creationism and evolution [Archive]

BlenderWizard

01-18-2005, 12:01

Originally posted by Swordslinger+Jan 18 2005, 01:49 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Swordslinger @ Jan 18 2005, 01:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-BlenderWizard@Jan 18 2005, 06:37 PM
Not gonna touch it
I will. :lol: I believe God created the heavens and the earth. I just dont believe the earth is only six thousand years old, that all humans "evolved" from Adam. And that Noah's flood was world wide, and that all other humans evolved from his three sons.

Take it easy on me brethren. :( [/b][/quote]
Glad you spoke up, Sword. Now I'll chime in. Back to the creation story in Genesis. God created in 6, rested on 7th. As I said earlier, with no Earth for a period, and no man for even longer, days were not as we knew them. There fore, that is why I believe that while God did create everything, he laid the basic building blocks on Earth and all His creatures evolved from those building blocks. Like what Scully said.

swill269

01-18-2005, 12:31

:o
the theory of evolution is based on facts and evidence molecular organisms can be changed to a different but already existing organism by adding/introducing another element. the evolution from one form to another is present in the human body; sperm and egg (1 cell each) form a zygote (now only 2 cells), zygote is controled by genetics and DNA mapping contained in both single cells. as cells develope they mutate from zygote to heart, lung, kidney, brain, etc. as they reach developement and become completely different cells, they are also programed to stop when fully developed. the body can mutate into something unrecognizable if it is not controlled by genetics. cancers, we are not born with, are a common cell mutation which "evolve" from the introduction of some unknown element/stimulant/carcinogen. because we have not found the proverbial missing link ("needle in a hay stack") does not by any means discount evolution's existence. science works everyday to prove this theory absolute. we have scientific evidence now which can more decidedly vouch for evolution. where as, no science or faith has any evidence of creation to present; other than taking what it wishes from science to "create" faith in a supernatural being/force. there is not enough "fact" to call creation a "theory" but only a "belief".

"the bible" is a compilation of individual stories/history written approximately 40 yrs after jesus' death. these stories are/were not all that was written about "christ". as christianity began to organize, via endorsement from government as a political ploy to unite citizens, the text was screened for content and benefit for the government's sake. the "bible" is a government document in reality and was farther enhanced by the "ruling government" of king james. when all was said and done it resulted in a "guide for life" promoting only one avenue. only by law and government was the "bible" declared "truth". you could be killed if you thought like me and talked like me. christianity is a young minority religion by comparison and catholicism is the most predominate denomination. protestants are even farther removed from the original practice by their very nature.

it matters not to me what you believe, but more what you do. like i said earlier somewhere; "i would rather you practice christianity than preach it." :beer:

copied from another post i just finished.
:cool:

tri70

01-18-2005, 12:48

In the scientist mind and on paper they show us how this "evolved from that and that to this" but they have not produced a lab test to show the world. You can't get a mockingbird to breed with a robin to form a new bird. The only animal I have seen to breed with another species is the dog. The same "class of animal" will not breed with eachother, birds, fish, monkies only breed with the same of their kind. Everything created individually and uniquely. The whole cloned sheep is a joke to me because I have not seen the test, they found 3 white sheep and said they cloned. Show me one with a black birthmark and clone that dude!! :D

-tri :usa:

Scully

01-18-2005, 12:51

I can accept evolution. I agree there is overwhelming evidence that the world now is vastly different then the world of the distant past. And there is a lot of evidence that gets us from one point to the other.

I just find life to be nothing short of Miraculous.

BlenderWizard

01-18-2005, 12:57

Originally posted by tri70@Jan 18 2005, 02:48 PM
In the scientist mind and on paper they show us how this "evolved from that and that to this" but they have not produced a lab test to show the world. You can't get a mockingbird to breed with a robin to form a new bird. The only animal I have seen to breed with another species is the dog. The same "class of animal" will not breed with eachother, birds, fish, monkies only breed with the same of their kind. Everything created individually and uniquely. The whole cloned sheep is a joke to me because I have not seen the test, they found 3 white sheep and said they cloned. Show me one with a black birthmark and clone that dude!! :D

-tri :usa:
http://www.lovelongears.com/about_mules.html

swill269

01-18-2005, 13:15

:o
blenderwizard,

guess you can't call someone a "dumb ass" without being one. is this an "oxy" moron or what? :lol:
:cool:

tri70

01-18-2005, 13:17

ok I missed that one and maybe a few more. live and learn :P but would can this be done with say a zebra? has it been done?

-tri :usa:

tri70

01-18-2005, 13:28

I forgot cats, they make a new line of cats everyday. :P

swill269

01-18-2005, 13:34

:o
tri70,

many new plants we have today were cross pollinated to produce a "hybrid" which evolved into a "species" which now grows from seed.

house cats have bred with bobcats for eons in the wild and labs. many new exotic birds are the result of crossbreeding different species which now produce one specific species.

dogs have mutated from wolfs, coyotes, foxes from nature and man has played "god" with them for thousands of years.

it remains to be seen if the yerkes (spell?) primate center has educated an ape well enough to pass on the ability to communicate with humans through genetics.

you must look outside the box to see new horizons. ;) they are all around you. :ph34r:
:cool:

BlenderWizard

01-18-2005, 13:42

Originally posted by swill269@Jan 18 2005, 03:15 PM
:o
blenderwizard,

guess you can't call someone a "dumb ass" without being one. is this an "oxy" moron or what? :lol:
:cool:
I didn't call anyone a dumbass.

tri70

01-18-2005, 13:46

I will stick to my guns on the sheep cloning for now, create me one with the 3 identical black spots. ;)

How much is done with us tampering with compared to the natural selection and order of things??? There are those like you mentioned but then there is only 1 zebra, right?

