|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2004 14:47:35 GMT -5
You forget. God isn't bound by the laws of Physics. :P He put them in place, he can abuse 'em. It's not a law of physics, it's a hypothesis in biology. Since it is a hypothesis, it hasn't been fully proven. We only know cells come from other cells because that's all we've ever seen. We can't prove it to be true. That's strange. My bible says, from the very first line of The First Book of Moses, commonly called Genesis: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters." Nothing about dinosaurs. The Earth did not become void, that's how it was when God created it. Okay, the bible says that God goes on to create the Earth's land and seas, yadda yadda. On the fourth day: "And God said, "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let the birds fly above..." Wait...the first creatures existed at the same time birds did? That's strange, the oldest fossils of those creatures date back long before those of birds (and yes, that is using a proven process). "And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beats of the earth according totheir kinds." And it was good...Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth..." So this means that humans existed at the same time as all the other animals. Also recall that later, Adam names ALL of the animals. If they're all named, then why are we still discovering new species of animals? Ones that we've never even known about? And I don't know when Lucifer first turned against God, as I have never read past the first couple pages of Gensis outside of of children's bibles. However, I'm almost certain that it happened long after humans were first created. On fossils, I can understand how the whole guessing thing may confuse you, Stal. Sure, we don't know for sure what some animals looked like, or where all their bones went. But have you ever seen another animal with the skull of a Tyrannosaurus? Surely the skulls aren't incorrectly built, as they're usually found with most of their pieces already in place. |
|
|
|
Post by william on Aug 31, 2004 14:52:08 GMT -5
I think you're taking the Creation Story too seriously. It was a story made by people thousands of years ago that got passed down through generations, and eventually became accepted.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2004 15:05:19 GMT -5
This argument is useless. All theories/laws assume that nothing else is interfering. For instance, gravity- according to the law of gravity, if an apple fell from a tree, it would fall to the ground. Would a person be breaking the law of gravity if he caught the apple? Of course not! Creationism would accept Cell Theory, that with nothing interfering, living cells only come from living cells. If a supernatural force interferes, it doesn't disprove the theory, because the theory assumes that nothing is interfering, just as the man catching the apple does not disprove gravity. You're using incorrect logic here. For one thing, the law of gravity states that if something falls, it will continue falling until a force equal or greater than gravity stops it. For instance, the ground provides an equal upward force as gravity provides a downward force. That is one of the reasons why the Earth does not implode. When a hand stops the apple, the hand may move down from the force of the apple, but it will move back or stop moving to counter the apple's force. The cell theory states that cells only come from living cells. Period. Of course it assumes nothing is interfering, because it also assumes that it is impossible for something to interfere. I'm not sure about the Earth hanging thing, but that has nothing to do with heliocentrism. In fact, it's against heliocentrism, because heliocentrism says that the Earth is held in it's orbital position by the sun and other gravitational forces, and that the universe doesn't rotate around the Earth. Isaiah may indeed be describing a round Earth. However, he is describing a circle Earth. That is still round, but it is not spherical. A circle has no depth, and so it exists in only two dimensions (of course, they probably wouldn't know this, and would probably assume that a nearly-flat cylinder was a circle). A sphere does have depth, but is not a circle. Isaiah is not referring to a spherical Earth, and so the bible is wrong yet again. It's hypothesis is no different than that of the ancient Greeks, and you already know what other beliefs of theirs have been disproven. Well if it is a dinosaur, then obviously Stal is wrong about the bible saying dinosaurs died before humans. And this is one of the many reasons that there are different religions based around the bible--the bible is very unclear about what it is saying, that it can be taken several ways. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2004 15:08:24 GMT -5
I think you're taking the Creation Story too seriously. It was a story made by people thousands of years ago that got passed down through generations, and eventually became accepted. I couldn't have said it better myself. |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Aug 31, 2004 17:24:35 GMT -5
