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 & Religion Coexist

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

    
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

true and yet ironic, considering few jews believe the bible word for word, yet we are the only ones who can claim the right to!


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 2:47 PM on October 11, 2002 | IP
tsmith2771

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You know what I am getting at when I say that.


-------
"I have no interest in making blacks equal to whites, they are of a lesser quality and this I am sure of." -Abraham Lincoln
"You don't win a war by dying for your country, you win a war by making the other person die for theirs." -General George Patton
 


Posts: 372 | Posted: 5:37 PM on October 11, 2002 | IP
thistownwilleatu

|       |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sorry this is so late Xenjael, but it does mention dinosaurs in the bible; "...and the reptile beasts shook the earth" or something along those lines, I'll find the exact verse and get back to you.


-------
"The greatest evil is not done in those sordid dens of evil that Dickens loved to paint ... but is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried and minuted) in clear, carpeted, warmed, well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices." - Thomas Merton

"I thank my God for every remembrance of you." - Paul
 


Posts: 341 | Posted: 11:09 PM on October 11, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It is quite closed-minded to completely shut out the idea of a coexisting relationship between religion and evolution.  Is it really so hard to believe that God created man through processes of evolution.  Wouldn't it be limiting the Almighty by closing oneself off to that possibility.  Many Christians say that evolution is impossible because God created man in His own image, but wait a minute...what exactly is God's image?  The only man who has ever seen the face of God was Moses and he was blinded by the brilliance, correct?  I'm not saying that God looks like a monkey.  I'm not saying that God looks like a man.  In the most probable case God has no definite form.  The key word in the verse mentioning man made in God's image is the word image itself.  What is image anyway?  I do not think it a physical appearance but more of a mental picture.  If God created us in His image we would be perfect, and we are not.  Now, as far as the time period is concerned, there could have been ample amount of time for evolution to occur.  The Bible says that God created the earth and everything in it and on it in 7 days.  Seven days in God's time could have been a couple of trillion years to us.  I personally think that the tag of 7 days was given to the creation period so that the feeble minds of mankind might be able to understand it, because it is impossible to comprehend seven days out of eternity.  I agree with dsa devil that the Bible often uses extended metaphor.  It has to or the mind of man coundn't relate to the plan of omniscient God.

Many believers of evolution consider Christians closed-minded because they shut themselves off to the theory of evolution.  Could not some evolutionists be called closed-minded for shutting themselves off from belief in God?  To quote Albert Einstein "Science without religion is blind.  Religion without science is lame."  What makes it so hard to comprehend that two theories cannot coexist.  If you get down to it, the two theories don't really contradict each other that much.  Darwin just ended up with a bad wrap among Christians.  I may be mistaken and if I am please correct me, but I don't think Darwin was saying there was no God.  He was just posing a theory of how modern creatures came to be the way they are.  And once again if I am mistaken, correct me, but I heard somewhere that Darwin was actually a Christian.  

I think it closed-minded, unwise, and almosted bigoted to say that creationism and evolution cannot coexist.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 11:28 PM on October 11, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It is quite closed-minded to completely shut out the idea of a coexisting relationship between religion and evolution.  Is it really so hard to believe that God created man through processes of evolution.  Wouldn't it be limiting the Almighty by closing oneself off to that possibility.  Many Christians say that evolution is impossible because God created man in His own image, but wait a minute...what exactly is God's image?  The only man who has ever seen the face of God was Moses and he was blinded by the brilliance, correct?  I'm not saying that God looks like a monkey.  I'm not saying that God looks like a man.  In the most probable case God has no definite form.  The key word in the verse mentioning man made in God's image is the word image itself.  What is image anyway?  I do not think it a physical appearance but more of a mental picture.  If God created us in His image we would be perfect, and we are not.  Now, as far as the time period is concerned, there could have been ample amount of time for evolution to occur.  The Bible says that God created the earth and everything in it and on it in 7 days.  Seven days in God's time could have been a couple of trillion years to us.  I personally think that the tag of 7 days was given to the creation period so that the feeble minds of mankind might be able to understand it, because it is impossible to comprehend seven days out of eternity.  I agree with dsa devil that the Bible often uses extended metaphor.  It has to or the mind of man coundn't relate to the plan of omniscient God.

Many believers of evolution consider Christians closed-minded because they shut themselves off to the theory of evolution.  Could not some evolutionists be called closed-minded for shutting themselves off from belief in God?  To quote Albert Einstein "Science without religion is blind.  Religion without science is lame."  What makes it so hard to comprehend that two theories cannot coexist.  If you get down to it, the two theories don't really contradict each other that much.  Darwin just ended up with a bad wrap among Christians.  I may be mistaken and if I am please correct me, but I don't think Darwin was saying there was no God.  He was just posing a theory of how modern creatures came to be the way they are.  And once again if I am mistaken, correct me, but I heard somewhere that Darwin was actually a Christian.  

I think it closed-minded, unwise, and almosted bigoted to say that creationism and evolution cannot coexist.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 11:29 PM on October 11, 2002 | IP
Sakata

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

To correct you, no, Darwin was not a Christian.


-------
No time for mediocrity.

People call me a Bible-Thumping reactionist ...and I'm proud to bear the name.
 


Posts: 293 | Posted: 5:20 PM on October 13, 2002 | IP
kc2gwx

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hello everyone.

Evolution and religion can not exist with eachother. The reason that death entered into this world was because of Adam and Eve's sin. The penalty for sin is death. Jesus died on the cross to save us from sin. But if, for millions of years before, death had been a natural part of the earth, this negates Jesus's reason for coming to earth to save us from death.

Sam, KC2GWX


-------
Sam, KC2GWX
 


Posts: 101 | Posted: 10:26 AM on October 17, 2002 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

sounds like more of an argument against jesus as the messiah than evolution to me.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 3:52 PM on October 17, 2002 | IP
Sakata

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No, he makes a good point, Jesus came and died for mans souls, not physical bodies, so did the half human apes not have soals? where they just animals one day and the next get a soal?  Nice post Sam! I am looking forward to seeing where this debate goes...


