# The Thread to Disprove Darwin



## HowClever

:shock::shock:


----------



## Northern

How Clever, ROFLMAO!! I know, right? What good is it going to do at ALL?

Some people have too much idle time, since their opinions are set in stone. 

Nothing I say about this topic is going to make any difference to the evolution-faithful. 

Further, although whatever I post will be cogent & polite, I will be accused by most as being "passive-aggressive" or somehow deserving of the bashing & trashing that I'll receive here.

The bottom line for me is as I stated in RR thread: *The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God*. So, whether the scientific process proves that evolution is untrue, or whether it proves that it IS true, God still is, & is the Author of life. 

Thus, my agenda is not to prove evolution to be false, _in order that_ God will exist. No; God *always already* exists.

What the evolution-faithful often do is the opposite: they want evolution to prove that God doesn't exist; they want to prove that Intelligent Design is not behind life. 

That said, I don't like fraudulent science any more than I like _any_ fraudulence, so I'm interested in the purely scientific findings (aside from scripture/belief.)

If we could present the facts of the purely scientific findings, the discussion would be informative.


----------



## Poseidon

I do not want this to turn into a a massive argument, but I have to ask (and I have read the entire RR thread, if that means anything):

By your standards and beliefs, are those who do not believe in God automatically wrong in their beliefs?


----------



## bubba13

Northern said:


> How Clever, ROFLMAO!! I know, right? What good is it going to do at ALL?
> 
> Some people have too much idle time, since their opinions are set in stone.


Not sure how A -> B here? But never mind the minor points.



> Nothing I say about this topic is going to make any difference to the evolution-faithful.


How can you possibly know that? Except I'll warrant that exactly the same could be said were the situation reversed to Bible-literalists.



> Further, although whatever I post will be cogent & polite, I will be accused by most as being "passive-aggressive" or somehow deserving of the bashing & trashing that I'll receive here.


Wait a Darwindamn minute. _You're_ the one who brought it up, several times, and hinted at all the evidence (or lack thereof) that you can compiled on the subject of evolution. People repeatedly requested that you elaborate, and you repeatedly stated that you would be glad to do so, but on a new thread. So I provide the venue, since SpasticDove was not so inclined. And now we're backpeddling?



> The bottom line for me is as I stated in RR thread: *The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God*. So, whether the scientific process proves that evolution is untrue, or whether it proves that it IS true, God still is, & is the Author of life.


Let me get this straight. Hard, factual, visible evidence is absolutely required to prove or disprove the theory of evolution, but not the existence of God? So we just take declarative statements at face value now, regardless of what they say, so long as they support our own beliefs?

In that case, *That there idjut what don't believe that monkeys is people's grandpappys is one hundred percent plum crazy.* There. Debate OVER.

Faith is fine. Blind faith and ignoring obvious evidence contrary to one's beliefs are not.



> Thus, my agenda is not to prove evolution to be false, _in order that_ God will exist. No; God *always already* exists.


Believe it or not, the latter statement actually IS debatable, particularly when you look at today's multifaceted religions, but you're right: It has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Except for one thing. Literal interpretations of the Bible are completely irreconcilable with evolution, no matter how you toss the dice.



> What the evolution-faithful often do is the opposite: they want evolution to prove that God doesn't exist; they want to prove that Intelligent Design is not behind life.


Quite the contrary. Darwin himself was a devoted Christian until his death. The theory of evolution cannot fully explain where that first "divine spark" came from, to ignite the primordial ooze into LIFE. If anything, that tends to come full circle to point back to Intelligent Design; a Greater Being; an Omnipotent Force.



> That said, I don't like fraudulent science any more than I like _any_ fraudulence, so I'm interested in the purely scientific findings (aside from scripture/belief.)


Funny story. Abridged version: I ended up looking at this website, reading this article. ATP synthase Great stuff, until you realize one little niggling flaw. Some bacterial cells--the simplest of life forms, from which everything else most likely initially evolved--do not have the enzyme ATP synthase, and they get along just fine producing ATP during anaerobic respiration/ glycolysis. Which sort of pulls the rug out from under the author's arguments. I posted a very polite comment on the site, asking about the "oversight." I received an email response thanking me for my comment, and was told that it had been forwarded to the article's author for his explanation. The rebuttal, sadly, never came. Nor did they ever publish my comment....



> If we could present the facts of the purely scientific findings, the discussion would be informative.


OK, you said you've been reading--on what points are you confused?


----------



## HowClever

Northern said:


> How Clever, ROFLMAO!! I know, right? What good is it going to do at ALL?
> 
> *Some people have too much idle time, since their opinions are set in stone.
> *


From the reptilian royals thread...



Northern said:


> Re: going into depth on evolution: arguments pro & con, a separate thread needs to be started.


*Indeed, some people.*


----------



## Northern

Poseidon, yes, imo, atheists are fools. God thinks so, too. 

I'm not back-pedalling, I am willing to study the science & try & discuss here, one point at a time.

Before we launch, I'll say for the 3rd time, for anyone who missed it, that I am new to studying just the scientific evidence pro & con re: evolution. So, I don't have any data already filed, as you, bubba do. So don't attack me as if I've presented myself as the wallking encyclopedia/leading authority on the issue, because I haven't!

Till tomorrow.


----------



## faye

Northern you patently are back peddling.

New to darwinism and evolution? did you grow up under a rock?

In many religions it would be you who is the fool and you who is going to what ever version of hell that they believe in. Infact in some religions there is no heaven and hell and after death we simply cease to exist or are reincarnated.

Personaly i'm 99% sure that my ancestors were the same ancestors as apes and billions of years ago my ancestors were bacteria!

Evidence of Evolution can be seen in species that are around today and is happening right at this moment

eg the peppered moth

Until the industrial revelution most peppered moth's were pale coloured with a few exeptional dark moths. The moths like to sit on trees and buildings. Black moths were particularly vunerable to predation by birds because they were more visible. 

The industrial revolution covered the country in dark soot. Now the pale coloured moths were more vunerable to predation. There is lots of evidence that the black moths increased massively in number while the pale moths became in a minority. 

Since cleanup of buildings over the last 50 years, there is now some evidence that the colours are changing again and black moths are once again reducing in number. 
Or how about breeding ages in Cod, or the resistance of Nits to medicated shampoos, or the superbug MRSA which is a bacteria that has evolved to be drug resistant and difficult to kill off. All examples of modern day evolution.
​


----------



## PintoTess

Nothing to say here but.
Ahahha!!! Hillarious!


----------



## bubba13

Northern said:


> Poseidon, yes, imo, atheists are fools. God thinks so, too.


I've always found it incredibly arrogant when people can claim to know what God does and does not think. How come I never get these private little divine memos?



> I'm not back-pedalling, I am willing to study the science & try & discuss here, one point at a time.
> 
> Before we launch, I'll say for the 3rd time, for anyone who missed it, that I am new to studying just the scientific evidence pro & con re: evolution. So, I don't have any data already filed, as you, bubba do. So don't attack me as if I've presented myself as the wallking encyclopedia/leading authority on the issue, because I haven't!


Well, you simply stated that it was lacking in evidence, and I figured that most people would have at least heard the bare bones basics of the explanation, but fine.

Point A:

The fossil record. There are numerous extinct species of millions of animals/plants which no longer exist. Carbon dating has aged them to be "very old," as opposed to the several-thousand year-old Earth that Bible-literalists cling to. You can also trace the development of many modern species in the fossil record. The two we most care about:


----------



## corinowalk

Northern said:


> Poseidon, yes, imo, atheists are fools. God thinks so, too.
> 
> I was always taught to never presume what God knows or thinks. It makes him angry. Then again, I was raised Catholic. Everything makes God angry when you are Catholic.
> 
> I am the faithful type. I don't think God thinks less of atheists. He is the one that gave us that little thing called Free Will. Its the old "If you love em' let em' go" thing.
> 
> I'm not back-pedalling, I am willing to study the science & try & discuss here, one point at a time.
> 
> Before we launch, I'll say for the 3rd time, for anyone who missed it, that I am new to studying just the scientific evidence pro & con re: evolution. So, I don't have any data already filed, as you, bubba do. So don't attack me as if I've presented myself as the wallking encyclopedia/leading authority on the issue, because I haven't!
> 
> Till tomorrow.


What I don't get is why evolution and The Creation cannot live together in harmony? Maybe Exodus is just the abridged version?


----------



## sarahver

bubba13 said:


> Funny story. Abridged version: I ended up looking at this website, reading this article. ATP synthase Great stuff, until you realize one little niggling flaw. Some bacterial cells--the simplest of life forms, from which everything else most likely initially evolved--do not have the enzyme ATP synthase, and they get along just fine producing ATP during anaerobic respiration/ glycolysis. Which sort of pulls the rug out from under the author's arguments. I posted a very polite comment on the site, asking about the "oversight." I received an email response thanking me for my comment, and was told that it had been forwarded to the article's author for his explanation. The rebuttal, sadly, never came. Nor did they ever publish my comment....


This makes me like ya. Indeed an excellent question but I riddle you this: Does phylogenetics not explain that anomoly? Genes, just as organisms, evolve. ATP synthase as we know it today, exists in various forms is a peptide chain compsed of two subunits right? Pretty much a proton pump that drives electron exchange sitting on the cell membrane.

But the proton coupling ratios have changed over time as duplication events and genetic transfer with viruses etc have shaped its structure and function, just as with other genes. I would bet that ATP synthase itself was not necessarily always composed of two subunits (been a while since I brushed up on my ATP synthase knowledge) but I would bet that it evolved from a more simple enzyme that was capable of harnessing the energy from electron transfer, although less efficiently. Before that function, who knows what it was? Main point being that ATP synthase has evolved itself

As for the anaerobic point, some anaroboic bacteria don't use electron transfer at all, so why would such bacteria _need_ ATP synthase? They do not have an electron transport chain so the need for proton motive force is negated. Look at the archaea, some argue that prokaryotes, eukaryotes and archaea evolved independently from a common ancestor, others argue that bacteria/eukaryotes evolved from archaea. Either way a very primitive life from and distinct from bactera happily still alive today utilising ATP synthase independent pathways in anaerobic environments.

Lastly, I read some of the article but in the world of science, if it isn't a *peer reviewed journal* then I don't bother paying any attention to what is said. So I only read the first paragraph. Any crack pot can write a well worded article and post it on the internet. I have published articles in peer reviewed journals before, trust me the reviewers put you through the grinder to ensure that everthing is legitimate. And so they should.

As for the evolution thing, well, I probably don't need to state my where I sit on that debate. But like everything in life, to each his own. Besides, I love the architecture of old churches, absolutely beautiful.

ETA: After re-reading your comment I think we are on the same side of the fence Bubba!


----------



## JustDressageIt

One thing I never could understand is why the two can't dove-tail nicely together? I'm a Christian (lite), believe in God, but also believe in evolution, and am very liberal-minded. Does believing in evolution and not following the Bible to the letter make me a bad person? Hope not. Why can't the two meld together? 
My personal belief is that perhaps God just set the entire thing in motion. 

Bubba, love your posts on this thread.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## faye

my belief is that something had to set off the big bang, a divine entity is as good as any other theory. Also where did the matter come from to create the big band? if it came from Energy then where did that energy come from?
One theory is a collapsing universe but then where did that universe spring from.

What was it that triggered chemicals to arrange the way they did and form cells?
Again a divine entity theory is as good as a random chance theory.


----------



## sarahver

^^Although I am not religious myself, I agree with the above. Anthropologically speaking, religion is one of the universals that is present in EVERY SINGLE culture. Different religions of course but they serve the same basic purpose - to explain the unexplainable. Suits me fine I sure don't have a better answer.

I do believe in evolution though.


----------



## riccil0ve

Northern said:


> Poseidon, yes, imo, atheists are fools. God thinks so, too.


Better to keep my atheist mouth closed and be presumed a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt. :wink:

Now, where's Macabre with her signature?


----------



## sarahver

In regards to Atheists being fools, I don't mind if you think that Northern, you are welcome to your opinion. I think many people are fools and my judgement is far from perfect, doesn't change what I think.

I do not know much of God but I would hope that he was rather less judgemental than that.


----------



## Spastic_Dove

JustDressageIt said:


> One thing I never could understand is why the two can't dove-tail nicely together? I'm a Christian (lite), believe in God, but also believe in evolution, and am very liberal-minded. Does believing in evolution and not following the Bible to the letter make me a bad person? Hope not. Why can't the two meld together?
> My personal belief is that perhaps God just set the entire thing in motion.
> 
> Bubba, love your posts on this thread.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Exactly. 

I'll be interested to see what Northern has found in her research.


----------



## smrobs

Northern said:


> Some people have too much idle time, since their opinions are set in stone.


Hmm, pot, meet kettle.



Northern said:


> Poseidon, yes, imo, atheists are fools. God thinks so, too.


Hm, I seem to recall something from the bible about "Judge not lest ye be judged" and isn't there also something else about presuming to know the mind of God?


It never fails to amaze me that so many of the people who are so devoutly religious are the most judgmental, closed-minded, and presumptuous people you could meet.

On that note, I will return to my seat in the audience and watch with my bowl of popcorn, trying to resist the urge to post again.


----------



## Whisper22

JustDressageIt said:


> One thing I never could understand is why the two can't dove-tail nicely together? I'm a Christian (lite), believe in God, but also believe in evolution, and am very liberal-minded. Does believing in evolution and not following the Bible to the letter make me a bad person? Hope not. Why can't the two meld together?
> My personal belief is that perhaps God just set the entire thing in motion.
> 
> Bubba, love your posts on this thread.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Obviously evolution exists. Christians do not argue that it doesn't exist but that it doesn't exist in humans. As a TRUE Christian you should be following the Bible to the letter as that is required by the Lord, it is after all his book to his people. The Bible doesn't say that humans evolved from apes so Christians are to believe that they didn't. Trying to convince them otherwise will never work. A TRUE Christian would not so easily turn their back on God.


----------



## faye

AANNNNNNNNDDDDDDDDDDDDD we have anouther religious nut. Welcome Wisper22.

May I just point out that we can proove evolution in humans! I havnt turned my back on God. If he exists he turned his back on us a long time ago. A lot of very good people died due to natural disasters, a lot of truely evil people keep on living, Not what I would concider the actions of an all powerful, all good God.

I used to be catholic, now I call myself vaguely christian thanks to religious nuts. 

I have great fun arguing with Jehovas witnesses, It is very funny watching them get flustered when you pick holes in thier closed little world.


----------



## Whisper22

faye said:


> AANNNNNNNNDDDDDDDDDDDDD we have anouther religious nut. Welcome Wisper22.
> 
> May I just point out that we can proove evolution in humans! I havnt turned my back on God. If he exists he turned his back on us a long time ago. A lot of very good people died due to natural disasters, a lot of truely evil people keep on living, Not what I would concider the actions of an all powerful, all good God.
> 
> I used to be catholic, now I call myself vaguely christian thanks to religious nuts.
> 
> I have great fun arguing with Jehovas witnesses, It is very funny watching them get flustered when you pick holes in thier closed little world.


I would rather be a religous nut that bitter athiest, or as you call yourself vaguely Christian:rofl: I'm sorry but there is no such thing. To try and explain bad things happening in this world to a bitter non believer is completely pointless 

I was only pointing out that to try and argue human evolution with a TRUE Christian will never work. The Bible tells us what we need to know on that subject, plain and simple.


----------



## riccil0ve

Whisper22 said:


> TRUE Christian


Read; crazy. So JDI is not a "true" Christian because she's an open minded being able to come up with nice, logical answers to questions all by herself, without the help of the "Almighty Him with All the Answers?"

I rather resent being called bitter. I don't need answers. I am content knowing that the unknown is too vast and too complex for my [and yours, by the way] human brain. But believe you me, I am far from bitter.


----------



## Whisper22

riccil0ve said:


> Read; crazy. So JDI is not a "true" Christian because she's an open minded being able to come up with nice, logical answers to questions all by herself, without the help of the "Almighty Him with All the Answers?"
> 
> I rather resent being called bitter. I don't need answers. I am content knowing that the unknown is too vast and too complex for my [and yours, by the way] human brain. But believe you me, I am far from bitter.


Yes! Exactly. If you want to come up with your own answers opposite of what the Lord tells you, then yes, you are not a TRUE Christian. Really? You don't get that?

You may not be bitter but I'm pretty sure I was talking to Faye. Her comments had bitter written all over them.


----------



## Poseidon

riccil0ve said:


> I rather resent being called bitter. I don't need answers. I am content knowing that the unknown is too vast and too complex for my [and yours, by the way] human brain. But believe you me, I am far from bitter.


I second this. Ask anyone I know if I am bitter. Actually, ask half the people I know if they have idea I'm an atheist. I don't talk about religion unless it is brought up and then I say I am an atheist. I wasn't raised in a religious household, although I was baptized Catholic. I am completely accepting of others' beliefs...provided they don't shove them down my throat because I don't believe in their god. 

