see no problem with his statement, not sure what is so hard to grasp, he is still referring to natural beings, not a god.
Also, the comprehension of the above is poor as well, he said "could have". The question was posed about intelligent design and he gave the only plausible answer if it were possible.
Again, nothing of substance in that interview, just people getting excited over nothing.
-
Bump.
-
Bump.
what are your objections to my rebuttal? do you realize this documentary is terrible and has many lies right. But once i show you this you will just mentally move on and cling to something else, show some strength man. There is no sky daddy, evolution is a fact, just be fine with not knowing the answers and the possibility that this is it, that this is life.
Here, observe the lies in this documentary
richard sternberg, the guy who claims he was expelled: hint he lied and is a liar
The first question asked by BSW members was “how did this paper ever get published?” According to the Council of the Biological Society of Washington, Sternberg failed to follow proper procedure in publishing the paper: “Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history.” The BSW withdrew the paper in embarrassment, emphasizing that the paper was substandard science. It commented that the society endorsed “a resolution on ID published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml), which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID as a testable hypothesis to explain the origin of organic diversity. Accordingly, the Meyer paper does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings.”
Pamela winnick
So Winnick was advocating intelligent design. Even so, this sounds like a poor basis for being blacklisted as a journalist – but there is no evidence that this ever happened. As a supposedly “blacklisted” reporter, Winnick continued to write for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette until August 2002, almost two years after she began her supposedly career-ending articles on intelligent design; she continues to write occasional guest columns for them (including an anti-evolution opinion piece in December 2005), and has written recent articles for the Weekly Standard and the Wall Street Journal.
She also wrote a book, A Jealous God: Science’s Crusade Against Religion, published in 2005, which was described by the foundation funding her research as “analyzing why there seems to be little tolerance for teaching creationism in America.” The book received a negative review from a writer at her previous employer, the Post-Gazette – which nonetheless still publishes her work.
anyway every single person in the video is a liar, a fraud a self serving moron. Ben stein knows nothing about evolution. here are his claims debunked. he is a moron
The Claim
Large numbers of scientists are secretly questioning evolution. “One on one, in a scientific meeting, after the third or fourth beer, my experience has been that many evolutionary biologists will say, “Yeah, this theory’s got a lot of problems.” (Paul Nelson, Expelled)
The Facts
For a movie obsessed with evolution, it is odd that Expelled never bothers to define evolution properly. The big idea of biological evolution is that living things have common ancestors: that they have descended with modification from earlier forms. To understand evolution, we have to study the pattern that the branching tree of life has taken through time as well as the processes or mechanisms that bring about the changes. It is well documented by statements from scientific societies large and small (see Voices for Evolution) that scientists no longer feel any need to debate whether evolution took place; what they are doing now is working out the details. Scientists agree that natural selection, genetic drift, gene flow, genetic recombination, mutation, and symbiosis are major evolutionary processes, but they continue to debate the relative importance of each mechanism to the history and diversity of life. Similarly, scientists agree on the basic contours of the tree of life, although they continue to refine and revise the picture in detail in the light of further data and theory.
Expelled confuses the debates among scientists about the details of evolution – how it works and what descended from what – with a nonexistent dispute about whether evolution occurred. This approach plays into the conspiracy theme of the movie: somehow, scientists are scheming to keep the unwary public from learning the truth about the supposed falsity of evolution. Science, however, rewards dissent and independence of thought – when it has a solid base. Scientists are an independent lot who find success and professional advancement by successfully overturning established ideas and through vigorously debating the evidence supporting scientific interpretations in scientific conferences and journals. The thought that anyone could herd them together to conspire against anything – even intelligent design – is laughable. One may as well conspire to herd a roomful of cats.
The Claim
“When we see an elite – and it is an elite – an elite that controls essentially all the research money in science saying ‘There is no such thing as moral truth, science will not be related to religion.’ I mean, it’s essentially official policy at the National Academy of Sciences, that religion and science will not be related.” (Jeffrey Schwartz, Expelled)
The Facts
Expelled claims that an atheistic, amoral scientific elite is barring the door to the consideration of ideas like intelligent design that include a religious component. Yet scientists who are religious also perform science without bringing God in as part of their theories. Scientific theories do not include God because scientific theories must be tested. Testing requires holding constant some variables, and no one can “control” God; therefore, scientific explanations are restricted to the natural causes that are testable. All scientists work this way, whether they are religious or nonreligious. This is a practical restriction on what science can do, not a philosophical or moral restriction imposed by some elite.
The implication that the National Academy of Sciences is anti-religious is equally absurd. In 2008, their booklet Science, Evolution, and Creationism answers the question “Aren’t evolution and religion opposing ideas?” by writing:
Newspaper and television stories sometimes make it seem as though evolution and religion are incompatible, but that is not true. Many scientists and theologians have written about how one can accept both faith and the validity of biological evolution. Many past and current scientists who have made major contributions to our understanding of the world have been devoutly religious. At the same time, many religious people accept the reality of evolution, and many religious denominations have issued emphatic statements reflecting this acceptance.
The Claim
“If Darwin wanted to challenge the consensus today, how would he do it? Science is not a hobby for rich aristocrats anymore, it’s a multi-million-dollar industry. And if you want a piece of the pie, you’ve got to be a good comrade.” (Ben Stein, Expelled).
The Facts
New scientific views challenge the consensus all the time. Is intelligent design being kept out of the scientific consensus because of some “old boy” network that requires scientists to “go along to get along?” Hardly. New scientific ideas do get a hearing – that is how a scientist makes a reputation, after all.
In the 1980s and 1990s, Carl Woese proposed a radical rearrangement of the evolutionary tree of life, splitting bacteria into two groups and dividing life into three “domains,” rather than the traditional five kingdoms. As he produced new evidence for this approach, his colleagues began to apply his ideas in their own papers. When it became accepted within the scientific community, textbook authors rewrote the chapters on the classification of life, and college professors and high school teachers were glad to modify their lesson plans.
Darwinian evolution and Mendelian genetics both went through a similar process, as did Einstein’s theories of special and general relativity, plate tectonics, Big Bang cosmology, and the atomic theory. We have cataloged a number of recent biological theories that faced intense criticism, surviving and becoming well-accepted and acclaimed, and then were incorporated into pre-college textbooks and curricula.
Thus far, intelligent design hasn’t made a scientific case that its proposals help us understand nature, and the ideas have not generated the sort of research which led Woese’s ideas to wide acceptance. Protestations in Expelled to the contrary, scientists knowledgeable about relevant subject areas have critiqued intelligent design – it has not merely been waved away without consideration (see reviews of classic intelligent design statements like Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box and William Dembski’s The Design Inference) The burden of proof is upon intelligent design advocates to show through scientific research that intelligent design is a useful scientific proposition. If they did, the science-funding agency review panels would gladly fund such research. As things stand now, intelligent design can be considered neither scientific nor useful for understanding nature.
There has been a history of promissory notes from intelligent design proponents, but where is the actual research? Here we can agree with intelligent design proponent Stephen C. Meyer when he says, “The debate isn’t going to be settled by numbers, it’s going to be settled by the evidence and the arguments.” But these arguments must be made to the scientific community, not to the movie-going public.
Expelled makes so many erroneous claims about the science of evolution that it would require several movies to correct the record. Whenever Ben Stein talks about evolution, the viewer should remember that actor-pundits are not known for their scientific training. There simply is not time to correct so much misinformation, but www.expelledexposed.com would like to set the record straight on at least some examples.
The Claim
“Darwinism also has not one meaningful word to say on the origins of organic life, a striking lacuna in a theory supposedly explaining life”. (Ben Stein, Darwinism: The Imperialism of Biology, on Expelled The Movie blog.)
The Facts
Darwin wasn’t trying to explain the origin of life; you could just as easily complain that the theory of island biogeography doesn’t explain the origin of islands. Darwin himself says, in the Origin of Species, “It is no valid objection that science as yet throws no light on the far higher problem of the essence or origin of life” (Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. 6th edition, 1882. p. 421). (On the same page, Darwin notes, “Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.” Here, at least, is one place where the makers of Expelled apparently agree with Darwin.)
Darwin was writing 150 years ago. We no more expect modern evolutionary theory to be dependent on what Darwin knew in the 19th century than we expect modern physics to be dependent on what Lord Kelvin knew then. In the 20th and 21st centuries there has been significant research into the origin of life, which Ben Stein would have realized if he had interviewed a scientist who works in the area, or even searched for “origin of life” on the internet.
Rather than consulting a researcher on the origin of life, Expelled instead consults a historian and philosopher of science, Michael Ruse, who tries his best – amid numerous sneering interruptions – to convey a layman-friendly explanation of a complicated theory devised by A. G. Cairns-Smith. This theory suggests that the lattice-like nature of clay crystals could form a template of sorts for the lattice-like structure of organic molecules that eventually produced the heredity information RNA and DNA. Rather than honestly presenting an intriguing scientific idea that is being actively researched, Expelled instead ridicules Michael Ruse for suggesting “joyriding crystals,” clearly a silly and bizarre idea. But how does this theory sound when described by people who are actively pursuing related research?
In his 2005 book Genesis: The Scientific Quest for Life’s Origin, scientist Robert Hazen observes about Cairns-Smith that:
The crux of his argument rests on a simple analogy. Cairns-Smith likens the origin of life to the construction of a stone archway, with its carefully fitted blocks and crucial construction central keystone that locks the whole structure in place. But an arch cannot be built simply by piling one stone atop another. “The answer,” he says, “is with a scaffolding of some kind.” A simple support structure facilitates the construction and can then be removed. “I think this must have been the way our amazingly ‘arched’ biochemistry was built in the first place,” he wrote in a Scientific American article in 1985. “The parts that now lean together surely used to lean on something else—something low tech.” That something, he suggests, was a clay mineral.
Hazen then presents a number of testable hypotheses arising from this approach to the origin of life, noting that research into the ways that clay crystals interact with organic molecules has yielded scientific insights which improve the production of pharmaceuticals. Hazen emphasizes that the clay lattice theory is not the only one available for the origin of life, and that there are a number of viable ideas being tested by chemists, geologists and biologists right now.
This ongoing research draws on evolutionary ideas, and Ben Stein could have interviewed those researchers if he wanted to. Nonetheless, answers to questions about the origin of life are no more necessary to understand the diversity of life today than such an understanding is necessary to treat cancer, or to understand the emergence of new strains of the flu virus. But Expelled is more interested in ridiculing science than in presenting it honestly.
The Claim
Natural selection is inadequate to produce complicated things which require the infusion of some sort of “information” unavailable from natural processes. “But natural selection reduces genetic information and we know this from all the genetic operation studies that we have”. (Maciej Giertych, Expelled)
The Facts
Intelligent design advocates spend a great deal of time discussing “information,” yet rarely define the term. Natural selection reduces genetic variability, which can indeed be used as a measure of information, but to say then that selection therefore cannot produce complex structures demonstrates a basic misunderstanding of how natural selection works.
In addition, while natural selection reduces variability, and may even remove traits from a population entirely, it is not the only evolutionary mechanism. Genetic mutations, gene flow, genetic exchange from symbiotic organisms, genetic recombination, and neutral genetic drift all play important roles in evolutionary processes, and anyone who attempts to explain the complexity of life without considering all of these processes is presenting a one-sided and fundamentally inaccurate account of evolution.
The Claim
Intelligent design proponents are on the verge of making great new discoveries because they are applying the concept of design to complex biological structures, and gaining new insights. For example, Ben Stein says in Expelled, “Jonathan Wells is also making progress using intelligent design theory in his research on cancer.”
The Facts
Expelled uses the term “design” equivocally. The film regards a complicated cellular structure composed of many interacting parts as similar to a human machine that also is made of many interacting parts. Because the machine requires an intelligent human to assemble these parts to make a functioning product, Expelled infers that the cellular structure also required an intelligent agent to plan it and put it together. “Design” in this sense refers to a “purposeful assemblage of parts,” implying both function and origin. But scientists commonly speak of the “design” of structures in an informal sense of “parts working together to produce a function”; they might say, for example, that the elongated wrist bones of a deer are designed to allow the deer to run fast. The study of structure and function is common in medical and other biological research; there is much utility in finding out how something works. This research can be done – and ordinarily is done – without making any assumptions of “design” in the intelligent design sense: that there needs to be a guiding hand purposefully assembling those parts.
Jonathan Wells’s research on the function of centrioles in cell division is directly in this tradition, and does not require an assumption of an intelligent agent to determine the structure and function of these cellular components. Although Wells presents intelligent design as an important precursor guiding his discovery, in actuality it is an add-on. Even if he is right about the relationship of centrioles to broken chromosomes to cancer – and it seems likely that he is not – to say that intelligent design provides unique insight into cancer research is, to put it mildly, stretching things.
And contrary to what the movie would have you believe, evolution – common ancestry – is often of considerable assistance when researchers are investigating structure and function. By looking at the same structure – for instance the whip-like tail of a bacterium, called a flagellum – across several related species, scientists can discover similarities and differences that help them more fully understand the workings of complex structures. This paradigm has been much more fruitful than one that suggests an intelligent agent produced complex biological structures as a “purposeful arrangement of parts”.
Read More
New Scientist: Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions
TalkOrigins FAQs on the origin of life
ANYTHING ELSE?
seriously lets have a rational discussion, if you are wrong admit as much, dont defend your point because of pride, its obvious this movie is pure bunk, everyone who was involved is distancing themselves, the rights sold etc... its shit.
-
On macro evolution or speciation
Ben Stein says …
And aside from modification within species, I don’t think anyone has ever been able to prove one species that evolved by Darwinian means. It’s incomprehensible to me how Darwinism could explain something as complex as the organic cell, and it’s incomprehensible to me how Darwinism could explain how life began. And they don’t even try. – interview with Christianity Today, April 15, 2008
Despite the fact that no one has ever been able to prove the creation of a single distinct species by Darwinist means, Darwinism dominates the academy and the media. – “Darwinism: The imperialism of biology?” article posted by Baptist Press on April 4, 2008
And I was just overwhelmed by the fact, at least as I am told, that Darwinists have never observed natural species being originated. – interview with CNS News, January 17, 2008
and Cris Waller answers
Well, Ben, you were told wrong. Even though it’s difficult to observe species evolving, because it normally happens on a timescale much larger than what humans would notice, it has been observed not just once, but many times.
