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
    

    
beavischrist

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well that was easy. It was, as already mentioned, on the origin of life, not evolution. It is that all powerful theory of "science doesn't know yet so until then religion must be right."

As for transitional fossils, what do you want to see? There are fossils of animals between apes and humans. It's useless to go into detail because I can hear you typing christiananswers.net into your browser already to find the "They're all mutants who happened to live a million years ago and it's ok that we can't find other current mutants who has such deformed skulls" and the "They are just extinct apes" arguments I love so dearly.
If you want to read about transitional fossils, which I know you don't because then you'd have to convince your brain that it's all bunk for your own mental stability, check out http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
 


Posts: 193 | Posted: 1:35 PM on December 11, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

do you know why i love you people?....you provide plenty of wasted breath on issues that no one will ever be able to agree on...why dont we accept our personal convictions as personal and move on.  Opinions are like assholes...everyone has them and they are all shitty.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 2:25 PM on December 12, 2002 | IP
hooyah

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't base anything I say about evolution or creation on my "personal convictions."

And obviously you don't think that these posts are "wasted breath" because you're sitting there reading this...Are you not?


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


Posts: 110 | Posted: 8:16 PM on December 12, 2002 | IP
beavischrist

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I agree that it is wasted breath but we all need hobbies.
 


Posts: 193 | Posted: 01:20 AM on December 13, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So can someone tell me why the force of evlolution has not turned my Honda Civic into a F1 racing car when I am driving fast?  Is it just because it is not living, or is my Civic just not as fit to survive as other cars?
I know the answer to these questions already, but I can't help but wonder what some of you might say.
On a side note that is more on topic.  You could have irrefutable proof that God exists, and you would still have people that don't believe in Him.  He could appear in the sky, make the sun turn purple, and have all the oceans dry up and people would say things like: "The US government did that w/ hallucinagines and lasers."  or my personal favorites "it was Aliens." or "Nostradamas predicted that would happen."  I don't believe in some magical invisible force called Evolution because it doesn't make sense.  Why would God make things in an orderly fassion so that it would look like species evolved from one another, Why not?  Why reinvent the wheel, when the one you have works just fine, or better yet, perfectly?  Why make one set of living creatures on earth out of cells, and another set out of crystine structures?  It would be a waste of time and if God did it that way, we would still be having this debate.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 2:51 PM on December 13, 2002 | IP
hooyah

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If God really wanted to prove that He exists, being the perfect, all-knowing, creator of the universe, He could find a way to do it that NO ONE could dispute it!

He would have to do something that our government couldn't possibly do with "hallucinogens or lasers."  It would be REAL, and, again, being the smartest Being in the universe, He could find a way to make everyone believe.

About evolution....
It is not based on "magic", it is based on science, and backed up with tons upon tons of evidence.
Granted, there are plenty of holes in the evidence, but you can't just automatically try to fill in those "holes" with God.
Neither can you try to fill in the "holes" of God with science.
They both can co-exist; neither one refuting the other.

Oh, and please don't insult my intelligence again with lame examples like:
"So can someone tell me why the force of evlolution has not turned my Honda Civic into a F1 racing car when I am driving fast?  Is it just because it is not living, or is my Civic just not as fit to survive as other cars?"

It seems to me, more than anything, that you're just upset that there may be evidence that proves what you believe in to be wrong.

Oh,, and please register....We'll take you a little more seriously if you would.

peace


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


Posts: 110 | Posted: 7:13 PM on December 13, 2002 | IP
beavischrist

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Again we have a deeply religious person who only finds fault with the science that he feels threatens his faith. People could easily say that certain laws of physics don't make sense and therefore are wrong but no one does. (Actually, they did say certain laws of physics were wrong because it didn't jive with religion, but that was quite a while ago.)
 


Posts: 193 | Posted: 8:16 PM on December 13, 2002 | IP
Sakata

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from hooyah at 5:26 PM on December 9, 2002 :


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...




Wow, I have seen people write crap on here before but this one takes the cake... If we had solid evidence of ANY of these I guarantee that they would be posted up in every science classroom, every text book, and every atheist would be flaunting it around.  But do we see these things? No, the "proof" of evolution in my science book? A pig's tooth... The fact is there has never been one solid piece of evidence of evolution, ever.  And for those of you that are still caught up in God must have made evolution because it so obviously cant stand on its own, what about my quote?

I Corinthians 15:39 states, "There is one kind of flesh of man, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, another of birds."

I found it amusing that while you guys were happy to go off talking bad about those stupid creationist you conveniently forgot to address this...





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

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


Posts: 293 | Posted: 12:41 PM on December 14, 2002 | IP
beavischrist

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Uhm... there is solid evidence of these things. Your creationist leaders simply argue that they're all wrong. Ape like human fossils you say are just mutants. The distribution of fossils from simple to complex your guys still try to deal with by asserting that geological dating is circular, despite the fact that geolgical dating is an older field than evolutionary science.

I think you know there is evidence and just choose to agree with your religions rejection of the evidence. Plus, you're being a dick.
 


Posts: 193 | Posted: 2:56 PM on December 14, 2002 | IP
thistownwilleatu

|       |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sakata, I'm not bashing you or the popular concept of "creationism", I honestly don't know.  I haven't decided what I believe.  That verse you gave is useful, but devil's advocate here, the next verse "There are bodies celestial and bodies terrestrial, but the glory of the celestial is one, and the body of the terrestrial  is one" could be interpreted in an evolutionary light (all terrestrial bodies being one).  To be honest I don't know and I need to figure out what I believe, despite the fact that the subject doesn't particulary interest me.  It really doesn't affect my core beliefs.


