Evolution Vs Creation

[Hambone]

Well, to get this started, here's some posts from another thread leading up to this topic.

 

NOFX:

hambone, i must agree with you, I've read your other post and i think we think alike. If anyone had taken the time to read books it all makes more sense. Science does prove that evolution occurs and anyone with eyes and a brain can see this. Look at the resembalnces between a cat and a tiger. It would be impossible to create different creatures and one look just like the other but a smaller version. There is also the soup theory, If you get the right protiens in a pool of water and it gets stired up, it can acctually create a single cell. I dont have time to write a novel here, So im leaving it at that.

 

ConGregation:

Why is that?

 

Lets not turn this into evolution vs Creation. Start another one for that. We had a whopper of a one in the old forums. Truth is, I dont have any problem believing in Creation. Evolution explains some things but there are too many things it cant account for. Im not saying your dumb for believing it I just feel Creation is valid proposition for how our world came into being.

 

Hambone:

Rev, I know you want to get back on to "topic" here, but I'd be curious to have an Evolution/Creation discussion if you care to start another thread. To get it started, name something that evolution can't explain.

 

As for your comment NOFX, you got what is called Oparin's Theory. The theory says that four gases were present in the primitive atmosphere, NH3, CO2, CH4, and H2O. Note the lack of elemental oxegyn. When high energy hits these, they combine to form biological molecules (amino acids, DNA, hydrocarbons, etc.), high energy being cosmic rays or volcanoes and such. This theory has been proven by some of his students who simulated his hypothesis. It's a very profound and significant theory. I'm a fan of it also.

 

________

 

Take it from there.

[NOFX]

I noticed you said lack of Oxygen, Plants take in co2 and produce oxygen. Plants were one of the first ones here so in support of my evolution theory I believe after years and years and years of these plants giving off Oxygen, Oxygen became a more abundant gas and organisms started using that instead of the previsouly more abundant gases.

[Zweih]

evolution and creation are very different. keep in mind these are a christians views (mine) and i am also fascinated with science, i feel like i have some knowledge of both, so i have a mixed feeling.

 

creationism... the theory that a higher being (GOD, or another deity) created the world from nothing. ill explain the christian view since its the one i will be arguing. God created the world, the stars, the heaven, etc. thus, the world DID appear from 'nothing' except for the will of GOD HIMself. this is beyond all humans, which is why science tries to explain it by suggesting that all matter in the universe was in a sphere in the very beginning. nevermind that the universe couldnt have possibly existed under these circumstances. an explosion, actually an implosion, rendered the sphere and threw the debris in all directions. stars and plannets formed (your guess is as good as mine) as did comets, meteors, asteroids, and other small bodies.

 

our sun was one of those stars obviously, and the earth was in the exact place it needed to be to support life. the chances of that alone are rediculously low. our planet also had an atmosphere, water, and all the elements (oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, etc.) needed for life (that we know of) now im hearing that proteins can come together to form a single cell. okay, i beleive it, but where do these proteins come from? where do these acids that make the proteins come from? no one has an explanation, or theory, or answer, or reason. it is all a giant guess because scientists cannot beleive that we will never learn the answer. i am a science student i remind you, and i am not so arrogant as to beleive that humans can learn everything there is to know.

 

okay, ive discussed the big bang theory, and we can see the holes it has. lets say, that by chance, our earth somehow came out of the chaos of the big bang. these proteins exist (somehow) and they are able to form cells in the water we so conviently have an overabundance of. they form into complex organisms. fantastic. they form beings with minds.. a complex central brain to drive and preform every function. the brain is absolutely astounding. it is so significant to all cognizant life yet we overlook it. you say an amoeba has instincts? it doesnt! it has no brain. it survives. or doesnt. so anyways, these organisms (with brains!) develop into trilobytes, then fish, and whatnot. now, one of these fish or other water creature stumbles upon land. amazing. naturally, it must adapt to survive on land. im interested in how it got back in the water. and even if it did, how are minutes of exposure going to make this thing need to evolve when it has no reason to?

