View Full Version : Theological Question
ice-nine
03-22-2005, 09:20
Did Adam and Eve have navels? <_<
2CoolChris
03-23-2005, 18:01
Of course they did.
You dont really believe for a minute that the bible if factual evidence do you?
They bible is a story book designed to promote ideas, not factual evidence.
It's more about the idea, and not so much fact.
For instance, Jonah in the belly of the whale, it's not about the fact that whales rarely eat humans, much less what digestive acids will do. It's a story about faith, not scientific truth.
I for one, do not believe that "poof" here's Adam, and "poof" here's Eve. Matter of fact....BullSheet. We have museums full of ancient man and others relics from a long time ago. Many are extinct, others evolved. Adam and Eve story was created because the authors nor the people at the time had any kind of understanding of science at the time. And remember this too, the collective intelligence of mankind at the time( that the authors were trying to appeal to), was uninformed. Blind ignorants. The bible is full of storys that : Quote: " even a child could understand".
And thats my point exactally. Its more about getting ideas across to uneducated dimwits at the time to try and get them from beating eachother over the head all the time. Remember, most folks couldn't read or write at the time. And they certainly had no concept of science. So how, as an author, are you going to get dumbasses to understand the points you are trying to make? Well, you come up with goofy bs like adam and eve for one thing. And the snake story, and why we have evil and all??!?!?!
Buuullllllllllll Sheeeeeeeeeeeeettttttttttttt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Good book, recommended reading and all. Read them all, not just the watered down loosley translated western forms we were force fed as children.
BlenderWizard
03-24-2005, 14:58
Originally posted by 2CoolChris@Mar 23 2005, 08:01 PM
Of course they did.
You dont really believe for a minute that the bible if factual evidence do you?
They bible is a story book designed to promote ideas, not factual evidence.
It's more about the idea, and not so much fact.
For instance, Jonah in the belly of the whale, it's not about the fact that whales rarely eat humans, much less what digestive acids will do. It's a story about faith, not scientific truth.
I for one, do not believe that "poof" here's Adam, and "poof" here's Eve. Matter of fact....BullSheet. We have museums full of ancient man and others relics from a long time ago. Many are extinct, others evolved. Adam and Eve story was created because the authors nor the people at the time had any kind of understanding of science at the time. And remember this too, the collective intelligence of mankind at the time( that the authors were trying to appeal to), was uninformed. Blind ignorants. The bible is full of storys that : Quote: " even a child could understand".
And thats my point exactally. Its more about getting ideas across to uneducated dimwits at the time to try and get them from beating eachother over the head all the time. Remember, most folks couldn't read or write at the time. And they certainly had no concept of science. So how, as an author, are you going to get dumbasses to understand the points you are trying to make? Well, you come up with goofy bs like adam and eve for one thing. And the snake story, and why we have evil and all??!?!?!
Buuullllllllllll Sheeeeeeeeeeeeettttttttttttt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Good book, recommended reading and all. Read them all, not just the watered down loosley translated western forms we were force fed as children.
Thank God someone else has a good handle on the subject.
Originally posted by ice-nine@Mar 22 2005, 08:20 AM
Did Adam and Eve have navels? <_<
Couldn't tell ya, never met them personally. ;) I guess it would depend on the interpretation of the Bible and Genesis. If you take it literally, then no, I don't think they would have as they didn't have umbilical cords. They were created. Their kids would have had them though.
This discussion is as pointless as the medieval question of how many angels could dance on the head of a pin...and it dates back as far.
The arguments generally boiled down to:
If Adam and Eve were never born, they didn't need umbilical cords or the navels that result, and God wouldn't add such unnecessary appendages to his creation. But the lack of navels would leave them incomplete and therefore, flawed. Since God is perfect, He wouldn't create a flawed man.
The question can not be resolved logically because the arguments are based on circular reasoning and neither can be supported by any outside evidence.
To those of you who "believe" the evolution story, I was fed that fable in college biology classes. Your own arguments (genetic mutation and natural selection over millions of years resulting in improved species filling specific niches in the ecosystem) are contradicted by the second law of thermodynamics (entropy). The likelyhood that a successful species will evolve into an even more successful species actually requires more faith than a belief in the biblical account of creation.
