PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Creationism challenged!Dare u?

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
ArcanaKnight

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Creationism claim that on Noahs ark there were Noah and his two sons, Abel and Caine. This was approxiametely 4000 year ago. Since we know the nature of genes and chromosomes, there wouldn´t possibly such a massive diversion within the genepool if there was in fact only one specimen of the X and Y chromosome on board Noahs ark.

This isn't even the biggest problem with the Noah story if literally true.  There wouldn't have been enough people on the boat to make a genetically viable population, so the human race would have died out relatively quickly due to complications arising from inbreeding.
 


Posts: 41 | Posted: 01:29 AM on September 20, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Reason4All at 9:04 PM on September 19, 2008 :
Claiming that since Creationism doesn´t go through "Evolutionary" peer reviews and is discredited in that way, so should Evolution be discredited since it doesn´t pass Creationist reviews, is, with all due respect, the most idiotic statement I´ve ever heard. In no way is this a reflection on you Dijonaise, since you provided this comment from another website.


yes - it may sound a little silly, but i think you can see the rhetoric in this argument and pick up on the sarcasm. take it with a grain of salt, but don't miss the point of it -   i think the issue really is fairness in review of claims...not the actual process of peer review.



Let´s just remove Evolution/Creationism from the equation and replace them with Circular earth/Flat earth theory. How would that sound? "Since flat earth theory is discredited for not passing Circular Earth peer reviews, so should Circular Earth theory be discredited for not passing Flat Earth peer reviews!" Do you so the (lack of) logic in that???


yes - i see your point,  but i honestly don't think it's fair to try to equate flat-earth theory with creation theory.  the difference is that there is no scientific evidence used to prove that the earth is flat - so it can't even come up for actual scientific review.  there are, however a lot of claims made by people who are creationists which are presented in a scientific  and experimental / observational way.  this, in no way, relates to the whole flat earth thing.  sure...they were making an assumption based purely on what was considered true until proven wrong scientifically, and i think that this is how you see creationists, but keep in mind that a lot of creationists started out as evolutionists until they discovered science that suggested otherwise.


If man developed through millions of years of evolution, from a common ancestors with other species such as monkeys, we would find a massive difference in the genetic pool of human beings. This is the case.

Creationism claim that on Noahs ark there were Noah and his two sons, Abel and Caine. This was approximately 4000 year ago. Since we know the nature of genes and chromosomes, there wouldn´t possibly such a massive difference within the genepool if there was in fact only one specimen of the X and Y chromosome on board Noahs ark. 4 000 years is not just enough time for the chromosomes to make such a massive diversion from their original "source", as it is claimed by Creationists, that would be absolutely impossible. If creationists were right, we would never have any problems with heart transplants or such, since there just wouldn´t have been any time for the genes to differ from each other, and we wouldn´t have such an incredible variety as we do today. Hence why creationism isn´t applicable, hence why it is not true.

All the best

(Edited by Reason4All 9/20/2008 at 08:28 AM).

 As it is obvious that I am not a scientific scholar,  it is obvious that you are not a biblical scholar, so…I’ll give you a break on this one, but umm…I think u might need to go back and read the story again.  Noah had THREE sons (not cain and abel-  who were the son’s of adam and eve),  and their three wives. Although, the family was not far removed from Adam and Eve (who were perfectly created by god). There were likely little genetic transcription difficulties, which would allow intermarriage among family members. It wasn’t until mosaic law was enforce that incestuous relationships were considered wrong.  Incest, still seemingly gross as it is, still occurrs today, and there are still few transcription difficulties. The reluctance is largely due to issues of morality, not issues of genetics.
There is also evidence noted of elevated mutation rates during this time aiding in this diversity.
I’d suggest reading john woodmorappe’s book, “noah’s ark:  a feasible study”
I know – it has seemingly been “debunked” and posted to your ever-so-ready, talkorigins site, but I’d also suggest reading his refutaion to the review here:  http://www.rae.org/pagesix.htm



thanks
-d


 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 4:24 PM on September 20, 2008 | IP
ArcanaKnight

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Incest, still seemingly gross as it is, still occurrs today, and there are still few transcription difficulties. The reluctance is largely due to issues of morality, not issues of genetics.

That's just not true at all.  If you spent any time researching your claims you would know that there are many problems that result from inbreeding, including genetic problems.  While it is true that a one time occurrence may result in a fairly healthy child, repeated occurrences across generations would result in greater complications.  Here is a short list of some of the problems that do arise from inbreeding:

   * reduced fertility both in litter size and sperm viability
   * increased genetic disorders
   * fluctuating facial asymmetry
   * lower birth rate
   * higher infant mortality
   * slower growth rate
   * smaller adult size
   * loss of immune system function.

I mentioned before that the group on Noah's ark wasn't large enough to make a viable population, and the same is true for Adam and Eve.  After only a few generations of their children breeding with each other genetic problems would have begun sprouting up and fertility would have decreased until it would have been nearly impossible for them to have children at all, and those that they did have wouldn't live long past birth due to complications.
 


Posts: 41 | Posted: 01:39 AM on September 21, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Obvious_child at 4:52 PM on September 19, 2008 :


Fair enough. They get rejected due to lack of actual experiments.


you can't be serious.  this is just...just silly.  i'm not even going to waste my time on this one.  
sure - go ahead and assume what you want, but this kind of statement almost seems...intentionally childish.


That lawsuit didn't even make it to court, and it was filed over 6 years ago. Do you know what that means? The court found it to be bullshit.  Even in TENNESSEE. That's sad. The problem with the lack of actually making it to court is that we don't have the actual facts. A lawsuit filed by one side's lawyer is going to state the 'facts' as they want them. It will not state the facts as the facts are. Until we have an actual case with objective examination of the actual facts, your argument is essentially an opinion. Where is the cross examination? Where is the actual evidence? Any lawyer can write whatever grievance they want in a lawsuit filing. It does not make it true.

it was denied a jury trial due to the technicality that there is nothing wrong with the site's moderators chaning policy whenever and however they choose.  and that is something we can agree on, but it is the fact that he had posted several times before on different topics without a hitch,  then was denied once his creation-based topic was brought forth WHILE others were still posting to the site in the same manner that he was trying to post.  he was ignored long enough until the policy could actually be changed to go against him.

Btw, I'm waiting for your evidence of creationists practicing real experiments. I'm not expecting much. After all you failed to cite a commercial product.


agian, i'm still in shock of the utter disregard to thinking on this one.  i'm not even going to waste my time.  i have much more interesting things to discuss with more interesting people who actually think about the topics before they speak.  go ahean - think whatever you want.



How can you expect to learn about the subject when you don't consider knowing what the terms mean to be important? That seems extremely basic to me. It's like learning math without an understanding of what numbers are. Without a fundamental understanding of the foundation, you cannot hope to properly understand the complexities. This is a problem with creationists. Most of them are too lazy or to ignorant to understand and change this about themselves. They want answers and they want them easy. Evolution is not the easiest thing to learn or understand. A real commitment is required to get the complexities of it. You cannot simply hope to take a pill and learn it all instantly as people do with Creationism. Your attitude towards the principle of the foundation is disturbing.

again, i will state for you that i am just an average guy with an interest.  i hardly remember the details of science and biology from high school and college, but i have a fundamental understanding of things.  i dig as far as i can to get a good understanding of both sides.  
i could spout out a bunch of things about how you evolutionists don't know squat about the bible, yet still try to use what you think are inconsistencies against creationsists.
most creationists are not lazy nor ignorant at all.  and the fact that you say this shows your weakness and your insecurity.  really, why do you feel the need to bash those that are different in thinking?  does it really make you feel that better about yourself?

i'll say this again:   you keep reverting to your habit of falsifying what i have to say even before hearing it by talking about peer review, cogenetic, commercial products, and the flood....and now this whole thing about experiments.
frankly, i'm quite tired of your little "challenges"
is this really all you can do - look up little tidbits on talkorigins and regurgitate them here without actually giving it any real thought?
in this way - you're just a robot programmed to destroy intellect and judgment.  and i feel sorry for you.


Where have I falsified what you have stated?


maybe falsify wasn't the best choice of words.  

you DISCREDIT the very premise of my opinion before actually giving any real thought to it.  before even trying to get into a healthy, productive debate.


Dude.

1) You don't care about the basic terms
2) You don't care about peer review
3) You don't care about experiments

How can we help you?

1) obsurde.  just another faild attempt to skew the conversation.  as i sateted.  i am interested and eager to learn all that i can.  any time that i come across a term or phrase that i'm unaware of or, by means of time spent away from science classed...i look into it.  i make sure that i understand the claims on both sides well enough to develope a solid opinion.  you will see by going back to previous posts of mine that i do not argue about things i don't understand well enough to develope my own opinion.  take dr. gentry's polonium halos issue...i read both sides more than once, but was reluctant to talk argue.  i made it clear that a lot was simply over my head, and i didn't even go there.  unlike you, i truly like to develope a well-thought-out opinion.  i'm not sure you truly have an opinion on anything other than "creationists are stupid"
2)obsurde again.  i care about peer review enough to argue about a creationsit fighting for peer review and filing a lawsuit over the issue.  it was obviously an important issue to him as well - as it is to most creationists.
[3. again, i can't believe my ears (or, eyes, rather).  i mean, are you really serious?  surely not.  surely, you're just being intentionally silly.


I'd prefer creationists to educate themselves before posting. Maybe then I'll have no creationists to talk to. That would be glorious.

and i'd prefer evolutionists like you (i realize not all are like you) actually spend a little time thinking for themselves and developing opinions of their own.  

if you don't want your robotic processor of a mind challenged at all into being an independant MIND, then you go ahead and keep discussing things the way you do.  pretty soon you'll get your glorious moment of sitting in a corner by yourself because pretty soon, even the evolutionists are going to exile you for your lack of reason.

cheers
-d



 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 01:45 AM on September 21, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from ArcanaKnight at 01:39 AM on September 21, 2008 :
Incest, still seemingly gross as it is, still occurrs today, and there are still few transcription difficulties. The reluctance is largely due to issues of morality, not issues of genetics.

That's just not true at all.  If you spent any time researching your claims you would know that there are many problems that result from inbreeding, including genetic problems.  While it is true that a one time occurrence may result in a fairly healthy child, repeated occurrences across generations would result in greater complications.  Here is a short list of some of the problems that do arise from inbreeding:

   * reduced fertility both in litter size and sperm viability
   * increased genetic disorders
   * fluctuating facial asymmetry
   * lower birth rate
   * higher infant mortality
   * slower growth rate
   * smaller adult size
   * loss of immune system function.

I mentioned before that the group on Noah's ark wasn't large enough to make a viable population, and the same is true for Adam and Eve.  After only a few generations of their children breeding with each other genetic problems would have begun sprouting up and fertility would have decreased until it would have been nearly impossible for them to have children at all, and those that they did have wouldn't live long past birth due to complications.


not true at all.  simple arithmetic has shown that the numbers work out.  and as far as inbreeding...consider this:
1.  It is generally accepted that incestuous marriages were widespread in ancient times.  scholars in the field have not even questioned it.

2.  now, i'm not a geneticist, but i know that the plains bison was on the brink of extiction due to over-hunting; by about 1900 there were less than 100 animals left alive, and some authorities state the number was as low as 17. That by and of itself is a very small gene pool. Today, there are around 35,000-40,000 bison in managed herds throughout the continent

3.  this is reasonable thinking (i think)...
Two closely-related animals mating will only be a problem if there are genetic defects. The further back you go, the fewer genetic defects there were. At the time of Adam and Eve, there were none. At the time of the flood, there would be relatively few

The animals that went on the ark were brought to Noah by God. That is, God selected the animals. God, Who after all created the genetic system and therefore would be an expert on it, could easily have selected specimens with the fewest genetic defects (and ensured that the same defects did not exist in both parents), and with the greatest genetic diversity


thanks for your input

-d

 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 02:28 AM on September 21, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from dijonaise at 02:28 AM on September 21, 2008 :
Quote from ArcanaKnight at 01:39 AM on September 21, 2008 :
Incest, still seemingly gross as it is, still occurrs today, and there are still few transcription difficulties. The reluctance is largely due to issues of morality, not issues of genetics.

