Evolution Vs Creation

[Hambone]

Erm, I kind of read what you said jokingly Linch, but in reality, yes. Is that not what fanatics say that god did? Create life out of lifelessness? So yes, yes we would. We could make up our own gospel and sell it to the masses, make people see things as they "really" happened. Religion.... wow.

 

Zweih, I can't help but insult your book, attribute that to the nature of this discussion. There is nothing to show that because you base your life around it, it makes anything it says more true or less true. There are only facts. Alchemists wasted their entire intellectual life trying to turn metal into gold. They believed fervently in them and would not alter their beliefs. Don't be the same is all. Be cynical, skeptical about what you hear, and ask for proof. You can base your life around god if you wish. there is a god, he exists as one of the most prolific works of fiction ever written in the history of humanity. Dorian Grey has influenced people's lives, mine included: a testament (catch that pun?) to the fact that ficticious characters can in fact be influential. You're not skeptical about what you read, you accepted it as you read it. That's the downfall of religion.

[ConGregation]

I have read many things over the years that evolution has problems with. I dont remember any of them. I havent really followed this debate.

 

You speak of evolutionary proofs. It is all circumstancial evidence. Every single bit of it. I challenge you to show me any evidence that is not circumstancial. Again, you take the evidence and look at it one way.

 

I also present another challenge to you. You insist on calling the Bible a superstitious book and Creationism defunct. Give me proof that Creation didnt happen! ... Again, you can only argue against it by saying evolution is true. But if you cant take my first challenge it has no bearing on my second challenge.

 

...

 

Again, I urge you to keep it more civil. You have embraced cynicism. The cynic will not and cannot understand the view of faith. So please be more respectful.

[ConGregation]

Btw, my nickname is not revs

[Guest Bob]

We had this debate on the mmmmguild.com forums, then again on the m4cs.com boards so I guess 3 times pay for all.

 

I don't want to post another novel, like I did before, on this topic. Rev and I have had numerous conversations over time on this subject, and never offended each other (that I know of ) Anyway, lets try to keep it a debate and not an argument filled with attacks.

 

In a way this debate is over before you can even start, no amount of science can defeat someones core religious beliefs, no amount of scripture can make a devotee of science (especially one with a past history of religion being a bad experience) become a believer. It just ends up being tit for tat, creation scientists have their evidence, mainstream science has its own.

 

After a while it becomes (and I'm guilty of this too) each side tossing out some scientific evidence to support their particular theory. And there are enough gaps in both sides to debate until the sun explodes in 5 million years. An interesting debate with "proof" from both sides is great, a flame filled argument session is useless.

[ConGregation]

Ahhh! No novels this time? You definetly had some good stuff!

 

You are right, Bob. It is a fruitless debate. The only reason I feel compelled to respond is because some young creationist might read some guy who makes it sound as if evolution is the only way it could have happened.

 

My challenges could never be answered. It is impossible. It also works the other way. I cant prove that evolution did not happen or that Creation did. All the evidence is circumstancial.

 

And you are right, Hambone about why I believe some of the things I believe. But I have actually put into practice some of the things I was taught and found them to be real. I have an all consuming faith that God is real and that he cares for me. It is that "reality" that demands I not reject Creation. So its because I know some things to be true that I believe others (such as Creation).

[Hambone]

Religion exists because people need answers. Every religion, by necessity of definition, has a creation story. Why is yours right, but knowledge wrong? And every other religion, wrong? Or did the creation happen more than once? This debate is fruitless depending on what you want to get out of it. Will I change your closed mind? No, quite clearly I will not. Back to religion. People need answers, something to lean on, belief that their toil on Earth means something. Religion is for the weak, plain and simple. If you can't find the answers, attribute them to some god, make him all powerful and hump all the answers into one anthropocentric deity. Weakness, intellecual weakness is what it is! Jesus was a product of his enviroment. He was born into a manger, I believe, and never quite had an ample sum of money. So tell the people what they want to hear, that they will go to eternal bliss if they work hard. Any lie has to be attractive to get people to believe it. That was the single most influential scam perpetrated, ever.

 

cir·cum·stan·tial   Pronunciation Key  (sûrkm-stnshl)

adj.

