Evolution
-
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
-
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
You're arguing against some things that both believers and non-believers agree are true. Please, read up on the facts before you disclaim them in the way you have. Also, it's a good idea to have actual evidence when you try to deny something. And arbitrarily limiting evidence just because you don't like part of it is a very, very bad way to debate anything. 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
You are missing a lot of stuff. First, almost all of the original converts were full-grown adults. Second, there are a _lot_ of people converting to Christianity as adults today. Just because you don't hear about them doesn't mean it's not happening. Third, there are many ways in which the Bible has been supported by archeological evidence, but "proven" is a much bigger concept. You can't technically "prove" anything in the past. If that's what you're asking for, I guess I'll have to give up on you. (Refer to the ways the legal and historical systems establishes guilt or innocence, fact or fiction. Using similar methods, the integrity of the Bible has been shown to be vastly superior to the rest of the ancient documents.) John
-
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
logical necessity, yeah whatever. just because we can't explain how the universe started (yet) doesn't require the existence of a god. i can't explain a lot of things, but that doesn't mean i assume god did it - it means i admit i don't know now, but maybe i will someday. and when we find out someday how the universe really started, all of the creationists will take one step back and say 'but that couldn't happen without god!'. whatever. a 'god' is the wildest solution possible. i will not respond to any more of these postings. -c ------------------------------ Smaller Animals Software, Inc. http://www.smalleranimals.com
-
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
You are so confused about what the Bible teaches... Cain and Able married their sisters. They didn't have sex with their mother! Each had their own wife (as in not shared) as well as the other sons that Adam and Eve had. Eating an "apple" wasn't the problem. Adam and Eve directly rejected what God had said. That is the essence of sin. The punishment for sin has already been set for the Catholic priests you mention, and it is the same for everyone who does things in rebellion against God. God is longsuffering, giving people time to change their minds. Otherwise, Adam and Eve would have been struck dead and we would not be in existence. Please argue from correct information rather than your deprecated view of what Christians believe. John
-
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
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"? I believe that "civilized society" and "evolution" are not only mutually exclusive but that "civilized society" can have a potential reversing effect on evolution. If evolution works in large steps then your fears are probably well founded. If a more gradual 'natural selection' is what removes weak genes from the gene pool then I'm afraid "Civilized Society" coddles weak genetic lines and allows them to reproduce as freely as strong genetic lines. Sounds like an evolution-killer to me. Steve T. Philosophy: Questions which may never be answered. Religion: Answers which may never be questioned.