That's just not true at all.  If you spent any time researching your claims you would know that there are many problems that result from inbreeding, including genetic problems.  While it is true that a one time occurrence may result in a fairly healthy child, repeated occurrences across generations would result in greater complications.  Here is a short list of some of the problems that do arise from inbreeding:

   * reduced fertility both in litter size and sperm viability
   * increased genetic disorders
   * fluctuating facial asymmetry
   * lower birth rate
   * higher infant mortality
   * slower growth rate
   * smaller adult size
   * loss of immune system function.

I mentioned before that the group on Noah's ark wasn't large enough to make a viable population, and the same is true for Adam and Eve.  After only a few generations of their children breeding with each other genetic problems would have begun sprouting up and fertility would have decreased until it would have been nearly impossible for them to have children at all, and those that they did have wouldn't live long past birth due to complications.


not true at all.  simple arithmetic has shown that the numbers work out.  and as far as inbreeding...consider a few things:

1.  It is generally accepted that incestuous marriages were widespread in ancient times.  scholars in the field have not even questioned it.

2.  now, i'm not a geneticist, but i know that the plains bison was on the brink of extiction due to over-hunting; by about 1900 there were less than 100 animals left alive, and some authorities state the number was as low as 17. That by and of itself is a very small gene pool. Today, there are around 35,000-40,000 bison in managed herds throughout the continent

3.  this is reasonable thinking...
Two closely-related animals mating will only be a problem if there are genetic defects. The further back you go, the fewer genetic defects there were. At the time of Adam and Eve, there were none. At the time of the flood, there would be relatively few

The animals that went on the ark were brought to Noah by God. That is, God selected the animals. God, Who after all created the genetic system and therefore would be an expert on it, could easily have selected specimens with the fewest genetic defects (and ensured that the same defects did not exist in both parents), and with the greatest genetic diversity


thanks for your input

-d





 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 02:30 AM on September 21, 2008 | IP
ArcanaKnight

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1.  It is generally accepted that incestuous marriages were widespread in ancient times.  scholars in the field have not even questioned it.

It's important to remember that those relationships weren't continually repeated by the descendants of those couples as would have had to have been the case if the flood story were true.  Marriages back then were different than they are now as well.  It wasn't uncommon for a married man to have multiple wives/concubines, so the genetic diversity of one man's children was overall still pretty high even if a couple were from the incestuous relationship.  Even if these relationships were widespread, they were still generally frowned upon and even explicitly forbidden by law in some places.

2.  now, i'm not a geneticist, but i know that the plains bison was on the brink of extiction due to over-hunting; by about 1900 there were less than 100 animals left alive, and some authorities state the number was as low as 17. That by and of itself is a very small gene pool. Today, there are around 35,000-40,000 bison in managed herds throughout the continent

No, you aren't a geneticist.  You're also not very good at researching the facts behind your claims either evidently.  Most bison herds aren't pure bison.  They have been crossbred with cattle to increase their genetic diversity.  There are some small herds which are pure, but all but one of those herds are infected with brucellosis.  The bison populations have been bred with cattle and other isolated bison herds to increase their genetic diversity.

The cheetah is a prime example of how repeated inbreeding can lead to complications.  Current cheetah now share very similar genetic profiles which lead to greater instances of birth defects and decreased fertility.  There is also an increased danger that a disease which they are not resistant to could wipe them out.  There is a virus that is currently ravaging the cheetah population which has an incidence rate among non-inbred species like household cats of only 1-5%.

Two closely-related animals mating will only be a problem if there are genetic defects. The further back you go, the fewer genetic defects there were. At the time of Adam and Eve, there were none. At the time of the flood, there would be relatively few

Again, not quite true.  Breeding of closely related animals increases the expression of deleterious recessive genes.  This expression is one of the reasons why apparently healthy parents can have a child with a birth defect like Downs syndrome.  One or both of the parents carried the recessive gene which causes a genetic disorder, and if both parents have this recessive gene it increases the likelihood that their child might be born with this disease.  If the flood story were true, then the expression of genetic disorders which were linked to the Y chromosome would have been very high since there was basically only one male's genes being passed on.

You can't possibly know what genetic information was actually present in Adam, Eve, or Noah's family because those remains have never been found.  All you are doing is making wild guesses as to what they may have been like without any actual evidence to back up your claims.  There are certain standards of evidence which need to be met in order for a claim to have any semblance of validity in a reasoned argument.  If not, then each side becomes free to make whatever baseless claims they want and the discussion will just devolve into nothing more than a shouting match.

(Edited by ArcanaKnight 9/21/2008 at 6:36 PM).
 


Posts: 41 | Posted: 10:28 AM on September 21, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

To say that I’m not good at researching the facts behind my claims is simply of poor taste, and to what standard am i being measured - yours?

Concerning the bison…
This isn’t nearly as black and white as you try to make it seem.

the smaller purebred bison herds are smaller simply due to the nature of the environment.  
When a farmer raises cattle – he raises it to the level at which he can manage.  

one of the earliest reintroductions of bison to North America was in 1899;  it was a herd of 5, by 1911, the herd had grown to an estimated 1,000 to 1,200 head strong and pure.
The only continuously wild bison herd in the United States resides within Yellowstone National Park Numbering between 3,000 and 3,500, this herd is descended from a remnant population of 23 individual mountain bison.
You wouldn’t imagine having over 300,000 bison in Yellowstone would you?

We grew the number of bison by way of hybridization in order to make a better beef animal for consumption, but cattle genes in bison could actually create serious consequences like weaker disease resistance. “hybridization makes it hard to predict and hard to manage because their immune response can be all over the place.” James Derr, a geneticist at the Texas A&M College of Veterinary Medicine. To prevent a “genomic extinction” through hybridization, biologists are focusing on the protection and perpetuation of the herds with pure or nearly pure genetics.

Most immediately, it means separating hybridized from pure bison.

an analysis on the inbreeding of european bison was performed and the inbreeding “was not found to exert any effect on the age of first calving and the number of calves produced by a cow, and this last conclusion could form part of the success achieved by the rapid restitution of this species.” - (http://acta.zbs.bialowieza.pl/?en)

Now, it is true that repeated INCEST among a species can create havoc.  This is why we see certain mammals actually naturally shy away from it (horses, for example).  But recent studies have shown that it is not inbreeding in general, but INCEST (among brothers / sisters or parents and their offspring) that is naturally shunned.

You mentioned the cheetah, but failed to mention that it has been recently discovered that female cheetahs can mate with more than one male per litter of cubs. They undergo induced ovulation, which means that a new egg is produced every time a female mates. By mating with multiple males, the mother increases the genetic diversity within a single litter of cubs.

Yes, it is a fact that inbreeding can cause a shorter life span, but when looking at the story of the flood, it is notable that the length of life decreased dramatically after noah’s time according to the biblical account. So – this actually strengthens the argument on the creationists’ side.

And – when you think about it…there was noah and his wife.  Their three sons and their wives onboard.  It is certainly feasible to think that the human population  grew from this.  The numbers DO add up.  Furthermore, when you look closer, you’ll find that the inbreeding would have been among cousins.  The intermingling of lots and lots of cousins, second cousins, and we don’t know how many more children noah and his wife had, but noah lived to be in his 900s – so – there could have been quite a few more, which would have intermingled with the nieces and nephews.  On down the line…there would have been inbreeding among second, third, fourth cousins and so on.Take into account that a team of scientists led by Robin L. Bennett, a genetic counselor at the University of Washington and the president of the National Society of Genetic Counselors, announced that cousin marriages are not significantly riskier than any other marriage (http://discovermagazine.com/2003/aug/featkiss), and it seems completely feasible the today’s population and genetic diversity could have derived from this small population of people.

thanks again for your input
-d

(Edited by dijonaise 9/22/2008 at 2:42 PM).

(Edited by dijonaise 9/22/2008 at 2:49 PM).
 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 2:09 PM on September 22, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hello.


I'm from Argentina.

A few years ago i was startled to learn that some people was trying to force creationist teachings on public schools in the USA.

Some time later i found some debate on the internet...

I was seriously surprised of the fact that creationist could type, and use a computer. I really mean no offense! I thought only really ignorant people could believe such things, but it turns out i'm the ignorant.

That said, creationist should take notice that the evolutionist/creationist debate only happen in the USA.

Do they believe they outsmart the rest of the people in the world (including most of the christians, of course)?

Such phrases as "evolutionist sources" sound quite hilarious... I mean, they're just scientific sources, right?

Thousands of years ago people believed sight was something that went out of our eyes and met the object being seen. They later understood the nature of light, and now we agree on such basic concepts. Does that make us all luminists?

I mean, things just evolve. You see it everywhere. It's not a theory. It's a principle.

Download the Genepool software at www.swimbots.com and watch virtual creatures evolve in your computer. Changes (mutations) are random. Survivors are NOT.

Take bisons for instance. Why can they mate with cattle at all, where it not that they evolved from a single species? Did God intend to make it look as if it was that way? Why?

Why would you prefer to believe in the factual veracity of a book that says that pi = 3, bats are birds, the sky holds water behind that let's rain fall down through doors, and such stuff?

It actually says Earth is flat, has 4 corners and a high mountain from which you can see all nations of the world.

Take the Tower of Babel myth. It's by no means sillier than the flat earth concept. Are we supposed to believe that the Babylonians were smart enough to build a high tower from mud bricks, and then go ahead and waste time and resources to build it to spy on the realm of a god they didn't believe in??

Was that tower higher than our skyscrapers? Why doesn't God punish today's architects? Is he mad about satellites? Why was he so participative those days and so absent today?

The Bible says that animals used to live in harmony before the apple issue. Presumably they ate grass, right? Why would a wolf have fangs then? Why would there be any parasites? Did they parasite vegetable guts? Did Noah bring them on the Ark too?

God is perfect, and the Bible is his word... Then he purposely intended to appear silly to test our faith, right?

That would be the only explanation... And if that was the case, i would have expected a God that was less vexing.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 9:36 PM on September 22, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 9:36 PM on September 22, 2008 :
Hello.


I'm from Argentina.

A few years ago i was startled to learn that some people was trying to force creationist teachings on public schools in the USA.

Some time later i found some debate on the internet...

I was seriously surprised of the fact that creationist could type, and use a computer. I really mean no offense! I thought only really ignorant people could believe such things, but it turns out i'm the ignorant.

That said, creationist should take notice that the evolutionist/creationist debate only happen in the USA.

Do they believe they outsmart the rest of the people in the world (including most of the christians, of course)?

Such phrases as "evolutionist sources" sound quite hilarious... I mean, they're just scientific sources, right?

Thousands of years ago people believed sight was something that went out of our eyes and met the object being seen. They later understood the nature of light, and now we agree on such basic concepts. Does that make us all luminists?

I mean, things just evolve. You see it everywhere. It's not a theory. It's a principle.

Download the Genepool software at www.swimbots.com and watch virtual creatures evolve in your computer. Changes (mutations) are random. Survivors are NOT.

Take bisons for instance. Why can they mate with cattle at all, where it not that they evolved from a single species? Did God intend to make it look as if it was that way? Why?

Why would you prefer to believe in the factual veracity of a book that says that pi = 3, bats are birds, the sky holds water behind that let's rain fall down through doors, and such stuff?

It actually says Earth is flat, has 4 corners and a high mountain from which you can see all nations of the world.

Take the Tower of Babel myth. It's by no means sillier than the flat earth concept. Are we supposed to believe that the Babylonians were smart enough to build a high tower from mud bricks, and then go ahead and waste time and resources to build it to spy on the realm of a god they didn't believe in??

Was that tower higher than our skyscrapers? Why doesn't God punish today's architects? Is he mad about satellites? Why was he so participative those days and so absent today?

The Bible says that animals used to live in harmony before the apple issue. Presumably they ate grass, right? Why would a wolf have fangs then? Why would there be any parasites? Did they parasite vegetable guts? Did Noah bring them on the Ark too?