That's strange. My bible says, from the very first line of The First Book of Moses, commonly called Genesis: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters." Nothing about dinosaurs. The Earth did not become void, that's how it was when God created it. Okay, the bible says that God goes on to create the Earth's land and seas, yadda yadda. On the fourth day: "And God said, "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let the birds fly above..." Wait...the first creatures existed at the same time birds did? That's strange, the oldest fossils of those creatures date back long before those of birds (and yes, that is using a proven process). "And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beats of the earth according totheir kinds." And it was good...Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth..." So this means that humans existed at the same time as all the other animals. Also recall that later, Adam names ALL of the animals. If they're all named, then why are we still discovering new species of animals? Ones that we've never even known about? And I don't know when Lucifer first turned against God, as I have never read past the first couple pages of Gensis outside of of children's bibles. However, I'm almost certain that it happened long after humans were first created. Let's go through this one thing at a time, then. Genesis 1:1 (KJV) 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Stating that in the beginning, God indeed created the Heavens and the Earth. Genesis 1:2 (KJV) 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. The bolded part there is where I'm saying the gap is, don't you see? The one that is most correctly translated as "The Earth had become without form and void." That is the more correct translation of the passage (you can look it up yourself, using concordences and dictionaries and so forth). Which means there was a time where the Earth was not as it was at that point. The time of Satan's rebellion. You say it was long after human's created. It's very clear to most people that it was through Satan taking the form of a serpent, or using the serpent to speak through that Adam and Eve were first decieved and sin entered into the world. Why would Lucifer have done that if he hadn't rebelled yet? He had long since rebelled and banished from Heaven. Got let him keep his dominion over the Earth, though. So at that point and time, when the Earth was recreated, where the land rose from the sea and so forth, God was recreating the Earth and introducing new forms of life into it. Adam named all the animals. But new animals emerge today! Do you think Adam had a Laborador Retriever to name back then? Or insert some other form of dog, here. No. They were bred through other species of dogs and so forth until the proper genetic mix brought them forth. That's not evolution. That's manipulating genetics and so forth, in a very minor way. Also, just because Adam named them all does not mean that the knowledge hasn't been lost throughout the ages and the names have had to be reapplied. You have to use logic when thinking about these, Comedian. But you're not. You're so set in a mindset about it being wrong you won't even let yourself think logically about how these happened! So yes, man existed at a time of when all the other animals were created. But this history only dates back about, roughly, 6000 years! And the Earth is millions of years old. Why wait so long in the recreation of Earth anyway? Fossil fuels. God knew we'd need the petroleum and other fuels that only resulted from the cataclysmic death and destruction of the dinosaurs and fossils that came about there. Those take a long long time to form. If it was done immediately, we wouldn't have been able to process the fuels at the point in time when we did with relative history. As for the Behemoth in Job, that's just it...no one knows what it is at all. It could've been something that's not extinct and thought to have been a dinosaur, or it could be a lot of metaphorical speaking in the description that's making us imagine things much differently. For all we know, it could be an Elephant! comedian, again, I'm very amused how you can claim to be an expert on this but you haven't read the Bible yourself. If I had said something along those lines, on another topic, you know as well as I do that everyone would be saying my opinion was unqualified because I didn't know what I was talking about unless I read it. yet you can claim to be sure of something in a book you've not read yourself? And finally, so I messed up and said Physics! Big deal! Just because something is true in a natural law/ theory (and using your own reasoning, just because it's a theory does not make it untrue), does not mean that God has to operate within the same boundaries that all others do. Now, KKM, I have stuff to say regarding your last post so don't think I'm done there.  |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Aug 31, 2004 17:25:17 GMT -5