A recent example of observation of evolution by “Darwinian means” is the incredibly quick evolution of Italian wall lizards on the isle of Pod Mrcaru, as detailed by National Geographic. In 1971, researchers introduced five pairs of lizards to the island. Thirty-seven years later, there are over 5000 lizards on the island, all descended, according to DNA testing, from the original ten lizards. In this amazingly short time period, the originally insectivorous lizards evolved adaptations to a vegetarian diet, stronger jaws, and a different social structure. They are well on their way to becoming a different species entirely.
Some other examples:
The apple maggot fly originally parasitized native hawthorns. When other members of the rose family, such as apples, were introduced to the Americas, some flies parasitized them. These flies now have different genes and breeding cycles from the original flies and are well on their way to becoming a separate species.
Geographically-isolated populations of the ensatina salamander of California have been shown by DNA analysis to be splitting into several different species of salamanders.
So yes, speciation has been observed. Sorry, Ben, just because it’s incomprehensible to you doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen. Time to stop being overwhelmed, Ben, and start learning some real science. Maybe you should start using some of those eyedrops you peddled to open your eyes a bit wider so that you can see the world as it really is.
and Kevin Miklasz adds
We normally regard animals that look very different as different species, for example lions and tigers. The creation of a new species is often perceived as turning a cat into a dog. Disregarding Nickelodeon television, a catdog is extremely hard to find.
The reason for the difficulty is simple: this isn’t how new species form. A species means something very specific to a biologist: reproductive isolation, or the inability of two groups to interbreed. A new species is “created” when one group of interbreeding animals splits into two separate interbreeding groups. Once these animals are reproductively isolated, they evolve features and adaptations separately, since new features introduced into group A will spread by heredity throughout group A but not group B. A buildup of such features creates two groups of animals that look very different, the familiar situation.
So to the question. Do we observe new species forming through reproductive isolation, the “Darwinist means”? For most familiar animals, this process happens over thousands of years, so that observing the process from start to completion is very difficult. But some organisms evolve very quickly due to short lifespans, such as fruit flies. When two groups of fruit flies were grown in different conditions for 45 generations, the groups became reproductively isolated (see Steve Palumbi, The Evolution Explosion, New York: W. W. Norton, 2001, pp. 22–23). What was one species is now two, the total number has increased and a new species has been created. Contrary to Ben Stein, we have observed the formation of new species through Darwinist means.
just go to exposedexposed to review all the rebuttals its funny as hell.
-
what are your objections to my rebuttal? do you realize this documentary is terrible and has many lies right. But once i show you this you will just mentally move on and cling to something else, show some strength man. There is no sky daddy, evolution is a fact, just be fine with not knowing the answers and the possibility that this is it, that this is life.
Rebuttal to what? Not sure what you're talking about?
I watched the documentary. I liked it. I particularly found Dawkins comments about the origin of life to be pretty entertaining. He has the same problem you and others have who cling to unproved theories like members of some religious cult: can't acknowledge simple facts. There is no scientific explanation for the origin of life on earth. Nothing has been proved in that regard. I haven't gone back through the thread, but I don't think a single person in this thread even offered an opinion on how life originated on earth. From what I recall, the closest someone came was pointing to a computer-generated math model, or something like that.
There is a gaping hole in our history. What happened on day 1? And where is the proof?
-
Rebuttal to what? Not sure what you're talking about?
I watched the documentary. I liked it. I particularly found Dawkins comments about the origin of life to be pretty entertaining. He has the same problem you and others have who cling to unproved theories like members of some religious cult: can't acknowledge simple facts. There is no scientific explanation for the origin of life on earth. Nothing has been proved in that regard. I haven't gone back through the thread, but I don't think a single person in this thread even offered an opinion on how life originated on earth. From what I recall, the closest someone came was pointing to a computer-generated math model, or something like that.
There is a gaping hole in our history. What happened on day 1? And where is the proof?
to the mis representation of what dawkins was saying, he said nothing about gods and his explanation or possible explanation is logical and natural.
he doesnt deal with abiogenesis, there are many theories for example we do know that life can form naturally look at the miller-urey experiment. Also, autocatalysis is another theory that is a possible explanation. I'm nothing like you, you "liked" a documentary thats been proven to be a lie and full of half truths, you are the people you claim i am, the religious nut jobs who think because we dont know something god did it. Didn't you learn from history? god of the gaps fails everytime, i cling to nothing thats not full of evidence. I don't claim to know how life started it is an incredible complex topic which we may never know, because of the timeline and possible conditions we do not know existed. What we do know is that life can be made from organic material, how it occured in nature is the problem.
who cares what happened on day 1? is that were your god is? day 1? i would suggest you not get attached to that gap as its likely to be filled just like every other gap that has ever existed and there were millions.
Your thinking is all wrong, you cling to this problem as if it validates your god, its a bad strategy, one that will leave you empty in the end, or at least the odds are not in your favor.
dawkins doesn't claim to know how life started, the question was how could life of started he gave an uneducated answer, he doesn't deal with abiogenesis, hence it's pointless to ask.
everything you guys, i mean creationists say is a lie, from the pasteur disproving spontaneous generation to macro-evolution hasnt occured or never been observed its all lies. Stupid ones at that, no crtical thinking is ever applied, no rational thought, nothing.
-
to the mis representation of what dawkins was saying, he said nothing about gods and his explanation or possible explanation is logical and natural.
he doesnt deal with abiogenesis, there are many theories for example we do know that life can form naturally look at the miller-urey experiment. Also, autocatalysis is another theory that is a possible explanation. I'm nothing like you, you "liked" a documentary thats been proven to be a lie and full of half truths, you are the people you claim i am, the religious nut jobs who think because we dont know something god did it. Didn't you learn from history? god of the gaps fails everytime, i cling to nothing thats not full of evidence. I don't claim to know how life started it is an incredible complex topic which we may never know, because of the timeline and possible conditions we do not know existed. What we do know is that life can be made from organic material, how it occured in nature is the problem.
who cares what happened on day 1? is that were your god is? day 1? i would suggest you not get attached to that gap as its likely to be filled just like every other gap that has ever existed and there were millions.
Your thinking is all wrong, you cling to this problem as if it validates your god, its a bad strategy, one that will leave you empty in the end, or at least the odds are not in your favor.
dawkins doesn't claim to know how life started, the question was how could life of started he gave an uneducated answer, he doesn't deal with abiogenesis, hence it's pointless to ask.
everything you guys, i mean creationists say is a lie, from the pasteur disproving spontaneous generation to macro-evolution hasnt occured or never been observed its all lies. Stupid ones at that, no crtical thinking is ever applied, no rational thought, nothing.
No one has misrepresented what Dawkins said. The clip of his comments are posted, along with a transcript of what he said. He plainly said the origin of life on earth could be the result of intelligent design:
Ben Stein: What do think is the possibility that there then, intelligent design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics... or in evolution?
Richard Dawkins: Well... it could come about in the following way: it could be that uh, at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization e-evolved... by probably by some kind of Darwinian means to a very very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto... perhaps this... this planet. Um, now that is a possibility. And uh, an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the um, at the detail... details of our chemistry molecular biology you might find a signature of some sort of designer.
Ben Stein: [voice over] Wait a second. Richard Dawkins thought intelligent design might be a legitimate pursuit?
Richard Dawkins: Um, and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. But that higher intelligence would itself would have to come about by some explicable or ultimately explicable process. It couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That's the point.
Ben Stein: [voice over] So professor Dawkins was not against intelligent design, just certain types of designers. Such as God.
I have never said the gaping holes in macroevolution, the "big bang," etc. prove intelligent design. What I've tried to do is get a scientific explanation from people like you about day 1. And to say day 1 doesn't matter is crazy. The entire foundation of any theory has to start on day 1. Like I've said before, it's like starting a book on chapter 2 or 3. Makes absolutely no sense.
In any event, what you have is a faith-based belief (if any) about how life on earth originated. It certainly isn't science-based. But this goes back to an exchange we had two years ago:
Why isn't it a correct question?
At the end of the day, it sounds like you have a faith-based belief in how life originated. It definitely isn't scientific, which requires: (1) observation; (2) hypothesis formulation; (3) prediction; and (4) testing of predictions.
This isn't a criticism of you or anyone else.
-
No one has misrepresented what Dawkins said. The clip of his comments are posted, along with a transcript of what he said. He plainly said the origin of life on earth could be the result of intelligent design:
Ben Stein: What do think is the possibility that there then, intelligent design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics... or in evolution?
Richard Dawkins: Well... it could come about in the following way: it could be that uh, at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization e-evolved... by probably by some kind of Darwinian means to a very very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto... perhaps this... this planet. Um, now that is a possibility. And uh, an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the um, at the detail... details of our chemistry molecular biology you might find a signature of some sort of designer.
Ben Stein: [voice over] Wait a second. Richard Dawkins thought intelligent design might be a legitimate pursuit?
Richard Dawkins: Um, and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. But that higher intelligence would itself would have to come about by some explicable or ultimately explicable process. It couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That's the point.
Ben Stein: [voice over] So professor Dawkins was not against intelligent design, just certain types of designers. Such as God.
I have never said the gaping holes in macroevolution, the "big bang," etc. prove intelligent design. What I've tried to do is get a scientific explanation from people like you about day 1. And to say day 1 doesn't matter is crazy. The entire foundation of any theory has to start on day 1. Like I've said before, it's like starting a book on chapter 2 or 3. Makes absolutely no sense.
In any event, what you have is a faith-based belief (if any) about how life on earth originated. It certainly isn't science-based. But this goes back to an exchange we had two years ago:
nothing what dawkins said helps intelligent design, look at the question
"What do think is the possibility that there then, intelligent design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics... or in evolution?"
the question is specific, hence dawkins responds that if intelligent design were to be found (quite telling he uses the future tense) it could be some alien race etc, ie a more intelligent species, not god from the bible, not god from ID or creationism.
day 1 doesnt matter in evolution, your analogy is ridiculous. Your assuming the chapters relate to one another as in a book however, in reality the chapters (theories, branchs of science) do not. We do not need to know how life arose to know how it propagates and increases complexity, we just dont need to know. However, we are trying to find out and we ALREADY KNOW LIFE CAN BE CREATED NATURALLY, WE KNOW THIS AS A FACT the basic building blocks can be created which once created can propagate to cellular life forms. The problem is the experiment was not how earths atmosphere was hence we have to keep looking for the fact of how life began.
Do you want a run down on the prevailing theories and there evidence, because you assume everyone is just hoping like you do with god, meanwhile theres mountains of evidence.
theres nothing faith based about it. even your quote is wrong.
At the end of the day, it sounds like you have a faith-based belief in how life originated. It definitely isn't scientific, which requires: (1) observation; (2) hypothesis formulation; (3) prediction; and (4) testing of predictions.
1. you do not need to directly observe somethign to know it happened, complete bullshit.
2. ok
3. ok
4. ok
all are done within abiogenesis, what is faith based?
-
What is the scientific explanation for how life began according to the theory of evolution?
From what I've gathered uncaused quantum fluctuations popped in and out of existence causing the formation of the uncaused, ever-expanding universe. Exploded star particles (stardust) have mixed together over billions of years and within the random chaos created an incomprehensibly, perfectly ordered and completely improbable solar system containing our Earth (technically we're just a minor blip or universal garbage...meaningless and temporary at best). Life on Earth was formed out of goopy pools of hot cosmic stardust that eventually generated multicellular organisms (seemingly infinite numbers of atomic particles perfectly aligning to create higher levels of perfectly structured amino acids and perfectly functioning and reproducing cellular structures) which turned into primitive monkeys which turned into humans which gave us the Jersey Shore....it's science.
-
From what I've gathered uncaused quantum fluctuations popped in and out of existence causing the formation of the uncaused, ever-expanding universe. Exploded star particles (stardust) have mixed together over billions of years and within the random chaos created an incomprehensibly, perfectly ordered and completely improbable solar system containing our Earth (technically we're just a minor blip or universal garbage...meaningless and temporary at best). Life on Earth was formed out of goopy pools of hot cosmic stardust that eventually generated multicellular organisms (seemingly infinite numbers of atomic particles perfectly aligning to create higher levels of perfectly structured amino acids and perfectly functioning and reproducing cellular structures) which turned into primitive monkeys which turned into humans which gave us the Jersey Shore....it's science.
Wow and they acuse us of believing something on pure faith, woooooooooosh ??? :o
-
Wow and they acuse us of believing something on pure faith, woooooooooosh ??? :o
LOL!!! Yeah, I hear what you're saying. Personally, I enjoy learning about science now. Especially about cosmology, physics and biology. Do I understand all that stuff? Not a chance. Now, I'm not completely ignorant, I can grasp a lot of it sure. Still, a lot is beyond me; regardless, most scientists are working to achieve truth....a noble pursuit. What I find upsetting is that within the scope of that pursuit of truth is a desire to eliminate God. So many attempt to refute or dismiss God via their field of study while so few attempt to dismiss God by trying him on for size with a humble, earnest heart that truly desires to know him. What I've just expressed is simply cast aside as "nothingness" or "bothersome fluff with no merit". It's the heart of the matter (no pun intended)....it's the crux. Dismiss his love and you'll neither truly confirm or deny God's existence at any point in your lifetime. Certainly some will weave together some well-articulated justification for disbelief, but it will never, truly remove God.....just helps temporarily satiate an individual's desire to avoid inevitable, divine accountability.
-
There is none. Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis. ::) And we have said this many, many times.
Don't pull your 'troll' nonsense here. Read it again. Evolution makes no claims about abiogenesis.
This is the first reply and the only correct one where this thread should have ended 12 pages ago.
-
This is the first reply and the only correct one where this thread should have ended 12 pages ago.
OK einsteins if evolution doesn't claim abiogenesis but the theory ::) has evolutionary process before life began and after; what the hell do you call that then?
-
OK einsteins if evolution doesn't claim abiogenesis but the theory ::) has evolutionary process before life began and after; what the hell do you call that then?
im not even sure what you are trying to say here, could you repeat that or form a cogent thought?