God is perfect, and the Bible is his word... Then he purposely intended to appear silly to test our faith, right?

That would be the only explanation... And if that was the case, i would have expected a God that was less vexing.




first of all, thanks for joining the debate.  but i think u should do a little more research into what you discuss before posting.  

honestly, without going into reiterated details, it looks like you have more questions than answers.  i like that actually.  it's the way i like to look at things.  i like to ask a seemingly rhetoric question to see if there is another way of looking at it.  

but...i'll say this to you, as well as any other evolutionist:  
if you're going to try to use the bible as a source of criticism against a creationist...do just a little research into the topic first.  the story of the building of the tower of babel is actually pretty compelling, and it has several implications in the scope of christianity as a whole.  unless you have read the story along with passages referring to it, and have a fair understanding of fundamental christian principles,  you simply can't understand how to apply it in any fashion.

what i'm saying is:  don't argue about something without developing an understanding solid enough to form an independant opinion.  it only makes your argument weaker to the person which you're debating otherwise.


-dj




 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 09:24 AM on September 23, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thanks for answering!

Sadly, i truly don't understand your answer...

I've read the whole Bible (even if it was quite some time ago), which is more than can be said about most creationists... Do you agree with me on this point?

Well, nevermind... What do you mean when you say that the Tower of Babel story is compelling? Is it a literally literal story, or one of those figuratively literal ones?

How much do i need to study a book that says that God spent 1/6 of the time of the creation of the Universe building a solid sky for little Earth, to separate higher waters (they thought the blue sky was made out of water, obviously) from the lower ones, before i can speak?

I can almost picture astronauts going up: Houston, we have a problem. xD

Fortunately, it has vanished at some point.

I'm not criticizing the book. It's a cool book actually. I'm criticizing it's literal interpretation and universal perpetual validity.

Specially when that book is used to attack my homosexual friends. I can't stand that.

Do you believe that traits are inherited?
If you do: How can that NOT lead to evolution?
If you don't: Don't you look like your fathers at all?

Even your God evolves. From the vengeful warlike god of one group of people, to the loving peaceful universal God.

You say i should do a little more research... But i don't really have a way to know what you believe. You (i think) believe there are no transitional species. I believe every species is transitional.

Creationists are shown transitional hominids and simply say "This > monkey. This one > human."

But different creationists put the line in a different place. How would i know if you believe Lucy was human or monkey? Or if it was fake? Or if the man on the moon was staged? Do you believe in Chinese people?

Do you believe Noah embark the 160 species of probiscideans (elephants), 158 of which became extinct as soon as they laid foot off the ark? Why would God put Noah through the trouble of embarking that ammount of dead meat?

Did he embark fig wasps? They only copulate inside a fig, on a tree...

Did vampires eat grass in the garden of Eden? Did tapeworms? Did the Devil create tapeworms afterwards? Did the Devil create the Chinese?

It's quite easier to disregard the whole bunch of creationists claims.

Is "bunch" pejorative? I hope it's not.

unless you have read the story along with passages referring to it, and have a fair understanding of fundamental christian principles,  you simply can't understand how to apply it in any fashion.


If you say it has a figurative meaning, there's a fashion i can apply it in. I can think the story wants to show a correlation between egotism and lack of understanding. And many other things.

If someone regards that story as literal, there's a fashion i can apply it in. Pointing out inconsistencies to that belief.

By the way, i'm not from USA. I don't consider myself evolutionist, or darwinist. Or einstanian, for that matter.

I don't see how disregarding an opinion from some people so far from me can give me such a title.

We have the Jehovah's Witnesses here... They brought creationism from USA. I don't believe what they say (although i like them). Does that make me Jehovah's Alibi? LOL

I'm really interested in what you believe. I won't insult you or anything. I hope you don't mind if i joke a little. I don't mind if you do the same. ^_^

Looking forward to your reply.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:41 AM on September 23, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

what i meant about the story being compelling was (without getting into the vast details):
i'll be brief:

this is a story of men trying to gain god's acceptance through works rather than by faith.  now, there is some evidence suggesting that the tower did, in fact, actually exist.  without trying to spawn another debate...i'll just say...i do believe it existed, and i do take the story literally.  
now, yes...the babylonians were advanced enough to have built the tower.  but to say that they actually believed that they were going to reach heaven is a leap.  i mean...we don't know.   look at it this way:  men have accomplished A LOT of things while still holding fast to some pretty ridiculous beliefs.  look at the greeks for instance.
but the point is...they were trying to work to show god their faith, while at the same time birthing strange ideas of sun worship and idol worship among many other things.  
it's an example used in christianity to explain that we are saved by faith.  so to try to use the story as a form of criticism, doesn't really work, you see?


as for the comment on the seperation of the waters...that could go on for a long time, but again, it isn't a good argument.  the seperation of the waters was simply the forming of landmass as well as the creation of the atmosphere.  again...i reeeeaallly don't have the energy to go into all the facets of that discussion.


let me say, as a christian, that i am terribly sorry if you or any of your friends (homo or heterosexual) have been offended.  there are certainly some very close-minded christians and non christians alike who condem others without a proper amount of reason.  i won't hide the fact that i believe that the ACT of homosexuality is nonbiblical and an act condemable, but the person performing the act is no different in god's eyes as a person stealing a piece of bubble gum.  sin is sin.  i do believe that certain people are born as homosexual.  i do not believe that the fact that they have these tendencies make them sinners.  we all have tendencies.  i, for one, have the tendency to gorge myself with chocolate occasionally.  this is a sin. but only when i perform the act.  there is forgiveness for any sin.  and a homosexual person, whether being born homosexual or simply choosing to becom homo or bisexual, is no different than i am.  i was born (or maybe accquired early on) with the propensity to indulge in certain things.  later in life, i gained control, and fought these propensities.  to a true christian, a homosexual person should be viewed in this same manner.  

i think this is how most christians view homosexuality.  we can't hide the fact that it is stated to be a sin, but we, under NO circumstance, have the right to condem the person, and should welcome them with open arms.

as for transitional homonids - dig a little deeper - look at both sides in an in-depth fashion.  you'll see that this isn't so black and white.

god has always been the same, and he always will.  again, this is a misconception - that god was a warlike being who would strike dead anyone who disobeyed him.  
there is no way to get into all of the facets of this argument, but i will succinctly say that upon my own review of the old testement, god was the same then and now.  

to be succinct once again,  it would have been possible for the ark to have carried each "kind" of animal in order to create the genetic diversity we see today.  he would not have had to take every single diversion of every single species we see today.


thanks for the post

cheers
-d

 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 4:00 PM on September 24, 2008 | IP
ArcanaKnight

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

to be succinct once again,  it would have been possible for the ark to have carried each "kind" of animal in order to create the genetic diversity we see today.  he would not have had to take every single diversion of every single species we see today.


Exactly what is a "kind"?  Can you define what it is?  We know what a species is, but I've never seen a creationist be able define what a kind is before.  They usually just give vague examples which change depending on the person giving them.
 


Posts: 41 | Posted: 6:21 PM on September 24, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

this is a story of men trying to gain god's acceptance through works rather than by faith.
Did Babylonians believe in God? Is there any evidence that they did?

there is some evidence suggesting that the tower did, in fact, actually exist.  without trying to spawn another debate...i'll just say...i do believe it existed, and i do take the story literally
The story includes supernatural parts when God Himself confounds the languages, and that's when people get scattered all over the world. The Bible says that Babylon was the only city in the world by that time. Do you believe that?

they were trying to work to show god their faith, while at the same time birthing strange ideas of sun worship and idol worship among many other things.
Nopes. The Bible says Babylonians said:


Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves; otherwise we shall be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

It doesn't mention God.

Anyway, building something huge to be renowned... Sounds like it has been done lots of times in modern times.

Did that cause the street slang? xD

Perhaps they were advanced enough to build something big. But, with mud bricks? That's what the Bible says. And mud bricks break apart when trying to build something bigger than a McDonald's.

so to try to use the story as a form of criticism, doesn't really work, you see?
If i criticize it's literalism, it does work. You see?

the seperation of the waters was simply the forming of landmass as well as the creation of the atmosphere.  again...i reeeeaallly don't have the energy to go into all the facets of that discussion.
No energy required. I don't care right now if that was possible or not. It's not what the bible says so, if you believe that, you don't take the Bible literally. And that's an important point.

as for transitional homonids - dig a little deeper - look at both sides in an in-depth fashion.  you'll see that this isn't so black and white.
Yeah, ok... Was Lucy human or not? What do YOU believe?

It's not so black and white? That is correct, my friend. Only the creationists say it is black or white.

god has always been the same, and he always will.  again, this is a misconception - that god was a warlike being who would strike dead anyone who disobeyed him.  
there is no way to get into all of the facets of this argument, but i will succinctly say that upon my own review of the old testement, god was the same then and now.  
I agree. There are many facets in this argument. But the biblical God used to like sacrifices. Used to condone slavery and rape, and killing "every man, woman and child" (i'll take it that if women were pregnant God was the first mass abortionist in history). Well, he did it himself with the flood.

In the Bible God gets mad, and changes his opinion.

At some points of the Bible He knows everything. At other parts he ignores some things, and even gets surprised.


 The LORD is a jealous God, filled with vengeance and wrath.  He takes revenge on all who oppose him and furiously destroys his enemies!  The LORD is slow to get angry, but his power is great, and he never lets the guilty go unpunished.  He displays his power in the whirlwind and the storm.  The billowing clouds are the dust beneath his feet.  At his command the oceans and rivers dry up, the lush pastures of Bashan and Carmel fade, and the green forests of Lebanon wilt.  In his presence the mountains quake, and the hills melt away; the earth trembles, and its people are destroyed.  Who can stand before his fierce anger?  Who can survive his burning fury?  His rage blazes forth like fire, and the mountains crumble to dust in his presence.  The LORD is good.  When trouble comes, he is a strong refuge.  And he knows everyone who trusts in him.  But he sweeps away his enemies in an overwhelming flood.  He pursues his foes into the darkness of night.   (Nahum 1:2-8 NLT)

Is that your God? Man, you better be on His side...

But many atheists lead a happy life. How come?

Pay close attention to what they said. They made up a God that punishes their enemies. But to keep people "calm" in their contempt (and envy), they added "The LORD is slow to get angry", to account for the long time it passed before he punished anyone. When any natural drawback happened to their enemies, "The LORD is great!".

Just the average ordinary warlike god of a tribe. There are dozens of them.

But He evolved, He said "Love each other", and He accepted all human kind. I don't exactly know when, but allegedly He did.

One more quote from the Bible:


"Go up, my warriors, against the land of Merathaim and against the people of Pekod. Yes, march against Babylon, the land of rebels, a land that I will judge!  Pursue, kill, and completely destroy them, as I have commanded you," says the LORD.  "Let the battle cry be heard in the land, a shout of great destruction".   (Jeremiah 50:21-22 NLT)

Eek!

The prophet here saw Merathaim as an easy target, obviously. No need to wait for God to punish them with his slow anger. xD

If you don't believe in this God, it adds up to my previous point. You DON'T take the bible literally.

When you say "misconception" you mean... Who's? You mean a misconception from the writers of the bible? If that's the case, i agree with you happily! ^_^

Your opinion on homosexuality was very clear. But the concept of "sin" is not. Nevermind what it is to you, it must be bonded to a little outdated book some desert people wrote some thousands of years ago. Different cultures have different opinions on what's good or bad, and most of them don't have a concept of "sin" (they had "nefas", "tabu", or plain "bad").

Once you acknoledge it's lack of literallism, or current validity, the whole concept of sin should disappear, and discussing any further about sin is a waste of time.

to be succinct once again,  it would have been possible for the ark to have carried each "kind" of animal in order to create the genetic diversity we see today.  he would not have had to take every single diversion of every single species we see today.
"Kinds"... Nice... What's a "kind"?

Feline is a kind? So the cat and the lion evolved super fast from two animals since the flood? (Well, before that they had 2k years to evolve super fast from their vegetarian grandfathers in the Garden of Eden.)

