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
     Evolution is Failing

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
whytry

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

>>Don't equivocate evolution with the specific fields in it, you're simply trying to define the evidence out of existence, when the theory was made to explain that evidence! It's like saying "prove the events of the bible without referencing the bible."

You prove my point beautifully. Except to be completely correct you should replace the word evidence with observations, i.e "you're simply trying to define the observatations out of existence when the theory was made to explain the observations." Theories explain things we observe, they don't explain evidences. Evidences back theories up. Thus you cannot take your observation, develop a theory based upon those observations, and then turn around and declare your observations to be evidences of the theory.

We already knew that there were similarities among living organisms. These are the observations and common descent is the theory that is suppose to explain why similarities exist. These observations do not now become evidences for the theory. That is ridiculous.

Simple Science according to Darwinist:

Observation: there is a net force toward the center of the earth that holds me "down"

Theory: The atmosphere exerts a pressure on my body that holds me down

Evidence: I'm held down to the earth so my theory must be correct

"Yeah! I have proved my theory and everyone else is stupid!"--gleeful Darwinist

This is a silly example, but is still very close to the reality of the situation.

 


Posts: 7 | Posted: 11:49 PM on January 18, 2005 | IP
Yod Heh Vav Heh

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from whytry at 11:09 AM on January 18, 2005 :
>>No, it's not. The fossil record shows, surprise surprise, fossilisation of organisms that were in the right place and made of the right stuff to be fossilised.

If the sentence following "No, it's not." is suppose to elaborate on why the hallmark of the fossil record is NOT stasis followed by sudden appearance it falls well short. In fact it doesn't even address the issue. Red Herring.


Uh, the following sentence gives an explanation for why there's few fossils, which some, without explaining the mechanism behind it, would interpret as animals appearing from nothing.


The point is that I can make up any theory I want and then interpret the data in light of my theory, but I cannot use my interpretation to prove my theory. Don't forget we are looking at history.


The point is evolution has a mechanism for common descent, which would fit with the fossil record. "Magic" explanations are useless since they don't involve real world references. Common ancestry as observable in the present, along with the genome fit with evolution and do not contradict it, merely bemoaning a theory acquiring new information and giving the best explanation isn't going to score you any points on the rationality side, especially when your only refutation of the relationships is "I can contrive a magical explanation," congratulations, the same is true of everything. Packet switching is a theory, but I can contrive a magical explanation, therefore packet switching is equivalent to them? Science doesn't work that way, give a proper competitive theory to explain your interpretation of the evidence or just give up.

Are we talking about evolution as a mechanism to produce change or are we looking at similarities and guessing (evolution) why they are similar. I can make up anything I want to explain similarity of organisms. Prove that the mechanism (evolution) can actually produce the change.


Fine, when you were born you had 300+ mutations that seperate you genetically from both your parents. Evolution the theory is the combination of mutation of previous traits and crucially, from darwin and wallace onwards, the selection that allows these mutant traits and the unchanged traits to continue via hereditary means.

Oh, so it has been shown to be sufficient? What leading biologist (who is honest) would say this?


Dawkins? Gould? Ken Miller? Read the introduction to the Blind Watchmaker, he explains how the natural process of evolution can evolve new "complex" traits from previous precursors, and he goes into more detail in the mutations section.

>>Simple, keep adding 1 to your previous number and see how much change can accumulate. Take as long as you want.

I'll take it you can't prove it if this is the response.


It's an example of cumulitive change being large scale. 1 can become 5000 in 5000 seconds at one number per second, that's 4999 changes from the original, which is huge in hindsight. But it's only 1 small change between 1 and 2 or 3598 and 3599.

There are more elaborate and accurate analogies of the evolution theoretical mechanism
online, using javascript. Here's a link.


If I say "birds will someday fly in outer space", most would say that is stupid and silly, but if I rephrase as "birds will fly in outerspace in several million years" then it suddenly becomes a possibility to the Darwinist.


If you said "there will be organisms that are light enough to reach the edge of space, and come back down and survive" I'd accept it as a possible prediction. "Flying through space" however doesn't make too much sense, space isn't full of air.

Maybe, the Darwinist's mental functions break down when confronted with large numbers, but mine certainly do not. If it's ridiculous now it will still be ridiculous in 10 years, 100 years, million years. Darwinists thinks long periods of time are the elixir to all their ills. Well, you have to do more than throw large numbers in my face to convince me.


You want large scale divergence, but you don't want it in the large timescales it occurs over. This is just trying to define it out of existence again.

And the onus is on YOU to show that mutation followed by natural selection is capable of producing new information to the extent that it resulted in the origin of species.


That's easy, speciation events have been observed. I can give you a multitude of examples.

You can guess and hope and pray and wave big numbers aroung all you want, but at some point you will actually have to show it CONCLUSIVELY.


Speciation  events

Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences.

(Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.)

Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292.


Evidence that a species of fireweed formed by doubling of the chromosome count, from the original stock. (Note that polyploids are generally considered to be a separate "race" of the same species as the original stock, but they do meet the criteria which you suggested.)

(Test for speciation: cannot produce offspring with the original stock.)

Mosquin, T., 1967. "Evidence for autopolyploidy in Epilobium angustifolium (Onaagraceae)", Evolution 21:713-719


Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.

(Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.)

Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41


Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago.

(Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.)

Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348


"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."


In the wild, Drosophila mojavensis and Drosophila arizonae rarely, if ever, interbreed - even though their geographical ranges overlap.

In the lab, researchers can coax successful breeding but there are complications.

Drosophila mojavensis mothers typically produce healthy offspring after mating with Drosophila arizonae males, but when Drosophila arizonae females mate with Drosphila mojavensis males, the resulting males are sterile.

Laura Reed maintains that such limited capacity for interbreeding indicates that the two groups are on the verge of becoming completely separate species.

Another finding that adds support to that idea is that in a strain of Drosophila mojavensis from southern California's Catalina Island, mothers always produce sterile males when mated with Drosophila arizonae males.

Because the hybrid male's sterility depends on the mother's genes, the researchers say the genetic change must be recent.

Reed has also discovered that only about half the females in the Catalina Island population had the gene (or genes) that confer sterility in the hybrid male offspring.

However, when she looked at the Drosophila mojavensis females from other geographic regions, she found that a small fraction of those populations also exhibited the hybrid male sterility.

The newly begun Drosophila mojavensis genome sequencing project, which will provide a complete roadmap of every gene in the species, will help scientists pin down which genes are involved in speciation.


Unless you're not asking for evolution from within to over the species level, in which case you're asking me to prove conclusively that over millions of years evolution does happen without using extrapolation and incomplete information, and, if so, you are being supremely unreasonable. No different than Hovind and his bogus wager. Your opposition appears to be that because we can't show you a few million years of divergence without piecing together bits of puzzles and extrapolating a working theory from it, that that's enough to not take it seriously. Without you giving any kind of similar level of evidence for something contrary to these extrapolations.

You prove my point beautifully. Except to be completely correct you should replace the word evidence with observations, i.e "you're simply trying to define the observatations out of existence when the theory was made to explain the observations." Theories explain things we observe, they don't explain evidences. Evidences back theories up. Thus you cannot take your observation, develop a theory based upon those observations, and then turn around and declare your observations to be evidences of the theory.


Observations = evidence. Evidence includes both direct and indirect observation.

I don't know what crackpot taught you that observation isn't evidence.

We already knew that there were similarities among living organisms. These are the observations and common descent is the theory that is suppose to explain why similarities exist. These observations do not now become evidences for the theory. That is ridiculous.


So tell me, if the bible was inerrant, we couldn't use its inerrancy with relation to everything it talks about as evidence of its inerrancy?

So when evolution posits from genetic samples that flying squirrels and some gliding marsupials and bats have a more distant common ancestor than perhaps similar morphologies might suggest, and then predict the biogeography and ages of prospective common ancestors, and then find fossils that fit the predicted description, they've not got new evidence that proves that particular theory? Or if we turned up a new human species alive only recently that we can surmise existed in place x y and z as a result of evolving from species a, that's somehow bad for the authenticity of evolution?


-------
Vengeance is mine.
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 11:28 AM on January 19, 2005 | IP
whytry

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

>>Uh, the following sentence gives an explanation for why there's few fossils, which some, without explaining the mechanism behind it, would interpret as animals appearing from nothing.

Uh, there are billions of "unearthed" fossils. It's curious why transitional fossils are lacking, isn't it? Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot: all fossils are transitional. Mmmhuh.

