Evolution Vs Creation

[Fatty]

Here's the problem, Hambone. I'm going to make you work harder than that. You see, you run through that article by that one guy, and you give me what? Your explanation? I don't claim to have any knowledge about little critters floating around in the water, nor will I ever. My point is this...show me your PHD or show me the sources of everything you're stating.

 

Put it all together for me, because I'm not going to take your word for it. The guy is not wrong because you say he is wrong, which has been the basis for just about every single argument you've brought up. You expect Joe-reader to just believe you.

 

TAKE THIS PAGE OF QUOTES BY EVOLUTIONISTS FOR EXAMPLE

 

You're a very good arguer, if there is such a thing. Bring some proof and backing to your claims that is easy for me to put together with what you're claiming.

[Dennis]

Hambone would make a good lawyer with his ability to argue. I am really getting into this keep it up fatty and Ham. Its kinda addicting to read aboout you two arguing.

[Playaa]

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact."

 

Dr. T. N. Tahmisian (Atomic Energy Commission, USA) in "The Fresno Bee", August 20, 1959. As quoted by N. J. Mitchell, Evolution and the Emperor's New Clothes, Roydon Publications, UK, 1983, title page

 

hhmm, sounds alot like what I said a couple days ago and Hambone told me I was wrong.....

strang that a well known Evolutionist (and even a Dr.) agrees with me....

[Fatty]

Another article:

 

http://www.creationism.org/genesis.htm

 

in which that guy refers to this site:

 

http://www.creationscience.com/

 

Lots to read! It's been a while since I've even looked into this topic. I'm really enjoing myself. I guess I owe Hambone thanks for that much.

[Jiffy]

wowie, to much for me to take in...give it up you two, neither of you will ever believe the other any more than you do as of now. only thing you can do is learn to live together...

[Fatty]

Good morning!

 

I'm just waiting for Hambone to use all his strong words in a some sort of valid manner. His assumption is that if he fills up a page with a bunch of scientific terms that it will automatically make sense and convince the readers that he must be right. If the debate makes you squirmish, then don't read or bother posting here.

[Zeabos]

Miller Urey Expieriment

 

Yes they do talk about a metiorite falling to earth and helping with the supply but the full layout and result of the expieriment is right here.

[Fatty]

Again, I will not pretend that any of this is my own. Too many people have already spent their time doing this. When it's all said and done, and you don't have a proof like 2 + 2 = 4, then we'll move on to something that we can talk about more readily, like the idea of "hate being the only true emotion" or we can discuss things like the holes inside ourselves.

 

Here ya go, directly pasted from: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/0105news.asp

 

If you attended government schools anywhere in the world, you were probably wrongly taught that the following were facts, as Dr Wells debunks:

 

that the famous Miller/Urey experiment of 1953 supposedly produced the building blocks of life in a test tube.

 

The truth: Miller/Urey had to have a hydrogen-rich atmosphere for their experiment. Yet for almost 30 years, scientists involved in this field of research have concluded that the early atmosphere of Earth was quite different from this. So while their experiment does not work at all, some texts (e.g. Molecular Biology of the Cell by Alberts) continue to inform students that the first step to creating life was overcome by Miller and Urey. See also Q&A: Origin of Life.

[Hambone]

Creditentials, you ask for? Unfortunately the site I want to quote from is restricted, so copy and paste will have to suffice. You're a school teacher though, if I gathered correctly. Perhaps you have a subscribtion to this: www.biology.com . Continue:

 

Endosymbiosis and The Origin of Eukaryotes

The endosymbiotic theory postulates that:

The mitochondria of eukaryotes evolved from aerobic bacteria (probably related to the rickettsias) living within their host cell.

The chloroplasts of eukaryotes evolved from endosymbiotic cyanobacteria (autotrophic prokaryotes).

Eukaryotic cilia and flagella may have arisen from endosymbiotic spirochetes. The basal bodies from which eukaryotic cilia and flagella develop would have been able to create the mitotic spindle and thus made mitosis possible.

