Debate Time!! :: Creation vs. Evolution [Archive]

JianDan[Ai]

09-11-2003, 05:53 AM

I jus wanna ask a quick question CiCi...are u a Christian?

I personally find a bunch of flaw in that belief as well..(sry if this is unorganized...im tired...been a long day at work)

(1) Ok God created people right? He created the Universe..everything in a matter of a few days. But he created NO evil right? Everything was perfect and Adam and Eve were the PERFECT human beings. Then one angel named ...who we now know as Satin, Lucifer...call him what u will defects and becomes evil. Will someone please explain to me...how he even knew what evil was...how how did the idea of "mutiny" ever cross his mind...if there was no such thing ever created...and how did Adam compromise his PERFECT ideals with a talking snake? Im sorry but this sounds about as believable as the 3 little pigs to me.

(2) Ok say these things are all explainable...evil...SOMEHOW spawns randomly even tho God...the creater or light, the planet, the universe...did not create evil...but somehow it appears...why does he not destroy it. Now i know your IMMEDIATE answe..."b/c god wants to see who will choose good over evil" ...but let me ask you....we all can agree that chrisitanity is a european philosphy...in asia, the americas, in africa...no one believed in this god...in fact, most culture believed in EXTREMELY different gods...like in india...there was buddaism..with thousands of gods, and they worships these...as did american indians and their gods...THEY BROKE A COMMANDMENT...are they doomed for eternity? Who was there too tell them that there is Jesus and Jehovah? Is it fair to curse these ppl to eternal damnation for being born else where in the world?

(3) This also applies for everyone before christianity and the bibles...i guess i will be spending a eternity in hell with the roman empire, the huns, and all those ppl...who while some DO deserve to be there...the good ones have no choice...cuz NO ONE knew about god b4 then...

(4) So currently...if u lived on the planet outside of europe b4 the bible started to cirulate...u were doomed anyway...god seems like QUITE a pimp up there...u gotta play his magic game...believe in him...when u have nothing to that u can touch, taste, see, hear, or feel except for a book...and if u are a visual learner...or not so easily pulled into these things and need more convincing...well then sucks for u too...cuz god isnt making any guest appearances or conferences...u get to DIE...

(5) ok there is a lot of suffering in the world...is god causing this? if not...why does he let it continue...ppl are dying..babies...b4 they can even put their faith in him...ppl who by all standards are good innocent ppl...put through lots of pain...what kinda game is god playing...are we all legos he can maniuplate? and if so...what is the point of giving us a brain...he jus sets half of us aside as the evil army, the other half as the good army, and we blindy battle it out till we are all dead...is this god's great plan?

one more thing CiCi..u say a lot of things about lack of proof...relgion also lacks proof as well...besides the bible...there is no way u can prove there is a god

ok ive talked enough...but please b4 u respond...please realize...i do not mean to trash christianity in anyway...i simply cannot bring my self to believe it as perhaps some of u have...i respect your faith and so i hope this does not becoem a ugly fight in this thread :dry:

jakinni

09-11-2003, 05:59 AM

What's your stance?

1). Evolutionists failed to produce even ONE case showing that a plant or animal has actually evolved from another type. Meaning, no fossils, no proof.
I'm not sure what proof that would satisfy you, but there are plenty of evidence of evolution having occurred from the fossils of early hominids to present day humans, from primitive horse fossils no bigger than foxes to present day horses. However, if one wants evidence as in evolution "in action" then it is impossible as evolution does not occur on the individual, but occurs through generations. So any one person will not show signs of evolutionary process occuring, but a population will. For example, Darwin's typical example of the birds on the Galapagos islands, the Finches there, because of the isolation from the others, have evolved more rapidly and became 13 different species not found elsewhere. Or originally white flies in industrious areas that have evolved to become dark in colour to adapt to the conditions to better camouflage themselves from predators.

2). Evolution completely goes against the Laws of Thermodynamics (especially the 2nd law, "law of increasing entrophy"). Which is, for every action there is a loss of useful energy, meaning things go from order to disorder. But evolution states things are from simple to more and more complex.
From order to disorder, energy is released, however that doesn't mean that things can never go the other way around. From disorder to order, conversely, energy is required, and thus the more complex, the more energy required. Where does the energy come from? At the origin of life on Earth, energy from solar radiation, lightning, cosmic radiation, geothermal vents, volcanic activity all contribute.

3). Evolutionists believe (found in secular biology textbook): Bacteria became squid.. MILESTONE squid grew hair (no pictures), hairy squid became horse (wth?), MILESTONE (another no picture for proof) horse teeth became sharp, sharp-teethed horse became seal (omg..), MILESTONE (no pic) seal grew legs and hair, seal became lion, then.. finally.. lion becomes household cat. That. Is. Beyond. Bizarre. And that's what they believe.
I don't know if that's the correct sequence, but bizarre is not a very scientific basis for not accepting the theory.

4). So the world is created by the Big Bang, huh? Have you ever seen a tornado go through a house and completely restructure everything so it becomes BETTER than it was before? Whoa, tell me if you've seen one.
I'm no physicist, but of course if the Big Bang occured, it resulted in disorder, however that does not mean that the individual components of the disorder cannot then be shaped by natural forces to become something else. In any sense, the notion of better or worse does not apply to evolutionary theory. It is natural for us to think that evolution tends towards better, and thus us humans are the best, but each species has its own niche and is better suited to one environment over another. It is the difference, that evolutionary theory supports. So it is a theory of adaptation, not one of going up a hierarchy of life.

5). How can LIVING life come from non-living things such as chemicals? Isn't it common sense?
It has been scientifically shown that just by having a mixture of simple chemicals such as nitrogen, carbon, phosphorous, hydrogen, etc. in the atmosphere, the interactions of the mixture and contact with surfaces such as rocks can result in the formation of more complex molecules and with the laws of hydrophobicity and hydrophilicity, Similar molecules partition and form "bubbles" (micelles) that are like sacs taht contain a mixture of chemicals from which it originated, and thus the particles on the inside interact with each other differently than particles on the outside due to concentration differences and such. With simples laws of diffusion, newly formed chemi

cals can diffuse out of these bubbles and into other bubbles to which it can provide beneficial functions. Thus the beginnings of the protocell, early forms of the basis of life, the cell.

In conclusion, I am an evolutionist, however, it is also possible for creationism and evolutionism to co-exist as evolutionary theory explains the mechanisms of change, the processes that have occurred over billions of years. But creationism may be used to explain the origins, the beginnings if one wants to believe it. It may be used to explain the "why" in the question while science explains the "how". It is very important that one's religious views do not cloud the acceptance of scientific literature.

Vant

09-11-2003, 06:26 AM

For the evolving animals thing... Think about this...

Everything living is made up of a simple DNA strand...

Now picture a small little bacteria cell with some DNA stuff...

Now we all know that when things reproduce... Not everything goes perfectly well... Mutations will occur...

Lets say that this small mutation made it bigger... Or gave it the ability work with other cells... Basicly mutations add up and pretty soon you have over a billion new species from that one single one... It's already been made clear that no human is alike... Even twins... We're all different for a reason... And thank god for that reason... Because if we were all alike... That would be boring :/

Oh and I'm an evolutionist for those who are confuzzled ;p

09-11-2003, 06:39 AM

wait

didn't i post some really long stuff about this before?

let me do a quick search

jayx8318x

09-11-2003, 06:42 AM

wait

didn't i post some really long stuff about this before?

let me do a quick search

heh it's OK Jo even if it was posted before, such thoughtful discussions are so hard to come by. This is well worth saving even if it's a repeat.

09-11-2003, 06:44 AM

i know Karen =)

i just meant i need to post it here...in order to do that i have to find it

i have a few new points though

jayx8318x

09-11-2003, 06:49 AM

Jo did u find it? Is it this one?
http://www.jay-chou.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2958

09-11-2003, 07:01 AM

1. the second law of Thermodynamics states "the entropy of the universe increases"

entropy means deterioration, and chaos...since this is a law...that must mean its proven true

which would make interesting contradictions to evolution...since evolution requires the world to develop from chaos in the beginning to order that we have now...and from uncivilized to civilzation...that flies right in the face of the law of entropy

2. mutations are over 90 percent harmful to an organism..and evolution is basically mutation after mutations of a simple life form into a complex lifeform...i don't see how a bacteria could go against the terrifying odds of nature and eventually develop into a human being

3. it has been confirmed that spontaneous generation is invalid

which would also fly in the face of evolution...since evolution basically means that we all came from nothing...the world appeared out of nothing...and a cell was delivered onto Earth by nothing...

so...the universe, defying the fact that spontaneous generation is impossible...appeared out of nothing...and then a living cell was born out of landscape of lifeless objects...which eventually defied the odds of mutation to develop into a more advanced organism...and then the world eventually defied the second law of thermodynamics to develop into our modern society...hmm...

the above is what i have posted before

now i have a few more points to add

4. Darwin didn't clarify origins

in his book, The Origin of Species, Darwin only made recordings of what he has observed, and such recordings were consisted of birds and certain small creatures

he noticed the plummage of the birds, and how they move...and he defined them into a category called "species"...and his given definition of it is that members of a species tend to function the same way...yet...his recorded drawings of these birds were of different "species", as classified by modern science (today). but he went further to hypothesize that the same species all derive from one gene pool, and that all genes are direct traces of each other...and yet...science has proven that no two living organisms in existence could ever be identical genetically, or even close (outside of cloning conductions). what is the most ironic thing about this book is that contrary to the title, "Origin of Species," the book itself never once mentions the origin of anything, it is only a book of theories and observations Darwin took on his trip to Galapagos Islands

5. acquired characteristics are proven invalid in genetic inheritance

Darwin also stated that living organisms receive certain characterstics from their parents, some of which were acquired by the parent during his/her lifetime...so if a bird that never flew kept flapping its wings, and the muscle gradually grows...after several hundred generations the future offsprings of that exact bird would be capable of flight, due to the muscle mass of their wings

this he said, was the way for organisms to adapt to its invironment and gradually "evolve" to a better form, and he believed that as humans gather more and more intelligence, eventually we would be able to create a Utopia...

not only is the Utopian idea laughable (to me, at least, no offense), but scientists have never been able to prove that acquired characterstics can be passed down from parent to children

now i've got a TV show to watch...i'm sure i left out some points...i'll be back with them afterwards

(yer Karen, i found it in that, thanks though =)

jakinni

09-11-2003, 07:11 AM

5. acquired characteristics are proven invalid in genetic inheritance

Darwin also stated that living organisms receive certain characterstics from their parents, some of which were acquired by the parent during his/her lifetime...so if a bird that never flew kept flapping its wings, and the muscle gradually grows...after several hundred generations the future offsprings of that exact bird would be capable of flight, due to the muscle mass of their wings

scientists have never been able to prove that acquired characterstics can be passed down from parent to children

I haven't read Origin of Species, but I'm pretty confident that the theory of "inheritance of acquired characteristics" is the idea of Lamarck, and you're right, that has been disprove a long time ago with the principles of genetics. The example typically used is that a giraffe, because it has to reach taller branches, stretches its neck, it becomes longer and thus this is passed down to future generations. But of course this is not true since ANY alterations to the individual that occur during his/her/its lifetime will not be passed down to the next generation. It is only the genetic information encoded in the sex cells that have formed prior to birth that are capable of conferring variation to the next generation. DNA changes in your body can cause tumours, but DNA changes in your sex cells are inherited.

09-11-2003, 07:16 AM

that, i'm not sure of

i do know though, through research, that Darwin used it as a primary example of how evolution came to be

Mike

09-11-2003, 07:17 AM

]I jus wanna ask a quick question CiCi...are u a Christian?

I personally find a bunch of flaw in that belief as well..(sry if this is unorganized...im tired...been a long day at work)

(1) Ok God created people right? He created the Universe..everything in a matter of a few days. But he created NO evil right? Everything was perfect and Adam and Eve were the PERFECT human beings. Then one angel named ...who we now know as Satin, Lucifer...call him what u will defects and becomes evil. Will someone please explain to me...how he even knew what evil was...how how did the idea of "mutiny" ever cross his mind...if there was no such thing ever created...and how did Adam compromise his PERFECT ideals with a talking snake? Im sorry but this sounds about as believable as the 3 little pigs to me.

(2) Ok say these things are all explainable...evil...SOMEHOW spawns randomly even tho God...the creater or light, the planet, the universe...did not create evil...but somehow it appears...why does he not destroy it. Now i know your IMMEDIATE answe..."b/c god wants to see who will choose good over evil" ...but let me ask you....we all can agree that chrisitanity is a european philosphy...in asia, the americas, in africa...no one believed in this god...in fact, most culture believed in EXTREMELY different gods...like in india...there was buddaism..with thousands of gods, and they worships these...as did american indians and their gods...THEY BROKE A COMMANDMENT...are they doomed for eternity? Who was there too tell them that there is Jesus and Jehovah? Is it fair to curse these ppl to eternal damnation for being born else where in the world?

(3) This also applies for everyone before christianity and the bibles...i guess i will be spending a eternity in hell with the roman empire, the huns, and all those ppl...who while some DO deserve to be there...the good ones have no choice...cuz NO ONE knew about god b4 then...

(1) Evil is defying God. Satan (Lucifer) was the archangel, leader of angels. He had the most privileges, and was looked up to... He was the best of them. He became prideful and he was so prideful that he though he was better than God. So God cast him away. (Satan taking 1/3 of the angels with him.) That was evil, thinking that he was better than God, defying Gods authority.

**Guys, Jo, catch me if i'm wrong**

(2) According to the Bible, everyone started out somewhere in the Middle East. Then, everyone knew God... but slowly people turned away. Left. So it was their choice. (there's a lot more that happens here) Before Jesus, people thought that God only belonged to the Jews (i think), but Jesus told people to preach to all the nations. something like "Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the holy ghost, teaching them to observe all things i have commanded you, and lo, i will be with you alway, even until the end of the earth." (Matthew something... i still remember it! :excited: )... Everyone deserves Christ, it's our job to tell others...

(3) ... uh... what? (sorry :/ )

there's more to that. There are reasons why we believe in God. But i have to think about it... lol (it's 10:17 and i woke up at like... 6 so i'm tired..)

09-11-2003, 07:31 AM

i've everything to reply to JianDan[Ai]

but maybe not tonight...probably tomorrow

i'm not going to "argue", neither am i trying to "convert" anyone...i just want to clarify =)

sUm^MeR

09-11-2003, 08:03 AM

I'll do it question per question.

]
(1) Ok God created people right? He created the Universe..everything in a matter of a few days. But he created NO evil right? Everything was perfect and Adam and Eve were the PERFECT human beings. Then one angel named ...who we now know as Satin, Lucifer...call him what u will defects and becomes evil. Will someone please explain to me...how he even knew what evil was...how how did the idea of "mutiny" ever cross his mind

Genesis 1:1-31

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

3Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. 4And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.

6Then God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters." 7Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.

9Then God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so. 10And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

11Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth"; and it was so. 12And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13So the evening and the morning were the third day.

14Then God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; 15and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so. 16Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

20Then God said, "Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens." 21So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth." 23So the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind"; and it was so. 25And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
26Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27So God created man in His own image; in the image of God

He created him; male and female He created them. 28Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

29And God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. 30Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food"; and it was so. 31Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Note that He didn't say IT WAS GOOD when He created the earth, because He knows that Evil will overpowered the earth. He didn't create Evil. It was all Spirit, as it was said: And the spirit of God is hovering over the face of water. Lucifer was an angel before he got kicked out off the heaven.

]...if there was no such thing ever created...and how did Adam compromise his PERFECT ideals with a talking snake? Im sorry but this sounds about as believable as the 3 little pigs to me.

Genesis 3:1-7

Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Has God indeed said, "You shall not eat of every tree of the garden'?"

2And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, "You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.'"

4Then the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. 5For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
6So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.

The Evil tricked him. He's compromising with something that he thought is a good deal. She thought by eating the fruit, they will become like God. Who doesn't want all the wisdom and power? Evil knew it and it took advantage of it.

Yes, I'm a christian. Yes, I'm more able to believe that God created us rather than believing that my great great great great ancestors are monkey.

Chun Li

09-11-2003, 10:44 AM

This is a long and subjective question to answer, I'll just mention what my stance is.

I don't necessarily believe in either. I'll believe it when I see it. However, I have never believed in one god, and if I do believe in "god" I believe in multiple gods.

If there is a God, show him to me.
If there is a squid with hair, show it to me.
If there is one true proven religion that is supreme above all others, make me believe it with facts and evidence.

I don't believe in any particular religion, I believe in what I want to believe. If I agree with certain parts of a religion, I'll absorb it. If not, I purge it. Out of all the "religions" in the world, the one that I believe in the most is Buddhism.

Also, since I'm more of a scientific person, and I don't like the idea that there is one Supreme Ruler who created the Earth, I lean more towards Evolution.

I don't like the idea that I need a "god" to have faith in me so that I can be protected or have good things happen to me. I believe my future and my life is controlled by me, and only me. My happiness is not brought about by "him," or the knowledge that we all came from prokaryotic bacterium, but brought about because I am happy with my own life. The laws and rules that govern me is what I solely believe is right or wrong, not because a deity tells me it is so.

Hmmm, I wonder if that answers the question at all.

ker_ai_teresa

09-11-2003, 01:59 PM

i'm not going to quote all of jiandan[ai]'s argument.....but i do wish to add to the other counter arguments....

religion by and large is about 'faith'....strange little word, and some ppl might say, "yeah, take the easy way out of explaining christianity"....i'm not. if ppl want to see hard evidence or scientific evidence to prove that God created the world, i'm sorry but they will never find it, nor be satisfied with the evidence that does exist. God cannot be proven by scientific means, which i'd like to point out, is a branch of theory which was created by humans. using human understandings, theorems, laws, to prove the existence of a deity is not possible. to believe in God, or any other god, takes faith. if God wanted to show everybody that he exists and created the world he could do that, but that would go against the point of christianity and his plan of salvation for those who believe by faith.

one more thing, if you are a person who believes and trusts in the evidence of science, science has not disproved christianity, creation, Jesus, etc. many ppl have tried, but as yet, no evidence stands. science cannot disprove history, which is what creation is - history. science verifies a fact through repetition, but history is not repeatable.

JianDan[Ai]

09-11-2003, 08:30 PM

religion by and large is about 'faith'....strange little word, and some ppl might say, "yeah, take the easy way out of explaining christianity"....i'm not. if ppl want to see hard evidence or scientific evidence to prove that God created the world, i'm sorry but they will never find it, nor be satisfied with the evidence that does exist. God cannot be proven by scientific means, which i'd like to point out, is a branch of theory which was created by humans. using human understandings, theorems, laws, to prove the existence of a deity is not possible. to believe in God, or any other god, takes faith. if God wanted to show everybody that he exists and created the world he could do that, but that would go against the point of christianity and his plan of salvation for those who believe by faith.

Look at science as a ..religion...i guess u could say...u believe in it or not...Yes i agree there is no textbook that has the entire history of the world, and the entire phenomena of physical science completly written out...Science is always changing...for example...we say the fastest thing known to us...is light...which is the Constant C...This has been shown through calcuations and measurement...but NO one has ever seen light move at the speed C, we can only hypothesize, and in the future if there is newer technology that lets us see further...then we will study it in deeper detail...and perhaps change what we believe and all accept as C, to be incorrect.

i wish to clarify that i DO no think human understanding of science is perfect, and it is not goin to ever be in the near future...

HOWEVER...there is also no proof of God...isnt the world of god, his motives, and what he does..and for what reasons...beyond human comprehension...(as told to me by a good friend who is a strong chrisitian) humans cannot understand god completly as i understand it....in this way, God, and science are similar...however...has anyone done any type of studying, calculations, or used any other form of human thought, to prove that he even exists? He us just like another theory, no one can prove it, and the only thing u have is the bible to say he exists...isnt that jus like science? we write a paper to propose something...but have no proof of it yet?

what i mean to say in this is that...if Science...like the big bang is SO amazingly impossible to you..and evolution...such as mutations seem SO impossible to you and that there is NO way they could happen, just remember...we have just about as much information on those as we do God...sure there are missing link in science...tell me, does anyone know where God came from? Did he jus...appear out of now where? or is Earth his science project, and he is one among many "gods" in a infenitely larger world?

i also want to say, to a earlier comment that everyone started in the middle east...and that from there...ppl moved away and rejected god...hence screwing all their future generations over...

question: is this fair? pretend i am an american indian...so my father is not christian, nor my mother, nor my entire tribe, nor anyone else on this continent...no one has even heard of it...we live our peaceful lives...we have killed no one...broken no commandments....even tho we dont know what it is...however ...we are STILL doomed to go to hell...SIMPLY...becuase my ancestor...857205472 generations back...didnt believe in god...so now...857205472 generations down the line...i get to suffer...

---

i jus wanna say that...i feel kinda embarassed...to have EVERYONE assulting me...and my very poorly organized post..i wanna repeat tho...so that if i do sound "hateful?" (that is the cloest word i can think of) that i am truly and sincerely not...i respect ur opinions

i admit i do not understand eveyrthing in the bible...although i have read and have study groups on it b4...

in the simplest words...i think this debate...or any debate

over this matter, is simply...what u believe in...as i said...science is JUST like a religion...we have no FINAL or PERFECT timeline to show u everything...we cannot say we seen everything...but neither have you chrisitians...if u have seen ur god..then please tell me what he looks like...

i respect your faith..simply b/c i myself do not have any...for a book...i hope i dont irritate anyone :oops:

---

wanna add one more thing

i agree with Chun Li on this one...i wont...and cant believe it till i see it...as stubborn as it may seem to some of u...thats what i would need to start believing

Chun Li

09-11-2003, 09:05 PM

]i jus wanna say that...i feel kinda embarassed...to have EVERYONE assulting me...and my very poorly organized post..i wanna repeat tho...so that if i do sound "hateful?" (that is the cloest word i can think of) that i am truly and sincerely not...i respect ur opinions

Hey, you're not being assaulted. Everyone is just explaining their views, and with religion, things always gets touchy. Also, there are a lot of Christians here and we all know that people can study the bible at any age, but the Evolution Theory is something we study extensively in COLLEGE, therefore the younger members here (even though they do believe in Evolution) have no way of expressing their thoughts since they haven't learned the ideas of Evolution yet. So unless you go to a forum with older people, usually at the younger ones people don't really know how to argue for Evolution even though they believe in it.