I would also like to add that I have been a counselor at a summer camp run by the Young Men's _Christian_ Association and the camp has very Christian values. On Wednesday nights, we have chapel, which I am more than happy to participate in. In fact, I sing songs from our chapel all the time during the rest of the year. 

I certainly wouldn't think of myself as bitter. :?


----------



## faye

I believe in christian ideals, I.e Murder, rape, stealing, adultery etc is moraly wrong, I believe that there is one god and he probably is the Christian God but TBH who is to say that we are right, I'm not going to say that Bhuddists or Muslims or any other religion are wrong.

Problem with Religious nuts is that you pick and choose which part of the bible you want to admit exists and not the bits that dont suit you.

As said above in the Bible it does say " Judge not lest you be Judged" well you are being rather judgemental whisper22.

In the Bible it also says that we are all decended from one man and one woman and yet it also dictated that incest is abhorant. Which is it Whisper22? cant have it both ways, if we are all decended from one man and one woman then an awful lot of very very close incest has been going on for a very long time (and essentialy Forced by the hand of god himself). 

The bible also says that animals don't have souls. sorry but I dont want to go to heaven if there are no animals there.

Oh and lets not go into the fact that the old testament and the new testement don't exctly match in their Ideas of what is good and bad behavior. According to the old testament being a prostitute is about as bad as it comes, may as well resign yourself to a place in hell etc. Yet in the new testement Mary magdelene, one of Jesus' disciples was a prostitute.

If the bible wants to have any credibility it needs to stop contradicting itself.


----------



## Whisper22

If you're not bitter, good for you. I wasn't talking to everyone.


----------



## corinowalk

So how about this. God created man and beast. How? Maybe he started the whole ball rolling and let evolution take over? The God I believe in doesn't turn his back or his blessings away from those who don't believe. Just because you are a believer doesn't make you better than a non-believer. God gave us free will for a reason. We are to make our *own* choices. 

I am far from a religious nut and the last time I was in a chuch, I was asked to leave for being drunk. I keep God in my heart. If you do too, great. If you don't, Great! Not to get to preachy on ya but in my heart, God loves you anyways.


----------



## Whisper22

I'm not going to go into every piece of the Bible that can be misinterpreted. We were talking about evolution and for the second time, I was only pointing out that to convince a true Christian of human evolution is a waste of time. It wont happen. 

You called me a nut and then someone called me crazy. So who's being judgemental?

*"If he exists he turned his back on us a long time ago. A lot of very good people died due to natural disasters, a lot of truely evil people keep on living, Not what I would concider the actions of an all powerful, all good God." *
I'm sorry but that is a bitter statement.


----------



## Northern

sarahver said:


> (been a while since I brushed up on my ATP synthase knowledge)* Oh, yah, me, too!  joke, here, folks. Excuse me, faye, if I don't have a science background like sarahver does! *
> 
> Lastly, I read some of the article but in the world of science, if it isn't a *peer reviewed journal* then I don't bother paying any attention to what is said. So I only read the first paragraph. Any crack pot can write a well worded article and post it on the internet. I have published articles in peer reviewed journals before, trust me the reviewers put you through the grinder to ensure that everthing is legitimate. And so they should. *Thanks, sarah, this is important to know, for the discussion.*





faye said:


> Personaly i'm 99% sure that my ancestors were the same ancestors as apes and billions of years ago my ancestors were bacteria! *Well, perhaps in your case, you'll end up proving your belief.*
> 
> eg the peppered moth *I've a refutation on the peppered moth as proof of evolution! I feel so scientific!*
> 
> Until the industrial revelution most peppered moth's were pale coloured with a few exeptional dark moths. The moths like to sit on trees and buildings. Black moths were particularly vunerable to predation by birds because they were more visible.
> 
> The industrial revolution covered the country in dark soot. Now the pale coloured moths were more vunerable to predation. There is lots of evidence that the black moths increased massively in number while the pale moths became in a minority.
> 
> Since cleanup of buildings over the last 50 years, there is now some evidence that the colours are changing again and black moths are once again reducing in number.


 I want to start out at the beginning, with the 3 points of the theory, & stating my first source, which, thank you, faye, is in layman's terms for those not of scientific background: My source is "Godless", by Ann Coulter (#1 New York Times bestselling author). There are 4 chapters dealing with evolution, with numerous scientific articles in the notes. 

The 3 parts to the theory:

1. Random mutation of desirable attributes 
2. Natural selection weeding out the "less fit" animals
3. Leading to the creation of new species (no evidence after 150 years of searching)



bubba13 said:


> I've always found it incredibly arrogant when people can claim to know what God does and does not think. How come I never get these private little divine memos? *You could ask Him for a "divine memo"; doesn't hurt to ask.*
> 
> 
> Well, you simply stated that it was lacking in evidence, and I figured that most people would have at least heard the bare bones basics of the explanation, but fine.


* Yes, from my initial perusal of Coulter's chapters, the point was "lacking in evidence". *


----------



## faye

Whisper22, Not bitter - Just fed up of holier than thou attitudes. I believe what I feel is right, I'm quite happy with my choices and If I ever want to "go back to the fold" i'll seak out the help of someone far better educated in these matters then you or other religious nuts!

Isnt it strange that those who have taken holy orders tend to have a far broader mind then most religious nuts. Infact at my senior school the chaplain was a lovely guy, very very open minded, Extremely well educated, he als believed in the theory of evolution, gave out cups of tea and biscuits at break times and would listen to anyone without judging them even if you what you wanted to get off your chest didnt exactly fit in with Christian Ideals.


----------



## Whisper22

There is a correct way to interpret the Bible and just because everyone can't agree on what that is doesn't mean in contradicts intself.


----------



## faye

Northern said:


> I want to start out at the beginning, with the 3 points of the theory, & stating my first source, which, thank you, faye, is in layman's terms for those not of scientific background: My source is "Godless", by Ann Coulter (#1 New York Times bestselling author). There are 4 chapters dealing with evolution, with numerous scientific articles in the notes.
> 
> The 3 parts to the theory:
> 
> 1. Random mutation of desirable attributes
> 2. Natural selection weeding out the "less fit" animals
> 3. Leading to the creation of new species (no evidence after 150 years of searching)
> 
> * Yes, from my initial perusal of Coulter's chapters, the point was "lacking in evidence". *


Erm not sure what your getting at here. Natural selection Is essentialy the theory of evolution, survival of the fittest and thus those with the desirable attributes survive i.e the fastest cheetahs etc.

Takes a lot longer then 150 years for a whole new species to evolve unless you are talking bacteria/viruses in which case I will dispute the fact that it hasnt happened as we get whole new species of them all the time. H1N1, Ebola, heck even HIV (which evolved inorder to jump species in the early 20th century, previous to that it was found only in primates and the HIV virus in Humans is very very different to that found today in primates)


----------



## faye

Whisper22 said:


> There is a correct way to interpret the Bible and just because everyone can't agree on what that is doesn't mean in contradicts intself.


It contradicts itself all over the place if you read it litteraly.

Go read it properly!

*Thou shall not commit murder (10 commandments)

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live!* (Exodus 22:18)

Beautiful contradictions there, YOu cant let a witch live and yet you cant kill her!


----------



## Whisper22

And there is an explaination for why it would say that. It's all in the interpretation. If you don't understand why it would say those things then obviously you are not reading it PROPERLY either.
If someone gave you an explaination, would you accept it? Probably not, because you already have your mind made up.


----------



## BFFofHorses

Why is the Bible in this conversation? It is called disproving Darwinism, not defending Creationism. I believe in God but there is no need to drag your beliefs into EVERY THREAD. Seriously, some of you could drag God in a discussion about the Red Sox. I'm embarassed to say I'm a Christian, embarassed to say I try live like Christ- because people like some of you all. Not everyone believes in God. Get over it. No need to tell them that they are all going to hell for it. If people who SAY they are Christians ACT liked Christians, then this arguement wouldn't happen. Disprove Darwinism, or start another thread. Kay I'm done. But I am having fun watcxhing this all unfold


----------



## Northern

bubba13 said:


> How can you possibly know that? Except I'll warrant that exactly the same could be said were the situation reversed to Bible-literalists.* Right, in exactly the same way that you know yours. *
> 
> 
> Faith is fine. Blind faith and ignoring obvious evidence contrary to one's beliefs are not. *Right, this is why I'm interested in learning (in layman's terms) the scientific facts of the matter.*
> 
> It has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. *I'm now having a problem accepting that the theory of evolution IS possible without atheism, since the theory itself denies Intelligent Design & a Source of life. You go back to the* *puddle of ooze, but who created that?* Except for one thing. Literal interpretations of the Bible are completely irreconcilable with evolution, no matter how you toss the dice. *Yes, absolutely, AND I am willing to go into what science alone has discovered re: the theory. *
> 
> 
> The theory of evolution cannot fully explain where that first "divine spark" came from, to ignite the primordial ooze into LIFE. If anything, that tends to come full circle to point back to Intelligent Design; a Greater Being; an Omnipotent Force. *Right! Just as I was thinkin' before I nodded off to sleep last night!*
> 
> Funny story. Abridged version: I ended up looking at this website, reading this article. ATP synthase Great stuff, until you realize one little niggling flaw. Some bacterial cells--the simplest of life forms, from which everything else most likely initially evolved--do not have the enzyme ATP synthase, and they get along just fine producing ATP during anaerobic respiration/ glycolysis. Which sort of pulls the rug out from under the author's arguments. I posted a very polite comment on the site, asking about the "oversight." I received an email response thanking me for my comment, and was told that it had been forwarded to the article's author for his explanation. The rebuttal, sadly, never came. Nor did they ever publish my comment....


Thanks to sarah's info on peer reviewing, thus her reading only the first paragraph of this, I don't feel compelled to read this either, at least not right now. If you, bubba, have a reason why we should read this, please tell us.

My dog is saying WALK TIME!, more later/responses?


----------



## Mickey4793

Uhhhhh. I shouldn't even post in this thread so I'll leave it at this:

The bible is thousands of years old and has been rewritten many times to fit the writers ideals. So, following what the bible says word for word is like saying that everything on Wikipedia is fact.

What if "god" created evolution?


----------



## Sahara

Oh you silly, silly people. Don't you know that we are just an alien ant farm??

:thumbsup:

Seriously, believe what ever you need to believe to make yourself a better person. I don't care if you are an atheist, a devout Catholic, or if you idolize Kid Rock...........have enough self-respect to conduct yourself in the best light possible. Criticizing someone for her religious beliefs, or lack of, speaks more of your character than of the person you are describing and you are better than that.


----------



## MacabreMikolaj

I always can't help but laugh myself jiggly when some bible thumpin' nutjob claims that people are "going against the word of the lord" when they try and interpret religion their own way and NOT be annoying little gnats on the back of society. Don't you think that's kind of ironic since, um, the "lord" didn't WRITE the bible and the entire book is essentially just a bunch of interpreted nonsense by people over thousands of years? The bible does not equal the lord, the bible equals humanity and their own perverse decisions over what they think the lord wants.

And sorry folks, I'm pretty sure that the theory of Darwinism was soundly dissproven by the fact that Northern is still here.

:rofl:

I'm not an atheist, I'm agnostic because I am not so arrogant enough as to believe that SOMEHOW we have 469 completely contradicting religions in the world, with every single screaming theirs is the true religion.

Greatest Southpark episode ever, when everyone dies and goes to the pearly gates:

"So which religion was the real one?"
"Uhhh, one sec, let me see...yes, Mormon, the answer is Mormon."
* everyone else goes to hell*


----------



## AlexS

Northern said:


> Poseidon, yes, imo, atheists are fools. God thinks so, too.





Whisper22 said:


> Yes! Exactly. If you want to come up with your own answers opposite of what the Lord tells you, then yes, you are not a TRUE Christian. Really? You don't get that?



I find it very disturbing when people try to speak for God. 

Northern, God gave us free will did he not, and he loves everybody equally. So no, he does not think atheists are fools. 

Whisper, I believe that God wants us to think and question. That's why we have free will. Many religious people question things for much of their life, this is how they come to a deeper understanding of their faith.


----------



## Whisper22

MacabreMikolaj said:


> I always can't help but laugh myself jiggly when some bible thumpin' nutjob claims that people are "going against the word of the lord" when they try and interpret religion their own way and NOT be annoying little gnats on the back of society. Don't you think that's kind of ironic since, um, the "lord" didn't WRITE the bible and the entire book is essentially just a bunch of interpreted nonsense by people over thousands of years? The bible does not equal the lord, the bible equals humanity and their own perverse decisions over what they think the lord wants.
> 
> And sorry folks, I'm pretty sure that the theory of Darwinism was soundly dissproven by the fact that Northern is still here.
> 
> :rofl:
> 
> I'm not an atheist, I'm agnostic because I am not so arrogant enough as to believe that SOMEHOW we have 469 completely contradicting religions in the world, with every single screaming theirs is the true religion.
> 
> Greatest Southpark episode ever, when everyone dies and goes to the pearly gates:
> 
> "So which religion was the real one?"
> "Uhhh, one sec, let me see...yes, Mormon, the answer is Mormon."
> * everyone else goes to hell*


Is everyone not giving their opinions here? Why is it that because mine are religious that it makes me a nutjob? I have no respect for the people that continue to be that rude.
The fact that you watch South Park shows your maturity level and ability to comment on this subject.



AlexS said:


> I find it very disturbing when people try to speak for God.
> 
> Northern, God gave us free will did he not, and he loves everybody equally. So no, he does not think atheists are fools.
> 
> Whisper, I believe that God wants us to think and question. That's why we have free will. Many religious people question things for much of their life, this is how they come to a deeper understanding of their faith.


 We are supposed to be messengers of the Lord, I think it's okay to speak for him. I never said thinking about things was wrong but when your conclusion is oposite of what he tells you, you are not having faith.


----------



## sarahver

Although I am not religions per se, I don't believe that modern science can explain everything. There is too much order in the world and no matter how many findings are made, each finding simply presents many more questions.

Each understanding that is gained from modern science is more infinitesimal than the last: cells, atoms, protons, neutrons, electrons, baryons, quarks etc etc where does it end? No-one knows.

On the flip side of things, findings are so vast that the mind simply boggles to think about: Our solar system, our galaxy, our universe....then what? No one knows.

Science explains many things, to ignore well founded science is a mistake. But to think that we humans are capable of explaining everything in our world is also a mistake. I suppose that makes me Agnostic.

I believe religion is one avenue for the human mind to explain things that are otherwise unexplainable and I genuinely enjoy hearing about different religions, it is interesting and thought provoking.

Religion and science, there is no reason the two can't work in harmony. I have a very good friend from Uni who is quite religious although she rarely talks about it. She was always happy to answer my questions as I have a naturally curious mind and we had many a good, respectful discussion. She asked me one day if I thought that the Bible was a load of hogswash. I thought about it and told her that I didn't think it was hogswash at all, mostly an account of historical events from a given perspective.

There are some things that simply can't be explained and everyone is welcome to arrive at their own conclusions as to how to reconcile that in their minds.


----------



## faye

If god is all knowing and all powerful then can he create a weight that he cannot lift?

Anyway back on subject, Religion is there to explain what cannot be explained. Whisper you keep saying that you should interpret the bible litteraly well I am doing so litteraly and I cannot see how you can reconsile both of the statements in my previous post.

Also you say the bible is all down to interpretation. Who is to say that your interpretation is the correct one? The puritanical interpretation is vastly different to the catholic one yet both claim to be christian.
Also it depends entirely upon which bible you are reading. If you are reading a version of the King James bible (as the vast majority of christians do) then you are missing 14 whole books (known at the Apocrypha)that were removed in the 16th century. 
Infact masses of the original bible was "Edited" when the universal church was established by Emperor Constantine in the 4th century AD. If he didnt like it/it didnt fit in with his politics then didnt make it into the bible.
This site will make interesting reading for you:
The Lost Books of the Bible - Hidden Truth - Introduction


----------



## Whisper22

Just so we are clear, I didn't call everyone who belives in evolution or who doesn't belive in God an idiot. My point, now for the third time, was that trying to convince a TRUE Christian of HUMAN evolution was a waste of time. I really don't care what you all believe or if you agree with me. I am saddened by the lack of respect on this forum, and usually by the same people that thought it was okay to call me a nut, nutjob, or crazy for saying my opinion.

I am in fact Mormon and have very strong Christian values and beliefs that I will always try to defend. I would never call someone an idiot for not thinking the same way I do, but I will always try to explain myself.

Needless to say I was very offended by your reference to Mormons MM, even if it was only a joke, it was insulting and rude. 

I apologize if I have offended anyone and this is where I leave it. I will not stick around to be call names when all I did was give my opinion.


