Was Darwin Wrong? (http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/naked-earth/2898/Overview#tab-Overview#ixzz0Mq4xSBMB)

Our planet Earth is teeming with life. To some, it's a miracle - but can science explain how it came into existence? Critics have attacked the theory of evolution for 150 years. They claim it is full of holes, and the gaps reveal the hand of an Intelligent Designer. Who's right? Naked Science investigates the most explosive science of them all and asks, was Darwin wrong?

Is this the same thing that was in the Nov 2004 issue of Nat'l Geographic?

Just because Darwin may have been wrong, that has nothing to do with Intelligent Design being right.

This is Science, an scientific theory at work. You have to accept that a theory could be disprovable in order to be valid. In other words you have to be objective.

Unlike Intelligent Design, which by its nature, doesnt allow for there to be any other answer.Once again, please provide me the repeatable, peer reviewed test that demonstrates all of life that currently exists or ever did exist on this planet came from a single source of life (who's origin is completely conjecture to begin with).

Once that test comes in, this will be science. Until then, it's as much religion as Genesis. Pure conjecture, speculation, with it's main source of information coming from "well, we're here aren't we".

Is this the same thing that was in the Nov 2004 issue of Nat'l Geographic?
I don't know.

IVbnciQYMiM

was Darwin wrong?

About what?

He observed and reported that species developed traits that helped them survive in their particular enviroment and called it the process of "natural selection".

Pretty sure he was correct.

obviously evolution didn't happen. Those walking monkeys that we've found artifacts of are just extinct now. they didn't evolve into humans. humans were always here.

although that would probably just give darwin an argument with natural selection, even if it disproved his evolution stuff. geez this guy was good

obviously evolution didn't happen. Those walking monkeys that we've found artifacts of are just extinct now. they didn't evolve into humans. humans were always here.

although that would probably just give darwin an argument with natural selection, even if it disproved his evolution stuff. geez this guy was good

Carbon dating is a cruel cruel mistress.

About what?

He observed and reported that species developed traits that helped them survive in their particular enviroment and called it the process of "natural selection".

Pretty sure he was correct.What you've just described is not Darwin's theory.

If the animal spontaneously develops the trait due to environmental conditions, that's a lot closer to Lamarck, not Darwin.

Darwin said that there are natural mutations, deformities in creatures, and those deformed offspring - that are all alike, mind you - would flourish if the deformity was advantageous, and reproduce almost exclusively together; while the same animal without the deformities would either flourish elsewhere or would die out because they didn't get the deformity. Thus, nature would select what survived and what didn't.

the vestigial eyes, are clear evidence that these cave salamanders must have had ancestors who were different from them—had eyes, in this case. That is evolution.I agree, that's the proof of evolution: "It looks like it must have happened".

Quite an indepth bit of scientific chain you've got going on there. :lol:Why on earth would God create a salamander with vestiges of eyes? If he wanted to create blind salamanders, why not just create blind salamanders? Why give them dummy eyes that don’t work and that look as though they were inherited from sighted ancestors?So, we have to know the reason for it to have happened? THAT's the part of ID you can't handle - you're not privvy to the explaination?If you can explain something without God, then in all likelihood God is not involved.Then, please, explain the source of the universe. I'll wait.

If you can explain something without God, then in all likelihood God is not involved.

This the fallacy of ID being a valid Theory, there isnt any room for it to be incorrect. As your own thread states Science is willing to believe Darwin was wrong, can you say the same?Yes, I can.

Can you explain the source of the universe without there being something beyond the universe?

I've already stated that i believe the Universe always was.Then you don't believe in the second law of thermodynamics, nor the Big Bang theory?

Carbon dating is a cruel cruel mistress.

They fake it because they are anti-religious heathens.

I like it how people ignore the facts when they argue whether or not Darwin is wrong and instead focus on everything that's missing.


I agree, that's the proof of evolution: "It looks like it must have happened".

Quite an indepth bit of scientific chain you've got going on there. :lol:So, we have to know the reason for it to have happened? THAT's the part of ID you can't handle - you're not privvy to the explaination?Then, please, explain the source of the universe. I'll wait.

It's alot easier to just say God did it than to understand science, such as the Big Bang Theory or evolution. That's such a cop out for the simple minded who can't grasp any concepts that require thought.

Honestly I think that religion and science can possibly go hand in hand...God could have done the evolution process as he decided to change things, ever striving to perfect His creation. Who knows? That whole 6 days of creation could have been millions of years as one thing slowly led to another. Who knows, time could fly for God and it might only be a single day for Him.

I agree, that's the proof of evolution: "It looks like it must have happened".

Quite an indepth bit of scientific chain you've got going on there. :lol:So, we have to know the reason for it to have happened? THAT's the part of ID you can't handle - you're not privvy to the explaination?Then, please, explain the source of the universe. I'll wait.

sci⋅ence  [sahy-uhns] Show IPA
–noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

You're right science based on observation is stupid.

If you can explain something without God, then in all likelihood God is not involved.
This the fallacy of ID being a valid Theory, there isnt any room for it to be incorrect.
Your lack of faith does NOT change the truth. There is nothing that God isn't invovled in. Even changes within a species is controlled by God. You just refuse to see it.
I've already stated that i believe the Universe always was.
You're allowed to be wrong...

Not sure why I am bothering because there is no argument that can sway you if the currently available facts cannot.
By the same token: not sure why I am bothering because there is no argument that can sway you if the current Biblical facts cannot...:buddies:

It's alot easier to just say God did it than to understand science, such as the Big Bang Theory or evolution. That's such a cop out for the simple minded who can't grasp any concepts that require thought.While I didn't intend this thread to be an evolution vs. ID thread (just linking to a show that was going to be on....), ID does require thought, and does incorporate at least as sound scientific thought process as evolution.

Again, can you explain the source of the stuff that makes up the universe without there being a source beyond the universe?Honestly I think that religion and science can possibly go hand in hand...God could have done the evolution process as he decided to change things, ever striving to perfect His creation. Who knows? That whole 6 days of creation could have been millions of years as one thing slowly led to another. Who knows, time could fly for God and it might only be a single day for Him.Huh, sounds a lot like creationism - one potential aspect of ID.

How about something small? Technological advancement is an example of evolution. If by that you mean knowledge grows from the previous set of knowledge, I would agree.

If you think that technological advancement is due to genetic defects causing humans to be smarter, and those with the specific defect that happens accidentally reproducing with one another to the exclusion of those who do not utilize the technological advancements, such that those who understand and utilize them prosper and those that do not die off, you're talking natural selection a la Darwin.

Is that what you mean?Does ID explain to you where God came from? Who created God? What is he made of?Nope. Doesn't attempt to.When questioned in this context it almost seems as absurd as The Big Bang.So, you believe Einstien was wrong when he declared the universe was NOT a timeless thing, and that all of the research into an expanding universe is bunk? Or, are we expanding endlessly, because we've always been here (not humans, the universe)?

While I didn't intend this thread to be an evolution vs. ID thread (just linking to a show that was going to be on....), ID does require thought, and does incorporate at least as sound scientific thought process as evolution.

False. There is no sound scientific thought process behind ID.

While I didn't intend this thread to be an evolution vs. ID thread (just linking to a show that was going to be on....), ID does require thought, and does incorporate at least as sound scientific thought process as evolution.

Again, can you explain the source of the stuff that makes up the universe without there being a source beyond the universe?Huh, sounds a lot like creationism - one potential aspect of ID.

ID may require thought for some who choose to think and question, but it is also the easy way out for many. It's basically the replacement for Creationism so they can try to put religion into mainstream science. There's no way to test the theories so it's not science. Just an explanation.

But again, just because we can't explain something doesn't mean there isn't an explanation that may eventually be discovered, or that may never be discovered. Making the assertion that if there is no explanation it must be God's work is a cop-out. In the 20th and 21st centuries (let alone before that), so much information has been discovered that had previously been unknown. Who's to say we aren't going to continue learning more and achieve more answers?

Then, please, explain the source of the universe. I'll wait.

Please explain the source of God. I'll wait too, but I won't hold my breath.

While one (2nd law) is typically used as proof of (The Catholic Church's theory of) the Big Bang, the 2nd law is not mutually exclusive. It helps define the Church's theory but it also is valid on its own.

Its interesting this is a theory you support, wouldnt be religious bias would it?We've had this discussion before. The priest who determined the theory wasn't a practicing priest, but a college professor. He specifically wrote the Pope asking him to stop suggesting the theory be used as a religious point, because that was never his intent. He had his theory peer reviewed, and Einstein eventually even came around to the proof being about as close as you can get to actual scientific proof without having been there. Further evidence that supports the theory continues to emerge.

While it may be modified slightly, the concept is pretty much a given. It's rare to hear someone - atheist, theist, scientist, etc - pose any valid argument against the general concept.Expansion (the opposite of entropy) and a beginning are 2 different things. The second law of thermodynamics posits that eventually there is a complete dispersal of energy (an end), i posit otherwise.And, your theory would be based on.......?

Because, if the generally established and accepted scientific law (not theory) of thermodynamics doesn't work for you, I'd love to hear what does.

ID may require thought for some who choose to think and question, but it is also the easy way out for many. It's basically the replacement for Creationism so they can try to put religion into mainstream science. There's no way to test the theories so it's not science. Just an explanation.

But again, just because we can't explain something doesn't mean there isn't an explanation that may eventually be discovered, or that may never be discovered. Making the assertion that if there is no explanation it must be God's work is a cop-out. In the 20th and 21st centuries (let alone before that), so much information has been discovered that had previously been unknown. Who's to say we aren't going to continue learning more and achieve more answers?I suspect we will learn more and more. And, I suspect it will continue to lend credence to the theory that our universe was designed, not happenstance. That life was established on purpose, not as a cosmic accident.

ID doesn't suggest to stop looking for the source.

Interesting that you bring up scientific testing of the theory. Ever seen a test which can be repeated and peer reviewed that establishes life from a lifeless wet rock of a planet?

Ever see the test which is repeated and peer reviewed that takes that single cell of life and turns it into all of the different forms of life that now exist, and have ever existed on this planet (it's estimated that far less than 10% of all species of life that ever existed currently exist)?

When you show me that one, I'll say evolution and abiogenesis are science. Until then, they're just another form of religion.

Please explain the source of God. I'll wait too, but I won't hold my breath.I can do that easily - I haven't the first foggiest clue, other than to suggest that He comes from something other than our known universe.

Can YOU establish the source of stuff which makes up our universe without there being something outside of our known universe? If not, your religion is not better than mine from a scientific point of view.

Interesting that you bring up scientific testing of the theory. Ever seen a test which can be repeated and peer reviewed that establishes life from a lifeless wet rock of a planet?


Not yet, but it is on the way.
NASA - Volcanoes May Have Provided Sparks and Chemistry for First Life (http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/volcanic_life_origin.html)

Not yet, but it is on the way.
NASA - Volcanoes May Have Provided Sparks and Chemistry for First Life (http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/volcanic_life_origin.html)
So, they can establish the exact conditions of Earth at the time life was first formed, even though we don't know what those condidtions were nor when it happened?

Good luck with that.

So, they can establish the exact conditions of Earth at the time life was first formed, even though we don't know what those condidtions were nor when it happened?

Good luck with that.

A better explanation than a magician.

It is actually based on science, observation and experimentation.

A better explanation than a magician.

It is actually based on science, observation and experimentation.Just without a known starting point. Making any conclusion immediately invalid.

Just without a known starting point. Making any conclusion immediately invalid.

So you are saying that science that is not fully 100% explained is immediately invalid? You might want to go ahead and go to heaven, because we still cannot fully explain the make up of atoms. I guess that means computers are invalid because they use electrons.

So you are saying that science that is not fully 100% explained is immediately invalid? You might want to go ahead and go to heaven, because we still cannot fully explain the make up of atoms. I guess that means computers are invalid because they use electrons.
You're mistaking usefulness for validity.

You're also mistaking the science behind atomic theory and the science behind "we're going to call the results valid even though we can't justify the applicability". See, there's a difference between being 100% explained, and starting from a known starting point and assuming something else may have had a similar starting point.

You have a closed mind as to what may have happened, and therefore you cannot consider any other thought.

You're mistaking usefulness for validity.

You're also mistaking the science behind atomic theory and the science behind "we're going to call the results valid even though we can't justify the applicability". See, there's a difference between being 100% explained, and starting from a known starting point and assuming something else may have had a similar starting point.

You have a closed mind as to what may have happened, and therefore you cannot consider any other thought.

So you're now saying that figuring out, through experimentation, how to create Amino Acids, aka "The building blocks of life", naturally does not have applicability to how life started on earth?

I think the starting point you are looking for is scientifically life it self, that seems like a pretty good starting point to me.

So you're now saying that figuring out, through experimentation, how to create Amino Acids, aka "The building blocks of life", naturally does not have applicability to how life started on earth?

I think the starting point you are looking for is scientifically life it self, that seems like a pretty good starting point to me.If you're trying just to determine how it could happen, sure.

If you're trying to prove how it did happen, you'd have to know, and be able to establish, the conditions that existed at the time.

Let me explain what I mean by that... We know that IVF can be used to impregnate someone. However, using IVF to impregnate a woman does not prove that the first pregnancy was via IVF.

Knowing how something could happen proves nothing regarding how it did happen.

If you're trying just to determine how it could happen, sure.

If you're trying to prove how it did happen, you'd have to know, and be able to establish, the conditions that existed at the time.

Let me explain what I mean by that... We know that IVF can be used to impregnate someone. However, using IVF to impregnate a woman does not prove that the first pregnancy was via IVF.

Knowing how something could happen proves nothing regarding how it did happen.

You better get cracking on a time machine then.

Your honor, I know my finger prints are on the gun that shot my wife... But thats just an option of how it could have happened. I bet God put my finger prints on there and shot that #####.

You better get cracking on a time machine then.

Your honor, I know my finger prints are on the gun that shot my wife... But thats just an option of how it could have happened. I bet God put my finger prints on there and shot that #####.Your attempt at ridicule doesn't change the fact. A courtroom is not a science lab. A verdict is not a proof of guilt/innocence.

I firmly believe in our scientific capabilities to one day be able to establish what the actual facts are/were.

You're welcome to assume that we already know, without the facts. I'll bet you think cops act stupidly when you don't know what happened there, either.

More examples :
The Okapi How about the ancestors of Whales having legs How aboout Dolphins being born with vestigial legs How about the Hoatzin (a bird) having fingers on its wings

Not sure why I am bothering because there is no argument that can sway you if the currently available facts cannot.I hear bats are birds because they fly like other birds.

I'll bet it's that same knowledge that shows whale ancestors having legs.

Does ID allow itself to be proven incorrect?Didn't I answer this before?

Yes, it does. Like any other theory, it can be disproven.One of the important elements of a theory is that it is falsifiable - that it can be proven wrong. That is why pseudo religious dogma theories: creation and Intelligent Design are not actual scientific theoris and can never be because they are not falsifiable. You can not dispove god did it, the same way you can disprove the theory of evolution quite easily by having fossils out of order.Well, we've had fossils out of order, and we've had huge gaps in fossils, and we have no direct connection in many fossils - just the conjecture that they're related.

Yet, people don't see that as evolution disproven.

Demonstrate the conditions that existed pre-universe for the universe to come to existence (or, in your case, disprove the 2nd law of thermodynamics), and set a repeatable test where the universe comes into existence from nothingness, and you will have disproven ID as a universe creation. Establish as an accepted given the status of the earth at the time (whenever it was) that life first existed, and then repeat that test to create all forms of life and you will have simultaneously proven abiogenesis, evolution, and that ID is wrong.

Barring that, you have two competing religions.Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What is ignored is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.Well, I certainly agree with this micro-evolution.

However, it does take more than that to prove that evolution of humans came about in this manner. You'd have to be able to demonstrate a repeated increase in both the complexity (say from an amoeba to a human) while simultaneously demonstrating diversity in lifeform (say, the trains of evolution from that theoretical initial DNA strand that could possibly result in both a human and a ficus, or, why more than one strand occurred).

In other words, I agree that it works on a micro level. I just disagree that it works on a macro level.Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.So was the overwhelming belief in proof that the ceolacanth was extinct for millions of years.

Whenever you start a "proof" with the sentence "let's assume....", you lost your proof.

Do you really think you'd get away with that? His full title was Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître, i'm pretty sure they are pretty specific whom they bestow that title to. Especially since he was ordained in 1923 (his Catholic Approved theory of the Big Bang came about in 1927, 4 years after he became a priest).When he was a physics and astronomy professor. Not acting as a priest.

Not only did I think I would get away with it, it remains true! :lol:
And? Its still a theory that was approved by the Catholic Church as it parrallels Genesis. OMG - Science and "the church" agree on something!!!! It must be wrong!!!!!!!!!Couldnt find anythign where he tried to get the Pope to stop using his Catholic Church approved theoryHis theory was science approved, which is more important to it's validity than whether the pope liked it or not.

However, he didn't care (http://www.farrellmedia.com/2007_05_01_BlogArchive.html) for the Pope talking about it in religious fashionsRussels Teapot, just as sound as Genesis. ID is not a scientific theory, it would be nice if you'd stop trying to equate it as such.Apparently the Big Bang fits Russel's Teapot as well?Your misunderstanding of the Second law of Thermodynamics is not my burden. Just because the Second Law benefits or supports the Big Bang theory, it (the Second Law) is still valid without the Big Bang.So, what is your theory that would tend to bring the entropy back down in an "infinite time" universe? If the universe existed an infinite time before us, all of the energy would be homogonously distributed, and entropy would be at an extreme high. It's not, therefore the universe has not been around infinitely.

It's really very simple. Unless you're smarter than Einstien, Hubble, Hawkings, pretty much all of the known giants of science.

I suspect we will learn more and more. And, I suspect it will continue to lend credence to the theory that our universe was designed, not happenstance. That life was established on purpose, not as a cosmic accident.

ID doesn't suggest to stop looking for the source.

Interesting that you bring up scientific testing of the theory. Ever seen a test which can be repeated and peer reviewed that establishes life from a lifeless wet rock of a planet?

Ever see the test which is repeated and peer reviewed that takes that single cell of life and turns it into all of the different forms of life that now exist, and have ever existed on this planet (it's estimated that far less than 10% of all species of life that ever existed currently exist)?

When you show me that one, I'll say evolution and abiogenesis are science. Until then, they're just another form of religion.

Life slowly evolved over millions, or even billions, of years. I don't think there is any test that can demonstrate all of the evolutions that took place. It's not possible.

You know what's interesting though? You seem to be one of those "prove it to me" scientific types, at least with your comments here. Yet instead of looking for the science behind it, you simply believe that anything you can't understand the meaning of was obviously God's work. I really can't fathom how you care that much about proof, yet put so much faith into something that can't possibly be proven.

This accusation demonstrates a basic ignorance of the methods and principles of science. The scientific method holds as a matter of course that all conclusions are tentative, and that nothing can ever be absolutely proven to a certainty. Every conclusion reached by any scientist must always include, even if it is only assumed, the unspoken preface that "This is true only to the best of our current knowledge". Science does not deal with absolute truths; it deals with hypotheses, theories and models. Yet, you reject out of hand one theory because you can't divise a test that would satisfy you of its proof.

What does that sound like to you?