Furthermore, the doctrine of evolution has been harmful to paleontology in that you don't really have "a find" unless it contributes in some meaningful way to evolution. Gould recognized this but was probably immediately shut up for murmuring against god. Stasis followed by sudden appearance is the norm and each fossil that lends itself to this should be catalogued and introduced into the body of evidence, not disposed of because it was not what we wanted to see. Well, get use to it. The fossil record has already spoken: Darwin, no soup for you.

>>Evolution the theory is the combination of mutation of previous traits and crucially, from darwin and wallace onwards, the selection that allows these mutant traits and the unchanged traits to continue via hereditary means.

You still have not documented that minor changes can lead to large enough changes so that we get the origin of all species. Think clearly, please. From therapsids to a bat or a whale or a kitty cat, something more than just my hair being different from my parents had to change. And you give way to much power to natural selection.

>>The point is evolution has a mechanism for common descent, which would fit with the fossil record. "Magic" explanations are useless since they don't involve real world references. Common ancestry as observable in the present, along with the genome fit with evolution and do not contradict it, merely bemoaning a theory acquiring new information and giving the best explanation isn't going to score you any points on the rationality side, especially when your only refutation of the relationships is "I can contrive a magical explanation," congratulations, the same is true of everything. Packet switching is a theory, but I can contrive a magical explanation, therefore packet switching is equivalent to them? Science doesn't work that way, give a proper competitive theory to explain your interpretation of the evidence or just give up.

Are you not following the argument? I'll be direct: Your proposed mechanism is as fanciful as a giant turtle moving about the universe popping organisms into existance at will. I AM EQUATING THE TWO. Just because you've convinced yourself something is true (though it has never been shown), doesn't mean it is true.

>>Dawkins? Gould? Ken Miller? Read the introduction to the Blind Watchmaker, he explains how the natural process of evolution can evolve new "complex" traits from previous precursors, and he goes into more detail in the mutations section.

I'm sure he does....

>>It's an example of cumulitive change being large scale. 1 can become 5000 in 5000 seconds at one number per second, that's 4999 changes from the original, which is huge in hindsight. But it's only 1 small change between 1 and 2 or 3598 and 3599.

If this helps you understand evolution, then fine....

>>If you said "there will be organisms that are light enough to reach the edge of space, and come back down and survive" I'd accept it as a possible prediction. "Flying through space" however doesn't make too much sense, space isn't full of air.

Oh, come on. Use your imagination a little bit. I know imagination is not something you struggle with....

>>You want large scale divergence, but you don't want it in the large timescales it occurs over. This is just trying to define it out of existence again.

No, you want origin of species even though the fossil record does not show any of the gradualism that you hope long time periods buy for you. Still you cling to the hope that long time periods make all the problems go away. They do not--they simply provide a mechanism for self-delusion.

>>That's easy, speciation events have been observed. I can give you a multitude of examples.

Oh, my. Don't make me laugh. You know as well as I that most "speciation" events are slight changes that change the species enough so that they they are no longer interbreeding groups. This gives no indication that therapsids became bats unless you guess and hope and pray that these changes can result in miraculous transformations in millions and millions of years. (Aw, doesn't the elixir of time make you feel much more confident....) Your examples of speciation are just what I would expect (and in fact what my giant turtle hypothesis predicts).

>>Unless you're not asking for evolution from within to over the species level, in which case you're asking me to prove conclusively that over millions of years evolution does happen without using extrapolation and incomplete information, and, if so, you are being supremely unreasonable. No different than Hovind and his bogus wager. Your opposition appears to be that because we can't show you a few million years of divergence without piecing together bits of puzzles and extrapolating a working theory from it, that that's enough to not take it seriously. Without you giving any kind of similar level of evidence for something contrary to these extrapolations.

Actually what I'm asking for is a little honesty. Then I'm asking you in the years to come to show genetically how organisms might have transitioned from "primitive" to "complex". With knowledge of mutation rates, repare mechanism, the effects of mutations on biological organisms, etc. to begin to genetically demonstrate the path  of evolution (i.e. genome evolution) with probabilities attached to it. Of course there ought to be many realizations but each should have a corresponding probability. Then demonstrate that these realizations are possible without human direction and intervention. Start there.

>>Observations = evidence. Evidence includes both direct and indirect observation. I don't know what crackpot taught you that observation isn't evidence.

What don't you understand? We see similarities in terrestrial organisms. We have not discovered each and every similarity, but we know similarities exist. Thus we postulate a theory of common descent to explain the similarites. Later we find more similarities among terrestrials. These new findings are not evidence--they are simply the same observations that led to the theory being postulated, namely similarities among terrestrials. This isn't difficult logic, even a crackpot should understand this.

>>So when evolution posits from genetic samples that flying squirrels and some gliding marsupials and bats have a more distant common ancestor than perhaps similar morphologies might suggest, and then predict the biogeography and ages of prospective common ancestors, and then find fossils that fit the predicted description, they've not got new evidence that proves that particular theory? Or if we turned up a new human species alive only recently that we can surmise existed in place x y and z as a result of evolving from species a, that's somehow bad for the authenticity of evolution?

If you're trying to hint at information that might be useful to this discussion please present it in full detail.


I intend to be back, but research is picking up; so we'll see.... But please respond anyway.

 


Posts: 7 | Posted: 12:51 AM on January 20, 2005 | IP
Yod Heh Vav Heh

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from whytry at 12:51 AM on January 20, 2005 :
Uh, there are billions of "unearthed" fossils. It's curious why transitional fossils are lacking, isn't it?


Refute each of these then:

Transitional from mammal to primate: Cantius, Palaechthon, Pelycodus, Purgatorius. Transitional from reptile to mammal: Biarmosuchia, Haptodus, Procynosuchus, Varanops. Transitional from reptile to bird: Coelophysis, Compsognathus, Deinonychus, Oviraptor. Transitional from amphibian to reptile: Hylonomus, Limnoscelis, Paleothyris, PrTransitional from fish to amphibian: Cheirolepis, Eusthenopteron, Osteolepis, Sterropterygionoterogyrinus.

Australopithecus ramidus - 5 to 4 million years BCE Australopithecus afarensis - 4 to 2.7 million years BCE Australopithecus africanus - 3.0 to 2.0 million years BCE Australopithecus robustus - 2.2 to 1.0 million years BCE Homo habilis - 2.2 to 1.6 million years BCE Homo erectus - 2 to 0.4 million years BCE Homo sapiens - 400,000 to 200,000 years BCE Homo sapiens neandertalensis - 200,000 to 30,000 years BCE Homo sapiens sapiens - 130,000 years BCE to present

Archaeopteryx; Basilosaurus and Ichthyostiga.

Furthermore, the doctrine of evolution has been harmful to paleontology in that you don't really have "a find" unless it contributes in some meaningful way to evolution. Gould recognized this but was probably immediately shut up for murmuring against god. Stasis followed by sudden appearance is the norm and each fossil that lends itself to this should be catalogued and introduced into the body of evidence, not disposed of because it was not what we wanted to see. Well, get use to it. The fossil record has already spoken: Darwin, no soup for you.


Are you claiming that there are finds that contradict evolution that are being covered up, or are you strawmanning gradualism?

You still have not documented that minor changes can lead to large enough changes so that we get the origin of all species.


Yes I have since I posted all those speciation events. Those are species originating.

Think clearly, please. From therapsids to a bat or a whale or a kitty cat, something more than just my hair being different from my parents had to change. And you give way to much power to natural selection.


Is your complaint that due to the difficulty in predicting large future cases of macroevolution from the smaller changes we can observe regularly, there's something wrong with the concept? Take cats, you must acknowledge there's a lot of difference between a domestic housecat and a lion, right? Now what's stopping that lion and that cat changing the same amount genetically again and getting doubly as different from one another? And then again? And again? Oh you've never said what's actually wrong with it, just that you want more evidence for it.

Are you not following the argument? I'll be direct: Your proposed mechanism is as fanciful as a giant turtle moving about the universe popping organisms into existance at will. I AM EQUATING THE TWO. Just because you've convinced yourself something is true (though it has never been shown), doesn't mean it is true.


The mechanism is sound. They are not equatable at all since magic is not explaining how. The mechanism does explain how. Or is do you need to see 100 genes change before you can admit that cumulitive 1 gene at a time changes could not have the net equivalent of 100 genes changing over 100 individual gene changes? I reiterate: your complaint is not based in education of the material, it's based in incredulity.

I'm sure he does....


Concession accepted.

If this helps you understand evolution, then fine....


I didn't even use any big words like polymerase chain reaction or Organic Nanotubes from Cyclic Peptide Architecture. Just go take a course in biology, save me attempting to teach it to someone unwilling to learn.

