Evolution
-
> Does that mean you believe the Bible is wrong, or God is confused? God as an entity doesn't exist. The bible may be "history", but we all know that history is nothing but half-truths and outright lies glossed over with a thin film of conjecture, and propped up by a series of probabilities and human interpretation, pre-ackaged and propogated as fact to young minds who further re-evaluate and re-interprate to fit their own circumstances and observations. Yeah, that sounds like something on which I'd want to base *my* life. To hell with those thin-skinned pillow-biters. - Me, 10/03/2001
Hmmm... How do you 'know' that the Bible's history is undependable? What evidence do you have? If you're saying what I think you're saying, you can't say the Bible is wrong since you don't have any reliable reason to think otherwise. I base my life on the Bible because it's the one book which has been right every time someone had an objective way to decide either way. John
-
What about these hyperspace tunnels between separate universes? How do they fit into this picture? ;) Tomasz Sowinski -- http://www.shooltz.com
The universe exists in more than three dimensions. Hyperspace tunnels are where two separate points in the third dimension cross. I don't think they are related to the big bang.
-
Sooo ... let me get this straight. Earth is 6-7000 years old. Dinosaurs created after Earth therefore less than 7000 years ago, but their fossils are dated as hundreds of millions of years old. Australian Aborigines been here in Australia for longer than 40,000 years. Straight maths says this is either bullshit or written by people doing serious, serious drugs. Could be drugs ... sounds like you've had some yourself. 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
-
Actually, evolutionists believe that everything was formed from dust, too. They just speculate about a different form of "dust". (Dust being unorganized matter.) Actually it was ooze, not dust ;P Also science has shown how ooze can transform into life, I have yet to see (or heard an explanation) someone transform a rib into a women (now THAT would be a good trick ;) ). Oooohhh... Some fun questions! It's too bad they kicked you out of Sunday School, not knowing the answers off the top of their head doesn't mean they should avoid the question. I doubt there are any answers to those questions in any religion. Once I figured out that no one knew the answer in my church I thought "Well then, what the hell am I doing believing in something that does not have even a basic answer to a basic question". 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
Couldn't you take a DNA sample from the rib, switch the gender gene to female and clone it?
-
Did you watch that programme on TV as well? Bloody amazing I thought. Relgious "believers" aren't intereseted in scientific facts or proof Oh yes they are, but only when it proves their points. My favourite one was that some Christian scientists tried to recreate oil from bio-mass by mimicking conditions in a pressure tank. When they failed they declared this as proof that oil could not have been made naturally but only by God. hehe lovely stuff. 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
>>Relgious "believers" aren't intereseted in scientific facts or proof >Oh yes they are, but only when it proves their points. Actually, evolutionary scientists do this at least as much as the Christian scientists you refer to. How else do you explain that the theory of ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny still being taught in textbooks until recently, when it was shown to be a hoax around 70 years ago? (For documentation, check http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1339.asp.) Just because you hear the reports about the ridiculous looking "Christian" scientists doesn't mean there aren't intelligent ones out there. Don't just take what you hear at face value because it already fits with what you believe. John
-
Hmmm... How do you 'know' that the Bible's history is undependable? What evidence do you have? If you're saying what I think you're saying, you can't say the Bible is wrong since you don't have any reliable reason to think otherwise. I base my life on the Bible because it's the one book which has been right every time someone had an objective way to decide either way. John
-
Sounds like a good explanation to me. sounds like insanity to me. 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. 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?) the only evidence for Noah and a 6000 year old earth is from folklore. the evidence against is everywhere. 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). species: (1) : a category of biological classification ranking immediately below the genus or subgenus, comprising related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding -c ------------------------------ Smaller Animals Software, Inc. http://www.smalleranimals.com
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
-
Couldn't you take a DNA sample from the rib, switch the gender gene to female and clone it?
-
Couldn't you take a DNA sample from the rib, switch the gender gene to female and clone it?