And I don't think your post was poorly organized, you gave interesting ideas and I think it goes well for your argument.

Religion is based on "faith," so just by that, it's hard to argue already. Some people say that we needed a way to explain the world and therefore God became the story of how the world was created to satisfy, calm, and control the masses. Now, the world is pretty much based on science and facts and people prefer to believe that over the idea of a God. It's basically whatever you choose. Like I said earlier, I choose to believe what parallels my values, morals, and ideals. I have faith in myself and I don't like rules barring me from doing what I want. I also have faith in my own decisions and right and wrong is based on my personal ideas, not based on a book.

All in all, I believe that as long as you're happy, and as long as you control your actions and is by societal defination, a "good person," then be it evolution or God, you're not a bad person and you're not going to hell.

Oh, yeah,

2). Evolution completely goes against the Laws of Thermodynamics (especially the 2nd law, "law of increasing entrophy"). Which is, for every action there is a loss of useful energy, meaning things go from order to disorder. But evolution states things are from simple to more and more complex.

Things do go from simple to more and more complex. Human DNA has gotten more complex due to the affects of our pollution. Our viruses and diseases have gotten more and more complex due to immunity against our antibiotics. Our society has gotten more and more complex due to the disparity between the rich and the poor. Our international political relationships have gotten more and more complex due to our disagreements over our religious beliefs. Ironic, isn't it? But before anything else, we need to define, "things."

Anyways, that's all for me in this debate!

JianDan[Ai]

09-11-2003, 09:14 PM

haha my friends were having this "discussion" a little while ago...and i remember a line that one my best friends said (who was strongly against religion) he said:

"I would prefer to have faith, and believe in my friends, who i can see, touch, smell, hear...(not taste...no :dry: ) instead of a all powerful god, whom i cannot see, touch, smell, hear, or taste, not only b/c i know they exist, but a strong friendship...and living a realistic life will bring me much more happiness than putting my faith in a unseen god"

I guess that is basically what i believe in too... :D

Chun Li

09-11-2003, 09:26 PM

JianDan[Ai]

09-11-2003, 09:33 PM

I have friends from many different countries and backgrounds, so I'm pretty open to any religion. "Live and Let Live," is what I believe. If you're more of a factual person, maybe you should study up on Buddhism. It's not a religion, like everyone thinks. It's more of a philosophy. I like it only because it's kind of a midway between a strong religion and factual evidence. Kind of like how Confucianism wasn't really a "religion."

haha i understand bit a pieces of the buddhist philosophy...but at ur recommendation i will look into :D some of the things i do agree with in buddhism...its different than religions...its is more like...just a philiosphy on how to live life...i guess..correct me Chun Li if i said something wrong :oops:

Chun Li

09-11-2003, 10:25 PM

No, you can't say anything wrong cause it's how you interpret it. Chinese people have traditionally believed in more than one god, and also may believe in several religions at once. Some of the beliefs in China, like Taoism, Confucianism, or Buddhism, are not religions but like you said, teachings on how to live life. Europe and America have more stricter beliefs, hence the religious prosecutions.

aznboi08

09-11-2003, 10:41 PM

Creation than Evolution -
first off - someone gotta create the things...
and through creation evolution was takin' over.

it's like chemistry... someone gotta start up the chemicals and they let other chemicals to combine with each other - therefore evolution happens.

09-12-2003, 02:22 AM

Things do go from simple to more and more complex. Human DNA has gotten more complex due to the affects of our pollution. Our viruses and diseases have gotten more and more complex due to immunity against our antibiotics. Our society has gotten more and more complex due to the disparity between the rich and the poor. Our international political relationships have gotten more and more complex due to our disagreements over our religious beliefs. Ironic, isn't it? But before anything else, we need to define, "things."

notice what all those things have in common, they've become complex overtime in an adverse way, or due to adverse conditions. thus, the law of entropy stands

]
what i mean to say in this is that...if Science...like the big bang is SO amazingly impossible to you..and evolution...such as mutations seem SO impossible to you and that there is NO way they could happen, just remember...we have just about as much information on those as we do God...sure there are missing link in science...tell me, does anyone know where God came from? Did he jus...appear out of now where? or is Earth his science project, and he is one among many "gods" in a infenitely larger world?

the problem is that evolution has been widely discredited and disproved, due to its many flaws that can be proven from the book, book of science, not the Bible

there is nothing in this world that contradicts the Bible, however, outside of evolution, and what science has already disproved

true science and biblical beliefs don't collide, they collaborate

many people have warned me that the first two years of college are the hardest trials for your faith, but i'll stand by Christianity through it, i'm sure

jakinni

09-12-2003, 02:27 AM

the problem is that evolution has been widely discredited and disproved, due to its many flaws that can be proven from the book, book of science, not the Bible

there is nothing in this world that contradicts the Bible, however, outside of evolution, and what science has already disproved

true science and biblical beliefs don't collide, they collaborate

It's been widely discredited? How come I didn't learn this?? Sure there are other points of view, but "widely discredited" seems to be exaggerating it. As far as I know it is still widely accepted in the scientific community. Perhaps once you get to college and has a chance to take a course that delves into it, you may think differently as you learn more it in detail. Evolution theory is the basis of most higher level science courses.

09-12-2003, 02:54 AM

(1) Ok God created people right? He created the Universe..everything in a matter of a few days. But he created NO evil right? Everything was perfect and Adam and Eve were the PERFECT human beings. Then one angel named ...who we now know as Satin, Lucifer...call him what u will defects and becomes evil. Will someone please explain to me...how he even knew what evil was...how how did the idea of "mutiny" ever cross his mind...if there was no such thing ever created...and how did Adam compromise his PERFECT ideals with a talking snake? Im sorry but this sounds about as believable as the 3 little pigs to me.

Lucifer was perfect, and he knew no sin. Sin hasn't entered the world, because Sin is only a word given to what evil things we do, this may seem somewhat inconsistent since "evil" really is just another word to describe as going against God. Lucifer fell because of arrogance, he wanted to be like God, and he rebelled against God, mutiny wasn't in his mind because he spited God, but simply because he thinks he is just as good as God. Adam did not have perfect ideals, he was created as a perfect being, as long as he abides by the Father. but once again pride steps in, Eve wanted to be like God, and fell under the deceit of Satan...then carried on to convince Adam to consume the cursed fruit...pride is the basis of all sins, all that is against God...when humans think they know better than God, and they can control their own destiny...he falls miserably, into death (literally, in terms of eternity)

(2) Ok say these things are all explainable...evil...SOMEHOW spawns randomly even tho God...the creater or light, the planet, the universe...did not create evil...but somehow it appears...why does he not destroy it. Now i know your IMMEDIATE answe..."b/c god wants to see who will choose good over evil" ...but let me ask you....we all can agree that chrisitanity is a european philosphy...in asia, the americas, in africa...no one believed in this god...in fact, most culture believed in EXTREMELY different gods...like in india...there was buddaism..with thousands of gods, and they worships these...as did american indians and their gods...THEY BROKE A COMMANDMENT...are they doomed for eternity? Who was there too tell them that there is Jesus and Jehovah? Is it fair to curse these ppl to eternal damnation for being born else where in the world?

if you do not have a firm faith in the Bible, this answer will not work for you...but if you do hold the Bible to be the Word of God, then..."seek, and you will find. ask, and it will be given to you." God is righteous, He is fair...he gives each and every one of us an equal opportunity in life to be touched by Him, and believe His word. God stated in the Bible that mankind knew God since birth, since God is apparent in his creations. if you see a playstation 2 lying there on the ground, would you walk up to it and inspect how "nature" formed this glorious piece of video-game console overtime? perhaps somehow the elements just carried on together in a miraculous manner to form plastic, and part by part mother nature assembled it...and eventually the whole PS2 was born, out of nothing but rock, sand, dirt and wind....right? or would you naturally assume that there was a creator behind this video-game engine? thats why there are "missions" around the world, to deliver the Word of God...if someone truly wants to find out about Him, God will reach him/her

(3) This also applies for everyone before christianity and the bibles...i guess i will be spending a eternity in hell with the roman empire, the huns, and all those ppl...who while some DO deserve to be there...the good ones have no choice...cuz NO ONE knew about god b4 then...

the old testament existed for a long, long time. if you are talking about the time before old testament, God actually talked, and communicated, as recorded within the scriptures. so no, they either wanted to and kn

ew about God, or they just ignored God and awaits eternal damnation

(4) So currently...if u lived on the planet outside of europe b4 the bible started to cirulate...u were doomed anyway...god seems like QUITE a pimp up there...u gotta play his magic game...believe in him...when u have nothing to that u can touch, taste, see, hear, or feel except for a book...and if u are a visual learner...or not so easily pulled into these things and need more convincing...well then sucks for u too...cuz god isnt making any guest appearances or conferences...u get to DIE...

before the Bible was written, God did appear before mankind. after the Bible was written, there was no need for God to appear...but he did send his son onto earth before, who was persecuted and now sits in Heaven once again...the Bible promises that Jesus will come to earth again, near the final days of the world.

"when u have nothing to that u can touch, taste, see, hear, or feel except for a book..."

God is apparent, as stated above, in his creations. Mankind are created in his image, and obviously far too complex for nature to form on its own...yet mankind ignored God's message in his creation, and wanders down the route of humanism. in fact, everything you touch, taste, see and hear are given to you by God, but you just tend to ignore that fact. the book is the final terrestial decree against any stubborn non-believers...the celestial decree will follow in the final days of judgement...even if God spoke today, loud and clear, from the Heavens that "I will make it rain fire today"...and it rains fire...mankind will find excuses for this phenomenon, and probably consider it a joke or blatant deceit..."why doesn't God just show Himself instead?"...and yet...when God himself took human form here on earth, he was killed by mankind and sent back to Heaven...how fair is that?

(5) ok there is a lot of suffering in the world...is god causing this? if not...why does he let it continue...ppl are dying..babies...b4 they can even put their faith in him...ppl who by all standards are good innocent ppl...put through lots of pain...what kinda game is god playing...are we all legos he can maniuplate? and if so...what is the point of giving us a brain...he jus sets half of us aside as the evil army, the other half as the good army, and we blindy battle it out till we are all dead...is this god's great plan?

God gave us freedom of choice, and with that freedom comes equal responsibility.

People continue to die because mankind causes it, God does help people sometimes by taking their lives away...to us it may be "cruel"...but to them, who will be in Heaven rather than lying in his/her death bed...which is better? God doesn't let anything bad happen to Christians without his permission, whatever horrors that His children go through are either trials, or what he has brought on himself. there is no such thing as karma, but the result of sin is very real. in the Bible God clearly states that he will not "tempt you beyond your abilities"...and God will certainly not test you beyond your abilities

God does not send people to hell, people send themselves to hell by neglecting the truth, perpetual truth

of course, in the world today...truth is only an apparition

secular humanism pretty much denounces truth as "ignorance"...relativism is what makes fornication okay, murder open to subjectivity, and sin delusively non-existant

ok ive talked enough...but please b4 u respond...please realize...i do not mean to trash christianity in anyway...i simply cannot bring my self to believe it as perhaps some of u have...i respect your faith and so i hope this does not becoem a ugly fight in this thread :dry:

neither am i trashing Science, i'm simply stating what i believe...and i do respect your view...before you get angry at me...if you do...

do realize that i'm advocating from a Christian's perspective, so if you don't believe in Christianity,

you could say that i does not apply to you

It's been widely discredited? How come I didn't learn this?? Sure there are other points of view, but "widely discredited" seems to be exaggerating it. As far as I know it is still widely accepted in the scientific community. Perhaps once you get to college and has a chance to take a course that delves into it, you may think differently as you learn more it in detail. Evolution theory is the basis of most higher level science courses.

you are aware that secular college professors are humanistic...in fact...most of them are very anti-religion in general, yet blindly they worship scientism...regardless of how difficult it is to admit, people tend to add a bit of their own "spice," of how they view the world into their teachings...thus there are notes taken not from textbooks, but from experience

i might be exaggerating it in your view, but i did do extensive research on it for my sophomore year...i'll post up the reasons some time later...i'm far too tired from typing all of this

Chun Li

09-12-2003, 04:48 AM

Things do go from simple to more and more complex. Human DNA has gotten more complex due to the affects of our pollution. Our viruses and diseases have gotten more and more complex due to immunity against our antibiotics. Our society has gotten more and more complex due to the disparity between the rich and the poor. Our international political relationships have gotten more and more complex due to our disagreements over our religious beliefs. Ironic, isn't it? But before anything else, we need to define, "things."

notice what all those things have in common, they've become complex overtime in an adverse way, or due to adverse conditions. thus, the law of entropy stands

Just a question, how or what, would "things" become more complex in an un-adverse way?
Also, how is "things" defined? Individuals? Groups? Society? Humans? Ideals? Morals? Values?

And I'll add Cici's quote here, for reference:

2). Evolution completely goes against the Laws of Thermodynamics (especially the 2nd law, "law of increasing entrophy"). Which is, for every action there is a loss of useful energy, meaning things go from order to disorder. But evolution states things are from simple to more and more complex.

09-12-2003, 05:10 AM

they will never become more complex in a beneficial way, such is the result of man's self-righteousness

things are all-inclusive really, groups, individual, humans and their society, their ideals, "morals" as well as their values

Chun Li

09-12-2003, 06:43 AM

The issues I have stated follows along the lines of what evolution says, that "things" go from simple to more and more complex. It also follows the rule of entrophy, since the results of these previously stated issues is ultimately, disorder.

I find that if everything is stated vaguely, and if things are all-inclusive, then the evolutionists can claim that their theories include everything, and the Christians can claim that their ideas include everything as well, resulting in neither groups proving anything.

I suppose this is the reason why I had a debate on why this particular topic shouldn't be argued, because one is based on faith, the other based on theories, therefore neither can support evidence or factual proof. If this were a court, the case would be dismissed.

Vant

09-12-2003, 07:16 AM

JianDan[Ai]

09-12-2003, 07:22 AM

Um... Just my opinion... And I apologize to anyone offended by this in advance...

I've always thought that religion was another form of government... Another way to control people... Another way to gain fame...

Why? Well... To me... Religions have evolved over time to block any excuse possible to the question of whether or not a religion is true or not... And it should be obvious to all that this has happened... Otherwise we wouldn't have religions... And the world would have to find another way to govern themselves spiritually...

Does anyone understand me and can explain this better? I'm not exactly good at explaining my thoughts ;p

i think u did a good job explaining...heh...i agree but i think the controlling part is more of in the past...when kings couldnt control u, then faith is need to keep the people together...anyway i think Chun_Li's last statements sums everything up

"I suppose this is the reason why I had a debate on why this particular topic shouldn't be argued, because one is based on faith, the other based on theories, therefore neither can support evidence or factual proof. If this were a court, the case would be dismissed."

Chun Li

09-12-2003, 08:50 AM

Um... Just my opinion... And I apologize to anyone offended by this in advance...

I've always thought that religion was another form of government... Another way to control people... Another way to gain fame...

Why? Well... To me... Religions have evolved over time to block any excuse possible to the question of whether or not a religion is true or not... And it should be obvious to all that this has happened... Otherwise we wouldn't have religions... And the world would have to find another way to govern themselves spiritually...

Does anyone understand me and can explain this better? I'm not exactly good at explaining my thoughts ;p

haha, I understand exactly what you're trying to say. There are actually really really really really long professional writings on this.... if you want to read it (-_-) But yeah... that is one of the main arguments against religions.

foodie

09-12-2003, 02:25 PM

hi all, sorry i didn't read all the post, b'cause it's so long i i hate to read it all, so fuzzy.

i just want to add this :

1. at a science problem, u can't use a religion to proof it, it doesn't match between science n religion. and this is a science topic plz stick to science reason, if u use religion it's a imaginary things. but it's doesn't mean i'm not a religion person. just there is a line between this two.

2. about the chromosom ( i hope to type it right ). human have 23 pair of chromosom. but simpanse, monkey, which say have a same root of evolution with human have a different number of chromosom. but it is impossble to change a chromosom, because if u just didn't have 1 there is so many abnormal with u. just like if u have 3 sex chromosom, u become unfertile n can't have a decendent.

that's i can think this time. plz add ur mine n critize about my opinion.

fireman2a

09-12-2003, 02:56 PM

Just thought I'd share this interesting point of view from a post off another forum I used to be involved in a couple years back. I can't seem to find the name of the original author, but if any of you recognize it, then give a little shout out and I'll reference it properly. I'd also like to stress that I'm taking no sides in this debate, it's much too intelligent for me to fully argue out heh. . . I think I'll just sit back and listen. . . :)

As a Phil student, All the arguments I've seen for God outright suck, all the ones against it are pretty weak. Descartes' whole system is the seriously flawed mind-body dualism that psychology has dissuaded most from. His famous "I think therefore I am" is also faulty, since there is no way of knowing who is actually doing the thinking, just that one is aware of this thought arising, but not from where it arises. Modern Catholic apologists are about as outdated as Aquinas. The famous "the world is too complex and ordered to have arisen from chaos" is useless, since God himself is ordered and complex, yet requires no creator. We all revere Socrates as a great philosopher but no-one buys the gaping holes in his proof of the immortality of the soul.

There is one thing that makes "proper" science somewhat different from other religions, in that it is more falsifiable by the physical world. Religions often can find ways to interpret completely opposite events as fitting to their outlook. E.G. God saves me from the car accident, but man's free will kills me in the car accident. In a well-constructed scientific theory, only one outcome is predicted. E.G. experiments show no evidence for ether, so the idea is abandoned.

There are exceptions to this in science, like how scientists will usually resort to this "fitting opposite cases" when casually dealing with supposedly supernatural events (because they simply won't even consider their possibility) The theory of evolution, origin of the universe, etc. are all untested speculation based upon our tested models. But there are a lot more things that are subject to falsification than in other religions.

That falsification is important is itself a scientific principle, so you have to fall into the closed belief system before that can become important :)

Chun Li

09-12-2003, 08:34 PM

Hahaha!! How interesting. So we're all back to where we started.

09-12-2003, 11:47 PM

but can't you turn the table and say that evolution opens the way to immorality, or sinning without the fear of its consequences...or even taking it as far as negating guilt altogether

until Darwin put the theory of evolution into books for mass production and promulgation, there was no other choice for most people, it was either God or you were considered blasphemous, or insane...but Darwin opened another path, a path which Marx, Dewey, Freud and other "masterminds" of our recent history developed a whole way of life and worldviews

now, conventional morality was no longer an issue, as we are animals, and we have our "needs"...life's just a pleasurable experience...and when it's not pleasant anymore...get the hell out of there and make yourself happy...the whole theology of "Carpe Diem" i'm sure you all recognize and some respect.

there is no longer a distinction between black and white, right and wrong...its all a matter of perspectives...and truth is no longer universal...it is only the path you choose to accept...how existentialistic the world has become, you can't deny...but i'm sure a lot of people doesn't see it as a bad thing...its just "the way life is"

i concede...as i can't prove Scriptures and God existent either, to those who flat out don't wish to believe...as i'm sure some of you feel of me, who doesn't want to take part in evolution

one is based on faith, the other based on theories, therefore neither can support evidence or factual proof.

if these two seemingly conflicting views haven't been disproved or proven over the last...thousands of years...we certainly can't develop a resolution here, now, today

Mike

09-13-2003, 12:55 AM

another thing, how do you go from instinct to thought?.. i mean, how does that stuff evolve? humans can think and have imagination, animals have natural and learned instinct. You throw a ball, a dog does and gets it, that's learned instinct. But we think... do i want to get that ball? is it worth it? i'd rather stay in the shade instead of the hot sun. etc. You can't say our thinking is just a lot of instincts. things we do aren't automated. (is that a word?)

Also animals don't have language. how does language become language? we think in language. so if we didn't have language, we wouldn't have thought. and without thought we wouldn't have language.

JianDan[Ai]

09-13-2003, 01:07 AM

09-13-2003, 02:42 AM

you know...i just discovered how many grammar mistakes i've made in this topic =/

hope i got my point across though

"some people doesn't"

lmao

Vant

09-13-2003, 05:43 AM

09-13-2003, 05:49 AM

One thing I know... Religion won't move... But science is always gaining ground...

In religion... You can't really do much...

But in science... That's a door we are all forced to go in... I predict that in a 100 or so years... Religions will barely exist...

Science has always been gaining and growing... Just like a snowball rolling off a mountain... But it won't stop... We will keep finding new things that will counter religions... But religions can't counter science ideas...

Ok I hope you guys can understand that as well :)

All this thinking made me think of a new topic ;p

i can't help but disagree

just think about it, over the past 2000 years, scientists have been constantly trying to "counter," as you have stated, religion

has it succeeded? nope

and did it gain anymore credibility in the process? indeed, however, there are still leg-pullers that set scientific credibility back a notch or two at times

but has it been gradually more successful at disproving Christianity? nope.

if Christianity withstood thousands of years of challenge, what makes you think some future wave will knock it over?

there are many, many scientists that wished to disprove Christianity and dug deep into its roots, its historical evidence and its morals...and they've been since converted...people have written books upon books, volumnes upon volumnes of "anti-Christianity" idealogies...but they've never waivered "true" Christians and roped them into humanism

too many people think Christianity is a religion...it is classified as a religion...but its really a personal relationship you have with your Creator...only those who are Christians will know what that's like

Mike

09-13-2003, 06:01 AM

yea. I don't really know how to explain but i completely disagree with this definition of religion, "belief in God or gods" World Book Dictionary. because to me, christianity is the truth, and i don't think God should be associated with other gods or put into the same classification (but that's just me and that has nothing to do with this thread)

JianDan[Ai]> I meant, like how did thought and language come to exist from animals with instincts and no thought, language, or imagination. Like, we think in language and language involves thought. without either, they wouldn't exist. so that wouldn't make sense to get from monkeys with instincts to us.

09-13-2003, 06:13 AM

poem not by me, but i'd like to share it

__________________________________________________ _____________

The Gods of the Copybook Headings
__________________________________________________ _____________

As I pass through my incarnations in every age and race,
I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place.
Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.
We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn
That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,
So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.

We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market Place,
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.

With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch,
They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch;
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings;
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.

When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know."

On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "The Wages of Sin is Death."

In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."

Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.

As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will bum,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return.

GaryDAI

09-13-2003, 06:44 AM

Vant

09-13-2003, 06:45 AM

I'm sorry if you guys feel like I'm talking bad about your religion... But I'm actually talking more about sience...