----------



## faye

Whisper you havnt answered my post above, which bible do you read and how do you explain the missing books? How do you reconcile your views with the fact that the bible you are reading has been edited due to the political leanings of one man in the 4th century and then it was edited again in the 17th century. If you want to be a TRUE christian then surely you need to read the whole bible in its original form and not the edited/*******ised version!

This page is absolutly fascinating,
The Lost Books of the Bible - The Hidden Truth - Introduction Part 2
they didnt do a very good job of editing the text to remove all references the books they didnt like.

This is why it is so easy to pick holes in the arguments of those who are fanatical about religions perticularly christianity (however I do have some knowlege of bits that were removed from the koran as well)

I dont like fanatics of any form, fanaticism is only one step away from extremeism (and I'm sure we've all seen what results from extremeists)


----------



## Whisper22

And I'm not going to. This conversation has taken a completely off topic turn and that debate could go on forever, so I choose not to enlighten you. If you are that interested, research Mormons and you will find your answer, at least to your first question.
I AM a TRUE Christian, more so than you will ever be I'm sure.


----------



## faye

You are not going to because you CANT! The thread has not gone off topic as far as I'm concerned, People were asked to disproove Evolution, so far only the bible has been quoted as "evidence" that Evolution didnt happen. I've asked you and Northern to defend your point of view and to fill in the holes that keep appearing in this "evidence". If you present something as fact you should be able to defend it with facts and when holes are picked into it you should either have a reasonable defence of that hole or you shoudl review your oppinions.

I have researched and everyt thing I read pretty much says Mormons use the King James Bible. Thus you miss out the 14 books removed in 1618 and the hundreds of books removed inthe 4th century.
*Isnt it nice to pick and choose which parts of the bible you want to believe in and totaly ignore the parts that dont suit you!*

You are only a True christian by YOUR deffinition. I personaly dont concider you a True christian by my deffinition since I dont concider fanatics of any form to uphold the true meaning of any religion.

Whisper you will get more converts to the faith if you stop bashing people over the head with it.


----------



## Whisper22

I absolutely can, but who are you to me, a big fat headache. I am choosing to not even go there with you because you are not interested in learning, you are interested in arguing. If I thought there was a shred of hope for you I would educate you in a second. I have not the time nor the desire to bother with people like you right now. You are trying to provoke me into bashing you over the head with it, I'm trying to walk away from it.


----------



## Jinba Ittai

Don't forget whisper22, pride is a sin, and so is boasting. Don't forget to report those two sins when you say your bedtime prayers tonight!

And you actually DID call anyone who is atheist a "fool" - essentially the same thing as an idiot. Don't bother tring to backtrack now.


----------



## Whisper22

That wasn't me. Make sure you have your facts straight.


----------



## Jinba Ittai

What?!


----------



## Whisper22

That was Northern that said athiests are fools. Go back and look.


----------



## NdAppy

Whisper22 said:


> I absolutely can, but who are you to me, a big fat headache. I am choosing to not even go there with you because you are not interested in learning, you are interested in arguing. If I thought there was a shred of hope for you I would educate you in a second. I have not the time nor the desire to bother with people like you right now. You are trying to provoke me into bashing you over the head with it, I'm trying to walk away from it.


Nope. You look like you are trying to walk away with the attitude that you are right and everyone is wrong without presenting your side of it. You can sure do that. You don't have to answer anything in this thread. If you really wanted to make your point known you wouldn't be side stepping questions. that right there tells me that you do _not_ know the answer.


----------



## Jinba Ittai

Gosh, you know what? You're right. It's just that you and Northern are so suspiciously alike...out was hard to tell the difference.


----------



## Whisper22

Good for you. Don't really care if you think I know the answers or not. I am choosing not to humor you people when all it will do is start a never ending debate. Everything I say someone will have an argument for. That is a headache I really don't want right now. I know I must seem like a horrible person for wanting to walk away from an argument, I can live with that.


----------



## faye

NdAppy said:


> Nope. You look like you are trying to walk away with the attitude that you are right and everyone is wrong without presenting your side of it. You can sure do that. You don't have to answer anything in this thread. If you really wanted to make your point known you wouldn't be side stepping questions. that right there tells me that you do _not_ know the answer.


Well said!

Whisper22, you won't defend it because you can't defend it! Infact I have yet to get an answer about those questions from any Fanatic (and I do concider mormons as fanatics). I'm very open to being "converted" IF you/any other group can answer my questions

The lovely chaplian at my school gave me a very very well reasoned and educated answer and was willing to debate and defend his position and the position of his church. I can happily defend Evolution when asked and If I dont know the answer I'm educated enough to go away and research the answer. I don't have blind faith in anything. 
Blind faith and Blinkered oppinions are the symptoms of a person who wont use the brain that was given to them to ask questions. If we had had blind faith and no one had ever dared challenge the status quo then we would all still be burning little old ladies as witches.


----------



## NdAppy

Whisper22 said:


> Good for you. Don't really care if you think I know the answers or not. I am choosing not to humor you people when all it will do is start a never ending debate. Everything I say someone will have an argument for. That is a headache I really don't want right now. I know I must seem like a horrible person for wanting to walk away from an argument, I can live with that.


Why do you keep coming back and saying that then? Unsubscribe from the thread and be done with it. Your attitude is coming across as "I know the answer and I am going to flaunt that in front of you but you're not good enough to know it." In all honesty for you claiming to be a "true Christian" that is a pretty crappy attitude. I am a Christian and I wouldn't hesitate to point out something I was asked in regards to my religion, nor am I going to shove it down someone's throat and basically tell them they are wrong in what they believe. The "it's giving me a headache" is a cop out for not answering. If you didn't want to debate it, why did you bring it up? You had to know full well coming into this thread that it was going to be a debate.


----------



## Whisper22

You make it sound as though they are so willing and eager to learn. If that was the case, as I've already said, I would share my knowledge in a second. I am under no false belief that it will not start a huge debate that will only end in a headache. Why is that so hard to grasp? You are so blood thursty for a fight, it's kind of funny, and I'm not going to give that to you. If I don't want to unsubscribe to a thread I don't have to. And I certainly don't care if you think I'm not being a good Christian. You don't know me and your opinion of me means absolutely nothing.

I wasn't shoving anything down anyones throat. Now for the fourth time, I was only saying that trying to convince a true Christian that evolution exists in humans was a waste of time and that they would put their faith in the Bible on that subject.

My original statements were NOT that in depth, that was all Faye. I have every right to stay out of it.


----------



## corinowalk

Whisper22 said:


> And I'm not going to. This conversation has taken a completely off topic turn and that debate could go on forever, so I choose not to enlighten you. If you are that interested, research Mormons and you will find your answer, at least to your first question.
> I AM a TRUE Christian, more so than you will ever be I'm sure.


A "TRUE" Christian would never put others down for their beliefs. God is about lifting people up and enlightening them. Encouraging faith without pushing. Saying that you are so much better than someone else based simply on your level of Christianity...you better watch out...lightning strikes and all...


----------



## faye

Whisper22, answer the questions. I would like to learn what your reasoning is behind the blind belief and your reasoning why the books that have been edited out of the bible are not valid? Why the original words of Christ himself have been edited? Why the apostles are not allowed thier say and why would the bible need editing in the first place

I personaly find that I cannot get a straight answer because generaly fanatics have such blind belief that they do not question and therefore they do not have the answers. 

YOu are being Very Prideful Whisper! be careful!


----------



## Whisper22

faye said:


> Whisper22, answer the questions. I would like to learn what your reasoning is behind the blind belief and your reasoning why the books that have been edited out of the bible are not valid? Why the original words of Christ himself have been edited? Why the apostles are not allowed thier say and why would the bible need editing in the first place
> 
> I personaly find that I cannot get a straight answer because generaly fanatics have such blind belief that they do not question and therefore they do not have the answers.
> 
> YOu are being Very Prideful Whisper! be careful!


Ok because you said it nicely, except that last part. I will have to do it later though, I've run out of time, especially for so many questions. But I WILL be back to give my answers. 
I'm sure I will be bashed for having to leave when I said I would answer but I do have 3 kids and I'm sorry but they do come before all of you.


----------



## MacabreMikolaj

*snorts*

Are you actually for real? It was a reference from a TELEVISION SHOW, and I would be truly and genuinely enlightened as to how on EARTH that reference made fun of Mormons whatsoever. You could have inserted ANY religion in there and it was still funny because it's TRUE.

You people are all chasing your own tails, and I am confident that IF there IS a god, he isn't going to be impressed with all your pandering, fakery and judgement when YOUR judgement day comes.

The very idea of using the bible to declare "gods word" has got to be the most arrogant, ridiculous, ignorant thing I've ever heard in my life. God did not WRITE the bible, and therefore, it is all assumption and YOU are MOST guilty of declaring to know gods word without any idea what you're talking about.


----------



## Tymer

A mix of evolution and creationism? Why yes it does exist!

It is becoming more and more common to see versions of creationism that believe that modern evidence of evolution (like the moths mentioned on page 1 or 2 and bacteria becoming immune to antibiotics) is correct. This shows up as "God created the animals and humans and plants we see today, but evolution is making some edits." Then, on the other hand, there are evolutionists that add in creationism to the tune of "God created life, but evolution made bacteria become what we see today."
I actually like these better then creationism, simply because they ACCEPT virtually irrefutable evidence that evolution exists. There are a few holes in evolution, but every year the holes get more and more filled. 

Also, random, but there actually are scientists who created organic matter (amino acids, carbohydrates...etc) in a laboratory. They did not create life, but they came to the conclusion that life would be "easy" to make in the presence of organic matter. 

I don't mind creationists, despite being a devout evolutionist myself. I DO mind having you impose your opinions on me (like church guys on the street corner yelling about "DARWIN IS A LIE!!!" etc). I don't care if I change your opinions, I just want you to listen to me. I'll listen to you, even though I don't agree with you. I will not take your opinions seriously if you blatantly reject what I say or tell me I'm WRONG. I'm pretty sure any church-goer would be heart broken if I flat out told them that their religion was WRONG.

I will not take you seriously if you do not ever say something along the lines of "Wow, that's a really great point. However, I personally believe that this is true instead." I can't say whether or not this has been going on, I only skimmed the thread.

Edit: I realized that back somewhere someone implied that there is only one way to read the Bible and one way to interpret religion. Then why does Christianity have so many branches, and so many different beliefs? We debate about the meaning of fictional books every day. While the Bible may not be fictional, (I personally believe it to be an exaggeration of events that actually happened) it is still a book up for individual interpretation. Please do not tell me, or anyone, that they are not "doing religion right." There is no right or wrong way to approach religion. It is simply YOUR way.


----------



## Northern

Well, just as I predicted: the evolution-faithful bashing away here, except that while I was gone, Whisper22 took a beating instead of me. 

sarah, I thank you for a well-reasoned & polite post.

Corino, if you don't want to hear the answer, don't ask the question. You asked me, & I answered honestly (re: whether I think atheists are fools.) Whether I'm arrogant in my opinion is not a given; it's yet another question.

If we could agree to stick to the topic, which is very simply the hard scientific evidence pro or con of the theory of evolution, that might help.

I've understood that there's another issue impacting the theory which is disagreed upon in scientific circles: that of the age of the earth, based upon scientists' carbon dating method. The evolution-faithful seem to interpret the carbon dating to prove that the earth is millions/billions of years old, whereas there are a few definable problems with their interp, which, when rectified, (by non-evolution scientists) show the earth to be a "young" earth, less than 15,000 years old. 

This disagreement impacts the theory by the huge time extension granted to the theory, for life forms to evolve.

However, I'm willing to suspend the disagreement & go with the "old" earth theory, because: 1) Ms. Coulter talks in terms of the "old", doesn't discuss the issue, & she's my first laymen's source. 2) bringing the issue into the search for hard evidence of evolution might bog us down here.


----------



## MacabreMikolaj

So what exactly is a creationists belief in the entire universe? Did god create the entire thing? Or does he trick us into seeing planets to test our faith? (read that doozy on a news forum once).

Or did he just set up camp in the universe and decided to make himself his own planet?

Cause, y'know, THAT'S believable.


----------



## Spastic_Dove

See, this is why I was asking for evidence on a scientific based approach (from peer-reviewed journals or other reputal sources. Not a political commentator/radio host.) I only say not people like ann coulter (or whatever the liberal version of her would be) is because both sides would be biased. I'm interested in facts while ignoring political motivations or theology for the moment. 

It has nothing to do with saying the Bible is irrelevant or untrue. It's just trying to avoid the bible bashing/athiest hating to spare both sides the headache. 

Northern, could you show me who it is that is saying the earth is 15,000 years old? How did they come to this conclusion? I've never heard that theory before. Is that from Anne Coulter? Does she mention her source?


----------



## faye

Northern, please provide sources for the young earth theory that have been peer reviewed.
Radiocarbon dating is not the method use to date the earth because that would be impossible since Carbon 14 has a relativly short half life of just under 6000 years, thus it becomes impossible to date anything older then about 62,000years as one cannot currently measure the radioactivity if it is that low.

Several methods have been used to date the earth but the most reliable method is similar to radiocarbon but is of an Isotope that has a far far longer halflife. uranium-238's decay to lead-206 dating is most reliable it has a half-life of about 4.5 billion years and has an internal crosscheck.

I'm not sure how you could find issues with radio carbondating either since it relies upon the half life of an isotope which is a measurable quantity. A halflife is how long it takes for an isotope to loose half of its radioactivity. Since radioactivity (which is a measureable quantity) is lost at an exponential rate with set probability it is possible to measure over a set amount of time and scale up mathematicly, hence how one can say something has such a long half life.

Perfect example of this if I said to you. I need you to measure this constant steady drip and tell me how long it will take for 4000 drips. As the drip is constant and steady (ie doesnt vary over time) you could measure how many drips you get in one minute and then divide 4000 by that number to get how many minutes it will take for 4000 drips give or take a few seconds for mathematical rounding. 

Admittedly that is an oversimplified example and there is more room for error with halflife calculations simply because of the exponential nature of readioactive decay but it is still possible to say that the earth is 4.54 billion years old give or take a 1% error margin.

ETA -helioseismic studies have provided verification for radio dating.


----------



## MacabreMikolaj

^ 

winning!


----------



## Lakotababii

faye said:


> I believe in christian ideals, I.e Murder, rape, stealing, adultery etc is moraly wrong, I believe that there is one god and he probably is the Christian God but TBH who is to say that we are right, I'm not going to say that Bhuddists or Muslims or any other religion are wrong.
> 
> Problem with Religious nuts is that you pick and choose which part of the bible you want to admit exists and not the bits that dont suit you.
> 
> As said above in the Bible it does say " Judge not lest you be Judged" well you are being rather judgemental whisper22.
> 
> In the Bible it also says that we are all decended from one man and one woman and yet it also dictated that incest is abhorant. Which is it Whisper22? cant have it both ways, if we are all decended from one man and one woman then an awful lot of very very close incest has been going on for a very long time (and essentialy Forced by the hand of god himself).
> 
> The bible also says that animals don't have souls. sorry but I dont want to go to heaven if there are no animals there.
> 
> Oh and lets not go into the fact that the old testament and the new testement don't exctly match in their Ideas of what is good and bad behavior. According to the old testament being a prostitute is about as bad as it comes, may as well resign yourself to a place in hell etc. Yet in the new testement Mary magdelene, one of Jesus' disciples was a prostitute.
> 
> If the bible wants to have any credibility it needs to stop contradicting itself.


Okay I am not a religious "nut." I consider myself open minded and respectful. However, if you are going to talk about the Bible and refute it, please get it right. Please let me know where it says in the bible that incest is abhorrant? And also where does it suggest that animals have no souls? Mary Magdalen was indeed a prostitute... up until she met Jesus, repented, and followed him. That's the point of Christianity, to save those who have fallen into sin. Mary Magdalen was indeed a sinner who repented and was saved. 

Like I said, I don't expect you to believe it. That's fine, whatever you believe is good with me  However, if you are going to make an argument, please get the facts straight.


----------



## JustDressageIt

Whisper22 said:


> Obviously evolution exists. Christians do not argue that it doesn't exist but that it doesn't exist in humans. As a TRUE Christian you should be following the Bible to the letter as that is required by the Lord, it is after all his book to his people. The Bible doesn't say that humans evolved from apes so Christians are to believe that they didn't. Trying to convince them otherwise will never work. A TRUE Christian would not so easily turn their back on God.


Point 1)
Some Christians DO indeed argue that evolution does not exist. Their argument is that the devil "planted" skeletons of dinosaurs to try and sway people to the "ebil" side. 

Point 2)
Guess we should get back to stoning people for their sins then, hey? I should have been killed years ago... and come to think of it, I don't think my parents would be around... or my grandparents... or.... You get my point.


