|
|
Post by Oily on Aug 28, 2004 15:05:01 GMT -5
No, I don't believe it saves you or anything ¡V that wasn't what I was saying. Just that Tdyans said it's impossible for someone to be Christian from birth and then change, because you have to make a conscious choice. In the Church of England, it is possible to be Christian for the first thirteen years of your life or whatever, because you are technically accepted in as a baby and then you can kind of stop. Where the Baptist belief is more a conscious choice at an age where you're old enough to understand what's going on, correct?
So that whole baptism thing was just in response to what Tdyans said to TheComedian ^^ „³
|
|
|
|
Post by Tdyans on Aug 28, 2004 15:21:29 GMT -5
No, I don't believe it saves you or anything ¡V that wasn't what I was saying. Just that Tdyans said it's impossible for someone to be Christian from birth and then change, because you have to make a conscious choice. In the Church of England, it is possible to be Christian for the first thirteen years of your life or whatever, because you are technically accepted in as a baby and then you can kind of stop. Where the Baptist belief is more a conscious choice at an age where you're old enough to understand what's going on, correct? So that whole baptism thing was just in response to what Tdyans said to TheComedian ^^ „³ Okay. Though I wasn't really trying to say anything about the "and then change" part, just the "from birth" part.  But yeah, we understand each other. |
|
|
|
Post by Crystal on Aug 29, 2004 2:26:06 GMT -5
It's just millions of years, and finding evolutionary niches. I don't believe men will go to birds because a) it would require sacrifices that are currently more beneficial ie hands and b) because birds kind of have the market cornered on being birds and c) because we have found our evolutionary niche and dominated it. Man is incredibly successful. Our tool building hands, I guess ^^ An amoeba isn't so different from us. All we are are millions of single cells, bundled together, producing us. A bird too. All are ultimately cells, which go down to molecules and atoms. And you have to think over millions and millions of years, here. I think a single celled thing discovered an extra cell could be useful. Slowly, tiny multi celluar things built up. They discovered you could be bigger or faster or hide or prey on other tiny things. Little tiny changes, to dominate other species, to find new niches, above all to survive. Evolution makes sense to me. I've seen how it could work. It seems logical. They've discovered a species of crab on a beach that is slowly parting into two different species ¡V evolution in action. I'm not sure of the missing link. I was never actually taught evolution. I was never given particular proof. But I knew of the evolutionary theory and it just fitted. It made sense. God has never made sense to me. I have a lot of questions and I've never found satisfying answers. There are always answers ready, though, but I've never liked them. I read bits of the Bible and it didn't do much for me. I listened to people preach and found it annoying and flawed. And I guess it's true, Crystal ¡V we just put our doubts different ways. Different environments, different people. Yeah. For me, it's harder to believe in evolution than creation - although some Christians think that, why not God use evolution as a way to create us? I still prefer creation though. The thing about evolution is that although you have those two crabs, they're still... CRABS. If one crab was slowly turning into a completely new, different species... So technically if I kill a fly am I killing one of my could-have-been brothers?  Uh oh. Evolution also never explained to me why we have what people call 'souls'. As in, knowledge of good and evil, consciences, etc. I'll believe in evolution the day I see a couple animals sitting around debating like we currently are. ^^; Because according to it we're just the same as they are. Only a little more advanced is all. At any rate it doesn't really matter. I mean... past is past. Can't change it and we'll never really know... As for the Bible, maybe you just haven't been reading the right bits. LOL.... |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2004 10:03:05 GMT -5
Yeah. For me, it's harder to believe in evolution than creation - although some Christians think that, why not God use evolution as a way to create us? I still prefer creation though. The thing about evolution is that although you have those two crabs, they're still... CRABS. If one crab was slowly turning into a completely new, different species... So technically if I kill a fly am I killing one of my could-have-been brothers? :P Uh oh. Evolution also never explained to me why we have what people call 'souls'. As in, knowledge of good and evil, consciences, etc. I'll believe in evolution the day I see a couple animals sitting around debating like we currently are. ^^; Because according to it we're just the same as they are. Only a little more advanced is all. At any rate it doesn't really matter. :P I mean... past is past. Can't change it and we'll never really know... As for the Bible, maybe you just haven't been reading the right bits. LOL.... Yes, I know I said I'd stop, but this isn't about denouncing religion, it's about...um...pronouncing science (can't think of the right word). Anyways, the crabs are not "still crabs." They are different species of crabs. Just like you can have a pygmy marmoset and some species of lemur. They're both monkeys, right? But if you looked at them, you couldn't possibly say they were the same animal. If you kill a fly, you're killing a fly. I'm not sure what you think evolution is, but it seems like you don't understand it completely. As for souls, maybe a god does exist, and he put them into us after we evolved. Who knows. Evolution can't explain it because that deal with the brain, something we actually know very little about. |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Aug 29, 2004 11:56:43 GMT -5