-------
"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: 5:32 PM on December 14, 2002 | IP
AlexanderTheGreat

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I feel like if God was going to prove something to non-believers he'd do something to our minds, not something physical for us to see and critique.

and did Sakata just quote from the Bible like it was a science book? i'm gonna puke...wait, too late.

i think everyone needs to be reminded of the most important point: even if evolution is dead wrong (which I don't see as necessarily true just because it isn't perfectly worked out), that does not IN ANY WAY logically point to creationism, and it certainly does not point to a Christian God.

please explain to me how there is any theoretical validity to creationism outside bashing evolution. ANY. PLEASE.


-------
Alex
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 12:47 PM on December 15, 2002 | IP
AlexanderTheGreat

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I feel like if God was going to prove something to non-believers he'd do something to our minds, not something physical for us to see and critique.

and did Sakata just quote from the Bible like it was a science book? i'm gonna puke...wait, too late.

i think everyone needs to be reminded of the most important point: even if evolution is dead wrong (which I don't see as necessarily true just because it isn't perfectly worked out), that does not IN ANY WAY logically point to creationism, and it certainly does not point to a Christian God.

please explain to me how there is any theoretical validity to creationism outside bashing evolution. ANY. PLEASE.


-------
Alex
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 12:49 PM on December 15, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Their religion is already right to them so they need no proof. This is why they are big on evolution and not another branch of science that's actually controvercial between real scientists. They don't debate the existence of black holes, for example, because they don't give a damn about understanding the universe, they only care about defending a book written by flat earthers.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 1:29 PM on December 15, 2002 | IP
Pie

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evidences for a youg Earth:


"1. Comets disintegrate too quickly.
According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical maximum ages (on this basis) of 10,000 years.(1)
Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical 'Oort cloud' well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed.(2) So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations.

Lately, there has been much talk of the 'Kuiper Belt', a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Even if some bodies of ice exist in that location, they would not really solve the evolutionists' problem, since according to evolutionary theory the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it.


2. Not enough mud on the sea floor.
Each year, water and winds erode about 25 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean.(3) This material accumulates as loose sediment (i.e. mud) on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the mud in the whole ocean, including the continental shelves, is less than 400 metres.(4)
The main way currently known to remove the mud from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only one billion tons per year.(4) As far as anyone knows, the other 25 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present amount of sediment in less than 12 million years.

Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged three billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with mud dozens of kilometres deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis Flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of mud within a short time about 5000 years ago.


3. Not enough sodium in the sea.
Every year, rivers(5) and other sources dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year.(6,7) As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today's input and output rates.(7) This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, three billion years. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations which are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only 62 million years.(7) Calculations(8) for many other sea water elements give much younger ages for the ocean.

4. Earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast.
The total energy stored in the Earth's magnetic field has steadily decreased by a factor of 2.7 over the past 1,000 years.(9) Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the Earth could have maintained its magnetic field for billions of years, are very complex and inadequate. A much better creationist theory exists. It is straightforward, based on sound physics, and explains many features of the field: its creation, rapid reversals during the Genesis Flood, surface intensity decreases and increases until the time of Christ, and a steady decay since then.(10) This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data.(11) The main result is that the field's total energy (not surface intensity) has always decayed at least as fast as now. At that rate the field could not be more than 10,000 years old.(12)

5. Many strata are too tightly bent.
In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time-scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition.(13)

6. Injected sandstone shortens geologic 'ages'.
Strong geologic evidence(14) exists that the Cambrian Sawatch sandstone -- formed an alleged 500 million years ago -- of the Ute Pass Fault, west of Colorado Springs, was still unsolidified when it was extruded up to the surface during the uplift of the Rocky Mountains, allegedly 70 million years ago. It is very unlikely that the sandstone would not solidify during the supposed 430 million years it was underground. Instead, it is likely that the two geologic events were less than hundreds of years apart, thus greatly shortening the geologic time-scale.

7. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic 'ages' to a few years.
Radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay.(15) 'Squashed' Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited within months of one another, not hundreds of millions of years apart as required by the conventional time-scale.(16) 'Orphan' Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply either instant creation or drastic changes in radioactivity decay rates.(17,18)

8. Helium in the wrong places.
All naturally occurring families of radioactive elements generate helium as they decay. If such decay took place for billions of years, as alleged by evolutionists, much helium should have found its way into the Earth's atmosphere. The rate of loss of helium from the atmosphere into space is calculable and small. Taking that loss into account, the atmosphere today has only 0.05% of the amount of helium it would have accumulated in five billion years.(19) This means the atmosphere is much younger than the alleged evolutionary age.
A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that helium produced by radioactive decay in deep, hot rocks has not had time to escape. Though the rocks are supposed to be over one billion years old, their large helium retention suggests an age of only thousands of years.(20)


9. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.
Evolutionary anthropologists say that the Stone Age lasted for at least 100,000 years, during which time the world population of Neanderthal and Cro-magnon men was roughly constant, between one and 10 million. All that time they were burying their dead with artefacts.(21) By this scenario, they would have buried at least four billion bodies.(22) If the evolutionary time-scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 100,000 years, so many of the supposed four billion Stone Age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artefacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, a few hundred years in many areas.