No one is trying to dissaprove religion... It's a waste of time for us 'scientists'(Um I'm not one)... And time is better spent figuring out things to better the world rather then cause chaos...

yea. I don't really know how to explain but i completely disagree with this definition of religion, "belief in God or gods" World Book Dictionary. because to me, christianity is the truth, and i don't think God should be associated with other gods or put into the same classification (but that's just me and that has nothing to do with this thread)

Keywords 'to me'

I'm pretty sure if you were born in a buddhist or taoist family you would be 100% sure that religion would be the only truthful one... You need to understand that people aren't born with choices...

-----------

Religion will still exist in a thousand years. It has already withstood the test of time. True that it does not have the same grip over people as it did before. But while this grip has loosened somewhat, its mark is clearly present.

It probably will... To a very very small degree... The reason why I think it's declining is because people who are stuck in the religious circle aren't getting real... Lemme think for a second... Wouldn't going threw space "past heaven" be against christianity? Now I'm pretty sure in 1000 years we will be probably near the border of milky way (That is my hope and prediction at least ;p)... Sorry if my mind isn't filled with religious things... I'm kinda... Well mostly athiest ;p

Vant, please don't make consecutive posts, i.e. double-post.
Do kindly [Edit] your previous post if you have anything additional to say.
Thanks.

~lepencil

Mike

09-13-2003, 06:54 AM

um... space isn't "past heaven"... people just say when they look in the sky that they are looking into the heavens because it seems so big and grand... not because it's literally... heaven... *eye roll*

According to some people, we live in a 3 Dimension world with bounderies. God is like "outside the Matrix". he lives in a completely different dimension that is completely out of our understanding.

Vant

09-13-2003, 07:08 AM

Sounds believable...

But I got another question... How would we know god was in another dimension? Did he tell us before he died?

Here's another thing I've been pondering that might attack your beliefs :/

If I was born back in the BCs... Wouldn't it be easy for me to tell a lie? Back then everything was held together by beliefs... So if I said I created the world and did something amazing (Like... Scientific ;p) wouldn't that make people become interested in me? Then I'd probably gain more fame and tell more weird things about myself such as witnessing the earth being made... And no one could say I was lying...

Just a thought... I don't mean personal/belief attack... I just want to get my mind to stop thinking ;p

Mike

09-13-2003, 09:18 AM

people weren't dumb back then. I believe is someone actually WANTED to say that he was god it would take more than announcing it over the intercom to convince people. take more than a little persuading.

Chun Li

09-13-2003, 10:30 AM

If I was born back in the BCs... Wouldn't it be easy for me to tell a lie? Back then everything was held together by beliefs... So if I said I created the world and did something amazing (Like... Scientific ;p) wouldn't that make people become interested in me? Then I'd probably gain more fame and tell more weird things about myself such as witnessing the earth being made... And no one could say I was lying...

That's a very good question and also another issue that people say to disprove the idea of an allmighty creator. Did Wong Fei Hong exist or didn't he? Apparently he did, but not like how we think he did. :D

people weren't dumb back then. I believe is someone actually WANTED to say that he was god it would take more than announcing it over the intercom to convince people. take more than a little persuading.

People weren't "dumb" back then but they did lead a very simplistic life. Information around the world would take years to reach them if it even did. If someone wanted to tell a lie, it had a pretty big chance that it would be believed.

another thing, how do you go from instinct to thought?.. i mean, how does that stuff evolve? humans can think and have imagination, animals have natural and learned instinct. You throw a ball, a dog does and gets it, that's learned instinct. But we think... do i want to get that ball? is it worth it? i'd rather stay in the shade instead of the hot sun. etc. You can't say our thinking is just a lot of instincts. things we do aren't automated. (is that a word?)

Also animals don't have language. how does language become language? we think in language. so if we didn't have language, we wouldn't have thought. and without thought we wouldn't have language.

Okay, you're basically asking questions about evolution here. The early ancestor A. afarensis had a cc (cranial capacity) of 400 cc, which is the size of a chimpanzee's brain. The Homo erectus skull a million years ago measured to about 1200 cc from the fossils, and the modern human has about 1400 ccs. As the brains grew larger, humans basically became smarter. However, the correlation with brain size to intelligence is also very loose. The important thing is diet since 25% our metabolism is dedicated to feeding our brains.

If you really want these questions answered, I'd suggest you either take some classes or read some books. You're only 13, (despite your fake age on the left) and you're going to have to wait until college if you want your questions answered in detail. Moreover, you'd need to take classes like Anthropolgy (Evolution of Humans), Biology, Cell Biology, and Genetics if you want very specific answers. Take Paleontology as well.

one is based on faith, the other based on theories, therefore neither can support evidence or factual proof.

if these two seemingly conflicting views haven't been disproved or proven over the last...thousands of years...we certainly can't develop a resolution here, now, today

Which is why we're basically saying the same things over and over again without proving or disproving anything. It really boils down to how you want to live your life and what you want to agree with.

This is why I say we wait until the Aliens come to explain to us Earthlings how they created our world.

fat_penguin

09-13-2003, 05:49 PM

](2) Ok say these things are all explainable...evil...SOMEHOW spawns randomly even tho God...the creater or light, the planet, the universe...did not create evil...but somehow it appears...why does he not destroy it. Now i know your IMMEDIATE answe..."b/c god wants to see who will choose good over evil" ...but let me ask you....we all can agree that chrisitanity is a european philosphy...in asia, the americas, in africa...no one believed in this god...in fact, most culture believed in EXTREMELY different gods...like in india...there was buddaism..with thousands of gods, and they worships these...as did american indians and their gods...THEY BROKE A COMMANDMENT...are they doomed for eternity? Who was there too tell them that there is Jesus and Jehovah? Is it fair to curse these ppl to eternal damnation for being born else where in the world?

(3) This also applies for everyone before christianity and the bibles...i guess i will be spending a eternity in hell with the roman empire, the huns, and all those ppl...who while some DO deserve to be there...the good ones have no choice...cuz NO ONE knew about god b4 then...

(4) So currently...if u lived on the planet outside of europe b4 the bible started to cirulate...u were doomed anyway...god seems like QUITE a pimp up there...u gotta play his magic game...believe in him...when u have nothing to that u can touch, taste, see, hear, or feel except for a book...and if u are a visual learner...or not so easily pulled into these things and need more convincing...well then sucks for u too...cuz god isnt making any guest appearances or conferences...u get to DIE...

(5) ok there is a lot of suffering in the world...is god causing this? if not...why does he let it continue...ppl are dying..babies...b4 they can even put their faith in him...ppl who by all standards are good innocent ppl...put through lots of pain...what kinda game is god playing...are we all legos he can maniuplate? and if so...what is the point of giving us a brain...he jus sets half of us aside as the evil army, the other half as the good army, and we blindy battle it out till we are all dead...is this god's great plan?

God is just, and he judges people accordingly. He doesn't send people to hell, as someone mentioned before, its their own decisions through which their fate is determined.

Let's say you commited a crime, (assume God is the judge) and that you have to be punished for your actions. Because God is just and fair, it is only right that you do get punished - agree? Except, God said that instead of paying for your crime, he'd send his Son to take the punishment instead. The crime is still paid for - it's just that the punishment is taken for you. Now, if you choose to reject this gift, then what more can be done? You'd still go to jail. Therefore, it's not that God condemns people to hell - its the result of their rejection of His precious gift.

As for the babies, I've stated above that God is a just God. As such, he wouldn't send babies to hell, because they dont know the difference between good and evil, and they cant make a decision about him for themselves. The same applies to those who existed before Jesus.

Why do people suffer?
People suffer for various reasons, but one thing is certain we cannot, and should not blame God . The principle of action and consequence factors in greatly to suffering. If you smoke, you're very likely to get lung cancer. If you drink, you're likely to get problems with your liver. If you jump off a bridge, you're gonna hit the bottom. It's unfair to blame God for not stopping our fall.

When man was placed upon this earth, he was told to be fruitful, to replenish the earth and subdue it. As we havent done as we were told, we now see various sufferings that could've been avoided. For example, without our constant pollution causing activities, the hole in the ozone layer wo

uld be smaller, to the point where it might not even exist.

We also fail to see the warnings of nature and to listen to them. In California, there's an area where the earth is under great stress, and builders have been warned not to build anything tall or sensitive to earthquakes on top of the faults. However, they havent listened, and replaced a hospital that was knocked down by that very fault. How can we blame God if we build our house on top of a volcano and it explodes?

On the other hand, is it not good that we experience pain? If you touched a burning hot plate, pain would immediately tell your body to jerk your hands away. If you did not experience pain, you would have no idea that your hands were burning, and would not think of moving your hands.

In the same way, what kind of person would you be if you couldnt experience emotional pain? Guilt, sympathy, compassion - all of these help us relate to our fellow man, and help mould us into the people we are. You cant communicate with others the same way if you dont know what theyre going through.

Sometimes it takes a tragedy to make us realise that we need God, that we're not self sufficient, and that somtimes the only one that can help us is God. It humbles us, brings us down to our knees, but at the same time, has the potential to give us something greater that we've never experienced before. Christians are offered no immunity from suffering - only that they can lean on Jesus when the time comes.

]
what i mean to say in this is that...if Science...like the big bang is SO amazingly impossible to you..and evolution...such as mutations seem SO impossible to you and that there is NO way they could happen, just remember...we have just about as much information on those as we do God...sure there are missing link in science...tell me, does anyone know where God came from? Did he jus...appear out of now where? or is Earth his science project, and he is one among many "gods" in a infenitely larger world?

Carl Sagan said "If we say that God has always been, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always been?”
Matter can't be eternal in nature as we know it. The universe is expanding from what appears to be a beginning in space and time. Hydrogen is the basic fuel of the universe, powering all energy sources in space. If this is being used eternally, it will eventually be totally used up. Scientifical evidence points to this event happening, even if it is a long time away. However, this idea is incompatible with an eternal universe. This, and much more evidence disproves the idea of an eternal universe. It does not however, disprove the idea of an eternal God.

Many people take God as a physical being. This however, conflicts with common sense, and defeats the idea of a "god." God, should be seen as all powerful, all knowing, and all present - otherwise how can he be a "god" if he is limited by time, or space? The bible clearly states that:
1. God is not a physical being. (John 4:24, Matthew 16:17, Numbers 23:19)
2) He is always near, cannot be contained, and in him there is life. (Jeremiah 23:23-24, 2 Chronicles 2:6, Acts 17:28 )
3) God is outside time. (2 Peter 3:8, Psalm 90:4, Psalm 102:27, Acts 1:7)
4) God is the creator of heaven and earth. (Genesis 1:1)

If God is unlimited in time, the question of who created God is invalid. If he exists outside time and space, then obviously he cannot be, and was not created. God has always been. He not only began time; He will also end it.

phew that was long! since it's 1.48 in the morning, i think i'll continue some other time.. hope it wasnt too long, or boring, and it made sense! :happy:

09-13-2003, 06:28 PM

If I was born back in the BCs... Wouldn't it be easy for me to tell a lie? Back then everything was held together by beliefs... So if I said I created the world and did something amazing (Like... Scientific ;p) wouldn't that make people become interested in me? Then I'd probably gain more fame and tell more weird things about myself such as witnessing the earth being made... And no one could say I was lying...

er, how do you think Jesus got killed?

he was God, he healed, he performed other miracles...but people still doubted him, so he was gotten rid of

people weren't stupid back then...but then again...according to Evolutionary views...maybe people were just evolving back then...meh

It probably will... To a very very small degree... The reason why I think it's declining is because people who are stuck in the religious circle aren't getting real... Lemme think for a second... Wouldn't going threw space "past heaven" be against christianity? Now I'm pretty sure in 1000 years we will be probably near the border of milky way (That is my hope and prediction at least ;p)... Sorry if my mind isn't filled with religious things... I'm kinda... Well mostly athiest ;p

Heaven isn't literally in this world

so then, tell me...how does Atheism make sense?

if you're atheistic, you'd be having contradictory views

a. since you're atheistic, you announce yourself as a non-believer towards any God or gods

b. if you claim that you believe no God or gods...then you are claiming that you are all knowing. what do i mean? if you don't know every single little thing about this universe, then you probably shouldn't claim that there is no God or gods...because he, or they could be hiding right behind that one thing you don't know...i think generally, before you can claim you're all knowledgeable, claiming anything beyond your ability to interpret what is around you and what was taught to you is dwelling in your own ignorance...no offense

perhaps agnosticism is a better route for you, unless you are indeed all knowing and all powerful

c. and in the case that you do claim you're all knowing, you'd be declaring yourself as God, since the only person that by definition knows all is God...and in so doing you've just contradicted your first principle of a god-less universe

Let's say you commited a crime, (assume God is the judge) and that you have to be punished for your actions. Because God is just and fair, it is only right that you do get punished - agree? Except, God said that instead of paying for your crime, he'd send his Son to take the punishment instead. The crime is still paid for - it's just that the punishment is taken for you. Now, if you choose to reject this gift, then what more can be done? You'd still go to jail. Therefore, it's not that God condemns people to hell - its the result of their rejection of His precious gift.

i agree wholeheartedly...but the thing is...most people that aren't Christians, or of any religion don't think they've done anything wrong. being raised in a secular, humanistic society deteriorates your morality to near ground zero...everything's open to subjectivity and objectivity

Vant

09-13-2003, 08:24 PM

Wow soo many replies... This is going to take a while ;p

Sometimes it takes a tragedy to make us realise that we need God, that we're not self sufficient, and that somtimes the only one that can help us is God. It humbles us, brings us down to our knees, but at the same time, has the potential to give us something greater that we've never experienced before. Christians are offered no immunity from suffering - only that they can lean on Jesus when the time comes.

That makes me wonder... Think of the world... In such modern times... Without god... Would we be able to survive? The answer would probably be yes... We have government to hold us... Instead of god back in the old days...

Many people take God as a physical being. This however, conflicts with common sense, and defeats the idea of a "god." God, should be seen as all powerful, all knowing, and all present - otherwise how can he be a "god" if he is limited by time, or space? The bible clearly states that:
1. God is not a physical being. (John 4:24, Matthew 16:17, Numbers 23:19)
2) He is always near, cannot be contained, and in him there is life. (Jeremiah 23:23-24, 2 Chronicles 2:6, Acts 17:28 )
3) God is outside time. (2 Peter 3:8, Psalm 90:4, Psalm 102:27, Acts 1:7)
4) God is the creator of heaven and earth. (Genesis 1:1)

Everything on this one religion is based on a book and a few discoveries... What if one of these people were lying? Wouldn't that make the whole religion turn to the wrong path?

er, how do you think Jesus got killed?
he was God, he healed, he performed other miracles...but people still doubted him, so he was gotten rid of

Maybe if there was proof that he healed and performed 'other' miracles... He wouldn't have 'gotten rid of'.

if you claim that you believe no God or gods...then you are claiming that you are all knowing

Whoa there... That's taking it to the extreme... I doubt any athiest people would claim that they are all knowing... I just simply stated I don't believe in god... And it turns into I'm the most intelligent being on earth?

if you don't know every single little thing about this universe, then you probably shouldn't claim that there is no God or gods

Good point... But with a huge lack of evidence to most people living on this world... Most people would agree that there could be other gods as well... Or a giant invisible computer that controls our every thought... Hah ;p

i agree wholeheartedly...but the thing is...most people that aren't Christians, or of any religion don't think they've done anything wrong. being raised in a secular, humanistic society deteriorates your morality to near ground zero...everything's open to subjectivity and objectivity

If god was 'just and fair' he would understand that non believers don't have enough evidence to believe in him... Do you realise that I'm guessing... About 10% of the world is christian? That leaves 90% of the world in the dust... So that means we are all going to be dumped to 'hell'?

And just for the sake of being related to this forum ... You all are listening music made from non believers(Some christian)... (Suggesting the fact they were born in china/TW/japan)... Think about that for a second as I feel not to explain more ;p

09-13-2003, 09:30 PM

Everything on this one religion is based on a book and a few discoveries... What if one of these people were lying? Wouldn't that make the whole religion turn to the wrong path?

this mentality defeats the whole purpose of faith, if you don't understand what i mean, nevermind

Maybe if there was proof that he healed and performed 'other' miracles... He wouldn't have 'gotten rid of'.

...you totally missed the point

but its alright...because this statement you made contradicts your idealogy that people back then would believe everything...if they did why would they need any proof? and it also proves the point that they weren't as gullible as you think they are

Whoa there... That's taking it to the extreme... I doubt any athiest people would claim that they are all knowing... I just simply stated I don't believe in god... And it turns into I'm the most intelligent being on earth?

see, thats why people worship atheism, they don't even realize its a religion in itself. as seen from you...you don't seem to understand what atheism really is...being brought up by the society that teaches you everything has to be measurable and tested in order to be existent has pretty much hypnotized you into thinking like an atheist anyways...but still, more than half of the so called "atheists" have no idea what atheism really is

Good point... But with a huge lack of evidence to most people living on this world... Most people would agree that there could be other gods as well... Or a giant invisible computer that controls our every thought... Hah ;p

i don't get the point of this, but if you think that there could be other gods, you aren't an atheist as you claimed

If god was 'just and fair' he would understand that non believers don't have enough evidence to believe in him... Do you realise that I'm guessing... About 10% of the world is christian? That leaves 90% of the world in the dust... So that means we are all going to be dumped to 'hell'?

please read over some of the previous posts before you get involved in a debate...thats kind of the point of debating in the first place — —lll

Vant

09-13-2003, 09:47 PM

Jo... Now you seem to be making it personal... Something I don't want... If you can't stay on a debate... Then don't bother... Because most of what your saying is "Oh well you're too dumb to get it"... Do you not realise that I am only 16? I don't appreciate your personal attacks... I am not the only one who thinks of these things... As you seem to believe I am...

see, thats why people worship atheism, they don't even realize its a religion in itself. as seen from you...you don't seem to understand what atheism really is...being brought up by the society that teaches you everything has to be measurable and tested in order to be existent has pretty much hypnotized you into thinking like an atheist anyways...but still, more than half of the so called "atheists" have no idea what atheism really is

Do I really need to understand it? I use the word athiest as 'Not belonging to a religion'... I don't go to 'Athiest meetings'... Or 'Athiest fund raisers'... Or the weekly 'Athiest worshipers'... If you think it is a religion to me... Then so be it...

Good point... But with a huge lack of evidence to most people living on this world... Most people would agree that there could be other gods as well... Or a giant invisible computer that controls our every thought... Hah ;pi don't get the point of this, but if you think that there could be other gods, you aren't an atheist as you claimed

Obviously you didn't read my comment about 'Most people'... And the point of that was to explain there are many possibilities... And that most religions have their own beliefs *cough* star wars religion*cough*

please read over some of the previous posts before you get involved in a debate...thats kind of the point of debating in the first place — —lll

Maybe you should read the thread... If you didn't notice it's mostly me talking ;p

Mike

09-13-2003, 09:59 PM

I actually think Jo was just expressing his opinions, not personal attacks. For example, his comment about reading the thread was true. That comment was answered previously about twice already.

In this thread we are all voicing opinions and everyone has done that. Just like when you didn't appreciate what Jo said, you too, have just voiced an opinion. others might not agree with you, but that's just us.

Also, Okay, you're basically asking questions about evolution here. The early ancestor A. afarensis had a cc (cranial capacity) of 400 cc, which is the size of a chimpanzee's brain. The Homo erectus skull a million years ago measured to about 1200 cc from the fossils, and the modern human has about 1400 ccs. As the brains grew larger, humans basically became smarter. However, the correlation with brain size to intelligence is also very loose. The important thing is diet since 25% our metabolism is dedicated to feeding our brains.

I'm just saying if we used to be chimpanzee's with instincts, just because our brains get bigger does not mean we get smarter. Because you can say that everything we do now is based on more sophisticated instincts but where do we learn? there is nothing smarter than us to teach us. Animals learn instincts that they learn over time or through generations, but they can't learn to think. there is nothing to teach chimpanzees to have thought.

09-13-2003, 10:05 PM

Jo... Now you seem to be making it personal... Something I don't want... If you can't stay on a debate... Then don't bother... Because most of what your saying is "Oh well you're too dumb to get it"... Do you not realise that I am only 16? I don't appreciate your personal attacks... I am not the only one who thinks of these things... As you seem to believe I am...

this is your perception, i'm not making any personal attacks to anyone. faith and science are both very sensitive subjects, what i post are my views towards certain subjects, and kinds of people...that doesn't mean its ironed in my mind that atheists are bad people, or they're stupid people...it simply means that society in general treats atheism as something people can just say without thinking through what it really is. debates often get very heated, as two sides are opposing each other...if you have a tendency to take it too personally...then remain out of the debate

Do I really need to understand it? I use the word athiest as 'Not belonging to a religion'... I don't go to 'Athiest meetings'... Or 'Athiest fund raisers'... Or the weekly 'Athiest worshipers'... If you think it is a religion to me... Then so be it...

no, you don't need to understand it. many people don't even care where they go after they die, still many even believe that there isn't anything after death. Christianity and most other religions offer hope after death.

Obviously you didn't read my comment about 'Most people'... And the point of that was to explain there are many possibilities... And that most religions have their own beliefs *cough* star wars religion*cough*

okay...apologies again but how exactly does this relate to the topic at hand?

maybe you should read the thread... If you didn't notice it's mostly me talking ;p

maybe you should calm down. you asked the question that JianDan[Ai] addressed in the very beginning, and it has been answered by several people, including me.

Vant

09-13-2003, 10:25 PM

Rofl... Maybe you should read your post in my point of view until you decide what it says... To me it's a whole bunch of "You don't understand christianity so your pretty dumb"...

Good point... But with a huge lack of evidence to most people living on this world... Most people would agree that there could be other gods as well... Or a giant invisible computer that controls our every thought... Hah ;p
i don't get the point of this, but if you think that there could be other gods, you aren't an atheist as you claimed

Obviously you didn't read my comment about 'Most people'... And the point of that was to explain there are many possibilities... And that most religions have their own beliefs *cough* star wars religion*cough*

I was simply stating that other people believe in other points of creation... And this thing is getting too quotey to write... Maybe I should of explained earlier that I can't prove there is no gods/goddesses... I can only prove that people are becoming too drowned into religion where they can't see things the way they are...