 

right now i better start explaining evolution. evolution is animals/humans/organisms basically, to develop new, better, and stronger methods of doing something. opposible thumbs, for example. girraffes neck, a monkey tail, all 'evolutions' from the multicellular organisms that started life. what people are doing is saying life was *poof* there, and say ah-ha! evolution! no, that is NOT evolution, that is something *poof* appearing. evolution is CHANGE OVER TIME. not something coming out of nothing.

 

back to fish... this fish (or multiple) got on land, otherwise they had no need to evolve legs, limbs, or even the sense of hearing or seeing. so they need to evolve legs, and lungs, completely different organs that must work, in order to survive against one another now. oh, by the way, these cells that produced the animals (for lack of better term) also produced plants. COMPLETELY different in cell structure. but i digress. so they have legs, lungs, toes, blah blah, awesome. we have lizards, all cold-blooded, and most with either a single chamber, or double chambered heart. now come dinosaurs. wow. then comes.. a monkey? wait a minute, how does a lizard produce a monkey? in fact, how does ANY cold-blooded animal produce a warm-blooded one, when the genetics are IMPOSSIBLE. a dog+a dog=a dog. not a cat, a dog. for extra credit, what do two birds prduce? hint:not a turtle. it is preposterous (sp?) to think such a thing. ludacris. and then humans somehow appear. im not going into that, way too much effort to waste on a disproven theory.

 

now, my version of how it happened. GOD created the world. if you have a bible or the torah, read the first book, genesis. it will describe it perfectly. HE created humans, right off the bat. how old was adam when he created him? he wasnt a cell... he was roughly 20, is what biblical historians think. at any rate, we know he was a grown man, it says it in there. but wait.. humans and dinosaurs didnt live at the same time! of course the didnt.. but... who says they were ever here at ALL? ah, bones, fossil records.. right right. but wait. GOD created the moon, stars earth and heavens. the sun was obviously not a newborn star, or else it would be too hot and the earth wouldnt be suitable for life. the moon wasnt new either, it has craters, mountains, more geological happenings than we know of. adam, the first human, was also not a new human, he was of age, an adult. why then, cant the earth be older than brand new when HE creates it? dinosaur bones in the ground, craters, canyons, oceans.. HE does have power absolute after all. so why not? just because we cannot fathom the idea doesnt make it wrong.

 

thats my say on it for now.. please get in touch with me or pst here or something if you wanna know more of what i think or if you wanna discuss something in a suitable manner

 

and also, i am well aware of oparin's theory. in my opinion it is wrong. it is jsut another variable to add to the equation that complicates it further.

[Hambone]

Zweih, I disagree with almost everything you say! Instead of quoting it all, I'm going to adress you paragraph by paragraph, sucka.

 

 

One possible flaw in this argument is that you are assuming that creationism is the real explanation, whether subconciously or not. This means science has the uphill proof battle, which I don't believe it does. Secondly, will does not create matter. Thirdly, spherical does not describe the universe. The universe is infinite, meaning it has no shape, it has no ending. This is beyond comprehension of human minds, I hate to say it. You're making a big mistake if you try to give it a geometric shape, there are no bounds. There is no formula for the area of the universe. Not sure if you read all of my previous post, but I explained my personal theories on this. Spontaneity, however insignificant it is, is extremely significant over incredible periods of time.

 

 

First of all, you look at life in a very anthropocentric way. How exactly would YOU, define life? Reproduction, that's how. What we call "life" itself is very anthropocentric also, and by no means are we the only planet where our narrowminded definition of life exists. Sheer probability makes life exist elsewhere. And geez! I explained where these proteins come from!! Oparin has a PROVEN THEORY about where they come from, this fact is not debateable! There IS an explanation, theory and reason! It is not a giant guess, it is a proven and tested theory. Where did the proteins come from you ask? Proteins, as you well know, are amino acids (If god does exist mind you he did a great job of working all this out, down to the amino acids!). NH2-CH®-COOH where R is variable. This comes from Oparins theory man, plain and simple. No fusion of elements is even required. Egads!