Oh, come on. Use your imagination a little bit. I know imagination is not something you struggle with....


What a limp response.

No, you want origin of species even though the fossil record does not show any of the gradualism that you hope long time periods buy for you.


Actually it does. It's all about your misinterpreting of punctuated equilibrium. This is covered in the "puncturing the punctuationists" in the blind watchmaker. Darwin's theory actually does comply with sudden (geologically speaking) changes, for one, if you suddenly introduce a new selective pressure into an area you're going to get a lot of specialised animals dying and more general ones and ones more suited to the new pressure proliferating where they may not have done before. And then natural selection will prefer their more specialising offspring than the originals, and so on, to get comparitively quick evolution. This is what happened with the cichlids, in 4000 years they diverged into multiple species of different sizes and shapes to deal with the sudden changes to their environment.

Still you cling to the hope that long time periods make all the problems go away. They do not--they simply provide a mechanism for self-delusion.


Assertion without evidence.

Oh, my. Don't make me laugh. You know as well as I that most "speciation" events are slight changes that change the species enough so that they they are no longer interbreeding groups.


Duh. That's what a species is in this context.

This gives no indication that therapsids became bats unless you guess and hope and pray that these changes can result in miraculous transformations in millions and millions of years. (Aw, doesn't the elixir of time make you feel much more confident....) Your examples of speciation are just what I would expect (and in fact what my giant turtle hypothesis predicts).


The turtle hypothesis didn't predict anything because no mechanism was given. You're just another uneducated creationist with little to no idea of what biology contains outside of your dogmatic strawmen. I've seen it a million times before. You're doing exactly what I said you'd be doing.

Unless you're not asking for evolution from within to over the species level, in which case you're asking me to prove conclusively that over millions of years evolution does happen without using extrapolation and incomplete information, and, if so, you are being supremely unreasonable. No different than Hovind and his bogus wager. Your opposition appears to be that because we can't show you a few million years of divergence without piecing together bits of puzzles and extrapolating a working theory from it, that that's enough to not take it seriously. Without you giving any kind of similar level of evidence for something contrary to these extrapolations.


How right I was!

Actually what I'm asking for is a little honesty. Then I'm asking you in the years to come to show genetically how organisms might have transitioned from "primitive" to "complex".


Complex in what sense? Polymerase chain reaction is to do with interconnected difficult to understand organic chemistry, if that's what you're asking.

With knowledge of mutation rates, repare mechanism, the effects of mutations on biological organisms, etc. to begin to genetically demonstrate the path  of evolution (i.e. genome evolution) with probabilities attached to it.


This can mainly be pieced together with endogenous retroviral mapping of the genome, among other methods. As for probabilities, this is irrelevent in hindsight and adds unneccessary variables that serve no purpose since we already have an outcome.

Of course there ought to be many realizations but each should have a corresponding probability.


Probability serves no purpose here since natural selection cuts it out.

Then demonstrate that these realizations are possible without human direction and intervention. Start there.


Genetic change is unavoidable, that is a simple fact of life. Same with natural selection.

What don't you understand? We see similarities in terrestrial organisms. We have not discovered each and every similarity, but we know similarities exist. Thus we postulate a theory of common descent to explain the similarites. Later we find more similarities among terrestrials. These new findings are not evidence--they are simply the same observations that led to the theory being postulated, namely similarities among terrestrials. This isn't difficult logic, even a crackpot should understand this.


No, they're still evidence.

If you're trying to hint at information that might be useful to this discussion please present it in full detail.


I intend to be back, but research is picking up; so we'll see.... But please respond anyway.



Convergent evolution of seperate organisms to evolve similar traits for similar purposes but from different genetic start points. Wings, for example, have evolved 4 times, insects, birds, bats, pterosaurs.

http://www.evowiki.org/index.php/Convergence


-------
Vengeance is mine.
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 4:04 PM on January 20, 2005 | IP
newme

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from alliwantisalife at 10:11 PM on February 7, 2004 :
What i was saying is that their are thousands of fossils supporting evolution and none supporting creationism.  When they find some fossils supporting creationism then I will believe it.  So they need to find some ancient human fossils that can be identified as jesus or Adam or Eve.



I can't believe none of you "Christians" responded to this! If a fossil were found for Jesus it would disprove the Bible, not prove it! Does anyone here really know what they believe?  Have the Scriptures really been read?

And for those who oppose creationism, know that, by the Bible, your arguments about how many people believe in evolution over Christianity will never change any opinions because the Bible warns that the path that leads to salvation is narrow and few find it.  You do more to support the cause of Creationists by proving a greater number of evolutionists than to denigate it.

Someone recommended that materials by evolutionist scientist be read by creationists if they wish to have any actual knowledge with which to rebut evolutionist theories rather than encompassing themselves with strictly creationist materials.  This advice is well taken in both directions.  If you wish to make a legitimate opposition to any Creationist's views, perhaps you should read a little of their book of views.  

Most "Christians" know very little of the actual Bible and it is generally easy to prove their fallibility by their own words that contradict its teachings.  For example, the unChristian attitudes displayed by many "Christians" here in these boards contradicts everything that Jesus ever taught.

You may wonder my opinion since I am against both presentations I find here.  I will plainly explain, I am a scientist in the truest sense.  I believe all things must be considered in their true contexts.  There is proof for neither side and error in both presentations.  Yet, in the case of evolution, Darwin claimed that one error would disprove all of evolutionary theory.  Nevertheless, he is not the true father of evolution since everything he taught was learned from the pen of his grandfather and the mouth of his father.  In the case of Creationism, the fact that it cannot be proven only lends to its credibility since the Bible states that it must be accepted by faith alone.  If it could be proven, there would be no faith.

I offer that no person has the answers.  The universe is far too vast for that.  Each must decide for themselves which theory bears more weight in their own judgment.  Christ claims to be a personal Savior, therefore belief in Him is a personal choice.  Disbelief in Him is another personal choice.  Each makes an opinion and each hopes he's right.  Time will tell.

 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 03:05 AM on February 20, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I will plainly explain, I am a scientist in the truest sense.

Plainly, you are not.

There is proof for neither side and error in both presentations.

"Proof" is not a term a scientist would use.  However, there is substantial evidence supporting evolution, no evidence supporting creationism and much evidence falsifying creationism.

Yet, in the case of evolution, Darwin claimed that one error would disprove all of evolutionary theory.

And yet, in over 150 years since Darwin first proposed his theory, not one error has been found that disproves evolutionary theory, that's why it's accepted by virtually all biologists and is considered the central concept of modern biology.

Nevertheless, he is not the true father of evolution since everything he taught was learned from the pen of his grandfather and the mouth of his father.

Baseless lies...

In the case of Creationism, the fact that it cannot be proven only lends to its credibility since the Bible states that it must be accepted by faith alone.

Creationism made testable claims that have been falsified and falsified over 200 years ago, it has no crediblity in the scientific world, it has been completely disproven.

Each must decide for themselves which theory bears more weight in their own judgment.

Does this ridiculous statement apply to other theories?  Should each person decide for themselves how much weight, in their own judgement, the heliocentric theory bears?  How about the germ theory of disease?  How about the atomic theory?  The theory of gravity?

Christ claims to be a personal Savior, therefore belief in Him is a personal choice.

The theory of evolution does not equal atheism, as a matter of fact the majority of the worlds christians accept evolution.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:45 AM on February 20, 2005 | IP
newme

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A true scientist seeks truth whatever its form, and does not get bogged down by bias.

"Proof" is not a term a scientist would use.  However, there is substantial evidence supporting evolution, no evidence supporting creationism and much evidence falsifying creationism.

And yet, in over 150 years since Darwin first proposed his theory, not one error has been found that disproves evolutionary theory, that's why it's accepted by virtually all biologists and is considered the central concept of modern biology.

Creationism made testable claims that have been falsified and falsified over 200 years ago, it has no crediblity in the scientific world, it has been completely disproven.


These remarks are clearly biased.  There are many discrepencies admitted by evolutionists in this very forum, admitting not all the answers add up.


Nevertheless, he is not the true father of evolution since everything he taught was learned from the pen of his grandfather and the mouth of his father.

Baseless lies...


Do some research and check for yourself.  Not that it matters since many of his ideas have been modified and adapted so often because he did not have the science in his time to back it up.  
As for creationism, I already said there is proof against it, why do you insist I am against you.  I have already said that "Christians" make poor arguments.

Each must decide for themselves which theory bears more weight in their own judgment.