-------
No time for mediocrity.

People call me a Bible-Thumping reactionist ...and I'm proud to bear the name.
 


Posts: 293 | Posted: 7:53 PM on October 17, 2002 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

he doesn't make a good point. Sakata, you say you want to be a debater, well as an experienced one let me give you some advice. Arguments have to persuade their targets. A new testament inspired argument is unlikely to persuade a jew or an agnostic (like Alexander). Give me something applicable to me.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 8:08 PM on October 17, 2002 | IP
Sakata

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

what would an agnostic have to do with a whether religion and evolution could co-exsist? This elminates any possiblity that any religion that believes in the new testiment could co-exsist with evolution.

And I had a question for you on another thing Dsa, you said that you though Jesus was a great rabbi or something like that, how could he be great if he went around claming to be the son of God? wouldnt that blasphomy?


-------
No time for mediocrity.

People call me a Bible-Thumping reactionist ...and I'm proud to bear the name.
 


Posts: 293 | Posted: 8:25 PM on October 17, 2002 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't know about that, but all I know is that if you ask a reasonably well informed Jew about the teachings of Jesus, they will say the teachings were good (hence how he got all his followers). The area of dispute is that we don't think his brilliance makes him divine. But that doesn't make him any less brilliant.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 11:23 PM on October 17, 2002 | IP
Sakata

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Do you think if a Rabbi today went around saying that he was the messiah and son of God he would still keep his crediblity as a good teacher amoung the Jews?


-------
No time for mediocrity.

People call me a Bible-Thumping reactionist ...and I'm proud to bear the name.
 


Posts: 293 | Posted: 12:23 AM on October 18, 2002 | IP
thistownwilleatu

|       |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I agree so stop.


-------
"The greatest evil is not done in those sordid dens of evil that Dickens loved to paint ... but is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried and minuted) in clear, carpeted, warmed, well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices." - Thomas Merton

"I thank my God for every remembrance of you." - Paul
 


Posts: 341 | Posted: 12:25 AM on October 18, 2002 | IP
Sakata

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ah, thistown, I was wondering when you would show up, I am curious to hear what you think about what kc2g guy said.


-------
No time for mediocrity.

People call me a Bible-Thumping reactionist ...and I'm proud to bear the name.
 


Posts: 293 | Posted: 12:31 AM on October 18, 2002 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Actually, there is one who has that lofty status. A local Hasadic Rabbi, who was a phenomonal talmudic scholar, I think his name was Rabbi Schneerson (or something to that effect), is believed by many of his followers to be the messiah. I personally disagree, but that doesn't mean I don't respect his teachings.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 1:07 PM on October 18, 2002 | IP
Sakata

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Who where you replying to whenh you said I agree so stop thistown, I am really interested to hear what you have to say about the fact that guy brought up, considering you are christain and believe in evolution and all.


-------
No time for mediocrity.

People call me a Bible-Thumping reactionist ...and I'm proud to bear the name.
 


Posts: 293 | Posted: 7:20 PM on October 18, 2002 | IP
thistownwilleatu

|       |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm about to do something never before done in this board....I don't know.  But i will think about it and get back to you.


-------
"The greatest evil is not done in those sordid dens of evil that Dickens loved to paint ... but is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried and minuted) in clear, carpeted, warmed, well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices." - Thomas Merton

"I thank my God for every remembrance of you." - Paul
 


Posts: 341 | Posted: 9:26 PM on October 18, 2002 | IP
Sakata

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

*still waits*


-------
No time for mediocrity.

People call me a Bible-Thumping reactionist ...and I'm proud to bear the name.
 


Posts: 293 | Posted: 11:57 PM on November 1, 2002 | IP
hooyah

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

All the argueing, all the debates!
Does anyone ever really change their mind and say, "Oh yeah, I was wrong all the time and you were right!"  -nope.

Creation or Evolution?  Personally, I don't think that science goes against creationism; Scientists are just people who "discover" how God did it!
Did evolution take place? I think there's too much evidence to back it up to say no.
Does it go against Genesis? That goes back to the question: Does 1 day then = 1 day now?
If it does, then evolution is crap.
If not, then it is possible.


-------
A just government has nothing to fear from an armed citizenry!
 


Posts: 110 | Posted: 02:15 AM on November 27, 2002 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

its about time that someone agrees with me


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 12:20 PM on November 27, 2002 | IP
AlexanderTheGreat

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

hooyah:
"Does it go against Genesis? That goes back to the question: Does 1 day then = 1 day now?
If it does, then evolution is crap.
If not, then it is possible."

Huh? how does that work? if evolution agrees with Bible, it is right. if it disagrees, it is wrong. Again, huh??  I don't understand how you could think that way: that science cannot be telling any truth the Bible hasn't already said. How can u even talk seriously about science then, if you are rejecting the very principles of the scientifc method? science is about exploring new ideas, not about bolstering the credibility of old ones.


-------
Alex
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 04:30 AM on November 28, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't believe the bible can be used to prove or disprove anything about science or nature.  The bible does not reveal a single fact about nature or science that wasn't commonly known at the time of its writing.  If only it had revealed the atomic structure of matter, or the inverse square law, or the existence of bacteria, or even at least the heliocentric solar system; then the bible could possibly be taken as a source for scientific information.  But since it did not reveal anything scientific, how can it be used to prove or disprove anything scientific or anything in nature.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 04:53 AM on November 28, 2002 | IP
hooyah

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think you've misunderstood what I meant.

I didn't say that:
"If evolution goes against Genesis, then it is crap."
I said that if what is described in Genesis as 1 day is the same as our present description of 1 day, then evolution is crap.  There would not have been enough time for evolution to take place....yadayada...you know the drill.

By the same token I could have said that if 1 day then=1 day now (and assuming that I totally believe in evolution), then the Bible must be a lie.