 

By no means was water on the planet when it was first formed, by no means. Hydrogen and oxegyn always are abundant gases though, and nature, always moving towards the state of lowest energy, combined the two to make what we call water. Amoebas do have instincts man. An instinct is an self-taught behavior. Do amoebas have no self-taught behaviors? How do they eat, reproduce? Instinct. As situations change, so do the species that live and reproduce in the area. Example. Elemental oxygen has grown in relative abundance. An archabacteria generates 2 molecules of ATP per glucose, and he sees a little mitochondrian making 38 ATP per glucose. So, he phagocytoses it, and forms a primitive organism better adapted to live in that situatuion. These form cells, cells congregate. Minutes of exposure, as you say, are critical. Organisms always have need to evolve too. Competition develops. Resources are scarce. If nothing lives on land, can you not see the obvious benefits of being a land dweller? Evolution, evolution.

 

You talk about fish crawling on to land to evolve. You could not be farther from the truth. There was NO fish that crawled on to land. What you call a fish is itself the product of millenia of evolution. The first land organisms were there for one reason: resources. If an organism had a low ATP requirement, and there was abundant moisture in the air, its infinitely beneifical to live in a lower competition enviroment than to live in the ocean with predatorial species. Spontaneity, it's all about spontaneity. I don't quite think you understand evolution. Evolution is not, as you say, dog+dog=cat. Dinosaurs are not descendants of monkeys. You assume that everything is interrelated, and that each organism develops in a linear form. No way. Different conditions produce different organisms. Once the original archaebacteria went onto land to do their chemiosmosis, organisms had the precursor to live outside of water. Land organisms are extremely new in a biologal sense, all developing rather recently. A unicellular organism that existed in southern Pangea is entirely different from a unicelluar organism that crawled up on the north. By the way, they didn't crawl most likely.

 

Your last paragraph absolutely kills me, because you demonstrate little ability to be cynical about what you read. Just, in time frames, when was the Earth created? You say God created everything. The Bible makes no mention of the atom, primitive bacteria, amino acids, gases, anything. god takes alot for granted. Evolution, you called a disproven theory. Religion EVERYWHERE is theory for things that can not be explained. Science negates religion: god dissapears in a small insignicant puff of logic. Secondly, god is a personification of humans, why? Why do you assume god is a male? This means god has masculine gonads, testes and a penis. This means god has developed implements for excretion, reproduction, and has a digestive tract. Whoa, but he's all powerful? Ack, I'm done for now.

 

Religion is just hopelessly outdated theory, using blind faith as background instead of evidence.

[Zeabos]

The theory says that four gases were present in the primitive atmosphere, NH3, CO2, CH4, and H2O. Note the lack of elemental oxegyn. When high energy hits these, they combine to form biological molecules (amino acids, DNA, hydrocarbons, etc.), high energy being cosmic rays or volcanoes and such. This theory has been proven by some of his students who simulated his hypothesis.

Yes we leared about this inn APbio last year!

 

The expeiriment goes thus

 

1- First they take a glass ball fiarly large.

2- They fill part of the ball with water and the rest with, NH3, CO2, CH4, and H2O simulating the atmosphere of early earth.

3- They put in the top a small spark plug that would simpulate primordial lightning which was most liky extremely common in the volatile atmosphere.

4- then they seal the ball (except where the sparkplug is) and wait.

 

After not too long Amino Acids were formed. Amino acids make up DNA! However most likeyly the first amino acids formed RNA( like DNA except only a single side like the DNA double delix except only one strand, RNA also replaces the amino acid Thymine with Uracil) most likely RNA because it can also act as an Enzyme (a protien that can absorb other things and use it as part of itself).

Ahhhh APBIO i've learned way too much!

 

I strongly believe in Evolution and i could probably rant for ages but ill input later!

[NOFX]

back to fish... this fish (or multiple) got on land, otherwise they had no need to evolve legs, limbs, or even the sense of hearing or seeing. so they need to evolve legs, and lungs, completely different organs that must work, in order to survive against one another now. oh, by the way, these cells that produced the animals (for lack of better term) also produced plants. COMPLETELY different in cell structure. but i digress. so they have legs, lungs, toes, blah blah, awesome. we have lizards, all cold-blooded, and most with either a single chamber, or double chambered heart. now come dinosaurs. wow. then comes.. a monkey? wait a minute, how does a lizard produce a monkey? in fact, how does ANY cold-blooded animal produce a warm-blooded one, when the genetics are IMPOSSIBLE. a dog+a dog=a dog. not a cat, a dog. for extra credit, what do two birds prduce? hint:not a turtle. it is preposterous (sp?) to think such a thing. ludacris. and then humans somehow appear. im not going into that, way too much effort to waste on a disproven theory.