All 350.000 known species of beetles... Did they descend from a single couple (allow me the oxymoron) 4k years ago?

When did that super fast evolution slow down?

But you don't believe in evolution! Or do you??



I repeat my questions, i hope you don't mind:

Do you believe that traits are inherited?
If you do: How can that NOT lead to evolution?
If you don't: Don't you look like your fathers at all?

Did Noah embark fig wasps? They only copulate inside a fig, on a tree...

Did vampires eat grass in the garden of Eden? Did tapeworms? Did the Devil create tapeworms afterwards? Did the Devil create anything?

Gonorrhea is a human disease. Who carried it into the ark?

Thanks for answering. I know i can be annoying. Sorry about that.


(Edited by wisp 9/25/2008 at 10:26 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:41 AM on September 25, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

“Thanks for answering. I know i can be annoying. Sorry about that”  
first of all – it’s not annoying at all to discuss differing points of view.

Ok – I was simply wrong in stating that the Babylonians were “showing god their faith”.
They were, in fact, following the lead of nimrod, the city’s founder, introducer of sun worship.  Nimrod(who’s very name means “we shall rebel" , was just 3 generations from noah himself.  The bible states, “there were giants in those days”.  The common interpretation is that these were ancient men of renown during the time of early human repopulation just after the flood;  (keep in mind that In those days men's lives were still measured by centuries, so many were born and few died that the population increased dramatically). But as early as 3 generations later, these “giants” were dying, and, due to mass inbreeding, the human race was markedly inferior.  But as for nimrod, it is thought that, due to recitations of his mighty exploits elevating his status to superhuman proportions, he had retained most of the physical and intellectual earmarks of his ancestors, thus boosting his status as human to that of a god.  His arrogance spawned the belief in the people of the time that by building a this tower, they would show his greatness as well as the overall greatness of their nation “in the face of god.”  Furthermore, they would retain their strength in numbers by unifying to build the tower.  Basically, saying, “look, god! Look at how great we are!  Look at how great our leader is!  Look at the wonderous things we’ve accomplished on our own!”  it is important to note that in the time before the flood,  the world would have had a different visual appearance. An even layer of moisture surrounded the planet, which polarized the rays of the sun and provided a uniform, mild temperature all around the world.  
Genesis 1:7 records, "And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so."
The Bible says that when the Flood came, "the windows of heaven were opened." Genesis 7:11
Also, keep in mind that if this were the case, it would make sense that sun worship would start here.  people recognized that the sun had helped to dry the earth after the Flood and bring back the vegetation. So instead of worshiping the God who made the sun, the builders of Babel were the first ones to consider the sun as an object of worship itself.

Anyway – we’re not really discussing the possibility of the flood.  That’s in another thread (which I am researching in order to post a reply – so pardon me if I seem a little discombobulated here).

So to state my point…Christians use this story to explain god’s contempt for man’s arrogance and pride.  Many Christians fill themselves with arrogance and pride due to their wonderful works in the eyes of god and in the eyes of others, but god obviously dislikes this, as is shown in this story in the fact that he confounded the people; (the name Babylon is derived from the verb balbal, "to confuse") in order to thwart their efforts.  He has made it clear that we are to be humble and live according to his grace.

As for the whole mud brick thing:  well, you’re just wrong.   First of all, the brick has been proven throughout history to be a wonderfully adequate building material.   The passage in the bible states: “Come, let us make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They had brick for stone, and they had asphalt for mortar “Josephus wrote: “It was built of burnt brick, cemented together with mortar, made of bitumen, that it might not be liable to admit water.”  Josephus was a roman.  We all know the romans’ capacity for building and architecture.   In his book, Structures or why things don't fall down (Pelican 1978–1984), Professor J.E. Gordon considers the height of the Tower of Babel. He wrote, 'brick and stone weigh about 120 lb per cubic foot (2000 kg per cubic metre) and the crushing strength of these materials is generally rather better than 6000 lbf per square inch or 40 megapascals. Elementary arithmetic shows that a tower with parallel walls could have been built to a height of 7000 feet or 2 kilometres before the bricks at the bottom were crushed. However by making the walls taper towards the top they ... could well have been built to a height where the men of Shinnar would run short of oxygen and had difficulty in breathing before the brick walls crushed beneath their own dead weight."


Now, many people take the fact that noah had 3 sons, and they use this to corroborate their belief that this is from where the 3 known ethnic group are derived.  To me…this is just silly.  So, are we to think that noah had 3 sons that looked so completely different so that one looked Caucasian, one looked Asian, and one looked African?  I don’t think so.
After the tower of babel, god told the people to scatter to the four corners of the earth.  They did this, and congregated to form different tribes, clans, and nations.  As the people were isolated into different groups, through recurrent inbreeding, certain genetic traits would have become more predominant.  So, yes…I do believe that god literally confused the language of the people, and that it the separation and isolation that has formed our differing races.  I believe that man has Devolved…not evolved.



a “kind is a basic type, a family group. A simple illustration would be the horse family.
Now in the horse family there are many species. There are Arabian horses, Shetland ponies, etc.; and these are species within the horse "kind" or horse family.
There is a common misconception that god created every single species (every derivative of every “kind” of animal) at the beginning.
The passage actually states, “And God said, let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind: cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so." – gen 1:24.
Did you catch that?  “let the EARTH bring forth…”  he didn’t say “let there be immediately…”
As far as the story of noah’s ark goes:  there has been debate on just how many animals would have been needed to secure each “kind” of animal.  The numbers range from as low as 2,000 to 50,000, but the conclusion is still that through inbreeding and mutation within the “kinds” we would definitely get the vast number of species we see today through devolution.  Not evolution.
comparison between contemporaneous forms of life and that of antiquity, indicates a steady downward trend of degeneration.
Sir William Dawson:  “Nothing is more evident in the history of fossil animals and plants of past geological ages than that persistence or degeneracy is the rule rather than the exception. ... We may almost say that all things left to themselves tend to degenerate”

was god vengeful and mean?  In a word: no.
it is always important to keep a close eye on the context of a situation.  Often people will question the action of god in a situation in the old testament and compare that with the nature of Christ in the new.   Doing this is a flaw in reason.  When god was instructing israel, it was to protect a nation in its infancy, thus protecting the spreading and edification of his word.  When Christ is giving advice on neighborly conduct, it is usually directed toward an individual’s decision at a given moment.  
You must also remember that this is the nation which will bring the promised messiah.  God’s protection is needed to fulfill prophecy.
In most cases taken out of context, what is overlooked is that god is likely applying justice to a wicked nation. In Genesis 15:16, Abram first asks about possessing the land, God tells him that the time is not yet right "for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full."
Think on this:  god is the “parent” of many.  The same rules, thus, apply to all.  Those that transgress are given warnings and direction.  If god fails to punish the wicked, then there is injustice, and the righteous see god as unrighteous and uncaring.  We aren’t always given the reason for the punishment of a nation, and I really don’t think god has to give us a reason.  All through the new testament, it is proclaimed that “the wage of sin is death.”  However that death is brought about doesn’t matter.  Take adam and eve.  The very first lie to mankind from satan was about this very thing.  Satan convinced eve that she wouldn’t die, but become like god.  What happened?  No, adam and eve didn’t die immediately, but they DID certainly die.  They lost the perfect, immortal life that they shared with god in the garden of eden, and they faced a long life of turmoil ending in death.  God is the same now as he was then.

“Lucy” the hominid – just a chimp.  They found a partial skeleton of a heavy chimp.  That’s all.  I’m sorry, but its nothing but pure and utter propaganda with no REAL evidence.


Ok – I will now answer your questions.  I realize that this post is long (much longer than I had anticipated, actually), so I’ll just answer them briefly

“Do you believe that traits are inherited?”  Yes

”If you do: How can that NOT lead to evolution?” actually, how CAN it lead to evolution?

”If you don't: Don't you look like your fathers at all?” guess this is nonapplicable now, but looking like my father or mother or great great grandfather has nothing to do with evolution.

”Did he embark fig wasps? They only copulate inside a fig, on a tree...” see above:  concerning “kinds”  

”Did vampires eat grass in the garden of Eden? Did tapeworms? Did the Devil create tapeworms afterwards? Did the Devil create anything?”  Lucifer can create nothing but destruction – which is what happened AFTER adam and eve were expelled from eden.  This is just speculation on my part, but I believe that the world was perfect in the beginning, and that once sin had entered into mankind, and god no longer dwelled with man literally, the world started to change – literally. It’s my personal belief that things such as parasites, carnivores, venomous creatures, even briars on plants began to take form.


Thanks

-d

 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 3:57 PM on September 25, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The bible states, “there were giants in those days”.  The common interpretation is that these were ancient men of renown during the time of early human repopulation just after the flood;
Interpretation... So it's not literal? Please, grant me this. You know you wanna. =D

Many Christians fill themselves with arrogance and pride due to their wonderful works in the eyes of god and in the eyes of others, but god obviously dislikes this (...)
You and i dislike things that can do us wrong in some way. God being perfect can't really dislike anything. Believing one can alter God is much more arrogant than what you say.

After the tower of babel, god told the people to scatter to the four corners of the earth.
Does the Earth have corners? If you say it means "Go to the four directions", then it's not literal. Does God like metaphor?

As the people were isolated into different groups, through recurrent inbreeding, certain genetic traits would have become more predominant.
But only certain NEGATIVE traits could become dominant, so it can account for your theory of devolution, right? It's like total discrimination! "The trick is to say you're prejudiced against all races." (By Homer)

Did you catch that?  “let the EARTH bring forth…”
Hum... Very interesting, i give you that.

Genesis 1:7 records, "And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so."
The Bible says that when the Flood came, "the windows of heaven were opened." Genesis 7:11
Well, yes... And people today try to rationalize it into metaphors. Every Christian grants the Bible the exact amount of metaphor that can make the stories pass through their throats (metaphorically speaking).

Anyway – we’re not really discussing the possibility of the flood.
Very true. That deserves an entire thread.

About the mud brick reply, WOAH!

First: I thought the Bible talked about just dried mud in cubic unities.

Anyway i really know nothing about it's "crushing strength". And i'd be really amazed to know for certain (i'm sorry, but i'm not sure i beliebe this Professor Gordon guy) that it's possible to build a 2km height tower with such bricks...

So you do believe that in those days they built a tower higher than our skyscrapers?

The numbers range from as low as 2,000 to 50,000, but the conclusion is still that through inbreeding and mutation within the “kinds” we would definitely get the vast number of species we see today through devolution.  Not evolution.
The conclusion? I bet not from any scientist.

a “kind is a basic type, a family group. A simple illustration would be the horse family.
Now in the horse family there are many species. There are Arabian horses, Shetland ponies, etc.; and these are species within the horse "kind" or horse family.
Fossils of these animals have been found. You think the horses of the present devolved from that little guy? It looks like any horse, or even a pony, could crush that little bastard.

comparison between contemporaneous forms of life and that of antiquity, indicates a steady downward trend of degeneration.
If your theory is correct, that little freak must have been very tough!

Sir William Dawson:  “Nothing is more evident in the history of fossil animals and plants of past geological ages than that persistence or degeneracy is the rule rather than the exception. ... We may almost say that all things left to themselves tend to degenerate”
I can think of lots of things much more evident than that, but perhaps the biblical metaphoric poetry is catchy for some, so it's not a literal expression.

"Things" are not left to themselves. They are left to a environment where the weak doesn't survive, and doesn't produce offspring.

was god vengeful and mean?  In a word: no.
I have no problem agreeing with you there. But you should have no problem in agreeing with me that, if we're both right, the Bible is not only "not literal", but "inaccurate" and plain "deceitful", or that it's speaking about a different God.

When god was instructing israel, it was to protect a nation in its infancy, thus protecting the spreading and edification of his word.
Damn!! So he could do all of that AGAIN?!?! Well, not the flood, he promised... Just the killing, rape, pillage, slavery and stuff...

You must also remember that this is the nation which will bring the promised messiah.
Meh, What good was that? There have been other messiah. Ok, very few were cooler than Jesus.