Of, relating to, or dependent on circumstances.

Of no primary significance; incidental.

Complete and particular; full of detail: a circumstantial report about the debate.

Full of ceremonial display.

 

I'm afraid I don't quite follow when you say evidence in evolutionary theory is circumstantial. If you mean that it is based on circumstance, as the popular definition is, then you argue the wrong side there bro. Evolution IS based on circumstance, organisms change according to their enviroment. That's exactly what it is, giving it a fancy word isn't denouncing it in the slightest! Or maybe you mean it is incidental. Again, yes. That is basic evolutionary theory, I don't quite see your point there. Or is it complete and particular? Yes, it is that too. It is NOT, however full of ceremonial display. That's called Christianity. You told me I take the evidence and look at it one way. Quite the misconception. Example. Prokaryotic cells have a little habit of absorbing plasmids (small DNA strands) from the enviroment and expressing them. Now, let's look at this in a Creationism view. God created everything. He created those plasmids from their base components, quarks. He created the prokaryotic cell. His will lets the cell absorb the plasmid. Why doesn't the Bible mention any of this? Because no one knew hardly anything by modern standards. Now, sit back and let logic diffuse into your head. The cell absorbs the plasmid by allowing it through its phospholipids and cell wall, probably through pores or some form of facilitated diffusion. The DNA is transcribed into RNA, mRNA, and is expressed. god is notably lacking from this picture. Blessed be he who created Syphilis and Gonnarea.

 

One thing is you asked me for proof that "Creation" as you define it never happened. Do you want me to fax you some photographs I took as the universe was forming? Your proof is Evolution. I'm sure when the original Instigator dreamnt up all this Christianity he never dreamed it would have lasted so long or become so influential. Your proof is the cosmos. The creation is described as taking 7 days. It's generally agreed that it probably wasnt 7 days. Days is a human term anyways, defined by our revolution around the central sun of our galaxy. So, he assembled everything in 7 days eh? Nope. The Bible is not to be taken literally, perhaps? New galaxies and solar systems are discovered on a daily basis. god sure didn't see that one coming. The lunatics who compiled the document called the Bible had no clue of any of this stuff, so it wasn't a part of your collective answer. The Bible is a novel, so treat it like any other artistic work. Can you disprove Middle Earth from J.R.R. Tolkein? Can you disprove Hogwart's Castle? Think infinity now. Don't be flabergasted by all this information, reread it once.

 

Since I answered (however roundabout), do me the same favor. Show me that Creation happened, except in your novel. Christians are diehard fans of some novel, no different from Trekkies who dress up and attend conferences honoring their favorite characters. Asking me for proof of Creation nonexistent is surrending this argument. Christianity and Creation have been on the defense the entire time. Fall back some more, on shattered pillars of false faith called god.

[Zeabos]

Ill not insult the Bible. as rev said there is no way to DISPROVE God because he is an Idea, an Idea created of Faith, that could be real...In reality even if he isnt real he doesnt actually need to be for people to have faith we've gotten on pretty well withough knowing if he's real or not. Any, way here is some solid evidence that should push Evolution into being a Law but i dont know why...

 

 

Evolution is happening before our vary eyes.. Ever heard of the Virus called HIV? The cause of AIDs? Im sure you have and as of now we have no cure for AIDs. Most People think that this means we can't kill it. That is completely incorrect, we have many ways of killing AIDs. I use killing in place of destroying in reality AIDs is not alive and therefore cannot be killed.

 

AIDs can be killed many ways except it basically has the most powerful defense possible, the defence of evolution. AIDs reproduces more than 1 BILLION times per day, that makes the chance of a mutiation amazing. So when we use drugs on AIDs to kill it. Many of the virus's die except the amount of reproductions eventually produce a virus whose mutation makes it immune to the vaccine. The virus then reproduces like crazy as all of the non immune ones die. These new Evolved virus's soon take over as the others arnt reproducing. And BANG AIDs is still alive in the patients body and destroying white blood cells.

 

Evidence of evolution right there almost solid evidence. As humans reproduce like 1 every 2 years the cause is often slow. And human beings really have no reason to evolve right now as in.. the ones with mutations have no advantage over others so they dont reproduce more.