That's strange. My bible says, from the very first line of The First Book of Moses, commonly called Genesis: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters." Nothing about dinosaurs. The Earth did not become void, that's how it was when God created it. Okay, the bible says that God goes on to create the Earth's land and seas, yadda yadda. On the fourth day: "And God said, "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let the birds fly above..." Wait...the first creatures existed at the same time birds did? That's strange, the oldest fossils of those creatures date back long before those of birds (and yes, that is using a proven process). "And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beats of the earth according totheir kinds." And it was good...Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth..." So this means that humans existed at the same time as all the other animals. Also recall that later, Adam names ALL of the animals. If they're all named, then why are we still discovering new species of animals? Ones that we've never even known about? And I don't know when Lucifer first turned against God, as I have never read past the first couple pages of Gensis outside of of children's bibles. However, I'm almost certain that it happened long after humans were first created. Let's go through this one thing at a time, then. Genesis 1:1 (KJV) 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Stating that in the beginning, God indeed created the Heavens and the Earth. Genesis 1:2 (KJV) 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. The bolded part there is where I'm saying the gap is, don't you see? The one that is most correctly translated as "The Earth had become without form and void." That is the more correct translation of the passage (you can look it up yourself, using concordences and dictionaries and so forth). Which means there was a time where the Earth was not as it was at that point. The time of Satan's rebellion. You say it was long after human's created. It's very clear to most people that it was through Satan taking the form of a serpent, or using the serpent to speak through that Adam and Eve were first decieved and sin entered into the world. Why would Lucifer have done that if he hadn't rebelled yet? He had long since rebelled and banished from Heaven. Got let him keep his dominion over the Earth, though. So at that point and time, when the Earth was recreated, where the land rose from the sea and so forth, God was recreating the Earth and introducing new forms of life into it. Adam named all the animals. But new animals emerge today! Do you think Adam had a Laborador Retriever to name back then? Or insert some other form of dog, here. No. They were bred through other species of dogs and so forth until the proper genetic mix brought them forth. That's not evolution. That's manipulating genetics and so forth, in a very minor way. Also, just because Adam named them all does not mean that the knowledge hasn't been lost throughout the ages and the names have had to be reapplied. You have to use logic when thinking about these, Comedian. But you're not. You're so set in a mindset about it being wrong you won't even let yourself think logically about how these happened! So yes, man existed at a time of when all the other animals were created. But this history only dates back about, roughly, 6000 years! And the Earth is millions of years old. Why wait so long in the recreation of Earth anyway? Fossil fuels. God knew we'd need the petroleum and other fuels that only resulted from the cataclysmic death and destruction of the dinosaurs and fossils that came about there. Those take a long long time to form. If it was done immediately, we wouldn't have been able to process the fuels at the point in time when we did with relative history. As for the Behemoth in Job, that's just it...no one knows what it is at all. It could've been something that's not extinct and thought to have been a dinosaur, or it could be a lot of metaphorical speaking in the description that's making us imagine things much differently. For all we know, it could be an Elephant! comedian, again, I'm very amused how you can claim to be an expert on this but you haven't read the Bible yourself. If I had said something along those lines, on another topic, you know as well as I do that everyone would be saying my opinion was unqualified because I didn't know what I was talking about unless I read it. yet you can claim to be sure of something in a book you've not read yourself? And finally, so I messed up and said Physics! Big deal! Just because something is true in a natural law/ theory (and using your own reasoning, just because it's a theory does not make it untrue), does not mean that God has to operate within the same boundaries that all others do. Now, KKM, I have stuff to say regarding your last post so don't think I'm done there. |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Aug 31, 2004 17:33:56 GMT -5