The common view of evolution actually follows the general sequence of events as recounted in the first chapter of Genesis - first the Earth is created, then plants, then animals, and humans last of all. And it was written thousands of years before Charles Darwin was born...by (according to some posts here) "uninformed" people writing to the ignorant, backward masses of the time. (By the way, your arguments might carry a bit more authority with correct grammar and spelling.)
The similarities between various animals' (both living and extinct) morphology can be explained by a single designer's adaptation of a basic form to different specific functions (a flipper is related to an arm or foreleg) as easily as being a result of random mutation.
*edit due to accidental doublepost*
Oh no, not the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics rebuttal. I have yet to see someone who took an advanced physics class where they actually discussed thermodynamics use this "claim". I used to write out my own rebuttals to such ridiculous claims that the 2nd law of thermodynamics (Discussing heat flow) has anything to do with evolution, but I got tired of the typing so now I copy-paste.
Here, chew on this.
Claim CF001:
The second law of thermodynamics says that everything tends toward disorder, making evolutionary development impossible.
Rebuttal:
The second law of thermodynamics says no such thing. It says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease. This does not prevent increasing order because the earth is not a closed system; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.
Entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. (Aranda-Espinoza et al. 1999; Kestenbaum 1998) Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size (Han and Craighead 2000).
Even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system.
In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time.
The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection. All of these are seen to happen all the time, so, obviously, no physical laws are preventing them. In fact, connections between evolution and entropy have been studied in depth, and never to the detriment of evolution (Demetrius 2000).
Several scientists have proposed that evolution and the origin of life is driven by entropy (McShea 1998). Some see the information content of organisms subject to diversification according to the second law (Brooks and Wiley 1988), so organisms diversify to fill empty niches much as a gas expands to fill an empty container. Others propose that highly ordered complex systems emerge and evolve to dissipate energy (and increase overall entropy) more efficiently (Schneider and Kay 1994).
Please, before anyone goes on a creationist rant, please look over this webpage and determine if your opinion regarding a specific matter, or your argument has been rebutted and disproven factually. It saves me the trouble of copy-pasting something you won't read anyway. ;)
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html
I'm a nice enough guy to go and read the Bible and read webpages on Creationist claims before I read rebuttals and come up with my own opinion- please do the same for me? :)
Thank you for taking the trouble to repeat yourself, IVM, and for posting the link. I admit I skimmed much of the site, skipping over creationist arguments I consider somewhat specious and reading only arguments (for now) that pertain to my own assertions posted above. Most of the rebuttals I read on Talkorigins web site were well-reasoned and logical, assuming their sources are accurately cited (I have no reason at present to presume otherwise). I was especially interested by sections CF001 and CH801, one of which discussed entropy and the other the Biblical order of events in Genesis 1. I will have to return to the site when I can, to compare the account verse-by-verse with the rebuttal on the web site.
I think this bears further research on my part. I'm not likely to switch over to your point of view anytime in the forseeable future, but I will enjoy reading a dispassionate reasoned debate...and perhaps formulate an argument you HAVEN'T heard before!
I'm always more than happy to engage in debate! Debate is what creates deeper, more intellectual and intelligent thought! Without it, we'd be stagnant in ideas that have been around since the stone age. Me Tarzan, you Jane, come back to my cave kind of stuff.
I always have an opinion on something. I don't consider my opinion to be a SOLID opinion until I investigate both sides of the story, and I don't care whether or not my opinion changes. I am always willing to change my viewpoints. Investigation and logical thought will always help you make the right decision on an issue- such is what brought me to be a supporter of firearm ownership, for example. Once upon a time I thought "Guns bad, should be heavily regulated. AWB good, cuz it keeps any knucklehead from buying a machinegun". More research showed me that AWB was ridiculous and ineffective legislation, and I changed my opinion. Then I went out and bought a Mini-14, then a handgun. ;)
I have religious beliefs, and the closest thing I can call myself is vaguely Christian-esque. My beliefs, however, may be a bit too out there for most of the folks here, so until I have it more well formulated, I will keep it to myself. Then I'll go through the debate that will help me determine if my thinking was right or not.
I read some of the articles and they also used general terms in them, to me they did not explain anything against the claims like homosexuallity, the need to worship a Creator or God. I did not feel that some of the specialized creatures of the Earth fit into evolution.