10. Agriculture is too recent.
The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for 100,000 years during the Stone Age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago.(21) Yet the archaeological evidence shows that Stone Age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the four billion people mentioned in item 10 should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture less than a few hundred years after the Flood, if at all.(22)

11. History is too short.
According to evolutionists, Stone Age man existed for 100,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4,000-5,000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases.(23) Why would he wait a thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The biblical time-scale is much more likely.(22)

References

Steidl, P.F., 'Planets, comets, and asteroids', Design and Origins in Astronomy, G. Mulfinger, ed., Creation Research Society Books (1983), 5093 Williamsport Drive, Norcross, GA 30092, pp. 73-106.
Whipple, F.L., 'Background of modern comet theory', Nature 263 (2 September 1976), p. 15.
Gordeyev, V.V. et al, 'The average chemical composition of suspensions in the world's rivers and the supply of sediments to the ocean by streams', Dockl. Akad, Nauk. SSSR 238 (1980), p. 150.
Hay, W.W., et al, 'Mass/age distribution and composition of sediments on the ocean floor and the global rate of subduction', Journal of Geophysical Research, 93, No. B12 (10 December 1988), pp. 14,933-14,940.
Maybeck, M., 'Concentrations des eaux fluviales en elements majeurs et apports en solution aux oceans', Rev. de Geol. Dyn. Geogr. Phys. 21 (1979), p. 215.
Sayles, F.L. and Mangelsdorf, P.C., 'Cation-exchange characteristics of Amazon River suspended sediment and its reaction with seawater', Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 41 (1979), p. 767.
Austin, S.A. and Humphreys, D.R., 'The sea's missing salt: a dilemma for evolutionists', Proc. 2nd Internat. Conf. on Creationism, Vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1990) pp. 17-31. Address in ref. 12.
Austin, S.A., 'Evolution: the oceans say no!', ICR Impact, No. 8 (October 1973). Institute for Creation Research, address in ref. 2.
Merrill, R.T. and McElhinney, M.W., The Earth's Magnetic Field, Academic Press (1983), London, pp. 101-106.
Humphreys, D.R., 'Reversals of the earth's magnetic field during the Genesis flood', Proc. 1st Internat. Conf. on Creationism (Aug. 1986, Pittsburgh), Creation Science Fellowship (1987) 362 Ashland Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15228, Vol. II, pp. 113-126.
Coe, R.S., Prévot, M., and Camps, P., 'New evidence for extraordinary change of the geomagnetic field during a reversal', Nature 374 (20 April 1995), pp. 687-92.
Humphreys, D.R., 'Physical mechanism for reversals of the earth's magnetic field during the flood', Proc. 2nd Internat. Conf. on Creationism, Vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1990), pp. 129-142, address in ref. 12.
Austin, S.A. and Morris, J.D., 'Tight folds and clastic dikes as evidence for rapid deposition and deformation of two very thick stratigraphic sequences', Proc. 1st Internat. Conf. on Creationism, Vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1986), pp. 3-15, address in ref. 12.
ibid, pp. 11-12.
Gentry, R.V., 'Radioactive halos', Annual Review of Nuclear Science 23 (1973) pp. 347-362.
Gentry, R.V. et. al., 'Radiohalos in coalified wood: new evidence relating to time of uranium introduction and coalification', Science 194 (15 October 1976) pp. 315-318.
Gentry, R.V., 'Radiohalos in a Radiochronological and cosmological perspective', Science 184 (5 April 1974), pp. 62-66.
Gentry, R.V., Creation's Tiny Mystery, Earth Science Associates (1986), P.O. Box 12067, Knoxville, TN 37912-0067, pp. 23-37, 51-59, 61-62.
Vardiman, L., The Age of the Earth's Atmosphere: a study of the helium flux through the atmosphere, Institute for Creation Research (1990), P.O. Box 2667, El Cajon, CA 92021.
Gentry, R.V. et al, 'Differential helium retention in zircons: implications for nuclear waste management', Geophys. Res. Lett. 9, (October 1982), 1129-1130. See also ref. 20, pp. 169-170.
Deevey, E.S., 'The human population', Scientific American 203 (September 1960), pp. 194-204.
Marshak, A., 'Exploring the mind of Ice Age man', National Geographic 147 (January 1975), pp. 64-89.
Dritt, J.O., 'Man's earliest beginnings: discrepancies in the evolutionary timetable', Proc. 2nd Internat. Conf. on Creationism, Vol. I., Creation Science Fellowship (1990), pp. 73-78, address in ref. 12. "





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


Posts: 202 | Posted: 2:41 PM on December 15, 2002 | IP
beavischrist

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Brilliant cut and paste of arguements we've all read before.
 


Posts: 193 | Posted: 3:27 PM on December 15, 2002 | IP
beavischrist

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thanks for not numbering the references. It sure was fun to count. I saw one reference from a science journal dated from 1960 and another from 75 that says there were probably a lot of bodies buried. Here's the link, for anyone in doubt that christian answers.net had struck again.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c012.html
 


Posts: 193 | Posted: 3:36 PM on December 15, 2002 | IP
beavischrist

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I post this with the knowledge no one will read any of the articles because truth is less important than faith to most people. Feel free to notice three things. The creationist arguments often do not support the age of the earth they offer, only prevent the ancient earth from being true. Capping the earth at 62 million years is still a bit off from 6000. Secondly, some of the arguments refer to a flood that is not supported by science. They are trying to prove Santa exists by arguing the Easter Bunny told them so. Finally, the articles that respond to the creationist claims are articles, not simply short blips.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/comets.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/sediment.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/salt.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/magnetic_field.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/helium.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/history.html

A few are missing, but there are a lot of other ones not listed that are addressed here- http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/index.shtml
 


Posts: 193 | Posted: 4:22 PM on December 15, 2002 | IP
Pie

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm disapointed in you. When I posted that at a different site, I got a post of rebukes. Tut tut.