Yes, I know I said I'd stop, but this isn't about denouncing religion, it's about...um...pronouncing science (can't think of the right word). Anyways, the crabs are not "still crabs." They are different species of crabs. Just like you can have a pygmy marmoset and some species of lemur. They're both monkeys, right? But if you looked at them, you couldn't possibly say they were the same animal. If you kill a fly, you're killing a fly. I'm not sure what you think evolution is, but it seems like you don't understand it completely. As for souls, maybe a god does exist, and he put them into us after we evolved. Who knows. Evolution can't explain it because that deal with the brain, something we actually know very little about. And something that would've been impossible to evolve.  Even as something as "simple" as an eye. I mean, really, think about all our senses. How did we evolve a sense of taste from being a one-celled organism? What good does taste do to us? How did our systems even know there was something to do with taste. And seeing as how with evolution it's a little bit at a time, the parts themselves would've been impossible to create as since there is no benefit to something, it's phased out, according to evolution. Same goes with eyes! How could our systems have possibly evolved such an intrinsic sense of sight. How did they know there was so many different spectrums out there to see and so forth. Hearing? Why evolve and ear (and its many component parts) if you don't know about sound to begin with? Smell, same goes for that. I'll resort back to some other things I use commonly as arguments. Like bacteria flagellum. The little motor of a bacteria, that gets it to move is made of about 40-some component parts. But if you even remove one of those pieces, it doesn't work. So explain to me how that just evolved. None of those parts could've possibly evolved over one another as they would've been phased out as useless parts. Bats are, according to science today, evolved from rats. Well, wait a second. The bones within a wing of a bat? They're finger bones. So think about the evolution of that creature. As it goes from bat, to getting longer and longer fingers, eventually to become wings. It didn't just happen (as evolution doesn't do that). So eventually, the poor thing couldn't have moved and supported itself in anyway. The species would've gone extinct long before they reached the stage of bat. There is no environment that could've possibly supported such a creature, aside from maybe a scientific laboratory/home where it was taken care of and food provided for. These are but a few of the reasons I consider evolution to be ludicrous. |
|
|
|
Post by Princess Ember Mononoke on Aug 29, 2004 18:32:45 GMT -5
So technically if I kill a fly am I killing one of my could-have-been brothers? Uh oh. Evolution also never explained to me why we have what people call 'souls'. As in, knowledge of good and evil, consciences, etc. I'll believe in evolution the day I see a couple animals sitting around debating like we currently are. ^^; Because according to it we're just the same as they are. Only a little more advanced is all. Actually, according to evolution, humans aren't even "a little more advanced," - just highly specialized. We've adapted to a certain niche in the world, and that niche, apparently, involves a complex spoken language. And may I ask why you are so averse to the idea of all animals being on an equal footing? |
|
|
|
Post by mushroom on Aug 29, 2004 20:51:27 GMT -5
Do you accept science in general? If so, why are you refusing to accept this one theory? I honestly can't understand it. How can you say, "Science is a logically sound method of explaining the world, and I trust it enough that I'll take the medicine my doctor gives me if I have a cold, and I'll trust it enough to wear a seat belt when scientists say it can save my life, but if science disagrees with this 2000-year-old religious document, I'm going to go with the document!" I mean--what, do you think every single biologist in the past however-long-it's-been is an idiot? Do you think there's some kind of conspiracy going? Has all the evidence been fabricated? I mean, you keep saying evolution is crazy, but to me it seems a heck of a lot more crazy to say that so many scientists are wrong, since the theory you propose--all creatures were created as they are a few thousand years ago--was dislodged by evolution; most scientists were firmly in favor of creation at the time evolution was introduced, and yet evolution has acquired enough evidence to overcome those prejudices and remain the accepted theory. I can't answer all those specific instances; I do think I know what's wrong about each of the statements so far made about evolution (for