I'll keep an open mind and eye, tri :usa:
Evolution doesn't attempt to explain homosexuality, nor does it attempt to explain the need to worship. It only explains how life became in the physical world.
Specialization is the ultimate definition of Evolution! Life evolves to fill niches- so that all corners of life can be filled and roles assumed.
As far as Homosexuality goes...
Well, think of it this way. Homosexuality is genetic. Homosexuality would eventually "die off" genetically, since homosexuals wouldn't normally reproduce. But oppression and forced morality BREEDS homosexuality. Why? Because then homosexuals "pretend" to be heterosexual, produce offspring, etc, instead of simply living out their homosexual lives and dying off as a genetic anomaly.
Reap what you sow, I say. :)
Santafeur
04-24-2005, 11:15
I have a more irking question.
did/does god have a belly-button?
ice-nine
04-25-2005, 11:46
Originally posted by Santafeur@Apr 24 2005, 09:15 AM
I have a more irking question.
did/does god have a belly-button?
would/does God want a belly-button?
We are created in his image, so I guess we can ask when we get there as long as you believe you'll be there to ask. ;)
-tri :usa:
Last Gunslinger
05-24-2005, 08:21
Originally posted by IVM@Mar 30 2005, 06:23 PM
Evolution doesn't attempt to explain homosexuality, nor does it attempt to explain the need to worship. It only explains how life became in the physical world.
Specialization is the ultimate definition of Evolution! Life evolves to fill niches- so that all corners of life can be filled and roles assumed.
As far as Homosexuality goes...
Well, think of it this way. Homosexuality is genetic. Homosexuality would eventually "die off" genetically, since homosexuals wouldn't normally reproduce. But oppression and forced morality BREEDS homosexuality. Why? Because then homosexuals "pretend" to be heterosexual, produce offspring, etc, instead of simply living out their homosexual lives and dying off as a genetic anomaly.
Reap what you sow, I say. :)
Actually most scientific evidence indicates that male homosexuals' female family members have a higher occurance of birth rate than females who do no have homosexual males in their immediate families. This would suggest a genetic disposition towards being attracted to males, for both sexes, in these families. So the gene could still be passed from a heterosexual mother to a son, making him more likely to be attracted to males.
Also for the "its a choice" crowd, Swedish researchers, (I know, ask that preacher in Kansas about filthy swedes) have determined that homosexual males' brains respond to pheremones in males sweat, like females do, and do not respond to female pheremones in sweat like heterosexual males do. This would suggest that homosexuality is a choice only if you consider your invouluntary reactions a "choice". I'd like to see some of you same folks choose not to blink, or maybe say, breathe, for a a while. :D Anyway, food for thought.
As for the question "Why would evolution trend humans towards behavior that doesn't produce offspring?" Maybe we realize (if only subconciously) that we have been so successful and reporduced so efficiently that we now represent the greatest danger to our own survival, and the survival of most of the familiar life forms on this planet. Doesn't that put you in the mood? Nature is exceedingly efficient, and the efficient ways to control population are to curb reproduction and to increase predators. We have pretty much eliminated all the predators of man except one. Us. And so we have become exceedingly efficient at preying on ourselves, and we are less prone to be reproducers. I don't see what is so hard to comprehend about this.
Actually most scientific evidence indicates that male homosexuals' female family members have a higher occurance of birth rate than females who do no have homosexual males in their immediate families. This would suggest a genetic disposition towards being attracted to males, for both sexes, in these families.
It may also simply suggest that those families are more likely to have unprotected sex, which is a lot more believable than your suggestion.
A universe that assembles itself ??? Excuse me while I Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. :unsure:
Last Gunslinger
06-10-2005, 10:32
Originally posted by Tunug@May 24 2005, 01:11 PM
Actually most scientific evidence indicates that male homosexuals' female family members have a higher occurance of birth rate than females who do no have homosexual males in their immediate families. This would suggest a genetic disposition towards being attracted to males, for both sexes, in these families.
It may also simply suggest that those families are more likely to have unprotected sex, which is a lot more believable than your suggestion.
Men who are gay are more likely to have sisters who don't take the pill? I don't understand your logic. Sometimes what you think is easy to believe (that Jesus of Nazareth was born of a virgin for instance, or that he knew that I was gonna be) ain't so easy for me to believe, so I feel ya, though.