That shows your Bible is fallible. Your refusual to accepts the possibility of its falsibility shows your belief is not a Scientific Theory.And, yet, I fully accept it could be false. And have said so.

I don't think it is, but I've repeatedly stated it could be.I'll take that bet. One is from a Jewish guy who is supposedly the son of God yet doesnt know Bats arent Birds, that Rabbits dont chew their Cud, that Mustard seeds werent the smallest known.

The other is proof of Evolution.Bats aren't birds, as defined by whom? When?

Proof how? Do we have each successive generation all in a line, or do we assume something about those feeted whales and their relation with non-footed whales?

whenever you start your proof with, "well, we can assume", it's not proof.

Life slowly evolved over millions, or even billions, of years. I don't think there is any test that can demonstrate all of the evolutions that took place. It's not possible.

You know what's interesting though? You seem to be one of those "prove it to me" scientific types, at least with your comments here. Yet instead of looking for the science behind it, you simply believe that anything you can't understand the meaning of was obviously God's work. I really can't fathom how you care that much about proof, yet put so much faith into something that can't possibly be proven.My point is that I believe, and I have no proof. My ID belief is no less scientifically valid than evolution. Neither can be proven, nor directly disproven.

They're both a religion of sorts, equal to one another in a scientific scale. But, one gets scientific cred, and the other does not. That is wrong, and should remain wrong in any scientist's mind.

My point is that I believe, and I have no proof. My ID belief is no less scientifically valid than evolution. Neither can be proven, nor directly disproven.

They're both a religion of sorts, equal to one another in a scientific scale. But, one gets scientific cred, and the other does not. That is wrong, and should remain wrong in any scientist's mind.

there are many pieces of evidence that point toward evolution. countless bodies have been dug up from the ground that are thousands or millions of years old. how can you say that?

there are many pieces of evidence that point toward evolution. countless bodies have been dug up from the ground that are thousands or millions of years old. how can you say that?

There is a reason they call something a theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory):

A theory, in the scientific sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations. A scientific theory does two things:


1. it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and

2. makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.

Theory is NOT proven fact. It depends on certain facts to come to an assertion that attempts to connect the dots. I’m one that believes evolution, to a certain degree, does exist. I’m one to accept the possibility that we evolved from a primate-type species. I’m willing to accept there was a big bang and all the events occurred in between then and now. But it leaves unanswered as to how anything spontaneous can result in life. Science does answer where all that stuff from the big bang came from. It does not explain what came before the big bang.

The end result is belief. I believe God created everything. I believe set things in motion and ideally ensured everything pieced together in such a fashion that resulted in life. I can no more prove what happened billions of years than you can through science. You can only guess. Theory leaves you with that... guessing.

there are many pieces of evidence that point toward evolution. countless bodies have been dug up from the ground that are thousands or millions of years old. how can you say that?

because there isn't any testability to those things being linked together. That's an assumption, based on the assumption of macro evolution

Was Darwin Wrong? (http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/naked-earth/2898/Overview#tab-Overview#ixzz0Mq4xSBMB)

Our planet Earth is teeming with life. To some, it's a miracle - but can science explain how it came into existence? Critics have attacked the theory of evolution for 150 years. They claim it is full of holes, and the gaps reveal the hand of an Intelligent Designer. Who's right? Naked Science investigates the most explosive science of them all and asks, was Darwin wrong?

Evolution, abiogenesis and beginning of the universe, there different subjects.
Subject of this thread: evolution, vs. development of life through the actions of an Intelligent Designer. Regardless, the universe exists, life on earth exists, how these things happened are beside the point. Development of life on earth is the subject.

Logic and scientific reasoning says non-directed life changes, or evolution can explain it all. Nothing has occurred that is inconsistent with the valid, logical, reasoning of science. The material evidence supports this reasoning with such things as fossils, carbon dating, the biological sciences, others.

No scientific study contradicts evolution.
There have been transitional ‘missing links’ of various species discovered to support evolution.
There are also computer models which can be considered material evidence or a sort (arguably) .

The nature of evolution, occurring over hundreds of millions of years, make it virtually impossible to provide concrete convincing evidence to satisfy every mind, however most minds that study such things are convinced. There seems to be no doubt that evolution CAN explain all life form changes between a one celled living thing and all of the life on earth today.

Does this mean that science can demonstrate Aliens do not visit earth from time to time and introduce new life forms? No.

Does this mean that science can demonstrate that some Intelligent Designer, divine or extraterrestrial does not make modifications to life forms? No.

Does this show that external causes are not necessary to explain all changes? Absolutely.

I often wondered.... If the ability to grow tall is part of the human design.... why wouldn't the ability to evolve be part of the design as well?

After all... God is God! He knows all and He has controll of time. He knows what changes the planet will go through. Why wouldn't the evolution of the species part of the design?

After All.... What other purpose would time have than to measure the way conditions evolv?

I often wondered.... If the ability to grow tall is part of the human design.... why wouldn't the ability to evolve be part of the design as well?

After all... God is God! He knows all and He has controll of time. He knows what changes the planet will go through. Why wouldn't the evolution of the species part of the design?

After All.... What other purpose would time have than to measure the way conditions evolv?

'Time', have a purpose?
Big assumption.

Purpose implies a creator.

~ ~ ~

On another note, if I were the perfect baker, and wanted to make a cake, I wouldn't want it to imporve over time, I'd want it right the first time.

Now if I weren't a perfect baker, but say just a brick layer, I wouldn't much care how a cake I made turned out, let cake making improve with time.

Good argument for God not being involved in the affairs of mankind.

Theory is NOT proven fact.

Correct. But you're too focused on Darwin's "Theory of Evolution" and consider evolution to be purely theory. Back when Darwin made the observation, it was pretty much a theory as far as I'm aware. Over time, it has evolved to the point where evolution is considered both fact AND theory, kind of like gravity has factual and theoretical elements. Research has been done and factual data has been discovered to support evolution.

Evolution as theory and fact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact)

I often wondered.... If the ability to grow tall is part of the human design.... why wouldn't the ability to evolve be part of the design as well?
After all... God is God! He knows all and He has controll of time. He knows what changes the planet will go through. Why wouldn't the evolution of the species part of the design?
You must remember that you're dealing with some folks here who do not believe in God.
The world is on the highway to Hell and people are wasting time and money trying to prove evolution or disprove ID. I can accept the fact that some species change or evolve over time but I cannot accept the fact that God has nothing to do with it.
I can think of hundreds of better things to use billions of dollars on, other than the space program. I'm ok with satellites and the like, but most of the rest of it....a waste.
This is what happens when people won't acknowledge the Book of absolute truth. It simplifies life and saves big bucks.

You must remember that you're dealing with some folks here who do not believe in God.
The world is on the highway to Hell and people are wasting time and money trying to prove evolution or disprove ID. I can accept the fact that some species change or evolve over time but I cannot accept the fact that God has nothing to do with it.
I can think of hundreds of better things to use billions of dollars on, other than the space program. I'm ok with satellites and the like, but most of the rest of it....a waste.
This is what happens when people won't acknowledge the Book of absolute truth. It simplifies life and saves big bucks.

thats because we both KNOW that when life is found on another planet, their "Book of absolute truth" will be different, and efinately not call out JC as the man child of god


so why waste time exploring things that might actually enlighten us, we already have a book a bunch of guys wrote a long time ago, thats all we need to know :sarcasm:

[QUOTE]Logic and scientific reasoning says non-directed life changes, or evolution can explain it all. Nothing has occurred that is inconsistent with the valid, logical, reasoning of science. The material evidence supports this reasoning with such things as fossils, carbon dating, the biological sciences, others.

Which discipline(s) of science are you talking about?

No scientific study contradicts evolution.
There have been transitional ‘missing links’ of various species discovered to support evolution.

Please provide your examples.....

Logic and scientific reasoning says non-directed life changes, or evolution can explain it all. Nothing has occurred that is inconsistent with the valid, logical, reasoning of science. The material evidence supports this reasoning with such things as fossils, carbon dating, the biological sciences, others.Let me ask you this; if there were only two humans left on earth, would they have enough diversity in their DNA to support recreating an entire human population like we have today?

So, if those two couldn't do that, how was there enough diversity in a single DNA strand that miraculously formed in a pond somewhere (presumably) to produce all the diversity of life that exists today and the other 90% of life that has already gone extinct as well?

Logic suggests that it doesn't add up as a likely probability.

thats because we both KNOW that when life is found on another planet, their "Book of absolute truth" will be different, and efinately not call out JC as the man child of god


so why waste time exploring things that might actually enlighten us, we already have a book a bunch of guys wrote a long time ago, thats all we need to know :sarcasm:Absolutely false.

There is no Biblical reason to presume that there aren't hundreds of billions of other planets teeming with life. It wouldn't change a single thing in the Bible, nor how a Christian would perceive it.

'Time', have a purpose?
Big assumption.

Purpose implies a creator.

~ ~ ~

On another note, if I were the perfect baker, and wanted to make a cake, I wouldn't want it to imporve over time, I'd want it right the first time.

Now if I weren't a perfect baker, but say just a brick layer, I wouldn't much care how a cake I made turned out, let cake making improve with time.

Good argument for God not being involved in the affairs of mankind.

Alternately I am a perfect baker...Today I want to make a yellow cake...tomorrow I want to make a chocolate cake. Next week I'm making a pie. Each perfection yet each different.

thats because we both KNOW that when life is found on another planet, their "Book of absolute truth" will be different, and efinately not call out JC as the man child of god
so why waste time exploring things that might actually enlighten us, we already have a book a bunch of guys wrote a long time ago, thats all we need to know :sarcasm:
Shows what you know my friend. Nothing in the Bible says there is life on other planets and nothing in the Bible says there isn't. That's one issue we can't speak authoritatively on. Where the Bible is silent, so should we be.
ENLIGHTEN US? You would go into outer space to be enlightened but you won't believe a book right here on earth??? :killingme
Absolutely false.
There is no Biblical reason to presume that there aren't hundreds of billions of other planets teeming with life. It wouldn't change a single thing in the Bible, nor how a Christian would perceive it.
Exactly!
Alternately I am a perfect baker...Today I want to make a yellow cake...tomorrow I want to make a chocolate cake. Next week I'm making a pie. Each perfection yet each different.
Hi honey! (Make me a vanilla one and I'll be right over...) :howdy:

Let me ask you this; if there were only two humans left on earth, would they have enough diversity in their DNA to support recreating an entire human population like we have today?

So, if those two couldn't do that, how was there enough diversity in a single DNA strand that miraculously formed in a pond somewhere (presumably) to produce all the diversity of life that exists today and the other 90% of life that has already gone extinct as well?

Logic suggests that it doesn't add up as a likely probability.A single strand of DNA did not spontaniously form.
Cytosine, Guanine, Thymine, Adenine undoubtedly formed first, them combined into DNA. That would be according to the theory of evolution.

The Amoeba dubia has 200 times as much DNA as a human. Do you think that might have the capabilities of developing into another intelligent life form, given a few million or hundreds of millions of years?
Logic suggests that it would.
As to how much it would resemble human is another matter.

Evolution says if the human species became extinct, a different species would take it's place. No scientist expects an extinct species to be reformed by evolution. A species with only two surviving members is as good as extinct in its present form. Two humans of oppsite sex could continue the human race, but in a different form than we have today. The potential is there to repeat all of the variations we now have, but that is improbable. Improbable is not impossible.
An unlikely probability, is still possible.

If humans became extinct, chimpanzies have the capabilities of becoming much more human like, especially intellectually.

Two lone humans may not be able to repopulate the earth with more humans like we have today, but other species have the capability to repopulate the earth with new and improved versions of themselves, to occupy the niche currently held by humans.
That's the way it works.

Alternately I am a perfect baker...Today I want to make a yellow cake...tomorrow I want to make a chocolate cake. Next week I'm making a pie. Each perfection yet each different.So there is no such thing as a 'perfect cake'.
Not only that, but no one cake is any better than another, all just different.

But among yellow cakes, isn't one better than another?
Isn't there a perfect yellow cake, that a perfect baker would make the first time, and never change?
Would a perfect baker keep making yellow cakes, trying to improve them?

Most Christians accept micro-evolution, improvement of the species related to their environment through change. The species prospers because it goes thru beneficial changes, and of course some changes that are not beneficial, birth defects that would eliminate the species if present in all individuals.

Improved changes certainly suggests movement away from the less perfect to the more perfect.

No if you are suggesting that there are no improved changes within a species, I would say you must reject micro-evolution.

ItalianScallion
Shows what you know my friend. Nothing in the Bible says there is life on other planets and nothing in the Bible says there isn't. That's one issue we can't speak authoritatively on. Where the Bible is silent, so should we be.

Well, like most things in Christianity (and life) there seems to be two schools of thought on this.
My local Christian network (out of Pennsylvannia) ran a movie called "Unidentified".
The premise is that people are seeing UFOs, and they are believed to be aliens, but in reality they are demons. We know this because the Bible says nothing about Aliens, so there can't be any, or so the protagonist tells us.

You and I would disagree.

Shows what you know my friend. Nothing in the Bible says there is life on other planets and nothing in the Bible says there isn't. That's one issue we can't speak authoritatively on. Where the Bible is silent, so should we be.
ENLIGHTEN US? You would go into outer space to be enlightened but you won't believe a book right here on earth??? :killingme

Exactly!

Hi honey! (Make me a vanilla one and I'll be right over...) :howdy:

lets see, use a scientific approach and explore the universe or use an ancient book written by a bunch of superstitious people who thought they could talk to god (or were pretending they could as part of a religious con) as the only reference for truth to gain enlightement.


and the reason none of those superstitious god talking to folks didn't say anything about the posibility of life on other planets??? its because they had no clue there were other planets for there to be live on. they were not nearly as educated as the modern person about the world. that why there are many misrepresentations in the bible that are inaccurate. Like the two that were famously quoted here about the bat being a bird and the mustard seed.

IF everyone was still using "the book" as their only reference there would still be stoning in the streets and burnings at the cross instead of space stations and satilites.

'Time', have a purpose?
Big assumption.

Purpose implies a creator.

~ ~ ~

On another note, if I were the perfect baker, and wanted to make a cake, I wouldn't want it to imporve over time, I'd want it right the first time.

Now if I weren't a perfect baker, but say just a brick layer, I wouldn't much care how a cake I made turned out, let cake making improve with time.

Good argument for God not being involved in the affairs of mankind.

So with you... the cake is baked, the wall is built... and it is judged to be so perfect that there can never be another to tease the senses.... how dull....

In my world... time help to measure the milestones in life as well as the accomplishments in life....

You must be a box cake kind of "perfect" baker.... When I bake I choose the ingredients based on what they will bring to the finished product.

I have one recipe [in the cookbook I am working on :coffee:] that uses pinto beans as a binder. Another recipe uses vinegar and milk together with the other ingredients to bring a rich moistness to the batter.

Both of these recipes need to be baked at a certain temperature. I know that my oven heats quickly and holds it's temp very well. My grandmother's oven was not so predictable so she would put a brick in the oven to help it hold the temp.

I know there are a lot of people who claim to be Christians who won't even discuss evolution as a possibility.... I say that God is God and in Him anything is possible.

How would the argument change if God were a gardener rather than a baker or a bricklayer? Just curious...

hotcoffee
How would the argument change if God were a gardener rather than a baker or a bricklayer? Just curious...
Well, its an analogy, so the argument would remain the same.
The argument is, a perfect God would be expectd to make perfect things. No need to experiment or improve.
add:
If God were involved in the lives of mankind, no need for modification.
If God is not directly involved, and simply set up a 'self working system', part of that system might easily be modification through evolution.

Well, its an analogy, so the argument would remain the same.
The argument is, a perfect God would be expectd to make perfect things. No need to experiment or improve.
add:
If God were involved in the lives of mankind, no need for modification.
If God is not directly involved, and simply set up a 'self working system', part of that system might easily be modification through evolution.

Your premise is based on a judgement....that later life is more perfect than early life. An amoeba is perfect. A dinosaur is perfect...A human is perfect. One may be more advanced than the last...but not more perfect.

I accept that evolution of species is more logical than a simple 7 days x 24 hours Creation, but that does not mean I don't see the hand of God in it. So that is not my point.

I don't think God is perfecting anything....I think He is giving a changing view. Evolution is precarious in a changing world.

Hi honey! (Make me a vanilla one and I'll be right over...) :howdy:


Hey IT. (thanks for leaving out the MeMe thing, do you want me to stop with the Uncle Bill?) If you'd ever tasted my baking you'd know I'm only making an analogy!
:howdy:

Well, its an analogy, so the argument would remain the same.
The argument is, a perfect God would be expectd to make perfect things. No need to experiment or improve.
add:
If God were involved in the lives of mankind, no need for modification.
If God is not directly involved, and simply set up a 'self working system', part of that system might easily be modification through evolution.

This is a significantly flawed analogy. Your not God. SO we can't assume anything on his motivation. Your analogy is pure speculation.

:howdy:


So the earth is supposed to be

4.5 Billion years old

All life started to evolve..Dino's ruled for

150 million years

Dino's perished 65 million years ago I am assuming so did most other life forms due to meteor collision (that's what they say).

So all of life that we know has really had only 65 millions years to "evolve".

So from 4.5 billion years till extinction no upright mammals existed. Amazing. If not stastistilly unbelievable.

So all of current "creation" has had 65 million years to evolve? Amazing.

I find it amazing that we did not exist before the Dino death. I mean we had billions of years of evolutionary processess to work with. And no people.



:howdy:

ENLIGHTEN US? You would go into outer space to be enlightened but you won't believe a book right here on earth??? :killingme

have you taken my advice and read Dianetics yet? You're pretty big on books so I think you should check that one out :yay:

A single strand of DNA did not spontaniously form.
Cytosine, Guanine, Thymine, Adenine undoubtedly formed first, them combined into DNA. That would be according to the theory of evolution.Actually, the formation of life has nothing to do with evolution. Life had to exist for evolution to take place with it.The Amoeba dubia has 200 times as much DNA as a human. Do you think that might have the capabilities of developing into another intelligent life form, given a few million or hundreds of millions of years?
Logic suggests that it would.No, you're suggesting that there is enough DNA to form a human. My question is whether there was enough diversity to form all the humans.

Could a single DNA strand support the diversity of all life?

Well, like most things in Christianity (and life) there seems to be two schools of thought on this. My local Christian network (out of Pennsylvannia) ran a movie called "Unidentified".
The premise is that people are seeing UFOs, and they are believed to be aliens, but in reality they are demons. We know this because the Bible says nothing about Aliens, so there can't be any, or so the protagonist tells us.