Anyhow, these are more solid arguments for Creation. Feel free to check the link out.

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/top.htm

(Edited by Pie 12/15/2002 at 6:19 PM).


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


Posts: 202 | Posted: 6:18 PM on December 15, 2002 | IP
beavischrist

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Are you let down that I didn't use the cut and paste function like you did?

What did you think of the links I offered?
 


Posts: 193 | Posted: 9:13 PM on December 15, 2002 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

beavis, i'm not saying that i think evolution is necessarily false, but i think it is hypocritical to accuse Pie of using books dated from 1965 and 1975 when evolution is based on darwins book which was written in the 19th century.


-------
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: 9:33 PM on December 15, 2002 | IP
beavischrist

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Didn't I already deal with these issues?

Here's something on transitional fossils.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

The second issue is the one of increasing information. Feel free to ignore this.
http://www.howstuffworks.com/evolution8.htm

The third issue is still up for much debate and is more of a philosophical question. If something, like god, can always exist, why cannot life or matter or the universe have always existed? And if god came from nothing why can other things not come from nothing? Steven Hawkings addresses the beginnings of everything in A Brief History of Time.

The next argument is not very concrete. Maybe the bones are conclusive, maybe they aren't, this is a he said she said thing. Some bible beaters telling me they aren't doesn't pull much weight with me.

The 9 of 12 one is hard to deal with because all of the references come from creationist literature. If I can see some scientists whose primary goal isn't teaching christianity in public schools who conclude the same things, I would be more impressed. Here's a link on what non creationist science says about the fossils.
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html

Same with the next one. Besides convincing me of an evil conspiracy to silence the truth, I have to go with sciences acceptance of these fossils.

Number 7 is not a real argument. It is basically a summary of the entire creationst movement, though.

Number 8 is not exactly rock solid. A creationist saying "I don't get evolution." isn't much of an argument.

Number 9 is simply wrong. A flood would be noticable to geologists. Again, you'd need to prove there's a conspiracy of silence to make us think otherwise.
http://www.geocities.com/buyu_2000/flood.html
 


Posts: 193 | Posted: 9:38 PM on December 15, 2002 | IP
beavischrist

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from fallingupwards84 at 9:33 PM on December 15, 2002 :
beavis, i'm not saying that i think evolution is necessarily false, but i think it is hypocritical to accuse Pie of using books dated from 1965 and 1975 when evolution is based on darwins book which was written in the 19th century.


And is constantly being investigated, which is the problem. Successful theories are generally long standing where as the details are being worked out for long after.

And must I mention how old the book you follow is?



 


Posts: 193 | Posted: 9:40 PM on December 15, 2002 | IP
Pie

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That's an interesting link, but it failed to explain much. I saw nothing that explained several of the comments found on the link I posted, which was about the lack of fossils showing the evolution and appearance of biological organs. There was some about the vertabra (I know I didn't spell that right), but not a lot else. Or, perhaps I missed it. A direct link to the part, if it exists, dealing with that would help.

The question about how God could or could not have existed is tricky. But, God is all powerfull, and it would seem, not made of matter. He may exist outside our known universe, or within it, in the fabric, whatever. He may not exist in the way we know of existance.

I have trouble believeing that a tooth can be the basis for a species or order-a few "bits" of what may or may not have been an early human aren't particularly conclusive.

This one is hard to get because, as you said, it comes from creationist work. Then again, evolutionists tend not to go by their work according to the Bible.

There is valid evidences in 7 and 8-logical problems with Natural Selection, though 8 does a better job.

I'd agree with you on nine. A flood of massive proportions would more than likely be noticeable.








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


Posts: 202 | Posted: 7:27 PM on December 16, 2002 | IP
Pie

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hmm....these animals present a bit of a problem for evolution.

http://www.rae.org/revev5.html


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


Posts: 202 | Posted: 12:00 AM on December 17, 2002 | IP
beavischrist

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There have been books written on some of those animals. I don't have the time to find the info needed, especially during finals. As for the first problem from a few posts back, evolution does occur and creationists admit this, they deny speciation occurs, however.

I would be interested to know why you believe creationists about evolution but not about the global flood.
 


Posts: 193 | Posted: 12:48 AM on December 17, 2002 | IP
Pie

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution can occur on a minor scale (the moth thing, adapting to tree color, ect), but these are insignifigant and not much proof for evolution.


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


Posts: 202 | Posted: 01:08 AM on December 17, 2002 | IP
beavischrist

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

They are not insignificant in the least as they are what evolutionists believe cause speciation. Take dog type A and dog type B and put them on seperate islands for a few thousand years and those insignificant mutations and natural selection add up to two animals that can no longer mate.
 


Posts: 193 | Posted: 01:27 AM on December 17, 2002 | IP
Pie

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And a few (dozen) more. Though a few of them really aren't that solid.

http://evolution-facts.org/nature.htm

(Edited by Pie 12/17/2002 at 01:28 AM).


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


Posts: 202 | Posted: 01:27 AM on December 17, 2002 | IP
beavischrist

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Tell me, did you come to this controversy through an interest in science or religion?
 