 

now, my version of how it happened. GOD created the world. if you have a bible or the torah, read the first book, genesis. it will describe it perfectly. HE created humans, right off the bat. how old was adam when he created him? he wasnt a cell... he was roughly 20, is what biblical historians think. at any rate, we know he was a grown man, it says it in there. but wait.. humans and dinosaurs didnt live at the same time! of course the didnt.. but... who says they were ever here at ALL? ah, bones, fossil records.. right right. but wait. GOD created the moon, stars earth and heavens. the sun was obviously not a newborn star, or else it would be too hot and the earth wouldnt be suitable for life. the moon wasnt new either, it has craters, mountains, more geological happenings than we know of. adam, the first human, was also not a new human, he was of age, an adult. why then, cant the earth be older than brand new when HE creates it? dinosaur bones in the ground, craters, canyons, oceans.. HE does have power absolute after all. so why not? just because we cannot fathom the idea doesnt make it wrong.

 

thats my say on it for now.. please get in touch with me or pst here or something if you wanna know more of what i think or if you wanna discuss something in a suitable manner 

aight first off, plants was here first and the cells that came from animals didnt produce plant cells. like you said evolution is change over time. Then you go on to say

 

now come dinosaurs. wow. then comes.. a monkey?

 

If you read hambones post, you can see the most people can't comprehend this time thing. this did not happen over night. The earth is approximently 4.5 billion years old. 4.5 billion!!!! (This one of the biggest thing my professors stress to the students)

think about that, we only see about 80 years. and most organisms see what 10 yrs???

 

what do two birds produce? hint:not a turtle.

 

now your going backwards. A turtle was here way before birds.

 

New organism didnt come along through the mating of different organism, its through mutation. only like 1 out of every billion mutation is for the benefit.

Eventually organism will adapt to fit their climate and what they need to do.

Like there was a white moth specie somewhere in new england and when the industrial revolution came along and turned everything black from the soot and the month eventually adapted and turned black.

 

Evolution is not really like survival of the fitist, look at it like, a tree starts off and then branches out. Whales used to be land mammals that went back to the water, thus they are considered mammals instead of fish. Sciecnt found that on some mutations of whales, they have small bones that grow from their back where the legs used to be. You dont believe our ancestors were monkeys? well your gonna say, why are the monkeys still here if we came from them. Because we branched out from the group and adapted to different climates. Also, why are some humans born with tales? I remeber reading about that in my 9th grade science book.

 

We are not anything special, we are here for the same reason everything else is.

[Guest alias]

hi there, i'm not much for debate. however, i feel that evolution will have to get my vote. i do not renounce the beliefs of religious groups and the idea of grand creation. i feel that these are beliefs that spawned from history and our lack of scientific knowledge. if you can present an example of "creation" that cannot be explained thru the process of evolution i am all for discussing it.

 

well there is my 2.5 cents

 

[Cyklik]

What you guys are forgetting to mention is that the amino acids produced by this experiment were only in chains of about 14. Only when they put in either iron or zinc (can't remember which, AP Bio racked my brain last year. Oh yeah, I got a 5 on the test!!) did they produce chains up to 100 amino acids long. Sorry fellas, but 100 amino acids doesn't do squat. Most proteins are at least somewhere around 100,000 amino acids long (at least the important ones). I read a book called Darwin's Black Box the year before last, and it had some very interesting points that shot a few holes in Darwin's theories. 1 of these was about the blood coagulation pathway. The theory of evolution describes things as going from simple to more complex, but this pathway evident in the human immune system does not follow that concept at all. I won't go into much detail (I'll leave you to read the book), but there are a cascade of proteins involved in this pathway. 1 protein sets off another protein, that sets of another protein, and so on. Well, the final protein in this cascade is part of the beginning as well, so that it makes somewhat of a circular pathway. The way it happens could not at all be simplified from it's current state. There are several other examples among the field of Biology that the author mentions that are just not able to be simplified and still work. How can one explain growing of complexity in something that is not reducable? I really recommend all of you who are truly interested in this area of dispute to check the book out, it's kind of hard to read, but interesting at the same time. And I personally think that this dispute is way too overdone, because neither concept is scientific at all. How do we know if it's science? If it's observable, measurable, and repeatable. And guys, we can't repeat that.