But before Jesus you could be saved by being good... But since Jesus you can only be saved if you believe in His Glory (or something like that), thus condemning lots of nice people to the everlasting hell.

God’s protection is needed to fulfill prophecy.
Was it needed? Then he's not almighty! Blasphemous!!

“Do you believe that traits are inherited?”  Yes

”If you do: How can that NOT lead to evolution?” actually, how CAN it lead to evolution?
I'm glad you ask. It's very easy, actually.

Male and female have offspring. Half of them weaker than average. The weaker tend to die. The stronger tend to pass on their "traits" (good or bad).

One of our forefathers had a mild allergy to the mosquito's bite. He was very sad. =(

When he felt itchy, he had to seek shelter, or go away. They all mocked him. T_T

He had offspring. Some of them with the allergy. Some had it latent.

But the mocked itchy people had less chances of dying of malaria and perhaps other stuff those nasty critters carried. So the itch became an advantage.

Now we're all itchy.

If our ancestors lived all in harmony in the Garden of Eden, then i'll take it we weren't itchy, for mosquitoes didn't bite but plants.

Lucifer can create nothing but destruction – which is what happened AFTER adam and eve were expelled from eden.  This is just speculation on my part, but I believe that the world was perfect in the beginning, and that once sin had entered into mankind, and god no longer dwelled with man literally, the world started to change – literally. It’s my personal belief that things such as parasites, carnivores, venomous creatures, even briars on plants began to take form.
Take form... Through what process? You don't mean evolution, right? Perhaps you mean devolution...

Check these devolved champions:
http://discovermagazine.com/photos/04-zombie-animals-and-the-parasites-that-control-them

Do you believe lions devolved those fangs, strength, speed, et cetera? Did sharks? Did the electric eel?

Is it possible that you acknowledge what we call "evolution" but you simply call it "devolution"?

Perhaps it's because you don't like predation.
But hey! We find in nature some cool defense mechanisms! Like camouflage!

Take the chameleon, or the octopus. You can't say they were like that in the Garden of Eden... It's obviously an antipredator adaptation! And it's way too cool to call it "devolution".

What say you?


(Edited by wisp 9/27/2008 at 03:21 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:13 AM on September 26, 2008 | IP
ohioboy12

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

They both have flaws. Evolution is NOT a Fact. Anyone who says that is obviously not a scientist, but rather a Darwinist.

I agree on some parts of Evolution, but my biggest gripe, is it does not explain the Origin of Life. It doesn't even offer a reasonable explanation for the origin of life. (Richard Dawkins attempted to conjur a theory based on Alien [ID] activity)

Creationism, atleast provides 1 explanation, which is the Diety. There is no physical evidence, but there is archealogical evidence. Just like Evolution.

Right now, I'm pretty irratated at the Evolutionists claiming "Fact fact fact!", when they have as little evidence as Creationism. Creationism has an entire Timeline written by man preceding I dont know, couple thousand years B.C.? Evolutionists have a Timeline written by rocks, dinosaur bones, and monkeys. In my opinion, they both have flaws, just that the Evolutionists have the upper hand in the political world.

I'd be interested in seeing a serious debate with Evolutionists admitting that they have as little evidence as Creationists. If both the Creationists, and Evolutionists admit that they are on the same grounds as far as evidence, then I'll be interested.

Right now, it's a bunch of hissy fits and politics.

 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 03:06 AM on October 2, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

They both have flaws. Evolution is NOT a Fact. Anyone who says that is obviously not a scientist, but rather a Darwinist.

No, all biologists say evolution is a fact, an observed fact.  No biologist is a Darwinist anymore.  Evolution has been updated in the last 150 years since Darwin first proposed it.

I agree on some parts of Evolution, but my biggest gripe, is it does not explain the Origin of Life. It doesn't even offer a reasonable explanation for the origin of life.

Does it bother you that the theory of gravity doesn't offer a reasonable explaination for the origin of life?  The theory of evolution doesn't try to explain the origin of life, it's not supposed to!  Life's origin is covered by a completely different discipline of science, biochemistry.  The origin of life is aboigenesis, not evolution!  Get a clue!

Creationism, atleast provides 1 explanation, which is the Diety. There is no physical evidence, but there is archealogical evidence.

WRong!  If there is evidence for creationism, show us.  The fact is creationism was thoroughly disproven over 200 years ago.  We study the concrete evidence of evolution, we actually see evolution happen.  We successfully use the theory of evolution in farming, medicine, industry.

I'd be interested in seeing a serious debate with Evolutionists admitting that they have as little evidence as Creationists.

Never happen.  The evidence for evolution is so overwhelming, real scientists don't even bother arguing about it.  Evolution is a fact, common descent is a fact.  Creationists were proven wrong over 200 years ago.  Get over it.

Right now, it's a bunch of hissy fits and politics.

Nope, right now it's a small, vocal bunch of supestitious fundamentalists who deny reality and claim magic is the source of our universe.

(Edited by Demon38 10/2/2008 at 05:53 AM).
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 05:52 AM on October 2, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
+1

Rate this post:

Evolution explaining the beginning of life... Why should it?

It only states "life evolves", and explains the process.

If the very beginning of life was magic, evolution would still be an accurate depiction of the organic world.

Does someone actually believe that there's an "even" debate?

In most parts of the world the common people never heard of creationism as a scientific theory (partly because it's not).

It's the belief of a bunch of people from one of the many religious streams in the world (and it's not a single theory, but has many branches), according to their sacred book, that has nothing special compared with other sacred books.

You agree on some parts of evolution? Don't flatter yourself. Things evolve since millions of years before you were born.

They ask for transitional fossils... Like the sea lion wasn't evolving into a fully aquatic mammal...

Like we were fully developed to walk in two legs, in spite of the the evidence (extreme difficulty in childbirth, varicose veins, arthritis, back pain).

Man! When walking a great distance sometimes i wish i had four legs...

You prefer to believe in a magical engineer that gave us a blind spot, when it was very easy to make it right (like He did with other animal eyes).

A bunch of hissy fits and politics? Only in the USA, i believe... Is there any other part in the world where creationists have a voice? Where they can demand their superstitions to be taught in a public school? Where they can speak on national television?

This isn't a critic directed to the USA. Just it's fanatics.


(Edited by wisp 10/3/2008 at 7:03 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 2:12 PM on October 2, 2008 | IP
Reason4All

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

They both have flaws. Evolution is NOT a Fact. Anyone who says that is obviously not a scientist, but rather a Darwinist.

Actually, you are right, Evolution is not a fact... Evolution theory is the framework where billions of facts, from thousands of different scientific fields, are gathered such as biology, archeology, paleontology, medicine, genetics and so forth... Think of it as an umbrella under which all the the facts are constantly collected.

I agree on some parts of Evolution, but my biggest gripe, is it does not explain the Origin of Life. It doesn't even offer a reasonable explanation for the origin of life. (Richard Dawkins attempted to conjur a theory based on Alien [ID] activity)

Maybe first of all, before you refer to the propaganda film "Expelled", you should try to put things in to context. I´ll explain Dawkins statement below when I annihilate your "explanation" nonsense.

Creationism, atleast provides 1 explanation, which is the Diety. There is no physical evidence, but there is archealogical evidence. Just like Evolution.

Let me give you another explanation: There was an evil banana that created everything, because it was sick of all the cherries taking all the oxygen. What? You wanted an explanation, don´t you? If we use the creationist method, we don´t need to PROVE the explanation, just provide it, right? And apparently you have the same understanding of the mechanisms of archeology as your understanding of how to spell it. The bible is not an archeological text! (LOL) And as the fantastic Demon38 already pointed out, Evolution has nothing to do with where it all started, just how it evolved.

Right now, I'm pretty irratated at the Evolutionists claiming "Fact fact fact!", when they have as little evidence as Creationism. Creationism has an entire Timeline written by man preceding I dont know, couple thousand years B.C.? Evolutionists have a Timeline written by rocks, dinosaur bones, and monkeys. In my opinion, they both have flaws, just that the Evolutionists have the upper hand in the political world.

When you say monkeys, what are you referring to? Because evolutionary biologist certainly never say man evolved from monkeys, but we do have the same ancestors. Oh yeah, forgot, you don´t know anything about evolution.

I'd be interested in seeing a serious debate with Evolutionists admitting that they have as little evidence as Creationists. If both the Creationists, and Evolutionists admit that they are on the same grounds as far as evidence, then I'll be interested.

So you like that everyone who disagrees with you admit they are wrong and you are right? Wait a minute... Are you god? Because I really want to ask you some questions if you are!






(Edited by Reason4All 10/2/2008 at 5:15 PM).


-------
If your faith blinds you from the truth, it´s not the truth that needs to adapt!
 


Posts: 35 | Posted: 5:12 PM on October 2, 2008 | IP
ohioboy12

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

First of all, I re-read my post and it seemed like I was against Evolution. I'm not. I'm against the mentality of some of the individuals that are in it. Demon38 is one of them.

Demon38, I don't take you seriously based on your response, therefore, I wont waste my time with you. No offense.

wisp, your font bothers me I'm sure your points are awesome though. I'll re-read when I go home. The color fonts on the computer are offset though, so it hurts my eyes.

Reason4all, I read your entire post. I like what you've presented. I'll respond to you directly.

"Actually, you are right, Evolution is not a fact... Evolution theory is the framework where billions of facts, from thousands of different scientific fields, are gathered such as biology, archeology, paleontology, medicine, genetics and so forth... Think of it as an umbrella under which all the the facts are constantly collected.
"

Thanks for agreeing with me there. I will say that I'm not a biogist though, nor a religous person, so any facts you throw at me I'll probably nod my head at, unless they look fishy to me, then I'll have to throw the Google stick.

Maybe first of all, before you refer to the propaganda film "Expelled", you should try to put things in to context. I´ll explain Dawkins statement below when I annihilate your "explanation" nonsense.

I haven't seen this film, I have heard about it though. Unfortunately, where I live there is 1 theatre, and they don't normally show non-hollywood type of movies.



Let me give you another explanation: There was an evil banana that created everything, because it was sick of all the cherries taking all the oxygen. What? You wanted an explanation, don´t you? If we use the creationist method, we don´t need to PROVE the explanation, just provide it, right? And apparently you have the same understanding of the mechanisms of archeology as your understanding of how to spell it. The bible is not an archeological text! (LOL) And as the fantastic Demon38 already pointed out, Evolution has nothing to do with where it all started, just how it evolved.

That wasn't very nice...



When you say monkeys, what are you referring to? Because evolutionary biologist certainly never say man evolved from monkeys, but we do have the same ancestors. Oh yeah, forgot, you don´t know anything about evolution.

I wasn't referring to anything.. I was making a joke. I thought it was funny heh heh I do know that Evolution revolves around evolving, and if that true, then we theoretically evolved from Monkeys. oh.. so burned.

Maybe its you that doesn't know anything about Evolution o.O

"So you like that everyone who disagrees with you admit they are wrong and you are right? Wait a minute... Are you god? Because I really want to ask you some questions if you are!"


I want a non-biased debate. A debate where Evolutionists won't cry "PROVE IT!" at every corner, and Creationists won't cry "YOU'RE GOING TO HELL!" at every corner. That's all.

I'd like to see a debate where an Evolutionist who shares the love of the science, and relies on the evidence, go up against a Creationist who shares the love of the TRUTH, and realizes the evidence.

Both sides are silly though. Getting a peaceful insight from the scientists here (or who claim they are) is nearly impossible. Can you imagine finding it on an international level?
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 9:58 PM on October 2, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon38, I don't take you seriously based on your response, therefore, I wont waste my time with you. No offense.

Once again, all my answers were factual.  You can't take them seriously is an indication that you can't handle reality.

I'd like to see a debate where an Evolutionist who shares the love of the science, and relies on the evidence, go up against a Creationist who shares the love of the TRUTH, and realizes the evidence.