It's obvious you know literally nothing about evolution or abiogenesis, if so, why are you so against something you have no knowledge about, do you enjoy being a mindless puppet incapable of critical thinking.
-
im not even sure what you are trying to say here, could you repeat that or form a cogent thought?
It's obvious you know literally nothing about evolution or abiogenesis, if so, why are you so against something you have no knowledge about, do you enjoy being a mindless puppet incapable of critical thinking.
Bro give it up, why is it always that "it's obviouse you don't know this or that blah...." what you don't think we research stuff, bro there are hundreds of videos on youtube alone explaining Evolution in full by the leading people on evolution so it's not hard to know the theory, your acting like if it's some secret that only the insiders know, jeeeez, Trust me Christians spend thousands of hours learning about evolution and it's funny how I spend a lot of time reading books and watching documentaries on evolution yet you proabably have never seen the inside of a Bible.
-
Bro give it up, why is it always that "it's obviouse you don't know this or that blah...." what you don't think we research stuff, bro there are hundreds of videos on youtube alone explaining Evolution in full by the leading people on evolution so it's not hard to know the theory, your acting like if it's some secret that only the insiders know, jeeeez, Trust me Christians spend thousands of hours learning about evolution and it's funny how I spend a lot of time reading books and watching documentaries on evolution yet you proabably have never seen the inside of a Bible.
we are all made of stardust basically.....unless we find a way start life out of nothing in the lab we will probably never know and probably aren't meant to know.....it would be too mind blowing and give us as humans too much power
-
Bro give it up, why is it always that "it's obviouse you don't know this or that blah...." what you don't think we research stuff, bro there are hundreds of videos on youtube alone explaining Evolution in full by the leading people on evolution so it's not hard to know the theory, your acting like if it's some secret that only the insiders know, jeeeez, Trust me Christians spend thousands of hours learning about evolution and it's funny how I spend a lot of time reading books and watching documentaries on evolution yet you proabably have never seen the inside of a Bible.
yes youtube videos posted by creationists really explain evolution, my statement came from the fact that you guys don't even understand what the theory of evolution states since you continually ask how life began, which is not evolution. Its a fact there is more evidence for it then any other theory, all of modern biology rests on its assumptions, no test has ever falsified it go ahead and try and make one. How evolution occurs is being debated but we have seen it in a lab, have genetic evidence, nested hierarchies which never fail, geological records and numerous modern inventions like medicine because of it.
The only people that debate it are those that are religious or know nothing about it. Ever experiment ever conducted to test the theory has been in accordance with evolution. Its a fact just like gravity, everything evolves, everything even inventions it's seems to be a law of the universe.
-
Evolution is far from fact, lie number 1, and the theory has not been tested in a lab, lie number 2. You can claim anything you want but doesn't make it so. Do you think Christain's disregard the entire theory? Really?..... the theoy is not a matter of 1 tiny subject, most of it is based on assumptions. Are there portions that are true, Of course every Christian on the planet believes in micro evolution. That we came from monkeys?, no, and there is no proof of this whatsoever. So the few aspects that have been tested or contribute to science, we don't have an issue with that or it doesn't contradict the Bible at all. You are very close-minded thinking that the only thing Christians know about evolution are based on a few creation videos on youtube, lol, :-[
-
Evolution is far from fact, lie number 1, and the theory has not been tested in a lab, lie number 2. You can claim anything you want but doesn't make it so. Do you think Christain's disregard the entire theory? Really?..... the theoy is not a matter of 1 tiny subject, most of it is based on assumptions. Are there portions that are true, Of course every Christian on the planet believes in micro evolution. That we came from monkeys?, no, and there is no proof of this whatsoever. So the few aspects that have been tested or contribute to science, we don't have an issue with that or it doesn't contradict the Bible at all. You are very close-minded thinking that the only thing Christians know about evolution are based on a few creation videos on youtube, lol, :-[
you lost credibility when you got to this point
-
Evolution is far from fact, lie number 1, and the theory has not been tested in a lab, lie number 2. You can claim anything you want but doesn't make it so. Do you think Christain's disregard the entire theory? Really?..... the theoy is not a matter of 1 tiny subject, most of it is based on assumptions. Are there portions that are true, Of course every Christian on the planet believes in micro evolution. That we came from monkeys?, no, and there is no proof of this whatsoever. So the few aspects that have been tested or contribute to science, we don't have an issue with that or it doesn't contradict the Bible at all. You are very close-minded thinking that the only thing Christians know about evolution are based on a few creation videos on youtube, lol, :-[
thanks for proving my point, evolution has been tested in a lab this is a fact, want the evidence?
we didn't come from monkeys, you don't even know the basic claim, find where any evolutionary scientist claims we came from monkeys or evidence of this.
im not closed minded i just know that you have no idea what your talking about and you prove it post after post.
most of it is based off assumptions? like what lol....list these assumptions
the fact that you are seperating micro and macro into completely seperate categories shows how much you know. Macro as claimed is the apperance of a new species that can no longer mate with its original lineage, this has been witnessed in a lab, done in a lab. Just because you are unaware or unwillingly to believe it doesn't make it so.
-
thanks for proving my point, evolution has been tested in a lab this is a fact, want the evidence?
we didn't come from monkeys, you don't even know the basic claim, find where any evolutionary scientist claims we came from monkeys or evidence of this.
im not closed minded i just know that you have no idea what your talking about and you prove it post after post.
most of it is based off assumptions? like what lol....list these assumptions
the fact that you are seperating micro and macro into completely seperate categories shows how much you know. Macro as claimed is the apperance of a new species that can no longer mate with its original lineage, this has been witnessed in a lab, done in a lab. Just because you are unaware or unwillingly to believe it doesn't make it so.
lol, funny guy, hate to burst your bubble but macro evolution has never occured nor will it ever occur, not in a lab not anywhere, sorry.,.. Simply no such thing
-
lol, funny guy, hate to burst your bubble but macro evolution has never occured nor will it ever occur, not in a lab not anywhere, sorry.,.. Simply no such thing
great response, i thought you were serious, but no one can be this stupid so u=troll.
-
lol, funny guy, hate to burst your bubble but macro evolution has never occured nor will it ever occur, not in a lab not anywhere, sorry.,.. Simply no such thing
Oh, well, I'd some guy on getbig with so scientific credentials asserts unequivocally, with no evidence but lots of hand waving, that something is completely impossible, then I guess it must really be impossible. It's a good thing I saw this post on time and learned the truth! ::)
-
;D
-
Great post :D Atheists are the stupidest humans to grace the planet.
-
Great post :D Atheists are the stupidest humans to grace the planet.
-
Not a Christian or Catholic, but anyone who thinks they evolved from a single cell has a deeper detachment from reality than a bible thumper, no contest. Most people who refer to themselves as atheists happen to be self indulged, self absorbed people who rationalize their way through life.
-
Not a Christian or Catholic, but anyone who thinks they evolved from a single cell has a deeper detachment from reality than a bible thumper, no contest. Most people who refer to themselves as atheists happen to be self indulged, self absorbed people who rationalize their way through life.
lol we didnt evolve from a single cell, at least read some biology.
-
lol we didnt evolve from a single cell, at least read some biology.
Ha in your face, and all you say is the same crap, "read some biology" lol,
-
lol we didnt evolve from a single cell, at least read some biology.
Haven't read a lot thread but will you please inform us in a short summary in your own words? Thanks!
-
Haven't read a lot thread but will you please inform us in a short summary in your own words? Thanks!
I love these kinds of posts!
Nonbeliever: "Why is your God the only real God? I can think of a dozen other Gods exactly like yours. Christians are stupid and so is religion."
Butterbean: "Would you mind listing out the dozen other Gods and their similiarities with the Christian God? Have a nice day!!"
Nonbeliever: ***crickets***
-
I love these kinds of posts!
Nonbeliever: "Why is your God the only real God? I can think of a dozen other Gods exactly like yours. Christians are stupid and so is religion."
Butterbean: "Would you mind listing out the dozen other Gods and their similiarities with the Christian God? Have a nice day!!"
Nonbeliever: ***crickets***
ya because i should take my time to educate someone else when they can't take the time to read about something themselves, how rude of me. It doesn't matter anyway you are close minded all of you, you know god exists, you will not change your mind.
Answer this question, is it possible that god does not exist and that you are simply delusional?. You answer this question and ill teach you biology. I posted study after study showing macro evolution and the believers claim (one time hard) was to simply say no thats false, it cant happen and never will, why after finding out someone is completely out to lunch would i respond with a post detailing something he wont even read.
Ha in your face, and all you say is the same crap, "read some biology" lol,
lol i hope you are a gimmick dude, if you are pm me would ya, lol. His claim was false, im not going to spend time disproving something that evolution doesn't even claim, how is that relevant? It's like me saying anyone who believes jesus could shoot lasers out of his eyes and shapeshift is out of touch with reality, when in fact, christianity makes no claim.
u guys aren't open to debate you are closed minded and no amount of talking can convince you.
Ask yourself, is it possible god does not exist and im delusional? if you can't at least have the possibility that this is the case then you are completely closed minded, you will discard facts if they go against your beliefs, you will ignore reality in order to maintain your bias.
Just so you know, yes i do believe that there is a possibility that god exists, i would like him to, im open to anything, however, i will not believe in something that has no evidence simple as that.
-
But it does make those claims, you just choose to acknowledge the correct and only the correct terminology and the words he uses are different then your theory, but they mean the same, tell me how can you say evolution doesn't claim that we orginate from a single cell, HOW/...HOW...HOW... Please eplain this to me and please explain the proper wording to use. think about it, evolution claims a Cosmic origin with no life form right, and now we have life so stop playing dumb and stop making fun cause we don`t choose those stupid words you hide behind
-
But it does make those claims, you just choose to acknowledge the correct and only the correct terminology and the words he uses are different then your theory, but they mean the same, tell me how can you say evolution doesn't claim that we orginate from a single cell, HOW/...HOW...HOW... Please eplain this to me and please explain the proper wording to use. think about it, evolution claims a Cosmic origin with no life form right, and now we have life so stop playing dumb and stop making fun cause we don`t choose those stupid words you hide behind
no it doesnt, evolution says nothing about cosmic origin, not one word on cosmology because cosmology says nothing about biology. U don't even have a basic understanding of something you claim cannot happen. Evolution states that we as a species evolved from an ancestor that is shared with the great apes. if you were to restart evolution or perhaps before it and begin with abiogenesis then onto evolution we may not even evolve because evolution has no end goal, it's not pre determined.
what you are doing by saying we evolved from a single cell is making evolution seem impossible as big steps like that never occurred. You might as well claim we evolved from hydrogen instead of a single cell, but to say that single cells formed aggregates to make multicellular organisms like yeast etc is much less of a step and easier for people without knowledge of evolution to imagine.
answer my question would you?
ask me anything you want about evolution but i would like you to reciprocate and answer the question posed above.
-
Wow, you have got to be the most hard headed person on here, serious thanks for proving my point, you see everyone here knows "evolution" pertains to biological changes but we don't argue one aspect of what opposes creation we argue everything including the big bang theory and Darwinian evolution, but since everyone (*except for you) knows what we are referring to we simply categorize all of the points into one subject, afterall 99% of people that oppose creation agree on all subjects across the board, Big bang, Darwin etc...don't be so sensitive on the terminolgy, so here is my point what you believe in " the big bang" has a cosmic beginning right, and the evolutionary process starts with life form already in existance right? so how if you believe in both theories did this occur, see my point,....
geeeez.....and your sitting here arguing with me about me referring to the big bang as evolution, who care what it's called, really call it a can of tomatoes, how did this occur according to your beliefs?
Now, to answer your question, I have had an experiment as real as you looking in the mirror and seeing yourself and knowing that it's is you in that mirror, so now I can ask you is it possible that who you are looking at in the mirror is not you and you are just being delusional and if you answer yes to that being possible then I will also answer yes.
-
Wow, you have got to be the most hard headed person on here, serious thanks for proving my point, you see everyone here knows "evolution" pertains to biological changes but we don't argue one aspect of what opposes creation we argue everything including the big bang theory and Darwinian evolution, but since everyone (*except for you) knows what we are referring to we simply categorize all of the points into one subject, afterall 99% of people that oppose creation agree on all subjects across the board, Big bang, Darwin etc...don't be so sensitive on the terminolgy, so here is my point what you believe in " the big bang" has a cosmic beginning right, and the evolutionary process starts with life form already in existance right? so how if you believe in both theories did this occur, see my point,....
geeeez.....and your sitting here arguing with me about me referring to the big bang as evolution, who care what it's called, really call it a can of tomatoes, how did this occur according to your beliefs?
Now, to answer your question, I have had an experiment as real as you looking in the mirror and seeing yourself and knowing that it's is you in that mirror, so now I can ask you is it possible that who you are looking at in the mirror is not you and you are just being delusional and if you answer yes to that being possible then I will also answer yes.
why lump two disparaging things together? i dont because evolution could be wrong, or the big bang or both so why would i clump them together when they have nothing to do with each other.
ya it is possible i dont exist, that im a computer simulation, all things are possible in an infinite and eternal universe, its up to us to figure out the truth and rule out these things.
im not hard headed but i wont lump two completely different theories together, why would organic matter act like inorganic matter?
what is you question again?
-
Wow, you have got to be the most hard headed person on here, serious thanks for proving my point, you see everyone here knows "evolution" pertains to biological changes but we don't argue one aspect of what opposes creation we argue everything including the big bang theory and Darwinian evolution, but since everyone (*except for you) knows what we are referring to we simply categorize all of the points into one subject, afterall 99% of people that oppose creation agree on all subjects across the board, Big bang, Darwin etc...don't be so sensitive on the terminolgy, so here is my point what you believe in " the big bang" has a cosmic beginning right, and the evolutionary process starts with life form already in existance right? so how if you believe in both theories did this occur, see my point,....
The Big Bang Theory is distinct from and completely unrelated to the Theory of Evolution. I don't know what you're referring to. You are grouping two distinct things together and claiming they form a coherent whole. That's simply not accurate.
I don't believe that "'the big bang' has a cosmic beginning" especially since that claim seems somewhat nonsensical to me. Based on the evidence available to me, I find that the Big Bang theory explains many aspects of the early Universe we observe experimentally and know theoretically and, with a high degree of certainty, claim the theory is correct but I am open to revisiting that view if new scientific evidence becomes available that contradicts it.