You seemed to be suggesting that only immoral people would believe in evolution, which is how I responded. *shrugs* My mistake. To me, the general acceptance of evolution as proven by biologists seems to indicate that evolution *has,* by scientific standards, been proven. I think you may be misinterpreting the statements--if you already don't believe in a god, creationism seems to be nonsense, no matter what the state of the other theories are. Or you could be right, and those scientists are not willing to face potential incorrectness on this matter, which is a bit un-scientific of them. Again, I reckon scientists know what they're doing when recreating fossils. They make mistakes, but they seem to eventually correct them--"Earth is Flat" to "Earth is Sphere" to "Earth is Imperfect Sphere." And also again, I don't know what missing links you mean. The transitional forms between man and ancestral primates, or what? I gave some examples that seem to be pretty accepted as in-between forms, and there's not much more I can do to convince you. A professor like that would be wrong, yes. Research papers aren't the same as scientific papers, though, from my understanding of a scientific paper. If a paper is primarily regurgitating facts for a teacher, like a research paper on the Renaissance would be, it's not the same as a paper prepared for other scientists, I think. I don't have much familiarity with the form and content of a scientific paper, but I'm under the impression that there is a significant difference. *shrugs* In Matthew 7:12, Jesus says the Commandments can be summed up as the Golden Rule. Since the Ten Commandments seem to be pretty much the major moral laws of the Old Testament, I'd assumed that meant that the Golden Rule is pretty much the major moral law of Christianity. Am I assuming something incorrectly? Sorry, I've miscommunicated. I meant *I* believe an action is okay unless it harms someone, and *YOU* believe that an action is good only if it is respectful of others (which is how others, and you, would presumably like to be treated--the Golden Rule). For you, actions are assumed not-good, but respectful and helpful ones are good. For me, actions are assumed fine, except the ones that harm others (which, to clarify, would include lying, vandalism, prejudice, and other nonphysical forms of harm as well). That last statement of yours seems to suggest my original statement was wrong, though. Do you think morality has nothing to do with the effects on others, only with appeasing God, and one of these divine rules happens to be helping others? (It's kind of fascinating to me how other people can come to such different conclusions than I do--is it that we have completely different fundamental mindsets, or is it that we just don't weigh certain arguments and evidences the same way?) Missing Links. The in-between stages of the two species that have supposedly evolved from one another. You speak of those links, and I speak of no evidence to support the things built. As Comedian said regarding fossils, you almost always have other skeletons and things to work off of. But these are the only one's of its time. Do you not see what that does to the credibility of evolution? That using two things that can't possibly show you the true built of a person, that they can recreate and entire skeleton of what humans used to look like? It's absurd! Thank about this, as well! All these animals stemmed from one common source! WHERE ARE THEIR LINKS? Evolution is a slow process, takes millions and millions of years for it to occur, yes? Well, then we should just be chockfull of fossils and bones of those evolutionary stages of man and other animals. But we're not. We're not all. We have the final result. That's it. So where's the proof and evidence? In laboratories, they've attempted to speed up the life proccesses of many insects. Viewing thousands of generations in a much much shorter span of time. No change. The only changes were some mutations that ever occured were harmful mutations that kept that particular insect from being able to live.I ask again. Where's the proof? Those that fight against evolution, on this forum especially, come forth with facts, logic and so forth! The only things I hear coming from the evolutionists are "well, I think scientists know what they're talking about." and the like! If you believe it, then where's the proof to yourself, or have you just blindly accepted it? Going back to thing on the paper, you fail to see what I mean. If college students can write an incredible paper that puts the theory of evolution to shambles, those same creationistic scientists CAN write the scientific papers and most likely have! But in the science community there is an extreme BIAS against creationism and widespread mockery. You just don't see it. |
|
|
|
Post by Princess Ember Mononoke on Aug 31, 2004 20:06:02 GMT -5
I have only one real point to make, and them I'm going to say my piece and be done.
Point: Maybe the reason we aren't chock-full of fossils is that well-preserved fossils require such special conditions to form?
Now, let me just say what I have to think, in general, about all of this nonsense.
That's what it is. Nonsense. We're arguing heatedly about something that doesn't really matter. I'm not saying that's a bad things, I just think it's kind of funny. It's not like what someone believes about this topic will hurt or help anyone, as with important issues such as abortion and gay marriage. The only point of it is to prove/disprove Chritistianity, which is a hopeless cause. If evolution is proven false, atheists will just look for a different way to explain the origin of life without the help of a God, and if it's proven true Christians will undoubtably come up with a clever reason why it does not, in fact, necessarily clash with the Bible, as they have with countless discoveries and changes in moral outlook before (Please don't call me out on that - we've gotten into that type of things before and we never seem to be able to agree on it.)
