Evolution
-
i don't consider that page to be evidence. it's as from from objective as you can get. you might as well ask a palestinian if jews are nice people. How are quotes from evolutionist scientists stating that they have serious problems with evolution not evidence that those scientists exist? :confused: if god can do anything and we can't tell, there's no point in trying to explain anything. "god did it" covers everything. furthermore, as soon as a believer uses "god did it" as a reason, a non-believer has no choice but to abandon the conversation; logic cannot overcome true faith in the mind of a believer. you can't prove it, you can't disprove it. end of discussion. I don't mean to be rude, but do you even understand what your saying? Discussing the evidence and deciding which model is better supported by it is something that every Christian I personally know has absolutely no problem with. We do not blanketly state that God did it when we don't know the answer. If we did, then how do you explain the fact that there are Christian scientists in the first place? How would you explain that scientific study took off in a time when a huge percentage of the people believed in God? People have used your argument in genuine debates before, but the majority of people have given up on it because -- it simply isn't true. (Yeah, some ignorant people refuse to listen to what you say, but that's not who we're talking about here.) Again, you're stating an argument that has little to no basis in fact. The people trying to honestly discuss creation vs. evolution don't simply state that "God did it" for every objection the evolutionists have. If that were the case, no evolutionists would have switched to creationism and there have been many. i'm sure they had to reconcile their discoveries with their beliefs, in cases where what they found disagreed with what the bible said. how they did that, i can't say. It was rather easy, since more evidence supports Creation than it does evolution. Pick some evidence and I'll see if I can show you. In fact, if you are right, you could take every evidence-related article off the www.answersingenesis.org and show why it has factual problems. Go ahead. John
from: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3791.asp IN SUMMARY
- The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a beginning.
- It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause.
- The universe therefore requires a cause, just as Genesis 1:1 and Romans 1:20 teach.
- God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn’t need a cause.
point 4 plays the all-powerful god card, neatly trumping point 2. it is impossible to argue with logic like this. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3987.asp The fossil record, rather than showing change from one kind to another, shows stasis — things remaining the same. You only have to look at the so-called Cambrian sea and you’ll find jellyfish, starfish, snails, sea urchins, brachiopods, clams and sponges — things you’ll find in the seas today, essentially unchanged after supposedly 500 million years or more. Unchanged? Just because some critters haven't changed doesn't mean other things haven't: dinosaurs, 50 foot sharks, 10 foot lemurs, trilobites, etc.. any room for the argument that a sponge is an adaptable and well-suited creature for its environment? didn't think so. same page: Take, for example, the mammals, which are supposed to be a monophyletic group (descended from a common ancestor). The neo-Darwinian model requires that every one of the groups has descended from a single, unidentified, small land mammal. Huge numbers of intermediate species in the direct line of transition would have had to exist, but the fossil record fails to reveal any of them. so what, people haven't finished digging, have they? (forgot the page) There is nothing about the information in DNA or in proteins which is self-constructing. and you said we didn't fully understand DNA yet. sheesh - you must be modest. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3801.asp The burgeoning field of molecular biology continues to reveal unimagined complexity in the biochemistry of cells. It would be foolish indeed to pronounce anything as ‘junk’. Like the ‘vestigial organs’ idea, it seems that evolutionary ideas about the molecular machines in cells feed on lack of knowledge. oh, you mean we haven't discovered e
-
from: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3791.asp IN SUMMARY
- The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a beginning.
- It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause.
- The universe therefore requires a cause, just as Genesis 1:1 and Romans 1:20 teach.