 

Its not completely solid but Evolution is almost fact... The AIDs example is a tough one to refute how u guys gonna deal with it

[ConGregation]

Zeabos, no one is arguing that mutations do not occur or that "micro" evolution exists. The problem comes in "macro" evolution. That is no proof of macro evolution. Now show me an aids virus that turned into a real living cell of some kind and you would have something.

[ConGregation]

Example. Prokaryotic cells have a little habit of absorbing plasmids (small DNA strands) from the enviroment and expressing them. Now, let's look at this in a Creationism view. God created everything. He created those plasmids from their base components, quarks. He created the prokaryotic cell. His will lets the cell absorb the plasmid. Why doesn't the Bible mention any of this? Because no one knew hardly anything by modern standards. Now, sit back and let logic diffuse into your head. The cell absorbs the plasmid by allowing it through its phospholipids and cell wall, probably through pores or some form of facilitated diffusion. The DNA is transcribed into RNA, mRNA, and is expressed. god is notably lacking from this picture. Blessed be he who created Syphilis and Gonnarea.

Your argument fails to make any sense to me.

 

Circumstancial evidence being evidence that is dependant upon circumstances. You see a whale skeleton that appears to be structured to have legs and ASSUME that it once had legs. Etc. That is all you have. The point I was trying to make is that you have no right to be closed minded when your evidence is circumstancial.

 

And dont dodge the fossil record so easily. If macro evolution did occur than where are all the transitional forms? They should be EVERYWHERE. Darwin even used the future finding of them to validate his claims.

 

We have had several discussions about this in the past (refer to Bob's post). In all those discussions people were able to maintain a decency and civilness that you have not. I have asked you repeatedly to tone it down.

Religion is for the weak, plain and simple

Jesus was a product of his enviroment. He was born into a manger, I believe, and never quite had an ample sum of money. So tell the people what they want to hear, that they will go to eternal bliss if they work hard. Any lie has to be attractive to get people to believe it. That was the single most influential scam perpetrated, ever.

Blessed be he who created Syphilis and Gonnarea.

The Bible is a novel, so treat it like any other artistic work

Christians are diehard fans of some novel, no different from Trekkies who dress up and attend conferences honoring their favorite characters

You can base your life around god if you wish. there is a god, he exists as one of the most prolific works of fiction ever written in the history of humanity

The reason I attack your book is because it is nothing more than a compilation of superstition

believing in Creationism is "ignorant."

Religion is superstition, whether you like that fact or not

Creationism is defunct

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

Religion is just hopelessly outdated theory

 

I refuse to debate in this manner. Bob, Barto, Zeabos are all devout evolutionists. And in all our previous banter have we never brought ourselves down to slanderous attacks and disrespectful condemnations. The simple fact remains, I cant prove it, You cant prove it. If we lose respect we have nothing but a mudslinging.

[Zeabos]

Eh? True Micro evolution exists however virus's reproduce the same way we do (well in a sense ) They use DNA to reproduce. In FACT!! Virus's USE cells to reproduce!! They use our white blood cells to make themselves reproduce. They replace our DNA with theirs and our cells being pumping viruses out! So in ecsence they reproduce near to exactly the way we do.(with the exception on many because virus's reproduce many different ways)

 

As to Virus's producing CELLS?!?! well Cells and virus's are COMPLETELY different, its like saying that Birds produce turtles..it just aint gonna happen. As i stated earlier virus's are almost more perfect than Cells, i wouldnt be surprised if Cells became virus's as they can be destroyed by viruses like there is no tomorrow.

 

Eating dinner will write more later.

[ConGregation]

Again, birds producing turtles IS macro evolution. Obviously if evolution were true, I was produced form a base life form after many steps. Changing DNA structure is no big deal. Giving me a third arm IS. The fact is you started with an AIDS virus and you ended up with an AIDS virus.

[Hambone]

Birds don't produce turtles man. That's not evolution, thats ConGregationism, something you produced out of your imagination and distortion of reality. You ask questions, here are answers.