What type of Christian are you that believes people can see demons because that is NOT biblical. Demons DO NOT have the power to take on material form and are INVISIBLE spiritual beings. People who say they "see demons" have emotional issues. I DO NOT mean they're crazy. I mean they are usually under serious mental or emotional stress. Demons are never visible to humans.
Even angels had to take on human form to be seen by people.
The Bible doesn't say UFO aliens do exist and it doesn't say they don't, so we shouldn't either.
lets see, use a scientific approach and explore the universe or use an ancient book written by a bunch of superstitious people who thought they could talk to god (or were pretending they could as part of a religious con) as the only reference for truth to gain enlightement.
and the reason none of those superstitious god talking to folks didn't say anything about the posibility of life on other planets??? its because they had no clue there were other planets for there to be live on. they were not nearly as educated as the modern person about the world. that why there are many misrepresentations in the bible that are inaccurate. Like the two that were famously quoted here about the bat being a bird and the mustard seed.
IF everyone was still using "the book" as their only reference there would still be stoning in the streets and burnings at the cross instead of space stations and satilites.
"bat being a bird"??? Show me please....
You have no idea what Jesus meant by the mustard seed parable, that's REAL obvious. And you know little or nothing about the Bible. If you have no faith in God you'll have little to no understanding of what He says.
Many Bible passages speak of other heavenly bodies so don't say "they didn't know". Some are in Genesis 1, Job 38. If God wanted them or us to know about life on other planets, He could have told us.
Hey IT. (thanks for leaving out the MeMe thing, do you want me to stop with the Uncle Bill?) If you'd ever tasted my baking you'd know I'm only making an analogy!
:howdy:
Uncle Bill is sooo not me...and I know the MeMe bothered you so I quit it.
When are you, me, Libby and any others going to meet for lunch???
have you taken my advice and read Dianetics yet? You're pretty big on books so I think you should check that one out :yay:
I checked with L Ron and he's hating life right about now. He said to tell all those people he misled, that he's sorry and that God really does exist.
He said that Darwin said the same thing.

What type of Christian are you that believes people can see demons because that is NOT biblical. Demons DO NOT have the power to take on material form and are INVISIBLE spiritual beings. People who say they "see demons" have emotional issues. I DO NOT mean they're crazy. I mean they are usually under serious mental or emotional stress. Demons are never visible to humans.
Even angels had to take on human form to be seen by people.
The Bible doesn't say UFO aliens do exist and it doesn't say they don't, so we shouldn't either.

"bat being a bird"??? Show me please....
You have no idea what Jesus meant by the mustard seed parable, that's REAL obvious. And you know little or nothing about the Bible. If you have no faith in God you'll have little to no understanding of what He says.
Many Bible passages speak of other heavenly bodies so don't say "they didn't know". Some are in Genesis 1, Job 38. If God wanted them or us to know about life on other planets, He could have told us.

Uncle Bill is sooo not me...and I know the MeMe bothered you so I quit it.
When are you, me, Libby and any others going to meet for lunch???

I checked with L Ron and he's hating life right about now. He said to tell all those people he misled, that he's sorry and that God really does exist.
He said that Darwin said the same thing.


thats always the justification, but i am willing to bet the real reason is that the RANDOM GUYS WHO WROTE THE BOOK just didn't have any clue about any of that other stuff.
open your mind, men wrote the book, it is limited by what THEY knew, not what god knew.

A single strand of DNA did not spontaniously form.
Cytosine, Guanine, Thymine, Adenine undoubtedly formed first, them combined into DNA.Okay, so the building blocks spontaneously formed, and then miraculously joined together into DNA :lol: Much more likely, I see......

thats always the justification, but i am willing to bet the real reason is that the RANDOM GUYS WHO WROTE THE BOOK just didn't have any clue about any of that other stuff.
open your mind, men wrote the book, it is limited by what THEY knew, not what god knew.The Bible continues not to be all you WANT to know, but all you NEED to know.

Theory is NOT proven fact.

Strawman. Theories don't become facts. A theory and a fact are not rungs on a ladder of increasing certainty. Sigh....

Strawman. Theories don't become facts. A theory and a fact are not rungs on a ladder of increasing certainty. Sigh....
:confused: Really? A fact isn't stronger (higher) a rung than a theory?

I thought theories become laws (facts) when proven. What happens to a theory once it's proven?

I checked with L Ron and he's hating life right about now. He said to tell all those people he misled, that he's sorry and that God really does exist.
He said that Darwin said the same thing.

You checked with him? You have his personal line or something? :crazy:

How bout the Qu'ran?

Your premise is based on a judgement....that later life is more perfect than early life. An amoeba is perfect. A dinosaur is perfect...A human is perfect. One may be more advanced than the last...but not more perfect.

I accept that evolution of species is more logical than a simple 7 days x 24 hours Creation, but that does not mean I don't see the hand of God in it. So that is not my point.

I don't think God is perfecting anything....I think He is giving a changing view. Evolution is precarious in a changing world.
No, later in life is not always better.

Here's how I would say it.
The easier an organism is able to live, and procreate in it's environemnt, the closer it is to perfection.

We see in the world around us that some species just do not do well, in the environment they were born into, and their offspring do even worse, so the species becomes less successful, or even extinct.
This is an obvious observation, that I did not overlook, so no, later in life is not better, I do not presume that.

The process of evolution has the result that the less perfect individuals or species are eliminated, and the more perfect flourish. We might say evolution experiments, creating some failures, and some successes. (Of coures evolution has no mind, goal, purpose, it is simple a process of nature.)

I suggest that God, would not experiment, would not create failures, would only create successes.
Creating failures is not efficient, and the antithesis of perfection.
Creating a failure is counter productive.

It would of course be easy to say in the case of humans what appears to be a failure has a deeper meaning and purpose. From a Biblical perpspective, this loses meaning when talking about species that lived before Humans.
Do we really believe that that a particular mold that lived before the dawn of man, and became extinct before the dawn of man, really had a deeper meaning or puropose, than simply a failed experiment of nature?

Failed experiments of nature point to a world that does not have the daily involvement of a perfect creator.

What type of Christian are you that believes people can see demons because that is NOT biblical. Demons DO NOT have the power to take on material form and are INVISIBLE spiritual beings. People who say they "see demons" have emotional issues. I DO NOT mean they're crazy. I mean they are usually under serious mental or emotional stress. Demons are never visible to humans.
Even angels had to take on human form to be seen by people.
The Bible doesn't say UFO aliens do exist and it doesn't say they don't, so we shouldn't either. I am telling you about a Christian movie, on a Christian network, with Christian endorsements. Your argument is with the Christians who disagree with you.

thats always the justification, but i am willing to bet the real reason is that the RANDOM GUYS WHO WROTE THE BOOK just didn't have any clue about any of that other stuff.
open your mind, men wrote the book, it is limited by what THEY knew, not what god knew.
MANY of the guys that wrote the Bible had no idea of what God was talking about. They just wrote what He told them and some of their own experiences too.
Moses wrote about the creation thousands of years AFTER it happened! Isaiah prophesied about the birth of Christ 700 years BEFORE it happened. Some of them "didn't have a clue" but they simply wrote what The Spirit told them. This is why I said if God wanted them/us to know about life on other planets, He COULD have told us. Not saying He would have but He could have.
You checked with him? You have his personal line or something? :crazy:
How bout the Qu'ran?
Not his personal line but I just figured, since he didn't believe in the God of the Bible....you know the rest.
The Qu'ran has been proven false a number of times on here too so, what about it?
PS: this thread is about Darwin not Hubbard...

Actually, the formation of life has nothing to do with evolution. Life had to exist for evolution to take place with it.I am the one who pointed that out, over here (http://forums.somd.com/3890459-post58.html).

No, you're suggesting that there is enough DNA to form a human. My question is whether there was enough diversity to form all the humans.

Could a single DNA strand support the diversity of all life?Yes, and Yes.

Okay, so the building blocks spontaneously formed, and then miraculously joined together into DNA :lol: Much more likely, I see......
Miracle?
I do not believ in miracles.
Given enough time, all things are possible.

I am telling you about a Christian movie, on a Christian network, with Christian endorsements. Your argument is with the Christians who disagree with you.
You're the one who said demons could be seen.
Just because it's a: Christian movie, Christian network and Christian endorsed doesn't make it true. Who endorsed it if you can tell me?
I'm just countering your statement about the Bible speaking of aliens. The Bible doesn't speak of computers or cars but they exist.

You're the one who said demons could be seen.
Just because it's a: Christian movie, Christian network and Christian endorsed doesn't make it true. Who endorsed it if you can tell me?
I'm just countering your statement about the Bible speaking of aliens. The Bible doesn't speak of computers or cars but they exist.
Here are my words (http://forums.somd.com/3891144-post71.html):

"My local Christian network (out of Pennsylvannia) ran a movie called "Unidentified".
The premise is that people are seeing UFOs, and they are believed to be aliens, but in reality they are demons. We know this because the Bible says nothing about Aliens, so there can't be any, or so the protagonist tells us."

"OR SO THE PROTAGONIST TELLS US."

I do not say these things, the move does.

The movie is on my DVR. I will get the details on the producer, etc.
These beliefs are common among many Christians, particularly Pentacostals and other Evangelical groups.
If you have no experience with such groups, you have lead a sheltered Christian life.

Once more, you and I agree, except that you seem to believe your view is the only Christian view, and I know better.

~ ~ ~ ~
When I said "you and I disagree", I did not mean we disagree with each other, I meant that we both disagree with the premise of the movie.
Read it and you will see it.

Hope this helps.

Not his personal line but I just figured, since he didn't believe in the God of the Bible....you know the rest.
The Qu'ran has been proven false a number of times on here too so, what about it?
PS: this thread is about Darwin not Hubbard...

You figured, just because he doesn't believe in the God of the Bible? So what about all the other people on these boards that seem quite happy even though they don't believe in your God? You're ignorant if you just "figure" that everyone else isn't happy.

And I'm sure plenty of people have proven various tidbits of information wrong about the bible as well. The only difference is that this forum is primarily Christian-based, so most people would be out to prove the Qu'ran and other books wrong, while in a Muslim based area they'd probably be out to prove the Bible wrong.

The reason I again brought up the other books is because YOU brought up that book called the Bible and said the proof was right there in a book, so why go elsewhere to discover. So when you pointed a book reference, I was just curious if you'd bothered to read any others or if you just read one book and had one faith all your life and just assumed that was absolutely correct. Somehow I think you're one of those people that was always brought up in a specific faith and really wouldn't know for sure if you're right or wrong, but you're definitely brainwashed to think that way.

'Time', have a purpose?
Big assumption.

Purpose implies a creator.

~ ~ ~

On another note, if I were the perfect baker, and wanted to make a cake, I wouldn't want it to imporve over time, I'd want it right the first time.

Now if I weren't a perfect baker, but say just a brick layer, I wouldn't much care how a cake I made turned out, let cake making improve with time.

Good argument for God not being involved in the affairs of mankind.

No, later in life is not always better.

Here's how I would say it.
The easier an organism is able to live, and procreate in it's environemnt, the closer it is to perfection.

We see in the world around us that some species just do not do well, in the environment they were born into, and their offspring do even worse, so the species becomes less successful, or even extinct.
This is an obvious observation, that I did not overlook, so no, later in life is not better, I do not presume that.

The process of evolution has the result that the less perfect individuals or species are eliminated, and the more perfect flourish. We might say evolution experiments, creating some failures, and some successes. (Of coures evolution has no mind, goal, purpose, it is simple a process of nature.)

I suggest that God, would not experiment, would not create failures, would only create successes.
Creating failures is not efficient, and the antithesis of perfection.
Creating a failure is counter productive.

It would of course be easy to say in the case of humans what appears to be a failure has a deeper meaning and purpose. From a Biblical perpspective, this loses meaning when talking about species that lived before Humans.
Do we really believe that that a particular mold that lived before the dawn of man, and became extinct before the dawn of man, really had a deeper meaning or puropose, than simply a failed experiment of nature?

Failed experiments of nature point to a world that does not have the daily involvement of a perfect creator.

New spin same issue...You are still making a judgement of God's intent to prove that He does not exist as an active God.

It is pretty obvious in a world where entropy is increasing that perfection is not the goal. So while your position is proved by the second law of thermodynamics, your thesis is flawed by your supposition.

The creator is perfect, the creations are perfect, even if the creatures are flawed. Just look around you know that's true. I believe that God teaches imperfect creatures through chaos. The story of Job is a good example. In simple terms: Job was fearful (a big flaw) and failed to follow the command of God, he was therefore thrown into the storm and the whale (talk about chaos) to be shown the way. In this case what you might call a failure is actually an opportunity.

Everything (especially an obscure extinct mold) does not have to have a deep meaning to prove that there is a perfect God. There are always missed opportunities and stuff that "just happens". Again you have correctly observed the world, but then inferred it's meaning.

It's probably a lot more interesting to throw a bunch of stuff out there and see what happens, though I would not presume that entertainment is God's intent.

When are you, me, Libby and any others going to meet for lunch???



I'm afraid we've lost our Libby to the politics forum. I miss her very much. She really knows her stuff. Haven't seen much from Starman either.

I do not say these things, the move does.
The movie is on my DVR. I will get the details on the producer, etc.
These beliefs are common among many Christians, particularly Pentacostals and other Evangelical groups.
If you have no experience with such groups, you have lead a sheltered Christian life.
Once more, you and I agree, except that you seem to believe your view is the only Christian view, and I know better.
~ ~ ~ ~
When I said "you and I disagree", I did not mean we disagree with each other, I meant that we both disagree with the premise of the movie.
Read it and you will see it. Hope this helps.
Ok; It just seemed to me that you were condoning what the movie said.
What any group believes is of no value to me unless it squares with the Bible. My view is God's view. I could never imagine coming up with some of the things He has. :yay:
You figured, just because he doesn't believe in the God of the Bible? So what about all the other people on these boards that seem quite happy even though they don't believe in your God? You're ignorant if you just "figure" that everyone else isn't happy.
Happy and correct are 2 very different things.

And I'm sure plenty of people have proven various tidbits of information wrong about the bible as well. The only difference is that this forum is primarily Christian-based, so most people would be out to prove the Qu'ran and other books wrong, while in a Muslim based area they'd probably be out to prove the Bible wrong.
Why do you think "this forum is primarily Christian based"??

The reason I again brought up the other books is because YOU brought up that book called the Bible and said the proof was right there in a book, so why go elsewhere to discover. So when you pointed a book reference, I was just curious if you'd bothered to read any others or if you just read one book and had one faith all your life and just assumed that was absolutely correct. Somehow I think you're one of those people that was always brought up in a specific faith and really wouldn't know for sure if you're right or wrong, but you're definitely brainwashed to think that way.
Ever seen what Hubbard believed?
Church of Scientology:
Started by L. Ron Hubbard in 1954 and it is a cultic group masquerading as a religion for tax exemption status.
Their have no written doctrine of who “God” is but it is not of the Trinity or Jesus. They let their members decide their own concepts of who he is.
They believe that ones own good works and good deeds to others permit them to determine their own spiritual future when they die.
They believe in many of the Buddhist & Hindu doctrines of reincarnation.
They believe that any objects identified with supreme beings can be worshipped.
Not even close to Christianity in my estimation, so I can safely say that L Ron is hating life right about now...

About the other books; I've read these and found them internally flawed. The Qu'ran, The Book of Mormon, The New World Translation. 3 strikes is enough for me...
And, finally, I was brought up Catholic but I believed only some of what they taught me. I had to get out of it because my heart wasn't in it. I still believe in the same God but without all the other man made stuff, so I wasn't really brainwashed in that respect.
I'm afraid we've lost our Libby to the politics forum. I miss her very much. She really knows her stuff. Haven't seen much from Starman either.
:yikes: :nono:
Starman is still posting too.
You did not answer my question either. WOMEN! :jameo:

itallianScallion Ok; It just seemed to me that you were condoning what the movie said.
What any group believes is of no value to me unless it squares with the Bible. My view is God's view. I could never imagine coming up with some of the things He has.
Problem is, that every Christain believes the same thing, and they all follow the Bible as the word of God. They are at least as assured as you are, that they are right.
EVERYONE says "It's not what I say, it's want God says."

Who is right and who is wrong?
Wait, let me guess, you are right, and they are wrong.
I wonder how I knew that.

New spin same issue...You are still making a judgement of God's intent to prove that He does not exist as an active God.

It is pretty obvious in a world where entropy is increasing that perfection is not the goal. So while your position is proved by the second law of thermodynamics, your thesis is flawed by your supposition.

The creator is perfect, the creations are perfect, even if the creatures are flawed. Just look around you know that's true. I believe that God teaches imperfect creatures through chaos. The story of Job is a good example. In simple terms: Job was fearful (a big flaw) and failed to follow the command of God, he was therefore thrown into the storm and the whale (talk about chaos) to be shown the way. In this case what you might call a failure is actually an opportunity.

Everything (especially an obscure extinct mold) does not have to have a deep meaning to prove that there is a perfect God. There are always missed opportunities and stuff that "just happens". Again you have correctly observed the world, but then inferred it's meaning.

It's probably a lot more interesting to throw a bunch of stuff out there and see what happens, though I would not presume that entertainment is God's intent.
Well, I'm saying he has no intent concerning the things we are speaking about. You are the one assigning intent.
You assume first of all that Gon Intervenes, and further what his intents are, to a certain degree of course. You do not claim to know the full being of God.

Assume any type of God you choose, and the proof is all around you that you are correct.

That is what all Theists do, I'm sure you would agree.

I am the one who pointed that out, over here.:confused: Then why would you shortly after screw it up?
Yes, and Yes.Highly unlikely.

Miracle?
I do not believ in miracles.
Given enough time, all things are possible.All things? Including a supreme being?

Here's how I would say it.
The easier an organism is able to live, and procreate in it's environemnt, the closer it is to perfection. YOUR version of perfection.

Why would that necessarily be someone else's version of perfection?
We see in the world around us that some species just do not do well, in the environment they were born into, and their offspring do even worse, so the species becomes less successful, or even extinct.
This is an obvious observation, that I did not overlook, so no, later in life is not better, I do not presume that.

The process of evolution has the result that the less perfect individuals or species are eliminated, and the more perfect flourish. We might say evolution experiments, creating some failures, and some successes. (Of coures evolution has no mind, goal, purpose, it is simple a process of nature.)

I suggest that God, would not experiment, would not create failures, would only create successes.
Creating failures is not efficient, and the antithesis of perfection.
Creating a failure is counter productive.But, you're defining the success or failure. By defining the success and failure, you are assuming an intent, a purpose, a reason. Back up, and don't assume YOU know the reason for the species longevity. If you're not presumptuous in that way, you can be more objective.It would of course be easy to say in the case of humans what appears to be a failure has a deeper meaning and purpose. From a Biblical perpspective, this loses meaning when talking about species that lived before Humans.
Do we really believe that that a particular mold that lived before the dawn of man, and became extinct before the dawn of man, really had a deeper meaning or puropose, than simply a failed experiment of nature?Of course we could believe that. It could very well be that the mold actually did have something to do with the creation of mankind.

If you only know the steak, and suddenly watch a cow being butchered, but don't put the two together, you see no good reason to kill and butcher a cow. That part of it would seem like a huge mistake. But, the steak tastes really good if you know how to grill it. In other words, watching the process without understanding the process (but assuming things about each step anyway) can lead you far astray, in my opinion. I don't claim to know all the steps of the process, but I can see potential steps, where as you see failures.Failed experiments of nature point to a world that does not have the daily involvement of a perfect creator.Not at all. Far too presumptuous a statement on your part! :buddies:

Happy and correct are 2 very different things.

I agree with you, they are two different things! But the person I'm quoting here apparently doesn't...

I checked with L Ron and he's hating life right about now.



And I was just screwing with you on the who Dianetics thing. You just seem to preach over and over how people refuse to listen to a book that's here on earth so why do they think searching for answers elsewhere would help them. I merely pointed out the absurdity of your comment by saying something that was just as absurd.