- God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn’t need a cause.
point 4 plays the all-powerful god card, neatly trumping point 2. it is impossible to argue with logic like this. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3987.asp The fossil record, rather than showing change from one kind to another, shows stasis — things remaining the same. You only have to look at the so-called Cambrian sea and you’ll find jellyfish, starfish, snails, sea urchins, brachiopods, clams and sponges — things you’ll find in the seas today, essentially unchanged after supposedly 500 million years or more. Unchanged? Just because some critters haven't changed doesn't mean other things haven't: dinosaurs, 50 foot sharks, 10 foot lemurs, trilobites, etc.. any room for the argument that a sponge is an adaptable and well-suited creature for its environment? didn't think so. same page: Take, for example, the mammals, which are supposed to be a monophyletic group (descended from a common ancestor). The neo-Darwinian model requires that every one of the groups has descended from a single, unidentified, small land mammal. Huge numbers of intermediate species in the direct line of transition would have had to exist, but the fossil record fails to reveal any of them. so what, people haven't finished digging, have they? (forgot the page) There is nothing about the information in DNA or in proteins which is self-constructing. and you said we didn't fully understand DNA yet. sheesh - you must be modest. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3801.asp The burgeoning field of molecular biology continues to reveal unimagined complexity in the biochemistry of cells. It would be foolish indeed to pronounce anything as ‘junk’. Like the ‘vestigial organs’ idea, it seems that evolutionary ideas about the molecular machines in cells feed on lack of knowledge. oh, you mean we haven't discovered e
-
the author of the page spells out his agenda in the first paragraph. there's no need to read any further. and yet i did... basically it tries to make the same point over and over. here's a summary for those of you who don't want to read: scientists don't have all the answers to all of the sub-questions of evolution yet, so the whole thing must be wrong. wishful thinking, but that's not how the science or even everyday life works. in the real world, you make an assumption, run with it until you find a problem, fix the problem, move on. and even if current evolutionary theory is wrong, even if it's completely wrong, that wouldn't prove that god sat down and flicked the whole universe into existence, then set it up to fool humans (and humans only!) into thinking otherwise. evolution and creationism are not opposite sides of the same coin; one does not disprove the other. but, creationism, as that page states it, is anti-science, anti-knowledge, anti-learning and anti-intellectual. frankly, it's depressing. but, anti-science is exactly how it has to be for someone who truly believes in god. once you suppose the existence of an omniscient, all powerful uber-being that works in ways we can't identify or understand, you've basically thrown your hands up and shouted "we'll never know anything!" sometimes he causes things to happen, sometimes he doesn't but we can't tell anyway because there are no unambiguous signs. at that point, you simply can't ask any more questions, because the only answer to any possible question is "god did it". you can't know otherwise. you can't say "well he did this, but not this - i did that myself". no, the only possible answer is "god did it". you can't prove otherwise. dog got run over? god did it. you got married? god did it. the sun came out again today? god did it. too many cars on the road? god did it. i have a computer? god did it. it runs windows? god did it. it crashes from time to time? god did it. once you suppose a god that can do anything without us knowing any differently, you can't answer any differently than "god did it" to any question. that page and the entire creationist position is impossible to argue against. not because it's right, but because it's based on assumptions that themselves are completely impossible to disprove: god exists and can do anything he wants and we can't say for sure what he did or didn't do. the assumptions encompass everything that happen or could happen, ever, under any circumstances
dog got run over? god did it. Wrong, wrong, wrong Chris. If I have learnt anything from the religious zealots around me it is this. All good things - God did it. All bad things - Man or anyone but god did it. lovely twist to make your own interpretation of the world fit to all situations. Michael Martin Pegasystems Pty Ltd Australia martm@pegasystems.com +61 413-004-018 "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace" - Victor Stone
-