example, I'd bet that the bats' fingers became that long after the webbing appeared--the webbing was probably useful when the fingers were still short enough to be useful as fingers), but it would be as much speculation on my part as it is on any of yours', and that wouldn't convince anyone. Stal, you're in college now, aren't you? Could you ask a biology professor at your university, and then maybe report back here? If you're really looking to get evolutionists' answers, an evolutionary biologist is probably going to be more help to you than a couple of high schoolers on an online debate board. The National Academy of Science has a document online about the debate, though, which might help clear up some of your objections: books.nap.edu/html/creationism/(Do I need to add in that bit about "atomic theory" and "gravitational theory" as well? A scientific theory is an explanation, not something particularly uncertain or shaky. *Because* theories can be disproven or modified, the ones that are accepted currently fit the data better than any others that have been proposed.) |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2004 20:51:41 GMT -5
And something that would've been impossible to evolve. :) Even as something as "simple" as an eye. I mean, really, think about all our senses. How did we evolve a sense of taste from being a one-celled organism? What good does taste do to us? How did our systems even know there was something to do with taste. And seeing as how with evolution it's a little bit at a time, the parts themselves would've been impossible to create as since there is no benefit to something, it's phased out, according to evolution. Same goes with eyes! How could our systems have possibly evolved such an intrinsic sense of sight. How did they know there was so many different spectrums out there to see and so forth. Hearing? Why evolve and ear (and its many component parts) if you don't know about sound to begin with? Smell, same goes for that. I'll resort back to some other things I use commonly as arguments. Like bacteria flagellum. The little motor of a bacteria, that gets it to move is made of about 40-some component parts. But if you even remove one of those pieces, it doesn't work. So explain to me how that just evolved. None of those parts could've possibly evolved over one another as they would've been phased out as useless parts. Bats are, according to science today, evolved from rats. Well, wait a second. The bones within a wing of a bat? They're finger bones. So think about the evolution of that creature. As it goes from bat, to getting longer and longer fingers, eventually to become wings. It didn't just happen (as evolution doesn't do that). So eventually, the poor thing couldn't have moved and supported itself in anyway. The species would've gone extinct long before they reached the stage of bat. There is no environment that could've possibly supported such a creature, aside from maybe a scientific laboratory/home where it was taken care of and food provided for. :P These are but a few of the reasons I consider evolution to be ludicrous. You're forgetting natural selection. Our systems didn't know about the senses. You're correct. But say a creature way back got a gene from it's parent, but the gene was mutated. It allowed the being to feel a sensation in it's mouth when it was eating. This allowed it to learn what things were bad, and what were good, by taste. By eating only the good things, it stayed healthy and strong, and was able to pass on this new ability to it's offspring, and they passed it on to theirs. Evolution provided a sense. It's that simple. If a gene isn't beneficial, like one in a bacteria flagellum, that doesn't mean it is removed, as long as it doesn't harm the bacteria and prevent it from passing it on. It will combine with other genes, and eventually they build up to give the flagellum the ability to move. As for the bats evolving into rats thing--well, I can't explain that, as I've never even heard of it before now. |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Aug 29, 2004 21:09:50 GMT -5
See, thing is, there's still plenty of scientists that believe in Creation.
In fact, just recently some of the leading pioneers in Evolutionary theory rejected the idea of it, as they found more and more out cells and life itself. I'll get you their names, and oh, by the way, the Bacteria Flagellum discussion came straight from their mouths.
See, KKM, I accept Science. At times. But Evolution hasn't gained any evidence! That's just it! Those bone fragments found miles and miles apart that were mish-mashed together to form a creature that may've not even existed? XD That's great!
There have been NO Missing Links ever recovered or found. No matter what. "Lucy" is not a missing link, and you all know it. Take a look at what she's made out of and how many assumptions the scientists had to make during her "reconstruction".
Go out and take a look at the fossil record for yourself. Have you so blindly accepted what your biology professors and "science" teaches, or have you done any study of it on your own? Studying both sides, and not just the one (which by the way, yeah, scientists and textbooks outright lie to make evolution appear to be more true than it is. Something that was proved a couple years back).
See, I've done the studying. And for me to accept the theory at that point...I find it absurd.