Well, I'm saying he has no intent concerning the things we are speaking about. You are the one assigning intent.
You assume first of all that Gon Intervenes, and further what his intents are, to a certain degree of course. You do not claim to know the full being of God.

Assume any type of God you choose, and the proof is all around you that you are correct.

That is what all Theists do, I'm sure you would agree.

I agree to a degree...It really comes down to the fact that faith can be supported by logic and science but it is neither science or logic. I think I see an active and loving Creator in the same things that indicate to you that there is not one.

All things? Including a supreme being?


If a non religious person is willing to believe that there is possibly a supreme being, are you willing to believe that there isn't?

If a non religious person is willing to believe that there is possibly a supreme being, are you willing to believe that there isn't?

of course not! there is proof beyond all possibility that there is absolutely a supreme being and that it is absolutely what [insert name here] believes in. Because naturally if we believe then we MUST be right. :rolleyes:

While I have my beliefs, I'm always willing to believe someone else probably has it more accurate than me. I mean, who knows? But when someone tells me I'm definitely wrong, when there is absolutely NOTHING more than a book that makes this claim? I say BS.

of course not! there is proof beyond all possibility that there is absolutely a supreme being and that it is absolutely what [insert name here] believes in. Because naturally if we believe then we MUST be right. :rolleyes:

While I have my beliefs, I'm always willing to believe someone else probably has it more accurate than me. I mean, who knows? But when someone tells me I'm definitely wrong, when there is absolutely NOTHING more than a book that makes this claim? I say BS.

"whoa whoa whoa, you can't use their book, you gotta use mine, theirs is all lies written by men, ours was written by men inspired by god" :killingme

"whoa whoa whoa, you can't use their book, you gotta use mine, theirs is all lies written by men, ours was written by men inspired by god" :killingme

What is your book? The communist manifesto? :whistle:

What is your book? The communist manifesto? :whistle:

you are pretty dense aren't you :whistle:

If a non religious person is willing to believe that there is possibly a supreme being, are you willing to believe that there isn't?How many times do I have to answer this in one thread? :lol:


Yes, it is certainly possible.


Are you willing to accept it's a possibility that there IS?

Are you willing to accept it's a possibility that there IS?
...did you not read his post? :confused:

seemed like that's what he said :shrug:

...did you not read his post? :confused:

seemed like that's what he said :shrug:I did read Caps post, and that's not what was said at all.

What was said was a question as to whether or not a religious person would agree the possibility they were wrong. There wasn't even an inkling of a non-religious person accepting they may be wrong.

The question actually lends credence to the theory that evolution is like a religion - they believe without any real proof, testability, or good reason other than faith that their thought process is right.

Problem is, that every Christain believes the same thing, and they all follow the Bible as the word of God. They are at least as assured as you are, that they are right.
EVERYONE says "It's not what I say, it's want God says."
Who is right and who is wrong?
Wait, let me guess, you are right, and they are wrong.
I wonder how I knew that.
So why do so many people doubt it? Darwin did and look at the mess he got into.
There's enough proof of the Divine authorship of the Bible if people would read it and learn how to understand it. Without it, as the absoulte truth, anybody can be right and no one can say they're wrong...(which is why there are so many wrong teachings out there today).

While I have my beliefs, I'm always willing to believe someone else probably has it more accurate than me. I mean, who knows? But when someone tells me I'm definitely wrong, when there is absolutely NOTHING more than a book that makes this claim? I say BS.
"You're definitely wrong".......:lmao:
"whoa whoa whoa, you can't use their book, you gotta use mine, theirs is all lies written by men, ours was written by men inspired by god" :killingme
OMG! You finally got it!! :buddies:

So why do so many people doubt it? Darwin did and look at the mess he got into.
There's enough proof of the Divine authorship of the Bible if people would read it and learn how to understand it. Without it, as the absoulte truth, anybody can be right and no one can say they're wrong...(which is why there are so many wrong teachings out there today).

"You're definitely wrong".......:lmao:

OMG! You finally got it!! :buddies:

what you dont get is, that is what everyone says about their book, that it is the real one, while denying the divinity of the other books. the truth is that they are all fiction===> they are all lies. none of them were written by god therefore they are all equally invalid

Once more, you and I agree, except that you seem to believe your view is the only Christian view, and I know better.
Can you 'splain dis to me?

I did read Caps post, and that's not what was said at all.

What was said was a question as to whether or not a religious person would agree the possibility they were wrong. There wasn't even an inkling of a non-religious person accepting they may be wrong.

The question actually lends credence to the theory that evolution is like a religion - they believe without any real proof, testability, or good reason other than faith that their thought process is right.

he made a point to comment on a non-religious person being willing to accept that there is the possibility of a supreme being. :shrug:

Evolution may have some holes, as much science does, but there is also quite a bit of research that's been done and evidence that's been found. But who knows how everything actually got to the way it was. Religion is one explanation, science is another, or there could always be a joint theory where religious explanations can go hand in hand with the scientific evidence. But for everyone who says "the religious explanation has no holes" BS, that's because religious answers are always a cop-out since there is an answer written in a book somewhere and some of you guys think that instantly means it's the end-all-be-all answer.

:blahblah:
You're definitely wrong. I am 100% sure of this and I have books as evidence. :dance:

what you dont get is, that is what everyone says about their book, that it is the real one, while denying the divinity of the other books. the truth is that they are all fiction===> they are all lies. none of them were written by god therefore they are all equally invalid
But since you don't believe in any book of absolute truth, then you cannot make that statement and be right...no one can in that case.
This is what caused Darwins troubles. He read the Bible's account of creation and doubted some of it and added to it.
Sure, everyone believes their "book" is the truth but only one has stood the test and been proven as the absolute truth...

he made a point to comment on a non-religious person being willing to accept that there is the possibility of a supreme being. :shrug:

Evolution may have some holes, as much science does, but there is also quite a bit of research that's been done and evidence that's been found. But who knows how everything actually got to the way it was. Religion is one explanation, science is another, or there could always be a joint theory where religious explanations can go hand in hand with the scientific evidence. But for everyone who says "the religious explanation has no holes" BS, that's because religious answers are always a cop-out since there is an answer written in a book somewhere and some of you guys think that instantly means it's the end-all-be-all answer.The Bible (or any other religious book) generally does not equate itself to all possible knowledge of all things.

IMO, the Bible tells you all you NEED to know about God. Maybe not all you want to know, but all you NEED to know. That does not mean in any way that the Bible is the complete book of all knowledge of everything. It's not, and I dare say no reasonable Christian would ever suggest it is. That's a gross mischaracterization of the faith.

However, in terms of what this thread turned into, I would suggest that ID (not Biblical Genesis, but ID) is what you describe as a great possibility. If there is a designer who designed things to work the way they do, and designed a bit of evolution into how things run, that's ID. If there is no possibility of that whatsoever, that's "close-minded".

Evolution may have some holes, as much science does, but there is also quite a bit of research that's been done and evidence that's been found. But who knows how everything actually got to the way it was. Religion is one explanation, science is another, or there could always be a joint theory where religious explanations can go hand in hand with the scientific evidence. But for everyone who says "the religious explanation has no holes" BS, that's because religious answers are always a cop-out since there is an answer written in a book somewhere and some of you guys think that instantly means it's the end-all-be-all answer.
Why work so hard when someone else has done all the foot work for us?
You're definitely wrong. I am 100% sure of this and I have books as evidence. :dance:
Dianetics??? :lmao:

But since you don't believe in any book of absolute truth, then you cannot make that statement and be right...no one can in that case.
This is what caused Darwins troubles. He read the Bible's account of creation and doubted some of it and added to it.
Sure, everyone believes their "book" is the truth but only one has stood the test and been proven as the absolute truth...

you are right, the koran has definately stood the test of time and has been proven the absolute truth :killingme

so i beleive in one less book than you do, and somehow that makes me unable to determine if any are false? that is retarded. If anything i would say that it makes me MORE able to determine if the books are false because i dont have a vested interest in any.

But since you don't believe in any book of absolute truth, then you cannot make that statement and be right...no one can in that case.
This is what caused Darwins troubles. He read the Bible's account of creation and doubted some of it and added to it.
Sure, everyone believes their "book" is the truth but only one has stood the test and been proven as the absolute truth...
Really? Only one? Then how come everyone in the world isn't of the same faith if there's only 1 true book? Oh I know...because that was a completely false statement.

The Bible (or any other religious book) generally does not equate itself to all possible knowledge of all things.

IMO, the Bible tells you all you NEED to know about God. Maybe not all you want to know, but all you NEED to know. That does not mean in any way that the Bible is the complete book of all knowledge of everything. It's not, and I dare say no reasonable Christian would ever suggest it is. That's a gross mischaracterization of the faith.

However, in terms of what this thread turned into, I would suggest that ID (not Biblical Genesis, but ID) is what you describe as a great possibility. If there is a designer who designed things to work the way they do, and designed a bit of evolution into how things run, that's ID. If there is no possibility of that whatsoever, that's "close-minded".
I'm aware. I don't even know if it's a NEED to know, I think it's more of a "this is what I felt like providing you with, so deal with it" type of scenario. But a bunch of it was written by people who merely observed events, so I think it's a little bit of this, a little bit of that.

Speaking of "close-minded", check out this other guy I'm having a "discussion" with. :lmao:

Why work so hard when someone else has done all the foot work for us?

Dianetics??? :lmao:
All the foot work? Hardly. Please refer to This_Person, he seems to be pretty rational in comparison to you.

If you mock Dianetics, the evil aliens in your stomach are going to explode out of you and eat your brains!!! If not, then maybe Allah will strike you down. If not, maybe Buddha will sit on you and make you respawn as a piece of poop. Or that Hindu dude with his 500 hands will strangle you. I don't know, there are plenty of possibilities.

you are right, the koran has definately stood the test of time and has been proven the absolute truth :killingme
so i beleive in one less book than you do, and somehow that makes me unable to determine if any are false? that is retarded. If anything i would say that it makes me MORE able to determine if the books are false because i dont have a vested interest in any.
Nor do you have the Holy Spirit enlightening you...:whistle:
Really? Only one? Then how come everyone in the world isn't of the same faith if there's only 1 true book? Oh I know...because that was a completely false statement.
Funny guy...
People make bad choices or haven't done the necessary research on the Bible. You like books? Read "The case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. He was an avowed atheist trying to disprove Christ and he ended up becoming a Christian because he couldn't. He details his research in it.

All the foot work? Hardly. Please refer to This_Person, he seems to be pretty rational in comparison to you.
He made a very true statement. The Bible doesn't tell us everything about God or life but it does tell us most of what we need to know.

If you mock Dianetics, the evil aliens in your stomach are going to explode out of you and eat your brains!!! If not, then maybe Allah will strike you down. If not, maybe Buddha will sit on you and make you respawn as a piece of poop. Or that Hindu dude with his 500 hands will strangle you. I don't know, there are plenty of possibilities.
WOW! And I thought it was my cooking that caused those stomach pains...
So your switching to Judaism?
Soitainly not! That would be like going back to 8 track tapes...

Really? Only one? Then how come everyone in the world isn't of the same faith if there's only 1 true book? Oh I know...because that was a completely false statement.

.

Your argument that the Bible is false BECAUSE not everyone follows it does not prove your argument. It is a good point but that is about it.

If you can't prove one to be "true" does that by default mean that none can be true? This does not seem logical to me. Does it to you?

Truth does exist, if it didn't we would live in chaos, if at all.

If I say that the earth is round and you say it's flat, we both can't be right. One of has is "closer" to the truth. Now if I say its round we may actually realize that in fact it's not perfectly round but round to us all the same.

Why should religion be any different?:popcorn:

Are you willing to accept it's a possibility that there IS?


I'm very open to the idea that I'm totally wrong, and there is some sort of supreme being(s).

Nor do you have the Holy Spirit enlightening you...:whistle:


but the jews certainly do, and their book has stood a much longer and more grueling test of time.....:bigwhoop:

So why do so many people doubt it? Darwin did and look at the mess he got into.
There's enough proof of the Divine authorship of the Bible if people would read it and learn how to understand it. Without it, as the absoulte truth, anybody can be right and no one can say they're wrong...(which is why there are so many wrong teachings out there today).


Your going to say that the Bible is absolute, 100% true to the word?

So, at in the book of Genesis, people were living to be a few hundred years old.

When Noah built his Ark, he had one pair of every species of animal on it. Lets assume here, that the Ark was built in the area of modern day Jerusalem. How does a Tasmanian Devil, which lives specifically on one island adjacent to Australia, make the journey to Jerusalem?

How can you take the Bible to be Absolute, when the Preachers, Priests, and all other church people who are suppose to be the experts, and teach us, don't agree on the "Interpretation" of the Bible? How also can you take it to be absolute, when there were books lefts out of the Bible by the church?

obviously evolution didn't happen. Those walking monkeys that we've found artifacts of are just extinct now. they didn't evolve into humans. humans were always here.

although that would probably just give darwin an argument with natural selection, even if it disproved his evolution stuff. geez this guy was good

Look If that's what you believe then so be it but your Wrong!
It's a..... Fact that Plants have evolved!....that Animals have evolved..
and...the Earth has evolved and so have Humans!And let's get this
straight the Bible is a book about how to get to Heaven not a book
of the Heavens!See this is where reglion is messed up your mind.

Your going to say that the Bible is absolute, 100% true to the word?

So, at in the book of Genesis, people were living to be a few hundred years old.

When Noah built his Ark, he had one pair of every species of animal on it. Lets assume here, that the Ark was built in the area of modern day Jerusalem. How does a Tasmanian Devil, which lives specifically on one island adjacent to Australia, make the journey to Jerusalem?

How can you take the Bible to be Absolute, when the Preachers, Priests, and all other church people who are suppose to be the experts, and teach us, don't agree on the "Interpretation" of the Bible? How also can you take it to be absolute, when there were books lefts out of the Bible by the church?


Hey don't even try it's a waste of time talking with these people they have
tunnel vision and their set at Full Speed Ahead!Their is not even a chance that the cold hard facts will change the way they think they have been
brainwashed by Reglion that the possibility of anything else is out of bounds.

[QUOTE]Your going to say that the Bible is absolute, 100% true to the word?
So, at in the book of Genesis, people were living to be a few hundred years old.

Yes. The oldest was Methuslah at 969. The best answer(s) to this are
1) God simply allowed for this for the purposes of re-population.
2) The human body was less corrupt from the results of Adam's sin and we are naturally regressing from perfection. With out medical advancment how old would we live to be....I suspect
In Gen 6 set's man's age at 120yrs and in Psalms

In Psalm 90 we read
10 The length of our days is seventy years—
or eighty, if we have the strength;
yet their span [a] is but trouble and sorrow,
for they quickly pass, and we fly away.


I find this passage amazing. It was written at least 1500 years ago by King David. How much incite did it take for him to see that man kind's life span would be between 70-80 yrs????. Exactly what it is today.



When Noah built his Ark, he had one pair of every species of animal on it. Lets assume here, that the Ark was built in the area of modern day Jerusalem. How does a Tasmanian Devil, which lives specifically on one island adjacent to Australia, make the journey to Jerusalem?

This is a fair question. Without looking at any creation talking points I would speculate that it would be hard to determine the landscape of the earth pre-flood. The flood forever changed the landscape of earth. No one doubts a world wide flood BTW.

How can you take the Bible to be Absolute, when the Preachers, Priests, and all other church people who are suppose to be the experts, and teach us, don't agree on the "Interpretation" of the Bible? How also can you take it to be absolute, when there were books lefts out of the Bible by the church?

Usually the bible is very clear. There are some areas of disagreement. However Christians should not divide on issues that are not essential. I personally think that creation is an essential point that is reiterated through out the OT and NT.

I'm very open to the idea that I'm totally wrong, and there is some sort of supreme being(s).So, you and Beta are both open to the possibility that ID is correct.

Maybe you didn't realize you were, and believe something else is MORE likely, but you've now both admitted that you believe that ID is a viable option to consider.

Thank you.

Your argument that the Bible is false BECAUSE not everyone follows it does not prove your argument. It is a good point but that is about it.

If you can't prove one to be "true" does that by default mean that none can be true? This does not seem logical to me. Does it to you?

Truth does exist, if it didn't we would live in chaos, if at all.

If I say that the earth is round and you say it's flat, we both can't be right. One of has is "closer" to the truth. Now if I say its round we may actually realize that in fact it's not perfectly round but round to us all the same.

Why should religion be any different?:popcorn:
I was only trying to make a point -- I wasn't saying the Bible is definitely false. I'm saying that it's very difficult to determine what's true, what's not, and basically everything else in between. Can we say, for certain, that certain events took place? Even if every little piece of history was accurate within the bible, does that mean the actual supernatural events took place? No. Same with any other book written for the purposes of religion. I am not saying any book is wrong, I'm just saying there's no way to prove definitively that any of them are right.

Speaking of the earth being round, didn't the Vatican strongly disagree that the earth was round for centuries? Didn't they disagree that the earth rotated around the sun for centuries? It's archaic. They tell you what they want to believe based on the Bible. They ignore science. Religion is good for some stuff, but to listen to religion when there is science saying otherwise is just silly.

but the jews certainly do, and their book has stood a much longer and more grueling test of time.....:bigwhoop:
It has. Heck, Christianity believes in that book too...it's called the Old Testament. It's just that the New Testament changed a ton because they didn't really like the first cut :lol:

Look If that's what you believe then so be it but your Wrong!
It's a..... Fact that Plants have evolved!....that Animals have evolved..
and...the Earth has evolved and so have Humans!And let's get this
straight the Bible is a book about how to get to Heaven not a book
of the Heavens!See this is where reglion is messed up your mind.

You've already proved that you're pretty effing stupid, but to quote ME of all people when I was being completely sarcastic and mocking some people with that statement is just retarded. Go away and let the big boys discuss.

So, you and Beta are both open to the possibility that ID is correct.

Maybe you didn't realize you were, and believe something else is MORE likely, but you've now both admitted that you believe that ID is a viable option to consider.

Thank you.

Of course, anything is possible. But, by not believe 100% in one thing, I have options. Unlike those who believe, have no options it is black and white. I just don't work that way.

Nor do you have the Holy Spirit enlightening you...:whistle:

Funny guy...
People make bad choices or haven't done the necessary research on the Bible. You like books? Read "The case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. He was an avowed atheist trying to disprove Christ and he ended up becoming a Christian because he couldn't. He details his research in it.

He made a very true statement. The Bible doesn't tell us everything about God or life but it does tell us most of what we need to know.

WOW! And I thought it was my cooking that caused those stomach pains...

Soitainly not! That would be like going back to 8 track tapes...

So What dose that prove your no Theologian I'm sure and just
because,,, You believe in something dosn't make it So ,,,and just because
you Don't,,,dosn't mean it's not True. That goes for Reglion,UFOs,Bigfoot
and so on and so on!Look genius the Bible was written by authors
unknown,,,Fact....Storys left out of the Bible,,,,,,,,,Fact....It was written
centurys later,,,,Fact. The problem is that anytime that anything gets
written down people figure it must be true or why else would somebody
have written it.