-tri :usa:

swill269

01-18-2005, 14:19

:o
blenderwizard,

sorry! you did not say or imply anyone was dumb.

i was making a "punny" in regards to the article in the link. it stated that "mules" (jackass) were very smart, not stubborn/dumb as most say (dumb ass). they will stop if something is harmful to them where a horse will eat itself to death given enough food. :(

seems like if man can make "it" do what he wants, when he wants, "it" is smart but if "it" disagrees "it" is stubborn/stupid/dumb. ;)

you with me now man? ;) :beer:
:cool:

tri70,

the "zeborse" is real already, just not very useful. they do not respond like a horse, they must be "dumb asses". :eek: :beer:
:cool:

YourLocalNerd

01-18-2005, 15:17

Originally posted by BlenderWizard+Jan 18 2005, 02:01 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BlenderWizard @ Jan 18 2005, 02:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Swordslinger@Jan 18 2005, 01:49 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-BlenderWizard@Jan 18 2005, 06:37 PM
Not gonna touch it
I will. :lol: I believe God created the heavens and the earth. I just dont believe the earth is only six thousand years old, that all humans "evolved" from Adam. And that Noah's flood was world wide, and that all other humans evolved from his three sons.

Take it easy on me brethren. :(
Glad you spoke up, Sword. Now I'll chime in. Back to the creation story in Genesis. God created in 6, rested on 7th. As I said earlier, with no Earth for a period, and no man for even longer, days were not as we knew them. There fore, that is why I believe that while God did create everything, he laid the basic building blocks on Earth and all His creatures evolved from those building blocks. Like what Scully said. [/b][/quote]
I am not gonna touch much of this til it gets further on down the road. But I will deal with this.

Let me ask ya...What is our standard of time? The sun, the earths rotation, and the earths orbit around the sun. All of which God created on and before the 1st day, so they were in fact the same as our days ;)

BT 223

01-18-2005, 16:50

Question, what would you say to a person who said they built their house by stacking lumber, rocks, fiberglass, metal, and other componets and then blew
it up with a ton of dynamite?
The earth and universe is a little more complex than any house, seems like there
would be a designer to me.
But hey I' m one of those Baptists so WATCH OUT

BlenderWizard

01-18-2005, 16:54

Originally posted by swill269+Jan 18 2005, 04:19 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (swill269 @ Jan 18 2005, 04:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> :o
blenderwizard,

sorry!* you did not say or imply anyone was dumb.*

i was making a "punny" in regards to the article in the link.* it stated that "mules" (jackass) were very smart, not stubborn/dumb as most say (dumb ass).* they will stop if something is harmful to them where a horse will eat itself to death given enough food. :(

seems like if man can make "it" do what he wants, when he wants, "it" is smart but if "it" disagrees "it" is stubborn/stupid/dumb. ;)

you with me now man? ;)* :beer:
:cool:

tri70,

the "zeborse" is real already, just not very useful. they do not respond like a horse, they must be "dumb asses".* :eek:* :beer:
:cool: [/b]
Gotcha
Originally posted by YourLocalNerd@Jan 18 2005, 05:17 PM
I am not gonna touch much of this til it gets further on down the road. But I will deal with this.

Let me ask ya...What is our standard of time? The sun, the earths rotation, and the earths orbit around the sun. All of which God created on and before the 1st day, so they were in fact the same as our days

Don't have a Bible handy, here goes. Doesn't Genesis say, " On the First day, God created the heavens and the Earth?" The Earth was not here when the clock started.

<!--QuoteBegin-BT 223@Jan 18 2005, 06:50 PM
But hey I' m one of those Baptists so WATCH OUT [/quote]

Will do

swill269

01-18-2005, 17:12

:o
yourlocalnerd,

since the "big bang" the earth's rotation and tilt have changed. we just received an adjustment of about 3 milliseconds with the tsunami/quake. however the earth has taken harder hits from asteroids/meteors which resulted in larger deflections/wobbles of earth. this is pretty much what we ended up with for the time being. our orbital path is altered some daily which causes a leap year for man to "pencil whip" with an extra day every 4 yrs. the earth's timing is not an absolute.

eons ago some folks decided to step out of the box and record sun and moon rising and setting points on the horizon. they discovered the sun would return to the same spot once a year (365 + moons). after 4 years they discovered it moved a whole day/slot over. winter, spring, summer and fall all come the same day each year but at a different time of day. if the moon is knocked out of orbit or we take a glancing blow from an asteroid, secounds, minutes, hours, days, etc. will be on a different schedule; we die too. :eek:
:cool:

YourLocalNerd

01-18-2005, 17:12

Originally posted by BlenderWizard+Jan 18 2005, 06:54 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BlenderWizard @ Jan 18 2005, 06:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
dinasours, bacteria, ameba soon becoming a fish) that can survive without the sun, oxegyn or food source. And none of those were there b/c "the earth was without form, and void..." And even IF there were a creature that could survive those conditions, 6 days doesnt provide the time that evolution requires for creatures to evolve.