[Zeabos]

Zweih do you know HOW evolution works?

 

Dinosaurs dont MAKE monkeys, animals dont just NEED legs or long hair to survive!

 

Everyting that happens in evolution is completely and in every way by CHANCE!

 

Mutations- a gene when copied normally goes through a period in which it is double check by spliceosomes and whatnot however the process is NOT perfect. When a gene gets copied wrong and is not fix it changes the sequence of amino acids and may change somehting about the things body. Hair color maybe even a deformation.

 

However, BY CHANCE it gets very cold and BY CHANCE a gene messes up and causes a normally short haired animals hair to grow very long, now say its no longer a short haired animal but its got long hair! BY CHANCE the gene messed up and made a change! Now a period of cold comes along and the LONG HAIRED animal survives because it keeps warm and many of his friends die! Now, this dude reproduces and his kid also has long hair because the gene is passed on!!!!!

 

You might say "Thats completely impossible that that would happen copletely by chance its just too small" well we humans think 1000 years is a long time. Well in the scope of the 4.3 BILLION year old eartth a thousand years is NOTHING. These things happen by chance simply because there is an infinate number of possibilities for it to happen!

 

If you look at it that way it doesn't seem so unrealistic now doesn't it.

 

Even if you continue to say "thats impossible its to chancey" well humans cant imagine how long a milllion years is.. we just cant comprehend it .. now a BILLION years... thats just mind blowing

 

 

Darn u DoD getting a five ont he test...i only got a 4 but still good!(the essays were so easy but i got killed on the multichoice)

 

Ill bust out some examples of evolution later when im done with dinner maybe...

[ConGregation]

hi there, i'm not much for debate. however, i feel that evolution will have to get my vote. i do not renounce the beliefs of religious groups and the idea of grand creation. i feel that these are beliefs that spawned from history and our lack of scientific knowledge. if you can present an example of "creation" that cannot be explained thru the process of evolution i am all for discussing it.

 

well there is my 2.5 cents

 

Im onto you buddy! Your just showing off your new avatar

[Hambone]

Simple necessarily goes to complex. What you miss is that the human immune system and anything you define as "simple" came from something simpler way down the line. The human immune system is not simple compared to a single phospholipid that makes up one of the membranes of the billions of "white blood cells". Creationism is defunct. I won't go so far as to deny all religion, in this thread. I have my theories about every other aspect. Religious people and cynicism don't go together well methinks.

[Hambone]

One other thing that bothers me is how you say 100 amino acids doesn't do squat. You are wrong. If you put 100 amino acids in a human, it wouldn't do anything, but evolution didn't go straight from archaebacteria to humans. 100 amino acids is incredibly significant on a primitive level. You think the first enzymes were monstrous polypeptides or they started small?

[Hambone]

Sorry to post so much, but one other thing I want to hear from ConG is one of these defects in evolution he talks about. I'm interested to hear what you say, you said there's "many".

[ConGregation]

Creationism is defunct

Where did that come from? Why is it "ignorant" to believe in Creationism? At least that is the impression I received.

 

Again, evolution accounts for how this world is. Creationism accounts for how this world is. To look at this world and deduce that it evolved or that it was created is simply looking at two completely different views. The Creationist could never be proven "defunct" because he can always say that God created it that way. Its the same for the evolutionist. The gaps in the fossil record are that way simply because they were not "fossilized". etc.

 

It all boils down to the fact that nobody was there. We can view the evidence from totally different angles and come up with completely different answers. That is why I dont really get into this debate much.

 

I believe the Bible So until someone goes back in time and brings me pictures I wont change my mind. Call me closed minded or whatever you want. And by all means debate until your hearts content. But try and keep your posts from being accusitory of other's beliefs. Both sides have been doing it. Make your points and have a good time.

[Hambone]

Well, since you allowed me too, I will you call you close-minded. You're close minded, sucker.