Over 99.9% of the world's biologists accept the theory of evolution.  Here's what real scientists say about it, from here:
SociedtyofSystematicBiologists

"The historical fact of evolution, as common descent with modification for life on earth, and the concepts used to study evolutionary change in living systems, provide the unifying theme for all biological knowledge. This is aptly summarized in Dobzhansky's statement that "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." The corollary that nothing in evolution makes sense except in the light of phylogeny is broadly recognized as well.

SSB affirms that evolutionary biology is a fundamental and necessary component of an excellent science education. SSB strongly supports the teaching of evolution and teaching about the process of science in classrooms, museums, and science centers. Modern research in global environmental change, agriculture, medicine, and the spread and control of disease all depend on understanding evolutionary concepts. Thus, understanding biological systems, their evolutionary history and their mechanisms of change is crucial to human health and well-being. Awareness of current views concerning evolutionary biology, including natural selection, is an essential part of modern cultural and scientific literacy for all citizens. Excellence in education requires that teachers and students continually evaluate scientific ideas in light of evidence; however, learning and inquiry are inhibited when educators feel pressured to alter their teaching of fundamental concepts of science in response to demands external to the scientific disciplines. "

Evolution is an observable fact and the theory of volution explains it.  
That you can't  take it seriously and refuse to comment on the facts I presented you with is due to the complete worthlessness of your argument and your inablitiy to defend your position.  

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:16 AM on October 3, 2008 | IP
Reason4All

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


Demon38, I don't take you seriously based on your response, therefore, I wont waste my time with you. No offense.


No, fact of the matter is that you don´t want to reply to Demon38 because you don´t stand a chance against him, since you have no idea what you´re talking about.


Thanks for agreeing with me there. I will say that I'm not a biogist though, nor a religous person, so any facts you throw at me I'll probably nod my head at, unless they look fishy to me, then I'll have to throw the Google stick.

Well, that´s a good thing, you´re being a skeptic! Don´t believe ANYTHING anyone here says, study them for yourself and find out, but make sure you are critical of the sources you use! The best and easiest way would be to find out if they are published in a scientific journal and peer-reviewed. If not, throw them away!

I haven't seen this film, I have heard about it though. Unfortunately, where I live there is 1 theatre, and they don't normally show non-hollywood type of movies.

The Dawkins remark you made comes from the propaganda-film that is "Expelled"


I do know that Evolution revolves around evolving, and if that true, then we theoretically evolved from Monkeys. oh.. so burned.

Hahaha I´m burned?!??! Are you joking? You just made a momentously stupid remark, and I´M THE ONE WHO IS BURNED!?!? Clearly you have no understanding of the process of evolution. No evolutionary biologist would ever say that we evolved from monkeys, they would say that we have A COMMON ANCESTOR. We know what we evolved from Ardipithicus ramidus, Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus (Java Man), Homo sapiens heidelbergensis, Homo sapiens
Neandertalensis, Homo sapiens
Cro-Magnon to Homo sapiens sapiens, which is the current state. Now could you be so kind and point out the monkey here???

Maybe its you that doesn't know anything about Evolution o.O

Really? You wanna go there? Just say the word my friend... just say the word....

I want a non-biased debate. A debate where Evolutionists won't cry "PROVE IT!" at every corner, and Creationists won't cry "YOU'RE GOING TO HELL!" at every corner. That's all.

The whole definition of a debate is argumentation of ones biased point of view, how incredibly ignorant are you? How is it possible to have an unbiased debate, it would be like having a square circle, or cold fire. Of course evolutionists say "Prove it!" because in the scientific community, a claim is backed up by evidence and evolution is the most acknowledged scientific theory, backed up by billions of of different evidence. It doesn´t matter that YOU or a creationist don´t accept it, because you don´t know anything about it anyway! It´s like I ask my chef what he thinks about my doctors ability to perform surgery, his opinion is completely worthless, those who´se opinion matter all agree that evolution is fact, and if anyone wants to claim otherwise they have to come up with the evidence. That is how science works you moron! Or maybe you should shout out that all scientists and experts are wrong in their method because YOU, who can´t even spell the simplest words correctly, disagree with it! hahaaha would love to see that!

I'd like to see a debate where an Evolutionist who shares the love of the science, and relies on the evidence, go up against a Creationist who shares the love of the TRUTH, and realizes the evidence.

A creationist that has a love for the truth??? Another oxymoron.

Both sides are silly though. Getting a peaceful insight from the scientists here (or who claim they are) is nearly impossible. Can you imagine finding it on an international level?


Both sides are silly?? Hold the press all you scientists, nobel prize winners, life savers, medical scientists, biologists, paleontologists, archeologists, all you who have spent decades studying, observing, testing, proving and applying Evolution, you are silly! Ohioboy12 knows better!!! I mean come on, how arrogant can one be?

Hope I´ve taught you something sweetheart, have a good one!


-------
If your faith blinds you from the truth, it´s not the truth that needs to adapt!
 


Posts: 35 | Posted: 7:42 PM on October 3, 2008 | IP
ohioboy12

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Okay. You guys are writing too much. I'm still only responding to Reason4all. You seriously brought up some more great points that I never even considered.

Demon38, I'm not accepting any insight from you if you still say The Theory of Evolution is a fact. Once you accept its a theory, I'll read beyond your username.

Okay, now to my rebuttles.

No, fact of the matter is that you don´t want to reply to Demon38 because you don´t stand a chance against him, since you have no idea what you´re talking about.

How can you stand a chance against someone who doesn't have an open mind? There's no point.

Well, that´s a good thing, you´re being a skeptic! Don´t believe ANYTHING anyone here says, study them for yourself and find out, but make sure you are critical of the sources you use! The best and easiest way would be to find out if they are published in a scientific journal and peer-reviewed. If not, throw them away!


Agreed.

The Dawkins remark you made comes from the propaganda-film that is "Expelled"

Noted.

Hahaha I´m burned?!??! Are you joking? You just made a momentously stupid remark, and I´M THE ONE WHO IS BURNED!?!? Clearly you have no understanding of the process of evolution. No evolutionary biologist would ever say that we evolved from monkeys, they would say that we have A COMMON ANCESTOR. We know what we evolved from Ardipithicus ramidus, Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus (Java Man), Homo sapiens heidelbergensis, Homo sapiens
Neandertalensis, Homo sapiens
Cro-Magnon to Homo sapiens sapiens, which is the current state. Now could you be so kind and point out the monkey here???


You just turned on the 12 year old e-peen burners. I wasn't being serious when I said "burned", you didn't have to take it out of control.  I have heard of atleast 1 Evolutionary Biologist say we came from monkeys. Name was David Snow. Maybe I misunderstood him when he was talking, but I'm almost certain I heard correct. Maybe it was just him?

Really? You wanna go there? Just say the word my friend... just say the word....

Word.

The whole definition of a debate is argumentation of ones biased point of view, how incredibly ignorant are you? How is it possible to have an unbiased debate, it would be like having a square circle, or cold fire. Of course evolutionists say "Prove it!" because in the scientific community, a claim is backed up by evidence and evolution is the most acknowledged scientific theory, backed up by billions of of different evidence. It doesn´t matter that YOU or a creationist don´t accept it, because you don´t know anything about it anyway! It´s like I ask my chef what he thinks about my doctors ability to perform surgery, his opinion is completely worthless, those who´se opinion matter all agree that evolution is fact, and if anyone wants to claim otherwise they have to come up with the evidence. That is how science works you moron! Or maybe you should shout out that all scientists and experts are wrong in their method because YOU, who can´t even spell the simplest words correctly, disagree with it! hahaaha would love to see that!

The first line in this statement is cool. Really didn't take into context the biased approach of a debate. I guess I didn't think it through when I wrote that.

A creationist that has a love for the truth??? Another oxymoron.

Like how a scientist loves to listen.


Both sides are silly?? Hold the press all you scientists, nobel prize winners, life savers, medical scientists, biologists, paleontologists, archeologists, all you who have spent decades studying, observing, testing, proving and applying Evolution, you are silly! Ohioboy12 knows better!!! I mean come on, how arrogant can one be?

There goes your 12 year old e-peen again. and... nope. Just the Scientists who run down those who don't agree with them. The scientists who forget what a theory is, and what a fact is. True there are a hell of a lot of scientists doing good in this world, and then theres well, the rest. Soaking up the Grants.

Okay. Payce.

P.S. damnit this bold font crap. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 9:24 PM on October 3, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon38, I'm not accepting any insight from you if you still say The Theory of Evolution is a fact. Once you accept its a theory, I'll read beyond your username.

Ohioboy12 - you seem to be getting things a little mixed up.  Demon38 never said that TOE is a fact.  The Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory that endeavors to explain the facts that we see that show that evolution has occurred.  

Look at Demon38's analogy with gravity.  I think you would admit that gravitational force is a fact.  Along came Issac Newton and his genius put gravity into a mathematical framework.  His theory of gravity works very well.  But even Newton knew it wasn't a perfect explanation of gravity.  His mathematical explanation of gravity falls short in some areas.  There were still minute discrepancies with astronomical observations.  

Albert Einstein came along at the turn of the 20th century and extended gravitational theory with his theory of relativity.  

Evolutionary theory follows much the same path.  That evolution has occurred - hardly any scientist alive today doubts that.  How does evoution proceed?  That's what the 'Theory of Evolution' endeavors to explain.  

All the details of evolution aren't understood yet.  But the theory does work very well in explaining the main process as described by Darwin's Natural Selection and Comon Descent.  Since then we have discovered the chemical foundation that allows evolution to proceed - RNA & DNA.  That in itself is extremely powerful proof that Darwin was right.  

How fast does evoution proceed?  Darwin thought that the evolutionary process was a slow one.  Since then we have discovered that evolution can proceed at a rather rapid rate.  The fossil record shows this.  And at the micro level, evolution occurs very rapidly.  At the micro level generations can be counted in minutes rather than in years.  So we are still tweaking the theory, just as Einstein tweaked Newton's theory of gravity.

So get the difference between theory and fact.  Facts are what we observe.  Theory is what explains those facts, and makes correct predictions.  Evolution is a fact - there is absolutly no doubt about that in the scientific community.  There is far too much evidence available to deny it.  

The Theory of Evolution tries to explain the process by which evolution occurred.  And the theory does a very, very good job at doing just that.  Modern biology is based on that theory.  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 10:00 PM on October 3, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The theory of gravity is far more likely to be overturned than the theory of evolution, since it is more incomplete.  The theory of gravity cannot explain why mass causes gravity.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:01 PM on October 3, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes, that's true.  They're still trying to detect the graviton, the sub-atomic particle thought to be responsible for gravitational force.  

But still the analogy between gravity and evolution holds.  No one doubts that there is a force of gravity.  The same holds for evolution.  It's self evident to those who care to examine the evidence honestly.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 11:26 PM on October 3, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What we call "theories" (of evolution and gravity) are actually models. Frames of reference. So a consistent "theory" will more likely be updated than overturned.

But the fact that things evolve and fall are, well, facts.

If they deny them, well, what on Earth is a fact?

I'm surprised that creationists don't try to disprove the universality of gravity based on Jesus walking on water.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:37 AM on October 4, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon38, I'm not accepting any insight from you if you still say The Theory of Evolution is a fact. Once you accept its a theory, I'll read beyond your username

As others have pointed out, the theory of evolution will always be a theory, that's the way theories work.  But evolution is an observed fact, a fact best explained by the theory of evolution.  

How can you stand a chance against someone who doesn't have an open mind? There's no point.

As I've said before, like any good scientist, I'll go where the data leads, no matter where it leads.  No evidence supports creationism, and a lot of evidence disproves it.  So much so that 200 years ago classical young earth creationims was completely disproven.  If anyone had ANY evidence for creationism, I'd consider it.  But there is none, no evidence at all.  So I'll go where the evidence leads, evolution.

No comment about the quote I provided or the fact that the vast majority of the world's biologists accept evolution?  How about the fact that we successfully apply the theory of evolution in medicine, industry, farming and food production?  How could it be wrong if we can so successfully use it?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:39 AM on October 5, 2008 | IP
Reason4All

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ohioboy12

Since I can´t be bothered with quoting everything from your reply, I just confront the points you made.