Here's the way I see it.
Evolution: Has evidence supporting it, but some of that evidence is contradictory.
Creationism: Has NO evidence supporting it except for a book that certain people claim was written by God.
Both are scientifically implausible, and both are possible for a God who can do anything.
In the past, i would have debated for ages on the side of evolution. But in the past, my opponents always used circular logic that makes sense only to them and shaky science-based logic that can be taken down in a second. The Creationists here actually have some GOOD POINTS, and that has caused me to rethink my opinions on the matter.
I do think that evolution, defined as the furtherment of species by natural selection, does exist - no one here seems to be arguing that it doesn't - and, over billions of years (no, the Earth isn't 6,000 years old - that can be scientifcally proven), could easily have made some MAJOR changes to certain species. Whether it is solely responsible for the extraordinary variety of life on Earth is something I'm no longer sure of.
The Origin of Life theory doesn't make sense to me, but whether that's because it's simply one of those parts of science that is simply beyond my grasp or because it's a bad theory is not entirely clear to me.
In the end, there are only two things I know for certain: that there is a God and that there is life on Earth. How the one went about creating the other may not be for me to know.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Aug 31, 2004 21:16:39 GMT -5
I have only one real point to make, and them I'm going to say my piece and be done. Point: Maybe the reason we aren't chock-full of fossils is that well-preserved fossils require such special conditions to form? Now, let me just say what I have to think, in general, about all of this nonsense. That's what it is. Nonsense. We're arguing heatedly about something that doesn't really matter. I'm not saying that's a bad things, I just think it's kind of funny. It's not like what someone believes about this topic will hurt or help anyone, as with important issues such as abortion and gay marriage. The only point of it is to prove/disprove Chritistianity, which is a hopeless cause. If evolution is proven false, atheists will just look for a different way to explain the origin of life without the help of a God, and if it's proven true Christians will undoubtably come up with a clever reason why it does not, in fact, necessarily clash with the Bible, as they have with countless discoveries and changes in moral outlook before (Please don't call me out on that - we've gotten into that type of things before and we never seem to be able to agree on it.) Here's the way I see it. Evolution: Has evidence supporting it, but some of that evidence is contradictory. Creationism: Has NO evidence supporting it except for a book that certain people claim was written by God. Both are scientifically implausible, and both are possible for a God who can do anything. In the past, i would have debated for ages on the side of evolution. But in the past, my opponents always used circular logic that makes sense only to them and shaky science-based logic that can be taken down in a second. The Creationists here actually have some GOOD POINTS, and that has caused me to rethink my opinions on the matter. I do think that evolution, defined as the furtherment of species by natural selection, does exist - no one here seems to be arguing that it doesn't - and, over billions of years (no, the Earth isn't 6,000 years old - that can be scientifcally proven), could easily have made some MAJOR changes to certain species. Whether it is solely responsible for the extraordinary variety of life on Earth is something I'm no longer sure of. The Origin of Life theory doesn't make sense to me, but whether that's because it's simply one of those parts of science that is simply beyond my grasp or because it's a bad theory is not entirely clear to me. In the end, there are only two things I know for certain: that there is a God and that there is life on Earth. How the one went about creating the other may not be for me to know. Ember, you're right about one thing...it's pointless. But it's not so pointless that I only use evolution debates to hone my style and debating skill. Since there is never a clear winner on it, it comes down to how good you look, how clear you can make your points, and how much you can get people to stop and think. So, really, that's the only purpose of these debates in my mind. Anyway, Ember, I agree. The Earth is far from 6000 years old. Read one of my recent posts, you'll see what I said. But I tend to disagree with you on one thing...evolution has no evidence while Creationism has more evidence in the fact that things are so intrinsicly made, so minute in detail, so perfect that there's no way in hell chance did it. That's like a tornado going through a junkyard and forming a complete boeing 747 aircraft fully built. That's what evolution boils down to. |