Posts: 193 | Posted: 02:06 AM on December 17, 2002 | IP
beavischrist

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

From what I read, that site is all just arguments about how life is impressive. As someone else posted already, the odds of the people in a classroom having the birthdays they do is astronomical but they still have those birthdays. We don't know exactly how large the universe is so just saying the odds of life are really low doesn't move me much. If the universe comprised of soley earth, that would be another story, but if one in every hundred billion planets has life...
 


Posts: 193 | Posted: 02:15 AM on December 17, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

 WHAT   IS   REALITY ?


            How do I know what is true?  Who is right about God?  Questions like these have ran through everyone's mind, but many never realize the answers.  What is reality?

            How important it is to serve God. He is so faithful, but faithfulness can be obsolete if there is no trust. If I trust my wife is faithful, supposing I had one, and she is,  then we could move on and I would benefit from her faithfulness. If, however, I consistantly doubt her faithfulness, without cause,  than I cannot benefit from her faithfulness. Her faithfulness would do me no good, because of my lack of trust. So, you see, my lack of trust, (or my stubborn flesh) , could if I allowed, prevent me from realizing the truth. If you choose to doubt reality in Jesus, you will doubt. If you choose to uphold truth, and trust in God, then He will reveal His faithfulness.  Psalms 119:30 says,"I have chosen the way of truth: thy judgements have I laid before me." So you see choosing the truth is a decision we must make.

             Psalms 14:1 is as follows,"The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God. They (fools) are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." So a  "fool" will never find reality, because he loves sin more than the truth.   Proverbs 16:9 says this,"A man's heart deviseth his way: but the Lord directeth his steps."  This means that what we choose to thrive on; lusts of this world and foolish dead-end  passions, or the love of Jesus', this creates our path to either heaven or hell. The Lord directs us according to our soul desires. If reality is that John jumps twice as high as me, but because of my pride, I refuse to admit or beleive the truth, than I have foolishly been deceived, because in my heart I desire pride more than truth. So, too, do many foolishly shut out reality in their lives.

            Hebrews 13:8 states,"Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today and forever." God has not, nor will He ever, change. So many people have different things to say about God, how do I know who to beleive?   Jesus said in John 13:35,"By this shall men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." Now if I loved my brother, would I watch as he unknowingly condemns his self? No, I would, in love, correct him in hope that his name would, through fire, be etched in the Book of Life. In this matter is important to beware of a false love, an imitation, that says what seems pleasing to your ears, just to get their desired results. Do not allow any doubt or form of worry infiltrate your mind, for it can shake a man's destination, and is a sin. In John 14:15 it says,"If ye love me, keep my commandments." How do we determine what real love is?  Real love can only be experienced through God's grace. For what I formerly thuoght was love, failed, but true love always prevails. How can we express true love if we have not accepted true love? Only when we acknowledge our failure, and call on Jesus name (Romans 10:13)  can we experience true love, and peace.  "If anyone says "I love God", yet hates his brother, he is a liar..." 1 John 4:20 states. So if anyone does not demonstrate love, they do not have the Holy Spirit, and therefore cannot understand love. If a teacher does not understand what he is teaching, his teachings would be futile, and the students would be foolish to listen to the senseless gibberish. Only someone who knows Jesus can truly bear witness of Him.

            But I thought we weren't bound by the law?!  Oh, and how we are freed from the law! I formerly, not being in Christ Jesus,  was condemned by the law, but upon accepting the Holy Spirit, I was set free. It is not enough to just believe, for even the devil believes, and trembles. (James 2:19)  
But to lay everything we have down and receive Him is to achieve complete redemption in Christ Jesus. For I, weak as I am, cannot obey the law. My will power fails me, and my knowledge is fragmentary. But what I could not achieve through my flaws, was completed on the Cross. Upon receiving the mind of Christ (1 Corinthians 2:16) I was completely transformed, my old flesh was now crucified, and I was born agian. To say that we must still continue in sin, is to doubt the complete power of the Death and Ressurection. 1 John 3:9 puts it like this,"Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for His seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God." Let no one deceive you; from a Godly man comes holiness, and good fruit, (Matthew 5:48), but the wicked produce strife, and resent the purity of anything Godly, for they are deceived. By this we know those who truly follow Christ.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 8:39 PM on December 17, 2002 | IP
Pie

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I gto to this argument primarily through a bit of a will to understand my religion. If evolution is completely true, I would either have to take a theistic stance, or drop the whole thing, which I am not particularly willing to do. (Not sure why).

Anyhow, for some of the animals, I think these are the reasons of their problems.

Hermit Crab-The thing here is how they evolved to work with anemones. Obviously, they couldn't have simply walked up to the things generation after generation being stung to death, and still evolve to use the method of food/defense, as all incoming hermit crabs would be killed. They would not eventually evolve to resist the stings, as the ones using the anemones would be dead.

Flying spiders-How did they learn how to balloon? Did the parent stand abscently on a post, let fly with the thread, float away, then show the kids? And they all knew, and showed there kids....you get the picture, which I somehow doubt.

"Frightening Creatures"-What's wrong here is how they A)learned to use these defense mechanisms (looking dead, like a parasite, like a predator, ect), or, how they survived while these evolved. So, say you have a butterfly, who, when it spreads it's wings in a potential attackers face, looks fearsome. How does it know to do this? Not like they can go up to a mirror and say "Hey! I can scare dragonflies away with the face on my wings!" Okay, maybe they do. (narf!)