I wasn't trying to use the Bible to prove or disprove anything.

I totally believe the 2 can co-exist, again, assuming that a Genesis day is much, much longer than our present day.


-------
A just government has nothing to fear from an armed citizenry!
 


Posts: 110 | Posted: 12:28 AM on December 3, 2002 | IP
madbilly

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

every argument here has already been said at least one time....you are all beating a dead horse...


-------
my name is madbilly....what did you expect me to be happy when my name says Mad in it...
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 01:38 AM on December 3, 2002 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i agree. this argument is pointless because nobody's gonna change anyone's mind about a subject as controversial as this one.


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 10:42 AM on December 3, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If you believe there is no use in arguing why do you even read this thread or post on this thread?  If you think it's pointless or beating a dead horse quit posting on this thread.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 3:54 PM on December 3, 2002 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ok mr no-name


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 7:50 PM on December 3, 2002 | IP
Sakata

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I found this from a letter in the newspaper recently, I thought it interesting:

"...Man was created, he did'nt evolve over thousands of years.  I Corinthians 15:39 states, 'There is one kind of flesh of man, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, another of birds.'  Is there any question as to which flesh you came from?  I believe God made me; he has all the answers, not man."
                                   -Faith E. Barnhart


(Edited by Sakata 12/4/2002 at 12:48 AM).


-------
No time for mediocrity.

People call me a Bible-Thumping reactionist ...and I'm proud to bear the name.
 


Posts: 293 | Posted: 12:47 AM on December 4, 2002 | IP
hooyah

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Beating a dead horse?
Yeah, you're probably right, as long as you're talking about everyone's clashing "opinions."

But until our technology improves to the point to where we can "really" know for sure what the "truth" is, it's all just a matter of opinion vs. opinion.

I can say that I am glad to see the growing number of "Creation Scientists", because they're not trying to disprove the existence of God, they're just trying to discover how He did it.

As you should be able to tell from my posts, I haven't really taken a side for neither "science" nor "Bible".  I find both to be interesting, but what I'm really interested in is the TRUTH.  The trouble is that we're not technologically advanced enough to, in the words of Jack Nicholson, "Handle the truth!"


-------
A just government has nothing to fear from an armed citizenry!
 


Posts: 110 | Posted: 02:01 AM on December 4, 2002 | IP
Cool-Hand-Dave

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

sakata, that quote has no weight with anyone who does not believe the same as you.  i know alex and beavis (hope you two mind me using you as examples) don't.  Corinthians means nothing to them even if you think it should.  neither evolution nor creation is fool-proof.  both have flaws and those flaws will picked at until the day the world ends.  But Sakata, you can't really use biblical references as fact unless you're using it to say that the hebrews fought against the philistines or some historical, non-religious fact like that.

(Edited by Cool-Hand-Dave 12/5/2002 at 3:40 PM).


-------
Cool Hand Dave
 


Posts: 134 | Posted: 3:33 PM on December 5, 2002 | IP
Bograt

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How about this: try to prove creationism with science, and prove evolution with the bible. There are enough "unknowns" in "modern" science to at least allow the thought of some divine infuence. For the flip side as it has already been stated: how long were the "days " of creation?SECURITY ALERT: null


-------
Damn you Murphy!
 


Posts: 134 | Posted: 5:14 PM on December 5, 2002 | IP
Sakata

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Dave, This is a religion and evoluion <b> coexist </b> debate, and since the majority of religous people in the US believe in the bible, finding evidence that the two cannot coexist would change a lot of peoples minds... like thistown maybe?  Alex and bevis dont believe in the bible? Thats fine! then my post obveously doesnt apply to them does it?  You cant go into a debate on say a seeming bible contradiction and say its pointless because you dont believe in the bible.

(Edited by Sakata 12/5/2002 at 6:04 PM).


-------
No time for mediocrity.

People call me a Bible-Thumping reactionist ...and I'm proud to bear the name.
 


Posts: 293 | Posted: 6:02 PM on December 5, 2002 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

me and dave both know thistown personally and his faith is very strong. you dont hafta worry bout him losing his faith


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 7:08 PM on December 5, 2002 | IP
Cool-Hand-Dave

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

sakata that post didn't make much sense.  please clarify a little more


-------
Cool Hand Dave
 


Posts: 134 | Posted: 9:31 PM on December 5, 2002 | IP
hooyah

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I guess I should say, for the record, that I do believe in God...if I haven't already.

Bograt, yes there are a lot of unknowns.
Ironically, one of the things that almost "force" me to believe in God is that there are so many "unknowns."

I think another thing to consider is this:
It would be a lot easier to disprove science, than it would be to disprove the existence of God!


-------
A just government has nothing to fear from an armed citizenry!
 


Posts: 110 | Posted: 6:01 PM on December 6, 2002 | IP
Sakata

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Im not worried about thistown lossing his faith, just his belif that evolution is compatable with religon which he seems rather stumped on.

Ok Dave, I will try to explain this a little better... Say two christains are debating a point about the bible, if an atheist came up and said, "no, your both wrong the bible is fake" or whatever, it wouldnt really be much point to their conversation would it?

We are not here (this thread) to debate whether evolution or creation has flaws, but if the two can co-exsist.  Basiclly, it is logical for a christain who believes in the bible, also to believe in evolution.  My post was basicly the bible saying, no, people and animals are very seperate, therefore evolution is a lie accoriding to the bible.  So, evolution and religon cannot co-exsist.


-------
No time for mediocrity.

People call me a Bible-Thumping reactionist ...and I'm proud to bear the name.
 


Posts: 293 | Posted: 7:51 PM on December 6, 2002 | IP
Bograt

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Or perhaps God put some proof of evolution, and some of proof of creation to see who would be blindly faithful to him, who would look at the proof avalible to him/her and choose to follow God and who would flat out say "screw religion, science will explain everything".  


-------
Damn you Murphy!
 