|
|
|
Post by Oily on Sept 1, 2004 13:32:35 GMT -5
In laboratories, they've attempted to speed up the life proccesses of many insects. Viewing thousands of generations in a much much shorter span of time. No change. The only changes were some mutations that ever occured were harmful mutations that kept that particular insect from being able to live.Right, Stal, you get a little story ^^ Once upon a time, there were these moths. These moths were white in colour, and hid on white trees. But, occasionally, a mutation would occur, and there would be a black moth. These black moths showed up easily against the trees and so were eaten by birds quickly, and didn't survive long. Then the Industrial Revolution came. Black soot, black smoke. And it turned the white bark of the trees black (in this region anyway  ) And then the little white moths showed up against the trunks, and got eaten pretty quickly. And the black moths could hide easily, and so multiplied in numbers. The moth had effectively turned black. That isn't evolution (the moth was the same species.) It isn't a proof for evolution. But it shows how species adapt. It shows how natural selection works, and how mutations can be advantageous. You went to a lot of trouble translating the Bible to make dinosaurs fit in. Or there's a simple explanation. The people that wrote the Bible didn't know about dinosaurs then. So it wasn't included by them. I believe that if it was truly God's word, he could have sorted out a lot of trouble by putting in a line : And then God made the dinosaurs, to reign before man, and then they were killed off. Simple, effective. Saves all the trouble you went to translating the Bible to fit dinosaurs in. Neither do I quite buy the gap theory. Why would there be one sentence on how God made the whole world, then a detailed section on how it was re-made? Another reason I can't believe in Creationism is how effective and ineffective our bodies are. For example, the hairs on our arms. They stand up to trap heat and warm us up, but they actually have nearly no effect whatsoever. If we were created, then I believe we should either have no hair, or lots of hair, so that both would serve a purpose. However, if we evolved, then the hair makes more sense. It was a left over. It was a relic from when we once had lots of hair. It may not be useful now, but it's not harming us, so it stays. I believe evolution would have a kind of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" approach. Same with other parts of our bodies. They aren't perfect. Bits break down, bits have to be dodgily repaired, complicated processes have to happen to enable us to work. If we were created, then I believe it would have been done better. I'm not 100% sure I believe in evolution. I want to go off and find my own proof. But neither am I sure that 90% of biologists are out to trick and deceive us by fooling us into believing in something impossible. Plus, despite being atheist, if I had something solid disproving evolution, I would publish it. Imagine the prestige of disproving Darwin I'm sure there isn't a world wide conspiracy of scientists to keep us all in the dark. Furthermore, evolution is not a way of disproving God. I have many Christian friends who believe that God started evolution. Evolution still has room for God - evolution doesn't explain the origin of life. It begs the question - where did the single source we all evolved from start? Where did it come from? Etc etc. There's huge room for God in evolution. Oh yeah, and as for this - But God is outside the laws of physics! Why not create reserves of fossil fuels as the Earth was made, then shove humans onto it ? |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Sept 1, 2004 14:35:24 GMT -5
Right, Stal, you get a little story ^^ Once upon a time, there were these moths. These moths were white in colour, and hid on white trees. But, occasionally, a mutation would occur, and there would be a black moth. These black moths showed up easily against the trees and so were eaten by birds quickly, and didn't survive long. Then the Industrial Revolution came. Black soot, black smoke. And it turned the white bark of the trees black (in this region anyway ) And then the little white moths showed up against the trunks, and got eaten pretty quickly. And the black moths could hide easily, and so multiplied in numbers. The moth had effectively turned black. That isn't evolution (the moth was the same species.) It isn't a proof for evolution. But it shows how species adapt. It shows how natural selection works, and how mutations can be advantageous. You went to a lot of trouble translating the Bible to make dinosaurs fit in. Or there's a simple explanation. The people that wrote the Bible didn't know about dinosaurs then. So it wasn't included by them. I believe that if it was