 

You claim there is no proof of macro evolution. This is not true. The driving force behind evolutionary advancement is competition: for resources. In the plains of Africa, you think it's coincidence that giraffes have a long neck to access an otherwise inaccessible food source? You think anteaters have a long snout because it looks pretty, or god gave it to them? Nope, ants were a relatively untapped food resource in the community where that development was created. There's millions of examples, I give you two.

 

Another question raised was "where are the transitionary organisms?" Well, back to competition we go, this is getting repetitive. I'm having to explain basic evolutionary laws here. Competition. Allow me to refer back to the giraffe as an example. The creature we presently call a giraffe did not always have the long neck. It evolved from a similiar creature, land dwelling and herbivorous. Over time, as competition grows, a natural consequence of population augmentation, foremerly abundant resources become scarce. So, a long neck, formerly a disability, is selected for as a desirable trait. This does not happen over one generation. Eventually a certain gene can spread to everyone in a closed population, over time. So, the neck rises. This is your transitionary animal. So, you think a giraffe with a 1' neck is going to be superior to a giraffe with a 4' neck? Of course not, it is foolish. It is obvious. Not all transitionary organisms survive. Sometimes they do. Take a frog for instance. A frog is a descendant of modern reptiles. Frogs do skin respiration due to their poor respiratory system. They evolved from other organisms, and over time, adapted to their enviroment, learned new surivival techniques, and changed. The transitionary animal can still be found on the modern planet. Sometimes, even the original organism remains. Archabacteria live deep in ocean vents. These are the first cellular organisms. They do chemeosmosis, using chemical and heat energy to produce ATP instead of the more popular and potent aerobic pathways of more developed organisms. These still remain, because as evolution continues, the scion lack the ability to live in the original enviroment, thus leaving the original species with the less competition it needs to survive. I hope I thoroughly adressed your question.

 

"Changing DNA structure is no big deal."

 

If Evolutionary Theory were Christian religion, this would be the most heretical statement possible to make. You would be burned, as Christians have done to non-believers. DNA is everything, I mean everything. One amino acid in the gargantuan strain causes Downs Syndrom, sickle-cell anemia, or could code for a third arm. From this statement you clearly do not understand the purpose and function of DNA; I cannot stress using words how false that statement is. One tiny little alteration in fact causes macro-sized changes.

 

AIDS, as Zeabos says, illustrates execellently principles of evolution. Unlike any other virus, AIDS attacks macrophages (white blood cells) which are the only thing the body creates that can destroy it. AIDS also buds during reproduction, keeping surface receptors from the host cells that prevents the immune system as recognizing the object as non-self, and elimating it. This is adaptation, survival of the fittest in action. Zeabos gets a thumbs up for this example.

[Hambone]

In response to your comment that I have been uncivil, pshaw I say to you.

 

Certain statements of mine you attack as being, as you call it (a religious man, mind you) "uncivil".

 

"Religion is for the weak, plain and simple"

This is straight copy and paste Freudian thought. Blame history.

"Jesus was a product of his enviroment. He was born into a manger, I believe, and never quite had an ample sum of money. So tell the people what they want to hear, that they will go to eternal bliss if they work hard. Any lie has to be attractive to get people to believe it. That was the single most influential scam perpetrated, ever."

This is simple truth. This is rebuking a belief I believe does not have any founding, other than ponderance. If I used words you don't like, accept my sincerest apologies.

"Blessed be he who created Syphilis and Gonnarea."

God made it all didn't he? You deal with the bad stuff too then, he's your god after all.

"The Bible is a novel, so treat it like any other artistic work"

Tell me why it isn't a novel.

"Christians are diehard fans of some novel, no different from Trekkies who dress up and attend conferences honoring their favorite characters"

A supportive analogy.

"You can base your life around god if you wish. there is a god, he exists as one of the most prolific works of fiction ever written in the history of humanity"

Again, disprove me then. Show me why the Bible isn't a novel.

"The reason I attack your book is because it is nothing more than a compilation of superstition"

Which it is.... sorry if the truth is poignant when phrased correctly.

"believing in Creationism is "ignorant."

The quotes are there for a reason.