Okay, here's one of the names...Dr. Michael J. Behe...I need to see the video tape again or contact the people who had the video and find the rest of their names.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Aug 29, 2004 21:14:00 GMT -5
You're forgetting natural selection. Our systems didn't know about the senses. You're correct. But say a creature way back got a gene from it's parent, but the gene was mutated. It allowed the being to feel a sensation in it's mouth when it was eating. This allowed it to learn what things were bad, and what were good, by taste. By eating only the good things, it stayed healthy and strong, and was able to pass on this new ability to it's offspring, and they passed it on to theirs. Evolution provided a sense. It's that simple. If a gene isn't beneficial, like one in a bacteria flagellum, that doesn't mean it is removed, as long as it doesn't harm the bacteria and prevent it from passing it on. It will combine with other genes, and eventually they build up to give the flagellum the ability to move. As for the bats evolving into rats thing--well, I can't explain that, as I've never even heard of it before now. Okay. Taste. So just all of a sudden every single thing needed for taste was produced? And now, what about the fact that there are many many many things out there that are bad for you but taste good (AND vice versa)? In fact, how was this new sensation of taste, how was this creature supposed to know what the definition of good taste and bad taste was? I don't discount Natural Selection. It has it's place, but not as big as people claim it to have. Besides, you've taken Biology Comedian. The chances of it being passed down to offspring are not 100% or even close to it! And you're wrong on that last instance. According to evolutionist scientists today, even. So how do you explain that? |
|
|
|
Post by mushroom on Aug 29, 2004 23:52:49 GMT -5
See, thing is, there's still plenty of scientists that believe in Creation. In fact, just recently some of the leading pioneers in Evolutionary theory rejected the idea of it, as they found more and more out cells and life itself. I'll get you their names, and oh, by the way, the Bacteria Flagellum discussion came straight from their mouths. See, KKM, I accept Science. At times. But Evolution hasn't gained any evidence! That's just it! Those bone fragments found miles and miles apart that were mish-mashed together to form a creature that may've not even existed? XD That's great! There have been NO Missing Links ever recovered or found. No matter what. "Lucy" is not a missing link, and you all know it. Take a look at what she's made out of and how many assumptions the scientists had to make during her "reconstruction". Go out and take a look at the fossil record for yourself. Have you so blindly accepted what your biology professors and "science" teaches, or have you done any study of it on your own? Studying both sides, and not just the one (which by the way, yeah, scientists and textbooks outright lie to make evolution appear to be more true than it is. Something that was proved a couple years back). See, I've done the studying. And for me to accept the theory at that point...I find it absurd. Okay, here's one of the names...Dr. Michael J. Behe...I need to see the video tape again or contact the people who had the video and find the rest of their names. Okay, I'll grant there are biologists who are also creationists. (I'll definitely grant that there are physicists, etc., that are creationists, but those aren't relevant: a biologist wouldn't have much credibility criticizing Newton's First Law, either.) *shrugs* The vast majority of biologists still seem to think evolution is more credible. One of the first creationism sites listed on Google seems to have been written by a mechanical engineer. I've heard the claim several times that there have been no papers on "scientific creationism" or "intelligent design" published in scientific journals (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/2083_the_elusive_scientific_basis_o_3_16_2001.asp). I've never seen the claim countered. I'm not sure how you can claim that more than a very few scientists are supporting creationism when none of them seem to have published anything about it. You still haven't answered my question: do you find it likely that thousands of biologists have been somehow confused or deluded, with the "true" theory well-known? *shrugs* I haven't looked at any fossils myself. I wouldn't have any idea what they meant. It would also take a very long time to look at the whole body of fossils currently dug up. I honestly doubt that you have done any study that has been anything like comprehensive, and I doubt that you know much about paleontology and fossil reconstruction. However, I have read some of the tripe creationists have online, especially back when I was trying to convince myself that Christianity was true. It isn't very convincing Until creationists can convince people who honestly have some idea of the subject--most biologists--I'm going to go with the majority of biologists. What do you mean about Lucy? And what "Missing Link" are you referring to? You mean Homo erectis, Homo habilis, Homo austresantoeglr'c,.phswasnht',.lrpgnb;ag0lbuizis (I can't remember the name of that au- one ), all those pre-humans? Or are you talking about something else? |
|
|
|
Post by Ikkin on Aug 30, 2004 0:12:18 GMT -5
Hm, there's one gap in evolution that hasn't really been addressed yet...and one that would make a whole lot of difference, considering the religious nature of this thread. This would be:
The Origin of Life
Yes, so you can explain away variations by saying "That wouldn't be a problem. It's not harmful, so all these random mutations eventually add up, even though they have nothing to do with the organism's survival. It's just luck." Well, you need quite a bit more luck to get life from non-life than from a rat to a bat (even though there would be quite a bit of luck there in the first place, if it happened)
"Well," you say, "The Miller-Urey Experiment proved that Amino Acids could be formed in the Earth's early atmosphere!" Unfortunately, this is one of the major misstatements (if not oughtright lies) made by evolutionary scientists. The Miller-Urey Experiment assumed that Methane (CH4), Ammonia (NH4), Hydrogen (H2), and Water (H2O) composed the Earth's early atmosphere, when it was really composed of less inert substances, such as Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and Nitrogen (N2), and contained Oxygen (O2), which breaks down non-living substances readily. So there's a time limit to the life of any Amino Acids created.