Yes, the page concludes other things, but I gave you a reference for some evidence you asked for. i don't consider that page to be evidence. it's as from from objective as you can get. you might as well ask a palestinian if jews are nice people. That's a rather vicious and unfounded attack. the rest of my post provides the logical foundation. i'll summarize : if god can do anything and we can't tell, there's no point in trying to explain anything. "god did it" covers everything. furthermore, as soon as a believer uses "god did it" as a reason, a non-believer has no choice but to abandon the conversation; logic cannot overcome true faith in the mind of a believer. you can't prove it, you can't disprove it. end of discussion. there are intelligent scientists who believe in God i'm sure they had to reconcile their discoveries with their beliefs, in cases where what they found disagreed with what the bible said. how they did that, i can't say. -c ------------------------------ Smaller Animals Software, Inc. http://www.smalleranimals.com
Also in the times that some of those scientists lived they would have been subjected to religious tests as to their right to live. Burn him at the stake - If he lifes he is a witch/devil/whatever and must be killed. If he dies, well he was a good Christian boy. Throw him in the lake - If he floats he is a witch/devil/whatever and must be killed. If he drowns, well he was a good Christian boy. Racks/pillories/Catholic priests fucking little boys up the arse. Jeez I'm glad we were all beoing looked after by God and his religious zealots. X| Michael Martin Pegasystems Pty Ltd Australia martm@pegasystems.com +61 413-004-018 "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace" - Victor Stone
-
Fossil dating is based on a bunch of assumptions. 1) The amount of radioactive material originally in the item. How do they know that? 2) The rate of decay for whatever they're measuring has never changed. How do they know that? Have they been measuring it during the time in question until now? Nope. 3) Nothing altered the item between the time they are measuring from until now. How do they know that, were they there watching it the whole time? Those sorts of assumptions "hold up" all the fossil dating methods. I'm not going to base any important beliefs on that. Straight math is good, but it needs good information to be useful. John
Yeah, but I don't think even you could fuck up enough to cionfuse 7,000 and 70,000,000. Though maybe if God said so you would. Michael Martin Pegasystems Pty Ltd Australia martm@pegasystems.com +61 413-004-018 "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace" - Victor Stone
-
Yep. And these assumptions haven't been objectively proven wrong though they've been criticized and attacked for hundreds of years. The radiation dating methods have produced conflicting dates, making them much, much, much less reliable. In fact, the normal approach of dating one item appears to be 1) take a bunch of measurements, and 2) pick the one they like the most (i.e. fits best with their other assumptions about it). Check these links. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/382.asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative6-26-2000.asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1141.asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v13n1_volcano.asp
Yep. And these assumptions haven't been objectively proven wrong though they've been criticized and attacked for hundreds of years. Please, give me the name of your dealer, I want on. Your like the monkey crapping in your hand and throwing it at people. Objective what. Prove to me that the Bible existed prior to Nostradamus, as I think he must have wrote sme of the esoteric dribble. Don't go to the Dead Sea Scrolls or any of that other shit. My Great great great grandfather wrote all that crap for a joke. Got a Christian scientist friend to carbon date it to approximations he put in the Bible and then said "This is all true, and you non-believers can't prove other wise cause I'm blind to logic.". How can you say our scientific dating is bullshit while your flight of fancy Jesus based shit is fact. Oh it's in the book. Hang on a minute, way back in the Bible times only the Rich/Royalty/Priest types got to learn to read and write. The plebs just got told what happened. Decent education across the board only happened in the last hundred years or so. The victors write history the facts be damned. That's what has happened with the Bible and all the Popey exclusive twats over the years. Michael Martin Pegasystems Pty Ltd Australia martm@pegasystems.com +61 413-004-018 "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace" - Victor Stone
-