 

The evidence for mitochondria and chloroplasts

Both mitochondria and chloroplasts can arise only from preexisting mitochondria and chloroplasts. They cannot be formed in a cell that lacks them because nuclear genes encode only some of the proteins of which they are made.

Both mitochondria and chloroplasts have their own genome and it resembles that of prokaryotes not that of the nuclear genome.

Both genomes consist of a single circular molecule of DNA.

There are no histones associated with the DNA.

Both mitochondria and chloroplasts have their own protein-synthesizing machinery, and it resembles that of prokaryotes not that found in the cytoplasm of eukaryotes.

Their ribosomal RNA (rRNA) and the structure of their ribosomes resemble those of prokaryotes, not eukaryotes.

The first amino acid of their transcripts is always fMet as it is in bacteria (not methionine [Met] that is the first amino acid in eukaryotic proteins).

A number of antibiotics (e.g., streptomycin) that act by blocking protein synthesis in bacteria also block protein synthesis within mitochondria and chloroplasts. They do not interfere with protein synthesis in the cytoplasm of the eukaryotes.

Conversely, inhibitors (e.g., diphtheria toxin) of protein synthesis by eukaryotic ribosomes do not - sensibly enough - have any effect on bacterial protein synthesis nor on protein synthesis within mitochondria and chloroplasts.

The antibiotic rifampicin, which inhibits the RNA polymerase of bacteria, also inhibits the RNA polymerase within mitochondria. It has no such effect on the RNA polymerase within the eukaryotic nucleus.

 

The Mitochondrial Genome

The genome of human mitochondria contains 16,569 base pairs of DNA organized in a closed circle. These encode:

2 ribosomal RNA (rRNA) molecules

22 transfer RNA (tRNA) molecules (shown in the figure as yellow bars; two of them labeled)

13 polypeptides

The 13 polypeptides participate in building several protein complexes embedded in the inner mitochondrial membrane.

7 subunits that make up the mitochondrial NADH dehydrogenase

3 subunits of cytochrome c oxidase

2 subunits of ATP synthase

cytochrome b

All these gene products are used within the mitochondrion, but the mitochondrion also needs proteins encoded by nuclear genes. These proteins (e.g., cytochrome c and the RNA and DNA polymerases used within the mitochondrion) are synthesized in the cytosol and then imported into the mitochondrion.

 

Endosymbiosis and The Origin of Eukaryotes

Index to this page

The Mitochondrial Genome

The Chloroplast Genome

Secondary Endosymbiosis

Guillardia theta

 

The endosymbiosis theory postulates that

The mitochondria of eukaryotes evolved from aerobic bacteria (probably related to the rickettsias) living within their host cell.

The chloroplasts of eukaryotes evolved from endosymbiotic cyanobacteria (autotrophic prokaryotes).

Eukaryotic cilia and flagella may have arisen from endosymbiotic spirochetes. The basal bodies from which eukaryotic cilia and flagella develop would have been able to create the mitotic spindle and thus made mitosis possible.

The evidence for mitochondria and chloroplasts

Both mitochondria and chloroplasts can arise only from preexisting mitochondria and chloroplasts. They cannot be formed in a cell that lacks them because nuclear genes encode only some of the proteins of which they are made.

Both mitochondria and chloroplasts have their own genome and it resembles that of prokaryotes not that of the nuclear genome.

Both genomes consist of a single circular molecule of DNA.

There are no histones associated with the DNA.

Both mitochondria and chloroplasts have their own protein-synthesizing machinery, and it resembles that of prokaryotes not that found in the cytoplasm of eukaryotes.

Their ribosomal RNA (rRNA) and the structure of their ribosomes resemble those of prokaryotes, not eukaryotes.

The first amino acid of their transcripts is always fMet as it is in bacteria (not methionine [Met] that is the first amino acid in eukaryotic proteins).