----------



## faye

Lakotababii said:


> Please let me know where it says in the bible that incest is abhorrant?



None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness. Leviticus 18:6 

And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:11

And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.
Leviticus 20:12

And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you. 
Leviticus 20:14

That enough for you?


----------



## Northern

faye said:


> my belief is that something had to set off the big bang, a divine entity is as good as any other theory. .


 I think that I can safely say, then, that bubba, faye, & I see that a source of life had to precede creation of anything, & that intrinsic to the theory of evolution, is the denial of that fact. Ok, so on to the evidence, REGARDLESS of that fact.



faye said:


> The bible also says that animals don't have souls. *No, the Bible is silent on the subject. It does infer that animals are not in need of salvation, as sinful humans are. I'm not going further into your bible issues, but, in honor of the horse & other animals, there it is.*.





faye said:


> Takes a lot longer then 150 years for a whole new species to evolve unless you are talking bacteria/viruses in which case I will dispute the fact that it hasnt happened as we get whole new species of them all the time. H1N1, Ebola, heck even HIV (which evolved inorder to jump species in the early 20th century, previous to that it was found only in primates and the HIV virus in Humans is very very different to that found today in primates)


 The statement meant that, since Darwin published the theory, it's been 150 years of looking for a species change, not that anyone said 150 years for a species change is all the time you've got.



Tymer said:


> Also, random, but there actually are scientists who created organic matter (amino acids, carbohydrates...etc) in a laboratory. They did not create life, but they came to the conclusion that* life would be "easy" to make in the* *presence of organic matter*.


 That's a mouthful! First, if it'd be easy, (because they've already got organic matter) they'd've DONE it, & won the Nobel Prize, of course. So, it remains only a mouthful.


----------



## JustDressageIt

Whisper22 said:


> There is a correct way to *interpret* the Bible and just because everyone can't agree on what that is doesn't mean in contradicts intself.


 
I can't make this word bigger or brighter... INTERPRET!!!!! INTERPRET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This board's threads are a FANTASTIC example that 20 people can read one thing and come up with MANY different INTERPRETATIONS of what the author meant. 
We're human. The Bible was written by humans. The Bible was then interpreted by humans. Who says that the authors didn't have a hard time INTERPRETING the word of God in the first place, and messed up writing it down? I'm just speculating of course. 

I don't think I'm less a Christian for not following the Bible to a T.... I believe it is a guide of how to be a good human being, but not meant to be followed to the absolute letter. I am a good person. If God is really that stringent.. I don't know what to say. There wouldn't be many people in Heaven, and many less going through the Pearly Gates in today's day and age...


----------



## MacabreMikolaj

JDI - big ol' fat LIKE.


----------



## Lakotababii

faye said:


> None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness. Leviticus 18:6
> 
> And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:11
> 
> And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.
> Leviticus 20:12
> 
> And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.
> Leviticus 20:14
> 
> That enough for you?


Yes, and thank you for backing that one point. What about the others?

This is a hard debate, I have often wondered it myself. HOWEVER, this law was created after the human race was established. Yes, Adam and Eve most likely had many children, they intermarried, and had many more children. However, after the human race was established, this law was created. I must point out however, that the lines then were "pure" since Adam and Eve had no defect until after the fall. With the crosses and the fall came defects and death, so the law was created, no interbreeding. 

The laws in leviticus state to not disrespect the father/mother/sister/brother whatever by uncovering their nakedness. Makes sense doesn't it? At this point in time there was no reason to need to mate with a close relative, and it was disgraceful because it was disrespectful, mostly like audultery. I cannot explain why God chose to use only Adam and Eve, or how the Earth was fully populated, but then again, thats a part of faith.

Once again, not gonna shove it down your throat, you have your rights just like I have mine. Im curious though why you didnt answer my other questions.

Please keep in context. Leviticus was written to the Old Testament Jews. just like the law saying "meat is unclean" many things in that don't apply in certain periods (like today), and they need to be taken in context. This law was not written until after the population had been established.


----------



## MacabreMikolaj

I love how anytime nothing makes sense in religion, it's just "faith", and yet we're expected to give cold hard evidence (that's refuted anyway in the name of faith). That's a pretty convenient cop out.

Isn't it also the Old Testament that speaks against homosexuality?


----------



## Lakotababii

MacabreMikolaj said:


> I love how anytime nothing makes sense in religion, it's just "faith", and yet we're expected to give cold hard evidence (that's refuted anyway in the name of faith). That's a pretty convenient cop out.
> 
> Isn't it also the Old Testament that speaks against homosexuality?


Faith comes to play in both Christianity and Darwanism/Evolution. Let's face it, neither can be proven, thus the THEORY of evolution and the THEORY of Creationism. Faith goes both ways, even if you don't call it that.

Look up Romans 1:24-27 Its in the New Testament too.


----------



## Northern

Are you folks going into religion just to be mean, or what? Please stick to topic, which is: hard evidence, pro or con, re: the theory of evolution. Just the science.


----------



## faye

So just because It is Old testament it is no longer relevent? therfore by that argument since the 10 comandments were old testament they are no longer relevant?

The adam and eve argument put forwards is impossible as everybody would be close relatives! There for every marriage would be incestuous.

I'll do the rest of my points tommorow afternoon since it is 2.30am here and I have to be up at 6am for work!


----------



## Lakotababii

Northern said:


> Are you folks going into religion just to be mean, or what? Please stick to topic, which is: hard evidence, pro or con, re: the theory of evolution. Just the science.



I agree, it is off the topic. I was just saying something because I felt like the Bible was being misrepresented. I have no problem with atheists or other religions, but I do like people to be respectful of Christianity.


----------



## Lakotababii

faye said:


> So just because It is Old testament it is no longer relevent? therfore by that argument since the 10 comandments were old testament they are no longer relevant?
> 
> The adam and eve argument put forwards is impossible as everybody would be close relatives! There for every marriage would be incestuous.
> 
> I'll do the rest of my points tommorow afternoon since it is 2.30am here and I have to be up at 6am for work!


The time lapsed between when Adam and Eve had children and when Leviticus was written is unknown, therefore it is not impossible that everyone would be distant enough, especially considering some of their children roamed the earth. Is your 8th cousin once removed far enough away to not be incestuous? You tell me. 

I did not say it was not relevant, but it needs to be kept into context. The things said in the Old Testament were backed by Jesus' words in the new testament. The 10 commandments especially. 

Leviticus is a book known for being a part of the "History" section of the Bible. it is definitely relevant, but backed by what Jesus said in the new testament.


----------



## Northern

Spastic_Dove said:


> 1.See, this is why I was asking for evidence on a scientific based approach (from peer-reviewed journals or other reputal sources....I'm interested in facts while ignoring political motivations or theology for the moment.
> 
> 2.Northern, could you show me who it is that is saying the earth is 15,000 years old? How did they come to this conclusion? I've never heard that theory before. Is that from Anne Coulter? Does she mention her source?


 1. SD, I understand your concern that Ms. Coulter might present bias, but I want unvarnished facts also. I don't see that she's spin- doctoring anything. As I said, she has a lot of references TO the peer-reviewed articles. etc. I find that she's done the research for me, in her 4 chapters, so I'm going to trust that she's credible. As I said, Ms. Coulter does not discuss the disagreement about dating the age of earth, fossils, etc, but "goes with" the "old" earth interpretation. Here's the article: www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible.

We're hardly going to find absolutely unbiased science/articles on the subject, on ether side, so we're just going to have to look at the science each side presents & do our best to be unbiased ourselves.


----------



## MIEventer

MacabreMikolaj said:


> ^
> 
> winning!


ROFL! I started to laugh when I read this, I just totally heard Charlie Sheen's voice..omg....


----------



## Northern

I just realized that I didn't check for peer-reviewing in the article I linked, SD & faye! Regardless, I think you'll find it interesting, with 3 issues & conclusion, about the "dating".

Also, if you google "proof of the earth's age carbon dating inaccurate" there's a list of articles (didn't check them out.)


----------



## faye

Northern - the only place i can find where some those articles she references have been published is on the internet and in creationist journals, others have been taken completly out of context. The creationist journal articles have also not been peer reviewed and the articles themselves (bare in mind I have only very briefly skimmed through some of them) have some rather glareing holes.

She herself has absolutly no scientific background.

Sorry but completly biased source and Not peer reviewed. again I'll read more in the morning.


----------



## Spastic_Dove

There are certainly very biased liberal types out there. No doubt about it. That's why I think peer-reviewed journals are the most un-biased sources we can look at since they have some standards to be held to. However, I have quite a bit of access and know what to look for being enrolled in the university and I'm not sure how easy they are to access when you don't have them sitting there waiting for you like I do? 

Most the ones that I found when I googled what you mentioned are websites like "creation proof", "christian answers" etc. I'll see if I can find anything somewhere other than google though... 

Faye basically responded already in relation to the young earth/old earth (is that what you would call it?) debate.


----------



## bubba13

sarahver said:


> ETA: After re-reading your comment I think we are on the same side of the fence Bubba!


I think you just wasted a bunch of your time explaining stuff that nobody's going to understand or appreciate....save me. And yes, we're on exactly the same page. I'm taking Biochemistry in undergrad now. I was actually introduced to that article via my class (you should read it; it'll confuzzle ya) when a student suggested we watch the YouTube animation of ATP synthase action. It is a really great illustration of how the enzyme works. Then, at the end of the video, there's a statement about how this _obviously_ proves intelligent design and refutes evolution. There was an audible gasp in the classroom.

It's not that we science students, mainly Biology and Chemistry majors, are opposed to the idea of God. Hell, the professor wears her silver cross necklace every day. But stating it so blatantly, and with such poor "proof" and misguided "facts," is appalling. Misinformation and brainwashing abounds.



JustDressageIt said:


> One thing I never could understand is why the two can't dove-tail nicely together? I'm a Christian (lite), believe in God, but also believe in evolution, and am very liberal-minded. Does believing in evolution and not following the Bible to the letter make me a bad person? Hope not. Why can't the two meld together?
> *My personal belief is that perhaps God just set the entire thing in motion.*
> 
> Bubba, love your posts on this thread.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


And no scientist can explain the origin of the universe, at all. Big Bang is fine, but what happened BEFORE the Big Bang? Or from a religious perspective, where did God come from? So he/she/it/the original exploding grapefruit existed all along? That's a pretty crappy explanation.

Nobody has a satisfying answer. Nobody knows. I'll completely admit to believing fully in some sort of divine cosmic force, whatever form it takes. But I think it's pretty dumb for anyone to claim to know exactly what it is.



faye said:


> my belief is that something had to set off the big bang, a divine entity is as good as any other theory. Also where did the matter come from to create the big band? if it came from Energy then where did that energy come from?
> One theory is a collapsing universe but then where did that universe spring from.
> 
> What was it that triggered chemicals to arrange the way they did and form cells?
> Again a divine entity theory is as good as a random chance theory.


EXACTLY. Should have read your post first before multi-quoting and responding to JDI.



sarahver said:


> ^^Although I am not religious myself, I agree with the above. Anthropologically speaking, religion is one of the universals that is present in EVERY SINGLE culture. Different religions of course but they serve the same basic purpose - to explain the unexplainable. Suits me fine I sure don't have a better answer.
> 
> I do believe in evolution though.


Interestingly, I read in a Temple Grandin book recently that there is a portion of the human brain which is the "God center." It feels and interprets religious experiences. It seems people actually evolved to believe in a God; to have religion; to worship the divine.



sarahver said:


> In regards to Atheists being fools, I don't mind if you think that Northern, you are welcome to your opinion. I think many people are fools and my judgement is far from perfect, doesn't change what I think.
> 
> I do not know much of God but I would hope that he was rather less judgemental than that.


I know, right? Why did God give us a brain and the ability to reason and experiment if he's just going to get all ****ed at us for it? Maybe it's a test and he's trying to trip us up...



smrobs said:


> Hmm, pot, meet kettle.
> 
> Hm, I seem to recall something from the bible about "Judge not lest ye be judged" and isn't there also something else about presuming to know the mind of God?


I honest to goodness don't understand why people think they can speak for God just because they read the Bible and attended Sunday school. Um, pretty sure he's a little more complex than that. And also that much of the Gospels, etc., are _frequently_ misinterpreted. And used to justify atrocities, like bombing abortion clinics and all that fun stuff.



Whisper22 said:


> Obviously evolution exists. Christians do not argue that it doesn't exist but that it doesn't exist in humans. As a TRUE Christian you should be following the Bible to the letter as that is required by the Lord, it is after all his book to his people. The Bible doesn't say that humans evolved from apes so Christians are to believe that they didn't. Trying to convince them otherwise will never work. A TRUE Christian would not so easily turn their back on God.


The Bible doesn't say that humans _didn't_ evolve from apes, either. Nor did it say anything either way about reptile-human hybrids, to get back to the other thread. But then again, Darwin didn't say that humans evolved from apes, either. To get down to the nitty gritty, humans, and all other lfe forms, evolved from a very primitive and simple bacterium. 

Following the Bible to the letter also means stoning adulterers, owning slaves, and abstaining from eating pork. Are we going to start doing all that stuff again?


----------



## Northern

faye said:


> eg the peppered moth
> 
> Until the industrial revelution most peppered moth's were pale coloured with a few exeptional dark moths. The moths like to sit on trees and buildings. Black moths were particularly vunerable to predation by birds because they were more visible.
> 
> The industrial revolution covered the country in dark soot. Now the pale coloured moths were more vunerable to predation. There is lots of evidence that the black moths increased massively in number while the pale moths became in a minority.
> 
> Since cleanup of buildings over the last 50 years, there is now some evidence that the colours are changing again and black moths are once again reducing in number.


From Ms. Coulter: "It wasn't a particularly dazzling example of evolution. Black, white, or purple, they were still peppered moths.... It was so logical, so intuitive, and so fake. Decades later, researchers...noticed some problems. American lepidopterist Ted Sargent and others pointed out that peppered moths do not rest on tree trunks, but on the undersides of high branches. Not only that, but the peppered moth sleeps during the day, coming out to fly only at night when the birds are asleep. It turned out that Ford [the scientist who supposedly proved evolution via the moths] and his assistant had rigged the game by physically placing light moths on black tree trunk in the bright light of day--someplace the moths would never have been if left to their own devices....As described in the New York Times, "The most famous example of evolutioin in action must now become the most infamous." But what about those photos? The famous photos of the peppered mothts were staged, often by literally gluing dead moths to tree trunks....To this day, evolutionists cite the peppered moths as proof that evolution is based on "science". The staged photos still appear in biology textbooks, as detailed in Jonathan Well's book "Icons of Evolution"."

eta: posted this before I saw your posts on Ms. Coulter's bias. Well, here's what she says on the peppered moth. Are you saying she's spin doctoring here? (as well as the NY Times, etc.)


----------



## faye

God this thread is determined to keep me up tonight.
I realy will get round to the other points I promised but I'm too tired to find my sources right now!
I'm going to sleep after this and nothing is going to stop me!



bubba13 said:


> I think you just wasted a bunch of your time explaining stuff that nobody's going to understand or appreciate....save me. And yes, we're on exactly the same page. I'm taking Biochemistry in undergrad now. I was actually introduced to that article via my class (you should read it; it'll confuzzle ya) when a student suggested we watch the YouTube animation of ATP synthase action. It is a really great illustration of how the enzyme works. Then, at the end of the video, there's a statement about how this _obviously_ proves intelligent design and refutes evolution. There was an audible gasp in the classroom.
> 
> It's not that we science students, mainly Biology and Chemistry majors, are opposed to the idea of God. Hell, the professor wears her silver cross necklace every day. But stating it so blatantly, and with such poor "proof" and misguided "facts," is appalling. Misinformation and brainwashing abounds.


I got some of it. so not completly wasted time, however my Bachelors Degree was in Chemical Engineering so whilst I did the first 2 years of a chemistry degree I didnt go that in depth into the biology side of it (dropped biology aged 15). I spent my other 2 Uni years playing with Radiation, Working out how not to poison people on a mass scale, how not to blow a chemical plant sky high etc. 
Interestingly enough my dissertation was on the "Storage of Hydrogen energy on Non Ferrous metals" with specific reference to the Thermodynamics, stability and suitability for use in a household situation.
My final Group project on the other hand was much more fun!!

Northern - can we please dispense with Ms Coulter as she is a sensationalist journalist out to make a name for herself by any means possible and she has no scientific background. Even if the Peppered moth was faked, H1N1, MRSA and AIDS are not, All those viruses have EVOLVED to be Drug resistant due to the fact that thier survival depended upon it.


----------



## bubba13

faye said:


> I believe in christian ideals, I.e Murder, rape, stealing, adultery etc is moraly wrong, I believe that there is one god and he probably is the Christian God but TBH who is to say that we are right, I'm not going to say that Bhuddists or Muslims or any other religion are wrong.