PS,,,You know what they say about God don't you,,,He's an invisible
friend for grown up's!

obviously evolution didn't happen. Those walking monkeys that we've found artifacts of are just extinct now. they didn't evolve into humans. humans were always here.

although that would probably just give darwin an argument with natural selection, even if it disproved his evolution stuff. geez this guy was good

How can you say evolution didn't/doesn't happen. We deal with evolution every day.

All life forms on this planet are basically made up of the same things. If you look at things on a people/animal scale, you don't see evolution happen for 100s of years. But look at it on a much small scale. We will use viruses. Viruses are constantly evolving to adapt to the medicines we create to fight them. They also have the abilities to change in the manner of how it is contracted (ingestion, injection, inhalation) these are evolutionary changes in the virus itself.

Or does God(or who ever) keep sending down new versions of illnesses?

So, you and Beta are both open to the possibility that ID is correct.

Maybe you didn't realize you were, and believe something else is MORE likely, but you've now both admitted that you believe that ID is a viable option to consider.

Thank you.

I've never said it's not a possible option, just like you're apparently saying evolution is a possible option. I've just said ID is ridiculous and wrong.

How can you say evolution didn't/doesn't happen. We deal with evolution every day.

All life forms on this planet are basically made up of the same things. If you look at things on a people/animal scale, you don't see evolution happen for 100s of years. But look at it on a much small scale. We will use viruses. Viruses are constantly evolving to adapt to the medicines we create to fight them. They also have the abilities to change in the manner of how it is contracted (ingestion, injection, inhalation) these are evolutionary changes in the virus itself.

Or does God(or who ever) keep sending down new versions of illnesses?

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

I WAS BEING SARCASTIC. geez people

I was only trying to make a point -- I wasn't saying the Bible is definitely false. I'm saying that it's very difficult to determine what's true, what's not, and basically everything else in between. Can we say, for certain, that certain events took place? Even if every little piece of history was accurate within the bible, does that mean the actual supernatural events took place? No. Same with any other book written for the purposes of religion. I am not saying any book is wrong, I'm just saying there's no way to prove definitively that any of them are right.

Speaking of the earth being round, didn't the Vatican strongly disagree that the earth was round for centuries? Didn't they disagree that the earth rotated around the sun for centuries? It's archaic. They tell you what they want to believe based on the Bible. They ignore science. Religion is good for some stuff, but to listen to religion when there is science saying otherwise is just silly.


It has. Heck, Christianity believes in that book too...it's called the Old Testament. It's just that the New Testament changed a ton because they didn't really like the first cut :lol:



You've already proved that you're pretty effing stupid, but to quote ME of all people when I was being completely sarcastic and mocking some people with that statement is just retarded. Go away and let the big boys discuss.


I think your missing a little of what I meant. The round earth thing was just an analogy. Is it difficult to determine what is true? I think you can look at evidence to make a determination that one is more true than the others. While that evidence may not prove 100%, it will provide REASONABLE answers to the question.

I've never said it's not a possible option, just like you're apparently saying evolution is a possible option. I've just said ID is ridiculous and wrong.
I've actually said it's pretty obvious that evolution on a micro scale exists.

Believing ID is wrong, but possible, is much different than simply dismissing it as an impossibility.

Your data for it being "ridiculous"?

[QUOTE=capsfan78;3896297]



Yes. The oldest was Methuslah at 969. The best answer(s) to this are
1) God simply allowed for this for the purposes of re-population.
2) The human body was less corrupt from the results of Adam's sin and we are naturally regressing from perfection. With out medical advancment how old would we live to be....I suspect
In Gen 6 set's man's age at 120yrs and in Psalms

In Psalm 90 we read
10 The length of our days is seventy years—
or eighty, if we have the strength;
yet their span [a] is but trouble and sorrow,
for they quickly pass, and we fly away.


I find this passage amazing. It was written at least 1500 years ago by King David. How much incite did it take for him to see that man kind's life span would be between 70-80 yrs????. Exactly what it is today.





This is a fair question. Without looking at any creation talking points I would speculate that it would be hard to determine the landscape of the earth pre-flood. The flood forever changed the landscape of earth. No one doubts a world wide flood BTW.



Usually the bible is very clear. There are some areas of disagreement. However Christians should not divide on issues that are not essential. I personally think that creation is an essential point that is reiterated through out the OT and NT.



So let me get this straight Adam&Eve had some kids Cain and Abel and
2or3 others then how do you explain such a wide range of Skin Colors
and Ethic backgrounds?And it has not been proven that there was
global flooding,,,,Fact and the Bible contradicts itself,,,,Fact! You guys
always say that we can't find the missing link yet when Moses took
the Israelites into the dessert for Forty Years we can't even find
a campfire pit or bones,dishes and so on and so on.Yet we have found
that we are getting closer to that missing Link from Hundreds of Thousands
of years ago. But God explains everything that's always the Excuse.
Here we go again,,,Plants have evolved Fact,,,,,Animals have evolved
Fact,,,,The Planet has evolved Fact,,,Humans have evolved.

PS,,,Try this with 25 to 35 people you line everybody up or put them in
or a circle then whisper just 3or4 lines about anything that makes
sense then the first person will whisper it to the next one and the
next will do the same till you get to the End,,,,by the time the last
person repeats what the First one said it will be so Twisted that
it won't make sence! My point is that the bible your bible was
written so long after it had all happened that the storys it tells
can not be all true.And as far that goes all great stories need
a great ending enter the Book of Revaluations if I spelled it right?
But I guess your gonna say I'm out of my F###### Head right?

I've actually said it's pretty obvious that evolution on a micro scale exists.

Believing ID is wrong, but possible, is much different than simply dismissing it as an impossibility.

Your data for it being "ridiculous"?

If you see an animal with 4 hooves, it gallops around, has a tail, neighs, and eats grass do you call it a unicorn that's missing a horn? Or do you do what most sane people do and call it a horse?

If you see an animal with 4 hooves, it gallops around, has a tail, neighs, and eats grass do you call it a unicorn that's missing a horn? Or do you do what most sane people do and call it a horse?If it's a horse, I call it a horse.

If you see that animal, and see one standing next to it with an incredibly long neck, do you assume they both had similar ancestors and one mutated out with a group of others that had virtually the exact same genetic mutation, and thus thrived in one area while the other moved on and thrived in another - or do you just see two similar looking animals with one big difference?

If it's a horse, I call it a horse.

But how can you prove it is not a unicorn? It is, after all, just a horse that has a magic explanation.

But how can you prove it is not a unicorn? It is, after all, just a horse that has a magic explanation.I answered yours, you answer mine:If you see that animal, and see one standing next to it with an incredibly long neck, do you assume they both had similar ancestors and one mutated out with a group of others that had virtually the exact same genetic mutation, and thus thrived in one area while the other moved on and thrived in another - or do you just see two similar looking animals with one big difference?

If you see that animal, and see one standing next to it with an incredibly long neck, do you assume they both had similar ancestors and one mutated out with a group of others that had virtually the exact same genetic mutation, and thus thrived in one area while the other moved on and thrived in another - or do you just see two similar looking animals with one big difference?

Both. Humans and chimps share 98-99% of our genetic code, yet we are drastically different creatures. If such a small mutation can create that big of a difference, a longer neck should be simple.

I think your missing a little of what I meant. The round earth thing was just an analogy. Is it difficult to determine what is true? I think you can look at evidence to make a determination that one is more true than the others. While that evidence may not prove 100%, it will provide REASONABLE answers to the question.
Evidence. Exactly. My point was that evidence is often ignored in religion in favor of some old books and people who are unwilling to accept new findings. If the Vatican refutes that the earth is round for hundreds of years after it's commonly accepted elsewhere, then you don't see some sort of problem or disconnect? I just take the Vatican as an example since it's basically the most known religious leaders.

If you see an animal with 4 hooves, it gallops around, has a tail, neighs, and eats grass do you call it a unicorn that's missing a horn? Or do you do what most sane people do and call it a horse?

:killingme thank you for making my life easier on this one

Both. Humans and chimps share 98-99% of our genetic code, yet we are drastically different creatures. If such a small mutation can create that big of a difference, a longer neck should be simple.Should be, but they aren't considered to have evolved from the same line.

Cows and whales, yes. Horses and giraffes, no.

Unless you want to take it back far enough. Then, you, me and the ficus in my office all evolved from the same ancestor.

But how can you prove it is not a unicorn? It is, after all, just a horse that has a magic explanation.I'm not sure what you're driving at. Why would I try and prove something that's not there in evidence, without actively trying to research it?

Evidence. Exactly. My point was that evidence is often ignored in religion in favor of some old books and people who are unwilling to accept new findings. If the Vatican refutes that the earth is round for hundreds of years after it's commonly accepted elsewhere, then you don't see some sort of problem or disconnect? I just take the Vatican as an example since it's basically the most known religious leaders.Yet, take Nuck earlier in this thread - the Big Bang theory is conceived due to scientific investigation by a science professor (who happens to also be Catholic), peer reviewed by scientists and eventually given a thumbs up by even one of the most skeptic scientists (Einstein). It's the basic scientific belief, even held in higher esteem as the likely right answer than macro evolution among scientists.

But, the Vatican bought into it almost immediately, and the scientist who discovered and documented it originally was a Catholic priest, and therefore Nuck assumes it to be wrong (among others).

This lack of ability to be open minded goes both ways......

I'm not sure what you're driving at. Why would I try and prove something that's not there in evidence, without actively trying to research it?

Just giving an example...there's evidence that Jesus walked on water? And i'm not talking about books or the stories of a few people. I'm talking about hard evidence that can be researched and proven.

Just giving an example...there's evidence that Jesus walked on water? And i'm not talking about books or the stories of a few people. I'm talking about hard evidence that can be researched and proven.I'm missing the relevance to a faith based story about an individual, and the concept of Darwin vs. a potential intelligent designer of the universe.

You know that ID doesn't require the designer to be the Christian God, nor Genesis to be correct, right?

I'm not sure what you're driving at. Why would I try and prove something that's not there in evidence, without actively trying to research it?

Because that is the argument you have used this entire thread. You can clearly observe evolution is taking place, or has taken place (See: fossils) aka horse. But you are making a wild conjecture that something magic has a hand in all this, aka unicorn. All in all this is an argument for Occam's razor with relation to Evolution vs ID. However the same argument can be applied to god, and almost everything religious.

Should be, but they aren't considered to have evolved from the same line.

Cows and whales, yes. Horses and giraffes, no.

Unless you want to take it back far enough. Then, you, me and the ficus in my office all evolved from the same ancestor.

If you put enough monkeys in a room with enough type writers for long enough you will eventually get Shakespeare.

I'm missing the relevance to a faith based story about an individual, and the concept of Darwin vs. a potential intelligent designer of the universe.

You know that ID doesn't require the designer to be the Christian God, nor Genesis to be correct, right?

Dunno about that. It was a theory developed by Discovery Institute and they basically say the designer is the Christian God. It was developed as a way to attempt to legitimize Creationism as a theory to be taught by schools. The timing or founding theorists aren't at all a coincidence.

Because that is the argument you have used this entire thread. You can clearly observe evolution is taking place, or has taken place (See: fossils) aka horse. But you are making a wild conjecture that something magic has a hand in all this, aka unicorn. All in all this is an argument for Occam's razor with relation to Evolution vs ID. However the same argument can be applied to god, and almost everything religious.All I'm suggesting is that it's possible.

I argue against the idea that simple evolution answers all questions because there are far too many holes for that to be the case.

I agrue that ID is possible. Again, please explain the source of the material from which the universe arose without there being something beyond our universe. It simply can't be done on a scientific basis. The origins of the universe have to be from something other than the universe. This implies there is more than the known universe, implying the existence of "super"natural entities. This implies the possibility of far more than our understanding can "prove" within the boundaries of the universe.

If you put enough monkeys in a room with enough type writers for long enough you will eventually get Shakespeare.As witty and applicable as it is original.

Dunno about that. It was a theory developed by Discovery Institute and they basically say the designer is the Christian God. It was developed as a way to attempt to legitimize Creationism as a theory to be taught by schools. The timing or founding theorists aren't at all a coincidence.Those individuals may believe that way. They may have even put the name on a theory.

The theory doesn't require it, though.

[QUOTE=foodcritic;3896510]



[QUOTE]So let me get this straight Adam&Eve had some kids Cain and Abel and2or3 others then how do you explain such a wide range of Skin Colors
and Ethic backgrounds?

Yes. And to make more intriguing they must have married their siblings....

And it has not been proven that there was global flooding,,,
Ok their is significant evidence supporting flood. As well as various religious history of flood stories.

,Fact and the Bible contradicts itself,,,,Fact! That is a matter of interpretation.

You guys always say that we can't find the missing link yet when Moses took the Israelites into the dessert for Forty Years we can't even find
a campfire pit or bones,dishes and so on and so on. One has nothing to do with the other.

Yet we have found that we are getting closer to that missing Link from Hundreds of Thousands of years ago. But God explains everything that's always the Excuse. Here we go again,,,Plants have evolved Fact,,,,,Animals have evolved Fact,,,,The Planet has evolved Fact,,,Humans have evolved.

Closer to your missing link.? :killingme What in the world does that mean?


PS,,,Try this with 25 to 35 people you line everybody up or put them in
or a circle then whisper just 3or4 lines about anything that makes
sense then the first person will whisper it to the next one and the
next will do the same till you get to the End,,,,by the time the last
person repeats what the First one said it will be so Twisted that
it won't make sence! My point is that the bible your bible was
written so long after it had all happened that the storys it tells
can not be all true.

This is exactly why the bible proves it reliability. OT and NT. As these books were written, they spread and were copied. Thankfully many many manuscripts have been found. And what they found was that these individual books were the same. Great care was taken to reproduce these books. This provideds additional proof of their authenticity.

And as far that goes all great stories need a great ending enter the Book of Revaluations if I spelled it right? But I guess your gonna say I'm out of my F###### Head right? No, you didn't spell it right.
:whistle:

As witty and applicable as it is original.

So, randomness and probability is not applicable to how random genetic mutations produce different creatures over a large period of time? And to think you called me closed minded. :killingme

[QUOTE=lewis7lewis;3896826]

This is exactly why the bible proves it reliability. OT and NT. As these books were written, they spread and were copied. Thankfully many many manuscripts have been found. And what they found was that these individual books were the same. Great care was taken to reproduce these books. This provideds additional proof of their authenticity.


I agree that they written books were taken very good care of, and interpreted from the written language to modern language with great care.

My issue with this is, they were written by man. Yes, I understand, they are written by man but are the words of god. A few problems are, why leave out the other books? If your reading a modern novel, do you just cut out chapters, something very important could be in those missing chapters. Also, the fact that it was written by man, to me means its been corrupted. Before you lose it, hear me out. Modern day people, when writing something are not going to write verbatim. Words are going to change, things left out. People are very untrustworthy. Now, this did not happen over night. I'm willing to bet, that people back then were just as conniving, and in it for themselves just as they are today. So, when whoever wrote, what ever book, he changes it to make things better or worse. The "Word of God" is not corrupted, and tainted.

So, randomness and probability is not applicable to how random genetic mutations produce different creatures over a large period of time? And to think you called me closed minded. :killingmeCould those monkeys create a universe from nothing?

Life from lifelessness?


Yes, randomness supports genetic mutations.

So, let's follow that - for the genetic mutation (per evolution) to be an answer, it would have to require a few things
the mutated offspring would have to either reproduce with others that have an identically randomly mutated offspring, or that mutation would have to be a dominant characteristic for it to be liekly to make it to the next generation
the mutation would have to somehow still allow for the likelihood of reproduction, even in the higher order species that choose mates
to not have the mutation simply dilute out, others of the same species, in the same area, at the same point in time would need to have virtually exactly the same mutation so their offspring could mate and keep the diversity viable in the gene pool
the mutation would have to be advantageous to the life form, while the "parent" or unmutated lives are still able to flourish (to allow for the timeframe required for significant enough generations to occur to provide for the full splitting effect)


What do you suppose the probablity of that is? Now, add to that the probability that the life formed in the first place. Now, add to that the probability that the universe formed in the first place from no source material whatsoever, all without something from an extra-universal source.


Shakespeare in reverse in pig-latin in 16 bit hexidecimal code, from one monkey in one hour. There's your likelihood.

Could those monkeys create a universe from nothing?

Life from lifelessness?


Yes, randomness supports genetic mutations.

So, let's follow that - for the genetic mutation (per evolution) to be an answer, it would have to require a few things
the mutated offspring would have to either reproduce with others that have an identically randomly mutated offspring, or that mutation would have to be a dominant characteristic for it to be liekly to make it to the next generation
the mutation would have to somehow still allow for the likelihood of reproduction, even in the higher order species that choose mates
to not have the mutation simply dilute out, others of the same species, in the same area, at the same point in time would need to have virtually exactly the same mutation so their offspring could mate and keep the diversity viable in the gene pool
the mutation would have to be advantageous to the life form, while the "parent" or unmutated lives are still able to flourish (to allow for the timeframe required for significant enough generations to occur to provide for the full splitting effect)


What do you suppose the probablity of that is? Now, add to that the probability that the life formed in the first place. Now, add to that the probability that the universe formed in the first place from no source material whatsoever, all without something from an extra-universal source.


Shakespeare in reverse in pig-latin in 16 bit hexidecimal code, from one monkey in one hour. There's your likelihood.

It's called time. This happens over billions of years. Add in the fact that not every species takes 9 months to gestate, or die in 80 years, and its a surprise it didn't happen sooner.

Could those monkeys create a universe from nothing?

I thought we were talking about evolution, yet you keep trying to change the subject.

[QUOTE=lewis7lewis;3896826][QUOTE=foodcritic;3896510]





Yes. And to make more intriguing they must have married their siblings....



you better not say that around here unless you are ready for a fight, This_Person says the book says there were lots of other "tribes" for them to marry. :killingme

It's called time. This happens over billions of years. So, what is the date of first life?

I thought we were talking about evolution, yet you keep trying to change the subject.Okay, for evolution to have occurred, where did the first life come from to start the process of advancement via mutation?

So, what is the date of first life?

Timeline of evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution)

Okay, for evolution to have occurred, where did the first life come from to start the process of advancement via mutation?

Is it a horse or a unicorn?

So, what is the date of first life?

What is the date that Adam miraculously appeared on earth?

Timeline of evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution)According to the be all and end all of knowledge (Wikipedia), life forms with exceptionally short lifespans and therefore rapd evolution rates took 2.8 billion years (give or take, apparently) to make it to multicellular life.

Then, as the process of evolution would necessarily slow down due to longer and longer lifespans/generations, evolution sped up and complex animals formed in about 400 millions years.

Now,we're really slowed down the process due to exponentially increasing generational turnarounds, so the process gets even faster, and the complexity of animals, plants, etc., all form in an explosion of evolution that takes just millions of years.

Yep, the slower the likelihood of evolution, the faster it occurs.

I see why you follow this.

wait, what?

Is it a horse or a unicorn?Your fixation with a mythical creature is worrisome.

What is the date that Adam miraculously appeared on earth?You're asking me to justify something I'm not postulating as the answer. Why?

Adam is from a group of specific religious faiths. Why would that be pertinent to this discussion?

According to the be all and end all of knowledge (Wikipedia), life forms with exceptionally short lifespans and therefore rapd evolution rates took 2.8 billion years (give or take, apparently) to make it to multicellular life.