Even if there are Amino Acids created, any that could be used in living substances would have to be left-handed, and only about half of all Amino Acids are left-handed. This right here is a 50% reduction in materials!
Then, of course, a rather large number of them would have to quite randomly come together in exactly the right order. Random luck would be hard pressed to put ten of these in order, since there are twenty different kinds, and only left-handed of any kind are used, there would be something like a .00000000000000002 chance, even with all the materials ready. And remember, life needs far more than ten amino acids.
Besides, there's always the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which I've found explained as: "All processes manifest a tendency toward decay and disintegration, with a net increase in what is called the entropy, or state of randomness or disorder, of the system." Decay and disintegration seem to be quite far from the constant upward motion assumed by evolution, does it not?
So, evolution is a theory contradicted by a law. Hm, which is more important in science?
|
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Aug 30, 2004 0:16:25 GMT -5
Okay, I'll grant there are biologists who are also creationists. (I'll definitely grant that there are physicists, etc., that are creationists, but those aren't relevant: a biologist wouldn't have much credibility criticizing Newton's First Law, either.) *shrugs* The vast majority of biologists still seem to think evolution is more credible. One of the first creationism sites listed on Google seems to have been written by a mechanical engineer. I've heard the claim several times that there have been no papers on "scientific creationism" or "intelligent design" published in scientific journals (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/2083_the_elusive_scientific_basis_o_3_16_2001.asp). I've never seen the claim countered. I'm not sure how you can claim that more than a very few scientists are supporting creationism when none of them seem to have published anything about it. You still haven't answered my question: do you find it likely that thousands of biologists have been somehow confused or deluded, with the "true" theory well-known? *shrugs* I haven't looked at any fossils myself. I wouldn't have any idea what they meant. It would also take a very long time to look at the whole body of fossils currently dug up. I honestly doubt that you have done any study that has been anything like comprehensive, and I doubt that you know much about paleontology and fossil reconstruction. However, I have read some of the tripe creationists have online, especially back when I was trying to convince myself that Christianity was true. It isn't very convincing Until creationists can convince people who honestly have some idea of the subject--most biologists--I'm going to go with the majority of biologists. What do you mean about Lucy? And what "Missing Link" are you referring to? You mean Homo erectis, Homo habilis, Homo austresantoeglr'c,.phswasnht',.lrpgnb;ag0lbuizis (I can't remember the name of that au- one ), all those pre-humans? Or are you talking about something else? Go take a look at the fossils that they've created by their imagination and all the bones truly dug up for it. Little fragments here or there. I've not only seen pictures of them, but then seen them in a size-ratio of what they're to represent. By the way, there have been papers published and so forth. The claim itself is so stupid that it can be refuted no problem. I mean, seriously, what about the book Darwin's Black Box? And that's only the most common and popular one! Just because they may not be in some scientific journals does not mean the evidence is not out there. After all, publishing requires the editor to first accept the article. In the Scientific community today, Creationists are scoffed at. So you have to not just consider the authors, but those who may be doing the publishing. And yes, I quite honestly believe all of those scientists are wrong. The Earth was center of the universe. The Earth was Flat, too. This is but a theory that, in my honest opinion, has become the new "Earth is Flat" argument. Only there are for more people who believe it is "round" than back then, and this "round" fact was known long before. If you follow my analogy. This was a theory that was latched onto so much because people want to explain away God and in doing so, they explain way all Morals, most senses of Right & Wrong, and then Personal Responsibility, too. It's much easier on people that way. By the way, never, ever accuse me of having lied about the studying of I've done on a matter unless you mean it as an insult on purpose. I know what I'm talking about, and when I don't, I speak up. My honor and word is something I hold to a high standard and to see you say that was as an insult to me. |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Aug 30, 2004 0:18:14 GMT -5
[snip Ikkin]
Thank you, Ikkin. That was a major boost. I didn't have that information handy so I didn't want to go re-research it again. ^_^
|
|
|
|
Post by Ikkin on Aug 30, 2004 1:23:22 GMT -5
[snip Ikkin] Thank you, Ikkin. That was a major boost. I didn't have that information handy so I didn't want to go re-research it again. ^_^ You're welcome...I'm quite interested in this, even did an essay on this for school. That's why I know this, of course. ;D I'm just interested in seeing what kind of argument can be made against this. |
|
But yeah, we understand each other.
Uh oh. Evolution also never explained to me why we have what people call 'souls'. As in, knowledge of good and evil, consciences, etc. I'll believe in evolution the day I see a couple animals sitting around debating like we currently are. ^^; Because according to it we're just the same as they are. Only a little more advanced is all.