"Religion is superstition, whether you like that fact or not"

I already adressed this.

"Creationism is defunct"

Definitions are key.

"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"

So a creative argument is uncivil nowadays? No one told me.

"Religion is just hopelessly outdated theory"

A statement I will back up to the end.

 

Sorry you went through all that copy and paste trouble, but if you feel I owe you an explanation I believe I adressed everything.

[ConGregation]

You claim there is no proof of macro evolution. This is not true. The driving force behind evolutionary advancement is competition: for resources. In the plains of Africa, you think it's coincidence that giraffes have a long neck to access an otherwise inaccessible food source? You think anteaters have a long snout because it looks pretty, or god gave it to them? Nope, ants were a relatively untapped food resource in the community where that development was created. There's millions of examples, I give you two.

That is no proof! That is just your assumption that evolution is the answer. Why, I ask, is Creation not a valid answer? It is just wishful thinking. So that ant eaters are placed where they are is a proof? You have to do better than that.

 

 

Another question raised was "where are the transitionary organisms?" Well, back to competition we go, this is getting repetitive. I'm having to explain basic evolutionary laws here. Competition. Allow me to refer back to the giraffe as an example. The creature we presently call a giraffe did not always have the long neck. It evolved from a similiar creature, land dwelling and herbivorous. Over time, as competition grows, a natural consequence of population augmentation, foremerly abundant resources become scarce. So, a long neck, formerly a disability, is selected for as a desirable trait. This does not happen over one generation. Eventually a certain gene can spread to everyone in a closed population, over time. So, the neck rises. This is your transitionary animal

 

I asked for fossils. Surely there would be a record of these animals somewhere. And not just one or two, there should be an abundance of them.

 

Not all transitionary organisms survive. Sometimes they do. Take a frog for instance. A frog is a descendant of modern reptiles. Frogs do skin respiration due to their poor respiratory system. They evolved from other organisms, and over time, adapted to their enviroment, learned new surivival techniques, and changed

Your assuming an awful lot there. Why is the hypothosis so perposterous that they were created that way? Again, circumstancial evidence.

 

AIDS, as Zeabos says, illustrates execellently principles of evolution. Unlike any other virus, AIDS attacks macrophages (white blood cells) which are the only thing the body creates that can destroy it. AIDS also buds during reproduction, keeping surface receptors from the host cells that prevents the immune system as recognizing the object as non-self, and elimating it. This is adaptation, survival of the fittest in action. Zeabos gets a thumbs up for this example.

 

Again, micro evolution happens... much like another four letter word. But you started with an AIDS virus and ended with an AIDS virus... Where is the macro evolution?

[ConGregation]

"Jesus was a product of his enviroment. He was born into a manger, I believe, and never quite had an ample sum of money. So tell the people what they want to hear, that they will go to eternal bliss if they work hard. Any lie has to be attractive to get people to believe it. That was the single most influential scam perpetrated, ever."

This is simple truth. This is rebuking a belief I believe does not have any founding, other than ponderance. If I used words you don't like, accept my sincerest apologies

 

Your understanding of Christ and the Bible is not correct. Again you assume everyting is a scam and that its all lies just to alieve mans consciense. But the main problem is that eternal bliss is not something earned. Salvation for a sinner is a gift of grace. The Bible states over and over that "works" cannot make you right with God. It goes like this. Man has a sinful nature. I dont think we could argue that. We sin naturally. You dont have to teach your kid how to lie. He comes by it naturally. But God is holy. His main attribute is holiness. But God for some strange reason has compassion on man. "For His great love wherewith He loved us". The only way for a holy God and a sinful man to be reconciled is for a payment for us to be made. Of course the payment had to be perfect so "For God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten son that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." Now God offers us the "gift" of eternal life to all those that believe in Him and accept his sacrifice made for us. So you see its not a religious thing but a spiritual thing.

[ConGregation]

"Blessed be he who created Syphilis and Gonnarea."

God made it all didn't he? You deal with the bad stuff too then, he's your god after all.

 

I was referring to your sacreligious tone.

[ConGregation]

The Bible is a novel, so treat it like any other artistic work"

Tell me why it isn't a novel.