You talk about "12 year old e-peen burner", accusing my attitude of being childish. I think you should examine yourself a bit, almost everyone here has pointed out and described to you what a theory means when spoken of in the scientific field, still you´re claiming that "scientists who forget what a theory is, and what a fact is." I thought I made it clear to you in my first response that a theory in scientific terms is a framework where millions of facts are gathered under, somewhat like a supermarket. The name of the supermarket is "Theory of Evolution" and when you enter this massive building you find hundreds of different sections, like "Fossil records" or "Archeology" or "Medicine", and in all these different sections you´ll find evidence and facts for Evolution Theory. Understood? So stop bringing up the whole "Evolution is a theory, not a fact"-nonsense, please.

Scientists don´t listen? Interesting point. Say you are an expert in the field of medicine. You have studied it your whole life, written in peer-reviewed journals, published books, worked as a professor for many years and so forth. Suddenly I show up at your office, I have no medical training whatsoever, I have just decided to disagree with you because of spiritual reasons, not scientific. I start telling you that you´re wrong, that the whole concept of medicine is wrong, and that Homeopathy should be taught instead. I have absolutely  no evidence for my claim, I just feel that you are wrong and I am right. Why should you listen to me? If on the other hand you made a claim based on extensive research, the scientific community has something called PEER REVIEWED JOURNALS, where they welcome and encourage you to make your point of view, the whole definition of listening. So, before you make such an uneducated remark, get your facts straight. I thought you liked facts?

If you go to the initial point of this thread, you will notice that I have asked some questions to creationists. None of them has been answered. All creationists do is to look for gaps, or even worse, spin the available information to suit their belief that Evolution is wrong.
But hey, if you want to believe that man and dinosaurs lived together couple of thousand years ago, be my guest! Children believe in Santa Clause, most of them realize it´s not true in later years, but some of them substitute Santa Clause with creationism.

All the best.




-------
If your faith blinds you from the truth, it´s not the truth that needs to adapt!
 


Posts: 35 | Posted: 05:44 AM on October 5, 2008 | IP
Reason4All

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Guess he gave up... any one else?


-------
If your faith blinds you from the truth, it´s not the truth that needs to adapt!
 


Posts: 35 | Posted: 4:05 PM on October 8, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Reason4All at 2:12 PM on October 2, 2008 :Actually, you are right, Evolution is not a fact... Evolution theory is the framework where billions of facts, from thousands of different scientific fields, are gathered such as biology, archeology, paleontology, medicine, genetics and so forth...


FRAMEWORK!! THAT was the word i was looking for, not "frame of reference". :P

So, theories... A real theory would give some fruit. Explain what we observe and make predictions. And we should be able to apply it to some useful activity...

A fruitless theory is not worth uttering.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 9:11 PM on October 8, 2008 | IP
Reason4All

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

have all creationists gone and hid under a rock? oh yeah, I forgot, they don´t believe in rocks...

;)


-------
If your faith blinds you from the truth, it´s not the truth that needs to adapt!
 


Posts: 35 | Posted: 03:42 AM on October 18, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yeah... I wanted some answers...

The parasite issue still doesn't add up.

I can't find some post about the bombardier beetle. It was started by some guy named "bombardier" something.

It was, of course, about how intelligently designed it was. Couldn't evolve in such form, blah blah.

But the Bible states that all animals behaved harmoniously in the beginning. So why would the bombardier beetle need such a weapon?

Did God redesign it when everything got fucked up? Why wasn't it mentioned?

Did God make it like that just in case everything got fucked up?

Did fangs exist back then?

It seems like carnivorous animals devolved fangs, strength, claws and an appropriate digestive system.

Parasites devolved from... I don't know what...

It just doesn't add up.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 04:53 AM on October 18, 2008 | IP
Reason4All

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 04:53 AM on October 18, 2008 :

Did God redesign it when everything got fucked up? Why wasn't it mentioned?

Did God make it like that just in case everything got fucked up?



Although I agree with your initial point, I have to respectfully disagree with your rhetoric. This is exactly why creationists claim that Evolution is a threat to their faith. As people who defend science, let us just do that. Sure, we can and should question their beliefs, but I think it is better that we act respectfully, and avoid language like that.

That said, I think your questions and remarks are, as always, brilliant.

All the best




-------
If your faith blinds you from the truth, it´s not the truth that needs to adapt!
 


Posts: 35 | Posted: 2:41 PM on October 18, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I thought i was one of the most respectful "evolutionists" here. :S

This is exactly why creationists claim that Evolution is a threat to their faith.
"This" what? My language or my remarks?

Anyway, evolution IS a threat to their faith, if they have faith in the Bible.

If it's facts are wrong it proves that it's not the word of God. Then any part of it can be plain wrong. Goodbye faith.

I think all of us can learn valuable lessons from the Bible. But i would never take it as a moral guide. I won't subdue my wife. I won't stone my son to death if he disobeys me. Christians take from the Bible what they see fit, and ignore the rest. They swear over the Bible, when the Bible says you should never swear (and i think that was a valuable lesson, and i took it, while christians didn't).

Christianism should stop "evolving" to catch up with times. It's like Microsoft releasing patches.

And language is language. Lots of christians would agree with me that Adam fucked up big time. And then everything got fucked up. This idiom conveys the exact meaning of the story, i think.

I didn't think someone could get offended by that. I learned that expression from american movies. :P

If i didn't use the expression correctly, i'm always glad to learn from my mistakes.

If it sounds too "argot", fuck that (i mean, i respectfully disagree).



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 9:04 PM on October 18, 2008 | IP
Reason4All

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 9:04 PM on October 18, 2008 :

"This" what? My language or my remarks?

Anyway, evolution IS a threat to their faith, if they have faith in the Bible.



Wow, you really like your debates, don´t you? ;)
Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with God,  like Michael Shermer says: "It´s like asking if religion and plumbing are compatible"
That´s why a vast majority of biologists are Christians.
And that´s why a vast majority of Christians around the world accept evolution.
One of the greatest scientists in the world is Dr. Kenneth Miller, a devout, church going catholic. So no, evolution is not a threat to anyones religion.

As soon as someone uses the theory of evolution to attack religion, they have left the scientific field. All The Theory of Evolution does is to explain how life originated from lower species. That´s it. Nothing to do with God or the Bible. Sure, there are creationists who claim that genesis is literal and factual, but that´s because they step in to the world of science, not the other way around.

By using rhetoric such as "Did god fuck up?", all you are doing is to aggressively attack someones faith, in a condescending fashion. I respect your right to do that, if that´s your wish. But I can´t see anything positive coming out from it. And, as with science, one should always strive for a positive result.

All the best.





-------
If your faith blinds you from the truth, it´s not the truth that needs to adapt!
 


Posts: 35 | Posted: 12:31 PM on October 19, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wow, you really like your debates, don´t you? ;)
I didn't get your point, but i like your wink.

"It´s like asking if religion and plumbing are compatible"
If the Bible said you can siphon water to a higher level, the Bible would be wrong about yet another thing.

That´s why a vast majority of biologists are Christians.
What? Where?? I know several biologists (my mother in law is one, for instance). None of them is a christian. Can you back that up? The vastness i mean.
Are you talking worldwide, of you mean the USA?

One of the greatest scientists in the world is Dr. Kenneth Miller, a devout, church going catholic. So no, evolution is not a threat to anyones religion.
I wonder what his faith really is. I wonder if he says he believes in the Bible, and what he means by that if he does.

As soon as someone uses the theory of evolution to attack religion, they have left the scientific field.
Why?

If the Bible says that pi=3, a mathematician can say nothing about it, because it's religion and he'd be leaving his field?

By using rhetoric such as "Did god fuck up?"
It was Adam, not God (at least according to the Bible).

all you are doing is to aggressively attack someones faith,
Can it be attacked without aggression?

in a condescending fashion.
Are you not being condescending with me? Otherwise i might ignore what "condescension" means.

I appreciate your input nevertheless. It's good to have people who speak up against aggression.

Sure, there are creationists who claim that genesis is literal and factual, but that´s because they step in to the world of science, not the other way around.
It's their Bible that depicts wrong notions about the natural phenomena (not only the Genesis). And that's what science is about.


(Edited by wisp 10/20/2008 at 08:23 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 08:15 AM on October 20, 2008 | IP
ImaAtheistNow

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 08:15 AM on October 20, 2008 :
One of the greatest scientists in the world is Dr. Kenneth Miller, a devout, church going catholic. So no, evolution is not a threat to anyones religion.
I wonder what his faith really is. I wonder if he says he believes in the Bible, and what he means by that if he does.


First, the claim that Miller is one of the greatest scientists in the world seems a stretch.  For example, is he even a member of the NAS???  Not that Miller isn't a good scientist, but putting up on a pedestal like that?!?!?!?!

Second, Miller certainly appears to be an honest-to-goodness Christian (a Roman Catholic).  He believes that there is one truth, and therefore, both faith and reason point to it.  After all, if reason is God's gift to mankind, why would God make reason point to a different truth than faith does?  Miller is not a literalist, that's for sure.  He seems to follow reason in science and faith in religion, believing that they both point to the same ultimate truth.

 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 5:55 PM on October 20, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thanks, Atheist.

I still wonder if he believes that the Bible is the word of God, or was inspired by Him.

If reason was a present from God, i would have expected a better gift. Because it's flawed (my proof is that by reasoning one can conclude that there is no God).

Quore from Reason4All:
So no, evolution is not a threat to anyones religion.
Did you analise every religion before that statement?

What if i make a religion that states that the bigger the object the faster it falls? Isn't my religion threatened by physics?

If my religion says that pi=3, isn't my religion threatened by Geometry?

If my religion says that the Earth is the center of the Universe, isn't my religion threatened by Astronomy?

If my religion says that there's a mountain from where i can see all nations of the world, isn't my religion threatened by Geography?

IF MY RELIGION SAYS THERE WAS NO EVOLUTION, ISN'T MY RELIGION THREATENED BY EVOLUTION?

If my religion says wrong things, isn't it threatened by right things?

You seem to be good hearted. But i don't get you.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 4:51 PM on October 22, 2008 | IP
Reason4All

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Right, a lot of excellent points, and I really appreciate all of them. Sorry that this post is not replying to each one of them specifically, but rather in broad brushes.

The only basis I have for calling Kenneth Miller one of the worlds greatest scientists was that I heard him being referred to that way by a great scientist who is a good friend of mine, and an expert in the field of evolutionary biology. So, if there is a way to find out who the best scientists are, and Miller doesn´t make that list, I apologize.

Now, to evolution vs. faith. The way I see it, and correct me if I´m wrong, is that all Evolution does is to explain how species evolved. Period. Doesn´t have anything whatsoever to do with the Bible or Religion. If you read my signature phrase at the end of each post you´ll see written: "If your faith blinds you from the truth, it is not the truth that needs to adapt".
Most Christians around the world accept evolution. They don´t say the Bible is wrong, but they don´t interpret it literally. Scientists agree that faith and science are two different subjects, as I am sure you will to. Now if someone would make a scientific claim, deriving from their faith, then they have stepped in to the realm of science. And then rational, intelligent people can point out that they are wrong, by using Theory of Evolution for example. But scientists will never walk into a church during a sermon to say that what they believe in there is wrong, because that is not what science is about!

Personally I can appreciate the symbolism of The Creation story according to The Bible. The way I understand it is that the apple symbolizes (as it has done in so many different cultures over so many years) Knowledge and Wisdom. When man ate the apple, i.e acquired knowledge and wisdom, they ruined the paradise in which they lived. God actually asks Adam and Eve, when he sees them covered up "Who let you know you were naked?". So, God wanted people to be ignorant basically, according to the Bible. I guess the point of the story was that when man acquired wisdom, he used it to ruin the paradise. Which is, in a very cynical way, kind of half-true. And most Christians have different interpretations of the same story.

It is the LITERALISTS who delve in to the world of science by claiming these events actually took place, who are then corrected by science. But I stand by my point, Theory of Evolution is not a threat to any religion, since religious stories aren´t meant to be read literally.