As for evolution, I believe that the diverse lifeforms we observe on earth today have all evolved from a common ancestor, through a process called natural selection, where (generally) mutations that are beneficial in a given environment thrive and flourish, while mutations which are not wither and die.
As for "how", experiments have proven that given the right chemicals and conditions, proteins can spontaneously form. Even if the probability of this happening is vanishingly small, when one considers the time-scale involoved and the vast number of distinct planets...
geeeez.....and your sitting here arguing with me about me referring to the big bang as evolution, who care what it's called, really call it a can of tomatoes, how did this occur according to your beliefs?
What happened before the Big Bang is something that is outside the purview of science.
Now, to answer your question, I have had an experiment as real as you looking in the mirror and seeing yourself and knowing that it's is you in that mirror, so now I can ask you is it possible that who you are looking at in the mirror is not you and you are just being delusional and if you answer yes to that being possible then I will also answer yes.
Is it possible? Sure. Is it likely? No. After all, I can take my time to inspect the reflection, perhaps even examine the mirror itself and convince myself that there's nobody behind the mirror. I can look for other symptoms of delusion, or have someone else look examine me and tell me, and so on.
Just because human beings are capable for error doesn't mean that every statement they make is erroneous, which is what you seem to suggest.
-
The Big Bang Theory is distinct from and completely unrelated to the Theory of Evolution. I don't know what you're referring to. You are grouping two distinct things together and claiming they form a coherent whole. That's simply not accurate.
I don't believe that "'the big bang' has a cosmic beginning" especially since that claim seems somewhat nonsensical to me. Based on the evidence available to me, I find that the Big Bang theory explains many aspects of the early Universe we observe experimentally and know theoretically and, with a high degree of certainty, claim the theory is correct but I am open to revisiting that view if new scientific evidence becomes available that contradicts it.
As for evolution, I believe that the diverse lifeforms we observe on earth today have all evolved from a common ancestor, through a process called natural selection, where (generally) mutations that are beneficial in a given environment thrive and flourish, while mutations which are not wither and die.
As for "how", experiments have proven that given the right chemicals and conditions, proteins can spontaneously form. Even if the probability of this happening is vanishingly small, when one considers the time-scale involoved and the vast number of distinct planets...
What happened before the Big Bang is something that is outside the purview of science.
Is it possible? Sure. Is it likely? No. After all, I can take my time to inspect the reflection, perhaps even examine the mirror itself and convince myself that there's nobody behind the mirror. I can look for other symptoms of delusion, or have someone else look examine me and tell me, and so on.
Just because human beings are capable for error doesn't mean that every statement they make is erroneous, which is what you seem to suggest.
Very good post ;)
-
The Big Bang Theory is distinct from and completely unrelated to the Theory of Evolution. I don't know what you're referring to. You are grouping two distinct things together and claiming they form a coherent whole. That's simply not accurate.
I don't believe that "'the big bang' has a cosmic beginning" especially since that claim seems somewhat nonsensical to me. Based on the evidence available to me, I find that the Big Bang theory explains many aspects of the early Universe we observe experimentally and know theoretically and, with a high degree of certainty, claim the theory is correct but I am open to revisiting that view if new scientific evidence becomes available that contradicts it.
As for evolution, I believe that the diverse lifeforms we observe on earth today have all evolved from a common ancestor, through a process called natural selection, where (generally) mutations that are beneficial in a given environment thrive and flourish, while mutations which are not wither and die.
As for "how", experiments have proven that given the right chemicals and conditions, proteins can spontaneously form. Even if the probability of this happening is vanishingly small, when one considers the time-scale involoved and the vast number of distinct planets...
What happened before the Big Bang is something that is outside the purview of science.
Is it possible? Sure. Is it likely? No. After all, I can take my time to inspect the reflection, perhaps even examine the mirror itself and convince myself that there's nobody behind the mirror. I can look for other symptoms of delusion, or have someone else look examine me and tell me, and so on.
Just because human beings are capable for error doesn't mean that every statement they make is erroneous, which is what you seem to suggest.
Yes, controlled experiments with appropriate conditions in place can produce proteins, but the mathematical likelihood that even a single protein was derived out of the cosmic chaos defies Borel's Law by leaps and bounds. Regardless of the expanse of time the probablility of such an event is mathematically impossible. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but this is what I've understood.
-
I posted study after study showing macro evolution and the believers claim (one time hard) was to simply say no thats false, it cant happen and never will, why after finding out someone is completely out to lunch would i respond with a post detailing something he wont even read.
Neck, I've seen something you've posted that claimed to prove macro evolution and it did not show macro evolution. Maybe we are referring to it in an incorrect term but we are talking about one species changing into a completely different species. Have you posted something for that? I haven't seen it if so...but if you have could you please link me or post again and I will read/watch it.
Also, my earlier post was probably unclear but I am asking if you could please post in a short summary what you believe was the origin of life. If you simply have no explanation, that's fine but I'm wondering if you do have a theory.
-
Yes, controlled experiments with appropriate conditions in place can produce proteins
No. Controlled experiments with conditions similar to those that, according to our scientific understanding, prevailed at the time. That's quite important. Because it shows that it can happen.
but the mathematical likelihood that even a single protein was derived out of the cosmic chaos defies Borel's Law by leaps and bounds. Regardless of the expanse of time the probablility of such an event is mathematically impossible. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but this is what I've understood.
That it happened in a lab, in conditions similar to what prevailed at the time on Earth shows that it's not all that improbable and certainly not "mathematically impossible." But even if I were to grant you that the chances of it happening are vanishingly small (say, 1/(2128, which is approximately equal to 3×10-39. That number is vanishingly small. But it's not impossible. Consider also that, to the best of our understanding and knowledge, the age of the Universe is 13 billion years give or take a few hundred million... Given that much time, and perhaps concurrency, all of a sudden, it doesn't seem all that impossible, does it?
Now, about Borel's Law. I've read about one guy who twisted Borel's Law and used it to wave his hands and make grandiose claims. I believe he stated that "mathematicians agree events with odds beyond 1050 don't happen" (I'm paraphrasing his exact quote; I don't remember the original phrasing) which is, to put it bluntly, complete and utter bullshit. After you stop laughing at the whole 1050 bit (which by itself shows that the man was clueless about statistics and probability theory), which mathematicians agree with that statement? Certainly not all - I have a degree in mathematics and I don't agree with that phrasing. Besides, even if they all agreed, what does the consent of mathematicians mean vis-ŕ-vis unlikely events actually occuring? Why not quote the consent of astrologers? Or poker champions? Or New York-based chefs?
The reality is that he most likely misunderstood and misinterpreted what he was reading. Borel claimed that, even in the cosmic scale, an event with a probability of 10-50 has a negligible probability of occurring, which is certainly true. But a negligible probability is not the same as "it's impossible." It's exceedingly improbable to flip a coin 512 times and get 512 heads -- specifically it's 1/(2512) which is approximately equal to 7.5 × 10-155. That number is vanishingly small. But it's not impossible and exceedingly unlikely events do happen.
-
Neck, I've seen something you've posted that claimed to prove macro evolution and it did not show macro evolution. Maybe we are referring to it in an incorrect term but we are talking about one species changing into a completely different species. Have you posted something for that? I haven't seen it if so...but if you have could you please link me or post again and I will read/watch it.
Also, my earlier post was probably unclear but I am asking if you could please post in a short summary what you believe was the origin of life. If you simply have no explanation, that's fine but I'm wondering if you do have a theory.
ok, first define species for me.
-
ok, first define species for me.
There you go again with your over analyzing stupid terms, define species?, are you serious? and you claim I am dumb...........woooooooo ooosh, Horse, Zebra, Donkey=1 species,............. Tiger, Lion= 1 species.............C'mon, this ain't grade 2. Horse having a Lion as an ancester is an example of Macro evolution ;D
-
There you go again with your over analyzing stupid terms, define species?, are you serious? and you claim I am dumb...........woooooooo ooosh, Horse, Zebra, Donkey=1 species,............. Tiger, Lion= 1 species.............C'mon, this ain't grade 2. Horse having a Lion as an ancester is an example of Macro evolution ;D
Horses, zebras and donkeys aren't the same species you buffoon - they are all distinct species. Hell, zebras are, actually, several distinct species. They are all the same genus: equus. And "species" is not the same thing as "genus".
That's why the terminology is important and why you need to define what you mean... Because in your case, your words are meaningless because you don't even know what you mean!
-
Horses, zebras and donkeys aren't the same species you buffoon - they are all distinct species. Hell, zebras are, actually, several distinct species. They are all the same genus: equus. And "species" is not the same thing as "genus".
That's why the terminology is important and why you need to define what you mean... Because in your case, your words are meaningless because you don't even know what you mean!
Your the baffoon they can procreate right? They are the same species.
-
In biology, a species is one of the basic units of biological classification and a taxonomic rank. A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.
According to this definition the 3 would be of 1 species right? Just cause you read some biased biology book that classifies it differently not everyone will agree with you "ah bafoooooooooooooon" who says that?
Anyway there you guys go again getting off topic over a single technicality. Here is what Stella is referring to, since we have to walk on egg shells with you two dingdongs; The Bible, particularly in Genesis classifies animals as a "kind" .....ie.... a dog, a cat, a monkey, so if you have proof of any 2 kinds of animals sharing a common ancestor then you have proof of macro evolution.
See what they did Stella? some wacko biologist steals the word "Species" and declares a horse and a donkey as 2 different species and us Christians already know that a horse and a donkey have a common ancestor as we have no problem with Micro evolution, but now sense some idiot is claiming they are 2 separate species then they can also now claim it as proof for Macro evolution, clever but really stupid, bending the rules, you guys changing the wording ain't going to change the real life facts and that is;... 2 animals that are not capable of procreating cannot, do not and will never share a common ancestor, period.
-
In biology, a species is one of the basic units of biological classification and a taxonomic rank. A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.
According to this definition the 3 would be of 1 species right? Just cause you read some biased biology book that classifies it differently not everyone will agree with you "ah bafoooooooooooooon" who says that?
Anyway there you guys go again getting off topic over a single technicality. Here is what Stella is referring to, since we have to walk on egg shells with you two dingdongs; The Bible, particularly in Genesis classifies animals as a "kind" .....ie.... a dog, a cat, a monkey, so if you have proof of any 2 kinds of animals sharing a common ancestor then you have proof of macro evolution.
See what they did Stella? some wacko biologist steals the word "Species" and declares a horse and a donkey as 2 different species and us Christians already know that a horse and a donkey have a common ancestor as we have no problem with Micro evolution, but now sense some idiot is claiming they are 2 separate species then they can also now claim it as proof for Macro evolution, clever but really stupid, bending the rules, you guys changing the wording ain't going to change the real life facts and that is;... 2 animals that are not capable of procreating cannot, do not and will never share a common ancestor, period.
The term has a specific meaning in biology asshole. Who cares what's in your grimoire? We are discussing biology and in biology the terms species and genus are distinct, not equivalent and not interchangeable.
Quoting some random guy you found on Google, with no (known) credentials in biology and the Bible as his source hardly qualifies as evidence that "species" means "can interbreed.
You are playing the typical trick - redefining terms to have them mean whatever you want to mean and using the resulting confusion to claim you stumped your opponents and won the argument/debate. This shit won't fly with me.
Congratulations on demonstrating your ignorance. More Bible study is in order it seems. Today you'll learn that according to Jesus, the mustard plant has the smallest seeds and grows into the largest tree. Don't let the fact that both of those are false discourage you though. :D
-
ya because i should take my time to educate someone else when they can't take the time to read about something themselves, how rude of me. It doesn't matter anyway you are close minded all of you, you know god exists, you will not change your mind.
Answer this question, is it possible that god does not exist and that you are simply delusional?. You answer this question and ill teach you biology. I posted study after study showing macro evolution and the believers claim (one time hard) was to simply say no thats false, it cant happen and never will, why after finding out someone is completely out to lunch would i respond with a post detailing something he wont even read.
lol i hope you are a gimmick dude, if you are pm me would ya, lol. His claim was false, im not going to spend time disproving something that evolution doesn't even claim, how is that relevant? It's like me saying anyone who believes jesus could shoot lasers out of his eyes and shapeshift is out of touch with reality, when in fact, christianity makes no claim.
u guys aren't open to debate you are closed minded and no amount of talking can convince you.
Ask yourself, is it possible god does not exist and im delusional? if you can't at least have the possibility that this is the case then you are completely closed minded, you will discard facts if they go against your beliefs, you will ignore reality in order to maintain your bias.
Just so you know, yes i do believe that there is a possibility that god exists, i would like him to, im open to anything, however, i will not believe in something that has no evidence simple as that.
It's amazing how many insults are slung my way that I never respond to; although, when I decide to poke a little fun......BAM!! That's ok though.
Now, you probably won't like this, but, in response to your question concerning whether it's possible that God doesn't exist, the answer is no.....it isn't possible. Too many revelations of the Holy Spirit in my life to ignore. Too many instances of the Holy Spirit washing over me. Too many corraborative experiences by fellow believers. Too much fulfillment of scripture in my life. I fully understand you can't fathom how a person can believe other than to attribute that belief to some form of delusion, lack of education, brainwashing, drug use, weakness, low self-esteem, etc....and you know what? That's cool. I ain't mad at ya.
-
No. Controlled experiments with conditions similar to those that, according to our scientific understanding, prevailed at the time. That's quite important. Because it shows that it can happen.
That it happened in a lab, in conditions similar to what prevailed at the time on Earth shows that it's not all that improbable and certainly not "mathematically impossible." But even if I were to grant you that the chances of it happening are vanishingly small (say, 1/(2128, which is approximately equal to 3×10-39. That number is vanishingly small. But it's not impossible. Consider also that, to the best of our understanding and knowledge, the age of the Universe is 13 billion years give or take a few hundred million... Given that much time, and perhaps concurrency, all of a sudden, it doesn't seem all that impossible, does it?