09-14-2003, 12:49 AM

whichever way you feel...

if you took offense, let it be

learn the principles of debate

perhaps you wished a more casual discussion, if you did...post in the Christian Companionship thread...not here

And most of all, don't take it TOO seriously or personal.

cici bebe

09-14-2003, 05:01 AM

Sorry haven't been following this, just finished writing my 3-page essay on Creationism vs. Evolutionism though. I doubt I can answer all questions but I will just go a little bit more into it. (Btw, JianDan[Ai], yes I am a Christian. I find it hard for people to be creationists and not believe in God, or vice versa.)

Maybe I should of explained earlier that I can't prove there is no gods/goddesses... I can only prove that people are becoming too drowned into religion where they can't see things the way they are...
Actually, I'd have to burst your bubble there because you can't prove that people are too "drowned in religion" to see things "the way they are". It is simply because you don't know things the way they are supposed to be, therefore you have no authority to state that religion BLINDS people. I just don't see how an accusation like that can get you anywhere. I'm not trying to be close-minded about anything, but we do all have our beliefs and opinions so there is no need to bury our voice.

1). I don't believe in Spontaneous Generation only because Biology proves that life can only come from living things.

2). Have you ever seen a bacteria's flagellum 50,000 times magnified? If you have, then you'd know that it looks like a MOTOR. Those parts did not just suddenly come together at the exact same time and work.

3). Evolution "fossils" found have all been proven either a fraud (Piltdown Man), incorrect (Nebraska Man), modern (Java Man), or questionable (Peking Man). Also no fossil evidence of creatures evolving.

I know a big question people have is why we believe God created the world when we can't see God. But we can see how COMPLEX and magnificent the world is. If you've studied DNA you would how so extremely intricate it is. No way in my mind does something like THAT would just POP out of no where.

Vant

09-14-2003, 05:13 AM

cici bebe

09-14-2003, 05:17 AM

Do christians want to take scientific classes?
Yes and we've also taken common sense classes as well. Sorry, honest answer to your honest question.

And it is because I took Biology that completely blew my mind about how evolution just folds entirely. I know that teachers all have bias, but science does not. I saw the science and it proved that there had to be a more intelligent being who created the world.

wackycashew

09-14-2003, 05:33 AM

yeah, i gotta agree with cici there. i've taken quite a few scientific courses, not always by choice as some are just required b/c they are core courses, much like math and english. and not just biology, but also chemistry and physics. the more i read about the genetic make-up, how things are formed, the functions, etc., the more i am in awe at the intricacy of the human anatomy and the more i appreciate the beauty of this world. the mastermind behind all this has to be someone with higher powers, someone so great that it's beyond our imagination and simply unfathomable --> GOD. i don't think we can ever explain everything with our limited human minds no matter how much research is conducted or how much more technologically advanced we get.

Chun Li

09-14-2003, 06:24 AM

I actually believe the opposite. I believe that since it is so complex, there cannot be a greater being to create it. Viruses and bacteria all mutate and evolve naturally, for survival. It doesn't need a creator to do it.

But that's just what I thought in high school after AP Bio.

Okay, you're basically asking questions about evolution here. The early ancestor A. afarensis had a cc (cranial capacity) of 400 cc, which is the size of a chimpanzee's brain. The Homo erectus skull a million years ago measured to about 1200 cc from the fossils, and the modern human has about 1400 ccs. As the brains grew larger, humans basically became smarter. However, the correlation with brain size to intelligence is also very loose. The important thing is diet since 25% our metabolism is dedicated to feeding our brains.

I'm just saying if we used to be chimpanzee's with instincts, just because our brains get bigger does not mean we get smarter. Because you can say that everything we do now is based on more sophisticated instincts but where do we learn? there is nothing smarter than us to teach us. Animals learn instincts that they learn over time or through generations, but they can't learn to think. there is nothing to teach chimpanzees to have thought.

What do you mean "where do we learn?" The entire point of a brain in the human body is for humans to THINK. We have the CC (cranial capacity) to think. And because we are the "smartest creatures on the Earth" we don't NEED other creatures to teach us because we learn from ourselves. (We do learn from animals, though. We still learn from the Earth, but that's another point). That is why even as the most evolved organism on Earth, humans still evolve. And you'd be surprised at how many animals can think. Ever watch National Geographic specials on the animals who can do mathematics or solve puzzles? They may not think to the level that humans do, but some do think.

fat_penguin

09-14-2003, 06:48 AM

That makes me wonder... Think of the world... In such modern times... Without god... Would we be able to survive? The answer would probably be yes... We have government to hold us... Instead of god back in the old days...
do you really believe that? if so, did you ever think that it's because of God that our world is still existant today? our governments do not always do whats in our best interests - how countless are the scandals that have plauged the governments of the world? how pointless are the wars that they have led us into? if we were living in a Godless society, our few remaining morals would virtually disappear - resulting in disorder. Chaos. we would destroy ourselves.

Everything on this one religion is based on a book and a few discoveries... What if one of these people were lying? Wouldn't that make the whole religion turn to the wrong path?
yes it probably would. but, i can assure you that they weren't lying, and that the bible is THE truth. there are a number of reasons that support this:
1. Fulfilled prophesies - many of the prophesies in the bible have been fulfilled, and some are still yet to be fuilfilled.
2. Historical accuracy - archeological confirmations of the bible record have been almost innumerable in the last century. No archeological findings have ever proven any part of the bible wrong.
3. Scientific accuracy - consider that the bible was written in times where the society often believed things that were contrary to what we know to be true today, and in a time when a lot just was still unknown. The bible however, stated the correct facts before they were discovered scientifically.
For example:
- the roundness of the earth (Isaiah 40:22)
- almost infinite extent of the sidereal universe (Isaiah 55:9)
- law of conservation of mass and energy (II Peter 3:7)
- hydrologic cycle (Ecclesiastes 1:7)
- vast number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22)
- law of increasing entropy (Psalm 102:25-27)
- paramount importance of blood in life processes (Leviticus 17:11)
- atmospheric circulation (Ecclesiastes 1:6)
- gravitational field (Job 26:7)

Even though the bible consists of 66 books, most written by different authors, there is a perfect consistency throughout, and no part of the bible contradicts another. Remember that at the time these books were written, the writers had no idea that they were to be compiled into one book, and yet they fit together perfectly. This is obviously and could not have been due to chance.

If god was 'just and fair' he would understand that non believers don't have enough evidence to believe in him... Do you realise that I'm guessing... About 10% of the world is christian? That leaves 90% of the world in the dust... So that means we are all going to be dumped to 'hell'?
once again, God is a just God. He has given us all we need to believe - he's given us his word, that has yet to be disproven and is all together unrefutable. He's created the world - showing us that none of the environment could've been created by chance - it's way too complicated, and the next time i post i'll go into greater detail about the way the universe fits together. He's worked miracles in the lives of many, and if you would just ask them, they would tell you that he is real, and show you what he has done in their lives. And hopefully, you can see the difference that he makes in the lives of your Christian friends; all of these to show that he exists.

And just for the sake of being related to this forum ... You all are listening music made from non believers(Some christian)... (Suggesting the fact they were born in china/TW/japan)... Think about that for a second as I feel not to explain more ;p
lol you might need to explain it - because i dont get it..

Mike

09-14-2003, 06:58 AM

What do you mean "where do we learn?" The entire point of a brain in the human body is for humans to THINK. We have the CC (cranial capacity) to think. And because we are the "smartest creatures on the Earth" we don't NEED other creatures to teach us because we learn from ourselves. (We do learn from animals, though. We still learn from the Earth, but that's another point). That is why even as the most evolved organism on Earth, humans still evolve. And you'd be surprised at how many animals can think. Ever watch National Geographic specials on the animals who can do mathematics or solve puzzles? They may not think to the level that humans do, but some do think.

animals that do math and puzzles do those by a lot of training, so they do what instincts tell them to. I know for a fact that monkeys don't think (according to a animal planet thing i saw today which was about monkeys ((they were cute))). So thought just suddenly appeared? And you must agree that thought is associated with language... correct? everyone thinks in words, with language. monkeys don't' have language. Without language you cannot have thought. (which is what i've been trying to say, just not clearly :D)

Chun Li

09-14-2003, 07:03 AM

Thought didn't just appear. Thought was formed throughout time over the expansion of our brains. According to your facts, (Animal Planet) it says that monkey's don't think.

But there are different definations of "consciousness" and "thought."

There are:
language, self-awareness and "theory of mind."

There are different levels of "thought."

You might want to take a look at this:

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1175/6_32/56883557/p1/article.jhtml?term=

09-14-2003, 07:58 AM

Ok... I just have one thing to say...

Do christians want to take scientific classes? (No offense intended... Honest question)

Because taking biology for one year would seem to make anyone wonder about scientific creation...

actually, one would think that after taking biology, you would know how ridiculous evolution sounds

now allow me this question -

do atheists actually know anything about what they're against? are they against it because they have knowledge of it, or are they against it just for the sake of being against it?

Mike

09-14-2003, 08:15 AM

yea, but it says that people are TEACHING the chimps. without people to teach you language, you can't think. but after the chimps learn language they show signs of conciousness. We can't teach ourselges how to think.

EDIT: i know you've said that as our CC get's larger we get smarter, but there is no logic to that.

EDIT 2: how does smart define?

Chun Li

09-14-2003, 08:23 AM

But that is where humans and chimps are different. The reason why humans think is because we're humans. The reason why chimps can't think is because they're chimps. We share 98.4% of the same DNA. that last 2.6% is the difference.

And there is a theory in evolution about this, but if you're Christian or some other religion, then don't they have their own theories?

EDIT: i know you've said that as our CC get's larger we get smarter, but there is no logic to that.

EDIT 2: how does smart define?

1) hmmm...do you know what Cranial Capacity means? It literally means: the volume of the brain case of the skull. Human brains process thought through neurons, or glial cells. Here:

"We typically think of the neurons when we think of brain cells. But they are only a part of the story. Ninety percent of the cells in our brains are a class of cell called glial cells.

These cells have long been thought to contribute to metabolic processes of nerve cells by regulating the type of chemicals that can reach neurons (part of what constitutes the blood-brain barrier), and mopping up and breaking down chemicals released by neurons such as neurotransmitters. However, a recent article in the Journal of Neuroscience highlights how glial cells can directly influence synaptic communication between neurons.

Glial cells in the in the retina can release calcium ions that move through the tissue in a wave. In the recent paper, it was shown that this wave of calcium can influence synaptic transmission between retinal neurons. Depending on the type of neurons, the rise in external calcium concentration caused by release from glial cells increased or decreased the sensitivity to excitatory and inhibitory inputs from other neurons. This suggests that the function of the glial cells is participating in the information processing that is carried out by neurons."

http://home.earthlink.net/~electrikmonk/Neuro/artGliaNews.htm

Get it? Through millions of years, our brains grew to process information, therefore making us "smarter." Though the Neanderthal had a brain capacity of 1600 c.c. or more, their brains may not have developed to process information as quickly as the modern man and woman, who have cc's of 1400 or so (which is why they no longer exist). Therefore, brain size does not directly correlate to the level of intelligence, nor do bigger brains mean smarter humans, but the growth of our cc's over the years shows that we DID get smarter as our cc's increased.

2) "Smart" in this sense would be defined as self-consciousness, thought or information processing, and decision making, most likely. Smart in this sense is not intellectually or academically smart.

Vant

09-14-2003, 09:28 AM

Even though the bible consists of 66 books, most written by different authors, there is a perfect consistency throughout, and no part of the bible contradicts another. Remember that at the time these books were written, the writers had no idea that they were to be compiled into one book, and yet they fit together perfectly. This is obviously and could not have been due to chance.

Like I said before... The bible evolved over time to explain everything in the world in their view... IF it didn't... No one would bother to believe in it... Correct?

I would also like to know a christian's view on cloning...

do atheists actually know anything about what they're against? are they against it because they have knowledge of it, or are they against it just for the sake of being against it?
Wrong on both... My views on life is to have as much fun as possible... With that said... It is making me sad to see that millions of people waste their lives by devoting themselves to one concept... Now your term of 'waste' might not agree with mine... And I completely understand that... But I do care about people that limit themselves from fun to keep their faith...

For example... Hindu... They don't eat meat... One would never taste a steak... Chicken... Or even a Big Mac... To me... That's ridiculous...

Chun Li

09-14-2003, 09:38 AM

Well, I don't eat monkey brains not because I'm Catholic (at least, that's what I'm baptized as), but because it's gross.

Hey, have you guys seen that one Southpark episode on religion... omg....

As for cloning... well, what about aliens and dinosaurs... and Pangea?

fat_penguin

09-14-2003, 01:10 PM

Like I said before... The bible evolved over time to explain everything in the world in their view... IF it didn't... No one would bother to believe in it... Correct?

the bible didnt evolve. It has remained the same after it was written, it hasnt been changed. if you're talking about different versions, its just different ways of interpreting the original greek to make it easier to understand - it has nothing to do with changing the content of the bible. if you read my post carefully you would've seen that the bible contradicted a lot of the beliefs that existed during the time that it was written - so how can you say that the bible evolved to explain the world's view at the time?!

My views on life is to have as much fun as possible... With that said... It is making me sad to see that millions of people waste their lives by devoting themselves to one concept... Now your term of 'waste' might not agree with mine... And I completely understand that... But I do care about people that limit themselves from fun to keep their faith...

yah - i dont agree with ur idea of waste. my life would be empty and meaningless without God - thats my idea of waste. with God in my life, i have something to live for - something to strive toward, and i would be nothing without him. a waste? i think not..

09-14-2003, 06:40 PM

My views on life is to have as much fun as possible... With that said... It is making me sad to see that millions of people waste their lives by devoting themselves to one concept... Now your term of 'waste' might not agree with mine... And I completely understand that... But I do care about people that limit themselves from fun to keep their faith...

yah - i dont agree with ur idea of waste. my life would be empty and meaningless without God - thats my idea of waste. with God in my life, i have something to live for - something to strive toward, and i would be nothing without him. a waste? i think not..

i agree with you, penguin.

as i have mentioned before...God and Christianity...and most other religion for that matter...give people hope, a hope for a life that withstands the upcoming trials of time, eternal life, something to look forward to when you're old and gray...although this may seem as an illusion, delusion to some people...to us, the "religious" people, it seems very real and is ultimately our final goal

i don't agree with carpe diem at all...if what you do today doesn't bring you anything tomorrow, good or bad...what is the point of doing it in the first place? for that moment of three minute happiness? i think going through life with bits of happiness is much more difficult than having a hope for a "brighter tomorrow"

cici bebe

09-14-2003, 11:25 PM

I'm with Jo and Penguin. We've all gone through the highs of momentary happiness only to be smacked right back down by reality. Does that make us feel like we've fulfilled our lives purpose? Definately not. Most people live life not even knowing their purpose. For me, without God, I have nothing, know nothing, and am nothing.

Evolution makes me wonder.. where do emotions EVOLVE from? There are no cells that explode and form intelligence, hurt, love, etc. And if evolution is all about evolving and these things don't evolve, where do they come from?

Mike

09-14-2003, 11:50 PM

Like I said before... The bible evolved over time to explain everything in the world in their view... IF it didn't... No one would bother to believe in it... Correct?

The bible evolved over time? says who...? oh, yea... you. The reason people believe in it is because it is perfect, no need to change it because it is the truth. And IF someone DID make all this up, it would be the perfect lie. it'd be like saying China never existed. and having everyone, even the people in china, believe there is no China. (except you guys all know it is there) If someone was writing a story they would want a happy ending, but the story of Jesus is so deep and unpredictable. God, dying for the sake of all man kind. It's not a normal story. I'm not saying this proves that the Bible's real but just think about it.

jayx8318x

09-14-2003, 11:56 PM

do atheists actually know anything about what they're against? are they against it because they have knowledge of it, or are they against it just for the sake of being against it?

I'm glad you brought that up Jo. Sometimes when I read people's arguments over certain issues, it becomes really obvious whether they know anything about the opposing views.
Vant have you studied religion in the past, or is all this coming out of little knowledge, and tidbits you've picked up in the past? (I haven't read all 70+ replies to this topic, so excuse me if you've already addressed that)

Vant, your comment about how Hindu's not eating beef, maybe you didn't mean it to sound that way, but simply calling it 'ridiculous' without any supporting reasons why you believe so, is not a very effective argument. In fact, you've lost alot of credibility, and it makes me not want to read anything else you have to say. I don't think you care to even learn about or understand different cultures/religions before making your judgement. But rather you take things at face value, and don't care to investigate further, to research why certain things are the way they are. To Hindus, cows have been revered for thousands of years, and can be considered household pets. The same reasons we don't eat dogs, or cats (at least the MAJORITY of us), they don't eat cows. Some people in Europe are grossed out about how Americans eat corn, because to them, it's considered a type of grain (or something like that, I can't quite remember).

I'm not a follower of Buddhism or Hinduism (although I find some facets of it very interesting), I don't agree with Homosexuality, I don't agree with Republican values. But I do take the time to try and understand why they believe in what they do. In doing so, you better understand why you disagree, as well as build appropriate arguments. This way, all your arguments don't consists of statements like "because it's stupid, it's a waste of time, etc."

jakinni

09-15-2003, 12:05 AM

After reading the arguments in this thread, I'd like to reiterate:

In conclusion, I am an evolutionist, however, it is also possible for creationism and evolutionism to co-exist as evolutionary theory explains the mechanisms of change, the processes that have occurred over billions of years. But creationism may be used to explain the origins, the beginnings if one wants to believe it. It may be used to explain the "why" in the question while science explains the "how". It is very important that one's religious views do not cloud the acceptance of scientific literature.

I don't think it has to be an "all or nothing" type of thing. Just because one believes in God does not mean that they cannot also accept what science is telling us. I don't necessarily think that everything in the Bible should be taken literally, because we have to keep in mind the more "simplistic" view of life that people had back then. Perhaps one can look at it all as parts of a puzzle, each explaining different points. Also I would like to say that taking a biology class in high school is a far cry from college level courses where some of the questions that are not answered in introductory classes are delved into in much more detail. Perhaps then the if you decide you simply cannot accept evolutionary theory, it would be a much more informed decision.

jayx8318x

09-15-2003, 12:25 AM

jakinni that reminds me what my Astronomy professor told us once. When we studied the Big Bang Theory, and evolution of the Universe, he addressed the fact that it could interfere with Creationist views. But for the sake of learning and mentally maturing, we have to put our Creationist views to one side, and put on our Scientific caps on. No one can mature mentally if they stick to their guns on a certain view and be so stubborn not to try and understand another view/theory.

And for some people (like me), we believe in both the Creationist theory, and the parts that can't be explained, we go to the Evolutionists theory, or vice versa. I don't see the problem with believing in both. So like jakinni said, it doesn't have to be all or nothing. Just because I belive God created the Universe, doesn't mean I can't believe man evolved from monkeys. To hard core Christians, I would be a heretic, but this just shows you that there can be middle ground, and there are alot of people who think this way.

I know some people who believe in all Gods. I know this may be opening a big ol' can of worms, but I do believe all those other Gods exist. Vishnu, Allah, Buddha, Jesus, etc...to me, the vision of Heaven you believe in, the God you believe in, that's where you go to when you die. Again, I would be kicked out of Church for thinking such things, but that's what I choose to believe. I don't disagree with what others believe, I don't think people are stupid for not believing in Jesus like I do, I don't try to convert people. I don't believe my Hindu friend will go to Hell just because he doesn't believe in God. Because the fact we all have to face is, no one knows for sure.

In the end, I really believe we all go to the vision of Heaven we create when we were alive.

linny

09-15-2003, 01:06 AM

I hope you all forgive me for not reading all the posts, but I enter the forum of debate a little late. I think perhaps most important points have already been discussed, so whatever I say will probably be repeated rambling.

I'll just state really quickly I'm Buddhist (and a rather unreligious one at that). As most people know, Buddhism is more of a way of life than an actual religion. My God is not truly a god, but more of a leader. I've grown up with neither the belief of Creation or Evolution as I didn't know about either until I entered school.

Perhaps I sound a little odd, but I never really thought about Creation vs. Evolution. The two have always co-existed in my mind. There are some things that both explain, and in my mind, taking one away from the other leaves an incomplete picture. Science can explain the how, religion will provide the why. Do I believe that a greater entity put me on this Earth for a reason? I find it hard to believe, but I know for a fact science alone cannot explain the reason for a human's existance.

There are simply too many contradictions in science to really be sure how accurate it is, but at the same time, the logical part of me finds it really hard to believe that God exists, that he created humans.

I know some people who believe in all Gods. I know this may be opening a big ol' can of worms, but I do believe all those other Gods exist. Vishnu, Allah, Buddha, Jesus, etc...to me, the vision of Heaven you believe in, the God you believe in, that's where you go to when you die.

This is something I believe in too, though slightly altered. For me, I have always believed all these gods throughout the world are all one and the same. It's strange for me to say it out loud and put it in words, but this is my own belief. All gods share a common trait: they all believe in what is good and whole and pure. They might take different names and different forms, but when you get right down to what they stand for, it's always the same.

Er, ignore my rambling. My thoughts are not collected enough to speak intelligently. Bottom line: I believe in both.

getsu_04

09-15-2003, 03:11 AM

I'm Jewish and obviously the Torah also has the creation story as how man came about but I never took the Torah (or Bible) as a literal thing.It's just a metaphore...the evolution theory and the creation theory can co-exist.I mean actually...in the torah(bible) it follows the same order the scientific theory does just w/a difference in how long it took,etc... it just shouldn't be taken literally.We should have a book club and all read "Inherit the wind",hehe.
Oh,and Living things can come from non living things...the original atmosphere would have been anerobic but amino acids could surivive and they are the building blocks of proteins which could eventually begin photosynthesis and create the aerobic atmosphere which supports life.It's been awhile since Biology but I think I'm remembering correctly :glug:

princess`bobo

09-15-2003, 03:23 AM

i reckon wit this debate pplz should leave religion out of it and base their arguments on facts cos there are so many religions that believe in all sorts of different things....

with so many diverse cultures there are bound to be arguments over it all....