See, the thing is, the Christians like to take credit for those ideals, but they sure didn't originate them. Most all of the major world religious preach those same standards of morality, and some are even far stricter. The Golden Rule did not start with Jesus, by any stretch of the imagination.

And another thing: All of the rabid Christian fundamentalists nowadays, if they'd been born in Iraq, they'd have bombs strapped under their burqas now.* Faith is relative. It's a cultural thing, what you were introduced to by society. There's nothing "magical" about Christianity as a faith except that it happens to be extremely popular worldwide.

* Not saying all Muslims are terrorists, 'cause clearly they ain't. But the radicals sure are, as are radicals in all groups. And the same goes for Christians.



Whisper22 said:


> I'm not going to go into every piece of the Bible that can be misinterpreted. We were talking about evolution and for the second time, I was only pointing out that to convince a true Christian of human evolution is a waste of time. It wont happen.


You can't interpret the Bible literally one minute and then turn around and make an exception the next. It's all or nothing. And on that note, I strongly recommend that people watch the play _Inherit the Wind_. It's a really great classic, and there's a wonderful black and white movie version. I'm serious--you should check it out. It relates very much to this topic, and it's based on true events.


----------



## bubba13

Whisper22 said:


> There is a correct way to interpret the Bible and just because everyone can't agree on what that is doesn't mean in contradicts intself.


And you know this. You alone. Here's your medal, now please do the world a favor and start teaching everybody else in the world the right way to interpret it, STAT!!!



faye said:


> Erm not sure what your getting at here. Natural selection Is essentialy the theory of evolution, survival of the fittest and thus those with the desirable attributes survive i.e the fastest cheetahs etc.


Yeah, it's pretty dang hard to disprove natural selection, isn't it? You CAN'T. It's absolutely, positively, 100% undeniable. 

[/quote]Takes a lot longer then 150 years for a whole new species to evolve unless you are talking bacteria/viruses in which case I will dispute the fact that it hasnt happened as we get whole new species of them all the time. H1N1, Ebola, heck even HIV (which evolved inorder to jump species in the early 20th century, previous to that it was found only in primates and the HIV virus in Humans is very very different to that found today in primates)[/QUOTE]

I'd *exalt* ya, but this is the wrong forum for that. 

One of the best examples of different species evolving after a relatively short separation time are the Galapagos finches: Darwin's finches - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Northern said:


> Thanks to sarah's info on peer reviewing, thus her reading only the first paragraph of this, I don't feel compelled to read this either, at least not right now. If you, bubba, have a reason why we should read this, please tell us.


It's a really good article that thinks it disproves evolution (although people who don't know cell biology might not understand the technical aspects of it). It's a pretty clever argument, but there's a gaping hole that I discovered that sorta makes all of the author's points moot and wrong. I questioned it most politely, and they did not give me the promised explanation, nor did they publish the comment. Why? Because they have an agenda to promote, and they can't have people questioning them and proving them wrong. That's kinda cowardly, isn't it, when they promote themselves as a science-based creationism group?



Mickey4793 said:


> Uhhhhh. I shouldn't even post in this thread so I'll leave it at this:
> 
> The bible is thousands of years old and has been rewritten many times to fit the writers ideals. So, following what the bible says word for word is like saying that everything on Wikipedia is fact.
> 
> What if "god" created evolution?


Oh no. The Bible is set and stone and the people who changed it over the years didn't tinker with anything. No corruption in the Church, no missing or added books, no problems with interpretation, nada! :twisted:


----------



## Northern

Spastic_Dove said:


> There are certainly very biased liberal types out there. No doubt about it. *THANK you*!* As I said, it's such an emotionally-charged tenet of faith to many liberals because it denies* *God*,* for the atheistically-inclined!* That's why I think peer-reviewed journals are the most un-biased sources we can look at since they have some standards to be held to. However, I have quite a bit of access and know what to look for being enrolled in the university and I'm not sure how easy they are to access when you don't have them sitting there waiting for you like I do? *THANK you! I live in the middle of nowhere in a town of 7500, with a small library. I feel fortunate to have found Coulter's book there! Otherwise, you're asking me to devote countless hours to researching online for unbiased science, & my eyes are already stinging & bloodshot from reading, weeding thru, & posting. *
> 
> Most the ones that I found when I googled what you mentioned are websites like "creation proof", "christian answers" etc. I'll see if I can find anything somewhere other than google though...* I know, SD, but the one I linked is quite scholarly, as far as my uneducated self can tell.*
> 
> Faye basically responded already in relation to the young earth/old earth (is that what you would call it?) debate.


 I want to know what faye & you have to say about the article.


----------



## bubba13

Northern said:


> I've understood that there's another issue impacting the theory which is disagreed upon in scientific circles: that of the age of the earth, based upon scientists' carbon dating method. The evolution-faithful seem to interpret the carbon dating to prove that the earth is millions/billions of years old, whereas there are a few definable problems with their interp, which, when rectified, (by non-evolution scientists) show the earth to be a "young" earth, less than 15,000 years old.


It is true that carbon dating is unreliable and only useful for relatively short time periods of a few thousand years. But as faye mentioned, they have other, far more accurate, methods of aging things. I have never heard a reputable scientist claim otherwise (that the Earth is not billions of years old). If anyone can supply a _valid_ source stating something to the contrary, I'd love to see it.


----------



## Northern

bubba, I can't recall if your article was peer-reviewed, but when my eyes feel better, I'll read it. I'll add that I agree totally that dishonesty from creationists is every bit as bad as from evolutionists, & sorry they treated you badly.


----------



## Spastic_Dove

There's a reason I chose a non-scientific major... it's not my strong point and honestly a lot of their descriptions of carbon dating are a little beyond my understanding. I've never even heard of the 'young earth' theory until today so I'll have to do a little more reading. However here is a website I found that seems to respond to it quite well. 

How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments: Radiocarbon Dating

And a FAQ Frequently Asked Questions About Creationism and Evolution"

also check: The Age of the Earth

And The Talk.Origins Archive: The Age of the Earth FAQs 

If you are interested. 


I haven't heard a lot of mention of C14 dating being done to figure out the earths age. I have heard more towards isochron methods which seem to be more applicable to dating the earth.


----------



## bubba13

Northern said:


> I think that I can safely say, then, that bubba, faye, & I see that a source of life had to precede creation of anything, & that intrinsic to the theory of evolution, is the denial of that fact. Ok, so on to the evidence, REGARDLESS of that fact.


No. No, no, no, no, NO. Evolution has nothing to do with the existence/absence of a God figure, in any form. Just with the Creation story as written in the Bible, where people, plants, and animals were just plunked down in their present-day form. 




> The statement meant that, since Darwin published the theory, it's been 150 years of looking for a species change, not that anyone said 150 years for a species change is all the time you've got.


But either way you interpret the statement, it's wrong. Like faye said, you won't see drastic examples of species change (with the exception of bacteria/viruses) in such a short time frame, so we can't exactly watch it happen today. And there IS plenty of evidence of species change in the past. Like the two I posted on page 1, documenting the evolution of both horses and humans from totally different primitive species millions of years ago. Eohippus is long dead, but its progeny do quite well in the dressage ring, thankyouverymuch. And so on.

DNA evidence via phylogenetics show exactly where one species split off from one another, and how long ago (there's another aging technique for you). It also shows how closely related different species are.



> That's a mouthful! First, if it'd be easy, (because they've already got organic matter) they'd've DONE it, & won the Nobel Prize, of course. So, it remains only a mouthful.


They were never able to create life, it is true. But they created complex organic molecules (that before everyone thought were only produced within living beings!) from extremely simple substrate, such as that found in early Earth's atmosphere. Things like amino acids and stuff, I believe. The building blocks of life.


----------



## bubba13

Northern said:


> From Ms. Coulter: "It wasn't a particularly dazzling example of evolution. Black, white, or purple, they were still peppered moths.... It was so logical, so intuitive, and so fake. Decades later, researchers...noticed some problems. American lepidopterist Ted Sargent and others pointed out that peppered moths do not rest on tree trunks, but on the undersides of high branches. Not only that, but the peppered moth sleeps during the day, coming out to fly only at night when the birds are asleep. It turned out that Ford [the scientist who supposedly proved evolution via the moths] and his assistant had rigged the game by physically placing light moths on black tree trunk in the bright light of day--someplace the moths would never have been if left to their own devices....As described in the New York Times, "The most famous example of evolutioin in action must now become the most infamous." But what about those photos? The famous photos of the peppered mothts were staged, often by literally gluing dead moths to tree trunks....To this day, evolutionists cite the peppered moths as proof that evolution is based on "science". The staged photos still appear in biology textbooks, as detailed in Jonathan Well's book "Icons of Evolution"."
> 
> eta: posted this before I saw your posts on Ms. Coulter's bias. Well, here's what she says on the peppered moth. Are you saying she's spin doctoring here? (as well as the NY Times, etc.)


Yeah, the peppered moth thing was a pity. But you can't deny drug-resistant strains of bacteria, and Darwin's finches, and other examples of natural selection. No one ever claimed that the peppered moth changed into a new species, either. Just that natural selection acted on it.



Northern said:


> 1. SD, I understand your concern that Ms. Coulter might present bias, but I want unvarnished facts also. I don't see that she's spin- doctoring anything. As I said, she has a lot of references TO the peer-reviewed articles. etc. I find that she's done the research for me, in her 4 chapters, so I'm going to trust that she's credible. As I said, Ms. Coulter does not discuss the disagreement about dating the age of earth, fossils, etc, but "goes with" the "old" earth interpretation. Here's the article: www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible.
> 
> We're hardly going to find absolutely unbiased science/articles on the subject, on ether side, so we're just going to have to look at the science each side presents & do our best to be unbiased ourselves.


Re: the link, I think the carbon dating thing has already been addressed. There are other, far more accurate, methods of aging old things. Scientists use those, and all confirm the old age of the Earth.


----------



## bubba13

Northern said:


> bubba, I can't recall if your article was peer-reviewed, but when my eyes feel better, I'll read it. I'll add that I agree totally that dishonesty from creationists is every bit as bad as from evolutionists, & sorry they treated you badly.


No, it's not, but they sure act like it's infallible. But while it sounds excellent, it's "holey" enough that an undergrad student notices immediately.

I've yet to find a Creation-supporting (or evolution-refuting) paper in a non-Christian or mainstream scientific peer-reviewed journal.


----------



## faye

******, I just cant leave this now I'll only manage 2 hrs sleep anyway not enough for proper rest, so Proplus it is for me tommorow

My thoughts is that this article:
Doesn?t Carbon-14 Dating Disprove the Bible? - Answers in Genesis
Is attempting to baffle people with science.
I learnt that level of science in high school so it isnt baffleing me. The Major glareing flaw in the argument presented in that the article is the fact that we dont use Carbon Dating to Date the earth. We use lead/uranium and there is no repleneshment of that to screw up the numbers and there is an integral check in it. we also use helioseismic studies which give roughly the same age as Lead/Urianium dating. 
Finaly comments on the earths magnetic field. The Earths magnetic field has been decreasing since the creation of the earth before general scentific concensus is that as the earth is a geodynamo, its spinning molten core creating a magnetic field (which is greatly affected by the thermodynamics and fluid dynamics within the core). The common consensus is that we are headed for a periodic reversal of the poles which happens approx every 200,000 years.
This article explains about geodynamos and switching poles (this is the most layman terms I can find)
Is the Earth's magnetic field about to flip? : Highly Allochthonous


----------



## Kawonu

Okay, I'm not going to lie, I just walked into this and I didn't necessarily read everything. I would, however, like to present a case a church I once went to had stated. "Perhaps God made earth to appear old so we would be tested in faith, or to be able to discover other possibilities of life!"

Note, I am a strong personal-pagan, and could care less if the christian god existed. I'm just waiting for every human of modern society to be proven wrong and thrown into some sort of damnation. Which would be funny and slightly enjoyable for me.

In my own personal belief and opinion, everyone has a right to have a religion while studying the earth that a god or no god gave us. If there is a god or goddess or superior being above that has created us and this world, they obviously wanted us to be able to explore and discover possibilities of other life so we may be knowledgeable, even if that life never did exist. If it _did_ exist, then it was before man's time, so it is not incorporated into the bible. First modern man may have lived in a Garden of Eden for all we know, with prehistoric creatures having lived before that. We will never know until death, unless we cease to exist.


----------



## MacabreMikolaj

Sorry, bubba13 mentioned drug-resistant bacteria, I just can't resist:


----------



## corinowalk

^^Lurve it^^


----------



## Northern

bubba13 said:


> *The theory of evolution cannot fully explain where that first "divine spark" came from, to ignite the primordial ooze into LIFE. If anything, that tends to come full circle to point back to Intelligent Design; a Greater Being; an Omnipotent Force.*





bubba13 said:


> No. No, no, no, no, NO. Evolution has nothing to do with the existence/absence of a God figure, in any form.
> 
> I went by your words bolded, so it seems that you contradict yourself. At any rate, I said that in spite of this intrinsic lack of explanation of LIFE, we'd go ahead & try to find facts.
> 
> They were never able to create life, it is true. But they created complex organic molecules (that before everyone thought were only produced within living beings!)


 It's a huge thing to claim that it'd be easy to create life, bubba. Plus, to not admit that it wasn't so easy after all is dishonest. People, like the poster, can believe/be impressed by such a grand claim, but it's entirely hollow if you see that they never made good on it.

It's also a hugely dishonest thing to fabricate the "proof" of evolution via the pepper moth, & to keep it in the textbooks.


----------



## bubba13

First, I was not the person who said it would be "easy to create life." I don't recall who that was.

Here is a Wikipedia synopsis of the experiment: Miller?Urey experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The molecules that were created in their test tube had previously been thought to be synthesized only by already-living beings. That was supposedly one of the "sparks" of life that proved creationism, as without these molecules even the simplest of organisms cannot exist. But if you take basic chemicals present in the atmosphere and run a current through them, lo and behold, you form amino acids and other organic compounds. This is a Big Deal, and it shows that the formation of life from inorganic matter is theoretically possible (whether it actually occured in that manner, of course, we cannot prove).

If life did spontaneously spring from the primordial ooze after all, trust me, it would have been a random act of chance so profound that we'd never be able to recreate it in the laboratory. Play the cards, fiddle with statistics....it's not going to happen again while we're watching. The best we can do is note that all of the composite pieces of life will form in such a manner if conditions are right.

I'm not sure where you're seeing a contradiction in any of my statements. The theory of evolution (and science in general) cannot explain the origin of life, and by extension the universe. Religion can't explain the origin of the universe, either. We're back to square one.


----------



## Whisper22

I'm back. I know, some of you can hardly contain yourselves. Here are my answers I promised.

Are you familiar with the Apocrypha? Its sounds like you might be, but just incase you're not, basically it's a collection of books that were apart of and removed from the Bible by the Catholics and the Protistants. I don't believe these books are invalid at all. As a matter of fact the Book of Mormon quotes directly from the Apocrypha and Joseph Smith told his people that there is a lot of good information that we should know within it. The Bible has been translated and retranslated several times but I believe what we were meant to know is still there. I also believe that the Book of Mormon was given to us for several reasons, the tampering of the Bible being one of them. It repeats a lot of what the Bible says and some that it doesn't. I do not wish to get into a debate over whether or not you think it's true. I find that people who are not Mormon know very little about our faith, only what they here from others, which 99% of the time is false.

I never actually said that you should take the Bible literally, and I don't necessarily believe you should. I think some parts were meant to be and some weren't. It takes a lot of studying or at least learning from the right people to know how to interpret the Bible correctly. I do think there are answers for the contradictions you think you see. Believe it or not there are good reasons to kill someone, and "thou shalt not kill" is referring to murder. Murdering someone is different than killing someone in the Bible.

Unfortunately people have edited the Bible over time, but the great thing about being Mormon is that we had a prophet that interpreted the Bible himself and was told by Heavenly Father that what we need to know is there. And to elaborate on what is there and then some we were given the Book of Mormon.

I know this may not seem like it answers any of your questions because Mormon beliefs are hard for people to wrap their heads around, but they are answers.


----------



## bubba13

Yes, and Muhammad (pbuh) was a great prophet, too, and God spoke to _him_, as well, and thankfully _he_ was able to interpet God's word correctly as no one else could do....

See where I'm going with this?


----------



## AlexS

I'd like to see this stop as it is not going to get anywhere. Everything is a personal belief, as this is what it is a belief. 

For those who believe in science, there is a bunch of things that lead in that direction, there is no one thing that can be held up as the one and only proof. 

For those who believe in God, you have to understand that this is a belief too, and there is no proof that you can hand over to someone else. Of course there is a book, but what does that prove if you don't believe in it. 

Honestly I am most upset with the so called Christians in this thread. Up until very recently I was an atheist all my life, I have just chosen to start believing - but you guys put me off massively. 