Does this ridiculous statement apply to other theories?  Should each person decide for themselves how much weight, in their own judgement, the heliocentric theory bears?  How about the germ theory of disease?  How about the atomic theory?  The theory of gravity?


No, only in theories that are still lacking a great deal of information or only when applied to our set of knowledge as to the function of the universe beyond our grasp.  How do we know that all things function in the same way in all places at all times.  It is beyond our ability to prove that all theories are always applicable.  Isn't this the very nature and joy of science?

Christ claims to be a personal Savior, therefore belief in Him is a personal choice.

The theory of evolution does not equal atheism, as a matter of fact the majority of the worlds christians accept evolution.


Why do you think I said most "Christians" tend to be hypocrites based on the values presented in the book they claim to believe?

For some reason you seem to think I disagree with your ToE.  I merely offered you assistance in how you might win the battle of logic against Christianity by its own Word.  I attempted to help you understand why traditional methods don't work to convince Christians their beliefs might be wrong.  But don't take my advice, continue the never-won debate.  They will never relinquish and you will never overcome.  If their Savior fails to appear in another thousand years, maybe they'll believe you.
Then again, if you're really a demon, maybe He's really a Christ.  Wouldn't that be interesting?

Oh, and "Whytry," great name.  That is so approprite in this forum, seriously.  Debating here is really not worth the time.  
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 05:48 AM on February 20, 2005 | IP
freedom08

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." -- Thomas Jefferson (letter to J. Adams April 11,1823)
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 10:00 PM on March 7, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A true scientist seeks truth whatever its form, and does not get bogged down by     bias

But a true scientist can only examine the natural world, if the truth is somehow beyond this, then it is a truth that can not be explored by a scientist.

These remarks are clearly biased.  There are many discrepencies admitted by evolutionists in this very forum, admitting not all the answers add up.

Looking back at the statements I posted, which ones are bias?  There is substantial evidence supporting evolution, so much so that over 99.9% of the worlds biologists accept it as the only theory that explains the diversification of life on earth.  And there is NO
evidence that falsifies it.  It is the central concept of modern biology and nothing in biology makes sense unless viewed through an evolutionary paradigm.  In 150 years no one has disproved the theory of evolution.  Creationism was disproved over 200 years ago by Christian geologists.  These are the facts, where is the bias you claim?  As to discrepencies in evolution, name one!  We don't know every detail of how evolution has worked over the last 3.8 billion years, but by studying the evidence it's obvious that it has been ongoing since life first arose.  There are no discrepencies that make us question that fact.  

No, only in theories that are still lacking a great deal of information or only when applied to our set of knowledge as to the function of the universe beyond our grasp.  How do we know that all things function in the same way in all places at all times.  It is beyond our ability to prove that all theories are always applicable.  Isn't this the very nature and joy of science?

What part of evolution applies to "our set of knowledge as to the function of the universe beyond our grasp"?  Life on earth is readily available for observation, experimentation, and while it's true that not all life has been tested or even discovered yet, what makes you say that our understanding of evolution is beyond our grasp?  It is a theory that is well tested and overwhelmingly confirmed, it is extremely useful in many practical applications.
I don't understand why you seem to supporting pick and choose science.  Science that is well support and accepted by the experts who study it should be taught as currently accepted most correct answer.  If our understanding of some aspect of science changes due to new data, then that should be reflected in what is taught.  We should not be throwing out random, unsupported, or even falsified, "theories" to appease special interest groups that have no understanding of science.

For some reason you seem to think I disagree with your ToE.  I merely offered you assistance in how you might win the battle of logic against Christianity by its own Word.  I attempted to help you understand why traditional methods don't work to convince Christians their beliefs might be wrong.  But don't take my advice, continue the never-won debate.  They will never relinquish and you will never overcome.  If their Savior fails to appear in another thousand years, maybe they'll believe you.
Then again, if you're really a demon, maybe He's really a Christ.  Wouldn't that be interesting?


Yes, I realize that I made a mistake about your motives.  It's just that so many creationists use some of the same rhetoric for different reasons.  I think I do understand why creationists will never listen to reason, why they will never accept modern scientific thinking, but I know I'll never change their minds.  It's fun to debate, I always learn alot myself, listening to others and doing the research to support my points.   So I don't hold any dellusions of "converting" anyone.  But hey, I should have responded to you earlier, thanks for the help, I appreciate your point of view, and  I realize you do conditionally accept modern science.  It would be fun to discuss anything dealing with evolution with you if you find any points we disagree on.
And as to me really being a demon, well, I think a real demon would be a hell of a lot smarter and more persuasive than me...but then, that could be part of my plan.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:13 AM on March 8, 2005 | IP
pasha

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Reading this post, I have noticed a recurring themes and I would like to adress them.
First of all evolution is happenign every singe day, even as you sit in your chair right now. Many people ask 'if evolution is true then why isn't it happening today?"
One example is of Thomas Hunt Morgan's fruit flies, in 1909 he had only one species of fruit flies the "wild type"(all had red eyes) which showed no variants in it and after isolating a  population of the wild type and breeding them for a year he found one variant, a fruit fly with white eyes. after a short time period he found other mutations(SLIGHLY different from other fruit flies, genetically), 85 mutations to be more precice, and the genes of these fruit flies were passed from generation to generation(they will alway exist and may or may not be expressed in their children). Mutations are occurences that happen in nature and over a long period of time give rise to new species.  To put it in simpler and more coherent words, " The demonstration of a spontaneous, inheritable alteration in a gene had consequences far beyond the study of drosphilia(fruit fly) genetics. It suggested a mechanism for the origin of VARIATION that exists within POPULATIONS(such as humans, mice, flies, bacteria and even viruses)--evidence for a vital link in the theory of evolution. If VARIANTS of genes could arise spontaneously, then isolated populations could become GENETICALLY DIFFERENT from one another und ULTIMATELY(SOmetimes in millions of years) give rise to new species."(Cell and Molecular Biology. Gerald Karp. Fourth Edition)
Fruit flies mature in 10 days(to a sexually mature adult)and a fruit fly can produce 1000 eggs withing a lifetime, thats why, with such a population that lives, breeds and dies so quickly, variations can be followed VERY precisely(in the example a bove it took one year to find 85 mutations). Ladies and gentleman, in the following sentce I present to you evolution in all its glory: If enough of these mutations happen within a fruit fly population you can produce a new strain of fruit flies(that look different) that won't even be able to breed and produce offspring with the original fruit flies(wild type) but only with the new strain! Hence, a NEW SPECIES now exists. For mammals such as apes or whales etc. such changes are not as obvious(because we live on average 70-100 years and  produce a few offspring compared to fruit flies!) and the most remarkable or striking evidence of  change come from skeletons of early humans or for early whales(check out the evolution line for whales, its pretty amazing to know what anymal they evolved from).
By the way, fruit fly reaserch is IMMENSE today compared to 1909 and so is reaserch on other animals, so check out some papers or articles online about evolution in progress, evolution is a lot more complex than what I have explained here, I just gave you a run down of the basics. If you are wondering yes, there is an explenation of how and why mutations occur, but understanding these explenation will mean taking university biology, genetics and chemistry courses.

If you want an up to date example of evolution happening everyday(other than some guys' fruit flies in 1909) then let me tell you, it would be impossible to keep AIDS patiens alive today without knowing the theory of evolution. AIDS patients take alot of drugs wich help kill the AIDS virus, but the virus keeps adapting to drugs and ultimately becomes resistant to it, how? The virus EVOLVES!!! Lets say there is a certain virus living in your body, most of the viruses that are in your body are identical copies of one another and a few mutations(variations) of the same virus exist within that population. One drug may kill off a large population of the virus that exists in your body but might not kill, lets say 1%, of of the HIV virus. This 1% is resistand to a certain drug and thus replicates numerously and once again causes infection now we have a new population of the the HIV virus, but its resistand to one type of drug(and genetically different) so you can't use it anymore. If you try another drug, the same thing will happen, a small percentage of varients will survive and give rise to a new, drug resistand virus.

   Some people believe that evolution dictates superiority and inferiority different creatures. That is not true, according to evolution a human being is no more up the ladder than an elephant or a kangaroo, all three of these species are equally complex(biologically). The only thing that seperates us is that we are probably one of of the few species that can interact with each other, we have complex brain(allowing language, which gives us an advantage over other animals) and modify matter around us(Me..made...FIRE!)and we have a complex social structure. All in all, we are still animals, like it or not, you gotta eat, sleep, when its a hot day you will sweat, you have red blood running through your veins(hopefully) like other mammals and most importanly most of us will pass on our genes to propagate the human race, no matter what.
I read in an earlier post something that I find interesting. Anyone who proves that evolutionary theory if fundamentaly flawed, will DEFNINETELY win the nobel prize! If evolution if flawed, so is modern genetics, if thats flawed then so is basic chemistry, if thats flawed, so is modern physics, if thats flawed, so is mathematics!!