Posts: 134 | Posted: 10:55 PM on December 6, 2002 | IP
hooyah

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What proof is there of Creation?
-with the exception of the Bible.

There is much more "proof" of evolution.
But, still, there are so many unexplained questions out there that one has to consider Creation as being true.

Consider this:
The Bible only says that "God created man."
It doesn't say HOW he did it; perhaps the way that He created man was through EVOLUTION.

There are many things that God says He created, but the people at the time the Bible was written, could not have possibly understood any of it.  So He just simply said the He created it, and didn't say How.

Scientists today have a pretty good idea of how stars (our sun) are born.  God has a very good idea of how it was created, but again, in the Bible Days, people could not have understood it.

On the same not, scientists have a pretty good idea of how evolution took place.  God knows exactly how it happened.


-------
A just government has nothing to fear from an armed citizenry!
 


Posts: 110 | Posted: 8:23 PM on December 7, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

 BUT, BUT, EVOLUTION CAN ACCOUNT FOR LIFE, RIGHT?!
>
>    IF YOU WERE OVER AT MY HOUSE, AND SUDDENLY YOU HEARD A BIG THUMP FROM
THE
> ROOM BEHIND US, AND I TOLD YOU IT WASN'T ANYTHING, YOU WOULDN'T BELIEVE ME
> WOULD YOU? NO, BECAUSE YOU KNOW THAT THEIR HAS TO BE SOMETHING THAT MADE
> THAT NOISE. YOU WOULD HAVE TO THROW AWAY ANY REASON YOU HAVE INSTINCTIVELY
> TO BELIEVE EVOLUTION'S DELERIOUS LIE. THE EARTH HAD A CREATOR JUST AS THE
> BOOK FALLING OFF THE SHELF MADE THE NOISE.
>
>                          THE FIRST STEP
>
>    MANY PEOPLE FORGET THAT DARWIN PROPOSED THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IN THE
> EIGHTEEN HUNDREDS, THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT TO KEEP IN MIND. SIENCE WAS
STILL
> VERY UN-INFORMED COMPARED TO TODAY, THEY STILL THOUGHT TO WASH YOUR HANDS
IN
> A BUCKET OF WATER (NOT RUNNING WATER), AND THE SCIENTIFIC TECHNOLOGY WAS
> ONLY AMATURE COMPARED TO TODAY'S. DARWIN HAD NO IDEA HOW COMPLEX THE
LIVING
> CELL WAS. IN FACT SCIENTISTS TODAY HAVE SPENT THEIR WHOLE LIVES MAPING OUT
A
> CELL'S STRUCTURE, STILL ADMITTING TO ONLY PARTIAL COMPLETION. DARWIN WROTE
> DOWN SOME BRAINSTORMING IN 1871, PART OF IT SAYS,"...BUT IF WE COULD
> CONCIEVE SOME WARM LITTLE POND, WITH ALL SORTS OF AMMONIA AND PHOSPHORIC
> SALTS, LIGHT, HEAT...". THIS STATEMENT WAS IN REGARDS TO THE FIRST LIVING
> PROTIEN COMPOUNDS BEING FORMED. I AM STUPIFIED BY THE OVERWHELMING
> ASSUMPTIONS THESE SCIENTISTS MAKE, THEIR IMAGINATION NEEDS TO BE
CONTAINED!
> UNDER ANY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES HE NAMES, IT IS STILL UNCONCIEVABLE THAT
LIFE
> JUST FORMED. WITH ALL OUR TECHNOLOGY WE STILL CANNOT SUCCESFULLY, UNDER
ANY
> CIRCUMSTANCES, CREATE THE SIMPLE EVIDENCE TO BACK UP THESE ABSURD
> ASSUMPTIONS. YET WE HAVE PEOPLE FROM TIME MAGIZINE SAYING,"DARWIN MURDERED
> GOD". THIS IS ESPECIALLY A FOOLISH STATEMENT BECAUSE SCIENCE HAS
UNDENIABLY
> SUPPORTED THE TRUTH OF THE GOD I SERVE. WHICH I WILL SHOW YOU LATER. IN
1980
> SCIENTISTS HAVE PROVED THAT THE EARTH COULDN'T HAVE STARTED UNDER THE
> CIRCUMSTANCES THAT HAD BEEN FAULTY TO AN EXTREME MEASURE ANYWAY. IN ANY
> CASE, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN: WATER, CARBON DIOXIDE, AND NITROGEN, AS OPPOSED
> TO; METHANE, AMMONIA, OR HYDROGEN. SO EVEN THOUGH THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE
> EVOLUTIONSTS DREAMED UP WERE ALREADY WAY OFF FROM CREATING THE NECESSARY
> INGREDIENTS, THEY NOW HAVE, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, LESS SILLY, FOOLISH
SPACE
> TO CONCLUDE THEIR NONSENCE FROM. I MUST SAY, THE ONLY THING I SEE EVOLVING
> IS THEIR RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT. CASE DISMISSED.
>
>                       MAYBE YOUR A MONKEY?!
>
>     I'LL TELL YOU ONE THING, A MONKEY COULD NEVER EVOLVE INTO SOMETHING AS
> GOOD-LOOKING AS ME! ALLTHOUGH SCIENCE CAN'T EVEN BEGIN TO GET THIS FAR, I
> WILL STILL SAY A LITTLE SOMETHING. NOW I KNOW THEIR IS ROOM FOR WHAT THE
> BIBLE CALLS "KIND" TO EXPAND WITHIN THE GOD GIVEN BOUNDERIES, BUT
THE "KIND"
> IDENTITY WILL NEVER BE MOVED. IN THAT EVOLUTIONISTS STRUGGLE TO MAKE A
CASE,
> UNLESS THEY ARE NOT PROPERLY OPPOSED BY THE TRUTH. ANY ONE CAN WIN A ONE
> SIDED ARGUEMENT, BUT TRUTH IS EVIDENT IN CHRIST JESUS. DARWIN SAID THAT
THE
> LACK OF FOSSILS CONNECTING AN APE TO MY MOTHER WAS, AND I
QUOTE,"...PERHAPS
> THE MOST OBVIOUS AND SERIOUS OBJECTION."  HE ALSO WAS CONFIDENT THAT THE
> FOSSILS WOULD COME UP, SO HE SAID. ABOUT A HUNDRED YEARS LATER DAVID M.
> RAUP, FROM THE FIELD MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY IN CHICAGO, SAID AS FOLLOWS
>       "WE ARE NOW ABOUT ONE HUNDRED YEARS AFTER DARWIN AND THE KNOWLEDGE
OF
> THE FOSSIL RECORD HAS BEEN GREATLY EXPANDED. WE NOW HAVE A QUARTER OF A
> MILLION FOSSIL SPECIES, BUT THE SITUATION HASN'T CHANGED MUCH.... WE HAVE
> EVEN FEWER EXAMPLES OF EVOLUTIONARY TRANSITION THAN WE HAD IN DARWIN'S
> TIME."
>     IN FACT OUR OLDEST FOSSILS ARE SHOWING FULLY DEVELOPED CREATURES, WITH
> NO ROOM FOR EVOLUTIONS NONSENSE. WE CAN ASSEMBLE DINOSAURS, AND MANY OTHER
> ANCIENT ANIMALS, AND WE WOULD UNDOUBTABLY HAVE FOUND THESE FOSSILS BY NOW.
> THE ODDS OF NOT FINDING ONE OF THOSE MYSTERIOUS FOSSILS IS ABSOLUTELY AND
> COMPLETELY IMPROBABLE. IF ONE SHOWS UP I WOULD PROBOBLY CONCLUDE MEN HAVE
> BEEN DRIVEN INSANE IN AN ATTEMPT TO DIS-PROVE GOD, AND HAD TO FAKE ONE.
> ALMOST LIKE THE TOWER OF BABEL IN GENESIS, MAN DROVE HIMSELF INSANE IN AN
> ATTEPT TO PUT US IN GOD'S PLACE, OR PROVE THAT WE CAN DO ANYTHING WITHOUT
> GOD. OF COURSE THAT IS ONLY TOLERATED FOR A LIMITED TIME, AND GOD SPARES
> THOSE WHO LOVE HIM FROM THE WICKEDNESS AROUND THEM. AGIAN, EVOLUTION HAS
> BEEN DISPROVED BY THE VERY SIENCE IT CLAIMED TO BE BASED ON, FLIMSY,
SUTTLE,
> IMPULSIVE, ASSUMPTIONS. ALL THE WHILE GOD IS STILL ALL POWERFUL, AND
> UN-CHANGED, WAITING FOR AS MANY AS ARE WILLING TO ACCEPT HIS SOVERIENTY,
AND
> SAVE US FROM OURSELVES, FOR THROUGH CHRIST WE ARE SEEN AS PERFECT.
>
>        "FOR VERILY I SAY UNTO YOU, TILL HEAVEN AND EARTH PASS, ONE JOT OR
> ONE TITTLE SHALL IN NO WISE PASS FROM THE LAW, TILL ALL BE
FULFILLED.        
>             -JESUS CHRIST
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 2:30 PM on December 9, 2002 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i cant really comment on that post because i'm too lazy to read it all