How dare you go at someone who does not believe when God gave them free will. Do you think you are better than God or Jesus? If so, there is a place in hell for you, and you are not a Christian. Not at all.


----------



## Whisper22

bubba13 said:


> The Bible doesn't say that humans _didn't_ evolve from apes, either. Nor did it say anything either way about reptile-human hybrids, to get back to the other thread. But then again, Darwin didn't say that humans evolved from apes, either. To get down to the nitty gritty, humans, and all other lfe forms, evolved from a very primitive and simple bacterium.
> 
> Following the Bible to the letter also means stoning adulterers, owning slaves, and abstaining from eating pork. Are we going to start doing all that stuff again?


Unless Adam and Eve were apes then yes it did. We probably won't start doing those things again but that's not based on what God wants, that's based on what humans want. Things do also change with the times. At the time the Bible wa written, those things were okay. God knew things would change and that we are to followe the law.


----------



## Whisper22

bubba13 said:


> Yes, and Muhammad (pbuh) was a great prophet, too, and God spoke to _him_, as well, and thankfully _he_ was able to interpet God's word correctly as no one else could do....
> 
> See where I'm going with this?


No not really. Muhammad has nothing to do with my Prophet.


----------



## Whisper22

AlexS said:


> I'd like to see this stop as it is not going to get anywhere. Everything is a personal belief, as this is what it is a belief.
> 
> For those who believe in science, there is a bunch of things that lead in that direction, there is no one thing that can be held up as the one and only proof.
> 
> For those who believe in God, you have to understand that this is a belief too, and there is no proof that you can hand over to someone else. Of course there is a book, but what does that prove if you don't believe in it.
> 
> Honestly I am most upset with the so called Christians in this thread. Up until very recently I was an atheist all my life, I have just chosen to start believing - but you guys put me off massively.
> 
> How dare you go at someone who does not believe when God gave them free will. Do you think you are better than God or Jesus? If so, there is a place in hell for you, and you are not a Christian. Not at all.


This forum is for stateing your opinion. I have not gone at people any harder than they have at me. I think it's funny that Christians are constantly told to back off simply for the fact that our opinions are religious. So basically everyone thinks we should sit back and shut up, because that makes a good Christian.


----------



## AlexS

You might want to read my post again where I say that I have been atheist all my life, but recently have believed. 

That would make me in your camp, not that I would want to be based on how the religious (not you automatically) have presented themselves here.


----------



## bubba13

Whisper22 said:


> Unless Adam and Eve were apes then yes it did. We probably won't start doing those things again but that's not based on what God wants, that's based on what humans want. Things do also change with the times. At the time the Bible wa written, those things were okay. God knew things would change and that we are to followe the law.


So God's cool with stoning people, so long we're all cool with it, too? All right then. We are, after all, called to follow God's law and not human law. **** adulterers--so many young people having sex outside of wedlock. Next time I see one I'll chuck a boulder at that *****'s head. And if I go to jail for it, why, I'll just be a Christian martyr!



Whisper22 said:


> No not really. Muhammad has nothing to do with my Prophet.


Au contrare. Muhammad has everything to do with your Prophet, and with every Prophet. Every kook who thinks he hears God whisper to him, whether he's a paranoid schizophrenic or a bona fine Chosen One, can call himself a Prophet (or better yet, profit). God sure has spoken to a helluva lot of people, and he's told them all different things. Two scenarios here: Either God is crazy and keeps changing his mind, or all of the Prophets are wrong (with the possible exception of one). So which one Prophet is the real Prophet? It's like that Flintstones Christmas special, where they go around singing and trying to find "which one is the real Santa Claus." 

You were born into Mormonism, so you were told that your Prophet is the one right one. Whoop-di-do. I wasn't, so to me, he's wrong. Me, I tend to follow Kahlil Gibran (who authored a book titled _The Prophet_), because at least he's not arrogant enough to claim to know all the answers or to speak with the utmost authority of God Himself. Muslims follow Muhammad (pbuh), Buddhists follow Buddha....which one is the real Santa Claus?


----------



## Whisper22

bubba13 said:


> So God's cool with stoning people, so long we're all cool with it, too? All right then. We are, after all, called to follow God's law and not human law. **** adulterers--so many young people having sex outside of wedlock. Next time I see one I'll chuck a boulder at that *****'s head. And if I go to jail for it, why, I'll just be a Christian martyr!
> 
> 
> 
> Au contrare. Muhammad has everything to do with your Prophet, and with every Prophet. Every kook who thinks he hears God whisper to him, whether he's a paranoid schizophrenic or a bona fine Chosen One, can call himself a Prophet (or better yet, profit). God sure has spoken to a helluva lot of people, and he's told them all different things. Two scenarios here: Either God is crazy and keeps changing his mind, or all of the Prophets are wrong (with the possible exception of one). So which one Prophet is the real Prophet? It's like that Flintstones Christmas special, where they go around singing and trying to find "which one is the real Santa Claus."
> 
> You were born into Mormonism, so you were told that your Prophet is the one right one. Whoop-di-do. I wasn't, so to me, he's wrong. Me, I tend to follow Kahlil Gibran (who authored a book titled _The Prophet_), because at least he's not arrogant enough to claim to know all the answers or to speak with the utmost authority of God Himself. Muslims follow Muhammad (pbuh), Buddhists follow Buddha....which one is the real Santa Claus?


My post clearly states we are to follow the law and that things change with the times. So no, we would not be allowed to stone an adulterer.

Haha, actually I wasn't born Mormon, but nice try. Muhammad may mean something to you but carries absolutely no significance for me.


----------



## Jinba Ittai

But that's the point. Of ALLLL the religions out there, who's REALLY the "true one". And you can ALL claim to be "IT", but where is your proof? Oh right, with the prophet that heard God tell him so. Well, where's the proof that he wasn't just hallucinating? Where's the proof that he wrote down God's message word-for-word? Oh right, in an old text that is dated back thousands of years and has gone through translations that left "inconvenient" information out, and skewed the information left in so that men who wanted to gain/maintain power could just use some scary omnipotent being to coerce the masses.

There ISN'T such proof because you and I can't go back in time and jump inside said "Prophet's" head to hear what he heard and experience what he went through. It's not possible, and it never will be! But, of course, this is where YOU jump in and cry "But that's where FAITH comes in!" and we begin the circular logic.

1. God just is.
2. But how is God just there?
3. Because the Bible says so.
4. But why do you believe the Bible?
5. Because God wrote it!
6. But who made God?
7. See #1.

Hence this is an argument that will never ever be "won" because there is no way to break out of that circular logic. "GOD" is the convenient answer for everything, and "FAITH" is just as convenient. And if you are a believer and "question" God, then you just don't believe hard enough. Or you're not using the "right" interpretation. Gosh, for a guy who wants us to follow him or else he will toss us into hell, he sure isn't clear in his instructions if they require the "right" interpretation. You'd think he'd want us ALL to be crystal clear on his instructions, wouldn't you??

Christianity itself has some pluses, but the members of the church are its biggest detractors. I've never met a more conniving, proud, back-stabbing, self-righteous group of people, and likely never will. You keep your church, I'd far rather hang out with the "fools" who don't judge people for what they choose to believe.


----------



## Tymer

I was the one who said it would be easy to make life, for clarification. And that sentence was taken wildly out of context.
I was discussing the experiment (Bubba leads me to believe it was Miller-Urey....I can't remember.) where two scientists successfully created organic matter in a laboratory. When scientists could not generate primordial ooze out of nothing, it was score one for the creationists! Finally, those scientists could, and it was score 200 for evolutionists. Why? The scientists concluded that *now, with the ability to fairly easily generate organic matter using conditions present on the early earth, random chance putting together a certain combination of amino acids and whatnot leading to life is highly plausible. *I was very careful to put it would be "easy" to make life in quotations, but you seem to have taken them out of context anyway. "Easy" to make life compared to the before this evidence came out. Before this evidence, some random chance would have had to bring together all these molecules in a random but organized way that is life. Now, we have a stepping stone that makes life a lot MORE easy to make. Not easy by any stretch. Or else we would have done it a thousand times over.

Anyway. Someone was asking for hard evidence of evolution? Here's some food for thought:

The system by which eukaryotes (like people) make energy out of food is incredibly efficient. In fact, it is so efficient, no human machine has ever been able to replicate the efficiency, therefore making eukaryotes the most efficient things on Earth. +1 for creationists, right?
But the counter argument is that the system is only around *40% *efficient. If God made this "intelligent design," why didn't He make it more efficient? 80% or 100% would be nice. 
Food for thought. It can be taken as evidence for either side.

ETA: Why all this religion bashing? I don't think this thread is about discrediting religion. Religion is a beautiful thing that many people lead their life by. Yes, it leads to conflict and sometimes people follow it TOO deeply...However, its a little upsetting to see you guys going after religion so aggressively. Take a step back and think about how your words would sound if you were on the other side. I know I'm probably a bit hypocritical here, but I'm a kid compared to most of you. As adults, you should know better.


----------



## Countrylady1071

I think that everyone should just respect others beliefs and leave it at that. I'm Christian, I love God, and my church, and my faith means a lot to me. But that doesn't make others (who disagree or feel differently) wrong. As someone else said (can't remember who) it requires faith to believe in whatever you believe in. There is no 100% proof of anything. Christianity does require quite a bit of faith, and others may find that silly. But why argue about it? If you believe in evolution, good for you. If you're Mormon, Buddhist, catholic, we're all human and have choices. I've seen a lot of negative comments about Christians, and it's really sad. My entire family is very religious, but we don't go bashing others over the head. We try to be the best we can be, kind, and caring, and if others want to understand why we feel the way we do we're happy to explain. I wouldn't feel comfortable doing that here because I don't want to argue about it or get picked apart for my beliefs. Because that's just what they are, MY beliefs.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## sarahver

bubba13 said:


> I think you just wasted a bunch of your time explaining stuff that nobody's going to understand or appreciate....save me.


Well it wouldn't be the first time I have 'wasted a bunch of time' going into excruciating detail about something. I suppose I am some sort of science fanatic. Certainly not the first time I have wasted time on this forum anyway.



faye said:


> I got some of it. so not completly wasted time, however my Bachelors Degree was in Chemical Engineering so whilst I did the first 2 years of a chemistry degree I didnt go that in depth into the biology side of it (dropped biology aged 15). I spent my other 2 Uni years playing with Radiation, Working out how not to poison people on a mass scale, how not to blow a chemical plant sky high etc.
> Interestingly enough my dissertation was on the "Storage of Hydrogen energy on Non Ferrous metals" with specific reference to the Thermodynamics, stability and suitability for use in a household situation.
> My final Group project on the other hand was much more fun!!


Ha! Fellow nerd I love it. Your dissertation sounds enticingly esoteric.



bubba13 said:


> Here is a Wikipedia synopsis of the experiment: Miller?Urey experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> The molecules that were created in their test tube had previously been thought to be synthesized only by already-living beings. That was supposedly one of the "sparks" of life that proved creationism, as without these molecules even the simplest of organisms cannot exist. But if you take basic chemicals present in the atmosphere and run a current through them, lo and behold, you form amino acids and other organic compounds. This is a Big Deal, and it shows that the formation of life from inorganic matter is theoretically possible (whether it actually occured in that manner, of course, we cannot prove).


Well, so what? My point is that science will NEVER answer everything. Even if they manage to create life, the next question will be where did those molecules come from previously? How did they form? Under what conditions? How did those conditions arise?

Science provides more questions than answers and as such will never explain everything. Speaking as a philospher now, not a biochemist.



Tymer said:


> ETA: Why all this religion bashing? I don't think this thread is about discrediting religion. Religion is a beautiful thing that many people lead their life by. Yes, it leads to conflict and sometimes people follow it TOO deeply...However, its a little upsetting to see you guys going after religion so aggressively. Take a step back and think about how your words would sound if you were on the other side. I know I'm probably a bit hypocritical here, but I'm a kid compared to most of you. As adults, you should know better.


I was wondering the same thing myself.


----------



## Cinder

I think it's possible to believe in both God and Evolution. I'm a Christian and I firmly believe in Evolution.

Humans share about 50% of their DNA with Bananas. About 98.5% with Chimps. 99.9% with eachother. How would this many similarities be present if there was no Evolution?

Some Scientists also believe that there was once only RNA. RNA has the four bases: A U C G, single helix, etc. Some believe that a mutation in RNA created DNA: A T C G, double helix, (etc ). 

The way our cells replicate themselves, we are all walking around with many mutations in our cells (yes, this does lead to something!). Cancer itself is the uncontrolled replication of mutated cells. If this mutation happens in your gametes (sperm and eggs), you better hope it is a positive or neutral one, as this has a chance of being passed down to your children. 

So humans, plants, etc come about with new traits at times. Those with bad traits perish. The ones with advantageous traits live on to hopefully pass them on to their offspring. So after a long time, species change and Evolution occurs. 

But why aren't we all walking around dying, you may ask? 

There is a system of checking the duplicated DNA. In the case where something does slip past:

We have a DNA code made up of four bases: A T C G. A is paired with T and C is paired with G. In order for our body to build proteins (so many things depend on this it's ridiculous), this must be coded into RNA. T is replaced with U. So a code that's: ATATCGAT would be: UAUAGCUA. Three bases is a codon and each codon is code for an amino acid. Some amino acids have several codons, thus why a mutation isn't always a big deal. 

I hope this made sense and wasn't too mistake ridden, we're on a different subject right now in school, it's the weekend, I'm tired, blah blah blah :lol:. Also hope I don't sound like a broken record, I read about 8 of the pages before deciding that I had to reply.


----------



## sarahver

Jinba ittai said:


> 1. God just is.


Please forgive my ignorance and I am in no means being facetious as I have great respect for religion.....but.....isn't point no. 1 enough and the rest is faith?

Anyway, Northern I found an article for you (and everyone else of course), published in the journal of Science and Education a couple of years ago. It discusses the conceptual and cognitive difficulties with regards to accepting evolution. Also discusses the emotional conflicts that the theory of evolution presents in regards to people's beliefs. Doesn't involve any empirical research, it is more of a discussion piece that references relevant empirical research, the referenced articles can be found at the end if you want to get to the real science behind it all.

I thought it was a relevant piece and a good read, if you head to the fourth page it discusses some reasons people use to NOT accept Darwin's theory. Mind you, not accepting is vastly different from disproving. Also, the people who conceptualised these arguments eventually retracted part or all of their statements, nevertheless it is interesting. These arguments are purely based on philosophy, *there is no physical evidence* that can disprove Darwin's theory of evolution. But I enjoy playing devil's advocate :wink:

http://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/Articles/getting-darwin.2009.pdf

Anyway, enjoy!


----------



## Northern

sarahver said:


> Also, the people who conceptualised these arguments eventually retracted part or all of their statements, then, we'd need to know which were retracted & why. These arguments are purely based on philosophy, *there is no physical evidence* that can disprove Darwin's theory of evolution. Just like there is no physical evidence which can PROVE it. :wink:
> 
> http://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/Articles/getting-darwin.2009.pdf[


Thanks, sarah, for playing devil's advocate here; we really need it!:wink:

My pc hates pdf files, or I'd've had a look. However, since they retracted lord-knows-what, we can't get any evidence from it.

bubba, I didn't say that you said the "easy to create life" quote: I was referring to your "Yah, they didn't create life, BUT they created organic matter!" [paraphrase] response to it, as if it weren't dishonest of them, & as if creating organic matter was quite a sufficient substitute for creating life.

So, I come back on here to find pages of religion talk. Should I just give up asking people to stick to the topic of the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE RE: EVOLUTION, EITHER PRO or CON? I don't want to wade through a Mormon arguing with everybody else; it's time-consuming & annoying, & that's why we have thread topics!


----------



## faye

Northern, there is plenty of Physical evidence in the forms of fossils that can proove Darwins theory.

There is no Physical proof that will disprove darwins Theory.

Also I have yet to see any physical proof that god exists.

Whisper22, you are not understanding the argment at all. Please can you tell me why YOUR "prophet" is the real one and Muhammad is not. What Proof do you have that your 19th Century Prophet wasnt just delusional or smoking something he shouldnt have been? What is your reasoning for saying that yours is the one that should be believed above all others? what is your reasoning for dismissing other Prophets?


----------



## Whisper22

AlexS said:


> You might want to read my post again where I say that I have been atheist all my life, but recently have believed.
> 
> That would make me in your camp, not that I would want to be based on how the religious (not you automatically) have presented themselves here.


I'm not really sure what you consider to be bad conduct though. I have given my opinion that happens to be religious in nature, as most aspects of my life are. People automatically asume I am trying to shove my beliefs down their throat just because I said anything at all. I was asked repeatedly to give my take on certain things even after I tried to walk away from the whole thing, so I did. I have not called anyone stupid or foolish for disagreeing with me, but have been called names myself. I wouldn't say it is the Christians conducting themselves badly here.