The Bible was not written as a novel.

 

nov·el1   Pronunciation Key  (nvl)

n.

A fictional prose narrative of considerable length, typically having a plot that is unfolded by the actions, speech, and thoughts of the characters.

The literary genre represented by novels.

 

A novel is based in fiction. It was written to amuse, provoke or cause a reaction of some sort. The Bible contains historical books (which have been borne out in other historical findings), books of songs, books of proverbs, books of instruction as well as books of prophecy. It might do you some good to calculate just how many prophecies of the Bible have come true so far. But I never read any books in the Bible that were written as a novel. You can argue the veracity of its claims but I dont think its just to argue the intention of its authorship. In closing, tell me why it is a novel.

[ConGregation]

"The reason I attack your book is because it is nothing more than a compilation of superstition"

Which it is.... sorry if the truth is poignant when phrased correctly.

su·per·sti·tion   Pronunciation Key  (spr-stshn)

n.

An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.

 

A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.

A fearful or abject state of mind resulting from such ignorance or irrationality.

Idolatry.

 

I find my faith neither irrational, unlogical or even ignorant. I have seen God do things in my life as well as others around me. I have seen him answer prayer. I have felt him comfort me, convict me, encourage me, love me. And I definetly dont have a fearful or abject state of mind because of my faith. Quite the contrare, I experience a peace and a calm never experienced this side of drugs (... tis a joke )

[Zeabos]

The reason you start with an AIDs virus and end up with an AIDs virus is because the viruses that may change on the step to a cell have no more chance to survive than the rest of the viruses. If say the trait that made it more like a cell made it have an advantage to survive than it probably would survive and bang your on your way to a cell!

 

The reason you dont grow a third arm is simple. Say your child has a mutation and DOES end up with a third arm! well this doesnt change much does it. Because your son with a third arm has no distinct advantage over people with only two arms. Even if he did have an advantage he wouldnt really be the only person to survive and pass on his trait! Because of todays society in which it is no longer survival of the fitest we have basically stopped human evolution because survival of the fitest no longer applies to us.

 

However, perhaps we go into nuclear war and all of the major cities are destroyed, yada yada yada the world enters anew ice age and we are left without electircity or factories producing warm clothing. Well, humans with the "Werewolf gene" which covers thier body in a thick layer of hair(even their face, Thank you Ripley's Beliieve it or not) may have a disticnt advantage to survive because hes wram (farfetched example i know but it the only one i could think of right now). The children of his that HAD the werewolf gene would survive, and without it would die. Who kows maybe the human race would eventually be come all hairy as the ones with the werewolf gene would survive.

 

 

Again society todqay has destroyed evolution so it is unlikely humans will actually evolve!

 

Cmon guys rev needs a Team mate! Me and hambone are fighting here and Barto hasn't even weighed in yet! Lets get him some help!

[Hambone]

Novel was perhaps an incorrect term to use, this is one of the few times you'll see my retract a statement . Perhaps, Historical Fiction is a better term. Take a couple of average men, make them holy through literature. I'll have to detail my theory on the founding fathers of Christianity in another thread.

 

One thing I would like to discuss is your comment of how you say you have seen god answer prayer. This is interesting, because it becomes difficult to debate, against the "god's divine plan" retort. But, I want you to try this. We'll test the power of prayer.

 

Take 2 potters, fill them with equal amounts of dirt, put a tulip bulb in each, and give them ample sunlight and water.

Expirement 1:

Pray for one to grow, and don't pray for the other.

Expirment 2:

Leave the control alone, and pour saltwater in the other. Pray for the saltwater plant to grow and flourish.

 

You will find that prayer does not stop nature. Prayer in itself is incredibly hypocritical in nature. Coaches and players pray before every football game. Does god really care about a diversion, whilst elsewhere in the world some practicing Christian isn't getting 1 meal a day? Most Americans have had plenty of food, clothing and oxegyn their entire lives. So, why would god care if one of their friends got injured in a car accident, while ignoring the prayer of a kid who wonders why his parents beat him? Prayer doesn't restore sight to the blind. Prayer is a placebo. If your prayer is answered, its part of gods divine plan. If it isn't answered, its part of gods divine plan. Setting the two equal gives the equation

It isn't answered = It is answered

This is not true. Two unequal things are not equal. Ever. There's my prayer lecture in a nutshell.