--> however i totally believe in EVOLUTION...after studying biology at UNI manz...they totally drill it into u and everything flows and makes sense...

basically....the first organisms on earth where bacteria and from these evolved photosynthetic bacteria....that where able to photosynthesize and evolved into plants...

also from these bacteria...known commonly as stromatelites i think...aerobic bacteria evolved....which were able to form bacis mitochondria and so the mitochondria and the photosynthetic bacteria where able to fuse together by endosymbiosis and so formed a basic cell.....

from this through mutations and frequent lighting strikes from the sky which gave energy for synthesis of chemical reactions, amino acids, the building blocks of protiens, which wat we're all made out of, where able to be created....then simple organisms like bugs were created and after millions and millions of years of eveolution, over time, WE humans came to life from chimpanzees....

therefore with my lengthy argument that i hope made sense to everyone.....it is clear that we all evolved from early bacteria...known as arcebacteria....

heheh and not once in my argument did i mention religion.. ^^

getsu_04

09-15-2003, 03:28 AM

i reckon wit this debate pplz should leave religion out of it and base their arguments on facts cos there are so many religions that believe in all sorts of different things....

It's so hard to leave religion out of it though b/c the other main theory (creationism) is based on religious beliefs...

ah,thanks for clearing up the biology thing...It's been awhile since I've taken it and couldn't really remember much(that's a poor excuse for not paying attention that well in class,j/k).

jayx8318x

09-15-2003, 05:21 AM

i reckon wit this debate pplz should leave religion out of it

hehe, did you read the topic title? :sweat: how can you have a debate over Creationism vs. Evolution and leave religion out? :?

Vant

09-15-2003, 05:24 AM

The bible evolved over time? says who...? oh, yea... you. The reason people believe in it is because it is perfect, no need to change it because it is the truth. And IF someone DID make all this up, it would be the perfect lie. it'd be like saying China never existed. and having everyone, even the people in china, believe there is no China. (except you guys all know it is there) If someone was writing a story they would want a happy ending, but the story of Jesus is so deep and unpredictable. God, dying for the sake of all man kind. It's not a normal story. I'm not saying this proves that the Bible's real but just think about it.

Care to explain why if it's such a perfect religion... Why most of the people on earth don't believe it? I'm pretty sure most people would say their religion is the 'perfect' religion...

And yeah... I do agree... I don't know much about christianity... So therefore I have no right to argue about it... I do have the ability to argue about how religion effects lifestyles and ... Just forget it... Too much to explain... I won't bother looking in this post anymore ;p

Sorry to those who thought I was offensive... I was merely trying to learn why religions are so important to society... Because... Obviously, to me... It's not...

Mike

09-15-2003, 05:33 AM

i never said it was the perfect religion (i believe it is, but like you said, people would think their own religion is perfect so this wouldn't be an arguement) but what i DID say was IF Christianity was a lie and a made up story, it is the perfect lie.

Vant

09-15-2003, 05:56 AM

I know I said I wouldn't look... But I couldn't help it...

The reason people believe in it is because it is perfect, no need to change it because it is the truth.

jayx8318x

09-15-2003, 06:07 AM

Hey Vant, I don't think anyone truly thinks you're being disrepectful, or offensive. Or at least I don't. I really hope you don't turn away from this topic because of that. I know it may seem everyone is against you. But don't let that discourage you. I admire members who can keep up with a conversation like this. And not just talk about how hot Jay is or something...

jakinni

09-15-2003, 08:14 AM

Err...to repost what I wrote earlier...

jakinni that reminds me what my Astronomy professor told us once. When we studied the Big Bang Theory, and evolution of the Universe, he addressed the fact that it could interfere with Creationist views. But for the sake of learning and mentally maturing, we have to put our Creationist views to one side, and put on our Scientific caps on. No one can mature mentally if they stick to their guns on a certain view and be so stubborn not to try and understand another view/theory.

Same here in Anthropology class. People who even sign up for such classes should definitely keep an open mind to other possibilities, otherwise why bother?

I don't follow any particular religion and I know as much about them as I get from religion class, so I tend to believe what science has proven to us. However at the same time I cannot completely rule out the possibility of a god like supernatural being that oversees us, although that concept is very abstract and hard for me to grasp as there is no concrete proof. So I try to keep the "how" and "why" perspectives in mind when debating things like this topic. We really never know what possibilities are out there. Our scientific advances has only been really going full force recently in history, there's a whole universe we don't know about.

Chun Li

09-15-2003, 10:49 AM

To summarize quickly what Princess Bobo said ...(Cici, I believe you asked how we started to evolve?) the easiest way to explain is that the chemicals of the earth reacted in such a way and over millions of years to create a prokaryote (single celled organism). These creatures live and die quickly and are able to reproduce within seconds. In one of the billions of reproductions, a mutation occured, and one of the cells became a eukaryote (multi-celled organism). Apparently, they had an advantage over Prokaryotes and was able to diverge off into their own little "species" so to speak. That is basically the outline for evolution. According to the theory, mutations and accidents occur. The beneficial mutations led to further evolution of the species. The mutations that were not beneficial lead to the extinction of those species.

I don't think it has to be an "all or nothing" type of thing. Just because one believes in God does not mean that they cannot also accept what science is telling us. I don't necessarily think that everything in the Bible should be taken literally, because we have to keep in mind the more "simplistic" view of life that people had back then.

Agreed. I don't like to be on either side, I'd like to stand in the middle. I believe in everything, and I don't rule out anything. We all know what happens when we take something to the extreme, right? (read: Bin Laden)

Also I would like to say that taking a biology class in high school is a far cry from college level courses where some of the questions that are not answered in introductory classes are delved into in much more detail. Perhaps then the if you decide you simply cannot accept evolutionary theory, it would be a much more informed decision.

I also agree. How many classes have you taken, Jakinni? Would your major happen to be Biology? I was planning to be a Genetics/MicroBiology Major. (and then I found out that the lab suits they wore everyday would make me look soooo drab) But there is nothing more fun than decoding the amino acids...
>=P

Linny and Karen - I think I stand around where you guys stand on the issue. I feel that by keeping your mind open to all ideas, you learn more. When people question your views, you start to question your own perspectives. And it is in doing so that you find out what your ideas really are. I wonder what everyone will do about their beliefs if Aliens come down one day and say, "Fools! We were the ones that created you! Screw Evolution and Creationism!" And then the Star Trek people win.

Vant - Don't be discouraged! You, me, and Jakinni were basically the only "other, non creationism" people in the thread. (Though I don't rule anything out). Why did everyone suddenly decide to show up on page 6??

edit: oh, I just remembered something.

But I do take the time to try and understand why they believe in what they do. In doing so, you better understand why you disagree, as well as build appropriate arguments. This way, all your arguments don't consists of statements like "because it's stupid, it's a waste of time, etc."

Isn't this one of the major reasons why we had war against terrorists? Haha... if only both leaders (Bush and Bin Laden) would just try to understand.

fat_penguin

09-15-2003, 10:53 AM

The first URL shows why the universe couldn't have been made in the big bang, as it is too specific and perfect to support our life on earth.
http://www.doesgodexist.org/Charts/EvidenceForDesignInTheUniverse.html

The second URL shows facts that we know to be true today that are written in the bible, contrary to the beliefs of the people of that time.
http://www.doesgodexist.org/Charts/CheckableBiblicalAccuracy.html

sUm^MeR

09-15-2003, 11:49 AM

However at the same time I cannot completely rule out the possibility of a god like supernatural being that oversees us, although that concept is very abstract and hard for me to grasp as there is no concrete proof.

I think there are proofs of God's supernatural power. My friend was told by several doctors that she couldn't bear a child. And she tried so many medical alternatives but all failed. One day, she asked a pastor to pray for her and she believed it with heart that God will give her a baby. Two months later, she's told that she's pregnant. And that happens to my friend!!!So many people who suffer lethal disease got healed out of a prayer. There are proofs, but people tend to neglect these because they find it illogical and unexplainable.

Scientists think that they can always explain anything, while there are some things that's truly unexplainable, such as supernatural power. Okay, let's not talk about God's healing power. But what about those black magics? I live in the country where people practicing black magic like Americans practicing free speech. I saw those people walked on fire without getting burnt, eating broken glass, and bending a steel with bare hand. Now what can science do to explain this thing?

jakinni

09-15-2003, 07:31 PM

I also agree. How many classes have you taken, Jakinni? Would your major happen to be Biology? I was planning to be a Genetics/MicroBiology Major. (and then I found out that the lab suits they wore everyday would make me look soooo drab) But there is nothing more fun than decoding the amino acids...
>=P

Well I just started my 4th year specializing in Human Biology, so for the past 3 years, it's 5 full courses per year, or 10 half courses/year, which ever way you look at it. Most of them being life science courses, I've taken the mandatory courses in Evolution, Chem, Phys, couple of Paleoanthropology, Cell biology, Eukaryotic molecular biology, Genetics(such a bad experience I don't know how you liked it, but of course I had exceptionally bad instructors...), Immunology, Pathobiology, Physiology, and Microbiology. In general most of these courses are based on the fundamental principles of evolutionary theory with changes and variations among/within species stemming from the DNA and how tiny mutations/variations can make such huge difference in the expression of certain characteristics.

Someone before said that mutations are always bad. It is random mutations that occur in our body that allows us to have such an effective immune system. Our DNA cannot possibly encode antibodies and immune components against all the array of things we encounter in our environment, so how does our body cope? Our special immune cells, when producing antibodies and white blood cells, undergo deletions/changes in DNA every time it reads it so that it will randomly produce infinite combinations of antibodies and prepare us against whatever that's out there. Now that's quite incredible, and I wouldn't want to be without these mutations.

I think there are proofs of God's supernatural power. My friend was told by several doctors that she couldn't bear a child. And she tried so many medical alternatives but all failed. One day, she asked a pastor to pray for her and she believed it with heart that God will give her a baby. Two months later, she's told that she's pregnant. And that happens to my friend!!!So many people who suffer lethal disease got healed out of a prayer. There are proofs, but people tend to neglect these because they find it illogical and unexplainable.

How does one know that it is not simply the placebo effect?? Humans are complex beings, and who knows how much the power of will have over our bodies. For example, why is it that in clinical trials subjects are always separated into control and treatments groups and in any good trial, they wouldn't know which group they're in. They're all given pills to take, but they don't know if they've received a treatment pill or a placebo. Just the knowledge that one's being treated can have great effects over their mental health, they may feel less stress, happier, all these things can change physiological regulations and cause changes in the body. Small changes in a few hormones can completely change one's personality, these are potent things. An apparent correlation between two things does not automatically mean a "cause and effect" relationship.

Chun Li

09-15-2003, 09:35 PM

The Placebo effect is a possibility in explaining her pregnancy. The power of prayer could also be a possibility. But when someone wishes for something so much, it can also cause a change in her body. Human willpower is sometimes unbreakable.

Jakinni, I'm so jealous! You actually are going through with Human Bio! Thinking back, I would have honestly been so happy majoring in it... sigh. Even when I switched majors I took Anthropology and Biology/Anthropolgy courses for fun (but my counselors were annoyed).

The interesting thing is that in any of these courses, they never force you or tell you this is how the world was created. If you want to beleive it, fine. If you don't, then that's your choice. All they are explanining to you is that this is how the organisms survived through millions of years. This is the blueprint of our DNA. This is also the result of several billion mutations in the DNA. It's funny how we say that Mutations are bad. Mutations are actually a way for an organism to survive. Of course, mutations in viruses and bacteria are bad for us... but on the other hand... it's trying to live.

btw, I never took an official Genetics course. It would have put off my graduation for another year. There was a section for it in my other class. But I enjoyed learning about the structure of DNA and amino acids so much that decoding and encoding it would give me around 5 hours of pure joy.

linny

09-16-2003, 12:16 AM

And yeah... I do agree... I don't know much about christianity... So therefore I have no right to argue about it... I do have the ability to argue about how religion effects lifestyles and ... Just forget it... Too much to explain... I won't bother looking in this post anymore ;p

I would actually really appreciate it if you explain. From reading a few of your posts, Vant, it seems to me like you've known a lot of extremely religious people who've put you off, or something similar. I for one would find it interesting why you feel the way you do about religion.

I was merely trying to learn why religions are so important to society... Because... Obviously, to me... It's not...

This is something I want to know too. Why is religion so important to so many people? I am not a very religious person myself, it has never really been part of my family. I know that religion is extremely important to people. I know it has existed since mankind could think and maybe even a little before that. I know that to some, it is an integral part of their life.

Why do we need religion so much? What is it about religion that can bring out the best and worst in people? These are all little questions I sometimes ask myself. -.-;;

09-16-2003, 01:30 AM

Someone before said that mutations are always bad. It is random mutations that occur in our body that allows us to have such an effective immune system. Our DNA cannot possibly encode antibodies and immune components against all the array of things we encounter in our environment, so how does our body cope? Our special immune cells, when producing antibodies and white blood cells, undergo deletions/changes in DNA every time it reads it so that it will randomly produce infinite combinations of antibodies and prepare us against whatever that's out there. Now that's quite incredible, and I wouldn't want to be without these mutations.

mutations are over 90 percent harmful, this refers to the macroevolution that evolutionists are so sturdy about. really, i do believe there is space for evolution and creation to co-exist...however...i still find the possibility of macroevolution being beneficial impossible...because God didn't create people from monkeys or slime, but in his own image, from seemingly nothingness (or, clay)

once a frog goes under a macroevolution, or a mutation and grows an extra pair of legs...the evolution (mutation) actually harms it more than helps it...the legs hinder its mobility as well as make it look plain ugly (at least, to me)...but i don't disagree that overtime, organisms evolve in different ways to adjust and adapt to the environment...to say otherwise is ignorant...but i can't honestly say that i agree it has much to do with the topic of Evolution at hand...not that it is completely irrelevant...but what is being presented in evolution is much more than just simple, small adaptations...it is a complete change of form and function...that i can't agree with

cici bebe

09-16-2003, 04:03 AM

Vant

09-16-2003, 04:13 AM

I'd like to point out... That the differences between every human being is caused by mutation...

princess`bobo

09-16-2003, 04:14 AM

yes everything keeps evolving but did u know that to evolve to where we ALL are now, including the fishes and all the animals and plants, it has taken millions and millions of years.....

with that in mind, the added fact that humans are destroying the eco system with all our culling of natural habitats and killing of animals we think are 'pests' also slows the process of evolution...

also there have been process of evolution that have been happening but some are not visible to the naked eye...for example when insects or bacteria develop a resistance to a particular pesticide or reagent THAT is a process of evolution...

and also with humans we can see mutations are happening all the time....for example with albino people that could be an example of evolution but for evolution to occur the genes have to be favoured....i guess no one is really fvouring albinoism otherwise we would all have bleached blonde hair and perfect white skin...

and also with mutations that may occur spontaneously, u know how some people just have a knack for something? these genes eventuaally if beneficial will carry over to the next generation and spread on and on until almost the entire population have acquired it

09-16-2003, 05:03 AM

I'd like to point out... That the differences between every human being is caused by mutation...

micro-evolution

when you see someone with three legs or such...then it'd be macro-evolution

we still have the same functions, same organ systems, and need the same essential chemical reactions to maintain a healthy life

you rarely see people with six fingers, and even then that problem is more often than not corrected in their offspring.

and princess bobo, those are still micro-evolutions

when humans grow wings...then we have something to be shocked about

princess`bobo

09-16-2003, 05:05 AM

lolz...hell yeah...ehehahaha

09-16-2003, 05:13 AM

you wouldn't believe how often i dream about that though =/

i'd love to have wings

who needs to be stuck in a traffic every morning going to school...i'd like to just watch them all pile up under me

jayx8318x

09-16-2003, 05:16 AM

Evolution states that everything KEEPS evolving, if that's true, where is that proven?

We still are evolving, it's just not as noticeable or rapid as it was hundreds of years ago. But just look at the way people looked in the 1900s, or even back to the 1500s. The facial structure is significantly different than what is predominant now. I think due to natural selection the evolution has slowed down, as we're balanced with nature in a sense now. That is, our bodily components/functions allow us to survive against/with nature. I don't think we will be sprouting wings, or growing a 6th finger anytime soon because doing so doesn't increase our survival by much, and also because of the old adage "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"

As to why we don't see all monkeys evolve, I think due to geographic location, genetics, etc. Just simply, some monkeys didn't mate with other monkeys that were already partially evolved. I guess some monkeys just didn't swing that way. (pun intended)

Smonkkey

09-16-2003, 05:52 AM

sUm^MeR

09-16-2003, 05:56 AM

So everything keeps evolving, right.

Just one quick question about evolution, for those who believes in it.

So everything starts from micro-bacteria, then bacteria, then insects, apes, whatsoever, then human being. Is human evolving to anything else? Is human the last form of evolution? It seems to be that way to me. :?

jakinni: that's just one example that happens to my friends. Maybe people needs a stronger example.
Groups of my friends in the church went to a mission to small villages. Then they prayed for this one guy who had been blind since he was a kid. The reason of his blindness was because his eyeball got hit by a stone and it broke. There's no way he could see except someone gives him a new eyeball. And over a prayer, that guy got a new eyeball and can see. It happens within 5 minutes. I know it sounds crazy, but I'm not making this up. It's just one other example. But those who were born to be handicapped and got healed within minutes are everywhere. It happens right in front of our eyes. If it's not God's supernatural power, then how can people explain this???

Smonkkey

09-16-2003, 06:08 AM

jayx8318x

09-16-2003, 06:10 AM

Vant

09-16-2003, 06:11 AM

So everything starts from micro-bacteria, then bacteria, then insects, apes, whatsoever, then human being. Is human evolving to anything else? Is human the last form of evolution? It seems to be that way to me.

There is no such thing as 'last form of evolution'... Unless your playing pokemon ;p Or some other kiddy game...

Anyways... Humans are part of the modern evolutions... There are alot more animals that exist with us... Making them... I guess the 'modern form of the species'...

As for your story... I've heard millions of those... Yet their evidence is just as good as most of christianity... Tell me... Out of hundreds of christians that are blind... Why this boy?

I'm kinda starting late in this conversation, but doesn't evolution take place over hundreds upon thousands of year, maybe millions... Maybe we are changing slowly from the inside. You never know we might have a third lung or something but its too small to notice without equipment...

You're right... It does... Infact 500 years is little compared to the ... I guess millions that humans were given... (Is it millions? Or hundred thousands?) To evolve from an ape-like species...

As for the thing about humans not evolving... (I think?)

There are humans that have grown beneficial mutations... Such as larger brain capacity (Which has been rising since the beginning of man)... Physical (3 minute mile... What next? 2:30?)... (And no... Not everyone can exercise for their whole lives and run 3 minute miles...)

sUm^MeR

09-16-2003, 06:39 AM

As for your story... I've heard millions of those... Yet their evidence is just as good as most of christianity... Tell me... Out of hundreds of christians that are blind... Why this boy?

Haha.. Vant.... if only I can answer this, but I'm not God. :oops: But I just provide proofs of God's Supernatural power. It really exists, but why people still don't believe it?

While on the other hand, NOBODY could prove the exact theory of Evolution, nobody is certain whether human will evolve to something else, and this evolution proccess takes billions of years while nobody will live that long to prove its truth, but why people still do believe it?

Just like Jo put it, there's nothing in the bible that you can prove wrong, but on the other hand.... so many flaws exist in evolution threory. Why do people still rather believe theory that has flaw instead of the one that's flawless? :?

Chun Li

09-16-2003, 07:49 AM

Another question that has never been answered for me (or anyone):

Say we all evolved, how come we're not seeing anything evolve now? Shouldn't we see an ape turn into man or fish flopping out of the water and sprouting legs.. after ALL THIS TIME? Yet.. we don't.Evolution states that everything KEEPS evolving, if that's true, where is that proven?

Cici, evolution doesn't just happen overnight, or in a week, or even in ten years. It took several billion years for people to become hominids (bipedal creatures). It is happening now, but since there's so many people you can't tell. It also doesn't mean they're going to have a third eye pop out on their head. A mutation could be a slightly longer ear lobe, a slightly shorter right arm, etc etc etc. You probably won't see anything out of the ordinary in your life time, or even in a million years.

And another thing, humans and their technology are also pushing people towards a different kind of evolution. More than half of the machines we use give off radiation to produce cancer and is mutating our cells. If someday you see a person who has an immunity to cancer, then that'll be the result of a beneficial mutation in his DNA. (Not that it will happen). It's like how monkeys are immune to some of our diseases and vice versa. That's why scientists try to find out what part of their DNA makes them immune.

Why do people still rather believe theory that has flaw instead of the one that's flawless?

Exactly because it is "flawless" and because there is not possible for anything in this universe to be Perfect.

So everything starts from micro-bacteria, then bacteria, then insects, apes, whatsoever, then human being. Is human evolving to anything else? Is human the last form of evolution? It seems to be that way to me.

If you want to see humans evolve, have a meteor smash into the planet and destroy 70% of the population. Then you'll see humans evolve mighty fast, especially if you add some predators, hmm, lets say, dinosaurs. Then you should be able to speed up the evolution process by a few million years.

09-16-2003, 08:04 AM

its wierd...because i've stated my point of view on micro-evolution

and right after, all the evolutionists state over and over again how humans micro-evolve overtime...and use that as a defense against Christianity

no offense or anything...but i'm wondering...did everyone miss my point?

micro-evolution doesn't prove anything about Evolution, because it could swing either way...i could say that God made us micro-evolve in order for us to better prosper and live in the environment

but no one's stated anything that's anything close to macro-evolution in humans yet, other than the circular reasoning that man evolved from monkeys because of Evolution; Evolution is true because man evolved from monkeys

its like i'm the best because i am perfect; i am perfect because i'm the best

Chun Li

09-16-2003, 08:08 AM

Because we haven't lived long enough, and won't live long enough to see anything very significant, like people sprouting wings, for example.

And if you want a macro-evolution example, for humans to become completely bipedal animals is a huge piece of evidence. But that doesn't do anything for you if you don't think humans evolved from monkeys.

09-16-2003, 08:09 AM

yer so in conclusion Chun Li

we must all go back to your original point

there is really no grounds for proving anything right and wrong...all we can do is defend our own path with what we know

because in the end...what we know is really too limited to prove anything useful ¬ ¬

Chun Li

09-16-2003, 08:12 AM

Just like how Creationism is focused on God creating humans, Evolution (Human Evolution) is focused on the development of humans from a common ancestor (more specifically, a common ancestor with our most closely related animal, the chimpanzee).

This is why I said a debate on Creationism and Evolution goes nowhere.