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 3:10 PM on December 9, 2002 | IP
hooyah

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

GUEST!

FIRST OF ALL I WOULD SUGGEST PUSHING THE "CAPS LOCK" BUTTON ON YOUR KEYBOARD.

IT MAKES EVERYTING YOU SAY SEEM AS IF YOU'RE SHOUTING... AND THUS A BUNCH OF RAMBLING!

Second: (ah that's better)
I would have to wonder how old the science books are that you're reading.

The truth is that the evidence linking the major groups of organisms together is overwhelming.
We have fossils that trace the transition between whales and hoofed mammals, between reptiles and mammals, between dinosaurs and birds, between apes and humans...

Again, I believe evolution and creation can co-exist...That's HOW God did it.


-------
A just government has nothing to fear from an armed citizenry!
 


Posts: 110 | Posted: 5:26 PM on December 9, 2002 | IP
Pie

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Until we find the hundreds of "missing links" out there, I am in severe doubt abour evolution.
As I said in a previous post...Darwin is Dead!


-------
A Mac is to a PC is what a Lamborghini is to a Honda Civic.
 


Posts: 202 | Posted: 8:44 PM on December 9, 2002 | IP
hooyah

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What kind of ''missing links'' do you want to see.  I just mentioned above that we have found lots of missing links, and finding more all the time.

What do you want to see: A dog with feathers? A horse with gills? An alligator with chloroplasts? A monkey with a human head?

Well I'm sorry...but that's not the way evolution happens.  Evolution happens SLOWLY over millions of years....Finding every single step along the way would be nearly impossible....Every organism that dies does not necessarily leave a fossil.  It happens seldom.  That's why there are so many "missing links."

Granted, it's easy for me to accept evolution because I know plenty about it.  I would suggest getting all the facts about evolution before you try to debate against it.


-------
A just government has nothing to fear from an armed citizenry!
 


Posts: 110 | Posted: 12:32 AM on December 10, 2002 | IP
Pie

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ah, what the hell....