truly God's word, he could have sorted out a lot of trouble by putting in a line : And then God made the dinosaurs, to reign before man, and then they were killed off. Simple, effective. Saves all the trouble you went to translating the Bible to fit dinosaurs in. Neither do I quite buy the gap theory. Why would there be one sentence on how God made the whole world, then a detailed section on how it was re-made? Another reason I can't believe in Creationism is how effective and ineffective our bodies are. For example, the hairs on our arms. They stand up to trap heat and warm us up, but they actually have nearly no effect whatsoever. If we were created, then I believe we should either have no hair, or lots of hair, so that both would serve a purpose. However, if we evolved, then the hair makes more sense. It was a left over. It was a relic from when we once had lots of hair. It may not be useful now, but it's not harming us, so it stays. I believe evolution would have a kind of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" approach. Same with other parts of our bodies. They aren't perfect. Bits break down, bits have to be dodgily repaired, complicated processes have to happen to enable us to work. If we were created, then I believe it would have been done better. I'm not 100% sure I believe in evolution. I want to go off and find my own proof. But neither am I sure that 90% of biologists are out to trick and deceive us by fooling us into believing in something impossible. Plus, despite being atheist, if I had something solid disproving evolution, I would publish it. Imagine the prestige of disproving Darwin I'm sure there isn't a world wide conspiracy of scientists to keep us all in the dark. Furthermore, evolution is not a way of disproving God. I have many Christian friends who believe that God started evolution. Evolution still has room for God - evolution doesn't explain the origin of life. It begs the question - where did the single source we all evolved from start? Where did it come from? Etc etc. There's huge room for God in evolution. Oh yeah, and as for this - But God is outside the laws of physics! Why not create reserves of fossil fuels as the Earth was made, then shove humans onto it ? There's people that believe the last part. That he created the Earth old with the fossil fuel reserves, the dinosaur bones, everything. I don't buy that. Because, to be honest, who knows what God's plan was in the beginning when Satan rebelled and destroyed the earth. Anyway, it wasn't trouble at all, Oily. It doesn't take long. With the use of a concordence and some knowledge, the result came a bit quickly. So don't so easily discard it as me trying to wrap around something and grasping at straws to do so.  As for your biston story... Maybe you should read these? rnaworld.bio.ukans.edu/Evolve/links/Coyne/Coyne_review(1998)Nature396,35.html EDIT -- If that one doesn't work, it's because proboards doesn't like the parentheses in the url Try a C+P www.leaderu.com/cl-institute/cssc/survival11.htmlwww.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v1i10f.htmJust a little things that should change your opinion on the use of the story. And those are just the three I felt like pulling up. First few on Google. You can go find more if you don't trust my researching or think I went through a lot of trouble to find those. ^_^ Back to the main things I want to discuss (in case no one has noticed by now, I write almost all of my arguments and rebuttals in a stream of concious design) The one-sentence and then detailed explanation? You question it? I ask why you do. How often do you hear about "So-and-so build this building way back when and now it's being refurbished" with the details of the refurbishments? You really can't use that as a reason why I'm wrong. Also...God could've saved time and trouble, by putting in a line about dinosaurs...but why the point there? I mean, we all ready have enough trouble with people extrapolating way too much out of something (example: Reverand Comwell and the "Gospel of Wealth" for you History buffs. ). In the grand scheme of things, dinosaurs aren't important. Why include them? You can take that up on your dinner date with God sometime in the future, eh? Hehehe (reference to earlier post). The ineffectiveness of the bodies and so forth, I just disagree with you on. There's reasons things were there. I do remember hearing years back, when I was like 10, that doctors were beginning to find the appendix served a use after all. Now, you also said yourself, these relics of things aren't harming us so keep them as we evolve. Then why do we not have more hair? We could get by with a lot more hair and it wouldn't be harming us. You say "Well, due to warmer climate, we'd need less hair" in which case all our hairs would be gone as "hair harms." We have these so-called few relics, and I ask why we don't have more relics of things that aren't harming us and aren't the most useful things. Why haven't the 'ineffective' things been changed to more effective as it is obviously needed. Why haven't the pointless been done away with altogether? Those are things that I have to ask, just as you had to ask your own questions. Any rebuttals there? |