Evolution is also about natural selection, Hypothetically: If the earth was scorched today and if the seas would boil(for some reason), 99.999 percent of creatures would die, including all people, the only things left alive would be thermophiles(heat loving bacteria) and the would "win" the race to survival because they would survive to pass on their genes whereas the rest of us would be floating dust.  The modern evolutionary theory is complex, very complex and its based on facts, it is something that you have to study in University before you can comprehend(high school stuff, barely SCRATHCES the surface and in my opinion its inadequately taught in the class room, it should be taught more coherently so that student can understand what it is) you cant pass judgement on it based on preconceptions, modern medicine wouldn't be where it is today and ironically, without the theory of evolution most of you(I am sure) wouldn't be here debating!

(Edited by pasha 3/28/2005 at 5:44 PM).
 


Posts: 7 | Posted: 5:18 PM on March 28, 2005 | IP
Iniquity51

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Since when is truth determined by mere arithmetic, and only addition at that?"

Even if there is a majority of people who believe a lie, that doesn't make it true.
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 12:25 PM on May 2, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Yod Heh Vav Heh at 11:28 AM on January 19, 2005 :
[>>No, it's not. The fossil record shows, surprise surprise, fossilisation of organisms that were in the right place and made of the right stuff to be fossilised.

That is a tautalogy. We know the the fossils were in the right place and made of the right stuff to be fossilized. That is a brilliant deduction I must say.
If the fossils were not in the right place or made of the right stuff would they be fossils?


Uh, the following sentence gives an explanation for why there's few fossils, which some, without explaining the mechanism behind it, would interpret as animals appearing from nothing.
The point is evolution has a mechanism for common descent, which would fit with the fossil record. "Magic" explanations are useless since they don't involve real world references. Common ancestry as observable in the present, along with the genome fit with evolution and do not contradict it, merely bemoaning a theory acquiring new information and giving the best explanation isn't going to score you any points on the rationality side, especially when your only refutation of the relationships is "I can contrive a magical explanation," congratulations, the same is true of everything.  
What mechanism? A story that can't be tested is a scenario .


quote]

Fine, when you were born you had 300+ mutations that seperate you genetically from both your parents. Evolution the theory is the combination of mutation of previous traits and crucially, from darwin and wallace onwards, the selection that allows these mutant traits and the unchanged traits to continue via hereditary means.

First of all Blyth was the one who published the papers on Natural selection, Darwin plagerised him. Thats why he was so reluctant to publish.
The only way to test for a mutation is to test the organism before and after the mutation occurs. You have a basic misunderstanding of mutations. If all differences in genetics are mutations as you are implying mutations do not exist.
Mutations are by definition rare.

Dawkins? Gould? Ken Miller? Read the introduction to the Blind Watchmaker, he explains how the natural process of evolution can evolve new "complex" traits from previous precursors, and he goes into more detail in the mutations section.

Have you ever read Gould? He believed in evolution but not the present explanation of how it happened.

"I regard the failure to find a clear 'vector of progress' in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record... We have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a world that does not really display it." "Everybody knows the fossil record doesn't provide much evidence for gradualism; it is full of gaps and discontinuities. These gaps are all attributed to the notorious imperfection of the record, but this not an adequate explanation…This remarkable stasis [steadiness] has generally been ignored. If it doesn't agree with your ideas [talking to evolutionists] you don't talk about it." "The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches: the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of the fossils." "Can a reasonable story of continuous change be constructed for all macroevolutionary events [i.e., hopeful monster theory]? My answer shall be no."
Dr. Steven Jay Gould



o tell me, if the bible was inerrant, we couldn't usIf you said "there will be organisms that are light enough to reach the edge of space, and come back down and survive" I'd accept it as a possible prediction. "Flying through space" however doesn't make too much sense, space isn't full of air.

That is deep.



You want large scale divergence, but you don't want it in the large timescales it occurs over. This is just trying to define it out of existence again.

Long ago and far far away does not exist, how could one define an imaginary idea out of existence?
That's easy, speciation events have been observed. I can give you a multitude of examples.


You could say a mule is a product of speciation. Does that mean in a million years it will be a Unicorn? Not being able to reproduce with the original ia a loss of information. It is a story to say in millions of years this will produce a totally different kind of animal.


Observations = evidence. Evidence includes both direct and indirect observation.

I don't know what crackpot taught you that observation isn't evidence.

Ever watch a magician preform?


So when evolution posits from genetic samples that flying squirrels and some gliding marsupials and bats have a more distant common ancestor than perhaps similar morphologies might suggest, and then predict the biogeography and ages of prospective common ancestors, and then find fossils that fit the predicted description, they've not got new evidence that proves that particular theory? Or if we turned up a new human species alive only recently that we can surmise existed in place x y and z as a result of evolving from species a, that's somehow bad for the authenticity of evolution?

I don't think evolutionist have to worry. They will always be able to create theories fast enough to not become bogged down with bothersome details like the truth and reality.




-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 9:44 PM on June 5, 2005 | IP
luke9

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I have one question for the evolutionists.  How did the whole evolution process begin?


-------
luke
 


Posts: 23 | Posted: 12:01 AM on June 26, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I have one question for the evolutionists.  How did the whole evolution process begin?

Evolution started as soon as life first arose.  How that life arose is irrelevant.  If a god or gods magically zapped the first life into existance, it doesn't matter, because, as shown by the evidence, that life evolved.  If life self arose, doesn't matter, the evidence shows it evolved.  The processes that caused life to form are different from the processes that cause life to evolve.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:46 AM on June 26, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from luke9 at 12:01 AM on June 26, 2005 :
I have one question for the evolutionists.  How did the whole evolution process begin?


I'm not quite sure what you are looking for.   In a pre-biotic world,  models of abiogenesis use a system of self-assembling molecules.  


Self-assembling amphiphilic molecules: Synthesis in simulated interstellar/precometary ices


-------
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: 3:32 PM on June 27, 2005 | IP
Raelian1

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I like that topic title "Evolution is failing". It's only a matter of time before evolution is disproven once and for all. And when I support "Intelligent Design", I don't mean "God" (there is no god), but by intelligent scientists from another planet.

(Edited by Raelian1 6/27/2005 at 5:50 PM).


-------
Proud member of rael.org
 


Posts: 68 | Posted: 5:49 PM on June 27, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Raelian1 at 5:49 PM on June 27, 2005 :
I like that topic title "Evolution is failing". It's only a matter of time before evolution is disproven once and for all. And when I support "Intelligent Design", I don't mean "God" (there is no god), but by intelligent scientists from another planet.


What do you think will disprove it?



-------
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: 6:14 PM on June 27, 2005 | IP
mabfynhad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What do you think will disprove it?

How about a common creationsist strawmen.

A dog giving birth to a cat.






-------
Arguments are to be avoided; they are always vulgar and often convincing.

Oscar Wilde
 


Posts: 34 | Posted: 03:28 AM on June 30, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I like that topic title "Evolution is failing". It's only a matter of time before evolution is disproven once and for all.

Haven't creationists been claiming this since Darwin first published his book in 1859?  But instead of being disproven, more and more evidence is found every day that makes the theory or evolution stronger and stronger.  And we're still waiting for just what evidence will disprove evolutio nonce and for all...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 05:05 AM on July 8, 2005 | IP
luke9

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

how does something come from nothing?

raelian1 what is the rael.org thing?
could you explain


-------
luke
 


Posts: 23 | Posted: 11:56 PM on July 15, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

how does something come from nothing?


Quantum physics.  Where did God come from?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:09 AM on July 16, 2005 | IP
skins38

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

God has always been and always will be.  you do not need an explaination for God.


-------
2nd Amendment- First line of defense;Last resort to combat tyranny and oppression.
 


Posts: 97 | Posted: 12:32 AM on July 16, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

God has always been and always will be.  you do not need an explaination for God.

Any evidence to support this, any at all??  And why don't you need an explaination for God?
Seems like a double standard to me...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:01 AM on July 16, 2005 | IP
skins38

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No there is none cause if there were then there would be no need for faith.  You also can give me no solid evidence for the evolution beginning as well.

I dont know if you know any stories of the Bible or not but in the old testment God told Moses to go free his people from eygpt.  Moses asked God who should he say sent him, God's reply was "I am"  

Because He is God.