Jinba ittai said:


> But that's the point. Of ALLLL the religions out there, who's REALLY the "true one". And you can ALL claim to be "IT", but where is your proof? Oh right, with the prophet that heard God tell him so. Well, where's the proof that he wasn't just hallucinating? Where's the proof that he wrote down God's message word-for-word? Oh right, in an old text that is dated back thousands of years and has gone through translations that left "inconvenient" information out, and skewed the information left in so that men who wanted to gain/maintain power could just use some scary omnipotent being to coerce the masses.
> 
> There ISN'T such proof because you and I can't go back in time and jump inside said "Prophet's" head to hear what he heard and experience what he went through. It's not possible, and it never will be! But, of course, this is where YOU jump in and cry "But that's where FAITH comes in!" and we begin the circular logic.


You may not consider it proof but Joseph Smith was a 14 year old boy with a third grade education who started a whole new religion, that is a fact. He wasn't a scholar or some college educated man. He was a boy. A completely new, never before seen text was given to him to translate. That text was never seen let alone tampered with. I don't expect you to accept this, but as far as answers go, I'm not really sure what people are looking for if when one is given they dismiss it as fake.


----------



## Whisper22

faye said:


> Northern, there is plenty of Physical evidence in the forms of fossils that can proove Darwins theory.
> 
> There is no Physical proof that will disprove darwins Theory.
> 
> Also I have yet to see any physical proof that god exists.
> 
> Whisper22, you are not understanding the argment at all. Please can you tell me why YOUR "prophet" is the real one and Muhammad is not. What Proof do you have that your 19th Century Prophet wasnt just delusional or smoking something he shouldnt have been? What is your reasoning for saying that yours is the one that should be believed above all others? what is your reasoning for dismissing other Prophets?


Being able to write an entire book containing information that was impossible for him to know is pretty good evidence. Once again, I'm not really sure what you are looking for as far as credible evidence


----------



## sarahver

Interesting and valid question Northern RE: proof. I cannot give you _proof_ in the form you may be looking for, as we are talking about a process that ocurred over millenia. 

What I _can_ do is give you supporting evidence and you can choose to accept, reject or ask for more. I have an article from a few years ago. Research performed by scientists in a controlled environment, original findings were published in PNAS which is a very prestigious publication, exceedingly difficult to be accepted to so rest assured it is legit :wink: I will post a link to abridged version so you can hopefully be able to read it.

In short, this study proves two concepts: 

1.) That organisms better able to adapt to their environment are more likely to survive and procreate (ecological divergence).

2.) That there comes a point in adaptation where the adapted species are no longer able to breed with their ancestral species (reproductive isolation) due to the divergence in characteristics.

New Evidence That Natural Selection Is A General Driving Force Behind The Origin Of Species

So it *is* possible that organisms can change and become reproductively isolated, hence a new species is born. 

This supports the theory that this is how all species evolved and why we see such diversity in life on Earth. But, as you have pointed out, Darwinism is technically a theory. However, as far as theories go it is one that has considerable physical evidence.


----------



## faye

yes of course because 14 yr old boys are the most reliable source of information out there. (_oops sorry did that sound sarcastic?_)
*
whole new, never before seen text*! just like most young girls diaries then Just because a girl dreams she is a princess does not make her one! My sister even made up a whole code of squiggles (which is essentialy the basics of a new language) to prevent me reading her diary!

I can dream up a book full of details that I couldnt possibly know as fact, I could say that Jesus danced the Rumba up and down the market in Jerusalem. Go on Proove that he didnt!

Playing Devils advocate, say he was given a text by god, Why did he have to translate it? if god wanted it heard then why not put it in English which was the language of said prophet?

Most people who hear voices are concidered as having a mental illness. What proof do you have that he didnt? Physical, tangable proof that Mr John Smith was not just a paranoid schizophrenic with delusions of grandure?


----------



## Whisper22

I might also add that a key and pretty important part of knowing the truth is being able to pray about it. If you don't pray you will never recieve the answers you are looking for no matter how many people you talk to. I have prayed and I have been given the truth, that is my testimony that will never change only grow. I know what I say is true but I can not give that to you. I have shown you the way but it is up to you to seek the truth.

The Lord says by their fruits you will know who they are, they only teach good things. I don't believ Muhammed teaches good things.


----------



## Whisper22

faye said:


> yes of course because 14 yr old boys are the most reliable source of information out there. (_oops sorry did that sound sarcastic?_)
> 
> *whole new, never before seen text*! just like most young girls diaries then Just because a girl dreams she is a princess does not make her one! My sister even made up a whole code of squiggles (which is essentialy the basics of a new language) to prevent me reading her diary!
> 
> I can dream up a book full of details that I couldnt possibly know as fact, I could say that Jesus danced the Rumba up and down the market in Jerusalem. Go on Proove that he didnt!
> 
> Playing Devils advocate, say he was given a text by god, Why did he have to translate it? if god wanted it heard then why not put it in English which was the language of said prophet?
> 
> Most people who hear voices are concidered as having a mental illness. What proof do you have that he didnt? Physical, tangable proof that Mr John Smith was not just a paranoid schizophrenic with delusions of grandure?


Uhhh the book was written by other people who didn't speak english but was not seen by anyone else until Joseph Smith. He was Gods way of putting it in english. He didn't hear voices he spoke to them face to face.

You might have missed that part about writing things that were impossible for him to know. Just an example, it was part of the Book of Mormon that elephants roamed the Americas. That was considered to be false until just recently when elephant bones were in fact found in the Americas. No, they were not new bones, they were extremely old.


----------



## faye

Muhammed Actualy spoke a lot of sense, It is the editing of his words that has caused the problems that we have today.

If you go back to unedited versions of the Koran it actualy states that men and women should be concidered equals (that bit has conveniently been edited out) and that women should dress modestly. No where does it define what modesty is, but we can all see where the interpretation has taken muslims. Oh and the original Koran preaches tolerance and loving your fellow man (hmm sounding much like anouther holy book here) but again the tolerance bit seems to have gone out of the window for the extremeists and fanatics.
Actualy if you wanted to take a litteral interpretation of the Koran then everybody should trek out into the desert with a shovel and bury thier Faeces every time they need the loo, however that would be an awfully long walk for me, not sure I could hold it for 3000 miles! his words made sense when interpreted litteraly at the time he wrote them and in the situation he wrote them (living in a hot arid country and not fouling your living areas) but not in modern society (the loo has done away with that).

So Muhammad taught good things, the interpretation of his words has lead to bad things.

Christianity is not squeaky clean either 1500 years ago christians were commiting acts of terrorism in Muslim lands, all in the name of religion, these were commonly known as the Crusades!


----------



## faye

Whisper22 said:


> Uhhh the book was written by other people who didn't speak english but was not seen by anyone else until Joseph Smith. He was Gods way of putting it in english. He didn't hear voices he spoke to them face to face.
> 
> You might have missed that part about writing things that were impossible for him to know. Just an example, it was part of the Book of Mormon that elephants roamed the Americas. That was considered to be false until just recently when elephant bones were in fact found in the Americas. No, they were not new bones, they were extremely old.


Yes and my sisters Diary was written in a non english language that I couldnt translate, She could does that make her a prophet? Where is your proof that the text is genuine and not just conjured from the imagination of a young lad. Forgery of documents was actualy quite good in the 19th century and there is proof that children were involved in forgery at that time.

Nostredamus wrote about things he couldnt possibly know about (because they hadnt happened yet). Doesnt make him a prophet, just made him **** good at interpreting and playing on human nature.


----------



## Whisper22

He also said a lot of horrible things. Unlike the Moromon Prophet, Muhammed's idea was to force others to be islam and to conquer those who wouldn't. He also forced people to pay taxes to the islam religion.


----------



## Whisper22

faye said:


> Yes and my sisters Diary was written in a non english language that I couldnt translate, She could does that make her a prophet? Where is your proof that the text is genuine and not just conjured from the imagination of a young lad. Forgery of documents was actualy quite good in the 19th century and there is proof that children were involved in forgery at that time.
> 
> Nostredamus wrote about things he couldnt possibly know about (because they hadnt happened yet). Doesnt make him a prophet, just made him **** good at interpreting and playing on human nature.


Nostredamus dedicated his life to predicting the future, that's a little different. If your sisters diary had things written in it that she couldn't possibly know pertaining to God or other religious subjects that then turned out to be true you might want to look into that as a possibilty? But that will never happen because there is only one Prophet.


----------



## Jinba Ittai

Whisper22 said:


> He also said a lot of horrible things. Unlike the Moromon Prophet, Muhammed's idea was to force others to be islam and to conquer those who wouldn't. He also forced people to pay taxes to the islam religion.


**** And your God didn't? How then can you explain the Inquisition? Anyone who thought anything other than pro-god was summarily executed as a heretic, and the church controlled the government, and therefore the taxes paid. Don't sling mud on other religion's imperfections when yours doesn't have the best track record either. And yes - the mormon god is the same god who inspired the Catholics, so no dodging in that regard either.


----------



## Jinba Ittai

Whisper22 said:


> Nostredamus dedicated his life to predicting the future, that's a little different. If your sisters diary had things written in it that she couldn't possibly know pertaining to God or other religious subjects that then turned out to be true you might want to look into that as a possibilty? But that will never happen because there is only one Prophet.


Then how do you explain the Old Testament prophets? Isaiah, Elijah, Elisha, Habakkuk...


----------



## Whisper22

Jinba ittai said:


> **** And your God didn't? How then can you explain the Inquisition? Anyone who thought anything other than pro-god was summarily executed as a heretic, and the church controlled the government, and therefore the taxes paid. Don't sling mud on other religion's imperfections when yours doesn't have the best track record either. And yes - the mormon god is the same god who inspired the Catholics, so no dodging in that regard either.


My belief, no disrespect to Catholics, is that the Catholic religion is extremely corrupt and has been for a very long time. Not that there aren't good aspects of the religion but I wouldn't consider anything they put in motion as coming from God necessarily.

The crusades and the inquisition both took place during the Apostacy. the Mormon faith was not part of either one of those. The falling away took place around 100 or 200AD and the gospel wasn't restored until the 1800's. Mormons are not part of that track record.


----------



## Whisper22

Jinba ittai said:


> Then how do you explain the Old Testament prophets? Isaiah, Elijah, Elisha, Habakkuk...


I never said they weren't Prophets. But there is only one Prophet right now. Joseph Smith wasn't the only Mormon Prophet either. There have been many and there is one today.


----------



## Iseul

So, you're saying that the only Prophet there is today, is your Mormon Prophet? No other religions have their Prophets, except yours.
Huh, interesting.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Whisper22

Iseul said:


> So, you're saying that the only Prophet there is today, is your Mormon Prophet? No other religions have their Prophets, except yours.
> Huh, interesting.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Umm yes. As a Moromon I am entitled to believe that. Religions believe contradicting things, so if there is a true Prophet, there could only be one.


----------



## Iseul

But did you not -just- say that there have been many Moromon Prophets? And just now you said that only one of them could be one TRUE Prophet?
I'm afraid you've confused me a bit.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Whisper22

Iseul said:


> But did you not -just- say that there have been many Moromon Prophets? And just now you said that only one of them could be one TRUE Prophet?
> I'm afraid you've confused me a bit.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


There is only one Mormon Prophet at a time. When he dies there will be a new Prophet, much like the Pope. So my belief is that there is only one true Prophet on the earth right now.


----------



## Iseul

But then musn't those Prophets all be the same Prophet, just in different times? Otherwise they wouldn't be the true Prophet, correct? If so, I was under the knowledge that Mormons did not believe/have faith in reincarnation; thus, disproving such.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Whisper22

I never said there couldn't be more than one Prophet EVER. Of course there have been more Prophets, just read the Bible. But RIGHT NOW there is only one, and when he dies there will be a new one. They do not all have to be the same person. If I was going to choose one and only one Prophet ever, that would have to be Jesus, But again, I never said that. The Lord has given us a Prophet for these times because we need one. That does not change when one dies, therefor we are given another one. I'm not sure where you are getting that I meant only one person could ever be the true Prophet.

No, we do not believe in reincarnation.


----------



## sarahver

May I ask what difference it makes to anyone what Whisper chooses to believe in? Or what anyone chooses to believe in for that matter? It is an intensely personal choice and one that everyone is free to make for themselves, I do not understand the need to tear apart someone's religious beliefs just because they are not in line with our own.

And I am not even religious.


----------



## Iseul

But what is to say any of them (not standing on a religious viewpoint right now, as I'm not even going bring mine into it) have been that one, TRUE Prophet? Like others have said, they could just be crazy. I've had dreams that have told me things that I never wouldve thought up while I was awake, does that make me a Prophet if I go around telling people what I've seen in my dreams? I've had dreams where "God" has been a freaking lizard/horse hybrid thing, but if God hasn't told me that he's a lizard/horse thing, then what did? What I'm getting is that if I see something related to God in a dream (that only God could tell me, such as what he looks like), that he must've told me it and I'm meant to be THE Prophet of this age or such.

-ETA-
Sarah, I'm just asking questions. I couldn't care less what anyone believes, I'm just curious. 
I believe in God all the same, just not all the ideals and beliefs of certain, God-believing religions. If you were talking about me, not sure if you were though.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Whisper22

If what you saw was somehow proven then that might make you a Prophet, but like I said, that will never happen. People didn't believe Joseph Smith baised solely on what he said. There were witneses to a lot of it. I don't really want to repeat everything I have already said about him, so if you wish to know you can go back and look at my other posts. Or, better yet, read the Book of Mormon. Not the whole thing, but the first few pages tell the story of Joseph Smith. Whether or not he is a Prophet can always be debated by nonbelievers. Why don't you pray about it, that is the correct way to seek answers to these questions.

I have actually enjoyed this conversation when people weren't attacking me for simply saying my opinion. I would like to think that I have given people some food for thought. You don't have to partake in the conversation if you don't want to, that's just fine too.


----------



## sarahver

Rightio, think I'm done anyway, seems this thread has gone waaaaaay off topic.


----------



## Iseul

I have read your previous posts, I've actually read all the posts on the thread I believe.
I may go ahead and read more about it if I get the urge, which may or may not happen. I enjoy reading more of my own, but who knows.
I would also like to say that I don't think you should have been attacked. I, personally, would much rather have an intelligent conversation with someone than bash them for their beliefs. I know how it is when your beliefs are trashed on by others, as my mother bashes mine ( although I will give her that she doesn't know I believe myself to be Pagan). But, I give you props for actually answering questions and not just flying about, hollering, and then leaving the thread.
Also, Sarah, from what I've seen on the forum (and any other forum), all threads that have potential to be regarding religion in any which way, usually go off topic and into that. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Whisper22

I apreciate that. I'm glad I decided to answer questions instead of walk away. People seemed to get more civil when I proved to know what I was talking about. I don't expect everyone to agree with me and I can only hope that others will respect that I will not always agree with them.


----------



## Iseul

I agree, too many people care about everyone elses' business these days, swear. They really should keep to their own 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Northern

I've asked several times for people to stay on-topic, & AGAIN several people have turned this into a religion/theology thread. This is deliberately disrespectful to those who wish to stay on-topic. 

Speaking for myself, I'm not going to try & discuss the topic around your rude off-topic posts. I must see that you've all stopped, either by an administration action, or by people's voluntary cooperation.

The obvious answer for you who don't want to discuss the topic, but who want to talk religion, is to leave this thread & start your own!


----------



## Whisper22

Northern said:


> I've asked several times for people to stay on-topic, & AGAIN several people have turned this into a religion/theology thread. This is deliberately disrespectful to those who wish to stay on-topic.
> 
> Speaking for myself, I'm not going to try & discuss the topic around your rude off-topic posts. I must see that you've all stopped, either by an administration action, or by people's voluntary cooperation.
> 
> The obvious answer for you who don't want to discuss the topic, but who want to talk religion, is to leave this thread & start your own!


It sounds like you are having a bad day. Do you need a hug?:hug:


----------



## bubba13

Whisper22 said:


> My post clearly states we are to follow the law and that things change with the times. So no, we would not be allowed to stone an adulterer.


But are we not supposed to follow God's law above man's law? Doesn't the Bible say that? So stoning takes precedence over not-stoning, right?



> Haha, actually I wasn't born Mormon, but nice try. Muhammad may mean something to you but carries absolutely no significance for me.


OK, so you weren't born into Mormonism, but that's the religion you were exposed/introduced to. Fine. It could, however, have just as easily been Catholicism or Judaism. And then the Mormon Prophet would carry absolutely no significance for _you_, just as it means nothing to me. Then, to you, the Pope would be the absolute authority on matters of religious interpretation. It's all relative.