Now, about Borel's Law. I've read about one guy who twisted Borel's Law and used it to wave his hands and make grandiose claims. I believe he stated that "mathematicians agree events with odds beyond 1050 don't happen" (I'm paraphrasing his exact quote; I don't remember the original phrasing) which is, to put it bluntly, complete and utter bullshit. After you stop laughing at the whole 1050 bit (which by itself shows that the man was clueless about statistics and probability theory), which mathematicians agree with that statement? Certainly not all - I have a degree in mathematics and I don't agree with that phrasing. Besides, even if they all agreed, what does the consent of mathematicians mean vis-ŕ-vis unlikely events actually occuring? Why not quote the consent of astrologers? Or poker champions? Or New York-based chefs?
The reality is that he most likely misunderstood and misinterpreted what he was reading. Borel claimed that, even in the cosmic scale, an event with a probability of 10-50 has a negligible probability of occurring, which is certainly true. But a negligible probability is not the same as "it's impossible." It's exceedingly improbable to flip a coin 512 times and get 512 heads -- specifically it's 1/(2512) which is approximately equal to 7.5 × 10-155. That number is vanishingly small. But it's not impossible and exceedingly unlikely events do happen.
I can live with that. :) We then agree that it's an exceedingly improbable, vanishingly small chance of occurrance, but not mathematically impossible.
-
It's amazing how many insults are slung my way that I never respond to; although, when I decide to poke a little fun......BAM!! That's ok though.
Now, you probably won't like this, but, in response to your question concerning whether it's possible that God doesn't exist, the answer is no.....it isn't possible. Too many revelations of the Holy Spirit in my life to ignore. Too many instances of the Holy Spirit washing over me. Too many corraborative experiences by fellow believers. Too much fulfillment of scripture in my life. I fully understand you can't fathom how a person can believe other than to attribute that belief to some form of delusion, lack of education, brainwashing, drug use, weakness, low self-esteem, etc....and you know what? That's cool. I ain't mad at ya.
ok so you will deny reality need be because god has to be real, you have no space for critical thinking.
-
There you go again with your over analyzing stupid terms, define species?, are you serious? and you claim I am dumb...........woooooooo ooosh, Horse, Zebra, Donkey=1 species,............. Tiger, Lion= 1 species.............C'mon, this ain't grade 2. Horse having a Lion as an ancester is an example of Macro evolution ;D
in any debate you have to define what it is you wish to debate if you believe a species is simply things that look alike then we will not be able to continue.
i accept the definition you laid out in your next post, and yes taking one creature to produce another that can no longer breed has been observed in a lab, aka macroevolution. It has been observed in nature, would you like the examples, and when provided would you at least admit it as evidence of "macro-evolution" since it meets your definition?
-
ok so you will deny reality need be because god has to be real, you have no space for critical thinking.
How can you dismiss something you've never personally experienced? You refuse to allow God into your life despite millions of others that have and can testify to his truth. You call the rest of us delusional, yet you have no concept of what we're referring to or have experienced. Now, it's your absolute choice to deny God completely, but I don't encourage that choice at all; although, I won't stand in your way either. Critical thinking is perfectly fine, but you can't intellectualize God away no matter how big your brain is.
-
How can you dismiss something you've never personally experienced?
I've never personally experienced drugs and I dismiss them...
You refuse to allow God into your life despite millions of others that have and can testify to his truth.
Well, even if we set aside the fact that argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy, there's another big problem: millions of other others can also testify to the falsity of your God and the truth of theirs. Who do I pick?
You call the rest of us delusional, yet you have no concept of what we're referring to or have experienced.
Do you also require cardiologists to have personally experienced heart attacks before he can deliver a diagnosis? or psychiatrists to have personally experienced delusions before they can declare someone is suffering from paranoid delusions? That's an interesting approach to say the least!
I wouldn't call you delusional, although I would suggest, to me, belief in the Christian God in particular indicates flawed reasoning and a lack of critical skills in an individual.
Critical thinking is perfectly fine, but you can't intellectualize God away no matter how big your brain is.
Why not? And how can I think critically about something I cannot intellectualize?
-
How can you dismiss something you've never personally experienced? You refuse to allow God into your life despite millions of others that have and can testify to his truth. You call the rest of us delusional, yet you have no concept of what we're referring to or have experienced. Now, it's your absolute choice to deny God completely, but I don't encourage that choice at all; although, I won't stand in your way either. Critical thinking is perfectly fine, but you can't intellectualize God away no matter how big your brain is.
what? i am open to the possibility that god exists, i see no evidence he does exist so i won't just take it on faith as faith is a poison to ones mind.
you on the other hand cannot fathom that god may not exist, you have a closed mind, its quite simple actually. You will refuse reality because god has to exist according to you, the possibility of it being wrong is zero in your world.
-
I've never personally experienced drugs and I dismiss them...
you dismiss drugs????????????????
you are missing out bro, you need a personal relationship with them, open your heart humble your soul, use the grace of your ileum and you will see.
-
what? i am open to the possibility that god exists, i see no evidence he does exist so i won't just take it on faith as faith is a poison to ones mind.
you on the other hand cannot fathom that god may not exist, you have a closed mind, its quite simple actually. You will refuse reality because god has to exist according to you, the possibility of it being wrong is zero in your world.
I've never personally experienced drugs and I dismiss them...
Well, even if we set aside the fact that argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy, there's another big problem: millions of other others can also testify to the falsity of your God and the truth of theirs. Who do I pick?
Do you also require cardiologists to have personally experienced heart attacks before he can deliver a diagnosis? or psychiatrists to have personally experienced delusions before they can declare someone is suffering from paranoid delusions? That's an interesting approach to say the least!
I wouldn't call you delusional, although I would suggest, to me, belief in the Christian God in particular indicates flawed reasoning and a lack of critical skills in an individual.
Why not? And how can I think critically about something I cannot intellectualize?
I'm sorry, but y'all just don't understand and that's ok. I'm happy to discuss with you if you'd like to truly understand. I'm not interested in the "God does/doesn't" exist debate - I'm interested in others understanding the love of God and having others experience the revelation of the Holy Spirit in their lives. If you want to know God I will gladly help however I can....I'm no expert, but expertise isn't a prerequisite for experiencing God.....a willingness to surrender yourselves with humility and a genuine attitude of knowing God is....without that I simply can't help put point you in the direction tools/others that may be able to.
-
The term has a specific meaning in biology asshole. Who cares what's in your grimoire? We are discussing biology and in biology the terms species and genus are distinct, not equivalent and not interchangeable.
Quoting some random guy you found on Google, with no (known) credentials in biology and the Bible as his source hardly qualifies as evidence that "species" means "can interbreed.
You are playing the typical trick - redefining terms to have them mean whatever you want to mean and using the resulting confusion to claim you stumped your opponents and won the argument/debate. This shit won't fly with me.
Congratulations on demonstrating your ignorance. More Bible study is in order it seems. Today you'll learn that according to Jesus, the mustard plant has the smallest seeds and grows into the largest tree. Don't let the fact that both of those are false discourage you though. :D
@ Asshole----- well I see you upgraded your name calling from bafoon
@ Bible as his source doesn't qualify, I did not use the Bible as my source but you should know that the foundations of every single European, African and Asian development is in the Biblical Narrative, the most accurate historical piece of document to ever exist, Every major Empire, From Sumer to Rome, the most read book in the history of man kind and at one point to buy this book would have cost as much as your car in drive way.
You debating what the word species means is irrelevant to anyone taking part in this topic(even if I accept the biological definition, which was established after the word species already existed,) cause what the real debate is....is there two different types of creatures who are not capable of procreating that share a common ancestor, and if so has this been observed or proved by something other then faith
``this shit won`t fly with me``.....Oh I am soooooooo scared :'(
-
a willingness to surrender yourselves with humility and a genuine attitude of knowing God is
What exactly am I supposed to surrender myself to? Why isn't reason -- our tool for acquiring knowledge (and one presumably God blessed us with) -- sufficient? Why all this hide-and-seek? Why not give evidence that is impossible to doubt or dispute?
@ Asshole----- well I see you upgraded your name calling from bafoon
I call it like I see it. You are discussing biology and using terms that have a very specific meaning in biology to mean something entirely different in an attempt to confuse the issue. That's the mark of an asshole.
@ Bible as his source doesn't qualify, I did not use the Bible as my source but you should know that the foundations of every single European, African and Asian development is in the Biblical Narrative, the most accurate historical piece of document to ever exist, Every major Empire, From Sumer to Rome, the most read book in the history of man kind and at one point to buy this book would have cost as much as your car in drive way.
LOL! Seriously? You call the Bible "the most accurate historical piece of document to ever exist"? At least that's slightly better than calling it inerrant, I guess. The Bible is nothing more than a collection of stories that have been edited, re-edited, modified, tweaked, translated and re-translated and re-translated again, then stuck together by the decree of one monarch or collective of priests, only to be re-shuffled again by another collection of priests a few years later.
While some events described no doubt revolve around actual historical events, it's a stretch to call the Bible a historically accurate document, especially when there's clear evidence of inconsistency in the Bible itself in places where the same incident is described in two (or more) sections of the text and the descriptions don't match up.
And LOL @ people during the Sumerian Empire reading the Bible (as a book no less!). The Sumerian Empire went into decline a good 1500 years before Jesus. There was no Bible. Come on! You can do better than that!
Why does it matter that it's the "most read book"? Pizza is the most eaten food. So?
You debating what the word species means is irrelevant to anyone taking part in this topic(even if I accept the biological definition, which was established after the word species already existed,) cause what the real debate is....is there two different types of creatures who are not capable of procreating that share a common ancestor, and if so has this been observed or proved by something other then faith
I'm not debating. I'm asking that you explain the terms you use and stick to the common terminology of the field that you are debating about.
There's a number of transitional fossils showing dinosaur-to-bird transitional forms, fossils showing reptile-mammal intermediates and quite an extensive series of hominid fossils showing ape-to-human evolution. You may educate yourself at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/) if you're so inclined. The question is, are you?
``this shit won`t fly with me``.....Oh I am soooooooo scared :'(
Whether you're scared or not is irrelevant and besides the point. The fact remains that your underhanded debating techniques and attempts to obfuscate the issues won't work with me. In short: this shit won't fly with me.
-
What exactly am I supposed to surrender myself to? Why isn't reason -- our tool for acquiring knowledge (and one presumably God blessed us with) -- sufficient? Why all this hide-and-seek? Why not give evidence that is impossible to doubt or dispute?
Surrender to the Lord's will for your life. If you truly desire to know God....if you truly want to, then take it right to him in prayer. If you've never prayed before that's fine. Start slow and just speak from your heart both earnestly and humbly. If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe that he is the risen savior you will be saved. Then experience the revelation of the Holy Spirit in your life!!! This is the key to the evidence, but more imporatantly this is the key....the narrow gate....to salvation.
-
Surrender to the Lord's will for your life. If you truly desire to know God....if you truly want to, then take it right to him in prayer. If you've never prayed before that's fine. Start slow and just speak from your heart both earnestly and humbly. If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe that he is the risen savior you will be saved. Then experience the revelation of the Holy Spirit in your life!!! This is the key to the evidence, but more imporatantly this is the key....the narrow gate....to salvation.
I do not wish to be rude, since you've been very courteous and polite. But this is the problem: If, arguendo, your God exists then he endowed me with something called a mind which uses something called logic and is my only means of acquiring knowledge. My critical and rational faculty prevent me from believing in him because there's no logical evidence. I can't help it!
It seems to me that if the Christian God wanted people to believe, he should have either not given us a brain, or he should provide incontrovertible evidence that would satisfy logic and wouldn't require faith and all would be good. But instead of doing that he chose to make appearances on a tortilla.
-
Surrender to the GETBIGS will for your life. If you truly desire to know GETBIG... if you truly want to, then take it right to RON in prayer. If you've never prayed before that's fine. Start slow and just speak from your heart both earnestly and humbly. If you confess with your mouth that GETBIG is Lord and believe that he is the risen savior you will be saved. Then experience the revelation of the Holy Spirit in your life!!! This is the key to the evidence, but more imporatantly this is the key....the narrow gate....to salvation.
There, now thats better! funny how it sounds just as ridiculous as the unmodified original text.
-
I do not wish to be rude, since you've been very courteous and polite. But this is the problem: If, arguendo, your God exists then he endowed me with something called a mind which uses something called logic and is my only means of acquiring knowledge. My critical and rational faculty prevent me from believing in him because there's no logical evidence. I can't help it!
It seems to me that if the Christian God wanted people to believe, he should have either not given us a brain, or he should provide incontrovertible evidence that would satisfy logic and wouldn't require faith and all would be good. But instead of doing that he chose to make appearances on a tortilla.
There, now thats better! funny how it sounds just as ridiculous as the unmodified original text.
If you don't want God in your life, you don't have to have God in your life. Again, I don't encourage that choice, but I can't do a thing about it either. If you'd like me to share more about my faith I'm happy to; otherwise, enjoy the holidays.
-
LOL! Seriously? You call the Bible "the most accurate historical piece of document to ever exist"? At least that's slightly better than calling it inerrant, I guess.
Name a document that holds more historical accuracies then...
And LOL @ people during the Sumerian Empire reading the Bible (as a book no less!). The Sumerian Empire went into decline a good 1500 years before Jesus. There was no Bible. Come on! You can do better than that!
I did not say the Sumerian read the Bible. What I meant was sumer is the oldest accepted known civilizations and the Biblical Narrative speaks of the nations foundations
Sargon of Accad, found in cuneiform tablets, and Kador Lagumer, King of Elam are two characters mentioned in the genesis narrative.100's of other Biblical characters also have been found when nations tap into their history. Many Pharaoh's , Mesopotamia, Syria, Babylonia, Chaldea, Elam, Israel, Ethiopia, Palestine, etc etc... list is endless
Half of the kings that ruled the Assyrian Empire during the height of it's power from 800BC (will not use BCE) are Biblical characters, the entire Achaenenid Dynasty if found in the Bible and several Caesars. The most impressive is that the city of Amman (capital of Jordan) was founded by Amman himself 3500 years ago and still carries the name, the Bible tells us that Amman built the city and named it after himself. History has taught us that the Bible does not change as it has been copied over the last 2000 years, the dead sea scrolls proved this point in 1947, the king James taken from manuscript that where in circulation around 1300-1400BC where identical to the manuscripts found in the dead sea scrolls from the first and second century, so long for your stupid claim of being garbled in translation and altered during it being copied ::)
There's a number of transitional fossils showing dinosaur-to-bird transitional forms, fossils showing reptile-mammal intermediates and quite an extensive series of hominid fossils showing ape-to-human evolution. You may educate yourself at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ if you're so inclined. The question is, are you?