"Chapter 3 - Life From Chemicals: Theory and Improbability
1. Many scientists seem quite sure that in the atmosphere and oceans of the early earth large quantities of life's building-block molecules, such as amino acids, were formed and accumulated. Is this a reasonable theory?
Answer: This theory is purely a set of guesses which cannot be proved to be true. There are many difficulties with this idea.

a. The oxygen-ultraviolet dilemma
The assumed primeval atmosphere can contain no oxygen, for oxygen eats up amino acids. But without oxygen there could be no ozone layer high in the atmosphere. The ozone layer in our present atmosphere stops the sun's ultraviolet rays which would destroy amino acids and others of life's building block molecules.
So here are the horns of the oxygen-ultraviolet dilemma: (1) oxygen present ¾ amino acids destroyed by oxygen, and (2) oxygen absent ¾ amino acids destroyed by ultraviolet light. To get around this difficulty more assumptions are made. Perhaps amino acids were protected in bottom waters of shallow lakes, or the ocean surface may have been covered by a layer of tar-like chemicals which stopped ultraviolet light. Or amino acids and other vulnerable chemicals may have found caves or other hiding places in which to lurk while waiting to be evolved into the first living cells. Thus the theory becomes a web of unprovable assumptions.1
b. Oxygen-free atmosphere only an assumption.
The presence on the early earth of a reducing (no oxygen present) atmosphere containing methane, ammonia and other reducing gases is only an assumption required to make the theory work. There is no conclusive evidence to justify the assumption, and there is considerable geological evidence that the atmosphere has always contained a substantial amount of oxygen.2 Some of the other planets, notably Jupiter and Saturn, have reducing atmospheres, but Mars, the most earth-like planet, has a very thin oxidizing atmosphere. Evidence against an early reducing atmosphere on earth has been accumulating.3
c. The destructive effects of sunlight
The sun's ultraviolet light breaks down water molecules to release free oxygen at such a rate that the ancient atmosphere could not be free of oxygen for long.4 Ammonia also is decomposed by ultraviolet light and would soon drop to a concentration too low to participate in a chemical beginning of life.5 Methane gas in the atmosphere would rapidly be converted by the sun's ultraviolet light into heavier hydrocarbons.6
d. The ocean of "organic soup" is highly problematic.
Most of the basic building block molecules of life have been synthesized by chemists under conditions similar to those assumed for the ancient earth. This includes 19 of the 20 amino acids needed for proteins and the five bases and the several sugars used in the genetic code DNA and RNA molecules. However, it appears to be quite certain that they never could have accumulated sufficiently in the oceans to take part in the origin of life. The following are some of the difficulties:7
(1) Some of the molecules that might form in the upper atmosphere would be largely destroyed by sunlight before they settled to the ocean.
(2) Along with the 20 amino acids of interest a much larger number of amino acids would be formed which have no part in living systems. By becoming incorporated into any chains of amino acids formed in the organic soup, these would prevent the assumed production of the amino acid chains called proteins that ate needed for living cells.
(3) Many of the building block molecules are too unstable and would decompose rather rapidly in the ocean.
(4) The amino acids, sugars and other chemicals such as hydrocyanic acid which supposedly collected in the ocean would be used up rapidly in reactions of no value for beginning life.
(5) Phosphate which is essential for life would be precipitated from the ocean by plentiful calcium and magnesium ions.
(6) Lipid (fatty acid) molecules are essential to forming living cells. But any lipids in the oceans would be rapidly precipitated out by calcium and magnesium ions (i.e., by the "hard water reaction").

2. Could amino acids have linked together by chance to form long-chain protein molecules, and
could nucleotides have combined accidentally to form the long-chain DNA and RNA molecules?
Answer: The tendency (because of the entropy effect - See Chapter 4-1) is for the protein and DNA chains not to form, but to be broken up, hydrolyzed by the abundant water in aqueous solutions.8 Nevertheless, chemists have discovered several types of reactions by which small protein-like molecules might be produced spontaneously under certain very special conditions.9 However, that these unlikely conditions ever existed on the earth is only an optimistic assumption. But even if protein-like molecules were actually to form by such random processes, the probability is vanishingly small that the right ones to start life would ever form. For a calculation of this improbability see the next question.
3. Admittedly the chance chemical beginning of life was a very improbable event. But wasn't there enough time for it to happen anyway?
Answer: Even with trillions of years there would not be enough time to make it probable that chance chemical reactions could form even the simplest living organism.
The argument that sufficient time makes anything possible or even probable sounds plausible only if it is not analyzed carefully. It starts with the admission that, since even the simplest living organisms are exceedingly complicated, the beginning of life by accidental chemical reactions is very improbable. The probability is very, very low that just the right molecules would form, come together, and spontaneously fit together to start life. But if a very unlikely thing is tried many times, the probability increases that success will finally be achieved. If there is enough time to make a large enough number of tries, the mathematical probability that it will finally occur becomes almost certainty.
Mathematically, this argument is correct. But to see if the mathematical theory really proves that life could have started accidentally, it is necessary to apply the theory to a reasonable model of the real world. We do this in some detail in our book, The Creation Explanation.10 We begin with very generous assumptions about the beginning of life. Then, we assume that for a billion years the surface of the earth was covered each year with a fresh layer one foot deep of protein molecules. This would be 260 trillion tons each year, a fantastic number of molecules. Yet, at the end of the billion years, the probability that just one protein molecule required to start life had been formed is only one chance in about 100 billion. This means that it is really mathematically impossible for life to start by accident, even if the beginning would require only a single suitable enzyme molecule. Dr. H.P. Yockey made a similar but much more thorough calculation based on the information content of the cytochrome c molecule and obtained a probability 100,000 times smaller than ours.11
Some workers have claimed evidence that certain origin-of-life experiments have produced chains of amino acids which were non-random in order. Supposedly certain sequences of amino acids tend to form, and reportedly these sequences are similar to those found in true proteins.12 On the other hand, Miller and Orgel challenge such claims and say, "There is no evidence to show whether the amino acids within a chain are highly ordered or not."13
In any event it is quite certain that life could not start with a single protein molecule. It has been estimated by Harold Morowitz that the simplest possible living cell would require not just one, but at least 124 different proteins to carry out necessary life functions.14 Writing in his book, Energy Flow in Biology, Prof. Morowitz also estimates the probability for the chance formation of the smallest, simplest form of living organism known today.15 He comes up with the unimaginably small probability of one chance in 10340,000,000. This means one chance in the number one followed by 340 million zeros. This is about the same as the probability of tossing a coin 1,129,000,000 times and getting all heads! Nevertheless, thousands of other capable scientists believe that life happened on earth by accident. But must you and I accept their unreasonable faith in materialism? Is not the biblical faith in the all-powerful, all-knowing, infinite-personal Creator the more reasonable, the better faith?