Diving Spider-How did this spider learn to pin the air bubble to it's chest? I'm sure after he first few adventurers jumped in and drowned, the rest of the race would have given up or become very extinct very quickly. Even if, by random chance, one survived, it would not be able to accomplish the task again. For animals, it generally takes more than one expirience to drive the point home.

I'll get back to a some more.


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


Posts: 202 | Posted: 12:36 AM on December 18, 2002 | IP
Pie

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Great Capricorn Beatle-Like many others, this is a tricky bit for evolution. How does this beatle know to turn around while still a worm. Does it have knowledge that when it metamorhisizes (I know, I know, I know I spelled it wrong) it will become a beatle incabable of facing itself around? It cannot know this, and these is no reason for the worm to turn around, it would think that it would be able to swap ends at the end of the trip. The ones who died would not be able to "tell" their young to face the right way, and the ones who may have faced the outside before changing would have no knowledge of how they had just survived. By evolution, they should not exist.

African Termite-This is concerned primearily with the tunnels they dig to water. Only a stupid termite, with way to much time on it's hands(?) would bother tunneling dozens of feet below the earth, and in the kind of coloney one finds in the insect world, no bug would have the spare time to do this. Even if one did, would they make the connection that this was an easy way to get water? How would this idea spread to the other colonies?

Amazon ants-They know to build their nests in trees to avoid flooding, which comes back to the question of how they know to do this? The only ones who know that they should have are the ones who died in the flood. And a few dozen survivors would have a hard time convincing a whole new coloney to take to the trees.

Bombardier Beatle-I'm sure you all know this one.

Sea slugs-Like the hermit crabs, except these guys chow on the things. They cannot have evolved to do this, as the ones who made the attempts to eat em would be killed.

Sphinx Moth-it sucks nectar, witha perfectly evolved tonge. Well, how? If the tung evovled first, it would be ill suited to the moths standard meal, and severely inhibit feeding. It would evovle back. If the hummingbird like flight came first, without the tonge, the moth would be unable to feed. If they both evolved at the same time, the thing would be at a double disadvantage, unable to hover properly in order to feed, and even if it could, the partially done tongue wouldn't be capable of sucking the nectar.

Sponges-Creatures without brains being able to know when the tide is on the move, release it's seeds, and the opposite sex knows that these are the right things, and she releases her eggs. Without brains.




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


Posts: 202 | Posted: 01:24 AM on December 18, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Pie--I'm new to this forum and have not read the entire thread. However since the question of E vs C is found on almost every forum I can with high probability assume the simillarity of arguments for and against each subject. This is so since human beings seem to be extremely similar in almost every debate, especially regarding religion.
I'm assuming you are very young and have not heard of nor have studied the concept of tropisms. Even most adults are unaware of the concept and the man who first promoted the interpretation of behavior using this explanatory tool. I even doubt seriously that if many of those involved in the science of behavior could or even would take the time and effort to apply the principles to the higher order of animals. Interpretation of the real world gets tied up and confused in the language of the culture and it's attempts to explain the nature of reality. Science and it's introduction is the only tool that was necessary to enflame throughout history the emotions of those in control of cultures, which is why it is continuously condemned even to this day by those ignorant enough to "defend" themselves.
Investigate the concept of tropisms for answers to the reasons for animal behavior. But don't try to apply it to humans. I'm sure you'll not understand how it is applicable. At least not for now.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 4:55 PM on December 18, 2002 | IP
kelvin90703

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Creationism is just plain bad science.  Training in physics and engineering has not changed the way I conduct my life.  Christianity is just a plain good way to live.  I do belive that the universie is 10-20 billion years old.  I do belive that evolution is happening and has been for 4 billion years on Earth.  I try to live everyday as a good Christian.  Creationist need to get out of the business of science and get back to saving souls.

Yes science and religion are in total contridiction on this matter.  God willing I do belive He will answer those contridictions for me later.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 12:35 AM on December 21, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

 Christ is the only true Lord. The TRUTH is amidst us, why do you think that there is such a strong pull to Christ? Why does He raise more controversy than any other? He alone convicts us, no other god convicts us of our actions. Yea other gods say to do certian good things, and not to do certian bad things. The devil himself appears as an angel of light, so we know that he has dilluted reality, and attempted to pervert the Truth Christ has brought. Only Christ brings life. Mohammad would have his visions as he fell to the ground foaming at the mouth. This is nothing less than the demon possession demonstrated in Mark 9. That is the same reaction that the man's son had when Jesus cast out the demon. Hmmm, I think something strange was going on with this whole Mohammad thing. Only Christ was risen on the third day, no other. "All who call on the name of the Lord will be saved"        
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 5:46 PM on December 21, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

 Christ is the only true Lord. The TRUTH is amidst us, why do you think that there is such a strong pull to Christ? Why does He raise more controversy than any other? He alone convicts us, no other god convicts us of our actions. Yea other gods say to do certian good things, and not to do certian bad things. The devil himself appears as an angel of light, so we know that he has dilluted reality, and attempted to pervert the Truth Christ has brought. Only Christ brings life. Mohammad would have his visions as he fell to the ground foaming at the mouth. This is nothing less than the demon possession demonstrated in Mark 9. That is the same reaction that the man's son had when Jesus cast out the demon. Hmmm, I think something strange was going on with this whole Mohammad thing. Only Christ was risen on the third day, no other. "All who call on the name of the Lord will be saved"        
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 5:48 PM on December 21, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

 There is no doubt that Christ is the King of King and Lord of Lords, and only in Him do we find peace. If He were not God, and there were not a spiritual battle, surely no controversy on the matter would exist.  However that is not the case, Christ remians the most controversial Name. Either we submit to Christ and live eternally, or we fight agianst Him and turn away from the conviction He has laid upon us. This is the spiritual battle that occurs around us constantly, and we have the ultamite decision. (unless we take a universal chip in the hand area or the forehead, that contains the secret to a false peace, then there is no hope)  We have placed before us life and peace, or death and destruction, choose life.  
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 5:59 PM on December 21, 2002 | IP
kelvin90703

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

To the last 3 guest.  Huh?