Easy to use the word "transitional" just because a few similarities, these similarities are evidence of a common designer, and you know as well as I do that most of these so called transitions are extremely exaggerated, Cmon now, don't play dumb, I have one for you..................... ..........A bike, a dirt bike, a motorcycle, a 3-wheel, a 4-wheeler, a mini, a hatchback, a 4 cylinder, a Chrysler 300, an Escalade.... see the transitions, better explanation then a common designer right?
-
LOL! Seriously? You call the Bible "the most accurate historical piece of document to ever exist"? At least that's slightly better than calling it inerrant, I guess.
Name a document that holds more historical accuracies then...
And LOL @ people during the Sumerian Empire reading the Bible (as a book no less!). The Sumerian Empire went into decline a good 1500 years before Jesus. There was no Bible. Come on! You can do better than that!
I did not say the Sumerian read the Bible. What I meant was sumer is the oldest accepted known civilizations and the Biblical Narrative speaks of the nations foundations
Sargon of Accad, found in cuneiform tablets, and Kador Lagumer, King of Elam are two characters mentioned in the genesis narrative.100's of other Biblical characters also have been found when nations tap into their history. Many Pharaoh's , Mesopotamia, Syria, Babylonia, Chaldea, Elam, Israel, Ethiopia, Palestine, etc etc... list is endless
Half of the kings that ruled the Assyrian Empire during the height of it's power from 800BC (will not use BCE) are Biblical characters, the entire Achaenenid Dynasty if found in the Bible and several Caesars. The most impressive is that the city of Amman (capital of Jordan) was founded by Amman himself 3500 years ago and still carries the name, the Bible tells us that Amman built the city and named it after himself. History has taught us that the Bible does not change as it has been copied over the last 2000 years, the dead sea scrolls proved this point in 1947, the king James taken from manuscript that where in circulation around 1300-1400BC where identical to the manuscripts found in the dead sea scrolls from the first and second century, so long for your stupid claim of being garbled in translation and altered during it being copied ::)
There's a number of transitional fossils showing dinosaur-to-bird transitional forms, fossils showing reptile-mammal intermediates and quite an extensive series of hominid fossils showing ape-to-human evolution. You may educate yourself at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ if you're so inclined. The question is, are you?
Easy to use the word "transitional" just because a few similarities, these similarities are evidence of a common designer, and you know as well as I do that most of these so called transitions are extremely exaggerated, Cmon now, don't play dumb, I have one for you..................... ..........A bike, a dirt bike, a motorcycle, a 3-wheel, a 4-wheeler, a mini, a hatchback, a 4 cylinder, a Chrysler 300, an Escalade.... see the transitions, better explanation then a common designer right?
what do you mean by transitional then?
as everything is a transition, every fossil is a transitional fossil showing slight changes from one creature to another.
-
what do you mean by transitional then?
as everything is a transition, every fossil is a transitional fossil showing slight changes from one creature to another.
You choose to see changes, but every difference is it's own creation............when something slightly different then something else it could have been created that way, does not mean that one thing changed to the next.
I just showed you that in the transportation industry there is also designs that could be mistaken as transitional, from a bike to a suv, the slight similarities in these fossils are because they where created by the same designer. BTW what is in bold is what avxo wrote, I am just quoting him and the rest is my reponse to the bold.
-
You choose to see changes, but every difference is it's own creation............when something slightly different then something else it could have been created that way, does not mean that one thing changed to the next.
I just showed you that in the transportation industry there is also designs that could be mistaken as transitional, from a bike to a suv, the slight similarities in these fossils are because they where created by the same designer. BTW what is in bold is what avxo wrote, I am just quoting him and the rest is my reponse to the bold.
so give me an example of a transitional fossil, what do you expect to see?
so you think we are designed? by a perfect being?
explain our mouths? why do we eat and breath through the same hole? it ensures a certain number of people will die by choking everyday. Dolphins have two seperate holes but we don't, it's a shit design, i could do much better then god as it's silly to have our mouths work in this manner. What about the eye? the fact that a vast population of people require glasses in order to see properly, seems like the eye is a shit design, again i could do better. What about the genitals? we have organs for pleasure and procreation that double as sewage lines, seems stupid as well, i could do better. It goes on and on, you have to explain to me why a perfect being created something with so many flaws, something that humans could do a better job at creating.
However, stick to the transitional fossils, what would a transitional fossil look like?
-
so give me an example of a transitional fossil, what do you expect to see?
so you think we are designed? by a perfect being?
explain our mouths? why do we eat and breath through the same hole? it ensures a certain number of people will die by choking everyday. Dolphins have two seperate holes but we don't, it's a shit design, i could do much better then god as it's silly to have our mouths work in this manner. What about the eye? the fact that a vast population of people require glasses in order to see properly, seems like the eye is a shit design, again i could do better. What about the genitals? we have organs for pleasure and procreation that double as sewage lines, seems stupid as well, i could do better. It goes on and on, you have to explain to me why a perfect being created something with so many flaws, something that humans could do a better job at creating.
However, stick to the transitional fossils, what would a transitional fossil look like?
WHAT?????????????? wow, I am perfectly happy with the way I am made.You lost me at humans can do a better job,...
-
WHAT?????????????? wow, I am perfectly happy with the way I am made.You lost me at humans can do a better job,...
what would a transitional fossil look like?
how did i lose you at the point after i talked about transitional fossils?
you are avoiding the question, obviously, what would you expect to see in a transitional fossil?
if i was designing a human i would improve upon alot of things.
-
what would a transitional fossil look like?
how did i lose you at the point after i talked about transitional fossils?
you are avoiding the question, obviously, what would you expect to see in a transitional fossil?
if i was designing a human i would improve upon alot of things.
A transitional fossil would be the hundreds of different types of dogs that exist and take another known species and a have a transition between the dog and another species for example the changes between the dog and the other species have to be the same increments as the changes within different variation of dogs, sorry not good at explaining things, but you get my point and that type of transition has never occured between two species, the word species is what you accepted as the definition in another post, at least that's the way I am using it here for lack of a better term
-
A transitional fossil would be the hundreds of different types of dogs that exist and take another known species and a have a transition between the dog and another species for example the changes between the dog and the other species have to be the same increments as the changes within different variation of dogs, sorry not good at explaining things, but you get my point and that type of transition has never occured between two species, the word species is what you accepted as the definition in another post, at least that's the way I am using it here for lack of a better term
that is exactly what has been found, they have whale fossils showing slow progression into the whales we have today. New species have been created in labs from existing ones such that they can no longer mate making them different species.
changes in a species must be beneficial hence you will never see a fossil that is half bird half human because evolution doesn't work that way, every fossil is a transitional fossil. You only see whole organisms because that is the only way they would survive, what sense would it make for a bird to evolve into a half breed retard species that cannot survive?
-
that is exactly what has been found, they have whale fossils showing slow progression into the whales we have today. New species have been created in labs from existing ones such that they can no longer mate making them different species.
changes in a species must be beneficial hence you will never see a fossil that is half bird half human because evolution doesn't work that way, every fossil is a transitional fossil. You only see whole organisms because that is the only way they would survive, what sense would it make for a bird to evolve into a half breed retard species that cannot survive?
So whales transitioned into whales? And in 2 billion years, does evidence suggest that today's transitioned whale will become an even more transitioned whale? Or a thale perhaps? Or does evidence suggest it'll transition into a new type of fur-covered, four-legged house pet similar in size to the common cat or dog? I don't know all the biology and genetics. I have a Christian brain so if the topic doesn't involve the passing of a collection plate or beating someone with a rod or stone with intense religious zeal I'm a bit lost.
-
So whales transitioned into whales? And in 2 billion years, does evidence suggest that today's transitioned whale will become an even more transitioned whale? Or a thale perhaps? Or does evidence suggest it'll transition into a new type of fur-covered, four-legged house pet similar in size to the common cat or dog? I don't know all the biology and genetics. I have a Christian brain so if the topic doesn't involve the passing of a collection plate or beating someone with a rod or stone with intense religious zeal I'm a bit lost.
Lost perhaps - but not without a sense of humor. Kudos ;)
-
So whales transitioned into whales? And in 2 billion years, does evidence suggest that today's transitioned whale will become an even more transitioned whale? Or a thale perhaps? Or does evidence suggest it'll transition into a new type of fur-covered, four-legged house pet similar in size to the common cat or dog? I don't know all the biology and genetics. I have a Christian brain so if the topic doesn't involve the passing of a collection plate or beating someone with a rod or stone with intense religious zeal I'm a bit lost.
Now that's funny ;D
-
So whales transitioned into whales? And in 2 billion years, does evidence suggest that today's transitioned whale will become an even more transitioned whale? Or a thale perhaps? Or does evidence suggest it'll transition into a new type of fur-covered, four-legged house pet similar in size to the common cat or dog? I don't know all the biology and genetics. I have a Christian brain so if the topic doesn't involve the passing of a collection plate or beating someone with a rod or stone with intense religious zeal I'm a bit lost.
i honestly think you believe some of what you wrote, like a whale evolving into a housecat is somehow beneficial for a whale. What we have are species of water mammals which all exhibit features more and more distant from land mammals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans
here you go if you would like to learn.
-
i honestly think you believe some of what you wrote, like a whale evolving into a housecat is somehow beneficial for a whale. What we have are species of water mammals which all exhibit features more and more distant from land mammals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans
here you go if you would like to learn.
Actually, I asked if evidence suggests that over time the current transitioned whales will transition into something similar in size to a dog or cat. I ask only because dinosaurs are believed to have evolved/transitioned into birds and primates evolved/transitioned into humans, so I thought it a fair question.
What I didn't state was "whales will become cats".
-
Lost perhaps - but not without a sense of humor. Kudos ;)
I try. :D
I did find interesting your use of the word "lost"....I find it both insightful and ironic.
-
Actually, I asked if evidence suggests that over time the current transitioned whales will transition into something similar in size to a dog or cat. I ask only because dinosaurs are believed to have evolved/transitioned into birds and primates evolved/transitioned into humans, so I thought it a fair question.
What I didn't state was "whales will become cats".
"Or does evidence suggest it'll transition into a new type of fur-covered, four-legged house pet similar in size to the common cat or dog"
evolution has no goal so no one can predict if something will evolve or not, it is a complex process depending on the fitness of the population, genetic drift, natural selection, potentially beneficial mutations and the environment as it is rapidly changing.
evolution usually has to be beneficial to a species as genes look to propagate, hence, a whale would evolve into a creature more suited to the sea, it would not evolve into a furry land dwelling creature because there is no pressure or selection required in that direction. humans aren't essentially more evolved, but we are for our environment, if you put us in the ocean we would die therefore adaptation in the direction is highly unlikely because natural selection would due us in from the jump.
read the link.
-
"Or does evidence suggest it'll transition into a new type of fur-covered, four-legged house pet similar in size to the common cat or dog"
evolution has no goal so no one can predict if something will evolve or not, it is a complex process depending on the fitness of the population, genetic drift, natural selection, potentially beneficial mutations and the environment as it is rapidly changing.
evolution usually has to be beneficial to a species as genes look to propagate, hence, a whale would evolve into a creature more suited to the sea, it would not evolve into a furry land dwelling creature because there is no pressure or selection required in that direction. humans aren't essentially more evolved, but we are for our environment, if you put us in the ocean we would die therefore adaptation in the direction is highly unlikely because natural selection would due us in from the jump.
read the link.
Help me understand further, so evolution is unpredictable, but a whale would evolve into a creature more suited to the sea? And the reason they would evolve in that way is that there is no pressure or selection requiring them to transition in a different direction, correct? I guess you could reason the flipside in that a fur-covered, four-legged house pet similar in size to the common cat or dog would not evolve into a whale for the same reason....so my questions above were kinda ridiculous?
-
Help me understand further, so evolution is unpredictable, but a whale would evolve into a creature more suited to the sea? And the reason they would evolve in that way is that there is no pressure or selection requiring them to transition in a different direction, correct? I guess you could reason the flipside in that a fur-covered, four-legged house pet similar in size to the common cat or dog would not evolve into a whale for the same reason....so my questions above were kinda ridiculous?
yes, natural selection and genetic drift are the drivers of evolution and neither would a cat be selected to live in an ocean or whale on land. The natural setting say the ocean favors creatures that can lift under water, have gills, swim well, endure the temperatures and pressure etc.
why would a cat be viable in the ocean it has none of these qualities but many suited to land, quick reflexes, nimble, athletic, keen senses etc...
you could adapt a cat to water theoretically overtime however, just introduce it to water slowly and select the generations that adapt well to water and keep breeding them over and over, but that is by intervention not natural selection or better yet selective breeding like you see in newfoundland dogs for example. They were breed to swim and rescue fisherman as such they evolved webbed paws which enables them to swim much better then other dogs and they also increased in size to ensure they could drag a man from the sea.
-
yes, natural selection and genetic drift are the drivers of evolution and neither would a cat be selected to live in an ocean or whale on land. The natural setting say the ocean favors creatures that can lift under water, have gills, swim well, endure the temperatures and pressure etc.
why would a cat be viable in the ocean it has none of these qualities but many suited to land, quick reflexes, nimble, athletic, keen senses etc...
you could adapt a cat to water theoretically overtime however, just introduce it to water slowly and select the generations that adapt well to water and keep breeding them over and over, but that is by intervention not natural selection or better yet selective breeding like you see in newfoundland dogs for example. They were breed to swim and rescue fisherman as such they evolved webbed paws which enables them to swim much better then other dogs and they also increased in size to ensure they could drag a man from the sea.
Actually I said, "a fur-covered, four-legged house pet similar in size to the common cat or dog" (wolves and deer are also referenced from time to time)....not necesarily a housecat of today.
That said, I know you've repeatedly requested I read the wiki link you provided (which I had), but did you read it?
This article delphs heavily into skull morphology, but the Pakicetus fossil findings were only a few fragmented teeth and what is believed to be the back of skull....artist renderings filled in all other gaps. Although the debate on the whales pelvis still persists. Some claims it's merely vestigial....a remnant of some prior use in an early transitional form; although, others claim that the pelvis bones serve as muscle anchors whales need in order to reproduce today.