Um. You're ignoring the evidence that I gave and focusing on my conclusion. Why? so if people write something down, it must be real - people wouldn't lie or make up stories to scare their children into not doing stupid stuff. Ok. Then why do you beleive scientists or anybody today? There are ways to determine whether something was intended to be a myth or not. what about griffons, harpies, centaurs, minotaurs, medusas, sea monsters, succubii, incubii, vampires, big foots, abominable snowmen, werewolves, toothfaries and chupacabras ? did noah have two of those on his raft too? why did god only pick on land animals? (or did he kill everything in the sea, too?) Oh brother... You honestly think that the documentary evidence for those is of the same quality as what we were talking about? *shakes his head sadly* species: (1) : a category of biological classification ranking immediately below the genus or subgenus, comprising related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding Yeah, that's the technical definition, but it isn't always used that way. I was just trying to be clear. Some 'species' of dogs are no longer capable of interbreeding, but that's due to genetic mistakes not whether they were part of the original 'kind'. John
Yeah I do. People from ancient times writing down stupid shit in another language. Sounds like the Bible to me. Michael Martin Pegasystems Pty Ltd Australia martm@pegasystems.com +61 413-004-018 "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace" - Victor Stone
-
Hmmm... It doesn't take faith to think evolution might explain where we came from. There's plenty of evidence to support evolution. If that's the case, where's the missing link? Where's the evidence that the media would so happily show to the world? Why hasn't anyone proved evolution if there's "plenty of evidence"? The fact is that evolution hasn't found anything truly useful in supporting itself, but there is plenty of evidence that evolutionary ideas are false. Mt. St. Helens erupted and produced the same rock layers in a few days that evolutionists use to date fossils in the 'millions of years' range. Genetic research is rapidly increasing the perceived gap between apes and humans, not shrinking it. Everything previously thought to be "missing link's" have been shown to be hoaxes or misinterpretations of the evidence. Evidence for creation in the meantime has been growing. All you gotta do is look around to see its effects. All you gotta do is look around to see the effects that sin has had on God's creation. Since I obviously can't answer every question, take a look at www.answersingenesis.org and other similar sites. Sure, you might run into something that's not right, but you'll find a whole lot that _is_ right. John
Oh for fuck sake. The Bible and God haven't been proven in anyway yet. If religion is so just and confident in itself why does it recruit when children are but a few weeks old. Why don't they have the confidence to allow people to grow up understand and debate and then decide for themselves. Because only a few brain-dead would hang around churches and religion. Michael Martin Pegasystems Pty Ltd Australia martm@pegasystems.com +61 413-004-018 "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace" - Victor Stone
-
one breeding pair that survived the flood So you find it hard to believe in evolution but easy to believe that a dude in a boat with two of each species (pharking big boat that!) road out a flood that covered EVERY SINGLE mountain past its peak. You also believe that that flood came and went in just 40 days (whats that? like 200 feet per hour of rain?) and that from just the few people on board the entire human race has flourished from. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for [the one in authority] does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of Wrath to bring punishment to the wrongdoer -- Romans 13:4 That is the NUMBER ONE reason why I find Christianity a bad role model for anyone. You live in fear of your God instead of in being in love and peace with him. That is a phuked up way to live and a phuked up belief. Steven Mitcham, believe what you want, I shall believe what I want. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa "We would accomplish many more things if we did not think of them as impossible." - Chretien Malesherbes
Paul I think we are dealing with the inbread descendants of Noah. While you, I and the rest of the lucid world are descendants of many people who built rafts or other floatation devices. ;P Michael Martin Pegasystems Pty Ltd Australia martm@pegasystems.com +61 413-004-018 "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace" - Victor Stone
-
Sure. God created everything during the first week and saw that "everything was very good". A normal understanding of that would include genetics. In other words, there weren't any genetic mistakes, yet. After Adam and Eve sinned, death came into the world, and things started decaying. The world slowly changed, bad mutations occurred, etc. So, initially, inbreeding wasn't a problem (in fact that is seen in the early parts of the Old Testament history), but several hundred years after the flood, God prohibitted it for the health of the Israelites. (By that time, the collective genetic mistakes could cause problems with inbreeding.) Today, we have had a more time to collect these genetic mistakes. As a result, we've extended the 'inbreeding' concept out to first cousins as a norm. The way things work, we'll have to extend that relationship barrier out a little farther unless we find a way to correct the mistakes. John