Then, as the process of evolution would necessarily slow down due to longer and longer lifespans/generations, evolution sped up and complex animals formed in about 400 millions years.

Now,we're really slowed down the process due to exponentially increasing generational turnarounds, so the process gets even faster, and the complexity of animals, plants, etc., all form in an explosion of evolution that takes just millions of years.

Yep, the slower the likelihood of evolution, the faster it occurs.

I see why you follow this.

wait, what?

True, magic is a much better explanation.

Your fixation with a mythical creature is worrisome.

Yours is worse.

True, magic is a much better explanation.Personally, I don't support magic as an explaination.

Yours is worse.

but yours is stupid because it is with an imaginary horse with a horn, while TP's is obvious truth because his is with an imaginary human like spirit that can control everything, yet fails to do anything, promises eternal life, but you have to die to get it, and created everything out of nothing, but has no explaination of where he may have come from. Oh, and it was all in a book :sarcasm:

You're asking me to justify something I'm not postulating as the answer. Why?

Adam is from a group of specific religious faiths. Why would that be pertinent to this discussion?

It was in reference to your argument of when the first life form appeared on earth.

It was in reference to your argument of when the first life form appeared on earth.But, I suggest ID as a potential alternative to undirected evolution.

That does not suggest Adam as the alternative.

:bullshiat: Many cultures have some form of Flood Please take the Christian story bashing to another thread - this one is about a show coming on regarding Darwin!






:lol:

Did Dinosaurs and Man co-exist?Which dinasours?

Which man?

Do alligators and coelacanths exist today, or do they not count?

But, I suggest ID as a potential alternative to undirected evolution.

That does not suggest Adam as the alternative.

The question was rhetorical. Not totally directed at you, but for the argument in general.

The question was rhetorical. Not totally directed at you, but for the argument in general.
Fair enough.

If we're going to discuss the Bible, specifically, as a source of scientific knowledge vs evolution - well, we'll both lose because they're both religions that have no real basis in sound scientific process. The main argument of each is "well, we're around, so something happened, and I say it's this" from a scientific point of view.

My only point regarding ID is that it offers all of the science of evolution with even more options as potential answers.

Kinda This_Person has invented this entire other city, that no one has ever heard of, nor is it described in the Bible, to explain the diversity. (even though Genesis 3:20 disputes this)You and Thatidiot brothers?

I merely suggested a potential alternative to Cain's wife being his sister - since it says just as much about Cain having a sister to marry as it does about further creation beyond Adam and Eve. Well, that's not true, it suggests by context clues that other people were created than Adam and Eve (Gen 2:18 and Gen 2:20), and the idea of Gen 3:20 combined with the story of Noah (not left alone) makes it true either way.

But, you believe as you will. I don't need to know where Cain's wife came from and don't suggest an alternative as the ONLY alternative to incest. I don't NEED to know where she came from - it doesn't effect the story.

Poetic licenses much? Lematre was an active, practicing ordained Catholic Priest, who developed the Big Bang theory that was approved by the Catholic churchNo poetic license. You merely edit out the pertinent parts.

While he was a priest, he wasn't practicing - he was a college professor. While the theory was embraced by teh Catholic Church, it was FIRST embraced by scientific peer review (and I've shown you where he asked "the church" to stop being so vocally emphatic about the theory, as it was NOT a religious theory but a scientific one).

So, no, I don't practice poetic license muchThat isnt the reason i stated it was wrong, I stated the universe always was. I just pointed out that the Big Bang theory was created and approved by the Catholic Church because it coincides with their story of Genesis.Both of those positions, though, don't hold up to the most minimal of scrutiny.

So you admit to inventing this entire other civilization that no one has ever heard of, and isnt described in the Bible (yet Genesis disputes your story)?Not at all.

Please reread the post I made.

Nice try did Man and the T-Rex exist at the same time?You're asking me to verify something based on fossil records.

The same fossil records that are only off by 65 million years on coelacanths?

Given the timeframe of +/- 65 million years, and the wiki source provided earlier, dinosaurs exist today.

Now, I don't personally think t-rex exists today, but that's the certainty of the science provided in this thread.

The question wasnt originally asked of you, you decided to enter this conversation. I asked Beta You didn't like my answer? :lol:I made the question simpler for you, did Man and the T-Rex coexist at the same time? Heres some more for you to answer with your circular logi
Did man and :
Tyrannosaurus Rex exist at the same time?
Triceratops exist at the same time?
Velociraptors exist at the same time?
Ankylosaurus exist at the same time?
Stegosaurus exist at the same time?
Hell theres to many go here (simple resource) how many of these existed with mankind?Again, given the answer must come from fossil records, and the scientific interpretation of fossil records demonstrates a variable in accuracy of +/- 65,000,000 years, the only reasonable answer is that those creatures could exist today.

I don't think they do exist today, but that's within the accuracy of the scientifically reviewed data.

You didn't like my answer? :lol:Again, given the answer must come from fossil records, and the scientific interpretation of fossil records demonstrates a variable in accuracy of +/- 65,000,000 years, the only reasonable answer is that those creatures could exist today.

I don't think they do exist today, but that's within the accuracy of the scientifically reviewed data.

Great source. Unfortunately it is 100% untrue. In fact most modern fossil dating is accurate to the 1000 of years.
Accuracy of Fossils and Dating Methods (ActionBioscience) (http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html)

Every few years, new geologic time scales are published, providing the latest dates for major time lines. Older dates may change by a few million years up and down, but younger dates are stable. For example, it has been known since the 1960s that the famous Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, the line marking the end of the dinosaurs, was 65 million years old. Repeated recalibrations and retests, using ever more sophisticated techniques and equipment, cannot shift that date. It is accurate to within a few thousand years. With modern, extremely precise, methods, error bars are often only 1% or so.

Great source. Unfortunately it is 100% untrue. In fact most modern fossil dating is accurate to the 1000 of years.
Accuracy of Fossils and Dating Methods (ActionBioscience) (http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html)
So, when we were sure the coelacanths died out 65 million years ago, which fossil dating technique were we using?

Great source. Unfortunately it is 100% untrue. In fact most modern fossil dating is accurate to the 1000 of years.
Accuracy of Fossils and Dating Methods (ActionBioscience)Of course, there's always the Wollemi pine, the ginkgo tree, the okapi, etc., etc.


Of course, grass certainly didn't devolop until dinasours died out. That was the gospel truth until grass was found in dinasour dung.


With certainty like that......

Not really sure why your having such a problem answer a simple question.

Let me try again.

I've answered it. Repeatedly.

Based on the accuracy of the science, these animals still exist today.

I disagree with the accuracy of the science, but that's what it tells anyone wondering.

Did the dating prove the Coelacanths died out 65 million years ago, or that the coelacanth fossil they were testing was 65 million years old?

You do realize the difference?

Do you understand the Coelacanth fossil they dated as being 65 million years old was a species of Coelacanth? The ones found off the coast of Africa was an evolved speciman from that animal.

You defeat your argument when you show a sucessfull evolutionary link.And, the differences in the 65 million year old fossil and the living creature? Effectively nil.

You defeat your argument when you show that we can't figure out within the accuracy of 65 millions years whether a species still exists.

You further defeat your argument when you demonstrate animals that exist with a virtual evolutionary standstill for hundreds of millions of years, like
Alligators
Crocidiles
Army ants
A sea lilly called a crinoid
Dragonflies
Horseshoe Crabs
The Laotian rock rat
Salamanders
Sturgeon
A lizard called the tuatara
Velvet worms

You answered it with the typical This_Person circular answer. You didnt answer whether you believe Man and :
Tyrannosaurus Rex exist at the same time?
Triceratops exist at the same time?
Velociraptors exist at the same time?
Ankylosaurus exist at the same time?
Stegosaurus exist at the same time?I'll provide the same answer, reworded to meet your criteria.


No
No
No
No
NO
but, the science provides that these creatures are as likely to exist today as not, based on an inaccuracy of +/- 65 million years in being able to identify when a species died out.

And, the differences in the 65 million year old fossil and the living creature? Effectively nil.

You defeat your argument when you show that we can't figure out within the accuracy of 65 millions years whether a species still exists.

You further defeat your argument when you demonstrate animals that exist with a virtual evolutionary standstill for hundreds of millions of years, like
Alligators
Crocidiles
Army ants
A sea lilly called a crinoid
Dragonflies
Horseshoe Crabs
The Laotian rock rat
Salamanders
Sturgeon
A lizard called the tuatara
Velvet worms


So species are required to die out over time for evolution to hold? Where are you getting this idea? It sounds like this is more of a argument that evolution is working to me.

but the jews certainly do, and their book has stood a much longer and more grueling test of time.....:bigwhoop:
Their book is part of our book but without the clarifications in it. They just refuse to believe in the man that the OT spoke about thousands of years before he came on the scene.
In Genesis 1v26 God said: "Let us make man in our image..." The "us" part is explained fully in the NT.
Your going to say that the Bible is absolute, 100% true to the word? So, at in the book of Genesis, people were living to be a few hundred years old.
When Noah built his Ark, he had one pair of every species of animal on it. Lets assume here, that the Ark was built in the area of modern day Jerusalem. How does a Tasmanian Devil, which lives specifically on one island adjacent to Australia, make the journey to Jerusalem?
How can you take the Bible to be Absolute, when the Preachers, Priests, and all other church people who are suppose to be the experts, and teach us, don't agree on the "Interpretation" of the Bible? How also can you take it to be absolute, when there were books lefts out of the Bible by the church?
I should have followed your signature line but oh well...
Nothing was left out of the Bible. You have left faith out of the equation.
Without faith in God's power to make all these things happen, OF COURSE you can't get your questions answered. With God all things are possible but you choose not to believe this.
P.S. The first humans were all Republicans that's why God let them live to over 900 years old. Once the Democrats came into being, God shortened their lifespan... :howdy:
So What dose that prove your no Theologian I'm sure and just because,,, You believe in something dosn't make it So ,,,and just because you Don't,,,dosn't mean it's not True. That goes for Reglion,UFOs,Bigfoot and so on and so on!Look genius the Bible was written by authors unknown,,,Fact....Storys left out of the Bible,,,,,,,,,Fact....It was written centurys later,,,,Fact. The problem is that anytime that anything gets written down people figure it must be true or why else would somebody have written it. PS,,,You know what they say about God don't you,,,He's an invisible friend for grown up's!
Typical person with no faith...
Your spelling causes me to believe in God more and more. You're lucky Darwin was wrong....

So let me get this straight Adam&Eve had some kids Cain and Abel and
2or3 others then how do you explain such a wide range of Skin Colors
and Ethic backgrounds?And it has not been proven that there was
global flooding,,,,Fact and the Bible contradicts itself,,,,Fact! You guys
always say that we can't find the missing link yet when Moses took
the Israelites into the dessert for Forty Years we can't even find
a campfire pit or bones,dishes and so on and so on.Yet we have found
that we are getting closer to that missing Link from Hundreds of Thousands
of years ago. But God explains everything that's always the Excuse.
Tower of Babel, worldwide flooding was proven, no Bible contradictions just a lack of understanding from you, the missing link is your brain, archaeologists are finding Bible artifacts regularly. Anything else? Bring it on...

PS,,,Try this with 25 to 35 people you line everybody up or put them in
or a circle then whisper just 3or4 lines about anything that makes
sense then the first person will whisper it to the next one and the
next will do the same till you get to the End,,,,by the time the last
person repeats what the First one said it will be so Twisted that
it won't make sence! My point is that the bible your bible was
written so long after it had all happened that the storys it tells
can not be all true.And as far that goes all great stories need
a great ending enter the Book of Revaluations if I spelled it right?

Only true if you leave God out... :nono:
Timeline of evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution)
What fool bases his faulty info on Wikipedia??? :killingme

How could Noah have gathered male and female of each kind [Gen. 7:15-16] when some species are asexual, others are parthenogenic and have only females, and others (such as earthworms) are hermaphrodites?
And what about social animals like ants and termites which need the whole nest to survive?[/list]
The total amount of water carried for the animals would have sunk the ark. The aquarium for a pair of whales genus, would have sunk the ark many times.
Some animals, like sloths and penguins, can't travel overland very well at all.
Some, animals like koalas and many insects, require a special diet. How did they bring it along?
Many plants (seeds and all) would be killed by being submerged for a few months.
Noah could not have gathered seeds for all plants because not all plants produce seeds, and a variety of plant seeds can't survive a year before germinating.
Also, how did he distribute them all over the world?
How did predators survive? How could more than a handful of the predator species on the ark have survived, with only two individuals of their prey to eat? And if the predators survived, how did the other animals survive being preyed on?
How did animals get to their present ranges? How did koalas get from Ararat to Australia, polar bears to the Arctic, etc.,
According to the account in the bible, every mountain to was covered with water, Mt Everest is just a little over 29,000 ft above sea level
Where did the water come from?
Where did the water go?
water doesn't just disappear, once here always here, it just changes form from gas to liquid to a solid. So if there was enough water to flood the whole earth, it would still be here today, and if it were here today, we would still be under water. Even if all the ice melted there would not be enough flood the whole planet.
The answer to all your questions is GOD but, since you factor Him out, you'll never understand. Scientists and people will fumble and look foolish trying to disprove what God has written and done. How silly of humans to try.
If I, as a layman, read a book on major medical procedures, I would only understand a small part of it because I'm not a doctor. I wouldn't have the right or desire to say it was wrong, flawed or made up in any way. The Bible is just such a book to you so why don't you accept this and leave it alone?
If God can make powerful meat eating beasts be docile in Heaven after this life, why whould it have been hard for Him to sustain them in the Ark?

Gone one day and look what happens.

~ ~ ~
This person All things? Including a supreme being?I am a Deist.

Originally Posted by BeHereNow
Here's how I would say it.
The easier an organism is able to live, and procreate in it's environemnt, the closer it is to perfection.

This_PersonYOUR version of perfection.

Why would that necessarily be someone else's version of perfection?

I suggest that an individual lives, so that the species might live, and the species lives for its own sake.
The reason for a species existing, is simply so it can exist.
This is, it seems to me, indisputable.

There may be other reasons as well, but these are secondary.
If there is another reason, such as (to glorify god), or (to lead to another species), or (to help another species to prosper), none of these can occur if the species does not exist, so it must exist. The is the primary, and it seem to me, indisputable reason for a species existence.

If it does not exist, it cannot fulfill any secondary purpose.

If you want to say maybe the existence is ‘meant’ to be temporary, then you are assuming something not in evidence.


This_Person But, you're defining the success or failure. By defining the success and failure, you are assuming an intent, a purpose, a reason. Back up, and don't assume YOU know the reason for the species longevity. If you're not presumptuous in that way, you can be more objective. Existence is its own reason, first and foremost.
This is not assuming anything, it is merely observing objective reality.

The longevity of a species is dependent on its ability to survive in the environment, as it occurs naturally or as it has been modified by the species.
This is a truism, and assumes nothing.
This is objective. To assume there is more, is subjective.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Im_Me I agree to a degree...It really comes down to the fact that faith can be supported by logic and science but it is neither science or logic. I think I see an active and loving Creator in the same things that indicate to you that there is not one.
Those thing which are known not by logic/science, not by faith, are intuited.
The mind can intuit truth.

Your confusion is vast, and thanfully it can be helped. The Colecanth that was dated as being 65 million years old, was believed to be extinct solely because there wasnt any evidence of any species surviving.So, we were unable to find 65,000,000 years worth of fossils of an existing species, yet you think the fossils we find hold any value?

See, I understand the fossil dated was dated properly. I understand the current animals are the current animals. My point is, we're too unaware of what's gone on the last 65 million years, why would there be any faith in the fossil records?

If someone were to tell you they are an expert on car companies, and they haven't found any evidence of Ford Motor Company vehicles in two decades, would you really trust anything else they had to say on their area of "expertise"?Just because something existed 65 million years ago, does not mean it still doesnt (You forgot Whales, and Great Whites in your list).

And there is no correalation between the animals listed above and their evolutionary state. You further expand on your failure to understand what evolution is.

While the animals you listed above existed, they are not the same back then and todays variants. They have evolved, just as the Colecanth.Actually, they are virtually unchanged in hundreds of millions of years.

Apparently, they are immune to evolution.

So species are required to die out over time for evolution to hold? Where are you getting this idea? It sounds like this is more of a argument that evolution is working to me.Animals and plants not evolving for hundreds of millions of years is proof of evolution?

By that logic, lack of finding Atlantis is pure proof positive it existed. Not finding it in the Chesapeake Bay proves that's where it was. :killingme

This_Person Actually, they are virtually unchanged in hundreds of millions of years.

Apparently, they are immune to evolution.
Evolution has no requirements.
It does not 'requiere' living things to change, or become extinct.
It is an explanation of how thing change to adapt to an environment, and sometime that change means extinction.

You sometimes like to play 'what ifs', so let me try one on you.
What if the internal organs changed (mutated possibly), allowing completely different food sources, but externally they remained the same.
If they did, this would be an example of evolution at work, and evidence to show it would be virtually impossible to demonstrate.

We can expect that evironments will change drastically, and some organisms will adapt, some will die out, and some will pack their bags and move to a friendlier environment.
Nothing in evolution says all organisms are expected to become extinct.
As it turns out, many of them have.
By the time earth is no longer habitable for mankind, we may well be at another location.
And of course there is the cockroach, that seems to florish nearly everywhere. We will probably take them with us, unintentionallyh of course.

Did Dinosaurs and Man co-exist?
I don't know. Why are you asking me? I'm not a scientist. It's possible, sure. But did they? Who knows. I think man was put in one of the later eras closer to stuff like the saber tooth tiger and whatnot, instead of during the era of the colossal dinosaurs. That's just based off memory though. I think it's possible, but not a definitive yes.

Their book is part of our book but without the clarifications in it. They just refuse to believe in the man that the OT spoke about thousands of years before he came on the scene.
In Genesis 1v26 God said: "Let us make man in our image..." The "us" part is explained fully in the NT.
The Jews don't believe in Jesus as the son of God or the messiah because he didn't fulfill the prophecies that were expected of him. He is considered a prophet, but NOT the son of God or the messiah. :yay:

P.S. The first humans were all Republicans that's why God let them live to over 900 years old. Once the Democrats came into being, God shortened their lifespan... :howdy:

I presume you mean present day Democrats and Republicans? Since, of course, the present day parties have basically flip-flopped during your lifetime (or thereabouts), slick. :crazy:



Tower of Babel, worldwide flooding was proven, no Bible contradictions just a lack of understanding from you, the missing link is your brain, archaeologists are finding Bible artifacts regularly. Anything else? Bring it on...

I don't know if it's necessarily true that the flooding was "worldwide", nor did it have to be "worldwide". Why? Because most of the stuff in the Bible seemed to have the world on a pretty small scale. The world wasn't all that large to them, so the flooding really only needed to be a specific area, which there is indeed evidence of flooding in that general vicinity.

As for other artifacts from the Bible...well geez dude, no crap! That doesn't mean all of the events actually happened though. Even if they found the exact described sandal in the exact location where they said Jesus lost it after he walked on water, that DOESNT mean he actually walked on water! Or well, I guess he could have walked through a puddle. They might find the cup where he turned water into wine, but it doesn't mean he didn't add some powdered substance like Crystal Light!