Tunug

01-18-2005, 17:13

the topic here is creationism and evolution.... I think the implication is: Was life created (intelligent design), or did it simply evolve from dead matter (macro-evolution)?

First of all....If life evolved from dead matter, then the fossil record will show ZERO species in the beginning, on to some species, and eventually very many species... in other words, over millions of years of macro-evolution the number of species should be growing. The fossil record does not show this at all.... in fact, it shows the reverse. The fossil record shows that there were vastly many more species in the earliest stages of life, and thoughout the many years they have tapered off considerably. Scientists can only date life as far back as the Cambrian era and before that is nothing! This cambrian era has many more species than the earth has ever seen since.... for this reason it is called the Cambrian Explosion. This is not taught in textbooks regarding evolution because it poses a big problem with the theory!

Secondly... . Evolution, whether cosmic or biological, cannot logically be a theory of ultimate origins. Its operation presupposes the existence of certain entities with specific potential behaviors and an environment of some specific kind that operates upon those entities in some specifically ordered fashion; the type of structure found in evolution did not itself come through evolution. This is not an argument from design, but an argument to design.

Micro-evolution is valid as a science and is provable. Macro-evolution, however, is a philosophical theory that is not scientifically proveable.

The historical, social, and individual course of human events reflect an awareness of an omnipotent creator.

However concrete reality is sectioned, the result will be a state of affairs which owes its being to something other than itself.

I hope that all can understand this logic, because it offers imperical proof for a Creator of intelligence, and it shows that the theory of macro-evolution does not at all acount for the initial creation of life.

BlenderWizard

01-18-2005, 17:18

Originally posted by YourLocalNerd+Jan 18 2005, 07:12 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (YourLocalNerd @ Jan 18 2005, 07:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by BlenderWizard@Jan 18 2005, 06:54 PM

dinasours, bacteria, ameba soon becoming a fish) that can survive without the sun, oxegyn or food source. And none of those were there b/c "the earth was without form, and void..." And even IF there were a creature that could survive those conditions, 6 days doesnt provide the time that evolution requires for creatures to evolve. [/b][/quote]
Well, I guess you think the Earth is 6,00 years old. Fine. There is no point in me arguing with you about it.

YourLocalNerd

01-18-2005, 17:21

Originally posted by swill269@Jan 18 2005, 07:12 PM
:o
yourlocalnerd,

since the "big bang" the earth's rotation and tilt have changed. we just received an adjustment of about 3 milliseconds with the tsunami/quake. however the earth has taken harder hits from asteroids/meteors which resulted in larger deflections/wobbles of earth. this is pretty much what we ended up with for the time being. our orbital path is altered some daily which causes a leap year for man to "pencil whip" with an extra day every 4 yrs. the earth's timing is not an absolute.

eons ago some folks decided to step out of the box and record sun and moon rising and setting points on the horizon. they discovered the sun would return to the same spot once a year (365 + moons). after 4 years they discovered it moved a whole day/slot over. winter, spring, summer and fall all come the same day each year but at a different time of day. if the moon is knocked out of orbit or we take a glancing blow from an asteroid, secounds, minutes, hours, days, etc. will be on a different schedule; we die too. :eek:
:cool:
Swill, you just said in 2 paragraphs what I said in 2 sentences...I am not sure what your point is. Or what you are wanting me to respond to. Except maybe this: Time is a but a creation of man's mind to live by and judge the distance of past events? This correct?

If so, what you said still doesnt disprove the possibility of time (or what we use to judge time by ;) ) being created.

And you are right, external forces can and will change the external factors that we judge time by...but not by much ;) Gee, I want my 3 milli seconds back...oh wait, maybe I got a few extra milli seconds...

What you didnt mention is that if the earth's orbit were 1 (its either 1 or 3, if dinner werent almost ready I would check before I post this) degree off we would either freeze to death or fry. That is a pretty delicate balance. I am sure your gonna scoff at that, and that is fine. Look it up, it is a scientific fact.

Swordslinger

01-18-2005, 17:25

Originally posted by BT 223@Jan 18 2005, 11:50 PM
Question, what would you say to a person who said they built their house by stacking lumber, rocks, fiberglass, metal, and other componets and then blew
it up with a ton of dynamite?
The earth and universe is a little more complex than any house, seems like there
would be a designer to me.
But hey I' m one of those Baptists so WATCH OUT
Thanks BT223. I liked that. :lol:

Another illustration would be a explosion at a paper mill, and an entire Encylopedia Bitanica Landing in the back of a salesmans car bound and indexed with a bill of lading on top. :lol:

swill269

01-18-2005, 17:37

:o
blenderwizard,

there is no "clock" just time. you can't see, hear, feel, smell or taste it. all you can do is measure/record it as it passes. it is not good for anything real, just man made stuff. i would not care what "time it is" if nobody else did; would you?

time is irrelevant; it is what you do with it that counts. i don't know what my time is. so, i'm getting into as much stuff as i can so i won't miss nothin' good. i can't do it all so i listen to advice/recommendations/suggestions/orders (law) to help decide what to do and not do. i have my knowledge base/experiences also to help guide/direct me.

to keep from pi$$ing anyone off or causing grief i "do unto others as i would have them do unto me." i need friends not enemies. sometimes we are our own worst enemy. :ph34r:
:cool:

yourlocalnerd,

All of which God created on and before the 1st day, so they were in fact the same as our days
big bang, no god. "days" not the same then and now and they were not days then, no measurements.

i did not understand you to say/write what i said. :blink:
:cool:

Tunug

01-18-2005, 17:49

Originally posted by BlenderWizard@Jan 18 2005, 03:54 PM
Don't have a Bible handy, here goes. Doesn't Genesis say, " On the First day, God created the heavens and the Earth?" The Earth was not here when the clock started.