You have not convinced anyone or even come close to forming an arguement.  But I will hazard to guess that you belive in Creationism.

If you really 100% belive in Creationism.  Then you are in contradiction with mainstream science.  Creationism goes against not only evolution, but chemistry, biology, and physics.  If you don't belive in those branches, then you don't belive in electric lights, microwave ovens, anti-biotics, asprin, and computers, and the internet.  Creationism's arguement destroys evolution, a small part of science.  But science is a series of interwoven arguements over many branches.

The spirtual battle your describe in my option is arrogant.  How do you prescribe to know all of Gods plans and his details in the creation of the universe?

I recoginize science and religion do not agree.  But I am also humble enough to wait for Him to resolve those great questions in His way, rather that try and guess what He really tried to do with creation.  There was a creation, but who really knows how it happened.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 10:10 PM on December 31, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

  God desires no man to be in the dark, God would have all to dwell in His light through the Son. For God has made the truth evident, and His love has shown those in need.
            Ben
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 01:23 AM on January 2, 2003 | IP
Sarah2006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes the two can coexist, and the majority of Christian religions believe so.

Originally Posted By Sakata:  
I always found this debate amusing, when evolutionist finally realize that this big organic soup couldnt have just magicly appeared, they realize there is a God.  But still so stuck to their false belifs in evolution, and not willing to accept defeat, they came up with "Well hey! maybe God created everything, then evolution did the rest" This is mearly a last ditch effort by evolutionists too stubborn to admit they're wrong, that has no facts to back it up.

I disagree, this is an incorrect assuption.  I am exactly the opposite.  I am a Christian, and I was a YEC until I recently took a class on evolution.  It provided so much empirical evidence for evolution, and my professor was able to refute any Young-Earth or Creationist argument I had so easily and with empirical evidence that I could not lie to myself and I now accept both evolution and Christianity.   So this statement is incorrect.  

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...

At some point man developed into something that was what the Bible said "Made in God's image." At this point man could reason, mad had a will of his own, and there is no reason that at this point God gave man a soul.  It is just as logical and as likely as anything else.

Wow, I have seen people write crap on here before but this one takes the cake... If we had solid evidence of ANY of these I guarantee that they would be posted up in every science classroom, every text book, and every atheist would be flaunting it around.  But do we see these things? No, the "proof" of evolution in my science book? A pig's tooth... The fact is there has never been one solid piece of evidence of evolution, ever.  And for those of you that are still caught up in God must have made evolution because it so obviously cant stand on its own, what about my quote?
Wow!! How old is your science book.  Take a class specifically focusing on evolution, or do the research yourself.  You'll find this is incorrect.  There are tons of transitional fossils.  Yes there are gaps, but no one said evolution is perfect.  There doesn't seem to be a lot of scientific evidence for evolution posted here so try www.creationtalk.com if you have questions.  There are a lot of very intelligent people on that board who can give you TONS of evidence for an old Earth and for evolution.

I Corinthians 15:39 states, "There is one kind of flesh of man, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, another of birds."


This is found in the new testament.  If put into context it is talking about the differences in everything in the world and goes on to mention the second coming of Christ when Christian souls are taken to Heaven.  I am of course not an authority on theology and to be totally honest I don't understand the entire passage.  A lot of it seems to be just flowery language (which you have to admit a lot of the Bible, especially the New Testament, is).  But it also goes onto talk about how celestial bodies are different etcettera.  My interpretation is it is refering to the fact that men have souls while other things do not.  Furthermore, apart from any interpretation, the verse says that "there is one kind of flesh..." not that there always was but that there is.  At the time that Corinthians was written there were different kinds of flesh, and when Christ comes there will be.  That doesn't mean there always was.

Sarah



(Edited by Sarah2006 1/15/2003 at 3:07 PM).
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 12:10 AM on January 15, 2003 | IP
nailedit987

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

First id like to start off with a quote from darwin himself "I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queires suggestions, wondering all the time over everything and to my astonishment, the ideads took like wild fire. People made a religion of them." This qoute was takin juss before he died and he was said to accepted jesus christ.  http://wwww.carm.org/evo_guestions/deathbed.htm
To answer your question pie God made animals that way. To all the people who believe were created in gods image your correct but some may have misinterpetations of this. "his image" dosent necissary mean PHYSICAL image.  Now unto evolution which is based on adaption correct? Well then how come we cant put an alligator out in antartica and have it adapt to the climate change. if evolution is true how come hjumans are superior beings. Are we the only fully evolved mammals. And what about mokeys how come their evolution process stoped? See many of you believe in evolution but you do not have faith in it. Faith is the basis of out creation. Every thing we do has faith you have faith driving in a car. Faith that your seat ur sitting in will not colapse. Many scientist are coming to terms that there is a creator of the planet a superior being. (GOD) which we can not see but then again can we see the wind? of course not but we can feel it we can see the effects of the wind. Juss like peope can feel god and see the effects of god. So if you say we cant see god hes not there i cant see god ill create a theory that its not there then! For all you who believe in science only then you must study the BIG BANG THEORY. Which in term is the biggest threat to evolution. hmm maybe sciece needs to find facts that dont contradict eachother. YOu see the bible dosent contradict it self even though it was written by people on different contanents different times that have never meet eachother.  Yet still the same facts were presented with no different interpertations no changes. As you can see science contradicts itself in many was yet the bible dosent. Kinda weird to belief in a contradicting study.