My point is, same as the one I made before that was avoided, the artifacts SHOULD come up because these books were written and probably relatively accurate in a historical perspective. But that doesn't mean the stories they wrote were 100% true. I question that for all religions including my own...but I'm sure various artifacts are pulled up with any and all of the religious books (cept for Dianetics!)


What fool bases his faulty info on Wikipedia??? :killingme

Wikipedia may not be perfect, but most of their stuff is at least useful for discussion. Discrediting his argument on what appears to be a good link (if you actually click on it) is just a coward's way of trying to avoid an argument.

Evolution has no requirements.
It does not 'requiere' living things to change, or become extinct.
It is an explanation of how thing change to adapt to an environment, and sometime that change means extinction.It may not "require" change, but lack of change over hundreds of millions of years, during which time other species supposedly changed drastically and evolved into significantly more complex beings, seems to suggest that random mutations are SO random they skip some species altogether. That time is the explaination for the gradual, virtually unnoticable changes over many generations but when considered in the millions of years it does matter - it doesn't matter.

It tends to shed doubt on the concept of evolution on a macro scale. The species we were sure were extinct for tens of millions of years (and come to find out really aren't) sheds doubt on our ability to come to conclusions based on fossil records. Species who look something alike (horses and giraffes) but do not appear to have followed the same evolutionary chain - they just look alike - tends to shed doubt on the assumption of evolutionary chain.

None of this proves anything. That's one of my points - there is no proof whatsoever that evolution occured on a macro scale.

It may not "require" change, but lack of change over hundreds of millions of years, during which time other species supposedly changed drastically and evolved into significantly more complex beings, seems to suggest that random mutations are SO random they skip some species altogether. That time is the explaination for the gradual, virtually unnoticable changes over many generations but when considered in the millions of years it does matter - it doesn't matter.

It tends to shed doubt on the concept of evolution on a macro scale. The species we were sure were extinct for tens of millions of years (and come to find out really aren't) sheds doubt on our ability to come to conclusions based on fossil records. Species who look something alike (horses and giraffes) but do not appear to have followed the same evolutionary chain - they just look alike - tends to shed doubt on the assumption of evolutionary chain.

None of this proves anything. That's one of my points - there is no proof whatsoever that evolution occured on a macro scale.
Look, in science there is no proof for anythng.
You think the sun will rise tomorrow? Prove it!
You thing the sun rose today? Prove it wasn't mass hysteria.
You think you exist? Prove it.
There is convincing evidence, or not.

Was the earth and universe created in 7 days, the convincing evidence is that it took much longer.
Were all species created out of mud or dirt, the convincing evidence is that they were not.
Is macro evolutions a sound, viable principle? The overwhelming evidence is convincing that it is.

Do aliens shape life forms on earth? The convincing evidence says no.

Did transpermia start life on earth? The verdict is out, no convincing evidence either way. Has nothing to do with evolution anyway.

You can't prove anything, and neither can I.
Try it if you doubt me. I can always give an alternate explanation that questions the 'proof' you provide.

Enough evidence and a reasonable person is convinced.
Through logic out the window and nothing and everything is convincing.

Look, in science there is no proof for anythng.
You think the sun will rise tomorrow? Prove it!
You thing the sun rose today? Prove it wasn't mass hysteria.
You think you exist? Prove it.
There is convincing evidence, or not.These are philosophy class questions, not science questionsWas the earth and universe created in 7 days, the convincing evidence is that it took much longer.
Were all species created out of mud or dirt, the convincing evidence is that they were not.I'll buy your argument about 7 days. Of course, the definition of "day" at a time when there was no sun to revolve around, no way to judge time, is certainly a question, but I'll still buy your argument about 7 days. Again, that is a specific group of religions' explaination, not ID's definition.

However, I take exception to teh argument that we were not all "created" out of mud or dirt - especially the mud part. What were the conditions on earth when life first formed? By most scientific assumptions, we were a pretty mucky planet, and the building blocks to form the life that spawned all living things would have come from the stuff that made that muck up. Seems we were all created, therefore, out of mud.Is macro evolutions a sound, viable principle? The overwhelming evidence is convincing that it is.And it's good you have that religion to hold onto. The "evidence" consists of fragments pieced together with assumptions. And, even those pieces have holes.

Micro evolution - dandy. Macro evolution - religion.Do aliens shape life forms on earth? The convincing evidence says no.What convincing evidence? Huge, unexplained spurts of intellectual growth in humans? Holes in evolutionary chains? The fact that we may have found alien microbes in martian asteroids (http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/articles/scientists-find-evidence-of-ancient-microbial-life-on-mars/)?

The compelling evidence is - we don't know.Did transpermia start life on earth? The verdict is out, no convincing evidence either way. Has nothing to do with evolution anyway.

You can't prove anything, and neither can I.
Try it if you doubt me. I can always give an alternate explanation that questions the 'proof' you provide.I provide no proof. I suggest we not eliminate one theory because some people have a religious aversion to it.

Their book is part of our book but without the clarifications in it. They just refuse to believe in the man that the OT spoke about thousands of years before he came on the scene.
In Genesis 1v26 God said: "Let us make man in our image..." The "us" part is explained fully in the NT.

:nono: you were trying to make the argument that YOUR BOOK has stood that test of time and that is how we know it is the most valid. However, the torah has clearly been around longer, and the "true believers" in that religion say you are praying to a false god.

your book is nothing more than the equivelent of the book of mormon when compared to the torah :bigwhoop:

These are philosophy class questions, not science questionsI'll buy your argument about 7 days. Of course, the definition of "day" at a time when there was no sun to revolve around, no way to judge time, is certainly a question, but I'll still buy your argument about 7 days. Again, that is a specific group of religions' explaination, not ID's definition.

However, I take exception to teh argument that we were not all "created" out of mud or dirt - especially the mud part. What were the conditions on earth when life first formed? By most scientific assumptions, we were a pretty mucky planet, and the building blocks to form the life that spawned all living things would have come from the stuff that made that muck up. Seems we were all created, therefore, out of mud.And it's good you have that religion to hold onto. The "evidence" consists of fragments pieced together with assumptions. And, even those pieces have holes.

Micro evolution - dandy. Macro evolution - religion.What convincing evidence? Huge, unexplained spurts of intellectual growth in humans? Holes in evolutionary chains? The fact that we may have found alien microbes in martian asteroids (http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/articles/scientists-find-evidence-of-ancient-microbial-life-on-mars/)?

The compelling evidence is - we don't know.I provide no proof. I suggest we not eliminate one theory because some people have a religious aversion to it.

You should also start arguing that the stars are just giant flash lights in the sky that we can't reach, because it is only based on fragments pieced together with assumptions. Observation is how science works, you just do not seem to understand that.

No one has ever observed a god. Therefore religion... People have discovered evidence, and made observations that support macro evolution. Therefore science.

You should also start arguing that the stars are just giant flash lights in the sky that we can't reach, because it is only based on fragments pieced together with assumptions.You make an interesting argument. One I strongly disagree with, but interesting nonetheless.Observation is how science works, you just do not seem to understand that.I understand it just fine, thanks! :buddies:No one has ever observed a god. Therefore religion... People have discovered evidence, and made observations that support macro evolution. Therefore science.Not true. People have made observations and discovered evidence regarding micro-evolution, and extrapolated macro-evolution from that.

Big difference. Therefore, religion.

Gone one day and look what happens.:lol:I suggest that an individual lives, so that the species might live, and the species lives for its own sake.
The reason for a species existing, is simply so it can exist.
This is, it seems to me, indisputable.That you STRONGLY believe it doesn't take it out of the realm of your belief.

Whenever you try to put an intent on design, without knowing the intent, you're simply making an assumption. You're rejecting a possible answer based on an assumption. You've concluded, as a diest, that you're wrong about diety because you don't agree with your version of the intent. Really, is that the way you want to go?If you want to say maybe the existence is ‘meant’ to be temporary, then you are assuming something not in evidence.No, it's speculation just like the speculation that the existence is NOT "meant" to be temporary. They're both just assumptions. One allows for more potential answers, the other dismisses possible answers.Those thing which are known not by logic/science, not by faith, are intuited.
The mind can intuit truth.Exactly! :yahoo:

Your fixation with a mythical creature is worrisome.

Oh the irony..............:howdy:

:nono: you were trying to make the argument that YOUR BOOK has stood that test of time and that is how we know it is the most valid. However, the torah has clearly been around longer, and the "true believers" in that religion say you are praying to a false god.

your book is nothing more than the equivelent of the book of mormon when compared to the torah :bigwhoop:

:killingme

that...was...awesome. :high5:

:bullshiat: Many cultures have some form of Flood Myth, but that isnt the same as saying its a widely accepted "story".

There are plenty of problems with the parable:
Why is there no mention of the Flood in the records of Egyptian or Mesopotamian civilizations which existed at the time? Why do other flood myths vary so greatly from the Genesis account? Flood myths are fairly common worldwide, and if they came from a common source, we should expect similarities in most of them. Instead, the myths show great diversity. For example, people survive on high land or trees in the myths about as often as on boats or rafts, and no other flood myth includes a covenant not to destroy all life again.
list]


If your going to cut and paste full pages....at least cite the source!! Don't pawn it off as your own thought....:nono:

Oh the irony..............:howdy:When it comes to my personal beliefs, I think it's perfectly fine to believe as I will.

When it comes to discussing Darwin vs evolution vs ID, it doesn't really fit.

These are philosophy class questions, not science questionsI'll buy your argument about 7 days. Of course, the definition of "day" at a time when there was no sun to revolve around, no way to judge time, is certainly a question, but I'll still buy your argument about 7 days. Again, that is a specific group of religions' explaination, not ID's definition.

However, I take exception to teh argument that we were not all "created" out of mud or dirt - especially the mud part. What were the conditions on earth when life first formed? By most scientific assumptions, we were a pretty mucky planet, and the building blocks to form the life that spawned all living things would have come from the stuff that made that muck up. Seems we were all created, therefore, out of mud.And it's good you have that religion to hold onto. The "evidence" consists of fragments pieced together with assumptions. And, even those pieces have holes.WEll, if you want to describe 'mud', so that is is mustly water, we can agree.
now must poeple think 'mud' can be made into mudpies, and that is rather thick, and not likely to allow combination of amino acids and such.

Micro evolution - dandy. Macro evolution - religion.
Religion? Well I hav e seen some people define 'religion' so that baseball can be considered a religion.
To me, religion involves faith. Evolution is based on evidence, some concrete and some logical, valid, reasoning based on the concrete evidence. Not faith, so no, not religion by my use of the word.
Since you did not say why you consider evolution to be religion, I will have to wonder.

What convincing evidence?Well, we could agrue about the details. I've studied up on it some. But lets cut to the chase.
The scientific community, as a whole, endorses evolution as valid.
I've examined their findings and arguments, and find them to be solid, valid, and consistent with reality.
I've also studied their detractors, and find them to be illogical, discordant with the evidence, and not credible.
Some among all of the convincing evidence, what I find extremely credible, esy to understand and explain, and undeniable, is the opinon of the scientific community.

Huge, unexplained spurts of intellectual growth in humans?[//quote]Well, if you disregard evolution, it might be unexplainable.
I find no 'sudden spurts' to be inconsistent with the principles of evolution.

[quote]Holes in evolutionary chains?Holes?
oh, I see, you mean evolutionary studies are an ongoing thing, and not a completed science. Newsflash: No science is a completed study.
No scientific endeavor has answered all of the questions.
I might add, they probably never will. Always a new frontier.


The fact that we may have found alien microbes in martian asteroids (http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/articles/scientists-find-evidence-of-ancient-microbial-life-on-mars/)?Wonderful!
What does that have to do with evolution on earth, expect some idle speculation you may have.

The compelling evidence is - we don't know.I provide no proof. I suggest we not eliminate one theory because some people have a religious aversion to it.Religious aversion?
What is this religious aversion?

This_Person That you STRONGLY believe it doesn't take it out of the realm of your belief.What?
If my belief is incorrect, offer your belief, so that I can consider it.

Whenever you try to put an intent on design, without knowing the intent, you're simply making an assumption. What intent?
I say there is no intent, so that is intent?
No intent. A groundhog lives under my deck, it has no intent of living or continuting the species. It simply 'is'. It lives, the species continues, with no intent.
If you say their is intent, make you case.
What is your evidence there is intent?
Some irreducible complexity in groundhogs that requires an outside force?

You're rejecting a possible answer based on an assumption. What assumption?
I assume what is in clear evidence.
You assume what is not in evidence.
You assume what is possible, although improbable, what has no evidence except some minority view of reasoning.
If I am to assume based on the evidence or based on what has no evidence, I know which side I choose.

You've concluded, as a diest, that you're wrong about diety because you don't agree with your version of the intent. Really, is that the way you want to go?No, it's speculation just like the speculation that the existence is NOT "meant" to be temporary. They're both just assumptions. One allows for more potential answers, the other dismisses possible answers.Exactly! :yahoo:I'm sorry, but this is just gibberish to me.
I'm wrong because I don't agree with myself concerning my beliefs? Gibberish


Existence is temporary.
All things are transient.
There is no permanance.
You think these are false assumptions, show them incorrect.

you were trying to make the argument that YOUR BOOK has stood that test of time and that is how we know it is the most valid. However, the torah has clearly been around longer, and the "true believers" in that religion say you are praying to a false god.
your book is nothing more than the equivelent of the book of mormon when compared to the torah
The actual Bible wasn't compiled until later but many of the books in it were around since the time of Moses.
DUH! The Torah speaks of the very same God; That of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob as He was called back then. The difference is, as Beta stated earlier, the belief about who Jesus is. Most people don't realize that Jesus was spoken about MANY times in the Torah, although not by name.
Don't bet the farm on that last statement....

No one has ever observed a god.
?????
:killingme
that...was...awesome. :high5:
:buttkiss:

ItallianScallion

You are a young and niave Christian.
The Torah talks about the Messiah. You are free to believe that that applies to Jesus, unfortunately those who know the most about the Torah, disagree with you.
When I want to know about the Torah, I go to a Jew, not a Christian.
When I wan to know about the Quran, I go to a Muslim, not a Christian.

There are many flavors of Chritianity, and you niavely believe yours is the 'one true flavor'.
This is not unusual, most of the other flavors believe the same thing,.

You were unaware that MANY Christians believe demons are real, and walk the earth. This amazes me. I thought every Christains knew of these sects.

Even among creationists there are many flavors.
All share the one belief that their understanding is true to the Bible and the others are mistaken.
God speaks to them and tells them why they are correct, and the others are not.

One God, many voices, many messages.
That is what bothered the Founding Fathers.

The actual Bible wasn't compiled until later but many of the books in it were around since the time of Moses.
DUH! The Torah speaks of the very same God; That of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob as He was called back then. The difference is, as Beta stated earlier, the belief about who Jesus is. Most people don't realize that Jesus was spoken about MANY times in the Torah, although not by name.
Don't bet the farm on that last statement....

?????

:buttkiss:

and the book of mormon talks about the same god and speaks extensively of jesus :bigwhoop:

your argument does nothing to show that yours is the "true" word, only that is was an addendum to the torah just like the book of mormon is an addendum to your book.

still your "has stood the test of time" is won easily by the jews

and the book of mormon talks about the same god and speaks extensively of jesus :bigwhoop:

your argument does nothing to show that yours is the "true" word, only that is was an addendum to the torah just like the book of mormon is an addendum to your book.

still your "has stood the test of time" is won easily by the jews

Lets stay on topic

Lets stay on topic

WHICH TOPIC? I pulled out when this went to anarchy of unicorns, torahs cu'rans, and flash lights.:coffee:

[QUOTE]Evolution has no requirements.
It does not 'requiere' living things to change, or become extinct.
It is an explanation of how thing change to adapt to an environment, and sometime that change means extinction.

Really? It absolutely requires things to change. The whole theory is about "change" (we can't believe it :killingme). It may be an explanation to you but it is a theory to everyone else. According to the evolutionist for something to "change" it would require certain conditions. There has to be requirements for evolution to take place like time, temp and water.


You sometimes like to play 'what ifs', so let me try one on you.
What if the internal organs changed (mutated possibly), allowing completely different food sources, but externally they remained the same.
If they did, this would be an example of evolution at work, and evidence to show it would be virtually impossible to demonstrate.

This is a self defeating argument. By your own words it would be "virtually impossible to demonstrate". Then how do you plan on demonstrating it?

We can expect that evironments will change drastically, and some organisms will adapt, some will die out, and some will pack their bags and move to a friendlier environment.
Nothing in evolution says all organisms are expected to become extinct.
As it turns out, many of them have.
By the time earth is no longer habitable for mankind, we may well be at another location.
And of course there is the cockroach, that seems to florish nearly everywhere. We will probably take them with us, unintentionallyh of course.

According to "science" dinos died out due to world wide catastrophe. Wiping out just about everything on earth. This "opportunity" then allowed for the evolution of the mammal line to us. At least that's how the splain it on the science channel.

Out of those 5 billion years we had no human like evolution until the last few hundred thousand years or so.

If you are a godless person ( like most in scientists today) then it's easy to draw conclusions that validate your world view. If we evolved, you can point to variations in species and extrapolate out for millions of years what they came from. Even when the evidence for it is non existent.

If we found a fossilized schnauzer for example and then later found a fossilized greyhound what would we conclude? You would most likely conclude that the schnauzer was some distant ancestor to the greyhound based on the progression of size and it's apparent "enhanced features". We know that this is completely false. These are both the same exact species with different features ( I might add that the diversity of dog appearence is a direct relationship to intelligent design, mans).

Just for full disclosure i don't believe in evolution or intelligent design rather the spoken word of God in creation ark and all. :yahoo:

You are a young and niave Christian.
The Torah talks about the Messiah. You are free to believe that that applies to Jesus, unfortunately those who know the most about the Torah, disagree with you.
This is why Jesus spend most of His time warning the Jews against denying who He is. Just like you they denied the proof right under their noses. They misunderstood what Moses wrote and it cost them their souls.

There are many flavors of Chritianity, and you niavely believe yours is the 'one true flavor'.
This is not unusual, most of the other flavors believe the same thing.
You, sir, are wrong. Very wrong. (So is your spelling)...
Please tell me what belief system you follow and please be specific...

You were unaware that MANY Christians believe demons are real, and walk the earth. This amazes me. I thought every Christains knew of these sects.

Where did you get that from??? I was not unaware of this, I just printed the truth about the invisibility of demons. One can still be a Christian and believe in visible demons. They'd be wrong but they can still be Christians.

Even among creationists there are many flavors.
All share the one belief that their understanding is true to the Bible and the others are mistaken.
God speaks to them and tells them why they are correct, and the others are not. One God, many voices, many messages.
That is what bothered the Founding Fathers.
What matters to Christians is not creation but who Jesus is.
You need to get educated on what a true Christian is.

and the book of mormon talks about the same god and speaks extensively of jesus.
You are totally wrong on that point.

your argument does nothing to show that yours is the "true" word, only that is was an addendum to the torah just like the book of mormon is an addendum to your book.
still your "has stood the test of time" is won easily by the jews
I've given lots of proof that "my book" is truly from God but your eyes refuse to believe the facts.
If you believe that Moses wrote the Torah or Pentateuch then you obviously cannot see whom he was speaking of. Most Jews are misled on who the Messiah is. Moses and many other OT writers clearly spoke of Jesus as the Messiah. Want verses or will you deny that proof also???
Lets stay on topic
Good luck with that....:howdy:

The actual Bible wasn't compiled until later but many of the books in it were around since the time of Moses.
DUH! The Torah speaks of the very same God; That of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob as He was called back then. The difference is, as Beta stated earlier, the belief about who Jesus is. Most people don't realize that Jesus was spoken about MANY times in the Torah, although not by name.
Don't bet the farm on that last statement....
No, it's not that people don't realize, it's back to what you said in the middle part of this post about the difference in beliefs. Someone was referred to, but Jews (for instance) don't believe that someone was Jesus.