A number of antibiotics (e.g., streptomycin) that act by blocking protein synthesis in bacteria also block protein synthesis within mitochondria and chloroplasts. They do not interfere with protein synthesis in the cytoplasm of the eukaryotes.

Conversely, inhibitors (e.g., diphtheria toxin) of protein synthesis by eukaryotic ribosomes do not - sensibly enough - have any effect on bacterial protein synthesis nor on protein synthesis within mitochondria and chloroplasts.

The antibiotic rifampicin, which inhibits the RNA polymerase of bacteria, also inhibits the RNA polymerase within mitochondria. It has no such effect on the RNA polymerase within the eukaryotic nucleus.

 

The Mitochondrial Genome

The genome of human mitochondria contains 16,569 base pairs of DNA organized in a closed circle. These encode:

2 ribosomal RNA (rRNA) molecules

22 transfer RNA (tRNA) molecules (shown in the figure as yellow bars; two of them labeled)

13 polypeptides

The 13 polypeptides participate in building several protein complexes embedded in the inner mitochondrial membrane.

7 subunits that make up the mitochondrial NADH dehydrogenase

3 subunits of cytochrome c oxidase

2 subunits of ATP synthase

cytochrome b

All these gene products are used within the mitochondrion, but the mitochondrion also needs proteins encoded by nuclear genes. These proteins (e.g., cytochrome c and the RNA and DNA polymerases used within the mitochondrion) are synthesized in the cytosol and then imported into the mitochondrion.

 

 

The Chloroplast Genome

The genome of the chloroplasts found in Marchantia polymorpha (a liverwort, one of the Bryophyta) contains 121,024 base pairs in a closed circle. These make up some 128 genes which include:

duplicate genes encoding each of the four subunits (23S, 16S, 4.5S, and 5S) of the ribosomal RNA (rRNA) used by the chloroplast

37 genes encoding all the transfer RNA (tRNA) molecules used for translation within the chloroplast. Some of these are represented in the figure by black bars (a few of which are labeled).

4 genes encoding some of the subunits of the RNA polymerase used for transcription within the chloroplast (3 of them shown in blue)

a gene encoding the large subunit of the enzyme RUBISCO (ribulose bisphosphate carboxylase oxygenase)

9 genes for components of photosystems I and II

6 genes encoding parts of the chloroplast ATP synthase

genes for 19 of the ~60 proteins used to construct the chloroplast ribosome

All these gene products are used within the chloroplast, but all the chloroplast structures also depend on proteins

encoded by nuclear genes

translated in the cytosol, and

imported into the chloroplast.

RUBISCO, for example, the enzyme that adds CO2 to ribulose bisphosphate to start the Calvin cycle, consists of multiple copies of two subunits:

a large one encoded in the chloroplast genome and synthesized within the chloroplast, and

a small subunit encoded in the nuclear genome and synthesized by ribosomes in the cytosol. The small subunit must then be imported into the chloroplast.

The arrangement of genes shown in the figure is found not only in the Bryophytes (mosses and liverworts) but also in the lycopsids (e.g., Lycopodium and Selaginella). In all other plants, however, the portion of DNA bracketed by the red arrows on the left is inverted. The same genes are present but in inverted order. The figure is based on the work of Ohyama, K., et al., Nature, 322:572, 7 Aug 1986; and Linda A. Raubeson and R. K. Jansen, Science, 255:1697, 27 March 1992.

 

The evolution of eukaryotic chloroplasts by the endosymbiosis of cyanobacteria seems to have occurred on three different occasions producing as separate events:

the green algae and plants as described above

red algae

glaucophytes; a small group of unicellular algae.

Secondary Endosymbiosis

Eukaryotes Engulfing Eukaryotes

Once both heterotrophic and photosynthetic eukaryotes had evolved, the former repeatedly engulfed the latter to exploit their autotrophic way of life. Many animals living today engulf algae for this purpose [Link to examples]. Usually the partners in these mutualistic relationships can be grown separately.