-------
2nd Amendment- First line of defense;Last resort to combat tyranny and oppression.
 


Posts: 97 | Posted: 12:50 PM on July 16, 2005 | IP
mabfynhad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No there is none cause if there were then there would be no need for faith.

If God(tm) can be causeless so can the universe. What's most likely to come into existance, a sentient omnimax being with super intelligence and all sorts of super attributes, which is increadibly complex or a non- sentient universe filled with subatomic particles, which is relativily simple?  

You also can give me no solid evidence for the evolution beginning as well.

All we need for evolution is an imperfect replicator in an environment with limited resources. It's statistically inevitable for evolution to happen if you have these two factors.

I dont know if you know any stories of the Bible or not but in the old testment God told Moses to go free his people from eygpt.  Moses asked God who should he say sent him, God's reply was "I am"  

Actually he said "I am that I am"; kinda like popeye.

(Edited by mabfynhad 7/16/2005 at 5:39 PM).


-------
Arguments are to be avoided; they are always vulgar and often convincing.

Oscar Wilde
 


Posts: 34 | Posted: 5:33 PM on July 16, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No there is none cause if there were then there would be no need for faith.  You also can give me no solid evidence for the evolution beginning as well.

Since there is no evidence for God and He must be taken on faith alone, then God should NEVER be mentioned in a science class.
As to evolution, plenty of evidence for it, so much so that it's an established fact.

I dont know if you know any stories of the Bible or not but in the old testment God told Moses to go free his people from eygpt.  Moses asked God who should he say sent him, God's reply was "I am"

This is nothing more than myth, no different than a hundred other religious books.  No way does it constitute evidence.

Because He is God.

Still no evidence that He exists, still no evidence that He created anything, still no necessity that He is needed for anything in nature.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:09 PM on July 16, 2005 | IP
skins38

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

mabfynhad

To me it seems much easier to believe that God created everthing than over a period of billions years we some how come into exsistence and that matter some how just appeared by chance.

and still you havnt given me any evidence for the beginning because you cant.

Im sorry ur right He did say it that way and oh but in the same versus he also said it like i said he had.

And God said to moses, I Am that I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM has sent you unto me. Exodus 3:14


-------
2nd Amendment- First line of defense;Last resort to combat tyranny and oppression.
 


Posts: 97 | Posted: 4:33 PM on July 17, 2005 | IP
mabfynhad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

To me it seems much easier to believe that God created everthing than over a period of billions years we some how come into exsistence and that matter some how just appeared by chance.

Well science and reality don't have any interest in what people find easy to accept.
Tell me if you had no knowlage of planes would you find the idea of a machine weighing 322050kg travelling down a runway at 200mph and taking of into the sky and then staying there for hours easy to accept? What about quantum mechanics, its probably the most counter intuative theory around but it works.

and still you havnt given me any evidence for the beginning because you cant.

The exact moment of the start of evolution will never be known but it isn't a problem. Even if a god created life on earth evolution would still be happening because life uses DNA to replicate and we KNOW that DNA is an imperfect replicator, this leads to variation in a population, which coupled with natural selection leads to evolution. We have seen it in computer models and we have seen it in life.
I personally don't believe in a deity as the creator for one simple reason, every mystery we have looked at be it lightning, earthquakes or disease, 100% of everything we see happening  has a natural explanation. So tell me why should  the beginning of life/evolution be different.  

(Edited by mabfynhad 7/17/2005 at 5:56 PM).


-------
Arguments are to be avoided; they are always vulgar and often convincing.

Oscar Wilde
 


Posts: 34 | Posted: 5:53 PM on July 17, 2005 | IP
luke9

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There is no explanation for Gods existince.  I would say he was and is always there.  

What is this quantam physics stuff???

It is 100% impossible for something to come out of nothing unless there is a supernatural force.  So I do not see how evolution is even a theory.  

Yes adaptation.  When things adapt to there surroundings that is true.

The exact moment of the start of evolution will never be known but it isn't a problem.[b]

I think that will be a problem...


-------
luke
 


Posts: 23 | Posted: 10:10 PM on July 17, 2005 | IP
mabfynhad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Luke9


It is 100% impossible for something to come out of nothing unless there is a supernatural force.


The only people saying that something came from nothing are creationists and a supernatural force has not been shown to do anything, it simply doesn't exist or is undetectable and if it's impossible to detect it has no effect so it might as well not exist.

What is this quantam physics stuff???

heisenberg uncertainty principal states that there will alway be uncertainty within a system. This manfests itself in something called quantum foam, which basically is a sea of "virtual" particles that permiates space. The hardest vacuum of space if full of these particles. This is why there is no such thing as nothing as these particles are constantly appearing and disappearing into apparent nothingness (LOOK UP ZERO-POINT ENERGY, QUANTUM FOAM and CASIMIR EFFECT.
The universe itself can be described in a simlar manner as these particles, it can SEEM to come out of nothingness but it doesn't. Some physicists are trying to explain from what/where the universe came from using M-theory.
At the moment though M theory is still considered a philosophy of science as it is still being established as an hypothesis.

So I do not see how evolution is even a theory.

When you use evolution what are you describing? When I use it I'm talking about the theory of evolution, which covers the evolution in the populations of biological entities only. You seem to be implying that it means more.


The exact moment of the start of evolution will never be known but it isn't a problem.


I think that will be a problem...

Why? Can you tell me the first moment of something getting a disease if not does that invalidate germ theory? how about the moment Adam took his first breath or what was Jesus's first word? If you cant answer either question does that invalidate their existance?

As I said before evolution started when the first   inperfect replicator came into existance, the timing is unknown but turning "I dont know" to "God did it" is simply giving up. Science is full of  "I dont knows" that have been answered and  none of them had the answer "God did it".  



-------
Arguments are to be avoided; they are always vulgar and often convincing.

Oscar Wilde
 


Posts: 34 | Posted: 04:24 AM on July 18, 2005 | IP
skins38

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

demon

There is no evidence for God but their is evidence for creation.  Where is the evidence of the species evolving? why is it that there are no species that are a mix of two diffrent animals? If evolution took as long as you say there should be hundreds of these right?

I was not using the verus for evidence i was simply trying to explain that there is no physical evidence of God.  The Bible is historically accurate whether you want to believe its teachings or not.

How does a spider know how to build its web or a beaver its damn or an ant its ant nest? With out none of us would be here u do realize that dont you? No matter what you believe there has to be a creator somewhere down the line cause you will not and can not explain how evolution started.


-------
2nd Amendment- First line of defense;Last resort to combat tyranny and oppression.
 


Posts: 97 | Posted: 5:35 PM on July 18, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from skins38 at 5:35 PM on July 18, 2005 :
 Where is the evidence of the species evolving?


Like this? Apple Maggot fly speciation


why is it that there are no species that are a mix of two diffrent animals?


Why do you think that's the way it works?


If evolution took as long as you say there should be hundreds of these right?


There are plenty of examples of "transistional species", just not in a form you are willing to admit.  The apple maggot fly is an example of speciation in progress.

How does a spider know how to build its web or a beaver its damn or an ant its ant nest?


The ones that couldn't died.

With out none of us would be here u do realize that dont you?


Sorry, I can't parse meaning out of this sentence.

No matter what you believe there has to be a creator somewhere down the line cause you will not and can not explain how evolution started.


Universality in intermediary metabolism
By relating the universality of modern organisms to the geochemistry in which cellular life emerged, we are able to propose a specific metabolism for the first organisms and introduce statistical optimization principles under which it may be unique.


-------
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: 09:51 AM on July 19, 2005 | IP
luke9

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A supernatural force needs now explanation.  its supernatural for a reason.  And it is detectable to some degree.  For an example the many mirales performed.  The archiological evidence showing that Jesus was on Earth.  

So your basing all this on the quantum physics.  Which is just a hypothesis.  

My understanding of evolution is that all of a sudden all the right chemicals came randomly together and formed the first life forms.  Then they evolved to what we have today.

ok then what happened first.  Is what I am asking and how this event happend.  

simply giving up?  Or reading the bible the main holy book in Christianity witch 1 Billion people belive in around the world.  


-------
luke
 


Posts: 23 | Posted: 3:20 PM on July 20, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Skins said:
There is no evidence for God but their is evidence for creation.

How do you figure?  Yes there is evidence that life arose and evolved, but there is NO evidence for intelligent design in this creation.
As has been stated before, if God designed life he must be an idiot, too many design flaws that are better explained by unintelligent design (evolution).  You never want to discuss the specifics of the evolution of life, I can only conclude that you don't understand evolution or you know what a weak case you have for God creating so you attempt to avoid it.