 

Since you said it first as well, yes, believing in Creationism is "ignorant." Since, like you said, none of us were there, do you believe what a book tells you, or what contiunally expanding scientific evidence tells you? Religion is superstition, whether you like that fact or not. Walking under a ladder gives you as much bad luck as believing some man was risen from the dead is real. Sounds like the worlds first zombie movie to me. You spoke of gaps in the fossil record. This is a fact, I will not debate that. That is independent of a hole in modern evolutionary theory, however.

 

The material here is by nature offensive, but I hope you won't take this as a personal attack Revs, that's not how I meant it when I typed it.

[NOFX]

The theory of evolution describes things as going from simple to more complex, but this pathway evident in the human immune system does not follow that concept at all.

whats a vaccine??

[ConGregation]

Well, since you allowed me too, I will you call you close-minded. You're close minded, sucker.

 

Since you said it first as well, yes, believing in Creationism is "ignorant." Since, like you said, none of us were there, do you believe what a book tells you, or what contiunally expanding scientific evidence tells you? Religion is superstition, whether you like that fact or not. Walking under a ladder gives you as much bad luck as believing some man was risen from the dead is real. Sounds like the worlds first zombie movie to me. You spoke of gaps in the fossil record. This is a fact, I will not debate that. That is independent of a hole in modern evolutionary theory, however.

 

The material here is by nature offensive, but I hope you won't take this as a personal attack Revs, that's not how I meant it when I typed it.

I never said anything about a "hole". I merely mentioned the fact that evolution does not cover every base in its explanation of how things transpired.

 

What I did NOT appreciate is your attacks upon my beliefs. I will be up front with you. He is real! Comparing my beliefs or "reality" to a "zombie movie" is not really called for.

 

In all my posts, have I attacked evolution or evolutionists as ignorant or defunct? Yet you continue to hurl these things my way. That is why I hate this debate so much. You dare to call me close minded when you make such close minded remarks. You dare to CONDEMN me for believing what a book tells me when your beliefs came from.... gasp... a book? Imagine with me. If you had never heard of evolution and someone came up and told you that everything started with a big explosion and that explosion created all the essential ingredients for creating a living cell. That life then, over billions of years, evolves my lucky random mutations into the most complex machine ever imagined. It would sound far fetched to say the least. So to claim that my belief is "inferior" because I read it in a book when all you did was listen to a teacher and read a book is unjust.

 

I find it hard sometimes in these debates to keep the mind of Christ. They attack me so that I feel a need to defend my Lord's name. It is the nature of the participants. Christians by nature are seeking the mind of Christ therefore we have a degree of close mindedness. Agnostics and other non believers see our "blind faith" (its not btw) and become furious at our lack of open mindedness. Its going to degenerate into what we have here. I believe God created the entire world from nothing. Yet soo many people are offended by that one little statement.

[Hambone]

But evolution does encompass everything! Thrice have I asked for an example, do you have an example of something that evolution can not explain?

 

Again, you don't have to appreciate this, but it is an attack on your beliefs. But can it be anything else? Evolutionary discussion, necessarily contradicts Christian doctrines, attacks if you will. Forgive the zombie analogy if you will, that's just my perspective on things. You take true offense to the jocular things I say.

 

The reason I attack your book is because it is nothing more than a compilation of superstition. Your book is a compilation of men, who are falliable by nature. You think there's any dissenting opinions in the Bible? Where's the gospel according to the man who saw what was going on, and went against the tide? It's so easy to become swept up when a lunatic is preaching of glorious subjects to you. You said that evolution is a combination of lucky, random mutations. That is so untrue. I don't think you really understand evolution at all! You say that what I read in my books is no more correct than what you read from your apocryphal "book". That would be valid, except for evidence. Expirements, evidence, tested theories, these go into making my book. Superstitios explanations made yours, attributing the unexplainable to god.

 

If you be close minded about this, you will be blind the the apparent truth. Logic. Accepting the status quo is the worst thing you could do. Christ, whether legitimate or not, was a revolutionary, I'll give him that. He broke rules. Now, in the face of hardship you preach reactionary values, refuse new ideas, and maintain the facade of thinking like Christ? There were no limits for that man, so in his name you justify limits on your knowledge?