You stated a statistic that says that birth rates are higher in families where man on man sex is practiced. You then said this statistic is evidence that man on man attraction is genetic because you think the statistic proves that the women are more attracted to the men in such families. that is a stretch... a far stretch.
I find it easier to believe that birth rates are higher in families of people who accept and practice homosex because there is sexual problems in these homes and safesex is not practiced "normally." Attraction is probably the same between men an women in each group, but the group with more homosex is less careful about sex. (AIDS, HELLO? heh heh) That makes a lot more sense as to what would be responsible for higher birth rates among sexually deviant groups than it does to say it is genetics.
In other words... the statistic is more of an indicator of careless sex than it is of homo =faulty genetics.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/p...genetosexuality (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/po/20050604/co_po/researchlinksfruitflygenetosexuality)
Scientists show that homosexuality can be turned on/off genetically. While it doesn't prove that it's such in humans (as any scientist will admit), it is a very supportive stance that it is genetic.
interesting stuff.... however, this phenomenon was induced and not naturally occuring. They also did not observe that these induced traits could be naturally passed on to the next generation. After all, homosex does not pro-create so how could a trait like this be passed on unless done heterosexually? (which wouldn't happen because they weren't programmed to) If it takes playing god with fruit flies to create mutant misfit fruit flies, and if homosexuality is genetic, is something playing god with the human race to create genetically mutant misfit homo people?
And even if it can be proven that there is a homo gene in humans and that it could be passed down to further generations, does that mean that homosex is right or good?
Gunslinger... ya strange logic is fun aint it?
Some things are so strange that they are near impossible to believe... and some of these strange things are true!
Our definition of what is strange is only relative to what we understand (what is no longer strange). Take for instance, planets revolving around stars... probably seemed to strange to understand or believe to isolated tribes in third world countries or the roman catholic church of old (heh heh), but what do ya know? We don't think it so strange anymore because we understand it a little better, even though we still don't completely understand gravity. Non-locality in quantum physics (spooky action at a distance) is something very strange being studied by scientists today. How can we observe an effect on one particle and observe its cause on another particle, completely independant and irrelevant of the distance and time between the two? What is this unseen force? and how could the effect happen before the cause?!!?? The paranormal (esp) reports effects before cause as well, does it use the same force?
The nature of that force, or gravity, or God, or logic based on the belief in that God, may not make sense... but maybe one day it will -- relative to what is understood (no longer strange).
Last Gunslinger
06-14-2005, 07:55
interesting stuff.... however, this phenomenon was induced and not naturally occuring.
Kinda like religion?
No, gunslinger, if you read the article IVM posted, you would see that it was about a test where genes were induced by scientists. This phenomenon was not found to occur naturally. Did you read it? If so, how do you compare that to religion? Sorry man, but that just didn't make much sense, lol!
And, if you don't know what religion is, let me help. Religions are beliefs about God and rules to live by based on man's interperatation of what is the truth concerning God, His plan for men, and how we relate. There are many religions, because there are many different ideas of what that truth is truth. There is however only one truth. That ONE TRUTH is a very different thing than religion. Some religions are quite accurate at interperating truth and some are quite false, with varying degrees of accuracy in between. None are perfect, because they are all man made, and man is not perfect.
So when you use the broad term "religion," you really are not speaking directly about God, His plan for us, or His relation to us. You are only speaking about what is implied as an imperfect creation of man in the most general way. So, what was it that you wanted to say about religion? It wasn't quite clear in your last post.
If you were trying to imply that religion is "induced," as in forced, it is not. Following a religion of any kind is a choice. It always has been. It is not like genetic manipulation. :lol: Silly you!
cowboy117
06-15-2005, 11:37
What is that one truth? :unsure:
Well, that's up to you to find, not me to find for you.
It's what theologians, philosophers, unification theorists, and believers spend their lives searching for. It is the answer to everything -- how the universe came into existence, what the future holds for the earth and the universe, who is God, why we are here, how we can live forever, etc., etc.
We, as Christians, believe that Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and no man knows God except through Jesus Christ.