09-16-2003, 08:16 AM

at least i still found this topic rather insightful

didn't know so many people felt so strongly about certain subjects...and didn't know that some of the people here knew so much

tres cool

Chun Li

09-16-2003, 08:18 AM

Yeah, you learn a lot of stuff about the other perspective, so that's always benefical. But as to proving if one is right, then that's useless. So "debates" don't usually work, more like discussions I suppose.

09-16-2003, 08:23 AM

haha real debates get settled in court

i'd love to participate in one of those some day...i may accuse someone successfully and get them killed

just...messin

:prop:

Chun Li

09-16-2003, 08:31 AM

Wouldn't it be nice to have playful Gods like in Greek and Roman mythology... just as long as you stay away from Zeus to avoid Hera's jealously, all the Gods are free for pickin'. They're all hot too, except for Aphrodite's husband Hephaestus.... I wouldn't mind marrying Apollo.

Either that, or be a Xian Nu in Chinese folklore. I wouldn't mind being Wu Kong and making a riot in "Tian."

Btw, Jo, do you still practice Chinese "religious" things, just has burn incense sticks for your ancestors and such?

jakinni

09-16-2003, 08:48 AM

micro-evolution doesn't prove anything about Evolution, because it could swing either way...i could say that God made us micro-evolve in order for us to better prosper and live in the environment

To me, I don't see why macroevolution wouldn't just be an extension of microevolution if you already believe it. If 1 species can evolve to become two different ones(they may still look similar) simply by having different geographical conditions, with large enough differences in conditions and long enough time, I don't see why can't it become very dissimilar. But like you said, for you it could go the other way, one's logic is not always someone else's.

Jakinni, I'm so jealous! You actually are going through with Human Bio! Thinking back, I would have honestly been so happy majoring in it... sigh. Even when I switched majors I took Anthropology and Biology/Anthropolgy courses for fun (but my counselors were annoyed).
I would have done more Anthro courses because I found them to be very interesting, but memorizing bones and differentiating between skulls was just too difficult for me. :wacko: Or I was just too lazy? So what did you end up majoring in??

The interesting thing is that in any of these courses, they never force you or tell you this is how the world was created. If you want to beleive it, fine. If you don't, then that's your choice. All they are explanining to you is that this is how the organisms survived through millions of years. This is the blueprint of our DNA. This is also the result of several billion mutations in the DNA. It's funny how we say that Mutations are bad. Mutations are actually a way for an organism to survive. Of course, mutations in viruses and bacteria are bad for us... but on the other hand... it's trying to live.
Ha, well my very first class in evolution, the Prof said that "theory" in scientific terms is a body of evidence known to be true. So things with names like "Theory of Relativity" was basically as good as Laws. So technically he said evolution was fact. Well that's basically what I believe, but I guess it would have been hard to swallow for others. But other courses, I agree, they tend to not focus on that aspect of it. Each subject has its own fine details, and that's what they were worried about, not the whole "big picture". I wonder if "mutations" had a name like "sapphire" would it have as bad connotations attached to it. :laughing:

btw, I never took an official Genetics course. It would have put off my graduation for another year. There was a section for it in my other class. But I enjoyed learning about the structure of DNA and amino acids so much that decoding and encoding it would give me around 5 hours of pure joy.
I enjoyed Genetics too in high school and before that evil evil course, but it all turned out to be so much more complicated than the darn homozygous and heterozygous stuff. The class was a required course so had at least 500 people in it, but on any given day you'd only see 50-100max attending the lectures. Now that's pretty pathetic. Now any course with "genetics" in the title sends me running the other way! :laughing:

ker_ai_teresa

09-16-2003, 12:28 PM

So everything keeps evolving, right.

Just one quick question about evolution, for those who believes in it.

So everything starts from micro-bacteria, then bacteria, then insects, apes, whatsoever, then human being. Is human evolving to anything else? Is human the last form of evolution? It seems to be that way to me. :?

:glug: i have no idea what microevolution or macroevolution is, but isn't it true that if the evolution theory is correct, modern humans aren't evolving anymore coz there is no need to evolve??? :? correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't the evolution theory state that animals evolve coz their living environment requires them to do so in order to survive? so the giraffe evolved into the long-necked creature we see today coz they needed to reach leaves on tall trees? so humans no longer evolve now bcoz we've become so sophistocated that we can change our living enviornments to suit us, rather than change to adapt to our surroundings....right???
seems like i've remembered something from long ago biology classes... :happy:

satanrina

09-16-2003, 07:12 PM

I believe that humans beings are constantly evolving, this has nothing to do with religion, but more with practicality. Even though physical evolution is not apparent, it still takes place. I once read this research paper that states that in the next hundred years or so, there will no longer be distinction between races because of rampant cross-breeding. Also, as Chun Li have stated previously, it would take a huge event to spur a macro-evolution. Take for instance, during WW2, during the invasion of the Germans, the Jews had to take cover in underground tunnels. Because they had lived in cramped conditions for all those years, the direct offsprings of those Jews were found to be shorter than average to be conditioned to those environments.
Recent breakthroughs in medical science also gave an edge to evolution. Think of all the genome mapping and what they could do. In future, just by altering a single gene, we would no longer grow old or fat, or suffer from any disease. But then, we must remember that we are not the only ones evolving. Bacteria are also doing so, which is why we have SARs and AIDs. Our body builds immunity to these diseases, it is a form of evolution which we could not see with the naked eye.
Which brings me to selective breeding. As humans look for attractive traits in their partner to bring over to the next generation. Since every human is programmed to do the same, shouldn't the world be rid of the unbeautiful by now? By this, why do symptoms such as cleft lip and flat feet still occur? Possibly due to medical breakthroughs too. The same paper I read states that plastic sugery as a probable reason.
In this way, we humans now are partly controlling evolution. Maybe we have attributed some of the natural occurances of evolution as medical breakthroughs. Maybe.

Chun Li

09-16-2003, 08:59 PM

Right Satanrina. You just reminded me.

I once read this research paper that states that in the next hundred years or so, there will no longer be distinction between races because of rampant cross-breeding.

There was an article in TIME a while ago about how people will all end up having dark hair, brown eyes, and darker skin. (Caucasian features are recessive)

Due to evolution, we're all going to look the same future. But I don't think a few hundred years is enough. Maybe a few thousand. One generation of humans last from 50 to 90 years, so for one generation to produce more "mixed" offspring will take quite awhile.

Unfortunately, we'll lose a lot of our "culture." There is already no such thing as a pure Hawaiian, and the government is even trying to push half-Hawaiian, Half-white/other people to mate to retain the Hawaiian race.

Vant

09-16-2003, 11:56 PM

i have no idea what microevolution or macroevolution is, but isn't it true that if the evolution theory is correct, modern humans aren't evolving anymore coz there is no need to evolve??? correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't the evolution theory state that animals evolve coz their living environment requires them to do so in order to survive? so the giraffe evolved into the long-necked creature we see today coz they needed to reach leaves on tall trees? so humans no longer evolve now bcoz we've become so sophistocated that we can change our living enviornments to suit us, rather than change to adapt to our surroundings....right???
seems like i've remembered something from long ago biology classes...

Humans evolved because of natural selection... Due to the new improvements in technology... Natural selection barely exists...

As for the Giraffes... They used to be small... And they migrated to an area with high trees... Eventually the smaller giraffes that couldn't reach the trees would die off... And the larger ones would mate and hopefully have their offspring to be long necks too... Summary- No small giraffs would survive... Longer necks live longer because they have food to eat... Get it? :)

With humans it's different... We rarely let anyone die due to starvation... Or to most things... Therefore we are evolving slower (And more various) then we used to...

Adapting to surroundings is different... As said earlier... Jews were hiding in caves or something and they were shorter because of that? I don't believe that is true... DNA can't change because of what you do... You are born with DNA... You will die off with the same DNA you started with (Unless some kind of bizzare radiation-linked case happens... Which is like impossible)... How does DNA mutate you ask? Reproduction...

09-17-2003, 01:14 AM

Btw, Jo, do you still practice Chinese "religious" things, just has burn incense sticks for your ancestors and such?

yer see even i blur the line between culture and religion (sound familiar? the Humanist Manifesto is obviously a Bible :bleh: )

i burn incense to my ancesters under the command of my mother, and we also go "Sao Mu" every "Ching Yuan Jie"...and sometimes i even go with my mom to Temples and stuff...to me...they aren't symbols of a "religion"...i think Buddhism is more of a philosophy, as is Taoism, Confucianism...i know there are their set of Gods and Goddesses, Fuo, Pu Sa etc etc....but i see them as glorious Asian Culture...nothing more and nothing less...i don't disagree with what Buddhism teaches though, moral-wise

do people here know much about Humanism? because this debate is urging me to start another debate regarding Humanism

NeO NDaRoO

09-17-2003, 01:26 AM

i'm sooo late on this topic..sorry guys!!!

when i was in high school...i had a teacher that told me that he believed that god created, and took a step back, and let evolution do it's thing.....

my best friend used to discuss creation vs. evolution...
one of the points he brought up....

in a nutshell....Noah had his ark.....instructions to bring a male and a female of each animal or whatever on his big ass boat..and the world was flooded for 40 days and 40 nights.....then he proceded to release them all back to their habitats....

the point?....if the world was flooded all the around.....there would be an equilibrium in the mixtures of water....noah plopped the fishies back in the water...but yet today, salt water fish can't live in freshwater environments and vice versa...how did that come about?...

anyway..enough from me..i'm just trying to push this out before class =) see ya'll later! =)

09-17-2003, 01:33 AM

the point?....if the world was flooded all the around.....there would be an equilibrium in the mixtures of water....noah plopped the fishies back in the water...but yet today, salt water fish can't live in freshwater environments and vice versa...how did that come about?...

not necessarily.

water with higher salt concentration will stablize at the bottom, in crevices and ditches, valleys and pits after the initial flood. whatever survived till then will have survived till now, as in...species...unless extinct due to other reasons

cici bebe

09-17-2003, 03:12 AM

Speaking of Noah's Ark:

How do you explain fish fossils found in mountains thousands of elevations high? Also a dinosaur was frozen with its arms and feet up, in the swimming position. Scientists even found a fully preserved whale plus hundreds of other underwater creatures in mountains. And as we all know, to fossilize animals is a RAPID process. Geographically shown, it's obvious that there must have been something (such as the Flood) that INSTANTLY killed and preserved all these sea creatures, animals, etc.

Mike

09-17-2003, 04:46 AM

Vant

09-17-2003, 04:51 AM

I love this debate... So much to learn for me :)

Speaking of Noah's Ark:

How do you explain fish fossils found in mountains thousands of elevations high? Also a dinosaur was frozen with its arms and feet up, in the swimming position. Scientists even found a fully preserved whale plus hundreds of other underwater creatures in mountains. And as we all know, to fossilize animals is a RAPID process. Geographically shown, it's obvious that there must have been something (such as the Flood) that INSTANTLY killed and preserved all these sea creatures, animals, etc.

Actually... How do mountains form? They rise up from the ground... Right?

As for dinosaurs... There is no way you can say they didn't exist... Too much evidence... Do they mention dinosaurs in the bible?

jakinni

09-17-2003, 04:56 AM

In addition it has been shown that there have been major floods, for example after the last ice age, melting glaciers created huge dams and when they broke giant bodies of water came rushing out. Instantaneous death with that force and pressure.

Which brings me to selective breeding. As humans look for attractive traits in their partner to bring over to the next generation. Since every human is programmed to do the same, shouldn't the world be rid of the unbeautiful by now? By this, why do symptoms such as cleft lip and flat feet still occur? Possibly due to medical breakthroughs too. The same paper I read states that plastic sugery as a probable reason.

Looking for attractive members of the opposite sex, not necessarily. I mean plenty of fugly people still get mates and being attractive to the opposite sex perhaps may not mean "beautiful" but with unconscious targetting of the most fit. So people with unattractive faces but are very healthy otherwise may stil attract the opposite sex. Or a lot of people just settle for whoever they can find, or how about many cultures of arranged marriages based on personal wealth. In addition since humans are so abstract thinkers, perhaps many look beyond the instinctual "attractiveness" and go for the intellectual common ground. So although selective breeding, the selection is not all for the same things, so I don't think there'll be such a drastic change in physical composition in the near evolutionary future.

Vant

09-17-2003, 04:58 AM

Yup that's also true... The world's climate is always changing... Back then in the ice age... Stuff can melt... And that's ALOT of water :)

Also... I forgot to point out something...

Also a dinosaur was frozen with its arms and feet up, in the swimming position.

I don't think dinosaurs were alive when humans were... :)

sUm^MeR

09-17-2003, 05:47 AM

As for dinosaurs... There is no way you can say they didn't exist... Too much evidence... Do they mention dinosaurs in the bible?

I don't think dinosaurs were alive when humans were... :)

DINOSOURS were mentioned in the bible!!!! And how do you know that DINOSOURS doesn't live at the same time as human. Any evidence???

I give you the evidence from the Bible.

NKJV (New King James Version)
JOB 40
15 "Look now at the behemoth,[1] which I made along with you;
He eats grass like an ox.
16 See now, his strength is in his hips,
And his power is in his stomach muscles.
17 He moves his tail like a cedar;
The sinews of his thighs are tightly knit.
18 His bones are like beams of bronze,
His ribs like bars of iron.
19 He is the first of the ways of God;
Only He who made him can bring near His sword.
20 Surely the mountains yield food for him,
And all the beasts of the field play there.
21 He lies under the lotus trees,
In a covert of reeds and marsh.
22 The lotus trees cover him with their shade;
The willows by the brook surround him.
23 Indeed the river may rage,
Yet he is not disturbed;
He is confident, though the Jordan gushes into his mouth,
24 Though he takes it in his eyes,
Or one pierces his nose with a snare.

40:15 A large animal, exact identity unknown

Book of Isaiah
Chapter 51 -
51:9
Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the LORD; Awake as in the days of old, the generations of long ago. Was it not You who cut Rahab in pieces, Who pierced the dragon

Now the word Dragon in this text in hebrew is Tanniyn

which means
dragon, serpent, sea monster
dragon or dinosaur

And this bible was written thousands of years ago where there were no fossils of dinosours found yet. But the bible already mention it!! NOw if the bible is not written from the inspiration from God, how do Moses know about this? Do people now still deny how legitimate the bible is?? :?

Okay now people say evolution takes billions of years. And now people claim that dinosours exists by its fossils. Now the problem with the Darwin theory is there are no fossils showing how animals supposely 'evolved' from one thing to another? If people can show me the fossils of how animal turns to human, than I'll be more convinced.

Smonkkey

09-17-2003, 06:04 AM

Well it could have been a really big aligator or something..

BetterMouseTrap

09-17-2003, 06:31 AM

Sum^Mer - The validity of the Bible has been argued over more times than I would care to remember. But the bottom line remains that alot of the facts in the bible are still unsubstantiated.

Saying no one has explained every detail about evolution is not the same thing as providing evidence that the conclusion is false. Besides, the fossil record provides unambiguous evidence that organisms have been evolving for quite some time.

You want more evidence that evolution is a fact? That evidence is readily available! The genetic unity of life, the fact that species can be organized into a nested hierarchy of apparent relatedness, the fact that independent methods produce similar or identical phylogenies, the existence of intermediate forms, the presence of atavistic structures, and so forth -- all of these provide overwhelming evidence that evolution is a fact.

It's all there for you to read and discover, if you open a science book, or speak to a real scientist.

09-17-2003, 06:50 AM

evolution is not a fact, saying it is a fact is contradictory to "fact" itself

where has it been proven that spontaneous generation was possible? really...if you can't even get beyond the basic level, everything else after it have just as much credibility as...nothing

and you are right, there are no substantiation

Vant

09-17-2003, 07:16 AM

Hmm... Tell me... Why do many chinese cultures involve something with dragon?

Curious question that is kinda off topic... I just want to see if there is any connections...

sUm^MeR

09-17-2003, 07:20 AM

Sum^Mer - The validity of the Bible has been argued over more times than I would care to remember. But the bottom line remains that alot of the facts in the bible are still unsubstantiated.

Hm... if someone can prove one thing in the bible that is wrong, then show me. :wink2:

Saying no one has explained every detail about evolution is not the same thing as providing evidence that the conclusion is false.

Well, did I say it's false? I didn't. I just say if there are enough facts to support the theory of evolution, then I might be more convinced. I didn't say it's wrong in the first place.

You want more evidence that evolution is a fact? That evidence is readily available! The genetic unity of life, the fact that species can be organized into a nested hierarchy of apparent relatedness, the fact that independent methods produce similar or identical phylogenies, the existence of intermediate forms, the presence of atavistic structures, and so forth -- all of these provide overwhelming evidence that evolution is a fact.

It's all there for you to read and discover, if you open a science book, or speak to a real scientist.

The evidence for evolution is not overwhelming at all. Evolution is based on very sketchy evidence at best. It is in fact one of the most poorly developed theories in modern science. The only thing overwhelming about it is that is overloaded with assumptions based on more assumptions, that are based on more assumptions taken from fragmented physical evidence.

It borrows from other sciences, and is based on their theories. You can not have a good theory based on theories. Good theories are based on physical evidence, and observations, not theories. The mechanisms of evolution are lacking in any real substance. The physical evidence in virtually non existent. The mathematical, and statistical odds are against it. It violates many scientific laws.

What we observe in nature is entropy, everything is running down and becoming less perfect. Evolution is claming the opposite of what is observed in every observation of other physical phenomenon. There are too many holes in it, that are explained only by “fudging” the observed facts.

The real reason for evolution in this modern society is to create an anti-God society, because any real scientist that is honest about the observed facts would never admit to believing in it. But, they too are brainwashed in the liberal university system designed to create compliant citizens for the coming Anti-Christian Anti-God So-called tolerant society.

The terms that you called as the fact of evolution theory I see them more like to support the idea that things adapt, not evolve.

Evolution is the theory that simple one-cell organisms have evolved over millions of years into complex organisms.

It is differentiated from adaptation, which I believe in. Adaptation occurs within species that God created. Evolution crosses species lines.

BetterMouseTrap

09-17-2003, 08:03 AM

Sum^Mer-

Let me put it this way and save ourselves alot of time. For every Biblical expert you can dig up, I can show two others that prove a contrary point. Even Christians themselves have problems over the validity of many of its accounts. So does that sound like an infallible work to you?

Also I assume your reasons for not believing in evolution are meant for a Christian audience, who believe in God and the word of the Bible, and not those who actually study evolution (?).

You'd think that, perhaps, scientists might be aware of any evolution issues a layman might have read about and there are good reasons why those anti-evolution arguments have not changed the course of the theory.

My questions to YOU: What do you know about evolution, how much have you studied about it personally, and where did you learn about it?

It sounds like your knowledge of evolution has come from creationists. If so, I'd advise you actually read about evolution from scientific disciplines such as biology/biochemistry/paleontology...people who can give you an accurate idea of the data and theory involved.

Evolution has been shown to be viable and likely via study by every branch of Biology, including: BOTANY, ZOOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY, HISTOLOGY, CYTOLOGY, CYTOLOGY, PHYSIOLOGY, ECOLOGY, TAXONOMY, GENETICS, HORTICULTURE, BACTERIOLOGY, MICROBIOLOGY, ENTOMOLOGY, MOLECULAR BIOLOGY, to name only a few. Not to mention, of course, the data collected and collated by EVOLUTIONISTS.

As well, the results of other scientific disciplines must continue to render results that directly or indirectly support the possibility or likelihood of evolution. Disciplines such as: GEOLOGY, RADIOLOGY, all branches of CHEMISTRY, GEOPHYSICS, ASTRONOMY, COSMOLOGY, THERMODYNAMICS, CLIMOTOLOGY, COMPUTER SCIENCES to name a very few.

The essence is that the Theory Of Evolution must pass an incredibly gauntlet of inquiry. It is put to the test, from every conceivable angle, day after day. And it continues to pass the tests, and more than that, it continues to be one of the most fruitful scientific theories of all time (in terms of it's predictive, explanatory power, and the disciplines it has spawned and how it has become the engine of virtually every biological science). Remember too that scientists are people who, in general, are driven by curiosity and the search for new information. For the most part, they are not driven by a zeal to confirm the status quo. As big a thrill as providing new information that confirms current theory, even more exciting is new information that challenges it.

And scientists are absolutely RUTHLESS with each other, when it comes to tearing apart each other's research and examining it for faults. Creationists, and many Christians in general, are fond of pointing out areas in which scientific theories have been overturned and revolutionized. First, it is the rare scientific theory that has actually been overturned, most having been added to or adjusted by further knowledge. Secondly, any revolution or adjustment in a scientific theory has never, ever come from a "creationist" or Religious quarters. It has always come from...guess who? SCIENTISTS! Thats cause 1. Science is by nature self-corrective and 2. It is scientific inquiry alone that produces viable, repeatable evidence persuasive enough to change current theory...not hollow misinformed objections from layman or theologians. If there is any persuasive evidence AGAINST evolutionary theory, it will come from science itself. And, scientific inquiry continues to support evolution.

So The Theory Of Evolution has survived, and continues to survive DAILY this vast cauldron of critical inquiry. In contrast, what has creationist or any Biblically derived science given us? Zero. Nada. That is because it does not even get off the ground...does not even survive the first onslaught of critical inquiry and reason, let alone become accepted an

d studied and put through the daily testing that Evolution survives.

So, in sum, when you question Evolution, make sure you know what you are questioning, and just what you are up against.

Chun Li

09-17-2003, 08:47 AM

BetterMouseTrap - you answered a lot of questions... so I'll just try to answer Vants...

Actually... How do mountains form? They rise up from the ground... Right?

Mountains are formed by the shifting of the tectonic plates of the Earth.

If you look at this link, it will show you the plates of the world.

http://geology.er.usgs.gov/eastern/plates.gif

The Himalayan Mountains were formed by the breaking off of India from Africa and the slamming of it into China. (Every wonder why INDIA was part of ASIA? Well, that's why. They're weren't really part of Asia, they kinda drifted here a few billion years ago. heehee).

India moves northwards into China a few centimeters (or inches) each year and as a result, large earthquakes happen every so often. That is also why the Himalayan Mountains are the highest in the world, there's a continent pushing into it making it higher every year.

Convergent boundaries are when two plates collide into each other. If there is a land vs. land collision, mountains like the Himalayans form. If it is a divergent boundary, which is when an Oceanic Plate pushes into a Continental Plate, the Oceanic Plate sinks because it's heavier. That is how deep trenches are formed in the sea.