So, initially, inbreeding wasn't a problem (in fact that is seen in the early parts of the Old Testament history) That's right, Kane and Able had to fuck their mother and each other. So why is it that the Church and Bible don't like homosexuals and incest? Was OK in the Old Testament should be OK now if that's what you like. Also the thing I like best about God is his willingness through pettiness to fuck up an entire race over two cunts eating an apple but he spent years watching Catholic Priests fuck little boys up the arse and did nothing. Petty, non-existent God for the sheep among us who need a shepherd. Baaaaaaa. Michael Martin Pegasystems Pty Ltd Australia martm@pegasystems.com +61 413-004-018 "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace" - Victor Stone
-
Chris, but where did all of that come from? I realise that time is really just a human concept and a manifestation of something or other. I know of the whole "baloon as a universe" explanation. I know you know it a lot better than me, but I honestly believe that even if I became Steven Hawking I would still wonder as to "But where did all of that come from?" How did the quantum foam of particles come to be and how did the laws about which it revolves manifest? Can you honestly tell me that you are comfortable that at one point (which was not a point because there was nothing, not even nothing) there was nothing and the next point we had the inklings of nothing which was something, which became our universe? You talk of pressures, positive values, quantum flux, quarks, protons etc. which are all human words for universal "entities", but they all had to come from somewhere, from something. This is along the lines of the "Q: What are the things that make up Atoms made up of? A: Quarks etc. Q: But what are Quarks etc. made of? A: Errr sub-quarks etc. Q: But what are...." :-D To me the universe and Paul Watson should not be, there should not even be the posibility of wondering about the universe. Hmmm something stronger than beer is in order now... :) regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa "We would accomplish many more things if we did not think of them as impossible." - Chretien Malesherbes
This is along the lines of the "Q: What are the things that make up Atoms made up of? A: Quarks etc. Q: But what are Quarks etc. made of? A: Errr sub-quarks etc. Q: But what are...." I used to wonder about that a lot back in school, when they started teaching us chemistry. I had asked the teacher several times, but she would never give me a direct anwer. That stupid bi*** just couldn't say "I don't know" :mad:
-
from: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3791.asp IN SUMMARY
- The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a beginning.
- It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause.
- The universe therefore requires a cause, just as Genesis 1:1 and Romans 1:20 teach.
- God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn’t need a cause.
point 4 plays the all-powerful god card, neatly trumping point 2. it is impossible to argue with logic like this. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3987.asp The fossil record, rather than showing change from one kind to another, shows stasis — things remaining the same. You only have to look at the so-called Cambrian sea and you’ll find jellyfish, starfish, snails, sea urchins, brachiopods, clams and sponges — things you’ll find in the seas today, essentially unchanged after supposedly 500 million years or more. Unchanged? Just because some critters haven't changed doesn't mean other things haven't: dinosaurs, 50 foot sharks, 10 foot lemurs, trilobites, etc.. any room for the argument that a sponge is an adaptable and well-suited creature for its environment? didn't think so. same page: Take, for example, the mammals, which are supposed to be a monophyletic group (descended from a common ancestor). The neo-Darwinian model requires that every one of the groups has descended from a single, unidentified, small land mammal. Huge numbers of intermediate species in the direct line of transition would have had to exist, but the fossil record fails to reveal any of them. so what, people haven't finished digging, have they? (forgot the page) There is nothing about the information in DNA or in proteins which is self-constructing. and you said we didn't fully understand DNA yet. sheesh - you must be modest. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3801.asp The burgeoning field of molecular biology continues to reveal unimagined complexity in the biochemistry of cells. It would be foolish indeed to pronounce anything as ‘junk’. Like the ‘vestigial organs’ idea, it seems that evolutionary ideas about the molecular machines in cells feed on lack of knowledge. oh, you mean we haven't discovered e
"i give up. believe what you want, that's the beauty of america." Yeah, believe what you want. We're just going to present it to you they way we like it.