This is not at all to say that by knowing Christ, we must follow a religion -- that is inconsequencial and optional. Jesus said He is the Way, Truth, and Life; He did not say He is the religion. There are many religions that do not believe that Christ is The Way. Some of those contian good values and some don't. There are also some religions that do believe that Christ is the Way, and some of those have good values, and some don't. None are perfect, and none will save your soul. Btw, He also said the phrase stolen by Arnie, "I'll be back!"
:lol:
The part that I don't understand about evolution is how things survived long enough to evolve. To start you have a one celled organism in a sustaining ooze. It evolves, somehow, into a 2 cell organism, etc. At some point that organism evolves a brain I assume, why I don't know, it doesn't need one, but it evolves one. But it doesn't have a stomach or nervious system or any of that, so it can think maybe but can't eat or move. So I guess it develops the rest of the stuff, for what reason I don't know because it's in the ooze that supports it so how does it know what to evolve. And then at some point the organism has to leave the self sustaining ooze and find and consume substinance? And procreate with what?
If at any time the organism leaves the ooze before all of it's organs are devoloped it'll die. If an organism has all it's parts but no heart, it's dead, no stomach, it's dead, etc. If it has no reproductive organs it's all for nothing.
I also don't understand the statement that some creatures developed certain traits to stay alive. Like organisms that live in the deep ocean have physical characteristics to live under those extreme pressures. If those physical characteristics 'evolved' for them to survive in the deep pressure they (species) would have died long before they evolved. Or the polar bear with it's white coat for concealment and black skin for absorbing light. For a polar bear to survive he would have had to had those physical characteristics to live in that climate. In the millions of years it would have taken for those characteristics to have evolved the polar bears would have gone extinct or moved and not evolved those characteristics.
And why evolve at all. In the ooze that supported life what caused evolution to occur? If evolution occurs to survive what caused digestive tracts and such to develop when all that was known to the organism is the ooze it was in. Why develop a heart and circulatory system? A nervous system? None of it was needed in the ooze for the 1 celled or few celled organism to survive.
And how did conception evolve? How did going from an egg and sperm to make a fetus that grows to make a new life evolve? If cell devision in the fetus to make stem cells and eventually all of the organs is not exact the fetus dies. The host's hormones have to be withen tight ranges and the blood flow to the fetus has to be exacting also.
I guess when I think about it evolution just takes too darn long to do anything. Everything would die out before evolution fashioned a fix for it. Also, too many things have to be done synchronously. All of the organs have to be done at the same time for the organs to survive. All of the organs being devoloped but without a brain die, or lacking a heart dies, etc. Evolution doesn't do things synchronously but indepentantly. And evolution requires a reason to evolve. It doesn't evolve an organ like a heart without cause. In the ooze there was no cause. There was no need for muscle tissue, brain tissue, etc.
While creationism requires faith to believe so does evolution. It comes down to what you put your faith into, what you believe. Do you believe a god created everything by his design or that it evolved by no design but all worked out in the end?
In the end you have to put your faith in something or believe nothing at all and ignore it.
Each of us has the choice on what to believe or not to believe, it's our free will.
later,
scruffy
hey scruff, excellent points. It does take quite a bit of faith to believe that species evolved into extremely complex and balanced systems, where any upset in that balance and the species dies off. Like you pointed out, to develop lungs or gills to oxygenate the blood and a heart to circulate the blood, it would have to happen almost instantaneously, or the creature could not live.
And how did conception evolve? How did going from an egg and sperm to make a fetus that grows to make a new life evolve?
Ya!!?? how did species reproduce before their reproductive system evolved to a working system?
Now, I can understand certain aspects of adaption, where, for example, species will become larger or smaller according to available food supplies. it's been presumed that this happens based on evidence. I can buy that. They sometimes call it micro-evolution. But to use that as evidence that a species can create itself or even mutate into completely different species, and then call it macro-evolution, or just evolution, then explain that it is the only cause of our existence.... all based on a study of adaption.... well, that's a huge stretch..... and ummm nope, I don't buy it because there isn't any hard evidence of it. To me, this stretch of the imagination can only be ..... a dream of the imagination.... and since it is what people accept as a model of our origins, it is also a religion of sorts.... because it takes incredible blind faith (and quite a bit of ignorance) to believe.