Where is the evidence of the species evolving?

Plenty of evidence of species evolving, we have even seen it happen.  New species evolving is macroevolution and since we have witnessed this, evolution is a fact.  Do a little research!

why is it that there are no species that are a mix of two diffrent animals?

Once again, plenty of evidence of this, but the duckbilled platypus is an excellent example, it is transitional between reptiles and mammals, evolution is the best explaination for it.

If evolution took as long as you say there should be hundreds of these right?

Right and there are, every life form on earth is transitonal, so, by your logic, evolution is valid.

I was not using the verus for evidence i was simply trying to explain that there is no physical evidence of God.

I'll agree here, there is NO evidence for God or for the supernatural.

The Bible is historically accurate whether you want to believe its teachings or not.

The Bible is NOT historically accurate.  It has many stories that are NOT backed up by evidence, like the Jews exodus from Egypt.  It is a collection of myths, with some real places and events sprinkled in.

How does a spider know how to build its web or a beaver its damn or an ant its ant nest?

They evolved behavior patterns that allowed them to survive.  You're not claiming that ants and spiders actually "know" anything are you??

No matter what you believe there has to be a creator somewhere down the line cause you will not and can not explain how evolution started.

Why must there be a creator???  And where did that creator come from???  Energy and matter can form from nothing, quantum physics shows us this.  Complexity can and does arise naturally, no gods needed!  You claim an ancient myth is reality, with no evidence whatsoever to back up your story!  Why is God the creator, why not Odin, why not Krishna?  Why not Allah?  
Sorry, you're in the same boat as all their followers, primitive myth with nothing to back up your story.  When science proposes explainations, you ignore the evidence and make ignorant claims like "To me it seems much easier to believe that God created everthing than over a period of billions years we some how come into exsistence and that matter some how just appeared by chance."
You can't understand it so Goddidit!  Well, people have been saying that for thousands of years, gods cause the sun to rise and set, gods cause lightning to happen, gods cause the tides, gods cause disease.  And you know what, every time people have used gods for an explaination, they have been wrong.  You use God to explain the formation of the universe because you don't understand astronomy and quantum physics, you are wrong also.

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 4:15 PM on July 20, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

luke9 said:
A supernatural force needs now explanation.  its supernatural for a reason.

What kind of stupid statement is that?!?
Odin is supernatural, no explaination needed, right, guess you believe in Him too.  How about the toothfairy?  supernatural, no explaination needed!  Your statement is worthless and self serving and makes no sense.  This is nothing more than a creationist copout.

And it is detectable to some degree.  For an example the many mirales performed.

No, the supernatural is NOT detectable, it doesn't even exist!  And there is no real evidence for any miracle.  

The archiological evidence showing that Jesus was on Earth.

There is NO archaeological evidence that Jesus actually existed.  If you claim there is, let's see it...

So your basing all this on the quantum physics.  Which is just a hypothesis.

No, quantum physics is a theory, not an hypothesis.  Don't you do any research?!?!  Don't you know how science works?
Virtual particles, matter coming from nothing, is a well evidenced phenomenon.  The Casimir effect demonstrates energy coming from nothing, your point is disproven!

My understanding of evolution is that all of a sudden all the right chemicals came randomly together and formed the first life forms.

That's not evolution, that's abiogenesis.  Learn the difference!  The processes of abiogenesis are different from the processes of evolution.  biochenists work with abiogenesis and biologists work with evolution.

ok then what happened first.  Is what I am asking and how this event happend.

what happened first?!?!  First there was no life on earth, then there was!  Abiogenesis happened first, that's obvious.  We see that organic molecules form naturally, with no hand of god required.  Now we haven't discovered the exact path life took in forming on the early earth, but it happened 3.8 billion years ago, we're still investigating.  What evidence, besides the bible, do you have for God creating?

simply giving up?

Of course not, it's still being investigated.

Or reading the bible the main holy book in Christianity witch 1 Billion people belive in around the world.

You mean the same book that has been consistantly wrong when it comes to scientific matters?  Sorry, I stick to real science...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 4:43 PM on July 20, 2005 | IP
mabfynhad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A supernatural force needs now explanation.  its supernatural for a reason.

In other words when faced with a mystery/problem that you can't explain easily such as abiogenisis you say- don't know; supernatural! Goddidit!

scientists would say - don't know; we'll work on it.... and we would work on it until until (a) no more funding, (b) Find out what the answer is and get it published so others can test our explanation or (c) Die without getting the answer knowing others will continue the work.



And it is detectable to some degree.  For an example the many mirales performed.

Evidence?



So your basing all this on the quantum physics.  Which is just a hypothesis.

Quantum physics is quite a fundamental theory with far reaching consiquences and is important in many technologies used today. For example the transistors in your computer, the cathode in our monitor or if your really lucky, it explains exactly why those molecules in your LCD screen are giving off light.
But I do admit that M-theory and string theory  are  hypotheses at the moment (as were all theories at one time) but they are considered sound mathematical models, in other words if we could design a universe and we used string theory it would give a universe very very similar to ours. Personally I believe that these hopotheses are sound foundations for theories, it just takes time gathering the evidence but already there are some promising signs such as their explaination for the relative weakness of gravity and they make predictions of what we should see in the early universe and in the present day universe.

My understanding of evolution is that all of a sudden all the right chemicals came randomly together and formed the first life forms.  Then they evolved to what we have today.

As Demon corrected you what you just described was abiogenisis- the formation of the first replicator. Evolution describes what happens when that first replicator replicates and so on. Your version of abiogenisis is greatly simplified as the process was probably stepwise with a build up of complexity rather than spontanious.
I really hate it when people use "chemicals came randomly together" chemistry does not work randomly! It is determined by thermodynamics and kinetics, if chemistry were random we would'nt be able to make any drugs or plastics or well anything! Actually we would be dead as life would be impossible if chemistry was random!

simply giving up?  Or reading the bible the main holy book in Christianity witch 1 Billion people belive in around the world.

Saying goddidit is the same as giving up, as putting it down as the will of god takes it out of peoples hands. Why study the cause of disease if you couldn't do anything about it except for trying to pray.



(Edited by mabfynhad 7/21/2005 at 04:22 AM).


-------
Arguments are to be avoided; they are always vulgar and often convincing.

Oscar Wilde
 


Posts: 34 | Posted: 04:19 AM on July 21, 2005 | IP
Cush

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

scientists would say - don't know; we'll work on it.... and we would work on it until until (a) no more funding, (b) Find out what the answer is and get it published so others can test our explanation or (c) Die without getting the answer knowing others will continue the work.


mabfynhad,

I understand your belief that many scientists may take a completely empirical approach to tackling almost any question that interests them.  However, the depth of the human experience allows most people to adventure beyond a world of strict laws and rules.  One of the most cherishable human characteristics is our ability to explore faith.

It is very hard indeed to convince a person that leans almost completely on faith to explain things, that there are many "supernatural" seeming events that are really quite explainable through science.

However,
In my experience, it is even harder to convince a person who so wishes to explain all things through science alone, that they are blind to the realization that it was all put here for you to discover.

 


Posts: 13 | Posted: 2:04 PM on July 21, 2005 | IP
luke9

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The tooth fairy does not have 1 billion people following it.  Or have people dying or being tortured because they belive so strongly in the toothfairy.  

Richard Wurmbrand was kidnapped and held in solitary confinement for 3 YEARS for preching about God.  They would brainwash him for hours on end.  And the Soviets got so sick of him they had a fireing squad set up to execute him.  They all aim and fire ..nothing they shoot up into the air bang then they aim at him..nothing so the head guard walks up takes out his pistol and fires..nothing fires into the air bang at Richard then ..nothing

I would say that is a miracle.

show me the evidence

First there was no life on earth, then there was!

sounds like your pulling a rabbit out of a hat

And there is alot of Science backing up the Bible
check out this link
Christianity and Science


-------
luke
 


Posts: 23 | Posted: 10:26 PM on July 21, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

luke9 said:
The tooth fairy does not have 1 billion people following it.  Or have people dying or being tortured because they belive so strongly in the toothfairy.

But that wasn't part of your original claim.  What about all the worshippers Odin had?  Again, he is supernatural, 100's of thousands of people believed in him, why is he a myth and your god isn't?  What about Allah, billions believe in him, he's supernatural, why don't you believe in him?  You're creating a double standard.  The supernatural most certainly does need an explaination!  The problem is you have nothing to back up your claim!

I would say that is a miracle.