 

I was referring to your sacreligious tone.

My entire argument is sacreligious, by Christian standards.

 

When I say that "it" is all a scam, be cynical with me and you can see what I see. I'm a former Christian, I understand your arguments, but I refute them. Have you ever pretended to fully be atheistic? Religion is to comfort. There is no god, and even if there was, he would not care about you or me.

 

Back to fossils and macro-evolution. You ask for fossils? Almost everything happens on a cellular level first. Cells with only membrane (no cell wall) leave no fossils. As for my giraffe example, fossils do exist for transition species. The fossils of each generation only change ever so slightly, so fossils of one species may appear similiar to precursors. And there are fossils. One giraffe fossil has a smaller neck than the other one, there's your precursor. It's not necessarily that the giraffe died during juvenille ages, the skeletons have different proportions. The giraffe is just one example. To the anteater, you ask why there is no fossil showing the development? The snout has no bone in it. The hole in the skull of modern anteaters is larger than the hole of primitive "anteaters". As the snout developed as an evolutionary advantage, it became larger, and enlarged the hole likewise. Again, almost every characteristic of any animal is attibutable to evolution. Evolutionary perception can change though, as new knowledge continually is uncovered. Creationism is set in stone, there is no halfway about it. God made everything as it exists today, that's that. That is wrong.

 

Go Christianity, be defensive more!

[ConGregation]

Back to fossils and macro-evolution. You ask for fossils? Almost everything happens on a cellular level first. Cells with only membrane (no cell wall) leave no fossils. As for my giraffe example, fossils do exist for transition species. The fossils of each generation only change ever so slightly, so fossils of one species may appear similiar to precursors. And there are fossils. One giraffe fossil has a smaller neck than the other one, there's your precursor. It's not necessarily that the giraffe died during juvenille ages, the skeletons have different proportions. The giraffe is just one example. To the anteater, you ask why there is no fossil showing the development? The snout has no bone in it. The hole in the skull of modern anteaters is larger than the hole of primitive "anteaters". As the snout developed as an evolutionary advantage, it became larger, and enlarged the hole likewise. Again, almost every characteristic of any animal is attibutable to evolution. Evolutionary perception can change though, as new knowledge continually is uncovered. Creationism is set in stone, there is no halfway about it. God made everything as it exists today, that's that. That is wrong.

 

Go Christianity, be defensive more!

Again you fail . Why couldnt have God created the giraffe with a long neck? You attribute something to evolution that I could just as easily attribute to creation. The giraffe evolved from what? Zebra? It had to come from somewhere lower in the evolutionary chain. Than why is there such a large gap between it and whatever it came from? THAT would be a trasitionary specie. Yet those gaps exist all over the place with almost every specie. Surely with all the small steps it took for things to evolve there would be a very clear chain of "evolving". Since there is no such thing I would assume that all evolutionists are ignorant and their belief defunct. (just a little ribbing there ).

 

You went way out in left field on the anteater. First you proposed that the location of the anteater is proof of evolution. I dont see that at all. Now you say that I am asking for a fossil record. Im not. But while we are on it... Where is it? You poo poo it but dont tell me why there isnt a transitionary specie.

 

You say that any animal attribute is attributable to evolution. I expected more from you than that. Havent we gone over that. It is circumstancial. You see a long snout on an animal and say "haha!... he must have evolved that to survive". I see a long snout on an animal and say "Haha! God knew what he was doing". The proofs are just your assumptions that your assumptions are correct.

 

Come on man! You gotta have more than this?!

[Playaa]

I'll attempt to help Rev out here, though I'm far from scholarly.....

first I'll state my beliefs.

1. I believe in a God who sent his son Jesus Christ to die on the cross for my sins so that I would be forgiven.

2. I therefore believe in Creation.

3. I believe that Evolution and Creation are both completely disprovable. Both are based on Faith, mainly because we were not there in the beginning and will never be 100% positive of what happened.