Now, a guy performed miracles, was crucified, and, as was prophesied and as he promised he would do, three days after he died, he brought himself back to life!. History has recorded it, and NONE have been able to disprove it. Many other miracles have been performed in that guys name -- I've seen some with my own eyes. Also, mankind has always had an incredibly real feeling that there is an intelligent creator God out there. This guy claimed that He was the son of God, and possessed the power of God. Well, based on the evidence that he rose from the dead, the miracles performed in His name, and all the prophesies that he was coming... that's not near as difficult to believe as the idea that species created themselves from a mud puddle without and outside intelligent intervention. Just the beauty of creation is enough to at least believe in the God, if not the Son.
The ONLY way I can believe that a blob of mud suddely turned into a self sustaining species with the ability to reproduce... is if it was made to do so by God Himself!
Anyhow, good shtuff, scruff!
Originally posted by Tunug@Jun 14 2005, 11:20 AM
No, gunslinger, if you read the article IVM posted, you would see that it was about a test where genes were induced by scientists. This phenomenon was not found to occur naturally.
Actually, they did not do anything that would not be genetically plausible. They flipped an existing gene- giving the female fruit flies the sexual drive of the male fruit flies.
Why would this not work in nature? Animals low on the totem pole do not have "shame", they do not feel social pressure, and they do not have a conscience. I don't think that a female fruit fly trying to bang another female fruit fly is worried what her mother will think.
Higher life-forms including humans can have "shame". Ever seen how your dog reacts when you tell him "Bad boy!" after doing something wrong? That's because they have higher developed brains- emotions.
Humans can be pressured to act in a way that is unnatural to them, because they are taught that anything else is not "normal" and won't be tolerated, thus shaming them. Plenty of gay men came out of the closet after having kids, which perpetuates the genetics of homosexuality.
Originally posted by scruffy@Jun 15 2005, 11:22 AM
The part that I don't understand about evolution is how things survived long enough to evolve. To start you have a one celled organism in a sustaining ooze. It evolves, somehow, into a 2 cell organism, etc. At some point that organism evolves a brain I assume, why I don't know, it doesn't need one, but it evolves one. But it doesn't have a stomach or nervious system or any of that, so it can think maybe but can't eat or move. So I guess it develops the rest of the stuff, for what reason I don't know because it's in the ooze that supports it so how does it know what to evolve. And then at some point the organism has to leave the self sustaining ooze and find and consume substinance? And procreate with what?
Evolution can be hard to understand if you don't attempt to study it, much like "how a computer works" can be hard to understand if you don't attempt to study it. Sure, you can give me the basics, but those basics may sound rather "magical" and "ludicrous" unless you get into further detail.
The major misconception is that "Evolution doesn't sound right because the time it would've taken to evolve a certain trait would've been too long and the species would've died off".
Evolution is not about creating new traits and changing. It's about a simple mathematical equation combined with biology.
DNA is not stable. In fact, it can be very unstable. Many environmental factors modify DNA. Cancer modifies DNA. Radiation modifies DNA. Chemicals modify DNA.
Moving from self-reproducing life-forms to sexual reproduction is what caused the largest boom in life- sexual reproduction, by nature of the fact that you are mixing DNA from one sex of the organism with another, results in even more variation.
I'm sure you have friends who can't tolerate hot or cold weather as much as you can, or spicy food as much as you can (for example). This is a genetic difference. Some differences don't really mean much in the grand scheme of things for an animal (being able to eat spicy food), but some do, (being able to withstand cold).
If you happen to have the genetics for a slightly thicker coat of fur as a polar bear, it may not make a difference. But once it gets colder, then it does. Suddenly the less-thick fur-coat bears are dying off, and more of the thick-coat bears are reproducing. Eventually, this results in the genetics "streamlining" themselves for a specific trait that survives.
Genetic variation doesn't result BECAUSE of environmental changes, it happens BEFORE environmental changes. Environmental changes simply weed out which genetic variations survive and reproduce, and which ones die off.
Originally posted by IVM@Jun 19 2005, 05:54 PM
Evolution can be hard to understand if you don't attempt to study it, much like "how a computer works" can be hard to understand if you don't attempt to study it. Sure, you can give me the basics, but those basics may sound rather "magical" and "ludicrous" unless you get into further detail.