Actually, Blender, the bible does not say "on the first day God created the heavens and the earth"

It says "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth became without form and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters." Gen 1:1-2

then Jeremiah 4:23 explains this situation further:

"I beheld the earth, and indeed it was without form and void. And the heavens they had no light. I beheld the mountains and indeed they trembled, and the hills moved back and forth. I beheld, and indeed there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens had fled. I beheld, and indeed the fruitful land was a wilderness, and all its cities were broken down."

Back to Genesis 1:3-5 "Then God said 'Let there be light'; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day."

Ok.... heheh... this is reaaaaally different from mainstream beliefs because what this really means is that the first [modern] day never started until after God divided the light from the darkness and called them Day and Night! BUT!!!! before he did that... the earth became without form an void!! And, in the vision that God gave to Jeremiah, the heavens had no light and there was no man yet, but the mountains and hills moved, birds fled, there was wilderness were there was once fruitful land, and cities were broken down!!!!! This was before he created Adam!! The earth and time were different before then!

Hmmmmm!!! Now, many do not believe in the recreation of the earth... but I DO!! this explains SOOOO much of the differences in opinion of the science world and the mainstream Christian world!! makes a lot of sense to me!!!

Swordslinger

01-18-2005, 17:53

Ok Ill add this only to stir up some thinking. Im not gonna debate, as I guess I ****ed some folks off in the last evolution thread, but I really didnt mean to.

1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

Between v.1 and v.2 There is an unknown time of duration pehaps lasting millions of years, during which an unknown number of events took place. The words used "without form , and void" in the original language are "Tohu va Bohu"

Tohu= a ruin, vacancy
Bohu= to lay waste

This word in the original language is only used twice in scripture. The other one is here.
Jerimiah 4:23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.

24 I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.

25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.

It goes on to describe the destruction. It says "no man", but describes later that they were destroyed.

Could it be that there were many people here before? A group that was destroyed? Could this be where all of the ancient artifacts come from?

If you read along in Genesis, you will find that man was charges with the responsibility to "replenish" the earth. How could one replenish something that that had never been filled.

Genesis 1:28
"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth,"

Just thinkin......

Tunug

01-18-2005, 17:53

Also, God made the angels long before man and they were stewards of creation. I believe there was life on earth long before there was an Adam created in the likeness of God.

Tunug

01-18-2005, 17:57

Sword!!! bro!!! you and I were just thinking in EXACTLY the same accordance there, lol... look at our posts!!!!

Tunug

01-18-2005, 17:59

of course you did a much better job!!! damn you're good!

swill269

01-18-2005, 18:01

:o
swordslinger, bt223,

you do not know where those materials will end up and what order in billions of years.

but i'll bet my A44 in he(( if the wood/paper/organic matter lands in a warm, moist place it will grow a little world of mold, mildew, bacteria, fungus, etc. :o
:cool:

P.S. i would not call that a miracle. :rolleyes:

Tunug

01-18-2005, 18:10

I think I'll go back to reading.... I gotta quit wasting my time.

pearls.... i think ill keep 'em

Swordslinger

01-18-2005, 18:14

Originally posted by Tunug@Jan 19 2005, 12:57 AM
Sword!!! bro!!! you and I were just thinking in EXACTLY the same accordance there, lol... look at our posts!!!!
Yeah, it looks as if we were. :lol: Ya know they say "great minds think alike". Just kiddin, I am far from a great mind, but tunug's as shrp as a tack.

swill269

01-18-2005, 21:34

:o
tunug,

man, you guys ran all over me. trying to catch up, back to your 7:13 pm post.

in the "first of all" not all living matter will leave a fossil, maybe 2% of all living organisms are fossilized. then they must be of some matter that "will" and in an environment to support it. single cell organisms don't stand a chance unless they evolve into a colony like coral, sponge, etc. nothing found predating the cambrian era does not mean it is not there. having nothing predating my birth does not mean i was not here in a different form. in regards to the populations decreasing over time; this is pretty much in line with todays species extinction image. this is part of life, in with new and out with the old, survival of the fittest, adapt to change. the "only" things constant/unavoidable in the world is change and death. what came after the cambrian era?

"second": evolution can not logically be a theory of ultimate origins because it presupposes existence of certain entities with potential behaviors spurred by environmental qualities in ordered fashion. the type of structure found in evolution did not come through evolution.

i don't know where you got this info but it reeks of "christian evolution bashing" with "science". it sounds a lot like the new book advertised on TBN "proving creation". science is not a good field for christians to argue for creation.