So I am willing to agree that anyone who claims that the Bible is historically and/or scientific accurate, can be disproved by The Theory of Evolution for example. But the Theory of Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with anyones faith, and can´t therefore be a threat to it.

All the best

ps. Don´t exactly remember where I saw that 78% of US´evolutionary biologists were praying Christians, but as soon as I find it, I´ll let you know, promise! ds


-------
If your faith blinds you from the truth, it´s not the truth that needs to adapt!
 


Posts: 35 | Posted: 4:52 PM on October 23, 2008 | IP
ImaAtheistNow

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Reason4All at 4:52 PM on October 23, 2008 :ps. Don´t exactly remember where I saw that 78% of US´evolutionary biologists were praying Christians, but as soon as I find it, I´ll let you know, promise!


Well, the "cream of the crop" of scientists in the USA is the NAS (National Academy of Sciences).  

A poll of prominent US scientists about belief was reported in 1999 in Scientific American.  Overall, about 40% were believers.  But the values were MUCH lower for the scientists in the NAS.

For the biologists in the NAS, less than 5% were believers.

And for the NAS as a whole, the level of disbelief exceded 90%.


 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 04:11 AM on October 24, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The way I see it, and correct me if I´m wrong, is that all Evolution does is to explain how species evolved. Period.
Why yes, indeed.

Doesn´t have anything whatsoever to do with the Bible or Religion.
It has something to do with the Bible. There's a common ground: facts and explanations of natural phenomena. They both make claims about facts. And they both present an explanation of what we see. Christianism is a religion with factual grounds. If it was proved that Jesus didn't exist (not that i believe such thing), christianism should fall (it wouldn't because christians would deny the evidence, but it should).

There are some passages that would be more enriching as a metaphor. But lots of passages are literal. And if you don't believe in them, in what way do you "believe in the Bible"?

For instance, if the Bible says that some prophet predicted the fall of some nation, and it was proved that that prophet didn't exist and was made up after the fall... There's would be no metaphor here. It says that some guy existed, and he didn't. It's an honest mistake, or a plain lie.

The Joshua and the wall of Jericho story was borrowed from another culture. With the hornets and everything.

Jesus was supposed to come back soon after he died (to reign over the Earth). He did not (and will not).

But the expiration date of that prophesy has been modified plenty of times.

When will it become obsolete? When we destroy the Earth, and have to move to some other planet, i guess.

Nah, even then christians will say that the "Earth" was a metaphor for any part of the Universe where humanity dwells.

What if we move to more than one planet?
I'm sure they'll come up with something.




Most Christians around the world accept evolution.
It depends on your definition of "christian", but yeah... Lots of people believe in evolution and call themselves "christians".

They don´t say the Bible is wrong, but they don´t interpret it literally.
They add metaphor to those parts that sound ridiculous today.

I can be gay and call myself a christian, and say that the biblical homophobia is metaphorical.

Scientists agree that faith and science are two different subjects, as I am sure you will to.
Yes, i do. Faith is believing without understanding. Science is the will to understand.

But scientists will never walk into a church during a sermon to say that what they believe in there is wrong because that is not what science is about!
What they believe is wrong because it's not what FACTS are about. And if you remove the facts from christianity, nothing is left.

I think it's a mistake to base a religion upon facts, but once it's done there's no turning back. No updating either.

I wish they stopped updating christianism.

Personally I can appreciate the symbolism of The Creation story according to The Bible. The way I understand it is that the apple symbolizes (as it has done in so many different cultures over so many years) Knowledge and Wisdom. When man ate the apple, i.e acquired knowledge and wisdom, they ruined the paradise in which they lived.
Yes, i always liked that story. And i think that the symbolic eating of the fruit was a great thing. The end of our child days.

When man ate the apple
No apple is mentioned in the Bible. It's a common misconception.

But I stand by my point, Theory of Evolution is not a threat to any religion, since religious stories aren't meant to be read literally.
Some of them are. Peoples, names, families, and events. You'll find literal passages about all of them.

I don't know what the hornets in the story of Jericho meant, but the conquer was meant to be literal. And it was false. There was no conquer. And the story was borrowed from the supposed conquered.

So I am willing to agree that anyone who claims that the Bible is historically and/or scientific accurate, can be disproved by The Theory of Evolution for example. But the Theory of Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with anyones faith, and can´t therefore be a threat to it.
It is, if your faith tells you that Noah embarked every living terrestrial species into his ark.

ps. Don´t exactly remember where I saw that 78% of US´evolutionary biologists were praying Christians, but as soon as I find it, I´ll let you know, promise!
I'd like to know the exact terms of that survey.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 6:10 PM on October 24, 2008 | IP
Reason4All

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, I guess this is just one of those points we have to disagree upon. I might be wrong, but I firmly believe, based on my experiences from many different countries, that most Christians adapt their faith according to the latest science, even if the movement in a whole might take a long time.

I fully agree that, if taken literally, the Bible is easily disproved by science. But, in my humble opinion, this doesn´t make science a threat to the Bible. Because science is just the method to explain natural phenomenon by natural causes. Again, I feel like I have to quote Michael Shermer:
"It´s like asking if plumbing and religion are compatible"

Eugenie Scott is a fierce opponent to those scientists who bring in religion to science (ironically enough, she uses her friend Shermer as an example), because she strongly believes that the two have nothing to do with eachother.  BUT if religious movements tries to tramp on scientific claims, such as ID, then science is there to oppose those movements.

I think Eugenie Scott explains it much better than me, so if you want, watch this excellent video on Evolution vs Creationism.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8160281340404915661&ei=fUoEScLcBYKw2gK08ewN&q=evolution%2Bscott

All the best


-------
If your faith blinds you from the truth, it´s not the truth that needs to adapt!
 


Posts: 35 | Posted: 07:43 AM on October 26, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thanks for taking the time to find that link for me. I took the time to watch it.

I know that literalist biblicism is minority among christians, and so is creationism. The majority of christians have no faith in the Bible. And to me they're not christians at all.

I might be wrong, but I firmly believe, based on my experiences from many different countries, that most Christians adapt their faith according to the latest science, even if the movement in a whole might take a long time.
Indeed they do. My point is that they shouldn't.

Learning from the bible is very reasonable (just like learning from any other religious text). Believing it's the word of God is dangerous. It says you should kill people from other creeds (including friends and family).

Again, I feel like I have to quote Michael Shermer:
"It´s like asking if plumbing and religion are compatible"
Plumbing isn't mentioned in the Bible. The origin of life on Earth, of Earth itself, the Universe and men, is. And lots of other wrong stuff.

The Bible didn't state anything against the physic principles of plumbing, but it could have.

Evolution is a fact whether it collides with religion or not (my point here is that it's not necessary to mention it in order to advocate for evolution).

You say it doesn't, so christians can accept evolution without rejecting christianity. You tell them they can patch and mend their faith as much and as often as they see fit, to make it fit the latest science.

You end up taking from the Bible whatever you see fit (just like myself, and i don't need to call myself a christian, even if i practice more Biblical teachings than most christians).

In the Bible we find xenophobia, intolerance, discrimination and plain madness. Oh, and creationism. (I follow none of those.)

I cellebrate that you don't follow them. I don't cellebrate the label "christian".

Christians chose to believe that the old law isn't important, for Jesus was the lamb, and abolished it (or fulfilled it, or whatever). But he said:


"For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished.  Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven”-Matthew 5:18-19 RSV

I know of tolerant, intelligent, reasonable and scientist "christians" that should have a better label, or none at all.

I also know of "christian" gays, and "christian" witches.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 9:28 PM on October 27, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Do you believe that God instructing His chosen people to kill other people was metaphorical? With names of real cities and all?


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 9:37 PM on October 27, 2008 | IP
Reason4All

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Dear Wisp, thanks for an excellent reply, as always, you make some excellent points.

I fully agree with you that the bible is full of dichotomies, inconsistencies, nonsense, not to speak about all the prejudices and violence it propagates. But I don´t think that we have the right to set the criteria for what a person of faith should or should not believe.

You´re completely right when you say that the bible makes, to say the least, incorrect statements of science and advocates violence. So yes, the bible in itself is a book that can easily be confronted through scientific ways and/or human rational. But, what I´m saying is that peoples faith is not dependent on a literal interpretation of this text.

I know of no devout jew or christian who stone their disobedient children to death, no matter how radical they are. I´m against all forms of organized religion, but I do respect peoples right to claim to have faith, and I acknowledge that their faith is inspired from some questionable sources, in this case the bible. If they then decide to adapt their faith to the latest science and still call themselves christians, or muslims, or jews, is, in my humble opinion, something to be commended, not discredited. Because as secular people, our greatest battle is to erase dogmatic and harmful lies that religion has brought in to the world, not to attack faith. Now, if people of faith have already incorporated their spiritual beliefs with scientific facts, I am okay with it.

Do you believe that God instructing His chosen people to kill other people was metaphorical? With names of real cities and all?


I don´t care what the writers of the bible meant when they wrote something, I do care however how people interpret these. And if believers say that they interpret it literally, then we have a problem. If they decide to interpret it metaphorically, or even to disregard it completely, then I´m not bothered. And the way I see it, most christians choose the second option.

So, I still say that evolution is not a threat to anyones FAITH, but it the evidence that would disprove alot of the notions ones faith might be based on.

Evolution can never be a threat to anything, because it is not opposed to anything, it is just an explanation, like any other scientific discovery.

Thanks for your reply! All the best

(Edited by Reason4All 10/28/2008 at 3:44 PM).


-------
If your faith blinds you from the truth, it´s not the truth that needs to adapt!
 


Posts: 35 | Posted: 03:13 AM on October 28, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don´t think that we have the right to set the criteria for what a person of faith should or should not believe.
Perhaps that's true. I'm more against labels than faiths... But i'm against some aspects of some faiths.

And i'm against a faith whose god wants human sacrifices. If it turns out that i truly have no right to tell anybody what to believe, i don't care much. Right or no right i'm against it.

what I´m saying is that peoples faith is not dependent on a literal interpretation of this text.
Indeed. It's not dependent on a literal nor a metaphorical interpretation of this text. It's not dependent on this text at all. Lots of christians have faiths, and don't follow this text.

"Liking" Jesus isn't enough to be called a "christian", i think. "Members of the Jesus Fan Club" would be more appropriate.

Although fans usually follow their artist more than the average christian follows Jesus...

Catholics seem more like members of the Church Fan Club.

If they then decide to adapt their faith to the latest science and still call themselves christians, or muslims, or jews, is, in my humble opinion, something to be commended, not discredited.
I commend the will not to be called anything. There's no good reason for it. And the tag isn't appropriate.

That reminds me of the series The Big Bang Theory, when the girl says: "I'm a vegetarian. Except for fish. Oh, and steak. I LOVE steak."

I don´t care what the writers of the bible meant when they wrote something, I do care however how people interpret these. And if believers say that they interpret it literally, then we have a problem. If they decide to interpret it metaphorically, or even to disregard it completely, then I´m not bothered.
Well i am. Because they constantly harass people (even from OTHER religions, or none at all) for not behaving according to principles whose source they disregard. That's annoying.

More than annoying. It was the foundation of the Inquisition. And it could happen again, you know? Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

And the way I see it, most christians choose the second option.
Yeah. Why don't they call themselves "terrible christians"? What would be more appropriate.

So, I still say that evolution is not a threat to anyones FAITH, but it the evidence that would disprove alot of the notions ones faith might be based on.
Evidently our disagreement is semantic. Because your depictions seems to fit my definition of "threat".

There are lots of people who lose their faiths when they learn about science.

Evolution can never be a threat to anything, because it is not opposed to anything, it is just an explanation, like any other scientific discovery.
Perhaps we're getting somewhere. If you lose it, but other people still have it, then it wasn't endangered, right? You just don't have it anymore. But it is unharmed. Thus there's no threat.

Is that what you mean?

In any case there have been lots of dangerous explanations of a lot of things.

Example: My crop is lost. A witch did it. And you know where that leads to.

Thanks for your input.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 6:40 PM on October 29, 2008 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.