-
The current human "model" has been around for quite some time, and it's hard to believe that mother nature isn't somehow trying to improve it in some way. Would we (as a race) be able to delineate an evolutionary step from a "quirk of nature" or simple birth defect, or would we try to second guess the natural order and attempt to "fix the problem"? To hell with those thin-skinned pillow-biters. - Me, 10/03/2001
If I read you right, you're trying to question where humans aven't evolved much in the last 10-20,000 years? Well, We have actually. On average, we're much taller than we used to be, even a few hundred years ago. On average, we're also smarter (though you wouldn't be able to tell sometimes ;) ) One of the problems is that "Selection of the fittest" isn't happening much anymore. Weaker physical genetics, which a few thousand years ago would have died out, survive and procreate. 100 years ago, the infant mortality rate was an order of magnitude or more higher. Today, we have aids babies, spina biffita, MD, and many other birth defects in which children survive and grow up to live full lives. Children born deaf would likely have died off before they could procreate 1000 years ago. Children born blind, the same. Today, these children grow up and reproduce. Thus, our gene pools are becoming less selective and more "random". I'm not saying any of this is bad or good, I'm just saying how it is. As a species, we're moving away from dominant genetics to a more mixed gene pool Who knows what that will do for the future. -- Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?
-
Ok. Then why do you beleive scientists or anybody today? i don't. i only believe myself. and what i've seen from science makes a thousand times more sense than what i've seen from the bible. but, everybody's entitled to their own viewpoint (at least in the US, you are). Oh brother... You honestly think that the documentary evidence for those is of the same quality as what we were talking about? yep. Some 'species' of dogs are no longer capable of interbreeding which dogs are these? -c ------------------------------ Smaller Animals Software, Inc. http://www.smalleranimals.com
which dogs are these? I vote for Chiahuahua and Grand Danois' :-O Though it may technically be possible if they could somehow read the Karmasutra :-D "It could have been worse, it could have been ME!"
-
Wow, I never knew God had a good quality microscope, tiny injectors and a petre dish (or whatever else is required to clone a being). I thought all he had was a man and a lush garden :-D Is it RNA or DNA you can "switch" the gender of? regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa "We would accomplish many more things if we did not think of them as impossible." - Chretien Malesherbes
Let me comment on this, as this is one field where I actually know something! :) To make a woman from a rib you'd scrape of some cells, isolate the nucleus from these cells, take out the Y chromosome from the nucleus and put in a duplicate of the X chromosome already there, get a fertilized egg from some mammal incidentially present in the Garden, remove the nucleus from the egg and replace it with you "minus-one-Y-plus-one-X" nucleus. Implant the egg into the womb of a suitable mother creature (a woman would of cause be the best choise, but there's probably a scarcity of those as you're about to create the first on - but a chimp might do the trick) and watch her grow ("and yes honey, you do look fat in that, but that's because you're pregnant!"). Some month later a lot of screaming and bleeding and voila, one female prototype produced! That's basically the way they made Dolly (you know, the clone sheep). Of course, they didn't use Adams rib ;P >Is it RNA or DNA you can "switch" the gender of? So, the chromosomes are made of DNA. The genes are discrete entities of DNA on the chromosomes. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes in each cell, one pair being the one that determines sex. If this pair is two X chromosomes you're a woman and ready to do the dishes. If it's one X and one Y chromosome (and yes, it's still called a pair althought they are different) you're a man (at least of gender) and ready to be wrong even though you're all alone in the woods. Now, for the genes to be of any use they have to be expressed into proteins and enzymes. The DNA of the genes is being read by an enzyme called a RNA polymerase. This enzym synthesises an piece of RNA that contains the same information as the DNA it was made from. Then another player enters the field: The ribosome. This guy sticks to the RNA molecules made by the RNA polymerase, reads the info there and makes a protein from this info. And the protein (and enzymes, which are also proteins) goes out into the cell and does it's job, whatever that is. That's the short version of it. However, it may still be to long, my wife keeps saying that I talk too much. Cheers Steen. "To claim that computer games influence children is rediculous. If Pacman had influenced children born in the 80'ies we would see a lot of youngsters running around in dark rooms eating pills while listening to monotonous music"
-