I've given lots of proof that "my book" is truly from God but your eyes refuse to believe the facts.
If you believe that Moses wrote the Torah or Pentateuch then you obviously cannot see whom he was speaking of. Most Jews are misled on who the Messiah is. Moses and many other OT writers clearly spoke of Jesus as the Messiah. Want verses or will you deny that proof also???
I don't think so. If there was absolute proof in those books, then why would people disagree? Why is it that most present-day Christians originated from the conversion of the Roman Empire, and not from the actual events that took place? Jesus was hardly believed in during his time. So if he really performed all of these miracles in front of Jews and others, why didn't anyone believe in him?

I think it's impossible to offer up "proof" that "your book" is truly from God, but then again I think it's relatively impossible for any religion to do so. Presenting historical artifacts and other stuff just shows that it was written in the era it was claimed in and that some of the stuff adhered to true events, but not that everything occurred just as it is claimed. But heck, some of the books written these days write about true events that occurred, but add their own bits of fiction intertwined with truth. Obviously they're works of fiction, but if someone discovered them buried 300 years from now, who knows how they'd perceive them. They could easily be mistaken as historical documents that give a more detailed view on life in our time, when really it's just works of fiction.

This is why Jesus spend most of His time warning the Jews against denying who He is. Just like you they denied the proof right under their noses. They misunderstood what Moses wrote and it cost them their souls.

You, sir, are wrong. Very wrong. (So is your spelling)...
Please tell me what belief system you follow and please be specific...

Where did you get that from??? I was not unaware of this, I just printed the truth about the invisibility of demons. One can still be a Christian and believe in visible demons. They'd be wrong but they can still be Christians.

What matters to Christians is not creation but who Jesus is.
You need to get educated on what a true Christian is.

You are totally wrong on that point.

I've given lots of proof that "my book" is truly from God but your eyes refuse to believe the facts.
If you believe that Moses wrote the Torah or Pentateuch then you obviously cannot see whom he was speaking of. Most Jews are misled on who the Messiah is. Moses and many other OT writers clearly spoke of Jesus as the Messiah. Want verses or will you deny that proof also???

Good luck with that....:howdy:My belief system is at the exact point where Zen, Deism, and Christianity intersect.

I have been told by many Christians more mature than yourself what a 'True Christian' is, they all disagreed with each other, and would disagree wtih you.

You need some life experiences.

There are many masions in your father's house. You have seen one room.

You are totally wrong on that point.

I've given lots of proof that "my book" is truly from God but your eyes refuse to believe the facts.
If you believe that Moses wrote the Torah or Pentateuch then you obviously cannot see whom he was speaking of. Most Jews are misled on who the Messiah is. Moses and many other OT writers clearly spoke of Jesus as the Messiah. Want verses or will you deny that proof also???

Good luck with that....:howdy:

you haven't given any proof, the closest you have come is to say that its "oldness" makes it true, but the jewish book is older. And despite what you may claim, their book doesn't reference YOUR jesus, it references their messiah. the evidence that their messiah hasn't yet come is much stringer than evidence that jesus was truely the son of god.
DO you beleive people when they vehemently proclaim that they are god on earth? when a modern day person proclaims they speak to god, are you a believer?
I mean the book of mormon was written by 1 person who had dialogue with an angel and you wont believe his "true word of god".

Lets stay on topic

go ahead and start another thread on this subject, if you aren't just punting because you have no argument :killingme

you haven't given any proof, the closest you have come is to say that its "oldness" makes it true, but the jewish book is older. And despite what you may claim, their book doesn't reference YOUR jesus, it references their messiah. the evidence that their messiah hasn't yet come is much stringer than evidence that jesus was truely the son of god.
DO you beleive people when they vehemently proclaim that they are god on earth? when a modern day person proclaims they speak to god, are you a believer?
I mean the book of mormon was written by 1 person who had dialogue with an angel and you wont believe his "true word of god".

How bout when a chick gets knocked up these days...how many people believe she's actually abstinent or a virgin? it's not like they were checking back in those days! even if they could, there are other ways to get knocked up apparently (such as the splash landing!). she may have told her husband that it was the work of God because obviously the two of them weren't sleeping together and she'd never do anything else (it coulda been the milk man's son!).

Not saying that's how it happened, but it's possible. The only "evidence" anyone has really provided are historical artifacts and other tidbits of information that show the books were written in the era the claim to be written. Well gee, again, that's obvious! But there's still no proof that Jesus walked on water or turned water into wine, or performed ANY of the claimed miracles, other than what is specifically written down. And even if multiple people who didn't know of each other wrote their own accounts, it could have been magic tricks. Ever heard of Houdini? :shrug:

Back on topic slightly, ID was created by a bunch of Creation-thumping religion zealots who were trying to get religious idealogy taught within the classroom. Nothing more. It's a compromise made by Christian entities who lost their battle with Creationism that still attempts to insert religion into scientific theory.

How bout when a chick gets knocked up these days...how many people believe she's actually abstinent or a virgin? it's not like they were checking back in those days! even if they could, there are other ways to get knocked up apparently (such as the splash landing!). she may have told her husband that it was the work of God because obviously the two of them weren't sleeping together and she'd never do anything else (it coulda been the milk man's son!).

Not saying that's how it happened, but it's possible. The only "evidence" anyone has really provided are historical artifacts and other tidbits of information that show the books were written in the era the claim to be written. Well gee, again, that's obvious! But there's still no proof that Jesus walked on water or turned water into wine, or performed ANY of the claimed miracles, other than what is specifically written down. And even if multiple people who didn't know of each other wrote their own accounts, it could have been magic tricks. Ever heard of Houdini? :shrug:

Back on topic slightly, ID was created by a bunch of Creation-thumping religion zealots who were trying to get religious idealogy taught within the classroom. Nothing more. It's a compromise made by Christian entities who lost their battle with Creationism that still attempts to insert religion into scientific theory.

remember the king of the hill episode where bobby does a sunday school report on "the amazing jesus"?

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, I am the Amazing Jesus, son of God and master of prestidigitation! Has this ever happened to you? Your followers want a glass of wine, but all you have is water. Well, if you're the Amazing Jesus, no problem! Water into wine! It's a miracle! John 2:11. Thank you. Now you're going to need something to go with all this wine, maybe some bread. But how are you going to feed all these hungry people with just one slice? No problem, if you're the Amazing Jesus! Amen! It's a miracle, ladies and gentlemen! Mark 6:44. Thank you! Now, for my next miracle, I'll need a large wooden cross and a couple of volunteers.

Probably because these animals dont exist in a stream or lake like your typical bass?

The environment they live in makes it difficult to find specimens.But, to be off by 65,000,000 years? That doesn't make you the least bit curious of the other data we have? Especially when combined with all of the other similar issues?Once again your understanding of evolution is lacking. Just because a species thrives it doesnt mean the Dino version and todays version are the same thing (kind of like your examples of other surviving species). The 65 milllion year version is called Macropoma (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Macropoma&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=).

While it is related to todays 2 surviving species it is not the same.

Not only are they not immune to evolution, since the exisiting 2 species are evolutionary related to the species dated 65 million years ago but are different, they are believed to be precussors to modern amphibians.
But, the species I listed aren't just related, they're virtually unchanged. Virtually UNchanged. And, we missed 65,000,000 years of their existence. Were sure they were gone. 65,000,000 years of the history of the animals and plants just not there, thought to be gone. 65,000,000 years of it.

They may be "believed to be precursors to modern amphibians", but when we're off by 65,000,000 years of whether they even existed or not, that belief is on pretty shaky footing.

You keep sayign they are unchanged when it is not true. The species today are related to the 65 million year ago species but they are not the same, nor did they exist 65 million years ago.Our sources disagree, then.

Crocodilians are the closest living link to the dinosaur. They have changed little since they first appeared on Earth more than 200 million years ago (http://www.american-alligator.com/)

Army ants "represent an extraordinary case of long-term evolutionary stasis (http://www.pnas.org/content/100/11/6575.full)"

etc., etc.

You might want to reread the sentance about Crocodiles again and see if you can find the hole in your theoryYou'll stress the word "changed", I'll stress the word "little". :shrug: We disagree. That's okay :buddies:

You'll stress the word "changed", I'll stress the word "little". :shrug: We disagree. That's okay :buddies:

:yawn:

In the fifth edition of On the Origin of Species Darwin wrote that "the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form."[39] Thus punctuationism in general is consistent with Darwin's conception of evolution.[37]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasis_(biology)

:yawn:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasis_(biology)Makes sense. 65 million years of evolutionary stasis (on the macro level) fits in perfectly with evolution.

And, I hear the cooling climate fits in perfectly with global warming.

And, the lack of scientific proof (or even logic) fits in perfectly with 9/11 truthiness.

The missing WMD's fits in perfectly with the idea Hussein had them.

Yup, it all fits........

Makes sense. 65 million years of evolutionary stasis (on the macro level) fits in perfectly with evolution.

And, I hear the cooling climate fits in perfectly with global warming.

And, the lack of scientific proof (or even logic) fits in perfectly with 9/11 truthiness.

The missing WMD's fits in perfectly with the idea Hussein had them.

Yup, it all fits........

Ignore information if it doesn't fit in with your beliefs? I can see why you are Christian.

Ignore information if it doesn't fit in with your beliefs? I can see why you are Christian.

he is also a birther :killingme

funny he can see the idiocy in the other consiracy theories but not in his own

Ignore information if it doesn't fit in with your beliefs? I can see why you are Christian.

I just like how they ignore everything in this thread (and anywhere, for that matter) that is too difficult to argue and stick with the easier stuff. :lol:

Ignore information if it doesn't fit in with your beliefs? I can see why you are Christian.Ignore good sense - I can see why you believe in evolution.

I just like how they ignore everything in this thread (and anywhere, for that matter) that is too difficult to argue and stick with the easier stuff. :lol:Please demonstrate where I've done that....

he is also a birther :killingme

funny he can see the idiocy in the other consiracy theories but not in his ownOnce again, you lie.

I believe, and have repeatedly stated openly I believe, that Obama was most likely born in HI. My question is on the transparency, and the fact that we don't have a process and should fix that.

Don't you ever get tired of lying, especially about me? Why do you have such a fixation with me? I'm even in your sig line! :lol: Your obsession is scary, but funny.

Please demonstrate where I've done that....

Why bother, just refer to most of my previous posts that you skipped over :yay:

Ignore good sense - I can see why you believe in evolution.

:killingme Ohhhhh, so you're basing all of your arguments on common sense.

On Darwin’s Birthday, Only 4 in 10 Believe in Evolution (http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/Darwin-Birthday-Believe-Evolution.aspx)

Seems like your "Common" sense isn't very common. Good thing scientists do not base their theories on common sense. The world is flat was common sense.

:killingme Ohhhhh, so you're basing all of your arguments on common sense.

On Darwin’s Birthday, Only 4 in 10 Believe in Evolution (http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/Darwin-Birthday-Believe-Evolution.aspx)

Seems like your "Common" sense isn't very common. Good thing scientists do not base their theories on common sense. The world is flat was common sense.
60% of people not agreeing makes it uncommon? :confused:

Why bother, :yay:I agree - why bother?

Okay, to summarize, we know that evolution; the gradual changing of organisms to adapt to changing environments, actuallly happens and can easily be demonstrated. Evolution is not only a theory, but is a fact. It began life as a theory in 1859 when Darwin published the Origin of Species. Long since the massive weight of evidence has taken it from theory to fact - except maybe in backwoods environments. It is way too tedious to have to go further in explaining this to wilfully ignorant folks who prefer to adopt strange and archaic views of the world. So odd that these people predominantly reside in an advanced nation.

Take a look at the discoveries of a hundred and forty years ago and pray you are not struck down for eating of the tree of knowledge.

Thank you, you may close the thread :howdy:

I agree - why bother?

enjoy living in fantasy land with the faeries and unicorns :cartwheel

Okay, to summarize, we know that evolution; the gradual changing of organisms to adapt to changing environments, actuallly happens and can easily be demonstrated. Evolution is not only a theory, but is a fact. It began life as a theory in 1859 when Darwin published the Origin of Species. Long since the massive weight of evidence has taken it from theory to fact - except maybe in backwoods environments. It is way too tedious to have to go further in explaining this to wilfully ignorant folks who prefer to adopt strange and archaic views of the world. So odd that these people predominantly reside in an advanced nation.

Take a look at the discoveries of a hundred and forty years ago and pray you are not struck down for eating of the tree of knowledge.

Thank you, you may close the thread :howdy:
We know MICRO-evolution exists, we're fuzzy on MACRO evolution. Hell of a theory, almost no actual data. Lots of potential and presumptive data, not much real data.

We also don't know why. Could it be random acts of "sh!t happens"? Of course it could. Could it be random acts directed by a higher power? Of course it could.

Thank you - NOW you can close the thread. :howdy:

enjoy living in fantasy land with the faeries and unicorns :cartwheel
No fairies nor unicorns in my world. What color is the sky in your world, Cliff?

No fairies nor unicorns in my world. What color is the sky in your world, Cliff?

oh woops. the devil has two horns, not one. my mistake.

oh woops. the devil has two horns, not one. my mistake.It's okay, it's not your first. I'm an understanding person.

We know MICRO-evolution exists, we're fuzzy on MACRO evolution. Hell of a theory, almost no actual data. Lots of potential and presumptive data, not much real data.

We know that the theists are "fuzzy" on macroevolution, no idea why, and really, it doesn't even matter. Be fuzzy all you want.


There are readers of these threads who reject evolution for religious reasons. In general these readers oppose both the fact of evolution and theories of mechanisms, although some anti-evolutionists have come to realize that there is a difference between the two concepts. That is why we see some leading anti-evolutionists admitting to the fact of "microevolution" - they know that evolution can be demonstrated. These readers will not be convinced of the "facthood" of (macro)evolution by any logical argument and it is a waste of time to make the attempt. The best that we can hope for is that they understand the argument that they oppose. Even this simple hope is rarely fulfilled.

60% of people not agreeing makes it uncommon? :confused:

Seems like you really need to learn how to read. Only 25% Do not believe in Evolution. Making any assumption about the 36% who didn't care is ignorant.

We know that the theists are "fuzzy" on macroevolution, no idea why, and really, it doesn't even matter. Be fuzzy all you want.


There are readers of these threads who reject evolution for religious reasons. In general these readers oppose both the fact of evolution and theories of mechanisms, although some anti-evolutionists have come to realize that there is a difference between the two concepts. That is why we see some leading anti-evolutionists admitting to the fact of "microevolution" - they know that evolution can be demonstrated. These readers will not be convinced of the "facthood" of (macro)evolution by any logical argument and it is a waste of time to make the attempt. The best that we can hope for is that they understand the argument that they oppose. Even this simple hope is rarely fulfilled.Note that you skipped my next line.

Is it possible it's entirely undirected? Of course that's possible.

Is it possible it's directed by a supreme being? Of course it's possible. Wouldn't any reasonable person agree to the possibility?

Seems like you really need to learn how to read. Only 25% Do not believe in Evolution. Making any assumption about the 36% who didn't care is ignorant.
If they can't commit to agreeing or not, they pretty much don't :buddies:

Note that you skipped my next line.

Is it possible it's entirely undirected? Of course that's possible.

Is it possible it's directed by a supreme being? Of course it's possible. Wouldn't any reasonable person agree to the possibility?

horse or unicorn. Reasonable people agree its a horse. This is your entire argument again.

If they can't commit to agreeing or not, they pretty much don't :buddies:

Maybe in :crazy: town where "Maybe" means "No".

Note that you skipped my next line.


Is it possible it's directed by a supreme being? Of course it's possible. Wouldn't any reasonable person agree to the possibility?

Yes, I supposed that it could be directed by a supreme being, including, but not limited to, Zeus, Odin, Vishnu, Quezacoatl, Jehovah, Jesus of Nazareth in the New Testament of the Bible (all versions), Thor, Hercules, or any other gods you care to name.....highly unlikely though.

horse or unicorn. Reasonable people agree its a horse. This is your entire argument again.
Really? You can't see a reasonable difference between the two?

Yes, I supposed that it could be directed by a supreme being, including, but not limited to, Zeus, Odin, Vishnu, Quezacoatl, Jehovah, Jesus of Nazareth in the New Testament of the Bible (all versions), Thor, Hercules, or any other gods you care to name.....highly unlikely though.The question is never the likelihood, it's the possibility.

Closed mind to possibility makes some people religiouslike in their zeal against a potential truth.

That's all I'm saying.

Again, I just started the thread because I wanted to let people know about the show, but getting you to admit you have an open enough mind to see that there is a potential that a supreme being may be directing our evolution is a huge step. You're actually open minded. I'm proud of you! :buddies:

Really? You can't see a reasonable difference between the two?

Nope, care the enlighten the class?

Nope, care the enlighten the class?

One is visible. The other is a question with more than one possible answer.

Really, it's not that hard.

One is visible. The other is a question with more than one possible answer.

Really, it's not that hard.

False. Both are visible you just don't want to see one side of it.

Try again.

A horse is a concept and a unicorn is the same concept with mysticism attached. This is a perfectly parallel analogy even if you refuse to see it.

A horse is a concept and a unicorn is the same concept with mysticism attached. This is a perfectly parallel analogy even if you refuse to see it.A horse is a horse (of course of course).

The better parallel would be to ask why a horse is a horse. Is it because
Random mutations of life (that we can't explain where came from) caused the horse to come into being over hundreds of millions of years from a lifeless planet with absolutely no pupose or guide or supreme intelligence involvement?
Supreme, extra-universal intelligence guiding in some manner any or all parts of the process?
Unicorns from your mind mating and breaking the horn off just to screw with you?
Okay, I really doubt the last one is even possible.

A horse is a horse (of course of course).

The better parallel would be to ask why a horse is a horse. Is it because
Random mutations of life (that we can't explain where came from) caused the horse to come into being over hundreds of millions of years from a lifeless planet with absolutely no pupose or guide or supreme intelligence involvement?
Supreme, extra-universal intelligence guiding in some manner any or all parts of the process?
Unicorns from your mind mating and breaking the horn off just to screw with you?
Okay, I really doubt the last one is even possible.

So now you are saying that between a horse and a unicorn... The horse is either a horse or a unicorn. Phew this is getting deep. Again, just because you refuse to see the truth does not make it less true.

So now you are saying that between a horse and a unicorn... The horse is either a horse or a unicorn. Phew this is getting deep. Again, just because you refuse to see the truth does not make it less true.
Keep declaring I'm saying things I'm not actually saying. It makes you look so smart.

(*hint to understand: "3" above was a joke)