There is another type of boundary called the Divergent Boundary, and this is when plates move away from each other. The South American Plate and the African Plate is an example of divergent boundaries. They move away from each other.

Lastly, there is the transform fault boundary in which plates slide across each other. It causes friction. The San Andreas Fault in California is an example of a transform fault boundary. This is why people keep insisting that California will break off of the rest of the United States. Part of California will slide northward and probably slam into Alaska, creating a convergent boundary. (Mountains will probably be a result of this).

I plan to use this knowledge to my advantage. I'm going to buy the entire Death Valley Desert because in 3 million years, it'll be beachfront property and I can sell it for a huge profit. >=P (No one else steal my idea, okay - you guys go get rich some other way)

ALSO, mountains are also formed by volcanic activity. You see all those mountains in the middle of California? These are all inactive volcanoes. Yellowstone park is full of them. The "Half-Dome" mountain thing there was a volcano. It erupted and half of it slid off.

Well, I have a headache now. I watched 5 episodes of Kuang Ai Long Juen Feng (Love Storm) and I need to get away from TV screens and Monitors.

sUm^MeR

09-17-2003, 08:55 AM

BetterMouseTrap,

The same goes to evolutionists, do they even read the bible? Do they know what's they are against with? And everything that evolutionists put up is also taken from evolutionists POV. It's the same all around. The problem is I stand in the creationism. So I put up questions about evolution for those of you who believe in evolution, not for the sake of againsting it. BUt I ask because I want to know. TRUE, that my knowledge of evolution is low. That's why I ask questions.

Look, I really don't want everything to go personal. So just throw away the My question to YOU. Because I'm not the only one who doesn't belive in the Big Bang theory. Pay attention that I never once personally attacking you. I just quote it and explain my stance. And I NEVER claim that evolution is wrong. I NEVER say that YOU are wrong for believing in evolution. I just say that I/me/myself don't believe in evolution, now I hope u get it?

I know the reliability of what I stand for, because I read the bible. Just like people who believes in evolution read all the theories of it. The problem is, there is no way you can believe both theories. That's why people will end up having a tendency to see it from one POV, as for me... from creationism. Just like if I tell a professor who truly believes in evolution to read the bible, he'll go, "Heck, like I have time!" Well, that applies to me as well.

And we're here not to say one theory is wrong and the other is right. We're here to say where we stand and try to defend our view. I think it's kinda ruthless that YOU personally attacking ME just because I have different opinion with you. So please respect others' opinion and refrain from accusing others of having inferior knowledge. Nobody here has the perfect knowledge of both theories and we're here to learn from each other, not to attack each other.

That's all I want to say.

Thank You.

BetterMouseTrap

09-17-2003, 09:27 AM

Summer - When you make statements attacking modern science like...

The evidence for evolution is not overwhelming at all. Evolution is based on very sketchy evidence at best. It is in fact one of the most poorly developed theories in modern science. The only thing overwhelming about it is that is overloaded with assumptions based on more assumptions, that are based on more assumptions taken from fragmented physical evidence."

...shows a degree of ignorance on your part. Anyway I apologize if I may have sounded harsh. Since you wanted evidence for Evolution....well, I have already pointed out many sources.

Also when you say

The same goes to evolutionists, do they even read the bible? Do they know what's they are against with?"

Yes please elaborate what scientist are up against???

Also when you are talking about creationism, is it FAIR to neglect other POVs.
Aside from "Christian Creationism" we have:

Islamic Creationism

Vedic Creationism

American Indian Creationism

Cosmic Egg (example: Finnish)

Separation of Earth and Sky (example: New Hebrides)

Earth Diver; Dualism (example: Huron)

Creation by Spoken Word; Repeated Creation (example: Quiche Maya)

I'm sure there are others...

This is not directed to anybody in particular, but before anyone starts preaching creationism they need to specify which kind and, more importantly, WHY.

Chun Li

09-17-2003, 09:54 AM

I think some of the things said may sound harsh, but I don't think we mean it.

(Hard to tell over the computer).

(^_^)y peace!

btw, I found the Vedic Creationism one of the most interesting ones, especially since the result is the immobile and permanent caste system.
The Mahabharata and the Ramayana are great books. I would recommend them to anyone. To me, they are stories. But to others, they represent real people in their religion.

sUm^MeR

09-17-2003, 11:21 AM

Yes please elaborate what scientist are up against???

The Bible provides a well-ordered chronology for the creation of the Cosmos. However, it is not the same order as that suggested by evolutionists, as the following comparison clearly shows.

(1) Each evolutionary theory, whether it commences in medias res (in the middle of things) or assumes an initial creation from nothing, attests to a creative progression from simple to complex, completely disregarding the second law of thermodynamics. The Big Bang Theory, for example, suggests that the Universe started with a chaotic explosion, which then proceeded toward order. The Bible teaches exactly the opposite. God created the Universe as a beautiful and orderly masterpiece, which has been degenerating toward disorder during the intervening millennia.

In three different places in the Bible (Hebrews 1:11; Isaiah 51:6; Psalm 102:26), the indication is that the Earth, “like a garment, is wearing out.” This, of course, is exactly what the second law of thermodynamics states. This law, also known as the law of increasing entropy, governs all material processes; there is not a single known exception. The law states that as time progresses, entropy increases. Entropy is the scientific word (from a Greek term meaning to “turn in on oneself ”) which indicates that things become more disorderly, more random, more unstructured. Everything is running down and wearing out. Energy is becoming less available for work. Theoretically speaking, the Universe, left to itself, will experience a “heat death” when no more energy is available for use.

(2) In their attempt to circumvent God, certain cosmologists invented the concept of an eternal Universe, to which the Quasi-Steady-State Theory and the Oscillating Big Bang model adhere. The Bible provides overwhelming testimony to the fact that the Universe is not eternal, and that God cannot be taken out of the equations. When Genesis 1:1 records, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” that indicates there was a beginning—brought about by God! Additionally, the promise of Christ’s return (John 14:3), combined with the apostle Peter’s account of the end of the world (2 Peter 3:10), declares God’s intention for an ending. Eternity, by definition, has neither a beginning nor an ending. Thus, with both of these requirements, the Bible negates the eternal existence of the Universe. Within the pages of His inspired Word, God has informed us about His creative activities. For us to exchange His testimony for evolutionary pseudoscience represents a terrible travesty indeed.

Science is based on observation and reproducibility. But when pressed for the reproducible, empirical data that document the claim of a self-created Universe, scientists and philosophers alike are at a loss to produce those data. To suggest that the Universe created itself is to posit a self-contradictory position. Sproul addressed this when he wrote:

For something to bring itself into being it must have the power of being within itself. It must at least have enough causal power to cause its own being. If it derives its being from some other source, then it clearly would not be either self-existent or self-created. It would be, plainly and simply, an effect. Of course, the problem is complicated by the other necessity we’ve labored so painstakingly to establish: It would have to have the causal power of being before it was. It would have to have the power of being before it had any being with which to exercise that power (1994, p. 180).

The Universe is not eternal or self-created. Rather, it was created—which implies a Creator.

It goes on talking about how did life itself begin...where did the those single cell organisms come from?

And one more thing:
EAch cell in the human body

contains more information than in all 30 volumes of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. For me, that's reason enough to believe this isn't the random product of unguided nature, but it's unmistablable sign of an Intelligent Designer.'" by Lee Strobel.

About the view of other creationism... I'm really lack of knowledge of them. BUt Islamic Creationism is the same as Christian's. They believe in Adam and Eve too.

fat_penguin

09-17-2003, 11:57 AM

lol do we want to approach the dinosaur topic? because i have a lot to say..

I don't think dinosaurs were alive when humans were... :)

extract from a book, the Great Dinosaur Mystery Solved , published in 98. in case you think the information isnt relevant

Scientists at the University of Montana found T-rex bones that werent actually fossilised. The sections of the bones that were like fresh bone contained bloodcells. If these bones were really millions of years old, then the blood cells would have already totally disintergrated. Also there shouldnt be "fresh" bone if it is really millions of years old.

A report by these scientists stated the following:

"A think slice of T.rex bone glowed amber beneath the lens of my microscope.. the lab filled with murmers of amazement, for I had focussed on something inside the vessels that none of us had ever noticed before: tiny round objects, translucent red with a dark centre.. red blood cells? The shape and location suggested them, but blood cells are mostly water and couln't possibly have staied preserved in the 65 million-year old tyrannosaur."

"In another effort to make fossils speak in new ways, post-graduate student Mary Schweitzer has been trying to extract DNA from the bones of the T.rex. Originally, like Kristi, she had intended to thin-section the bones and conduct a histologic investigation. But under the microsope there appeared to be blood cells preserved within the bone tissue. Mary conducted a number of tests in an attempt to rule out the possibility that what she'd discovered were in fact bloodcells. The tests instead confirmed her initial interpretation."

Also, a scientist found "fresh" frozen dinosaur bones in Alaska. You cant argue that this deposit of bones had stayed frozen for the millions of years since the dinosaurs supposedly died out (according to the evolutionary theory.) The bones weren't fossilised. They shouldnt have been in that state if they were really millions of years old.

BetterMouseTrap

09-17-2003, 12:29 PM

Summer - It seems to me whoever was making your argument was trying to substantiate Biblical beliefs via scientific means WITHOUT paying any heed to scientific culpability. Merely quoting the Bible as a contrarian view or trying to match Biblical accounts to scientific analysis does not really hold much water.

There is a reason why the world's scientific community does not take those creationist arguments seriously - because their experiments and observations continue to tell them otherwise. Real scientists, those actually working in the field, recognize the creationist arguments as fallacious, agenda-driven, misrepresentations of the facts.

Creationists take little parts of scientific disciplines, often misunderstand them, and use them to try and disprove evolution. If you go by creationist literature, you will get a truly distorted, microscopic view of the evidence for evolution. Don't take my word for it though, investigate these religious-inspired claims more thoroughly, and look at the counter evidence for yourself.

So be careful where you cut and paste from.

But why does evolutionary theory have such far reaching support and influence? Because the evidence for it is truly vast, and support pours in for the theory all day, every day by people studying it from various angles (i.e. new paleontological finds, lab experiments, geology, evolutionary field work etc.).

I figured I have given you enough evidence but if you want more....just say the word and I'll be happy to oblige.

I'm neither a scientist nor a believer but I have read up alot on the literature...enough to justify my stand on this. And actually...living as a non-believer means shouldering more responsibility, and taking more accountability for our moral choices and beliefs, rather than having had them handed to us. We have no Daddy-figure to coddle us so we must be adults and think for ourselves. Most atheists I know live by the belief they must be able to justify their actions, the stands they take in life, and have to adapt to new situations by thinking things through, instead of reflexively applying the rules handed to them in an old book. As well, many of us feel that, if we take a stance on something that is going to affect other people, we feel a responsibility to present our case supported by some form of evidence and/or reasonable argument, rather than simply saying "I believe this to be true and even though I can't prove it you should do as I say."

Finally, it takes a certain amount of courage, does it not, to look at things and take them as they are no matter how uncomfortable the truth, rather than retreating to beliefs that make us feel protected.

Chun Li

09-17-2003, 08:13 PM

fat penguin, when I searched for articles relating to "unfossilized dinosaur bones" on yahoo, google, and the other search engines, all I got were a bunch of god-related pages. I searched on world reknowned magazines such as "Science News," "The New Yorker," but could not find any solid information.

Also, "unfossilized" can mean up to 80 million years ago. Dinosaurs lived from as long as 180 million years ago, but they died out slowly and at different times. DNA can also be recovered from well-preserved dinosaur bones and the oldest DNA extracted was from a weevil trapped in Amber about 120 million years ago. (This is where they got the idea for Jurassic Park). But unfortnately, not many things are "trapped" in Amber. Oh, and weevils aren't dinosaurs. (-_-)

http://www.uky.edu/Agriculture/Entomology/entfacts/images/nutweeva.jpg

(eewwww)

NeO NDaRoO

09-17-2003, 11:46 PM

Vant

09-17-2003, 11:53 PM

(Warning- I did not study the bible)

With that said...

A new thought comes to my mind in looking at the bible (I own two... My mom used to force me to go to church... Lasted only a month or two though... Now she is a evolutionist? As you people would call us...)

Wouldn't the bible be a bunch of theories? Since it consists of about 50 people (New+Old Testament)... Writing down their experiences?

Also... Summer... You seem to believe that all of science's theories come together... Er... I mean that an evolutionist believes all of science's major theories... That is not true... For instance... People might believe in evolution... But don't believe in the big bang theory... Sorry if I misunderstood your posts...

In my opinion... Evolution isn't a theory anymore... It's fact... Things evolve... If they didn't... We'd all be the same... Our differences are from mutations... Which is what evolution is based on... Bad mutations die off...(Like a monkey born with no hearing capibilities would not be able to survive well... And will die without reproducing)... Good mutations pass on (Like a chameleon that can change colors to adapt to their surroundings... Enabling it to survive... Thus letting it reproduce to pass the mutations on)...

I really suggest that everyone understands or at least tries to understand evolution theory... If you take or plan to take biology... You will learn it... It's a major part of biology...

Also... I couldn't find where this fits... But natural selection should be common sense to everyone...

Busy... Can't finish... Finish later :( Sorry...

Note... Might seem kiddish... But it explains the theory of evolution and a lab for you to test it... I just found it on yahoo :)

http://www.biologyinmotion.com/evol/

09-18-2003, 02:59 AM

not necessarily.

water with higher salt concentration will stablize at the bottom, in crevices and ditches, valleys and pits after the initial flood. whatever survived till then will have survived till now, as in...species...unless extinct due to other reasons

go to a beach....water near the surface will have the same concentration as the water near where your feet are...

obviously

humans are insignificant when compared to the vastness of the ocean, and our height a mere speck compared to the depth of the seas...due to the constant disturbance of tides crashing in and out, where you are able to measure will be jumbled, as in...the salinity will be nearly equivalent no matter how deep you go, since your height is nothing compared to the force of an upcoming tidalwave

but if you go deeper into the center of the ocean, there is a definite difference in salinity by depth.

in response to BetterMouseTrap

much evidence flow in favor of evolution, from what you have mentioned, biology, biogeography, histology..and ironically...molecular biology. however, evolution being accepted as a fact is very "unscientific" as it stands, as the unprejudiced fossil record of plants collected by evolutionists fall in favor of creationism. supposedly...the widely differentiated orchid, duckweed and palm are descendents of the same plant ancestry...but are there any evidence for this assumption from our collected fossil records? meh...when the evolutionist comes up with an answer to such a simple inquisition, perhaps creationism will truly tumble and collapse under the weight of "scientific evidence," as you suggested and crave.

from a pure philosophical standpoint, it cannot be denied that circular reasoning is prominent in the basis for the theory, or "fact" of evolution. the evolution and succession of organisms have been "proven," and thus determined by the study of their fosslized remains imbedded in rocks, and the ages of those same rocks are determined by the remains of the organisms that they contain...now tell me...how does this reasoning prove anything useful, if anything at all? manipulation of the mind perhaps, but truthfully, it offers no healthy suggestion to our daily serving of science.

and yet evolution fails to even stand up to anything near "fact"-worthy upon the very fossils they use to buttress their advocations. over the past one hundred and twenty years, under the most extensive geological explorations of all the continents and oceans...our pictorial concept of evolution has become much more vivid and concrete than it was back in 1859. fossil formations are constantly being uncovered, containing often up to hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums start to crowd with over a hundred million fossils of more than two hundred and fifty thousand different species here on earth. this made evolution's applicability much easier to prove and falisfy...does Darwin really pass the test of time? unfortunately, these fossils have taught us, and are continuing to teach us that the gaps between the major groups of organisms have been growing undoubtedly wider and much more incontestable. these billions of fossils are slowly starting to crumble the fundamental basis of the already unstable ground of evolution, and these cannot be ignored or rationalized away, as scientists have done away with their imperfect fossil record for the past hundreds of years...only time will tell.

the fossils that line the mankind family tree are so scarce that scientists overwhelm the number of specimens. at least someone gets special attention, let the world rejoice, even if it is a non-relative piece of fractured bone. science requires everything to be testable and repeated for the eyes to observe, on that alone evolution fails to stand up as a "scientific fact"

in fact, in the august of 1999, the Kansas board of education decided to remov

e the theory of evolution as a requirement in their science curriculum. rather than teaching macroevolution as a fact, as it used to be thought of...it is now referred to as a "theory" again...thereby pushing back the piling evidence for evolution as dismissable. atheists, hardcore evolutionists argue that religious right is overthrowing the educational systems...however, they failed to realize that Kansas isn't the only nor the first state to cause an uproar over the theory of evolution.

it is odd that current evolutionists disregard Christianity, Creationism as myths and fairytales, as Darwin himself considered the existence of an eternal Creator. but of course, since Creation cannot be repeated and tested at will...evolutionists such as yourself are more than ready to dismiss it as a "myth," unwilling to even assign it the deserving title of a "theory." and yet...what science cannot completely prove in itself are considered laws and facts...as humans...we tend to think we know more than we actually do. so Darwinsm is all that powerful and omni-potent in the modern world of advancing technology, is it? Professor Stephen Gould from Harvard University, who made the talk show circuit as a proponent of Darwin's theory of evolution, has quoted the closing lines of Darwin's The Origin of Species in two essays that he wrote for Natural History magazine...and in both of these articles he purposely omitted the words "having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one." doesn't that make you wonder why Professor Gould would have a need to eliminate some of Darwin's own wordings to fit a theory that Darwin himself supposedly "defends to the death?"

as mentioned before, scientists are very fond of referring to their up and coming theories as facts...yet from the time of Aristotle to the 1900s, most scientists have dismissed the popular Biblical theory of Creationism. scientists maintained the fact that there was no "beginning" to our universe, it never aged and never will age...and yet...theories such as the Big Bang theory contradicts that very idealogy. as in this theory, the universe was created approximately 10 billion to 20 billion years ago from cosmic explosion (and yet...ironically, Cosmology does not support evolution as a fact alone). although the Big Bang theory isn't accepted by all who knows evolution, its wide-spread acclaim is undeniable. if scientists were wrong about the beginning of the universe, couldn't they also be wrong about the beginnings of life? for years Darwin's evolution theory dominated popular "science," in spite of the non-corrobration of the fossil records, and in certain cases...the towering contradictions against it.

Jakinni i believe was the one that pointed out that micro and macro-evolution are relative, and once we accept one, we should accept the other. however, microevolution only refers to evolution within a single phylum...once it steps out of that boundary, it is no longer just a micro-evolution...and coincidentially, evolution has stepped out of that boundary, and has been proven little more than wishful thinking. we do have fossils of simplistic life forms as well as fossils of more complex life forms...but non of them showing a macroevolutionary change from simplistic to the complex. the entire theory of evolution demands that these records exist and yet any are yet to be discovered. throughout the entire fossil record, no transitional fossils have been found outside of Archaeopteryx, which is said to have existed a hundred and fifty million years ago in the late Jurassic period. six of these were found between 1861 and 1987, they have feathers, wings and a wishbone. this creature had jaws with teeth rather than a beak, and claws on its winged feet...so it is considered to be a reptilian-bird transition...however...this is the only one ever found, and even this isn't much convincing, as it could simply be another lifeform that has gone extinct overtime. as cici has previously mentioned, some scientists do claim t

hat they've found transitional fossils...but later they were either hoaxes or plain mix-ups. based on these past experiences...one might even conclude that the Archaeopteryx could be a hoax.

now pay attention to this, whether you do or do not believe in the Bible, this might prove interesting to you.

the Bible mentioned only one animal that existed in two categories in the Old Testament, it was mentioned once as a bird, and another time as a reptile. all religious beliefs aside...isn't it interesting that the single transitional form found to "prove" the evolutionary theory (Archaeopteryx) just so happened to be mentioned as the only animal that transcends a single category, written in the Biblical Scriptures thousands of years ago?

Darwin teaches us to "fill in the gaps" with imagination where fossil records have failed to explain evolution. does that sound scientific at all? along with our growing knowledge of science, the credibility of evolution is decreasing. not to say that it won't ever be proven to be correct...but i assure you bettermousetrap, that day is yet to come.

The essence is that the Theory Of Evolution must pass an incredibly gauntlet of inquiry. It is put to the test, from every conceivable angle, day after day. And it continues to pass the tests, and more than that, it continues to be one of the most fruitful scientific theories of all time (in terms of it's predictive, explanatory power, and the disciplines it has spawned and how it has become the engine of virtually every biological science).

meh. i'd love to see your source and basis on this "theory" of yours.

cici bebe

09-18-2003, 04:29 AM

Also I assume your reasons for not believing in evolution are meant for a Christian audience, who believe in God and the word of the Bible, and not those who actually study evolution (?).
Do you think Christians don't study evolution? That's funny. We're not going up with no counterexamples on evolution. If you think that we're only using the Bible and no science, go back and read some of our posts.

But I don't believe in the big bang theory...
...Isnt' that the FOUNDATION of evolution? If you can't even believe that, what exactly DO you believe? Such as, if Christians choose to believe in the Bible, we believe it ALL. It's either all or none.

In my opinion... Evolution isn't a theory anymore... It's fact... Things evolve... If they didn't... We'd all be the same...
That's quite a strong opinion. Too bad it's not a law to evolution scientists, which is quite odd. You think they devote their lives into studying it and yet still can't prove that we come from spontaneous generation or the big bang. Hm.

Vant

09-18-2003, 04:35 AM

...Isnt' that the FOUNDATION of evolution? If you can't even believe that, what exactly DO you believe? Such as, if Christians choose to believe in the Bible, we believe it ALL. It's either all or none.

As stated by Jo...

as mentioned before, scientists are very fond of referring to their up and coming theories as facts...yet from the time of Aristotle to the 1900s, most scientists have dismissed the popular Biblical theory of Creationism. scientists maintained the fact that there was no "beginning" to our universe, it never aged and never will age...and yet...theories such as the Big Bang theory contradicts that very idealogy. as in this theory, the universe was created approximately 10 billion to 20 billion years ago from cosmic explosion (and yet...ironically, Cosmology does not support evolution as a fact alone). although the Big Bang theory isn't accepted by all who knows evolution, its wide-spread acclaim is undeniable. if scientists were wrong about the beginning of the universe, couldn't they also be wrong about the beginnings of life? for years Darwin's evolution theory dominated popular "science," in spite of the non-corrobration of the fossil records, and in certain cases...the towering contradictions against it.