-
Actually I said, "a fur-covered, four-legged house pet similar in size to the common cat or dog" (wolves and deer are also referenced from time to time)....not necesarily a housecat of today.
That said, I know you've repeatedly requested I read the wiki link you provided (which I had), but did you read it?
This article delphs heavily into skull morphology, but the Pakicetus fossil findings were only a few fragmented teeth and what is believed to be the back of skull....artist renderings filled in all other gaps. Although the debate on the whales pelvis still persists. Some claims it's merely vestigial....a remnant of some prior use in an early transitional form; although, others claim that the pelvis bones serve as muscle anchors whales need in order to reproduce today.
yes exactly, these are the debates in evolution, no one questions whether evolution occurs, genetics, nested hierarchies etc have conclusively proven it. Fossilization is a difficult process which can give us clues into how things may have progressed.
you would probably like the book by francis collins the language of god.
-
yes exactly, these are the debates in evolution, no one questions whether evolution occurs, genetics, nested hierarchies etc have conclusively proven it. Fossilization is a difficult process which can give us clues into how things may have progressed.
you would probably like the book by francis collins the language of god.
Bro, you are good at making a point, yes, I will give you that.....but some time your fundamental ways get the best of you, "conclusively proven" C'mon now, lots of people far smarter then you and I think evolution is horseshit.
-
Bro, you are good at making a point, yes, I will give you that.....but some time your fundamental ways get the best of you, "conclusively proven" C'mon now, lots of people far smarter then you and I think evolution is horseshit.
well genetics has been conclusively proven to support evolution. What we see in genetics is that animals or better yet species that are more recent ancestors share more similar genetics. Take any pair and compare the genomes, what you see is a genetic hierarchy of sorts which evolution would predict. In fact we have two fewer chromosomes then other great apes, how could this be? well evolution predicted that some form of recombination would have to had occured and if not the theory would obviously fail as we could not be ancestors. We didnt have the ability to test this issue until mapping of the genome was carried out, and what did we find, exactly what evolution would predict.
there is no other way to interpret this. You see evolution has never been falsified. Sure minor details have been argued and are still, that is the nature of science. But bunny rabbits haven't been found in strata in which they could not be ie jurassic period or evolution would be wrong. Things like genetic drift, punctuated equilibrium, population dynamics etc are debatable, whether evolution occured is not, for the reason that everything that has ever been tested corroborates it and modern biology would fall down if it were not true.
evolution is seen in medicine daily with mutating viruses, drug resistant bacteria etc. The facts truly speak for themselves, of course there will always be holes as we can never recover every fossil and we are looking at huge time scales, but you have to understand that every prediction that evolution has produced has been confirmed. What about evolution has you so charged up? why can't you accept it? does it go against your faith, or do you have any credible reason. Please dont say a jar of peanut butter has never gave birth to a cow or some shit, or why are there still monkeys if we evolved from them (we actually evolved from the great apes specifically).
also, 99% of the species that once existed are extinct, why would god do this? why would he create things that existed before us only to have them die out? it makes literally no sense. evolution and belief in god are not in conflict, it is only in conflict with creationism which is non-sense. Perhaps god uses evolution to create endless possibilities, always open to change and environment.
-
well genetics has been conclusively proven to support evolution. What we see in genetics is that animals or better yet species that are more recent ancestors share more similar genetics. Take any pair and compare the genomes, what you see is a genetic hierarchy of sorts which evolution would predict. In fact we have two fewer chromosomes then other great apes, how could this be? well evolution predicted that some form of recombination would have to had occured and if not the theory would obviously fail as we could not be ancestors. We didnt have the ability to test this issue until mapping of the genome was carried out, and what did we find, exactly what evolution would predict.
there is no other way to interpret this. You see evolution has never been falsified. Sure minor details have been argued and are still, that is the nature of science. But bunny rabbits haven't been found in strata in which they could not be ie jurassic period or evolution would be wrong. Things like genetic drift, punctuated equilibrium, population dynamics etc are debatable, whether evolution occured is not, for the reason that everything that has ever been tested corroborates it and modern biology would fall down if it were not true.
evolution is seen in medicine daily with mutating viruses, drug resistant bacteria etc. The facts truly speak for themselves, of course there will always be holes as we can never recover every fossil and we are looking at huge time scales, but you have to understand that every prediction that evolution has produced has been confirmed. What about evolution has you so charged up? why can't you accept it? does it go against your faith, or do you have any credible reason. Please dont say a jar of peanut butter has never gave birth to a cow or some shit, or why are there still monkeys if we evolved from them (we actually evolved from the great apes specifically).
also, 99% of the species that once existed are extinct, why would god do this? why would he create things that existed before us only to have them die out? it makes literally no sense. evolution and belief in god are not in conflict, it is only in conflict with creationism which is non-sense. Perhaps god uses evolution to create endless possibilities, always open to change and environment.
Now we're stepping into the realm of gap creation theory, day-age creation theory and theistic evolution theory. To be perfectly honest, this is an area in which I struggle because I can't reconcile a full on 6-day creationist position and the accepted understanding that the earth isn't just 6000 years old (that's is more like 5.6 billion years old). I struggle with the accepted concept of the expanse of time in that the universe itself is approx 14-15 billion years old. I struggle with radiometric dating concepts and their verified accuracy (sure they have flaws like anything, but by and large they're accurate). Now my faith as a whole isn't shaken one bit. As a matter of fact, I'm far more open to the idea that slowly unlocking more answers through the vehicle of science adds tremendous color to so many topics we were once black and white on (ex: 6-day creation) and only helps broaden my faith....not reduce it. Nonbelievers feel that science will unlock the clues to destroying religion LOL!!! Sure, it may knock out many "religions", but it'll never remove the Holy Spirit and it's indwelling, life changing power for those that belief today in the Christian faith. That again has nothing to do with short-sightedness or an inability to accept "the truth". No, once the Holy Spirit fills you completely, changes your perceptions and washes over you like a flood in moments of fear or despair or worship or happiness you'll never deny the truth of Christ....you'll experience something that transcends all facets of science. I believe God wants us to unlock the mysteries behind his creation and I think science is definitely helping make that possible. I just don't want to latch on to some heretical position that conveniently fills a gap just for the sake of online arguement.
-
Now we're stepping into the realm of gap creation theory, day-age creation theory and theistic evolution theory. To be perfectly honest, this is an area in which I struggle because I can't reconcile a full on 6-day creationist position and the accepted understanding that the earth isn't just 6000 years old (that's is more like 5.6 billion years old). I struggle with the accepted concept of the expanse of time in that the universe itself is approx 14-15 billion years old. I struggle with radiometric dating concepts and their verified accuracy (sure they have flaws like anything, but by and large they're accurate). Now my faith as a whole isn't shaken one bit. As a matter of fact, I'm far more open to the idea that slowly unlocking more answers through the vehicle of science adds tremendous color to so many topics we were once black and white on (ex: 6-day creation) and only helps broaden my faith....not reduce it. Nonbelievers feel that science will unlock the clues to destroying religion LOL!!! Sure, it may knock out many "religions", but it'll never remove the Holy Spirit and it's indwelling, life changing power for those that belief today in the Christian faith. That again has nothing to do with short-sightedness or an inability to accept "the truth". No, once the Holy Spirit fills you completely, changes your perceptions and washes over you like a flood in moments of fear or despair or worship or happiness you'll never deny the truth of Christ....you'll experience something that transcends all facets of science. I believe God wants us to unlock the mysteries behind his creation and I think science is definitely helping make that possible. I just don't want to latch on to some heretical position that conveniently fills a gap just for the sake of online arguement.
6 literal days is the only way to view Genesis, the gap theory makes it seem like there could be great distances in time between day 1, day 2 etc, but this is not possible for the simple reason that on day 3 God created the plants and day 4 God created the sun.
-
6 literal days is the only way to view Genesis, the gap theory makes it seem like there could be great distances in time between day 1, day 2 etc, but this is not possible for the simple reason that on day 3 God created the plants and day 4 God created the sun.
I can fully accept the inerrancy of scripture, but what I can't reconcile away is the radiometric dating of things that shows objects to be millions or hundreds of thousands of years old. A literal 6-day creation would mean that radiometric dating and the cosmological dating of the universe at approx 14 billion years old is flat out wrong. Now, I can accept that it is wrong, but so much evidence indicates it to be correct. I can't speak to the intracies of the science behind it (despite my attempts to) and I understand that carbon dating is flawed in some regards, but other more accurate forms of radiometric dating exist using altogether different isotopes. Again, it's not the creation account I struggle with, it's the age of things that leaves me flat. If I go google a Christian scientist's refutation of radiometic dating I'll find a 100 atheist/agnostic scathing refutations of that Christian study with tons and tons of peer-reviewed support to back it up. How does a believer reconcile this concept alone?
-
I can fully accept the inerrancy of scripture, but what I can't reconcile away is the radiometric dating of things that shows objects to be millions or hundreds of thousands of years old. A literal 6-day creation would mean that radiometric dating and the cosmological dating of the universe at approx 14 billion years old is flat out wrong. Now, I can accept that it is wrong, but so much evidence indicates it to be correct. I can't speak to the intracies of the science behind it (despite my attempts to) and I understand that carbon dating is flawed in some regards, but other more accurate forms of radiometric dating exist using altogether different isotopes. Again, it's not the creation account I struggle with, it's the age of things that leaves me flat. If I go google a Christian scientist's refutation of radiometic dating I'll find a 100 atheist/agnostic scathing refutations of that Christian study with tons and tons of peer-reviewed support to back it up. How does a believer reconcile this concept alone?
Do you accept that Adam Eve where put on earth as babies or fully developed and mature. The speed of light is not set at one speed, in the lab it has been slowed down and a more reasent discovery shows that the speed has been exceeded, so measuring time by the speed of light is not set in stone and even it was God said over 12 times in the scriptures that he has streched out the heavens and those dating methods you've mention only work under conditions known to man today, imagine having the harshes strongest chemicals applied to a bone in a matter of minutes the bone can read an age of a hundrted thousand years, I can make an apple decompose in an hour but surely it takes days for an apple to decompose right? Imagine what the atmospheric preasure would have been likepre-flood if a human could live for 969 years and have an eye sight that wont diminsh for 900 years, certainly not the same condition we have today. If you believe in the flood then just imagine title waves a mile high and the fault line bursting open with lava gushing out, there is no limit to the amount of activities and chemical imbalances that could have aged thing instantly. In a high school science text book they show that the glaciers leave annual rings so when you cut through ice if the rings are a foot apart you would know that the ice builds up in that area a foot per year right? sounds good until someone dug up a ww2 fighter plane under a thousand annual rings.
Plus our boy Necrosis just admitted that evolution is false when he said "if a rabbit is found in the Jurassic layer".....you see according to national geographic lot of human artifacts have been found in the Jurassic layer, 1 particular article stands out (*will dig it up later) plus lot of misplaced objects in layers that don't correspond to their layers including a human foot print in the cambrian period and how does Necrosis explain Polystrate fossils?
-
Do you accept that Adam Eve where put on earth as babies or fully developed and mature. The speed of light is not set at one speed, in the lab it has been slowed down and a more reasent discovery shows that the speed has been exceeded, so measuring time by the speed of light is not set in stone and even it was God said over 12 times in the scriptures that he has streched out the heavens and those dating methods you've mention only work under conditions known to man today, imagine having the harshes strongest chemicals applied to a bone in a matter of minutes the bone can read an age of a hundrted thousand years, I can make an apple decompose in an hour but surely it takes days for an apple to decompose right? Imagine what the atmospheric preasure would have been likepre-flood if a human could live for 969 years and have an eye sight that wont diminsh for 900 years, certainly not the same condition we have today. If you believe in the flood then just imagine title waves a mile high and the fault line bursting open with lava gushing out, there is no limit to the amount of activities and chemical imbalances that could have aged thing instantly. In a high school science text book they show that the glaciers leave annual rings so when you cut through ice if the rings are a foot apart you would know that the ice builds up in that area a foot per year right? sounds good until someone dug up a ww2 fighter plane under a thousand annual rings.
Plus our boy Necrosis just admitted that evolution is false when he said "if a rabbit is found in the Jurassic layer".....you see according to national geographic lot of human artifacts have been found in the Jurassic layer, 1 particular article stands out (*will dig it up later) plus lot of misplaced objects in layers that don't correspond to their layers including a human foot print in the cambrian period and how does Necrosis explain Polystrate fossils?
you sound like a conspiracy theorist, post up your evidence and all the creationist arguments you can find, it would be fun to tear them apart.
radiometric dating is very accurate, and to make it more accurate they use several methods independently to arrive at the age, they all agree. Its clear you are swamped with creationist propaganda.
you are full of half truths and all this non-sense is laughable, please i beg you post the creationist arguments that disprove evolution.
here is the dinosaur blood and the polystrate trees debunked
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creationism/dinosaur-blood-and-polystrate-trees-debunked-t6324.html
you think humans lived for 969 years? lol why would they, what evidence do you have. From all evidence in human history lifespan has been increasing with techonology and advancements in science. You are lost my friend, caught up in a web of lies unable to think for yourself.
your example of chemicals and bones shows you dont understand how radiometric dating works. applying harsh chemicals will not alter nuclide half life, so your statement is false. Do you see a pattern here? you make all these claims that are either lies or just downright propaganda.
The WW2 fighter plane is also laughable
http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/cre-ice.html
check the snowfall for the area and then look at this morons reference, its an article in a time magazine LMAO..
honestly i cant tell if you are trolling or not, do you still believe what you wrote despite me debunking it?