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
-
Sounds like a good explanation to me. sounds like insanity to me. 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. 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?) the only evidence for Noah and a 6000 year old earth is from folklore. the evidence against is everywhere. 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). species: (1) : a category of biological classification ranking immediately below the genus or subgenus, comprising related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding -c ------------------------------ Smaller Animals Software, Inc. http://www.smalleranimals.com
-
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
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
-
Dammit, whadidya have to make a comment like that for? It doesn't take faith to think evolution might explain where we came from. There's plenty of evidence to support evolution. All you gotta do is look around to see its effects. Anyways, I dont have enough faith to believe in God. I think early humans came up with the concept of God in order to create civilization out of a population of ignorant, warlike barbarians. There's been many flavors of God over time(christian, catholic, muslim), all designed to guide the masses into doing the "right" thing. But hey it's better than killing eachother. Well, the sky's rumbling so I'll shut up now. Otherwise I'll be dodging lightning bolts all day... Josh josh@that-guy.net
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
-
I want someone, one day to explain to me how out of nothing something came to be. The big bang is all well and nice (I believe in it) but what the hell started that? OK - bring that case of beer you are gonna owe me round to my place one day and I'll go through it with you. I haven't done this stuff for 10 years, but if my creaky memory serves me well then there are a couple of things you need to warp your brain around: - there is no 'outside' of the universe. - there is no 'before' the big bang. The universe isn't a bubble within a big empty room. The universe is that big empty room, yet the room, and the space and time that make up that room are expanding constantly - each point moving away from every other point due to the initial expansion and inflation of the universe. Maybe you should bring a spare case of beer. Just in case. As to how the universe was created and where it's energy came from, the answer to both is 'nothing'. There is a continual quantum foam of particles and anti-particles being created and anihilated (which is what causes black holes to evaporate - bring some tequila for that little fireside chat). As long as the net energy balance is always 0 then Mother Nature turns a blind eye. One theory goes that the Big Bang was a total doozy of a quantum fluctuation, with the energy contained in matter being counter balanced by the negative energy in gravity. The cool part comes from a theory that there came into being a 'false vacuum' whereby a part of the infinitesimal quantum fluctuation had a positive energy density even though it was a vacuum. This false vacuum has very large, but very negative pressure. Pressure creates a gravitational field, so a large, negative pressure in an infinititely small volume creates a very large, repulsive gravitational field which causes the universe to inflate by a factor of 10^25. What's really, really cool is that even while the universe is inflating the energy density remains constant. Energy increases by the cube of the inflation rate (ie 10^75) and is balanced out by an ever increasing gravitational field (which has negative energy). The inflation slows, the universe cools, quarks, protons, electrons and atoms form and eventually coagulate together to form Paul Watson. Total energy = 0 => the ultimate free lunch. cheers, Chris Maunder (CodeProject)
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
-
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
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. Understandably, you're trying to reconcile the flood story with your understanding of the world and it's not working. The world before the flood was vastly different than it is now. Before the flood, there was only one continent. (Genesis 1:9) During the flood, the entire topography of the earth was changed with mountains rising where land masses collided and the previous layout of the earth being totally altered. (In the meantime, it buried most of things that we now see as fossils.) One good conclusion (since the Bible doesn't say otherwise) is that the pre-flood world had nothing like what we consider mountains today. Rather they were more like our bluffs or even smaller. >>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 very misunderstood way of looking at the Bible. Especially since the verse just before it says, "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same." Pulling out one phrase and rejecting the entire Bible based on a misunderstanding of it is a very big mistake. The Bible represents God as a punisher of the rebellious and a rewarder of those who love Him. You can't take only one side and have a proper view of Him. Please base your decisions and statements on what it actually says. John
-