Science isn't a religion... It's the art of understanding things and the way they work... Without science... We would still be eating meat raw like we did back in the very very old days...

Also... Didn't at one point in time... The bible mention that everything revolved around the earth and that it was a giant plane?

Oh and... Please go to that website I posted... It seems you completely ignored it...

And please... Someone respond to my last post about the bible...

sUm^MeR

09-18-2003, 04:57 AM

I'll have few words then I'll stop.

BetterMouseTrap,
When I cut and paste, I read the whole articles first and tried to grasp what the article is telling me. I have a few of science background, but I have pretty decent knowledge of the bible. So what I think is right accordingly, I cut and paste it in here meaning that I know what I write and I know how to counter the attacks of what I write.

One problem is: evolutionists ask for scientific proof.... we can't give scientific proves. Creationism fully based on the bible. And I just try to give a hindsight of what's written in the bible is interestingly not contradicting the laws of nature. While on the other hand, Evolution theory, which is based on science have some contradiction with other law of science. As I said it many many times, the second rule of entropy. Now why can't people learn to admit this flaw? Or if they don't want to admit it, at least explain it to me why certain things in what they call science is contradicting one another?

Most of the support of creationism is by showing how true whatever was written in the bible are. Eventhough this isn't written by some 300 IQ scientist, but it is hand in hand with laws of nature. But everytime we can prove things right, people take it as another assumptions or coincidence just because we don't have any scientific formula to support it. That's why we didn't really bother to show the theory in the bible, because evolutionists tend to say, "You can't argue from the bible." Then what else can we do? Evolution based its theory on a lot of research, science books, labs and whatsoever that you can show me..., but Creationism bases its evidence fully from the bible. Scientists and evolutionists rejected the bible not because they have read the book entirely and find it wrong. But they happen to neglect in believing there is a supreme power beyond us and think that they can find the answers to every question. ^^ And since you're not a believer yourself, it's kinda hard to to based my arguments on the things that you can't find believable for proofs. Then there's nothing I can show more from the bible for you. ^^

You say if evolution is not true, then how come so many people believe in it. Same question applies to you too. If the bible is just an old book full of bullshit and fairy tales, then how come so many people believe it? ^^

I'm not saying science is bad. If science is bad, God wouldn't had made us with such an intelligence to find cures for diseases. Well, I don't reject science at as long as it is created to support life and nature. But when science has gone into trying to erase God's existense, then I have to come to against it. I personally think that kind of science is really not that beneficial anymore. Why do people get from knowing how the world starts (which is simply still a big question)? What benefit do we get when someday people really can prove that macro-evolution do exist? One answer : PEOPLE CAN SAY THAT THERE IS NO GOD.

If you want to include the things that is supporting the evolution theory, please feel free to post those. I'm curious myself. You say that I only see from the creationism POV. Now you can show me from Evolutionists POV in viewing the Darwinism theory.

Vant,
if the people who believe in evolution doesn't believe in the big bang theory? Then how did the single cell that later mutate and become human comes to the world? Everything has to have a beginning. Now in evolution theory, how did the world started?
And you say the bible is just the same as a book full of theories since it was written by so many people. Well it might seem to be that way . But don't you think it's interesting of how those many people, who lived in different decades, could write the EXACT SAME THING. Like how the some things that was prophesied in the Old Testament and it happens in the New Testament. Even though the bible was written by many

different people, but we can never see one theory that contradicts each other. If they're not inspired by the same Source, then it would be impossible. ^^

cici bebe

09-18-2003, 05:04 AM

A new thought comes to my mind in looking at the bible (I own two... My mom used to force me to go to church... Lasted only a month or two though... Now she is a evolutionist? As you people would call us...)

Wouldn't the bible be a bunch of theories? Since it consists of about 50 people (New+Old Testament)... Writing down their experiences?
Your mom's personal journey through life is different than everyone else's. I can't explain why she would result to evolution any more than you can explain it.

Written by 50 people.. And can you explain why there is not even a single flaw in how everything matches up? All these people lived in different times.. yet everything links together perfectly. Let's see something like that happen again. And when has experiences been theories?

Also, if natural selection seems like common sense it's either you don't have any or I don't have any. Btw, I'd give you credit if you can dig up that Bible verse you're talking about. And when you do, maybe you can read and educate yourself on what the Bible REALLY says. (And also, I went through the website. Nothing there that I already didn't know while studying evolution.)

Vant

09-18-2003, 05:05 AM

if the people who believe in evolution doesn't believe in the big bang theory? Then how did the single cell that later mutate and become human comes to the world? Everything has to have a beginning. Now in evolution theory, how did the world started?

I actually didn't study the big bang theory much... But there are many more theories that go away from it... It just happens to be the most popular theory for the creation of the universe... So I have no opinion on how the universe started ;p

When do you believe the earth was created/formed etc.? Actually... That goes to all creationists :)

princess`bobo

09-18-2003, 05:26 AM

Vant

09-18-2003, 05:35 AM

The problem with that... Is that the bible states that the world was formed 5k-10k years ago...

And this site (Thanks to a friend) points out the inaccuracies in Genesis's testament... All of them... Such as the moon giving it's own light (We all know that it reflects light from the sun...)... Light being possible without a sun... Etc... A must read for all...

http://www. * geocities * .com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/genesis.html

09-18-2003, 05:43 AM

other than the big bang theory there is also the theory that the world frooze over and that the earth's rotation round the sun helped to slowly defrost the earth...

there is also the theoy that a big meteorite destroyed everything that was already created,i.e dinosaurs, plants,etc....

and from the contents of the meteorite everything was able to evolve....

geologists found a huge craterin Mexico...i forgot the name of the city....that would have been big enough to have destroyed everything....

so far thats the only theory that i fink has some element of scientific fact contained within it....

alright yea, and how is any of that relevant to the existence of the universe? the earth froze over assuming there WAS already an earth to begin with

meteorite crashed into earth assuming there WAS already an earth to begin with

and Vant, i didn't catch your point on quoting me without any repudiation

edit: as for that website you provided...i looked over it...not convincing at all

i've done studies in seminars and groups regarding those very questions, especially the one you quoted...had i the time i did this morning i would rebutt every one of those claims of "fallacies"

The problem with that... Is that the bible states that the world was formed 5k-10k years ago...

how do you know the earth isn't only couple thousand years old? circular reasoning again. how is earth old? because of evolution. how is evolution true? because the earth is old. actually read other people's statements (meaning in this case, mine) before you post questions...this makes the debate more profitable and efficient.

Vant

09-18-2003, 05:55 AM

When I wrote that... I didn't state any points except for the fact that the bible says that the earth was created 5k-10k years ago...

As for that site... I really like the one about the moon... Care to explain why that's there? ;p

09-18-2003, 06:01 AM

a lesser light to govern the earth

but did the Bible state that God created the moon as a light source?

to human beings at the time (remember that the Bible wasn't written to us here in 2003, it was written to Hebrews back in those days), the moon was just another light

the Bible never claimed that the moon gave off light itself, it only claimed that both lights together give off light to govern the night and day

nitpicking the Bible can get you a lot of places, one of them being nowhere

because if these so called "fallacies" really stood, Bible would have been discredited hundreds of years ago when humans first discovered that the moon only reflects upon the solar radiance.

princess`bobo

09-18-2003, 06:02 AM

alright yea, and how is any of that relevant to the existence of the universe? the earth froze over assuming there WAS already an earth to begin with

meteorite crashed into earth assuming there WAS already an earth to begin with

rite so now u wanna tell me why there was no earth to begin with?? if not then howcome therez an earth now??

or are we living in MATRIX....lolzzz....... :D

09-18-2003, 06:03 AM

no no

i meant we were talking about how the universe and earth came into existence

but those theories you posted have nothing to do with that

princess`bobo

09-18-2003, 06:06 AM

OooHHh....ooppzz....my bad .... sowwie laaaa ^^

09-18-2003, 06:08 AM

no prob i guess this turned out very confusing ^ ^

Vant

09-18-2003, 06:23 AM

According to this account, the moon is itself a source of light, and shines under its own power. This is further reinforced in Isaiah 13:10, which says "For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.", and in Ezekiel 32:7, which says "And when I shall put thee out, I will cover the heaven, and make the stars thereof dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give her light", and Isaiah 60:19, which says "The sun shall be no more thy light by day; neither for brightness shall the moon give light unto thee", and Jeremiah 31:35, which says "Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night", and Mark 13:24, which says "But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light", and Matthew 24:29, which says "Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken". Scientifically, we know that all of these verses are wrong; the moon does not produce any light of its own, and simply reflects sunlight. The writers of Genesis, who knew nothing of astronomy, were unaware of this.

On another note... Reading this reminds me of stars... We know that light isn't instant... And that it takes time for it to travel to us... Right? So those stars... They take light years to hit the earth so we can view them... Some stars we know take many light years to hit... Resulting in age over 10k... I hope you can understand my poor english :/

BetterMouseTrap

09-18-2003, 06:25 AM

Jo – With all due respect, your post in this thread have displayed a complete lack of understanding with regard to what modern science claims, and what evolution is about. I’m sorry but your arguments are not only ancient but don’t even reflect current creationist views against the theory of evolution.

Let me clarify for you what I mean by "evolution". Its strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time." By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact. Most people seem to associate the word "evolution" mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor. However, common descent is still NOT the theory of evolution, but just a FRACTION of it (and a part of several quite different theories as well). The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved.

I also don’t think you really understand what is meant by “Theory” in a scientific context. In science, a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism, on the other hand, fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.) So I don’t see how some Kansas board referring to it as just a theory, “push back the piling evidence for evolution” (???).

What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has--evidence, and lots of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout ALL the fields I have mentioned in my earlier posts. If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence. Both of which you don't seem to have a grasp on.

Your point on the “lack” of transitional fossils is one of the most common misconceptions over evolution and if you bothered to do any real research on the subject, completely false. Paleontology has progressed quite a bit since Origin of Species was published (most don’t even quote it as a legitimate source anymore), uncovering thousands of transitional fossils. There is so much evidence on transitions from primitive fish to sharks, skates, rays; transitions from primitive fish to bony fish; transitions from fishes to first amphibians; transitions among amphibians; transition from amphibians to first reptiles; transitions among reptiles; transition from reptiles to first mammals; transition from reptiles to first birds. The fossil record provides unambiguous evidence that organisms have been evolving for quite some time. So take your pick?

It’s quite funny how everyone is complaining about the LACK of evidence when I’ve already pointed out major sources in the Sciences. Please open a science textbook and actually do some research for yourself instead of bringing up pseudo-science which so obviously has a religious agenda.

BTW I would love to get into a Cosmology debate with you but one sacred cow at a time ok

Summer -

One problem is: evolutionists ask for scientific proof.... we can't give scientific proves. Creationism fully based on the bible. And I just try to give a hindsight of what's written in the bible is interestingly not contradicting the laws of nature. While on the other hand, Evolution theory, which is based on science have some contradiction with other law of science. As I said it many many times, the second rule of entropy. Now why can't people learn to admit this flaw? Or if they don't want to admit it, at least explain it to me why certain things in what they call science is contradicting one another?

Sigh…once agai

n another misconception about evolution. This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.

However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still??? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; NONE require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any complex system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?

Anyways, as you said, religion is based on faith, which in its essence is subjective and requires no physical proof.

Science is based on objectivity, empirical testing, peer review, etc. It is not perfect, but it builds on itself and strives for improvement.

It is easy for one to criticize evolutionary theory by pointing out gaps in scientific knowledge. However, creationists never objectively look at their own faith-based arguments by nature are SUBJECTIVE.

If the bible is just an old book full of bullshit and fairy tales, then how come so many people believe it?

Beliefs by themselves are fragile things. I used to believe that there REALLY was a Santa Claus living up in the North Pole.

Chun Li

09-18-2003, 06:32 AM

excuse me, VANT, you asked about mountains, and I answered your question. Did you even read my post at all, if not, I'm going to beat you up since that took a lot of time to write.

(>_<*)

Vant

09-18-2003, 06:41 AM

Oh yeah... I already knew that stuff... I knew about plates... But I was actually replying to someone (I think summer's) reply to someone else's reply and...

Yeah...

Thanks for taking your lovely time though ;p

Chun Li

09-18-2003, 06:52 AM

So I wrote that for nothing. And you already knew. Then why did you pose it as a question?

Hmm, how about this? *cracks knuckles*

Would you like to know if there is a God?

(>_<*)

Vant

09-18-2003, 06:58 AM

:( Didn't mean to... Sorry? ;p

I guess thats the way I write things?

I like questions... The seem so... Whats the word? Hmm... Interesting? Dunno... ?

Oh well... And for the sake of it... A friend of mine who is christian wants to say that she feels outrageous about this post and how aggressive creationists are... ?

09-18-2003, 07:00 AM

i'm very tired of typing up multiple points only to have one or two pointed out, answered while the rest ignored

BetterMouseTrap, you've never actually identified any specific followup to your statements, you mentioned transitional forms, but where is the evidence?

i'll come back tomorrow and reply to you, but i feel very disappointed by the fact that you feel the need to denounce what another person knows in order to prove your own point, especially when that very person actually did research before, took classes on it, and knows something, doing so is a classic example of a bad argument.

i certainly hope my years in AP Biology and Physiology in JCs haven't been wasted years...as well as reports and essays i've written for various occasions

i'll explain to you your misconceptions as well as mine tomorrow, for now, sleep awaits

Chun Li

09-18-2003, 07:05 AM

Oh well... And for the sake of it... A friend of mine who is christian wants to say that she feels outrageous about this post and how aggressive creationists are... ?

Well if she's not a leecher or a noob, she's welcome to the board to voice her opinions.

And Jo... it's only 10. Isn't it a sin to sleep so early?

btw, Vant, I checked out that website you gave earlier about evolution. Interesting. The creator of the site even lecutres Neuroscience.

Mike

09-18-2003, 07:11 AM

BetterMouseTrap

09-18-2003, 07:19 AM

Jo - I re-read your post...I think I have addressed your main points pretty well if there is anything I missed feel free to bring it up again.

You want evidence here's a (VERY) small sample of transitions among amphibians:

* Temnospondyls, e.g Pholidogaster (Mississippian, about 330 Ma) -- A group of large labrinthodont amphibians, transitional between the early amphibians (the ichthyostegids, described above) and later amphibians such as rhachitomes and anthracosaurs. Probably also gave rise to modern amphibians (the Lissamphibia) via this chain of six temnospondyl genera , showing progressive modification of the palate, dentition, ear, and pectoral girdle, with steady reduction in body size (Milner, in Benton 1988).
* Dendrerpeton acadianum (early Penn.) -- 4-toed hand, ribs straight, etc.
* Archegosaurus decheni (early Permian) -- Intertemporals lost, etc.
* Eryops megacephalus (late Penn.) -- Occipital condyle splitting in 2, etc.
* Trematops spp. (late Permian) -- Eardrum like modern amphibians, etc.
* Amphibamus lyelli (mid-Penn.) -- Double occipital condyles, ribs very small, etc.
* Doleserpeton annectens or perhaps Schoenfelderpeton (both early Permian) -- First pedicellate teeth! (a classic trait of modern amphibians) etc.

From there we jump to the Mesozoic:

* Triadobatrachus (early Triassic) -- a proto-frog, with a longer trunk and much less specialized hipbone, and a tail still present (but very short).
* Vieraella (early Jurassic) -- first known true frog.
* Karaurus (early Jurassic) -- first known salamander.

Finally, here's a recently found fossil:

* Unnamed proto-anthracosaur -- described by Bolt et al., 1988. This animal combines primitive features of palaeostegalians (e.g. temnospondyl-like vertebrae) with new anthracosaur-like features. Anthracosaurs were the group of large amphibians that are thought to have led, eventually, to the reptiles. Found in a new Lower Carboniferous site in Iowa, from about 320 Ma.

You still think there are NO transitional fossils?

Also are you actually interested in understanding evolution, or are you only interested in trying to find a way to disprove it? JC textbooks are hardly adequate to cover the depth of the topic.

I've had some time to re-read some of the older posts...

Written by 50 people.. And can you explain why there is not even a single flaw in how everything matches up? All these people lived in different times.. yet everything links together perfectly. Let's see something like that happen again. And when has experiences been theories?

So you think there is not a single contradiction or flaw in the bible? Start a new debate thread on this and I'll hop on in.

fat_penguin

09-18-2003, 02:33 PM

vant, as Jo said - there are a LOT of flaws in that website..
i would point them all out, but my math hwk awaits, so ill point this one out first..

from the website:
20: And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

Now we have cattle being created AFTER the man, which directly contradicts the earlier version that has cattle being created BEFORE humans. We also have birds created AFTER cattle and AFTER humans, which also contradicts the sequence given in Genesis 1. According to the first creation account, cattle were created, then both man and woman. According to the second account, man was created, THEN cattle, THEN woman. Another indication that the entire book of Genesis is an edited compilation of several distinct and separate narratives, written at different times by different peoples, that was later spliced together somewhat clumsily. It is NOT a single unbroken historical narrative.

i really dont see how just because Adam named the cattle means that the cattle were created after him - do you? theres nothing there that does contradict the biblical order of creation. just because he was there to name them doesnt mean he was created before them - they could've remained nameless for a while..

oh and btw, Genesis was written by one author - Moses.

(and Chun Li, my apologies if i wasted your time - that was what I read in the book, and it did have several papers referenced)

09-18-2003, 04:20 PM

yes Chun Li it is actually a sin to sleep early :prop:

well not really, since i had to wake up at 5:30 today to finish the rest of a paper that i didn't do yesterday, i'm pretty sure procrastination is a sin

Wait... if you know that it's 10 pm in California.. do you live in California? jkjk

I don't get it... how are we aggressive? and don't call us "creationists"

"we?"

i was referring only to BetterMouseTrap, because she selectively answered my post, ignored the rest then basically called me lacking in knowledge, i've got school, but i'll post up what i know later

BetterMouseTrap

09-18-2003, 05:28 PM

i was referring only to BetterMouseTrap, because she selectively answered my post, ignored the rest then basically called me lacking in knowledge, i've got school, but i'll post up what i know later

*raps table patiently waiting for Jos response*

Chun Li

09-18-2003, 11:09 PM

Mike

09-19-2003, 01:43 AM

I don't get it... how are we aggressive? and don't call us "creationists" :oops:

"creationists" is the same as "evolutionists," Mike. It's not like it's negative.

Fat Penguin, you didn't waste my time.

:happy: ic

Jo> i was talking about what Vant's friend was saying about "creationists"

sUm^MeR

09-19-2003, 03:53 AM

If the bible is just an old book full of bullshit and fairy tales, then how come so many people believe it?

Beliefs by themselves are fragile things. I used to believe that there REALLY was a Santa Claus living up in the North Pole.

That's true. They're fragile things.
You USED to believe in Santa.
Thank God I ALMOST never hear anyone say they USED to believe in God. ^^

As the website that Vant gave, I agree with fat_penguin. There're a lot of misinterpretations. I think the writer needs to take some bible study. ^ ^
This is what we get when people read the bible not for the sake of understanding it, but for the sake of finding the mistakes. *sigh*

Vant

09-19-2003, 04:24 AM

This is what we get when people read the bible not for the sake of understanding it, but for the sake of finding the mistakes. *sigh*

That's exactly what creationists do for evolution...

tigerLily

09-19-2003, 04:34 AM

Hey guys you might wanna check this out http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=21 it talks about how science proves that a 6 day creation as said in the bible is possible, dunno if you guys will believe it but it's pretty interesting and there are many other articles that relate science to the bible at this site too...

sUm^MeR

09-19-2003, 04:40 AM

This is what we get when people read the bible not for the sake of understanding it, but for the sake of finding the mistakes. *sigh*

That's exactly what creationists do for evolution...

What makes you think we're not trying to understand it? :? If we're not, none of us will type that much things to explain both evolution theory and creationism theory. Most creationists tried to learn both, while evolutionists close their eyes to the bible. Do you think it's fair? :wink2:

====

EDIT : Thanx tigerLily, the link is very interesting to read. :happy:

Vant

09-19-2003, 05:35 AM

Most creationists tried to learn both, while evolutionists close their eyes to the bible. Do you think it's fair?

I don't think anyone can prove that any group has 'closed their eyes' to anything... In the really high debates (The ones with the people spending all their lives devoted to this debate) they explain things that we cannot even begin to grasp... It's like war... None of us can compare to a lifelong devoted evo v cre debater...

BetterMouseTrap

09-19-2003, 06:03 AM

What makes you think we're not trying to understand it? :? If we're not, none of us will type that much things to explain both evolution theory and creationism theory. Most creationists tried to learn both, while evolutionists close their eyes to the bible. Do you think it's fair? :wink2:

Summer (Jo/Whoever) - Look if you really wanted to understand evolution and made a proper study of the science, than you would have realised that it does not necessarily contradict the bible. There are many people who believe in the existence of God and in evolution.

There are really two parts to creationism. Evolution, specifically the theory of common descent, tells us how life came to where it is, but it does not say WHY. If the question is whether evolution disproves the basic underlying theme of Genesis, that God created the world and the life in it, the answer is NO. Evolution cannot say exactly why common descent chose the paths that it did.

If the question is whether evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis as an exact historical account, then it does. However, few christians have such a narrow view of God. This is the main, and for the most part only, point of conflict between those who believe in evolution and creationists.

However, there is no reason to believe that God was not a guiding force behind evolution. Common descent then describes the process used by God. Until the discovery of a test to separate chance and God this interpretation is a valid one within evolution. Also any new theory that replaces evolution would have to explain why it works so well.

Let me give you an example. When Einstein proposed general relativity, he revolutionized physics. The theory replaced most of Newton's laws of physics. General relativity, though, still incorporates Newton's laws. This is due to the enormous number of observations and tests that Newton's laws had passed, so any new theory would have to account for them also. Similarly, if another theory replaces evolution, the new theory must somehow explain why the current theory passed all the tests.

Evolution is based on the scientific method. There are tests that can determine whether or not the theory is correct as it stands, and these tests can be made. Thousands of such tests have been made, and the current theories have passed them all. Also, scientists are willing to alter the theories as soon as new evidence is discovered. This allows the theories to become more and more accurate as research progresses.

Look I'm a bit short on time today but if you genuinely are trying to understand evolution and have questions, post them and I will try to answer them to the best of my abilities.