4. Could the genetic code have originated by chance?
Answer: Scientists who believe it did happen, and there are many of them, have failed to find a plausible explanation of how the genetic code could have arisen spontaneously.
The genetic code is the code by which the long DNA chain molecules carry the instructions for arranging the amino acids in the proper order along the long chains called protein molecules. Four different link-molecules called nucleotides make up the DNA chain. These are referred to by their abbreviations, A, C, G, and T. A group of any three of these "code letter molecules" in a DNA chain is called a "codon." There are 4x4x4 = 64 of these codons. Two of the codons are "stop" signals. The other 62 codons are code words for the 20 amino acids that make up the protein chains in living cells. For example, the DNA codon, CTA, is the code word for the amino acid leucine.
A gene consists of a long chain of the DNA three-letter code words corresponding to a long chain of the twenty different amino acids to be linked together to form a particular protein molecule. How is the meaning of the code message translated into the protein molecule? It is a very complex process. The DNA code message or gene is transcribed into a similar code message on a messenger RNA (m-RNA) molecule. The message on the m-RNA molecule is read and executed by a ribosome. A ribosome is a very complex structure made of some 55 different protein molecules and a roughly equal weight of long RNA molecules. Each kind of amino acid molecule is recognized by special protein molecules that attach it to a transport RNA (t-RNA) molecule. Each type of amino acid is attached to its own special type of t-RNA molecule which carries the anti-codon corresponding to the amino acid. The anti-codon is attracted to its corresponding codon on the m-RNA molecule. The ribosome then moves along the m-RNA molecule and connects the amino acid to the end of a growing protein chain according to the code message in the m-RNA molecule. All of these many steps are made possible by the assistance of various protein molecules that are enzymes that catalyze the necessary chemical reactions. A protein chain grows at the rate of 20 to 40 amino acid residues per second, and with high accuracy in accord with the coded message in the m-RNA molecule to which the information was transcribed from the DNA gene.Miller and Orgel admit in their very honest book, "We clearly do not understand how the code originated. New ideas that can be tested experimentally are needed."16

5. Could not life have started with very simple cells?
Answer: The simplest organism that is theoretically capable of existing and reproducing would actually not be simple at all.
To get the simplest possible living cell operating would require at least the following functioning, coordinated elements and conditions: (1) 126 different complex protein molecules, (2) long-chain DNA RNA and molecules to store and transmit information, (3) six or eight different nucleotide molecules, (4) various lipid (fat) molecules, (5) sugar molecules, (6) at least twenty different amino acid molecules, (7) chemical machinery to assemble the large complex protein, RNA and DNA molecules from the building block molecules, (8) a very accurate, information transmission and translation system like that described above, (9) efficient error correcting systems to correct errors(mutations) that occur when DNA is copied during cell division,(10) chemical machinery to capture energy from outside the cell and use it inside, (11) a cell membrane to hold the parts together and separate the inside from the outside, (12) while allowing the right substances to pass into and out of the cell, (13) suitable supplies of phosphorous, calcium, sodium, potassium and other inorganic elements, (14) and chemical and physical conditions suitable for the accumulation and proper chemical combination and structural arrangements of all of these parts.
Is it not amazing that so many scientists have faith so strong as to believe that all of this complexity and interlinked processes arose without any Designer, plan, or purpose?

6. Have not four decades of intensive research brought scientist close to explaining life's origin?
Answer: No, between any chemical compounds or reactions imagined for the beginning of life, and the fact of living organisms, there still exists a huge barrier or gap of ignorance.
Scientific American for February, 1991, carried a ten-page survey article by staff writer John Horgan. His review of forty years of research and interviews with the current leaders showed that the principal problems we have mentioned in this chapter are still unsolved.17 In the final paragraph Prof. Stanley Miller of the University of California at San Diego is quoted admitting the failure of the enterprise to date. "I think we just haven't learned the right tricks yet. ...When we find the answer, it will probably be so d----d simple that we'll all say, 'Why didn't I think of that before?'"

7. Does the recent "RNA World" theory bring researchers closer to the origin of life?
Answer: The RNA research has led to important discoveries, but RNA has still not been able to replicate itself without the involvement of protein molecules.
The central element of RNA World research is the ability of some RNA molecules to act as enzymes. Some short RNA chains can promote the assembly of their complementary chains. In a complementary chain A is replaced with T and G with A, and vice versa. In Scientific American for October, 1994, Prof. Leslie E. Orgel of the Salk Institute, explains that years of effort have failed to get the next crucial step to take place without the help of protein molecules.18 This is the step in which the initial RNA chain and its complementary chain are separated, and the complementary chain becomes the template on which a copy of the initial chain is constructed. As G.F. Joyce and Leslie Orgel had commented a year earlier, without the previous evolution of specialized protein molecules, "...it appears unlikely that a self-replicating ribozyme(an RNA molecule having some enzyme activity) could arise, but without some form of self-replication there is no way to conduct an evolutionary search for the first, primitive self-replicating ribozyme."19
Thus we can see that forty years of zealous research have not eliminated the ancient "chicken and the egg" question. That is, since nucleic acid molecules(DNA and/or RNA) cannot do their thing without protein molecules, and the codes for protein molecules are carried by the nucleic acid molecules, how could life start without both? A more solemn question is, "How could life start with God the Creator?"