 

However, a growing body of evidence indicates that the chloroplasts of some algae have not been derived by engulfing cyanobacteria (prokaryotes) in a primary endosymbiosis like those discussed above, but by engulfing photosynthetic eukaryotes. This is called secondary endosymbiosis. It occurred so long ago that these endosymbionts cannot be cultured away from their host.

 

In two groups, the eukaryotic nature of the endosymbiont can be seen by its retention of a vestige of a nucleus (called its nucleomorph).

 

A group of unicellular, motile algae called cryptomonads appear to be the evolutionary outcome of a non-photosynthetic eukaryotic flagellate (i.e., a protozoan) engulfing a red alga by endocytosis.

Another tiny group of unicellular algae, called chlorarachniophytes, appear to be the outcome of a flagellated protozoan having engulfed a green alga.

The result in both cases: a motile, autotrophic cell containing:

 

its own nucleus

its own mitochondria

its own endoplasmic reticulum, which contains the endosymbiont with

its own plasma membrane

its own cytoplasm, the periplastid space

its own ribosomes

its own chloroplast, and

its nucleomorph - only a vestige of its original nucleus, but still

surrounded by a nuclear envelope perforated with nuclear pore complexes and

containing a tiny but still-functioning genome.

The four genomes of Guillardia theta

The cryptomonad Guillardia theta contains four different genomes:

its own nuclear genome; by far the largest with ~350x109 base pairs (bp) of DNA;

the genome of its mitochondria (48,000 bp);

the genome of the chloroplast in its endosymbiont (121,000 bp);

the genome of the nucleomorph (551,264 bp).

Susan Douglas and her colleagues reported (in the 26 April 2001 issue of Nature) the completely-sequenced genome of the nucleomorph.

 

It contains 3 small chromosomes with

47 genes for nonmessenger RNAs (rRNA, tRNA, snRNA)

464 genes for messenger RNA; that is, encoding proteins such as

65 proteins for its own ribosomes

30 for its chloroplast (a small fraction of the hundreds needed)

a variety of proteins needed within the nucleomorph, including

DNA licensing factors

histones

proteins needed for DNA replication (but no genes for DNA polymerases, which must be translated by and imported from the host ribosomes)

The genes are crowded closely on the three chromosomes. In fact, 44 of them overlap each other. Only 17 genes contain introns, and these are very small.

Genome Interactions in Guillardia theta

Millions of years of evolution have resulted in a complex but precisely-orchestrated array of interactions between the 4 genomes. For example:

The chloroplast needs proteins synthesized by 3 different genomes: its own, the nucleomorph's, and the host's.

The nucleomorph genome has given up all (but one) of its genes encoding enzymes for general metabolic functions; the endosymbiont now depends on those encoded by the host nucleus.

The nucleomorph itself also depends on genes (e.g., for DNA polymerases) residing in the host nucleus.

___

 

That's not the source I used personally, but if you want proof that this isn't a theory I'm making up, then here.

[Hambone]

I read the list of quotes you supplied. They were fully credible, until the final one. Listen to this, this is straight copy and paste.

 

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact."

 

This amused me beyond imagination.

[Hambone]

The other links, defending creationism with science, are well written, but they all contain one fundamental flaw. They assume the word of the Bible is true, as it is written. No matter how much science compiles on to this, it comes back to what the Bible said. The Bible was written by men. It is a combination of what they thought. It may contain some facts, but it is a book of praise fundamentally. In a book of praise, reality is distorted in favor of the subject. It came at a time when people needed something to believe, before the wonderful world of reality was fully understood. Praise and superstition, everyone bought it. What a great idea, I'm jealous of Jesus that I didn't think of it first.

[Playaa]

I say on that note we just stop, no one reply plz

Fat or Rev just close the thread.....

 

We will NEVER agree with Ham and he will NEVER agree with us....it's over....gone....this post helps no one and it is only creating dissention....

 

close it

[gOOters]

People will always need something to believe. If not, all that is left is an empty hole in the middle of our being, soul, psyche, whatever. Nothing found in these three dimensions (4 if you wanna count time) can ever fill that hole. Not mortal love, not science, not even hatred.