to shuffle through the above statement admittedly knowing "micro-evolution" to be true and real, not a philosophical theory, but because we can't find a fossil past cambrian era; "evolution can not logically be a theroy of ultimate origins" logically is not in the christian vocabulary to discribe creation, "presupposes existence of certain entities" is. here is where science exposes the flaw. given the fact we know "micro-evolution" to be real and with a fossil trail way back past man's beginings to evidence this fact; we can only "theorize" at this time about "ultimate origin" based on all other findings/facts/evidence provided by micro-evolution. this means the theory of evolution just pretains to the "macro-evoluton" from ultimate origins. "evolution" is no theory, it is a fact and 20 years ago no "christian" would publish or admit to such. christians had to up the ante to keep the faith with a little double talk learned from politicians; therfore, ultimate origins/macro-evolution is the new target to shoot for/at. if this is proven to be true what will christians come up with later to counter. you would be surprised to know how many americans still think we did not go to the moon.
:cool:

cabdmd

01-18-2005, 23:53

sperm and egg (1 cell each) form a zygote (now only 2 cells), zygote is controled by genetics and DNA mapping contained in both single cells. as cells develope they mutate from zygote to heart, lung, kidney, brain, etc. as they reach developement and become completely different cells, they are also programed to stop when fully developed. the body can mutate into something unrecognizable if it is not controlled by genetics. cancers, we are not born with, are a common cell mutation which "evolve" from the introduction of some unknown element/stimulant/carcinogen.

Swill, I love that you are here.
Prov 27:17 As iron sharpens iron, So a man sharpens the countenance of his friend.
I think you are correct speaking about cells being programmed (speaking of programmed, Who is the programmer?), but mutations by definition are not beneficial ie. cancer. Mutations do not evolve into improvements.

We all have gotten a little off the topic about making either a case for evolution or creation.

In The Origin of Species Darwin stated:

'If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.'

A system which meets Darwin's criterion is one which exhibits irreducible complexity. By irreducible complexity I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.

The Eye. Darwin says, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I frankly confess absurd in the highest degree." After admitting that it "seems absurd in the highest degree," he proceeds, as if it were certainly true. Darwin has been admired for his candor, but not for his consistency. After admitting that an objection is insuperable, he goes on as if it had little or no weight and many of his followers take the same unscientific attitude. They try to establish their theory in spite of overwhelming arguments.

The eye is so wonderful in its powers, and delicate adjustments, that we stand amazed at the evidences of design, and at the wisdom of the Maker of the eye, are exceeding the highest inventive genius of man. To say that this is the result of "natural selection, is absurd and ridiculous. Evolution eliminates design, mind, and an active and ever present God, and substitutes blind chance or natural selection, dubs it "science" and asks the world to believe it!

from 1925 By REV. WILLIAM A. WILLIAMS

lendell

01-19-2005, 05:10

Evolution is bullcrap. Man did not evolve from simple primates. There is no evidence to support this theory whatsoever. The "Missing Link" has never been found and never will be.

swill269

01-19-2005, 09:09

:o
lendell,
nobody here said we evolved from primates. and by what good fortune are you able to predict the future? ;) :beer:
:cool:

Scully

01-19-2005, 09:45

Originally posted by lendell@Jan 19 2005, 04:10 AM
Evolution is bullcrap. Man did not evolve from simple primates. There is no evidence to support this theory whatsoever. The "Missing Link" has never been found and never will be.
Definition

Evolution: The transformation of civil debate to blind banter.

BlenderWizard

01-19-2005, 10:26

Originally posted by Scully+Jan 19 2005, 11:45 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Scully @ Jan 19 2005, 11:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-lendell@Jan 19 2005, 04:10 AM
Evolution is bullcrap. Man did not evolve from simple primates. There is no evidence to support this theory whatsoever. The "Missing Link" has never been found and never will be.
Definition

Evolution: The transformation of civil debate to blind banter. [/b][/quote]
I second that. This is nuts.

lendell

01-19-2005, 16:22

That's what Darwins theory stated. What else would evolution be? And what is this about me predicting the future? Hey, the message asked a question, and I answered it. I mean no offence, so don't take it that way.

Tunug

01-19-2005, 17:27

The Cambrian Explosion speaks volumes against the idea of macro-evolution... it is in the fossil record.... die hard evolutions conveniently ignore this first era of life.

Love the avatar, Lendell... LoL... skeeeery!!

tri70

01-20-2005, 09:15

Let throw this out, where did we get our evil that dwells in us, the ability to committ murder? Not just kill in self defense of home and loved ones but to plan out the thoughts that go thru our brain.

Then on the other side of the coin, where did learn to care so much for all creatures and to love one another.
I do not believe either trait can evolve from a lesser form because the lesser forms do not posses these traits. God given to love one another.

-tri :usa:

demal

03-14-2005, 12:56

Lendell: the reason that the missing link has never been found is that there has never been a chain in the first place. Evolution is a philosophical hypothesis not a scientific fact. :cool:

snowhound

03-14-2005, 16:02

Here's one for you all:

If you look at the fossil records they do seem to show that an organism was followed by another that came later and was slightly different, hence the theory of evolution. If the earth and everyting in it was created by GOD and the earth is actually only 6000 years old then GOD has obviously made the fossil records APPEAR as if organisms have changed over billions of years and he has done it in a way so that we would find them and draw this kind of conclusions.
To denie their existence seems just stupid and also denieing a piece of GOD's creation!
If GOD wants us to find "evidence" of evolution then aren't we actually trying to outsmart GOD when we debate against it...?
Another possibility is that GOD wants us to have this debate, maybe to learn something from it...?

From where I'm standing, if GOD is the creator then he WANTS us to se these things and think about them. No position is wrong but one...
The one where you try to hide the thoughts from people by not telling them about it as in not allowing schoolteachers to tell the kids that there was this crazy dude called Darwin who had som stupid ideas and what these ideas were and how they were based on some things that men had seen...