Boy, I miss a day and look at the good discussions I get left out of... How do you explain the Dinosaurs, Primates and other prehistoric species that no longer exist? Um... They died? ;P A little more verbosely, the Bible teaches that God created the world somewhere around 6,000-7,000 years ago. During the week of creation, God created everything saving man and most of the dinosaurs we think of for the sixth day. Roughly 2000 years later, Noah and his family were the only humans who even gave God a second thought. In spite of 120 years of warnings from Noah, none of them changed their minds, and God sent a flood that killed every human that wasn't in the ark as well as lots of sea creatures and probably all of the land creatures that weren't in the ark. (That's why we have so many fossils.) At that point were down to just a few dinosaurs, 2 of each kind (where a kind isn't a species, but is classified as the group of animals or plants that can breed with each other). There is evidence that dinosaurs were around for a while after that too. Most countries have dinosaur legends (called dragons until one or two hundred years ago). And most of those legends have one thing in common -- heros killing dragons. Sounds like a good explanation to me. I'm not sure what you're referring to with the "primates and other prehistoric species", especially since the only true "pre-history" is the non-time before(?) God created the universe. John
Hi John, A quick opening comment from Christianity Today International/Christianity Today Magazine. December 9, 1996 Vol. 40, No. 14, Page 72 Although many Christian academics adhere to the biblical teaching that God is the source of all material creation, there is deep disagreement on how it occurred. Thus while secular scholars endorse an all-encompassing scientific perspective concerning the material world, religious scholars occupy a wide spectrum on the issues of life's origins ... Among Christian experts on evolution, an inescapable issue concerns what to make of the six-day creation account in Genesis. Ray Van Leeuwen, professor of Bible and theology at Eastern College in Saint David's, Pennsylvania, says, "Nobody interprets the Genesis creation account literally, and if they think they do, they're fooling themselves." According to Van Leeuwen, Genesis states that the stars are in the firmament and the waters are above the firmament. Noting that God unleashed the flood waters during Noah's time by opening the gates in the firmament, Van Leeuwen says, "I don't know of anyone who thinks the flood waters came from beyond the stars, a distance of at least four light years." Van Leeuwen contends that Genesis contains principles that have important implications for science, but is not itself scientific. A single quote from one source proves nothing, but I think you would have to admit that there is WIDE disagreement even within christian academics as to just how literal the bible is. You take it verbatim, but many, many others do not. Even when they arrive at the same basic conclusion as you (that the bible is an important document that occupies a vital role in the relationship between god and humanity), they do NOT agree with you that it is historically accurate. ----------------------- Reg : "Well, what Jesus blatantly fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem."
-
Paul I think we are dealing with the inbread descendants of Noah. While you, I and the rest of the lucid world are descendants of many people who built rafts or other floatation devices. ;P Michael Martin Pegasystems Pty Ltd Australia martm@pegasystems.com +61 413-004-018 "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace" - Victor Stone
While you, I and the rest of the lucid world are descendants of many people who built rafts or other floatation devices LOL!! ----------------------- Reg : "Well, what Jesus blatantly fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem."
-
He's either not there, or useless I don't agree with that. I am not a Christian, I don’t believe in heaven and hell, but I do believe in God. But not as you might. I believe the entity that people call “GOD” is that little voice in your head that you can use to seek comfort with. Well not just a voice, but the goodness. It’s a very difficult thing to put into words. Maybe that’s why olden people took the easy route and moved the God out of the individual and made it into a collective God. Think about it, it’s the first place everybody turns for help, and it’s the source of all things good – and bad – about ourselves. That is what the concept of God is to me. Not some old man flying round in a far off nebula with a crystal ball. There is more truth behind this reasoning than you may think at first. God is inside each of us, and thus everywhere we go, God brings out the good in us, God helps us thought hard times, and God listens to our prayers. I can understand how long ago people would have taken this and made it into a separate entity, together with visions of [insert vision here], etc. People as individuals need to have a God to help them through their lives, however you interpret it.
:cool: -=:suss:=-
David Wulff dwulff@battleaxesoftware.com
Yeah man - like Siddha Yoga: "Worship your own Self, bow to your own Self, Kneel to your own Self - God dwells within you, as you, for you" cheers, Chris Maunder (CodeProject)
-
from: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3791.asp IN SUMMARY
- The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a beginning.