8. Is it true that there is scientific proof that life once existed on Mars?
Answer: No, life on Mars has not been proved. The claim that recently published evidence from a meteorite points to life on Mars has met with both support and skepticism on the part of scientists.
A meteorite found in Antarctica some years ago has been offered in 1996 as evidence that life once existed on Mars.20 It contains chemical elements and isotope ratios that point to its origin on Mars. In addition, electron microscopic examination has revealed some carbonaceous inclusions that could have organic origin. Also, some electron microscope images reveal forms that could possibly be fossilized micro-organisms. However, some specialists in the field of fossilized micro-organisms are skeptical. And no scientist is willing at this point to say that the existence of life on Mars has been proved. Geologist David McKay of NASA's Johnson Space Center stated, "We are not claiming that we have found life on Mars. ...We're just saying we have found a lot of pointers in that direction." On the other hand, Prof. Kenneth Nealson of the University of Wisconsin noted that the carbonate deposits found in the meteorite could have been deposited from warm fluids circulating through the Martian crust, without any connected to living organisms. Another group led by meteorite specialist Jim Papike at the University of New Mexico showed that the altered ratio of sulfur isotopes produced by living organisms is not found in the pyrite particles found in the meteorite. But David McKay's group responds with the fact that the magnetite the iron monosulfide particles found in the rock are similar to those left in earth sediments by bacteria. Joseph Kirschvink of the California Institute of Technology agrees the combination of micro-particles is "definitely peculiar" so that it is "not unreasonable at all" to suggest that they had a biological source.21
The exceedingly small objects found in the meteorite that McKay and some others offer as fossilized micro-organisms are met with considerable skepticism by other scientists. Prof. Schopf, probably the world's leading expert on fossil micro-organisms, points out that these objects are roughly 100 times smaller than the smallest ancient bacterial micro-fossils ever found in earth rocks. He notes, in addition, that there is thus far no evidence that the tiny inclusions have any preserved structures of bacterial cells, such as cell walls. He also observes that thus far none of the reputed Martian micro-fossils have been found in the act of reproducing (i.e., cell division), which is something that is found in terrestrial micro-fossils.21
Some have commented on the possible significance of the timing for this new research on a four-pound meteorite that has been on the shelf for a dozen years. It happens to coincide with an effort by NASA to loosen up the congressional purse strings to fund more planetary exploration. They hope to send a joint U.S.-Russian mission to Mars bring a load of geological specimens back from the Red Planet. Some dozen reputed Martian rocks are to be studied intensively for two years by scientific teams in Great Britain, Japan and the U.S. The object is to bring to Congress as much persuasive evidence as possible in order to sweep up the gullible public and their legislators in a wave of interplanetary enthusiasm for so-called exobiology. Won't it be wonderful to know that we are not alone in the universe? So in the idea of extraterrestrial life there is a kind of secular-religious emotional appeal for "those who dwell on the earth." These are shown in the New Testament book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ experiencing the wrath of God during the Great Tribulation. Some of these worldlings are NASA scientists and administrators whose bread and butter comes from interplanetary escapades. Fortunately, there is resistance to spending billions of public money to collect rocks on Mars. Representative Ralph Hall(D-TX) told team of NASA scientists/sales people, "You're really dealing with circumstantial evidence. And I've had letters ... from some who have said not to spend a dollar on this as long as we have a baby's bottle empty in this country."22

Conclusion
Life's probability without the God of creation is effectively zero, even when the calculations are made by a believer in evolution and by some believers in no God. Nevertheless, Darwin's quest to explain all of life without God is now being extended out into space, out into the heavens. "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows His handiwork"(Psalm 19:1), but the worldling scientists are intruding in the heavens to prove that God the Creator is not needed. They want to prove their faith in dumb atoms, that given enough time, atoms and energy, life without God is inevitable. But their time will come to an end, and "the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up."(2 Peter 3:10) Then what will happen to their theories that the universe originated without God and that atoms created life without God? Revelation 20:11-12 pictures all rebels against God the Creator standing on nothing before the Lord Jesus Christ seated on the great white judgment throne


-------
A Mac is to a PC is what a Lamborghini is to a Honda Civic.
 


Posts: 202 | Posted: 12:35 AM on December 10, 2002 | IP
Pie

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This should give you some reading material....

Single Cells to Metazoans

Metazoans to Fish

Fish to Amphibians


-------
A Mac is to a PC is what a Lamborghini is to a Honda Civic.
 


Posts: 202 | Posted: 12:48 AM on December 10, 2002 | IP
thistownwilleatu

|       |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No one is going to read that.  I hate to tell you


-------
"The greatest evil is not done in those sordid dens of evil that Dickens loved to paint ... but is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried and minuted) in clear, carpeted, warmed, well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices." - Thomas Merton

"I thank my God for every remembrance of you." - Paul
 


Posts: 341 | Posted: 01:06 AM on December 10, 2002 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i hate reading


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 01:59 AM on December 10, 2002 | IP
hooyah

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What a waste of disk space!

Anyway, this forum is about evolution. Not the origin of life.
Everyone knows that how the first life forms came about are a mystery.

Also, there are many scientists who are not trying to disprove the existence of God, but rather analyzing his "handiwork" to find out how He did it.

Who knows?  Maybe God "infected" the early Earth with just the right conditions for the complex organic molecules to form, kind of as an experiment.  Perhaps He's waiting on us to trace everything back to Him, and when we do find Him, He'll say, "Well Done!"

Now, to address the problem in you post (copy and paste), it seems mostly that it is arguing that the complex molecules forming the way they did are too "improbable."

I believe that God created the universe, but the "improbable" argument seems to be what Creationists use most of the time.

It is really statistical foolishness; you can't use probability to argue backwards.  The probability that a student in a classroom has a particular birthday is 1/365; arguing this way, the probability that everyone in a class of 50 would have the birthdays they do is (1/365) raised to the 50th power, and yet there the class sits.


-------
A just government has nothing to fear from an armed citizenry!
 


Posts: 110 | Posted: 9:54 PM on December 10, 2002 | IP
beavischrist

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thanks for the probability check. The guest copied and pasted from some other site (note the layout and >'s) Let's try to read Pie's uncited propaganda...
 


Posts: 193 | Posted: 1:25 PM on December 11, 2002 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 ]

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

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

 

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