.. in fact if you read deeply into the Bible's description of the world's creation (Genesis) it does look like an evolutionary process. Uh. What is "reading deeply"? You may have a good explanation of it, but usually it turns into, "looking for a way to make it say what I want rather than what it says". It wasn't like: "And the God snapped his fingers and all the stuff was right there, new and shiny". Then what do you think these mean? "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." Genesis 1:3 "And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so." Genesis 1:9 According to Bible it took the whole "week" to create and it took few steps all together. Nothing happened "just like that". Actually, the Bible says it all happened "just like that", but for some reason God did it in six different days, stopping on the seventh. One possible reason is that He wanted to set an example for us to use as our week. The Bible does make that relationship in a few places, one is in Exodus 20:11. Evolution may even go away and be replaced by some other theory in the future, just like many other theories in the past. I certainly agree with you there. If you take a look at current scientists, most of them see problems with evolution in their specific fields, but assume that the other fields explain it away. The problem is that when they get together, they all see that evolution just doesn't work. Hence the newer attempts to keep evolution alive (like using mutations which Darwin didn't do, or punctuated equilibrium). The final 'theory' people will settle on will be the one found in the Bible because it's the right one (and it works the best). John
If you take a look at current scientists, most of them see problems with evolution in their specific fields examples please. The problem is that when they get together, they all see that evolution just doesn't work. examples please. i know it fits your POV to think that there is a huge amount of FUD among evolutionary/biological scientists. but i believe you're wrong. like using mutations which Darwin didn't do, or punctuated equilibrium Darwin wasn't 100% correct, BFD. but, he took us a long way in the right direction. The final 'theory' people will settle on will be the one found in the Bible because it's the right one (and it works the best). ok. -c ------------------------------ Smaller Animals Software, Inc. http://www.smalleranimals.com
-
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
The validity of the Bible is base on a bunch of assumptions. 1) Our decentants did not lie about its origin. 2) While it was passed on thoughout time no one changed, mis-interpreted, added or removed text from it. (I believe there is a clause in the Bible that states you to Hell if you do this but that does not remove the modification from circulation.)
-
Actually, that's two words. :) Fun statements about cat behavior are interesting, but what does that have to do with the discussion? You believe what you want to believe just because you feel like it? John
-
Actually, evolutionists believe that everything was formed from dust, too. They just speculate about a different form of "dust". (Dust being unorganized matter.) Actually it was ooze, not dust ;P Also science has shown how ooze can transform into life, I have yet to see (or heard an explanation) someone transform a rib into a women (now THAT would be a good trick ;) ). Oooohhh... Some fun questions! It's too bad they kicked you out of Sunday School, not knowing the answers off the top of their head doesn't mean they should avoid the question. I doubt there are any answers to those questions in any religion. Once I figured out that no one knew the answer in my church I thought "Well then, what the hell am I doing believing in something that does not have even a basic answer to a basic question". 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
Actually, all scientists have shown is how you can create amino acids from non-organic compounds. The amino acids themselves are not alive, merely organic. They have never created living matter. Remember, organic and living are two different things. BTW, when I was a kid and watched Cosmos for the first time I was amazed at man's ingenuity. Then I grew up and learned what they were talking about, and that organic material is not life. Joke of the day: One day in the future, scientists had discovered everything about how life works and they decided that there was no longer a need for God. So they found God and told him that they knew enough to go it alone. God asked them to hold a man making contest, and that if the scientists could reproduce His miracle of creating a man from dust then He would leave all humanity to it's own devices. The scientists, positive of their abilities, quickly agreed to it, set up their lab and began to collect dust for their experiment. God quickly chided them, 'No, no, no. Get your own dust!" 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
-
> what about griffons, harpies, centaurs... My ex-wife is a harpie... To hell with those thin-skinned pillow-biters. - Me, 10/03/2001
-
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. Understandably, you're trying to reconcile the flood story with your understanding of the world and it's not working. The world before the flood was vastly different than it is now. Before the flood, there was only one continent. (Genesis 1:9) During the flood, the entire topography of the earth was changed with mountains rising where land masses collided and the previous layout of the earth being totally altered. (In the meantime, it buried most of things that we now see as fossils.) One good conclusion (since the Bible doesn't say otherwise) is that the pre-flood world had nothing like what we consider mountains today. Rather they were more like our bluffs or even smaller. >>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 very misunderstood way of looking at the Bible. Especially since the verse just before it says, "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same." Pulling out one phrase and rejecting the entire Bible based on a misunderstanding of it is a very big mistake. The Bible represents God as a punisher of the rebellious and a rewarder of those who love Him. You can't take only one side and have a proper view of Him. Please base your decisions and statements on what it actually says. John
While we are on the flood topic, could you explain how two of each species re-populated the earth considering there is scientific proof that repeated inbreeding causes health problems and deformations?