 

BTW, I dont think hate can be the only true emotion, because without love, there is no hate. Hate comes from pain and suffering (yoda) and replaces what was once loved and now lost. Hate comes from our love being taken or betrayed, etc. Otherwise there would only be apathy.

[Fatty]

Wait a second, on that fundamental flaw. Are you saying that these researchers are saying this: Evolutionists are wrong because the Bible says so?

 

That would be kinda of self-destructive, to argue that something is true because the Bible says so, because the other side turns around and says "It's only a book!" I believe you're mistaken in that what they are saying is: Here are the facts, here is what the research shows, and hey, guess what? It stays in-line with the Bible! They are not saying, the Bible says so, they continue to say, as scientists and credible researchers, that here are facts that you cannot discredit, and these same facts do not contradict the Scriptures.

 

As for the DNA information posted above, could you do me a favor and summarize it for me and give me some sort of conclusion? I never said you were making anything up, I said you were tossing out information without sources. What is the main point of that paste?

 

No, I don't have a subscription to biology.com, but I would think you could find your information somewhere public, no? If the theories you are using are only found on one website, then credentials fly out the window, right? It's got to be somewhere else.

[Fatty]

I guess my one of my points is this: for each source you find, I'll find a source that argues the other way that you can't shake a stick at. The people are right, we could go on forever if you'd like. I'd much rather talk about your hate, though, because we could do that without cutting and pasting, but actually speak from our hearts.

 

Anyways, I'd hate for the readers to be swayed by large, boring posts, so I guess I'll have to combat your pasting of the endosymbiotic theory and on down with something else that people won't be able to sit still long enough to read...

 

 

Did cells acquire organelles such as mitochondria by gobbling up other cells?

(Or, can the endosymbiont theory explain the origin of eukaryotic cells?)

 

by Don Batten

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Eukaryotic cells, such as yeast and those of animals and plants, have a membrane-bound nucleus, chromosome structures and organelles such as mitochondria and chloroplasts, whereas prokaryotic cells, such as bacteria, lack these features. Many evolutionists believe Lynn Margulis’ idea that eukaryotic cells came about as a prokaryotic cell ‘ate’ (by a process called endocytosis) other prokaryotic cells, which then became the mitochondria and chloroplasts. The engulfed cells supposedly reproduced in step with the host cell in some sort of symbiosis (mutual advantage), just by chance, before coming under the control of the primitive eukaryotic cell (which developed chromosome structures, nuclear membrane, Golgi apparatus, etc, etc, also). Over time, portions of the mitochondrial and chloroplast genomes happened to transfer to the nucleus.

 

Problems abound with this scenario. For example, how could the enveloped cells reproduce in close synchronicity? How did lateral gene transfer into the nucleus take place when the nuclear membrane is designed for the passage of mRNA (out), and to contain DNA? If DNA were passed between the engulfed cell and the host cell, would not the host respond by degrading the foreign DNA, because it would detect it as a virus? (Note that the enzymes used so widely to chop up DNA into pieces in DNA sequencing studies come from bacteria, i.e. prokaryotes  they function in destroying foreign DNA inside the bacteria.)

 

It is only to be expected that there would be similarities in many of the genes for photosynthesis or respiration between prokaryotes and eukaryotes  they have to achieve the same chemistry (photosynthesis: light energy + carbon dioxide + water giving glucose plus oxygen. Respiration: glucose (C6H1206) giving CO2 + H20 + energy). Furthermore, they have the same Designer! For an in depth treatment of the concept that God designed things in a way to reveal himself and thwart naturalistic explanations of origins, see The Biotic Message and the review.

 

However, detailed studies of the DNA base sequences have shown that the pattern of similarity between eukaryote and prokaryote is not what would be expected from the endosymbiont hypothesis. Doolittle said,

 

‘Many eukaryotic genes turn out to be unlike those of any known archaea or bacteria; they seem to have come from nowhere.’ (Doolittle, D.F., 2000. Uprooting the tree of life. Scientific American 282(2):72–77).