-------
Raven<br>(qoute never more)<br>
 


Posts: 15 | Posted: 2:44 PM on March 21, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from nailedit987 at 2:44 PM on March 21, 2003 :
First id like to start off with a quote from darwin himself "I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queires suggestions, wondering all the time over everything and to my astonishment, the ideads took like wild fire. People made a religion of them." This qoute was takin juss before he died and he was said to accepted jesus christ.  http://www.carm.org/evo_guestions/deathbed.htm


Malcolm Bowden is not the most reliable source.  Even most creationists know that the story of Darwin’s deathbed recantation is false.  Try http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1315.asp where they say:

It therefore appears that Darwin did not recant, and it is a pity that to this day the Lady Hope story occasionally appears in tracts published and given out by well-meaning people.

[snip]

Now unto evolution which is based on adaption correct? Well then how come we cant put an alligator out in antartica and have it adapt to the climate change. if evolution is true how come hjumans are superior beings. Are we the only fully evolved mammals. And what about mokeys how come their evolution process stoped?


Evolution does not work that way and no it has not stopped.  Do a Google search on “speciation” and you’ll find many sources that confirm that evolution is still occurring.  Your alligator statement demonstrates your misunderstanding about evolution.  Evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time.  Genetic characteristics are what we inherit from our parents plus whatever changes that happen during development within the womb.  Things that happen to a plant or animal after it is born do not affect the distribution of genetic characteristics within a population.  In other words there is nothing in any evolutionary theory that says that the alligator should adapt to the Antarctic.

[Snip a bunch of confused stuff about faith and the wind]

For all you who believe in science only then you must study the BIG BANG THEORY. Which in term is the biggest threat to evolution. hmm maybe sciece needs to find facts that dont contradict eachother.


There are no contradictions between Big Bang cosmology and the theory of biological evolution.  

You had a bunch of ideas jumbled together in your post and it was very confusing.  Maybe you can pick one thing about evolution you would like to discuss.  That might make things easier.

Joe T.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 4:21 PM on March 21, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Is anyone else sick of this being such an angry world?  there are plenty of ideas that you all can have agreed on, but nope, have to attack...attack...attack.  Sounds awfully childish to believe that everyone can get along?  i dont care what anyone else believes about evolutionism and creationism...were all entitled to our own beliefs, and no one has the right to trash on someone else because they dont believe the same way as someone else.  If nothing else, you all really need to be happy...not content...have joy.  if you somehow feel unfulfilled and nothing you do feels right, so u keep striving to find that missing link - for heavens sake, start reading the bible to get closer to God, and pray about it.  The all-powerful creator will tell you if you ask.  "ask and ye shall receive, knock and it shall be opened unto you."  quit trying to use the philosophies of men to refute arguements, heck, we dont even know the definitions of the laws we use, man is nothing.  Thanks for your time.   remember, pray and ask.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 09:45 AM on April 4, 2003 | IP
FreeAmerican

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The defined the principles of Darwinian Natural Selection in Evolution as well as the Creationist (Christian Fundamentalist) positions are quite well known. The study of evolution does not address God in any way. It deals with biological mechanisms to explain the fact that new species have appeared while others have disappeared repeatedly over the last 2 ½ billion years. Acceptance of the fact of evolution in no way prohibits one from also believing in a God or creator. Likewise the acceptance of the spherical Earth, the Solar System, gravity, and plate tectonics does not prohibit God belief or Theism.  The Pope, an unchallenged theist, allows Catholics to accept the fact of evolution.

There is a point of conflict between traditional Christianity and the fact of evolution. Evolution shows that humans evolved gradually over some 3 million years. There was no Adam and Eve.  Without Adam and Eve there was no Original Sin, no fall of mankind.  Without the fall of mankind there was no need for a redeemer.  God had no need to father a human offspring to be a blood sacrifice for a sin that never occurred.  It follows that there was no crucifixion of Jesus, and no resurrection.  There would be no salvation or need for salvation.  While I concede that evolution is compatible with theism in a very generic sense (a creator-designer god), it may be incompatible with traditional Christianity.  To accept the mass of compelling evidence proving evolution may threaten traditional Christians by making their core belief system illogical and irrelevant.  This is perhaps the real reason for their angry opposition to modern biological and geological discoveries, like evolution and continental drift.

FreeAmerican



-------
"The man who follows is a slave. The man who thinks is free." Robert G. Ingersoll
 


Posts: 42 | Posted: 11:11 PM on April 6, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from admin at 3:22 PM on April 30, 2002 :
Can Evolution and Religion Coexist ?

http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/creation_evolution_religion.HTM


(Edited by admin 4/30/2002 at 3:53 PM.)


(Edited by admin 4/30/2002 at 3:53 PM.)




 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 8:48 PM on June 26, 2003 | 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.