And every other god ever worshipped on earth had miracles claimed in their name!  So what, there is no evidence that your claim is any different.  A story that has no evidence to back it up, told and retold so many times, it changes into a miracle after so many retellings.
This is not evidence, it is hearsay, it is more unsubstantiated myth.

show me the evidence

Show you the evidence for what?  Evolution is so well evidenced that it is a fact.  You continually ignore the evidence presented here for it.  There is less evidence for abiogenesis but it is the most likely scenario.
You have yet to show ANY evidence for God creating the first life, you've yet to show any evidence for God at all.

First there was no life on earth, then there was!  sounds like your pulling a rabbit out of a hat

What are you complaining about?  Are you claiming there was ALWAYS life on earth?!?!
It's a fact, at one point, there was no life on earth, then there was.  Abiogenesis is the best explaination of why this happened so far.
What evidence do you have that contradicts this...

And there is alot of Science backing up the Bible
check out this link
Christianity and Science


Did you even look at this website? I found it better than a lot of "christian" sites but still completely unscientific and ultimately worthless.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:34 PM on July 21, 2005 | IP
Cush

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


And there is alot of Science backing up the Bible
check out this link
Christianity and Science


Did you even look at this website? I found it better than a lot of "christian" sites but still completely unscientific and ultimately worthless.


Demon38,

The intent of the site is to help bridge the Gap between you and luke9.  Even if it is lacking in equations and theorems, the intent is pure.

How can that be worthless?


 


Posts: 13 | Posted: 09:31 AM on July 22, 2005 | IP
Favardin

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ah, good stuff. Seriously, I love this debate. People argumentating scientific against a solid wall of ignorance. But good work, Demo and Apoapsis. The whole broadside of modern science ^^

Well, I've got some questions for the creationists (they bother the rational thinking people all the time, so why don't we just bother them equally?):

1. Could you explain me the story about Noah? How did he save all the species (including Dinosaurs or their eggs according to you creationists)? How many forest did he chop down by hand with his wife and his three sons to build it? Why could he managa something that's hardly possible TODAY? And don't say it was his faith preventing the ships breaking under 40 tons momentary weight caused by walking elephants?
How did he gather all the species form Asia or the (not even known until then) American Continent? I'm looking forward to an explanation.

2. Why can we see the light of objects that are millions of light years away? I won't accept a 'God faked them to test you faith' answer, and also the arguement of a temporary lightspeed increase is not valid (gama ray measurements would else reaveal a significant higher energy level).

3. Why would God bother creating things like Bot Flys, Medina worms or other nasty parasites? To mock us? Bleh... Evultion has by far the better explanation for nasty species ;)

Oh well... perhaps I should just add that I believe in God. And in Evolution. And Quantum Theory.



 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 1:06 PM on July 22, 2005 | IP
Cush

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


Oh well... perhaps I should just add that I believe in God. And in Evolution. And Quantum Theory.



Favardin,
Do you believe that God created it all?
 


Posts: 13 | Posted: 1:57 PM on July 22, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Cush said:
The intent of the site is to help bridge the Gap between you and luke9.  Even if it is lacking in equations and theorems, the intent is pure.  How can that be worthless?

Funny, I thought the intent of this site was to debate...
Anyway, how can luke9's post and the site he linked to be worthless?  Two reasons.
One, these are myths the hebrews picked up and added to their religion.  To try to fit them into modern scientific theories is futile.  Does it really matter if "days" to God are long or short?
These primitive people had no conception of how old the earth really was, no conception of the processes that formed it.  Trying to twist Genesis into real science adds nothing to science and it adds nothing to the religion.  Did God magically poof everything into existance 6000 years ago?  No, the evidence disproves this.  Did God create everything through natural means?  I don't know, but if he did it is beyond science's ability to investigate and so it is irrelevant to science.
Two, using Goddidit as an answer is worthless.
Once you use this excuse, all real investigation ceases.  Knowledge is replaced by dogmatic myths.  Claiming scientific theories backed up by all evidence found to date are wrong because of your intepretation of the bible is worse than worthless, it is anti knowledge.  Evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution explains this fact.  The theory of evolution is the backbone of modern biology.  It is applied in medicine, farming, animal husbandry, industry.  To reject it based on primitive myths is willful ignorance and leads to a new dark age.  That's why I say luke9's claims are worthless.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:15 PM on July 22, 2005 | IP
luke9

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Bombardier Beatle How did that evolve?


-------
luke
 


Posts: 23 | Posted: 11:10 PM on July 22, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What's the problem witht he bombardier beetle evolving?  From here:
BombardierBeetle

"This is an argument from incredulity. It is based in part on an inaccurate description of how the beetle's bombardier mechanism works, but even then the argument rests solely on the lack of even looking for evidence. In fact, an evolutionary pathway that accounts for the bombardier beetle is not hard to come up with (Isaak 1997). One plausible sequence (much abbreviated) is thus:
Insects produce quinones for tanning their cuticle. Quinones make them distasteful, so the insects evolve to produce more of them and to produce other defensive chemicals, including hydroquinones.
The insects evolve depressions for storing quinones and muscles for ejecting them onto their surface when threatened with being eaten. The depression becomes a reservoir with secretory glands supplying hydroquinones into it. This configuration exists in many beetles, including close relatives of bombardier beetles (Forsyth 1970).
Hydrogen peroxide becomes mixed with the hydroquinones. Catalases and peroxidases appear along the output passage of the reservoir, ensuring that more quinones appear in the exuded product.
More catalases and peroxidases are produced, generating oxygen and producing a foamy discharge, as in the bombardier beetle Metrius contractus (Eisner et al. 2000).
As the output passage becomes a hardened reaction chamber, still more catalases and peroxidases are produced, gradually becoming today's bombardier beetles.

All of the steps are small or can be easily broken down into smaller ones, and all are probably selectively advantageous. Several of the intermediate stages are known to be viable by the fact that they exist in other living species.


Bombardier beetles illustrate other aspects of life that look undesigned:
With design, we expect similar forms to be created for similar functions and different forms for different functions (Morris 1974, 70). However, what we see is different forms for similar functions. Many ground beetles have very similar habits and habitats as centipedes, but their forms differ greatly. Different groups of bombardier beetles use very different mechanisms for the same function of aiming their spray (Eisner 1958; Eisner and Aneshansley 1982).
Some forms have no function. Some bombardier beetles have vestigial flight wings (Erwin 1970, 46,55,91,114-115,119).
If bombardier beetles have a purpose, then death is an integral part of it, since the beetles are predators (some, as larvae, are parasitoids, gradually eating pupae of other beetles [Erwin 1967]), and their spray is a defense against other predators. Many creationists claim that death was not part of God's design."

There you go, what's the problem...

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:47 PM on July 22, 2005 | IP
Favardin

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

@Cush: Yes, I believe God created everything. But not in the way the bible describes it, but in the way science does. Religion is there for the why, not for the how.

Still - I don't understand the fact that scientists have to explain their position over and over again towards creationists, but creationists squirm and excuse every illogical thing in their 'science' with 'God wanted it to be this way' when you start asking some questions. I think my questions above won't be answered satisfactorily. Anyone wanna try?
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 08:48 AM on July 23, 2005 | IP
Cush

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Farvadin,

Sounds like I'm on your side.

No debate here.
 


Posts: 13 | Posted: 3:36 PM on July 23, 2005 | IP
Cush

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 10:15 PM on July 22, 2005 :
Cush said:
The intent of the site is to help bridge the Gap between you and luke9...

Funny, I thought the intent of this site was to debate...



Oops, I seemed to have gotten myself stuck between two extremists.  A creationist who doesn't believe or understand basic science, and an Evolutionist who's basic understanding of the Bible seems based on what he's read here in this forum.  My bad.  I'll back out.

 


Posts: 13 | Posted: 3:42 PM on July 23, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Cush said:
Oops, I seemed to have gotten myself stuck between two extremists.  A creationist who doesn't believe or understand basic science, and an Evolutionist who's basic understanding of the Bible seems based on what he's read here in this forum.  My bad.  I'll back out.

My basic understanding of the bible comes from being a Christian for over 30 years and reading the Bible cover to cover numerous times.  I'm no longer a Christian, but I know a thing or two about the Bible.  And it's obvious it's not a book of science.  What makes you think I haven't read the Bible?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:07 PM on July 23, 2005 | IP
rob74696

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon38,

Just out of curiosity, what is the reason you do not consider yourself a christian any longer and what do you consider yourself?




-------
Robert
 


Posts: 41 | Posted: 10:49 AM on July 24, 2005 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 ]
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.