"Magical and ludicrous", that's how alot of evolutionists describe creationism. And as you said evolution seems like magic and ludicrous to alot of creationists. I guess those who believe one way, be it creationists or evolutionists, believe the others belief are magical and ludicrous.
To each their own I guess.
Both views have big holes in them according to science and biology (I'm not going to get into "the big holes" in each belief, we'd all evolve into another life form before that discussion ended.... If you believe there aren't any holes dig deaper, they're there...). Creationism fills those holes with the superior being, God. For creationism what science can't explain doesn't matter because that is what God did, thus filling all the holes. Evolution's holes are being filled by scientists that continue to research and theorize based on what the current science and biology known facts and theories. I say "current" because science and biology 'theories' change over time as more facts are uncovered and prove or disprove previously accepted theories.
There is no "proof" of either one being right and the other wrong. After you've done your research you have to put your faith in evolution's theories or creationist's God to fill the "holes" that science and biology can't explain in each belief set.
In the end it's faith. Faith either in creationism or evolutionism. Faith that when you die you continue to live in spirit or when you die you die, that's it.
Faith and hope, it's all that we truly have that can't be taken away.
later,
scruffy
Belief in evolution has nothing to do with whether or not you believe in God. I believe in God, and I believe in Evolution. It's all part of the plan he created.
As far as Creationism vs. Evolution, read this link first.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
That will give you a better understanding of Evolution. I always encourage people to understand what they don't- after all, if your belief is true and strong, understanding the opposite viewpoint will do nothing but strengthen your opinion. :)
As far as research I've been there, done that, didn't buy the t-shirt though. ;)
I just came up with a different decision and "faith" than you did.
later,
scruffy
Metaldoc
06-24-2005, 08:16
I have stayed out of "Bill's Bar" for quite some time now. It was just too upsetting to me. And that is my choice. On rare occasion I will check in to see what's up in the firearm forums. Today, curiosity got the better of me and I checked out this forum.
Scruffy, what a pleasure to see your response. For those of us that have been led by the Spirit to find faith in our Creator and His Creation, you, in simple, yet eloquent terms succeeded in stating our position perfectly.
Just had to give you a pat on the back. Thanks for sharing your faith, Scruffy. ;)
Metaldoc
Swordslinger
08-27-2005, 21:05
Originally posted by tri70@Apr 28 2005, 01:49 AM
We are created in his image, so I guess we can ask when we get there as long as you believe you'll be there to ask. ;)
-tri :usa:
I doubt the ones who ask such sillya$$ed questions will get the chance to ask him. :lol: :lol: After a few years of His Government on earth, they may have a change of heart. <_< But I doubt it.
Those that will hear His voice, will, and some are predestined not to hear. He (Christ) dosnt even want them to!! Some are on the crap list from the beginning, and other are prosolytized by them and become two folds more a son of hell that they are.
Mark 4:11 "And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them."
See, some folks He dosnt even want to "be converted". This is not the Jesus taught in most Sunday schools, but it is the One taught in the Bible. I find it interesting that should they be converted, they too would be forgiven. Becuase we have a Gracious King. But you can see he wasnt gonna bend over backwards and beg em. Some were born that way, some were prosolytized as in the description below.
Matthew 23:15
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.
So if you are having trouble understanding Scripture, may it was not meant for you. Or, perhaps somewhere down the line you were deceived by one of these snakes...if you are not one your self. ;)
ice-nine
08-29-2005, 17:01
Wow, ask a question about a creation story and what do I get? Damnation and Homos.
The scriptural references reminded me of a quote;
"Reading the Bible straight through is at least 70 percent discipline, like learning Latin.
But the good parts are, of course, simply amazing. God is an extremely uneven writer,
but when He's good, nobody can touch Him." - John W. Gardner
I had not considered that I was not supposed to understand the Bible, some of it being so crystal clear, even to a wretch like me …
“And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?” - Matthew 7:3 ;)
Swordslinger
08-29-2005, 20:20
Sorry, I didnt mean to hurt your feelins. :(
ice-nine
08-30-2005, 10:06
Sword it is nice to have you back from your self imposed True Republic cloister.
I for one have missed your posts.
I wasn’t hurt.
I just think the damnation stuff comes off as a bit omnipotent.
My mother always told me, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
Maybe you’re both right.
I respect your faith.