 

Wendell Bird’s book The Origin of Species  Revisited, Vol. I, has information on the origin of mitochondria and chloroplasts. He cites evolutionists’ criticisms of the endosymbiotic hypothesis for eukaryote origins  e.g. that mitochondria have split genes (having introns, unlike prokaryotic genes), and that no example of prokaryote endocytosis or endosymbiosis has been observed (pp. 210–212). Also, there are huge differences in the ways that prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells form m-RNA (e.g. the editing system in the latter).

 

The endosymbiont idea was severely dealt with in the 70s and early 80s, and should have died. But, what else is there for the evolutionist? It is very much akin to chemical evolution  anyone who knows a little of the biochemistry involved in the most basic of bacteria knows that formation of a living cell from chance chemical reactions, even in highly controlled / contrived Miller-type experiments, is absolutely impossible. But that it happened is deemed to be certain (well, we have living cells, don’t we?!) and it is taught that way in universities around the world. For a thorough refutation of the idea that life could form by natural processes, see The Mystery of Life’s Origin and the Origin of life articles.

 

However, something like this must have happened, because we have plants, for example, which are fantastically complex things and they must have arisen from some stepwise evolutionary process (Did I just hear someone say they think the cells were created? Now listen here, that’s religion, which has nothing to do with the real world of cells and science. Science is about material explanations, and just you remember that! We just will not accept an intelligent cause, regardless of whether the evidence supports it!). See Lewontin’s admission regarding the materialistic bias applied in much scientific reasoning today about origins.

 

Note that this view that science can only deal with materialistic answers is a modern misuse of science. The founders of modern science did not see things that way (Newton, Kepler, Boyle, Faraday, Pasteur, Kelvin, Pascal, etc.)  see 21 Great Scientists Who Believed the Bible. And there are many modern highly qualified scientists who believe Genesis literally  see In Six Days  Why 50 [Ph.D.] Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation.

 

And science does deal with non-observable, intelligent causes where it suits the practitioners  for example, forensic science is all about finding evidence that ‘person X poisoned person Y with strychnine’, for example (natural causes cannot account for person Y’s body containing strychnine, so someone, an intelligent agent, was responsible). Likewise, the SETI program is tacit agreement that science can tell the difference between natural causes and intelligent causes (certain patterns on radio signals from outer space could not be explained as originating from natural forces). Also, archaeology is much about recognising that an axe-head, for example, was created by an (unseen) intelligent agent, because the structure of an axe-head is so unlikely to arise from natural chemical and physical processes. See the article A brief history of design.

 

It is the atheistic bias of modern practitioners of science that prevents them from seeing the abundant evidence, right under their noses, for the unseen Creator of life. There is more evidence than there ever has been for there being a Creator. Unbelieving scientists are in willfully ignorant denial (Rom. 1:20 ff., 2 Peter 3).

 

Here's the source from the above.

[NOFX]

This debate could never end.

 

Neither side is fully provable, but being the type of person that wants to see evidence before I believe something. I lean toward the evolution side.

 

1. If you look at the animals around you, you can see how they are all related.

 

ex: Elk and Deer

ex: Grizzly bear, polar bear

 

They had to have had the same ancestors

 

2. At least their is some proof in evolution, only proof of the existance of God is that people believe in the existance of God.

 

3. The quote from one of those pages someone posted. Something along the lines of..

Every orgransim that we know of had parents

[Dennis]

lol what turned from small points has now turned into something big long and boring now..although im in my networking class right now and bored out of my mind i will still read all these long posts, although i feel i am getting alot smarter now on this subject......oh fatty since your a teacher....is there gonna be a test on this?

[Gond]

Wow...6 pages...thats amazing in like 6 days. I did NOT read but a few posts on this...don't have 2 extra hours to spare...I do have thoughts on the subject though.