The thing I find most intriguing about Evolution and uneducated to mostly educated ppl backing evolution is this: Science and scientists themselves call it the "Theory of Evolution". THEORY, Science hasn't proven Evolution and since science can't prove or disprove God and there are really no other views about the origins of the earth (save aliens implanting the earth with species, which is close to Creation anyway isn't it?), the majority of the world backs Evolution as fact. In fact most Scientists believe it to be fact because they have 2 choices, Creation or Evolution. If you don't believe in God, you can't believe in Creation. Therefore the logical choice is Evolution correct? But they still can't prove it.

 

I equate the entire debate to this:

You give me 1 monkey. I'll put him at a keyboard and let him start tapping away. 100 years later, he produces the Gettysburg address word for word, no mistakes. That's Evolution.

 

Creation is this. You give me a monkey, and I put him at a keyboard and start moving his fingers over the right keys and hitting them for him. 10 minutes later, you've got the Gettysburg address.

 

I really probably shouldn't get into this debate since I believe that I cannot prove Creation to you unless you believe in God in the first place. And you can't prove Evolution to me because I DO believe in God. (At least the God of the Bible, since there are other religions that back evolution).

 

Here is a quote from the Bible for you though.

Genesis 9:4

Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.

 

I find it interesting that such an antiquated novel could have such a profound scientific fact in it (that blood is the life of flesh) when our modern scientific world didn't realize this fact until the 1300's (not sure of exact time)

 

here are 2 more

Job 26:7-8

7 He stretches out the north over the void, and hangs the earth upon nothing. 8 He binds up the waters in his thick clouds, and the cloud is not rent under them.

 

"hangs the earth upon nothing" - i.e. Space

"binds up the waters in his thick clouds, and the cloud is not rent under them." - i.e. The fact that clouds hold moisture(rain)

 

all of these things are in the old testament also. WAAAAY back in the day....

 

 

I hope I might have shed some light upon things, but probably didn't....

[Playaa]

just read this and found it interesting

. Darwin goes a step further and concedes there may have been a Creator of matter, and of one, or at most, a few germs, from which all vegetation and all animals came by evolution--all orders, classes, families, genera, species, and varieties. He differs from Lamarck, by allowing the creation of one germ, possibly a few more. He says in his "Origin of Species," "I believe that animals are descended from at most only four or five progenitors; and plants from an equal or lesser number . Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants are descended from one prototype...All the organic beings, which have ever lived on the earth, may be descended from some one primordial form." Darwin, because of his great scholarship, fairness, and candor, won for his theory more favor than it inherently deserves. Darwin taught that, "The lower impulses of vegetable life pass, by insensible gradations, into the instinct of animals and the higher intelligence of man," without purpose or design. None of these three hypotheses can admit the creation of man

 

I find it funny that even Darwin said that there could be a Creator of matter and possibly a few cells and germs, THEN evolution starts. The funniest part about this whole debate is that 98% of this world has no clue why they believe what they do. At least Hambone, Zweih and Rev know why they believe it. I'm just getting to the point in my life where I want to know why I believe. Because even though no one wants to admit it, we are all indoctrinated from birth to believe as our parents believe. I'm not saying my parents aren't right, I'm just saying I want to know WHY.

[Guest Mossad]

First of all I will state that I'm not a religous person. But I have a couple questions for both Rev and Hambone.

 

Hambone: What did the church do to you to make you so angry? It seems like your mad at christianity for something, its evident in your arguments. My view is this : if believing in a higher power makes you a better person, THATS GREAT! But I dont have to believe and I wont, unless something happens down the road.

 

Rev: Ever read the gnostic gospels? Why weren't these put in the bible? Answer is....because it contradicts quite a bit of what the old testament says.

 

I dunno, I don't feel like writing a novel, but I would like to get both your opinions on these things.

[linch]

...Too many posts to start quoting everyone. Question: Do you believe

in life on other planets, and if so, did God create life there too?

I'm curious to here thoughts from the "religious" folks.

 

I'm a bit surprised how wild these debates get, after all it's a

scientists nature to seek proof and state his evidence, and a

religious man way not to ask for proof, because he has faith...

..seems to be a lot of people here with things to prove