[Hambone]

Again Revs, I'm trying hard not to offend, but I had to answer the points you brought up. Be objective, what is something that evolution can not explain?

[Guest [DOH]TaPe]

That is WAY too much for me to read Who has that kind of time on their hands!?

[Hambone]

Lol. When you feel fervently about something, strong rhetoric is better than strong religion. Leads to a lot less terrorism at least.

 

Revs, since you are getting mad at me, allow me to explain myself at least. I was born to a father raised Catholic, a mother as well. We attended Episcopal church. When I was young, I was taught creationism among other biblical doctrines and truths. This is not fair. I was young, and I was impressionable. I don't know much about you, but I would guess that you have always had your religious associations. This is not fair on you either, since as an adult you naturally resist change. Social intertia to coin a term. Not all these theories were around when your mind was forming it's own conjectures, so you upheld the conjectures of a single man. Back to me, I was raised Episcopalian. Just like Creationists our of lack of knowledge try to find flaws in evolutionary theory, I found flaws in the story of the creation that I could not get past. It's not in my nature to accept the theories of someone without skepticism. I'm not a gullible person. Cynicysm keeps me alive, keeps my mind sharp. I stopped attending church. One hour every week is a price incredible too steep for a false eternal salvation.

 

The same god Christians worshipped tried to revoke Galileo's theories, started the Crusades, justified racism, blinded people from a force they uphold: truth. It's always been out there, for those who don't mind embracing something other than traditional beliefs. It's a good thing Christians don't rule the world, the same physics that keeps the planets in line keeps the potential difference gradient moving to your computer so you can read my prose. Imagine if the Christians had their way. Reactionary people. Logic shatters the hull of the floundering vessle called god.

[Zweih]

boy ham, i dont have the time to read everything you wrote and add my two cents (or ten cents) so i wont. maybe i am wrong on some points, maybe im right on some things, maybe you are too. but im goin to hafta pull out of this debate, i cant argue without proof of anything.. and there is no tangible proof that anyone can look at... its all a matter of faith and submission really. many people cant handle the fact taht a god may be over them.

 

let me read these things and think out a response. ill post later.

 

*sigh* oh ye of little faith.

 

 

oh, and ham... never, EVER insult my bible. you dont base your life around a science textbook as i base mine off the text of GOD.

[Jiffy]

wow, thats a lot of debate...and it all combacks to faith and beliefs. i myself am leaning more towards the side of hammy, just because it can be proved, atleast more so than the bible. i mean the bible was writtne like 500 years after it all happened, u think it wasnt changed a lil by then? truth stretched? stories altered? im sure both sides have valid points, but as time goes on, the stories get older and we find more answers...so i guess in time, prolly most of us wont see the answer will be known, if ever...

[NOFX]

all I have to say is WOW hambone. If I only knew how to write stuff like that.

 

I don't think me or hambone are trying to insult anyone in this debate. The reason why people take offense to our side, is because we go against what everyone has been brought up on.

I couldnt agree more with hambone on the subject of why people follow the beliefs they do.

I was raised as a christian and attend church every week with my grandparents. I attended a church camp every summer for like 6 years . When I was 16 years old I bleached my hair and my grandparent forbidded me go to go church with them on christmas sunday. I have not been to church since. That was when I realized that I was being raised a certain way and that they are trying to make me follow a certain path. At this point I became more open minded and decided to explore everyones views on this subject.

 

People have always searched for the truth. This is where people's beliefs started. There was a man by the name of Sir James George Frazer who studied how religion has evolved. In early 20th century he did studies of the melanisian culture. He found that primative cultures believe in the spirits(magic) or what they call mana. As the people belifs grew over time, polytheism came along which is beleif in many gods. They no longer thought that spirits was everywhere, but there were many gods that controlled everything. a god for the sun, a god for the rain, a god for the wind, etc. Eventually this belief turned to monotheism, which claims that there is only one God that controls all.

Putting this on a progressive scale, first there was magic and then progresses to religion and the next step is science.

[linch]

I believe God created the entire world from nothing. Yet soo many people are offended by that one little statement.

Question ... If some day in the future we create

a atmosphere, tree's, eco-system, etc, etc on

Mars..does that make us gods or semi-gods?