Would anyone care to point out the flaws in my reasoning so that I too may become wiser?

papaone

03-15-2005, 04:01

Snowhound: I do appreciate the opportunity to dialogue with you. For me, it is a privilege to do so. Thank you for the invitation. My question is this, What experiment has ever shown that functionally coherent complex patterns are/were produced by the chaotic motion of dust? As students of science, we both know that for a hypothesis to be validated, it must be repeatable. So where is the validation for for my question? Please do not answer my question, at this point, with a question but just answer it as best that you can. Hopefully, we are all seekers and open to verifiable truth.
Thank you ;)

papaone

03-15-2005, 04:02

snowhound

03-15-2005, 08:45

Hello papaone!
I’m not quite sure I understand your question correctly but here goes…
What experiment has ever shown that functionally coherent complex patterns are/were produced by the chaotic motion of dust?
No single experiment has shown this (it may have happened once but we don’t know. That’s what we are debating!).

A number of observations and experiments however support small parts of the very long chain of events necessary for this, shall we call it hypothesis or theory to be true.
We can not repeat the whole event to verify or falsify our theory. Nor can we do inferential statistics on a sample of one. Just like the question “are we alone in space?” the probability can not be calculated. We know we exist but that’s all we can prove.
Lack of knowledge is not either a proof that a theory is incorrect. For example: Darwin himself said that his theory of evolution was heavily flawed. This statement is often used as proof that evolution does not exist (the author if the theory didn’t himself believe in it) and has been used previously in this thread. What Darwin actually said was that his observations supported his theory but he could not find the mechanism that would drive natural selection. The answer to that specific flaw was found by Watson and Crick a number of years later. The discovery of DNA as a means of heredity does not itself prove the theory of evolution but it supports it.
To falsify a theory or hypotheses we need to make observations that are not consistent with the theory’s predictions. If we do it may be that the theory is not true but it may also be that the theory is only true under curtain circumstances and may have to be modified slightly to be universally true.
The observation that something is not mentioned in the bible is not proof of a competing theory being false. It is only proof that it is not mentioned in the bible…

As I write this I am very aware that science and its definitions are completely fabricated as a tool to understand things and are constantly changing! Earlier in this thread there was some debate about species. Last time I checked there were 18 definitions of “what is a species?” being compared against each other to determine which one was most in line with current knowledge and observations.

swill269

03-15-2005, 09:40

:o
one simple example is a child's crystal garden. you add water to some powder and it becomes hard, colorful crystal. enzimes and bacteria evolve from other matter in lab experiments. this was addressed earlier in the post.
:cool:

P.S. go back and read jan. 18, 2005 posts in this thread.

snowhound

03-15-2005, 12:05

I was thinking in a bit larger scale but ifa child's crystal garden. you add water to some powder and it becomes hard, colorful crystal qualifies as functionally coherent complex patterns then yes!
enzimes and bacteria evolve from other matter in lab experiments is one of thenumber of observations and experiments that support small parts of the very long chain of events I was refering to.
I assume that papaone is moving toward a point and for the sake of intelligent discussion I am happy to go along!

R&R.45

03-16-2005, 08:19

U can't prove a negative. There's a LOT more evidence in support of evolution than there is against it, that's certain.

Tunug

03-16-2005, 13:19

Originally posted by R&R.45@Mar 16 2005, 10:19 AM
U can't prove a negative.
What does that mean?

snowhound

03-17-2005, 04:36

I'm still hoping for a comment on my original question which is NOT meant as an anti-christianity argument but is seriously meant as a "Both and?" option.
If the earth and everyting in it was created by GOD and the earth is actually only 6000 years old then GOD has obviously made the fossil records APPEAR as if organisms have changed over billions of years and he has done it in a way so that we would find them
There may be a simple answer to this and if so I would very much like to hear it!
If there is no reply then I will have to assume that everyone is bored of the topic and I will drop the subject...
...or reflect upon the possibility that I have actually hit a sensetive spot in some way...

Tunug

03-17-2005, 08:55

not sure exactly what you are asking but i think you want to know how can the 6000 year old earth theory be reconciled with scientific evidence. It can't. The Bible does not state that the earth is 6000 years old. Mainstream Christianity has made a mistake in interperating the bible and has concluded that the earth is 6000 years old based on the generations since Adam. Modern science shows us that the earth is much older, but unfortunately, the church has always had trouble accepting science (sad). Adam was likely created 6000 years ago, but science has forced more open minded theologians to study further into the Bible about earths past. These details are not crucial to God's plan for present mankind, so they were not as carefully preserved in translation and canon. The Bible also says that things are revealed in due time (just a simple truth we all understand).

There is much evidence in the Bible and scientific study that shows that there were plants, animals, extremely intelligent beings, and cities, well before the Adam was created. In fact, the Bible states that there has been genetic mutation performed on mankind AFTER Adam was created. This was done by fallen angels who were, in certain cases, described to look like what we call ET today! (that's right, i said it, extra terrestrial) They were called Nephilim in those days and the offspring of such mutations were giant, powerful, feared, respected, and scary intelligent beings! Gen 6:1

Genesis 1:1 and Jeremiah 4:23 allude to a total earth flood (not the later partial flood of Noah) which killed off the earth creatures which were ruled by superior intelligent beings who then fled the earth as a result of the rebellion of the greatest created angel, Lucifer. Lucifer's angelic state, dominion over earth, and fall are mentioned throughout the Bible. This all happened long before the Adam was was created. Why? A process of test and refinement for their present positions, just as our existence is also a process of test and refinement for our future positions as righteous and absolute rulers over the earth under Christ. This future of ours is becoming more apparent in these last days which are fulfilling prophesy left and right. I realize this sounds quite far fetched to the average person, which is why the church does not openly teach it today. However, biblical archeology, theology, and science widely agree on these theories of history. And, they are only beginning to make much sense in these days when strange things are happening once again. There is no contradiction of these facts in the Bible, only in the stubborness of men and their err in interperatation. If the Bible hasn't astounded you yet, try reading it more closely! Good luck, Godspeed, and keep your eyes to the sky! You may see something that demands explanation -- something you can call empirical evidence that we are not alone in the universe!