-
Do you accept that Adam Eve where put on earth as babies or fully developed and mature. The speed of light is not set at one speed, in the lab it has been slowed down and a more reasent discovery shows that the speed has been exceeded, so measuring time by the speed of light is not set in stone and even it was God said over 12 times in the scriptures that he has streched out the heavens and those dating methods you've mention only work under conditions known to man today, imagine having the harshes strongest chemicals applied to a bone in a matter of minutes the bone can read an age of a hundrted thousand years, I can make an apple decompose in an hour but surely it takes days for an apple to decompose right? Imagine what the atmospheric preasure would have been likepre-flood if a human could live for 969 years and have an eye sight that wont diminsh for 900 years, certainly not the same condition we have today. If you believe in the flood then just imagine title waves a mile high and the fault line bursting open with lava gushing out, there is no limit to the amount of activities and chemical imbalances that could have aged thing instantly. In a high school science text book they show that the glaciers leave annual rings so when you cut through ice if the rings are a foot apart you would know that the ice builds up in that area a foot per year right? sounds good until someone dug up a ww2 fighter plane under a thousand annual rings.
Plus our boy Necrosis just admitted that evolution is false when he said "if a rabbit is found in the Jurassic layer".....you see according to national geographic lot of human artifacts have been found in the Jurassic layer, 1 particular article stands out (*will dig it up later) plus lot of misplaced objects in layers that don't correspond to their layers including a human foot print in the cambrian period and how does Necrosis explain Polystrate fossils?
Yes, this is the kind of information I haven't read and it puts a different spin on the situation. I'm fairly certain that any supporting evidence from scientists will return the usual "that guy is a known quack in his field" from aths/ags.....par for the course I suppose.
Adam and Eve were created as full grown adults. Again, I fully accept and believe that God transcends our finite perceptions and that our studies don't grasp his infinite scope. Thereinlies the rub, God goes beyond our natural world and occupies both natural and supernatural and for aths/ags whose church resides in the lab the concept of immeasurable supernatural qualities simply can't be.
-
Yes, this is the kind of information I haven't read and it puts a different spin on the situation. I'm fairly certain that any supporting evidence from scientists will return the usual "that guy is a known quack in his field" from aths/ags.....par for the course I suppose.
Adam and Eve were created as full grown adults. Again, I fully accept and believe that God transcends our finite perceptions and that our studies don't grasp his infinite scope. Thereinlies the rub, God goes beyond our natural world and occupies both natural and supernatural and for aths/ags whose church resides in the lab the concept of immeasurable supernatural qualities simply can't be.
so god works in a way we cant know and this is how you know science can't fully elucidate his magic? seems logical
oh ya, so theres adam and eve, they have sex and create a baby, who does the baby have sex with to propagate the species? i mean if it started with only two then incest is the only option, strange option for god to choose.
-
so god works in a way we cant know and this is how you know science can't fully elucidate his magic? seems logical
oh ya, so theres adam and eve, they have sex and create a baby, who does the baby have sex with to propagate the species? i mean if it started with only two then incest is the only option, strange option for god to choose.
As always the sarcasm is noted LOL, but in essence that is the situation. If you don't belief, if the Holy Spirit does not indwell in you then the concept of God is merely illogical. There is no reconciliation between God and science because your heart has not first been reconciled with God. I've said this time and time again. Science can shed light on many, many things, but it's scope is finite and regardless of agreement between experts in different scientific disciplines most concepts are still theoretical (I do grasp that's a gross generalization). Does that mean the concepts are invalid? Absolutely not. I've made it quite clear that science is a great vehicle for helping us unlock the mysteries behind God's creation. My position doesn't become somehow black and white because we disagree...that's a position aths/ags continually take. It's as extremist as the "narrow-minded" Christian perspective we're accussed of having. I'm open to new information, but I'm not open to a adopting a heretical stance that defies all scripture and seeks to eliminate God (ex: a cosmological theory that attempts to remove a creation singularity).
Yes, incest was the means for propogating the species. As the generational lines grew God outlawed incestual relationships altogether. It's the answer to classic: Where did Cain get his wife from?
-
As always the sarcasm is noted LOL, but in essence that is the situation. If you don't belief, if the Holy Spirit does not indwell in you then the concept of God is merely illogical. There is no reconciliation between God and science because your heart has not first been reconciled with God. I've said this time and time again. Science can shed light on many, many things, but it's scope is finite and regardless of agreement between experts in different scientific disciplines most concepts are still theoretical (I do grasp that's a gross generalization). Does that mean the concepts are invalid? Absolutely not. I've made it quite clear that science is a great vehicle for helping us unlock the mysteries behind God's creation. My position doesn't become somehow black and white because we disagree...that's a position aths/ags continually take. It's as extremist as the "narrow-minded" Christian perspective we're accussed of having. I'm open to new information, but I'm not open to a adopting a heretical stance that defies all scripture and seeks to eliminate God (ex: a cosmological theory that attempts to remove a creation singularity).
Yes, incest was the means for propogating the species. As the generational lines grew God outlawed incestual relationships altogether. It's the answer to classic: Where did Cain get his wife from?
you fit the definition of narrow-minded, you however realize this. You are open to new concepts with a qualifier they cannot refute the bible nor can they interfere with god and his word. That is not open at all. I on the other hand am, if evidence for a supernatural being existed i would accept it with open arms, i have no stake in truth one way or the other, i simply follow truth where ever the evidence leads.
That is such a bad way to propagate a species, it is in fact dangerous and could be if you believed in what you said the cause for many genetic illnesses seen today. I appreciate your honesty however you are a true christian unlike many of the lying,bigots i interact with or that are are faith healers stealing money from the sick. Loco and stella are also good people and i am fine with you believing what you like, i oppose religion on moral grounds and that is my beef. I feel it impedes knowledge because it claims to have all the answers and leads otherwise moral people to commit terrible acts.
-
Now we're stepping into the realm of gap creation theory, day-age creation theory and theistic evolution theory. To be perfectly honest, this is an area in which I struggle because I can't reconcile a full on 6-day creationist position and the accepted understanding that the earth isn't just 6000 years old (that's is more like 5.6 billion years old).
they arent theories because they contain no testable hypotheses, they are guesses and conjecture only. I just want that to be clear.
-
you sound like a conspiracy theorist, post up your evidence and all the creationist arguments you can find, it would be fun to tear them apart.
radiometric dating is very accurate, and to make it more accurate they use several methods independently to arrive at the age, they all agree. Its clear you are swamped with creationist propaganda.
you are full of half truths and all this non-sense is laughable, please i beg you post the creationist arguments that disprove evolution.
here is the dinosaur blood and the polystrate trees debunked
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creationism/dinosaur-blood-and-polystrate-trees-debunked-t6324.html
you think humans lived for 969 years? lol why would they, what evidence do you have. From all evidence in human history lifespan has been increasing with techonology and advancements in science. You are lost my friend, caught up in a web of lies unable to think for yourself.
your example of chemicals and bones shows you dont understand how radiometric dating works. applying harsh chemicals will not alter nuclide half life, so your statement is false. Do you see a pattern here? you make all these claims that are either lies or just downright propaganda.
The WW2 fighter plane is also laughable
http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/cre-ice.html
check the snowfall for the area and then look at this morons reference, its an article in a time magazine LMAO..
honestly i cant tell if you are trolling or not, do you still believe what you wrote despite me debunking it?
I never said that this is the way things are, I am simply stateing that all the methods shown by evolution of dating things are horse shit and a lot of people are recognizing this today, don't be dumb and gullible to believe that when a bone comes out of the ground it can tell you that it's 65 million years old by some silly made up column that has a million flaws found throughout every single day. And no offence but you are a complete fool if you think that potassium argon or carbon 14 will yield the same results if artifacts from jupiter atmosphere would be tested, duh, obviously they would show completely different numbers in age cause things age differently there cause there environment is completerly different then ours, stupid. :P
I am not claiming to know anything all I am claiming is your fundemental evolutionary ways are fanatic and the claims are not only outrages but laughable, no proof at all that monkeys and us share a common ancestor, this is the 90's news, not many people believe this anymore, maybe you are the gimmick :'(
-
I never said that this is the way things are, I am simply stateing that all the methods shown by evolution of dating things are horse shit and a lot of people are recognizing this today, don't be dumb and gullible to believe that when a bone comes out of the ground it can tell you that it's 65 million years old by some silly made up column that has a million flaws found throughout every single day. And no offence but you are a complete fool if you think that potassium argon or carbon 14 will yield the same results if artifacts from jupiter atmosphere would be tested, duh, obviously they would show completely different numbers in age cause things age differently there cause there environment is completerly different then ours, stupid. :P
I am not claiming to know anything all I am claiming is your fundemental evolutionary ways are fanatic and the claims are not only outrages but laughable, no proof at all that monkeys and us share a common ancestor, this is the 90's news, not many people believe this anymore, maybe you are the gimmick :'(
you are acting as if you have read something on the subject, no the decay of isotopes on jupiter would be the same, did you see the point where i stated, chemicals, temperature have little to no effect on nuclides? so your whole statement is false.
its clear you are either a troll or someone who is of low intelligence and i dont mean that in a disrespectful way its just that you are making all these false claims and when disproved resort to name calling and making up more ridiculous shit.
shit like polystrate trees, the stupid plane in the north from a magazine with no testing, dinosaur blood that doesn't exist etc.....
just like the rest of the creationists you are a liar, deceiver and above all of low intellect.
-
Sure I will except all that, but you are so lost in your own world that you refuse to see that evolution is a dying theory, a grade 3 can see this :-*
-
Sure I will except all that, but you are so lost in your own world that you refuse to see that evolution is a dying theory, a grade 3 can see this :-*
trololololololololololol olololoololololololol
evolution is biology lol.
how did those trials work out for you guys, the liars wouldn't even testify and the judge stated creationism is ID which is religion and not science lmao. You are associating yourself with liars, people who spread false information and claim to be men of god.
-
trololololololololololololololoololololololol
evolution is biology lol.
how did those trials work out for you guys, the liars wouldn't even testify and the judge stated creationism is ID which is religion and not science lmao. You are associating yourself with liars, people who spread false information and claim to be men of god.
We both know creationism will never replace evolution,I can admit that but you have to admit that evolution reached its height in the 90's and now people think it's a fraud but there isn't anything to replace it so they just keep it but everyopne can see that it's on way down, if you can't admit this... then you're simply in denial
-
We both know creationism will never replace evolution,I can admit that but you have to admit that evolution reached its height in the 90's and now people think it's a fraud but there isn't anything to replace it so they just keep it but everyopne can see that it's on way down, if you can't admit this... then you're simply in denial
you make it sound like evolution is a fad and an opinion, lol.
-
We both know creationism will never replace evolution
Of course not -- after all, evolution is an actual, bona fide, scientific theory; creationism is a religious story trying to dress up (badly) as pseudo-scientific mambo-jumbo.
you have to admit that evolution reached its height in the 90's and now people think it's a fraud
Which people think that? What are the credentials of these people? Have they published their "thoughts" in peer-reviewed journals? What reception have their thoughts received? Do they have any proof or evidence for their thinking? Can it can stand up to scrutiny?
These and other rhetoric questions tonight at 11. Only on GetBig!
but there isn't anything to replace it so they just keep it but everyopne can see that it's on way down, if you can't admit this... then you're simply in denial
I don't think the words you use mean what you think they mean. We should probably add "English" to the list of topics that you have difficulties with. Gold star for the effort though :)
-
It's amazing how we evolved from a gibbon into modern man, like some believe, without genetic manipulation. But, following that timeline, I guess in 50 million years, everyone will be 30 feet tall with an iq of 300 without any genetic manipulation, just evolving like nature intended.
-
It's amazing how we evolved from a gibbon into modern man, like some believe, without genetic manipulation. But, following that timeline, I guess in 50 million years, everyone will be 30 feet tall with an iq of 300 without any genetic manipulation, just evolving like nature intended.
high iq had its detriments, in fact those who are smarter have higher levels of mental ailments. Also, have you ever heard of rube goldberg machines? well thats what we have become and it causes alot of issues. Also, why would it be beneficial to be that tall? think of the metabolic requirements, i would imagine since we dont have to run or fight predators we would evolve towards less metabolically active tissue and become smaller in a sense. That makes sense, things just dont evolve for the hell of it, its the pressure that creates change like all things. If we suddenly have to eat from the tops of trees and forgot how to make latters then in 100 million years we could look like giraffes i guess, although thats something a creationist would say.
we didnt evolve from a single cell either, nor mud, or gook. We evolved from great apes a lesser evolved species just like they did from their ancestors all the way back to the single cell, complex life doesnt pop up from bacteria, more complex bacteria does, then multi-cellular bacteria, fungus, plant life etc etc............
creationists envision these giant leaps.
-
LOL well I dont think anybody here is trying to make the claim that b/c we dont know why or how it happened it must be b/c God did it. i think he is pointing out the fact that nobody knows how life created which does mean that religion is a possiblity does it not? why do ppl start threads and pointless never ending arguements over God not existing? Religion is not necissarily full of uncompremising, ignorant ppl as you may seem to think. Religion will in all reality probably never be proven wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt as new info will just be worked into the belief system.
I kinda agree with everything you've written here but religion flies in the face of reality..we have to be scientific......we will probably never know how we got here..its just all to mind-blowing for us anyway....
-
Evolution to me is a given, but to trace our origins from it is unrealistic. There was genetic manipulation at some point.
-
Evolution to me is a given, but to trace our origins from it is unrealistic. There was genetic manipulation at some point.
by whom?
-
by whom?
By the anunaki?........lol now that is a silly theory, Zachariah S ???
-
Evolution to me is a given, but to trace our origins from it is unrealistic. There was genetic manipulation at some point.
why because our species seems so advanced? it was one trait that caused all this, increased cerebral cortex and prefrontal cortex. Think of it on a logarithmic scale not exponetial.
A cat would seem manipulated to a cockroach, the cockroach would question how the cat could be so advanced and jump so high etc.. you are in the same scenario in reverse.
-
why because our species seems so advanced?
Because we're so similar in DNA to chimps. We can tweek in the lab today, why is it out of the realm of possibility that we are tweeks ourselves at some point?
What would you call those that were responsible when you finally had the understanding and to make record of it? God? Annunaki?
-
Because we're so similar in DNA to chimps. We can tweek in the lab today, why is it out of the realm of possibility that we are tweeks ourselves at some point?
NOW AVAILABLE! OCCAM'S RAZOR! IT SLICES! IT DICES! AND IF YOU CALL IN THE NEXT 5 MINUTES WE'LL SEND YOU AN EXTRA RAZOR FOR TWICE THE RAZORING ACTION!
-
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/s480x480/395741_586327474721601_1357907265_n.jpg)