|
|
|
Post by Ikkin on Sept 1, 2004 14:43:48 GMT -5
You're using incorrect logic here. For one thing, the law of gravity states that if something falls, it will continue falling until a force equal or greater than gravity stops it. For instance, the ground provides an equal upward force as gravity provides a downward force. That is one of the reasons why the Earth does not implode. When a hand stops the apple, the hand may move down from the force of the apple, but it will move back or stop moving to counter the apple's force. The cell theory states that cells only come from living cells. Period. Of course it assumes nothing is interfering, because it also assumes that it is impossible for something to interfere. I'd say it assumes that it is possible for something to interfere. It wouldn't have reached the position of theory if it did not assume something could interfere, (although not necessarily supernatural) because if nothing could interfere with it, there would be no life. Anyone who holds this theory would say that there would have been a time when the first cell came about from something that was not alive. Creationism says that God made it, Evolutionism says...well, lots of things. But the theory does leave room for something to interfere, or else it would not be a theory. Theories need to be at least feasible. I didn't say it had to do with Heliocentricism (and, anyway, I think I messed up my words, I was talking about a round Earth), just that an Earth that was not held up by something, a physical something, was something that probably wouldn't have been known then. The different books of the Bible were written for the people of the time at which they were written, and it wouldn't make sense for God to confuse them with gravitational forces and dinosaurs. I don't think they had a word to describe a sphere, so circle was the closest thing they could come up with. Besides, the context the verses were in made a sphere seem more likely than a circle for the shape they were describing. An example for this would be in Luke 17, which describes one time as this: (this would be both Heliocentricism and round Earth, actually) "30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed. 31 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back. 32 Remember Lot's wife. 33 Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it. 34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. 35 Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left." It's described as both day and night, with some sleeping and some grinding. It's obviously talking about a moment in time, not a whole day when this is happening, an instantaneous event, (the Rapture) and it describes day and night at the same time! That implies a round Earth, and somewhat a Heliocentric view, as well. Meh, I wasn't disagreeing with Stal, just giving some more perspective of what people think. You can either go with the Gap Theory or with Young Earth, and that quote goes more with Young Earth. I don't think it's necessary to try to age the Earth to 10,000 years, since there could be any length of time between the actual creation of the Earth and the First Day, and the days could really be any length. For example, I could quote Genesis 1:28- "...Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth..." which would support the Gap Theory. Don't go against the Bible because there are several interpretations of it. It's not like all Evolutionists agree on everything concerning Evolution, either. |
|
|
|
Post by althechia on Sept 1, 2004 22:21:02 GMT -5
*grumble grumble* I still think this deserves a new thread. Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the Da Vinci Code.
|
|
|
|
Post by My email doesn't work anymore on Sept 3, 2004 15:56:18 GMT -5
I have no idea if anyone disscussing evolutionhas pointed this out yet but:
As I recall the sun wasn't created until the 3rd or 4th day. So who knows how long those first days could have lasted. It satisfies everyone seeing that in that first few days the earth was created before the sun even began to shine.
Anywho: I just picked up this book and I have a hard time putting it down now!
|
|
|
|
Post by irishdragonlord on Sept 8, 2004 15:59:40 GMT -5
I have no idea if anyone disscussing evolutionhas pointed this out yet but: As I recall the sun wasn't created until the 3rd or 4th day. So who knows how long those first days could have lasted. It satisfies everyone seeing that in that first few days the earth was created before the sun even began to shine. Anywho: I just picked up this book and I have a hard time putting it down now! Sun was day 1 |
|
)