Goeth27

03-17-2005, 11:41

i use to think that it was evolution all the way and the bible was a Harry potter book of 2 thousand years ago, but recently, it begins to make sense. I don't have any passages from a bible to explain my side because thats what we are argueing right?

Virgin marry, Virgin in roman definition is young lady, not the other virgin

Man couldn't have gotten this smart in this millions of years, other animals have been here for the same time period as us and they still don't know how to make potery or bowls!

in Genisis, god created earth in days, but its not said what was meant by a DAY, lots of holes that can't be filled but it makes sense to me.

and a lot of hippies beleive in evolution, which says a lot

and i want to meet a Nephilim, then maybe shoot one and get it mounted.

pow! pow! pow!pow!pow!pow!pow!pow!pow! :ar15: http://www.scifimoviepage.com/images/et.jpg

IVM

03-17-2005, 12:39

Wow, I can't believe people still debate creationism vs. evolution. How long ago was the Scopes trial?

But in any case...

Evolution or Creationism? It's a tough call, especially since I've had a hand at "evolution" myself at some point or another in biology classes, which I will explain in a bit.

So, if you ask me did God create everything down to the last speck of bacteria, and do it 6,000 years ago, I will tell you that is the most ludicrous thing in the world. There is absolutely mountains of evidence to show that the heavens and the earth are, determinately, greater than 6,000 years in age.

God, or Yahweh, or Jehovah or Allah or whatever you want to call "him" set this grand formular called "life" into motion, as defined in the Bible. Unfortunately for us, the Bible is 1- A translation of the original hebrew and aramaic with much lost in the translation (You could see that just from the brief two or three words Swordslinger posted about!) and 2- Words written by man, and thus open to interpretation as the more ancient the language, the less literal and the more metaphorical it is.

Evolution is fact. The common conception of what people think evolution means (Man came from monkeys, etc) is not fact. Do lifeforms evolve from one generation to the next resulting in something different down the line than from what they started out as? Yes, most obviously. Look at yourself! When was the last time you used your appendix to break down hard bone matter in your digestive system? Never? That's because it has become a vestigial organ and is no longer used- we evolved to ignore it because we no longer used it. How this evolution came about, I can explain further if you ask.

Please, before you bring up any arguments against Evolution that you found on the Internet somewhere, find the rebuttal to it here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html

And why? Because every rebuttal on there is backed up with logic, scientific FACT (not just theory), and common knowledge. Everything from arguments about the earth only being 6,000 years old to the whole "2nd law of thermodynamics" that Creationists who newly discover the Internet love to toss around like it's some kind of magical scientific disproof.

So, what about creatures becoming modified from their original type? Bacteria most commonly evolve on a daily basis because the time span from generation to generation is so short. In a class on biology, we were taught how to use recombinant DNA technique to create a bacteria that could feed on a specific type of sugar and only that type of sugar. We used a technique where we introduced a specific gene into the bacteria's DNA after splicing out the original part. Growing cultures on a petri dish later proved that we did it correctly- whereas the original bacteria would grow on all of the petri dishes, the ones we modified would only grow on the specific sugar base we used. We did ABSOLUTELY nothing more than use the same techniques the body itself uses to snip and cut DNA and repaste DNA.

Yes, I do believe in a God, I do believe that there is truth to the Bible, in metaphor and in original language, but I don't believe the ridiculous claim that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago.

If man came from monkeys, then man came from monkeys. What do I care? God is the reason it all happened anyway.

IVM

03-17-2005, 12:46

Regarding the Cambrian Explosion:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html

The most important thing to note is that the Cambrian period was not "sudden" by any means. It was at the LEAST, 5 MILLION YEARS LONG. That is not a "sudden explosion", that's not like governments changing overnight. That's a steady ramp up over millions of years to major diversification, where the chain of evolution would then whittle things down into seperate phyla and begin to specialize/adapt.

Tunug

03-17-2005, 13:04

i want to meet a Nephilim, then maybe shoot one and get it mounted.

:lol: HaHaa! me too, but i got a feeling it would laugh at our puny guns.

in Genisis, god created earth in days, but its not said what was meant by a DAY, lots of holes that can't be filled but it makes sense to me.

Btw, the six days of Genesis didn't include the creation of earth, just the reforming of it. Gen 1:1 says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." A more accurate translation of Gen 1:2 states that the earth was laid to waste by flood and then reformed -- this is the key to understanding recreation.

A vast amount of time passed between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:3. This is the time where Lucifer, intelligent beings, animals, and vegetation existed on earth as well as angels on earth and in the heavens (planets) before the rebellion of Lucifer and 1/3 of the angels and the sebsequent judgement and destruction of earth via total flood and ice age, killing all life therein.