I also believe without judgment we all become moral castrates.
I’m just of a mind that no here has the final word on who is or isn’t dammed.
Swordslinger
08-30-2005, 11:24
Originally posted by ice-nine@Aug 30 2005, 04:06 PM
I’m just of a mind that no here has the final word on who is or isn’t dammed.
I agree that the final word is not ours, but there is a final word. "Damning" is certainly not ours to do, but God's (YHVH"s), but we are given the directive to judge by the law, God's (YHVH's) Divine Law. My response was not as directed to you but to all of the atheist and anti-Christ's that frequent this "sub-forum" entitled "religious chit-chat". You are correct in what you said about not being judgemental is neutering to us. Most of churchianity today has allready been neutered, instead of the Cross of Christ behind the pulpit, they should have a BIG pair of snips! Most non-Christian seem to know one verse by heart, "judge not lest ye be judged", but few quote the true meaning of what The Master was trying to say as you did. In a Swordslinger paraphrase, "Make sure you dont judge for something if you are guitly of the same thing (speck, slinter etc..) or worse (beam, 2x4, landscaping timber ect...). I comend you for that.
Few Christians realise that we ARE to judge when shown the fruits, or the lack thereof.
Matthew 7:16* Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Matthew 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
How shall you "know" anything, if we go around with a blind eye saying "judge not!!!"
We see Paul understood the verse you quoted completely. In the context, he is judging immorality of one that was regularly attending gatherings, and partaking of The Lord's communion and the fellow members were associating with him, even though they knew what he was doing. All the while they were saying (probably) "judge not, lest ye be thou judged.....brother". Here is what Paul said:
1 Corinthians 5:3* For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,
They were probably "glorying" in the fact that they were more Godly than the other congregations that would not dare to let such a sinner in their midst. "Praise the Lord", "we do not judge, come on in brother so and so, you and your lover because we "judge not""! Here is what Paul went on to say.
6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Was he "judging when he said "your glorying is not good"?
Was Peter judeing when Ananias ans Sappira lied and both droped dead because of it in Acts Chapter 5?
9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.
10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband
More on "judging".
Luke 7:43* Simon answered and said, I suppose that he, to whom he forgave most. And he said unto him, Thou hast rightly judged.
Acts 16:15* And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.
Romans 2:12* For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;* (some assume falsely that this is saying the law was done away, but since 1st John 3:4 defines sin as a transgresion of the law, we must reconcile this with Christ's statment "Think not that I came to destroy the law")
* Corinthians 4:3* But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self.
1 Corinthians 6:2* Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
And finally and most importantly.
1 Corinthians 11:31* For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
Thanks for your most civil response. :)
YourLocalNerd
08-30-2005, 18:47
Originally posted by ice-nine@Aug 30 2005, 11:06 AM
Sword it is nice to have you back from your self imposed True Republic cloister.
Ice, this is by no means pointed at you :) You have always been civil in debates and that I totally respect and admire. But you brought up something that I figured would come up eventually.
To the point, I want to clarify the purpose and reasoning behind the True Republic. Simply put, I created it b/c unlike now this Religious Chit Chat section was a breeding ground for those who wanted to bash the Christian faith and cared nothing for actually discussing it. Now this section is rather dead (aside from the last 2 or 3 days), so those voices remain quiet. I had/have no problem in the civil debating of religious topics, but this place turned into a WWF style beat up the Christians in every topic or forum. And that is the reason I put up truerepublic.org. It was created to be a place that Christians can come and discuss whatever and not have to deal with people turning an innocent comment about "whatever" into anti-Christian everything. And yes, it is Christ centered. But that doesn't mean that everyone else is turned away.
As far as it being a cloister, it isn't. I don't care what religion you are; your welcome (and this isn't a hint to stop by). Muslim, buddist, whatever, your welcome. But the bashing of members b/c of their faith, isn't gonna happen for long... If you have a question/debate/argument and peaceably state your question/statement, thats great!! I'd love to discuss it!!
Anywho, that said I will shut up aside from this. This post isn't to steal members b/c I honestly don't care about the numbers. Nor is it to bash Bill. He has put together a great information source here, and I am in no way trying to hurt or hinder this site nor steal from it. This post is only about clarification so that no one gets the wrong idea.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.