- It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause.
- The universe therefore requires a cause, just as Genesis 1:1 and Romans 1:20 teach.
- God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn’t need a cause.
point 4 plays the all-powerful god card, neatly trumping point 2. it is impossible to argue with logic like this. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3987.asp The fossil record, rather than showing change from one kind to another, shows stasis — things remaining the same. You only have to look at the so-called Cambrian sea and you’ll find jellyfish, starfish, snails, sea urchins, brachiopods, clams and sponges — things you’ll find in the seas today, essentially unchanged after supposedly 500 million years or more. Unchanged? Just because some critters haven't changed doesn't mean other things haven't: dinosaurs, 50 foot sharks, 10 foot lemurs, trilobites, etc.. any room for the argument that a sponge is an adaptable and well-suited creature for its environment? didn't think so. same page: Take, for example, the mammals, which are supposed to be a monophyletic group (descended from a common ancestor). The neo-Darwinian model requires that every one of the groups has descended from a single, unidentified, small land mammal. Huge numbers of intermediate species in the direct line of transition would have had to exist, but the fossil record fails to reveal any of them. so what, people haven't finished digging, have they? (forgot the page) There is nothing about the information in DNA or in proteins which is self-constructing. and you said we didn't fully understand DNA yet. sheesh - you must be modest. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3801.asp The burgeoning field of molecular biology continues to reveal unimagined complexity in the biochemistry of cells. It would be foolish indeed to pronounce anything as ‘junk’. Like the ‘vestigial organs’ idea, it seems that evolutionary ideas about the molecular machines in cells feed on lack of knowledge. oh, you mean we haven't discovered e
The point isn't that I know everything or even that you don't know everything. The point is that the creationist model stands up better to the evidence that the evolutionist model does. It's a very simple concept. Both sides can run into problems simply because we don't have all of the relevant information, yet. However, the best model should be used, and it seems rather clear to me that the comparison shows creationism to be much better. John
-
from: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3791.asp IN SUMMARY
- The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a beginning.
- It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause.
- The universe therefore requires a cause, just as Genesis 1:1 and Romans 1:20 teach.
- God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn’t need a cause.
point 4 plays the all-powerful god card, neatly trumping point 2. it is impossible to argue with logic like this. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3987.asp The fossil record, rather than showing change from one kind to another, shows stasis — things remaining the same. You only have to look at the so-called Cambrian sea and you’ll find jellyfish, starfish, snails, sea urchins, brachiopods, clams and sponges — things you’ll find in the seas today, essentially unchanged after supposedly 500 million years or more. Unchanged? Just because some critters haven't changed doesn't mean other things haven't: dinosaurs, 50 foot sharks, 10 foot lemurs, trilobites, etc.. any room for the argument that a sponge is an adaptable and well-suited creature for its environment? didn't think so. same page: Take, for example, the mammals, which are supposed to be a monophyletic group (descended from a common ancestor). The neo-Darwinian model requires that every one of the groups has descended from a single, unidentified, small land mammal. Huge numbers of intermediate species in the direct line of transition would have had to exist, but the fossil record fails to reveal any of them. so what, people haven't finished digging, have they? (forgot the page) There is nothing about the information in DNA or in proteins which is self-constructing. and you said we didn't fully understand DNA yet. sheesh - you must be modest. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3801.asp The burgeoning field of molecular biology continues to reveal unimagined complexity in the biochemistry of cells. It would be foolish indeed to pronounce anything as ‘junk’. Like the ‘vestigial organs’ idea, it seems that evolutionary ideas about the molecular machines in cells feed on lack of knowledge. oh, you mean we haven't discovered e
point 4 plays the all-powerful god card, neatly trumping point 2. it is impossible to argue with logic like this. Yeah, it's impossible to argue with because it's a logical necessity. In order to find the source of everything, there has to be _something_ up the line that didn't need a source. God fits the bill quite nicely. How do you explain the existince of the universe without reverting to use of the same things/laws that are part of the universe existing before the universe existed? John