In Gen 1:3 He allowed light to shine on the earth once again. In Gen 1:4 He seperated light from darkness or basically set the earth to rotate once about it's axis in a 24 hour period. In Gen 1:5, He called it day and night, creating the first day of six of reforming the earth. I think the "days" referred to in Genesis were litteral 24 hour days.

Just tryin to fill in some holes... its good stuff!! It agrees with the Bible and science!!

some references to time between Gen 1:1 (perfect state) and 1:2 (laid to waste) include:
Dt. 32:4, Job 38, Ps. 18:30, Eccl. 3:11, Isa. 14:12-14, Jer. 4:23, Ezek. 28:11-17, Col. 1:15-18, 2Pet. 3:5-8.

Tunug

03-17-2005, 13:44

IVM, I have to say that I agree with you almost 100% I agree that there is scientific fact to the theory of evolution. And like you, I don't believe that evolution itself can explian it's own process. What I mean is that Evolution attempts to explain a process but does not explain its own origin. When it goes so far as to say that species evolve from one species to a completely different one, such as monkey to man, it then becomes a stretch that can't really be backed up through the fossil record. And, regarding the Cambrian explosion, in the grand scheme of vast time, it did happen rather quickly -- I mean there were no species and then relatively sudden there were LOTS!!. They then dwindled to few species, which only proves survival of the fittest, not species transmutations as is postulated to describe us coming from monkeys. If this were true, the Cambrian explosion could not have happened. Cambrian explosion does not at all disprove all theories of evolution, just transmutation of species. And you are dead on, and im sure we both agree, it doesnt take a brainiac to realize that the earth is older than 6000 years!! ;)

But, I think the creationism vs. evolution debate is important for two similar reasons. Mainstream creationists need to keep their mind open to science and realize that science does not threaten their theology, it just changes some of the details. If they don't, they will be discredited by logical thinkers who rely on reason, which is certainly happening. The same goes for the evolutionists who "need" to be able to prove that the process of evolution proves that there is no intelligent Creator. Some of the stretches they postulate fall out of the realm of objective scientific study and become theology. This will also discredit them.

Hopefully the debate can be objective enough that the two can find a common ground where the real truth lies (truth lies? is that a weird phrase or what? <_< lol) Anyway, at that point, maybe it can cease to be a debate, and become a mutual understanding. I dont believe the mutual understang will become widespread for quite a while, though. And I won't even go into the reason behind that belief, lol (evil is persuasive, division is welcomed.... :blink: oops!)

snowhound

03-18-2005, 04:09

Thank you Tunug and IVM very much for your intelligent and informative answers!
Although it may be, as you say, difficult to take in and understand you have answered my question and a great deal more!If man came from monkeys, then man came from monkeys. What do I care? God is the reason it all happened anyway...is the viewpoint I have been searching for when discussing the subject with christians but I have mostly run in to fingerpointing and shouts of "UNBELIEVER!" which I think is the root of the anti-christionism you are so sick of...
I hope your openmindedness will spread to a majority of your community! If it does, I just might be tempted to join...

IVM

03-24-2005, 03:09

Originally posted by Tunug@Mar 17 2005, 12:44 PM
IVM, I have to say that I agree with you almost 100% I agree that there is scientific fact to the theory of evolution. And like you, I don't believe that evolution itself can explian it's own process. What I mean is that Evolution attempts to explain a process but does not explain its own origin. When it goes so far as to say that species evolve from one species to a completely different one, such as monkey to man, it then becomes a stretch that can't really be backed up through the fossil record. And, regarding the Cambrian explosion, in the grand scheme of vast time, it did happen rather quickly -- I mean there were no species and then relatively sudden there were LOTS!!. They then dwindled to few species, which only proves survival of the fittest, not species transmutations as is postulated to describe us coming from monkeys. If this were true, the Cambrian explosion could not have happened. Cambrian explosion does not at all disprove all theories of evolution, just transmutation of species. And you are dead on, and im sure we both agree, it doesnt take a brainiac to realize that the earth is older than 6000 years!! ;)
Well, perhaps I need to construct this more carefully.

Regarding the Cambrian Explosion:

One of the primary postulates regarding lack of fossil record and the usual misrepresentation of the Cambrian explosion is that fossils are primarily rare. They really don't happen often, and a very special set of circumstances must exist to preserve something as a fossil. While the "explosion" happened rapidly if you consider geological time, it wasn't an overnight or over-century thing. There is a steady ramp-up of fossil record from the Cambrian era over the course of several hundred thousand to million years before it truly "blooms" and then a subsequent ramp-down. There really arent a huge amount of fossils from the pre-Cambrian era in general. Perhaps it was only the Cambrian era lifeforms that possessed the necessary physical qualities that gave them a proclivity to fossilization.

Regarding evolution:

Evolution does not attempt to explain its own origin because it is a theory of how life became, not necessarily how it began. It can be postulated that since lifeforms evolve and have been recorded as such, then you can deconstruct that equation until you reach the most basic elements of conclusion. If a trailer full of cars is made of cars and a trailer and cars are made of parts and those parts are specialized and each of those specialized parts is made of smaller parts assembled together, etc, etc. You break it down until you reach the most basic level to where you can't break it down any further.

If you read the links I provided, you'd find that there are plenty of examples of crossover fossils, such as dinosaurs with bird-like qualities, an entire chain of fossils that shows the evolution of the Manatee, etc.