 

I'm really not a creationist nor an evolutionist. I figure, when I die, I'll either find out the truth or decay in a box. Either way it doesn't matter.

 

Anyway, two possible ideas here to mingle both approaches.

 

1. The bible says god created the earth in 6 days with the seventh to rest. So, how long is a biblical day? Not thinking of a biblical day for a human which is 24 hours but for an all powerful creator. Maybe that's 1 billion years. So, if god were the greated scientist he could have worked on things for a long time. Yes, he had to take gasses & all that other stuff you are throwing out from the evolution theory and mix it together...hey, you have to start somewhere. Then you create some simple creatures and over the next "day" you manipulate them till you end up with humans.

 

and the sci-fi version;)

2. Maybe god is some creature must more advanced than us and we are minute compared to him. Maybe he has a terrarium in his room and has created this universe to play with. Hey, anything is possible:)

[soul .gc]

I guess this is getting nowhere. It takes faith to believe in both sides and neither side wants to give an inch.

 

I do believe and will continue to believe in a higher power. If you choose to not believe in one that is your right but I would think it would get depressing as you get older knowing there isnothing but Dirt and cheap pine waiting on you.

[NOFX]

I would like to debate this without getting out of hand and not posting all these websites with your sources. Im not trying to offend or anything, I would just like your opinions on what I say.

 

The people who are on the creationist side. You are only arguing the christian bible.

 

We can trace people back to 3000 B.C. and christ was said to be born only 2002 years ago. What makes your creationist views different from the rest of the religions?, especially when there is approx. 10,000 other religions out there and most of them have been around ALOT longer than christianity.

 

In this debate I would also like to add that evolutions have ONE theory they are arguing. Considering all the religions, the creationist do not have one theory there are MANY different ways people believe in creationism.

I would like to end my post pointing out that at least the evolutionist have decided upon one theory.

[Guest Bob]

Ok Hambone....

 

Pick up the Bible.  Find me an error.  Show me one single error.

I found an interesting site Biblical Inconsistencies

 

Also, on the Bible Error topic, I was wondering why the Egyptians were going along, business as usual during the time the entire earth was supposed to be covered in water. According the most of the creation science sites I could find, the great flood was supposed to have happened around 2370 B.C. (there were some who said it went as far back as 3000 B.C. and even one that said the great flood took place around 1500 B.C.) The egyptians were recording their history, writing books, building tombs and doing whatever else those wild and crazy sun-worshipping fools did back then, yet there has never been a record found mentioning any flood. Plenty of records, books, mummys, heiroglyphs and the like, all created right around, before, during and after the earth took a bath of evil, and no mention of it, no break in the Pharonic history.........

 

I would like to ask the Hamboner to mellow out a bit, point out facts you believe to help your side of the debate without attacking the other side. I agree with most of the evidence you've put forth, but lets try to just stick to debating and not attack each other.

 

Things like "Religion is for the weak" is an attack, a statement like that has no place in a debate like this. It doesn't offer itself up as evidence to help further your case but just demeans the people you are trying to debate.

[Nitemare]

No matter how much science compiles on to this, it comes back to what the Bible said. The Bible was written by men. It is a combination of what they thought. It may contain some facts, but it is a book of praise fundamentally. In a book of praise, reality is distorted in favor of the subject

Hambone have you even read the Bible in it's entirety?? The problem with people today is their lack of objectivity. Heaven forbid some1 presents a view that Hambone can't prove with his precious scientific methods. The irony of science lies in the fact that what one person proves another can disprove.(there are excpetions eg. Gravity)

 

True the bible was written by man but clearly it was God inspired. The book of Revelation for example(read it sometime). How could someone living in 40 A.D. possibly imagine such things and be so right?

 

Scientists can't even agree on how old the Earth is...Each one of them says it's such a simple formula. Carboin dating for example when running the same test twice on the same item seldom are the same results found. My biology teacher in highschool work for 2 decades on a project studying carbon dating and the theory of evolution. He ran tests on a piece of petrified wood and got so many different conclusions it's rediculous.

 

 

It came at a time when people needed something to believe, before the wonderful world of reality was fully understood. Praise and superstition, everyone bought it.

 

Hmmmm, nice coincident how science just happens to have the "answer" when people doubt the word of the bible. When you feel vulnerable or are in doubt isn't it human nature to grab onto the easiest solution? What kind of statement is "It came in a time when people needed something to believe" So people no longer need something to believe. Only that breif, particular time period, in which each part of the Bible, which refutes your testimony, was written?

 

 

Class calls so that's all for now.

[Zeabos]

This debate is getting old..

 

As of now this debate has been soley an attack on Evolution when Creationism has sat untouched except for Faith attacks....

 

Frankly, Christianity is a new religion. It came into being late in the Roman Empire, when Rome was an Empire and not a republic. Long before then tribes had been running around with thier own religions. We now declare these people Pagans.. for reasons I cannot fathom as some of thier religions are as sensible as Christianity.

 

Overall, the Creationists have no facts in thier defense!!! there is no way to PROVE creationism, at leasts evolution has some things going for it....

 

Right now i could come up with a religion in which an Alien called Jon arrived and planted the seed of life on earth. Or maybe a living rock created everything back before the dawn of time. I dub this rock Bob(Bob_Lee is a riencarnation of this rock. Even tho that is only his AIM name is it really conincedence that he chose this? And can you DISPROVE that he is the riencarnation ). This debate will now continue in which i defend my Rock religion in the same way creationists defend thiers. I have no real facts to prove it but i can simply disprove your attacks!

 

Can you beat the Rock?

 

Confusing aint it!

 

Nitemare, Radiocarbon dating is EXTREMELY inprecice it is rarely relied on now. Basically scientists use it to get within 1000 years of their target. Sometimes not that exact(plus i dont think yoru High school teacher had the right equipment to carry out EXACT carbon dating )

[Nitemare]

Ok Hambone....

 

Pick up the Bible.  Find me an error.  Show me one single error.

I found an interesting site Biblical Inconsistencies

 

Also, on the Bible Error topic, I was wondering why the Egyptians were going along, business as usual during the time the entire earth was supposed to be covered in water. According the most of the creation science sites I could find, the great flood was supposed to have happened around 2370 B.C. (there were some who said it went as far back as 3000 B.C. and even one that said the great flood took place around 1500 B.C.) The egyptians were recording their history, writing books, building tombs and doing whatever else those wild and crazy sun-worshipping fools did back then, yet there has never been a record found mentioning any flood. Plenty of records, books, mummys, heiroglyphs and the like, all created right around, before, during and after the earth took a bath of evil, and no mention of it, no break in the Pharonic history.........

Just because I don't have time to pick out the parts I'm adressing the whole post is quoted. Also because I don't have the required time to do all thw cutting and pasting from the site.

 

GE 4:4-5 God prefers Abel's offering and has no regard for Cain's.

2CH 19:7, AC 10:34, RO 2:11 God shows no partiality. He treats all alike.

 

Differences between Old and New Testaments. The realationship man has with God in the New and Old Tesataments are a lot different because of Jesus fullfilling the prophecy of the Old Testament.

 

GE 4:16 Cain went away (or out) from the presence of the Lord.

JE 23:23-24 A man cannot hide from God. God fills heaven and earth.

 

This is speaking in a spiritual meaning. To be able to read and understand the bible you have to be able to tell the difference bewtween Spiritual and Earthly. All of these "inconsistancies" are nothing more than missued quotes. If you would like I could prepare a list of 'Scientific Inconsistancies' for you filled with the same non-sense.

[NOFX]

Pick up the Bible.  Find me an error.  Show me one single error.

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.

 

Light is created by the earth facing the sun during its rotation and the darkness is when the side your on is facing away from the sun.

 

Looks like it should go more like,

 

God said "let there be light" and there was light. God saw that light was good, so he made the earth revolve so that light would show for at least half the day.