Tymer said:


> ETA: Why all this religion bashing? I don't think this thread is about discrediting religion. Religion is a beautiful thing that many people lead their life by. Yes, it leads to conflict and sometimes people follow it TOO deeply...However, its a little upsetting to see you guys going after religion so aggressively. Take a step back and think about how your words would sound if you were on the other side. I know I'm probably a bit hypocritical here, but I'm a kid compared to most of you. As adults, you should know better.


Absolutely. I have no problem with any religious belief (so long as it doesn't have unethical applications like extremism and so long as it doesn't interfere with my own rights). What I DO hate is arrogant religion which seeks to discredit everyone who disagrees with it. Nobody, no belief system, is infallible. Faith in science or faith in God, in this context, makes no difference. Everything is possible and anyone--you and me included--could very well be wrong. Refusing to admit that possibility is just plain dumb.

Lord Byron: "Well didst thou speak, Athena's wisest son. 'All that we know is, nothing can be known.'"


----------



## bubba13

Northern said:


> bubba, I didn't say that you said the "easy to create life" quote: I was referring to your "Yah, they didn't create life, BUT they created organic matter!" [paraphrase] response to it, as if it weren't dishonest of them, & as if creating organic matter was quite a sufficient substitute for creating life.


But it's not dishonest, because the researchers never set out to try to "create new life." They tried to create complex organic matter from simple inorganic substrates, as they hypothesized occured in the ancient Earth. And the experiment was a resounding success.



Whisper22 said:


> I might also add that a key and pretty important part of knowing the truth is being able to pray about it. If you don't pray you will never recieve the answers you are looking for no matter how many people you talk to. I have prayed and I have been given the truth, that is my testimony that will never change only grow. I know what I say is true but I can not give that to you. I have shown you the way but it is up to you to seek the truth.
> 
> The Lord says by their fruits you will know who they are, they only teach good things. I don't believ Muhammed teaches good things.


Have you even read any of Muhammad's writings? Might want to do that before dismissing him as evil.

Also, many other people have prayed and been given the truth. Only their truth differs from each other's truth, and also from your truth. Huh. God's lying to some of them.



Whisper22 said:


> You might have missed that part about writing things that were impossible for him to know. Just an example, it was part of the Book of Mormon that elephants roamed the Americas. That was considered to be false until just recently when elephant bones were in fact found in the Americas. No, they were not new bones, they were extremely old.


I have never heard of such a thing. Can you find me some _proof_ (and not speculation) of elephants (not mastadons/mammoths) existing in the Americas?


----------



## Whisper22

No, God clearly says we are to follow the law of the land. He knew things would change and that we would have to change with it. So no, we are not supposed to be stoning people.

I joined the Church when I was 19. I was more than capable of making my own decisions and forming my own opinions. I believe I have been given the truth and I'm not going to be constantly second guessing myself because someone else has a different belief. What I could have been means absolutely nothing to me, this is what I am, and I know there is a reason I found this faith. All that matters is what I know to be true in my heart

Lol I'm a little confused. I'm not really sure I'm answering you correctly.


----------



## NdAppy

Northern said:


> I've asked several times for people to stay on-topic, & AGAIN several people have turned this into a religion/theology thread. This is deliberately disrespectful to those who wish to stay on-topic.
> 
> Speaking for myself, I'm not going to try & discuss the topic around your rude off-topic posts. I must see that you've all stopped, either by an administration action, or by people's voluntary cooperation.
> 
> The obvious answer for you who don't want to discuss the topic, but who want to talk religion, is to leave this thread & start your own!


Picky much?

Unfortunately, when Darwin is brought up religion _is_ going to be brought up as well. 

This thread isn't off topic IMO. It all kind of centers around the same thing... which is God, evolution or a combination of both...


----------



## Tasia

I have choose to believe in god, not the bible and the fact that I will not know what is true until I die. My friend is a Witness and my other a christian they bicker about the bible all the time. And I find it sick that some people are too **** narrow minded to look at some thing else with the respect they show to thier own.


----------



## Whisper22

Yes I have a little, but mostly discussions with my husband who is very educated on the subject.
God doesn't lie, but the devil does. Sad to say, but those people have fallen into that trap. 

Ok, I had to go digging for this information but here you go.
Hunting for Elephants in the Book of Mormon Book of Mormon “Anachronisms” Part 1: Fauna, Animals
This also lists other animals that people didn't know existed here until recently.


----------



## Whisper22

Tasia said:


> I have choose to believe in god, not the bible and the fact that I will not know what is true until I die. My friend is a Witness and my other a christian they bicker about the bible all the time. And I find it sick that some people are too **** narrow minded to look at some thing else with the respect they show to thier own.


I don't believe the point of our existence is too accept anything and everything that is thrown our way. I am extremely confident in my beliefs and live a very secure life knowing where my salvation lies. I don't call anyone who doesn't believe the same as I do "fools". Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, as am I. The joys of free agency. I do believe we will be judged on the right and wrong decisions we make in our lives, so I am going to try and live my life the best I can for myself and my family and not just try to make everyone happy with by beliefs.


----------



## bubba13

_1. Elephant The only place where elephants are mentioned in the Book of Mormon is in Ether 9:19 which was written in approximately 2500 B.C. Thus any elephants existing upon the American continents need not have survived past about 2400 B.C. While the jury is still out, there are a number of North American Indian traditions that recount legends of giant stiff-legged beasts that would never lie down, had a big head and large leaf-like ears, round footprints, forward bending knees, and had a fifth appendage coming out of its head.8 In addition to the legends, five elephant effigies have been found in ancient Mexico and two in Arizona.9 Scientists agree that mammoths and mastodons once inhabited the Americas, and an article in Scientific Monthly, entitled “Men and Elephants in America,” suggests that these proboscidean animals (elephants, mammoths, mastodons) may have survived in the Americas until 1000 B.C. — well within the time frame demanded by the Book of Mormon. _

So elephants "may have existed" but they have no proof, such as fossil evidence. The rest just confirms that there were in fact mammoths/mastodons in the Americas, which has been known for some time.

I looked up the source they cite and it was in a magazine article published in 1952, speculating based on mammoth bones they had found. As near as I can tell, there have been no subsequent research or discoveries.


----------



## Spastic_Dove

Northern, did you get a chance to look at the articles I linked to? Thoughts?


----------



## Jinba Ittai

Whisper22 said:


> Umm yes. As a Moromon I am entitled to believe that. Religions believe contradicting things, *so if there is a true Prophet, there could only be one.[/*QUOTE]
> 
> ROFL - I'm sorry, when I read that line, all I could think of was this:


----------



## Whisper22

bubba13 said:


> _1. Elephant The only place where elephants are mentioned in the Book of Mormon is in Ether 9:19 which was written in approximately 2500 B.C. Thus any elephants existing upon the American continents need not have survived past about 2400 B.C. While the jury is still out, there are a number of North American Indian traditions that recount legends of giant stiff-legged beasts that would never lie down, had a big head and large leaf-like ears, round footprints, forward bending knees, and had a fifth appendage coming out of its head.8 In addition to the legends, *five elephant effigies have been found in ancient Mexico and two in Arizona.*9 Scientists agree that mammoths and mastodons once inhabited the Americas, and an article in Scientific Monthly, entitled “Men and Elephants in America,” suggests that these proboscidean animals (*elephant*s, mammoths, mastodons) *may have survived in the Americas until 1000 B.C. — well within the time frame demanded by the Book of Mormon. *_
> 
> So elephants "may have existed" but they have no proof, such as fossil evidence. The rest just confirms that there were in fact mammoths/mastodons in the Americas, which has been known for some time.
> 
> I looked up the source they cite and it was in a magazine article published in 1952, speculating based on mammoth bones they had found. As near as I can tell, there have been no subsequent research or discoveries.


Sorry my bad, no bones, effigies of elephants, not mammoths. Could have swore they were bones, oh well. They also listed several other animals they thought proved the Book of Mormon wrong until they did more research. Either way, this is not information a boy that young, or even as a man with his education could have known to write about. It is a fact he only had a third grade education. And I'm not sure who this is that wrote that but it was the only thing I could find that fast that touched on the Book of Mormon and elephants. I'm sure the leaders of my church could explain it in more detail.


----------



## Whisper22

Jinba ittai said:


> Whisper22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm yes. As a Moromon I am entitled to believe that. Religions believe contradicting things, *so if there is a true Prophet, there could only be one.[/*QUOTE]
> 
> ROFL - I'm sorry, when I read that line, all I could think of was this:
> 
> YouTube - Highlander Opening Sequence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haha, I'm sure if our Prophet looked like that we would have way more converts than we already do.
Click to expand...


----------



## Sahara

Honestly, it is a bit disheartening to me to be reading all of this bantering when there is so much chaos and devastation in the southern states right now. Seems like all of our time arguing this topic could be better spent elsewhere.


----------



## Whisper22

I'm not arguing, I'm discussing.


----------



## Jinba Ittai

Whisper22 said:


> Jinba ittai said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haha, I'm sure if our Prophet looked like that we would have way more converts than we already do.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL I would take that bet for sure! Le sigh...
Click to expand...


----------



## Northern

After having researched more, I wish to add to my initial statement that Darwin's theory is intrinsically atheistic, due to the fact that he was unable to explain the source of life:

First, by Darwin's words in his autobiography, he states that he was _agnostic_ during the writing, Origin of Species. (He'd gone from Christian to Theist, to agnostic.) So, one could take it in the agnostic vein that the true origin of species, life itself, is simply "unknown", rather than a _denial_ of the Supreme Being, Author of Life. 

Whether the theory is _atheistic_ _denial_ of Intelligent Design, or we more generously allow for the "I dunno" of Darwin's agnosticism, the theory lacks the explanation; the cell is forever chasing its own cilium, as it were.

This fact led me to consider that a problem with the theory is that it asks too many questions/tries to answer too many questions at once: the scientific 7-step process begins with ONE question. As we have it, from the 3 points of the theory already posted, we actually have three questions:

1.IS there random mutation of desirable attributes?
2. IS there a weeding out of "less fit" life forms?
3. IS there creation of entirely new species from prior species?

Also, it seems to me that Darwin's titling his theory, "Origin of Species" was unfortunate, because it didn't answer the question. It was also unfortunate for the fact that it's a supernatural question, which science should stay out of. It was also an unfortunate title for the fact that it opened the door for the argument between creationists & atheists: if you're going to say that you've got the answer for the Origin of species, & it directly opposes Genesis, you've set things up for argument. (It also opened the door for people excusing themselves in the name of the theory for _doing_ awful things: the Nazis were big on evolution.)

Science should "keep it natural": scientists should just try & discover the natural laws & apply that knowledge judiciously.

At this point, I'm not sure that I'm going to find unbiased peer reviews on the issue. There's the case of the creationist Michael Behe, author of "Darwin's Black Box", & I have the short list of five peers who read it, yet, though no one of these evolutionists was able to refute his scientific findings in favor of Intelligent Design, the article goes down as not having been peer-reviewed.


----------



## Northern

It seems that there's lack of agreement on the definition of "species": Darwin changed his mind on the definition, & so on. Google Species, for an interesting Wikipedia article on the issue.


----------



## bubba13

Northern said:


> After having researched more, I wish to add to my initial statement that Darwin's theory is intrinsically atheistic, due to the fact that he was unable to explain the source of life:


I am not sure how you are reaching that conclusion, because it definitely does not follow from the premises given. Just because one does not believe that God created the Garden of Eden in seven days, and then plunked down Adam and Eve (formed from clay and ribs), does not mean that one does not believe in God. It also does not mean that one does not believe that God created life "in the beginning." God could very well have made the first bacterium, and then set the whole plan in motion. He could have even _orchestrated_ evolution with the eventually goal of many, if you want to stay all anthropocentric. That's more Intelligent Design than pure Creationism, but it's still very much in line with a non-literal interpretation of Christianity.

If you haven't checked out the movie/play _Inherit the Wind_ yet, you really should. You'd enjoy it.



> Whether the theory is _atheistic_ _denial_ of Intelligent Design, or we more generously allow for the "I dunno" of Darwin's agnosticism, the theory lacks the explanation; the cell is forever chasing its own cilium, as it were.


The Origin of Life is very different from the Origin of Species. The latter picks up where the former leaves off. Neither science nor religion can explain the origins of the universe--in both cases, "it just is and always has been," and in both cases, you have to rely on faith of things we cannot even begin to comprehend or understand.

But even given an atheistic interpretation of the universe, and taken with or without the theory of evolution, it is still theoretically possible, however remote the odds, that life could have arisen spontaneously. The Miller-Urey experiments did much to point to that possibility. So there very much is a godless explanation, though a godless explanation is _not_ necessary to explain evolution or the origin of life..



> This fact led me to consider that a problem with the theory is that it asks too many questions/tries to answer too many questions at once: the scientific 7-step process begins with ONE question. As we have it, from the 3 points of the theory already posted, we actually have three questions:


One question: How do species change over time? Many answers.



> 1.IS there random mutation of desirable attributes?
> 2. IS there a weeding out of "less fit" life forms?
> 3. IS there creation of entirely new species from prior species?


Yes, yes, and yes. All three have been observed and scientifically proven. The first two are obvious to anyone who has taken even a middle school science course, and the last has been observed in our current day with strains of microorganisms, and then with past evidence from fossils, etc., and even more convincing, DNA testing and phylogenetics.



> Also, it seems to me that Darwin's titling his theory, "Origin of Species" was unfortunate, because it didn't answer the question.


Again, Origin of Species and Origin of Life are two different things. Darwin's theory has been tested, and it has stood up just fine. It works; it makes sense. He never claimed to know how life originated, but that gets back to an earlier point in this post.



> It was also unfortunate for the fact that it's a supernatural question, which science should stay out of.


Wait, what? Many things were thought to be supernatural until proven otherwise. We used to believe in witches and magic. We used to believe that disease was caused by curses, devils, punishments from God, and "ill humours." Then we discovered bacteria and viruses. Whoops.

If we still believed in the supernatural in that regard, many of us would have died a long time ago from perfectly treatable and curable diseases.



> It was also an unfortunate title for the fact that it opened the door for the argument between creationists & atheists: if you're going to say that you've got the answer for the Origin of species, & it directly opposes Genesis, you've set things up for argument.


So no one should contradict the Bible, no matter what, even if they have proof, or even if it benefits humankind?



> (It also opened the door for people excusing themselves in the name of the theory for _doing_ awful things: the Nazis were big on evolution.)


No, the Nazis were big on Social Darwinism, which is a corruption and *******ization of Darwin's ideas, and nothing like what he wrote about. Natural selection does not condone euthanasia of the dregs of society. Moral laws still very much apply--human decency, rights, and so on.



> Science should "keep it natural": scientists should just try & discover the natural laws & apply that knowledge judiciously.


Natural laws like "natural selection?"



> At this point, I'm not sure that I'm going to find unbiased peer reviews on the issue. There's the case of the creationist Michael Behe, author of "Darwin's Black Box", & I have the short list of five peers who read it, yet, though no one of these evolutionists was able to refute his scientific findings in favor of Intelligent Design, the article goes down as not having been peer-reviewed.


Have a link to that article?


----------



## sarahver

Turns out I am not done *collective groan from audience* :rofl:



Northern said:


> After having researched more, I wish to add to my initial statement that Darwin's theory is intrinsically atheistic, due to the fact that he was unable to explain the source of life:
> 
> First, by Darwin's words in his autobiography, he states that he was _agnostic_ during the writing, Origin of Species. (He'd gone from Christian to Theist, to agnostic.) So, one could take it in the agnostic vein that the true origin of species, life itself, is simply "unknown", rather than a _denial_ of the Supreme Being, Author of Life.
> 
> *You will find that many people who get into the depths of science go from being atheists to agnotists. Not sure if agnotist is a word but I'm going to run with it. Although I never studied physics, it is a personal interest of mine and one of the ways I manage to waste my time when I am not wasting it on HF. Many quantum physicists have concluded that there must be a Supreme Being simply because there is no possible explanation that can be offered by science alone for the order that was necessary to create life on earth and indeed the Universe. Just some food for thought.*
> 
> Whether the theory is _atheistic_ _denial_ of Intelligent Design, or we more generously allow for the "I dunno" of Darwin's agnosticism, the theory lacks the explanation; the cell is forever chasing its own cilium, as it were rofl.
> 
> 
> This fact led me to consider that a problem with the theory is that it asks too many questions/tries to answer too many questions at once: the scientific 7-step process begins with ONE question. As we have it, from the 3 points of the theory already posted, we actually have three questions:
> 
> 1.IS there random mutation of desirable attributes?
> 
> *No. There is only random mutation. The mutation rate in the human genome as an example is roughly 1 X 10-7 per base per generation. These mutations are either positive (provide some benefit to the organism), negative (are detrimental to the organism) or most commonly, neutral (no effect). But the process itself is unbiased. It is then up to the effect of environmental forces to determine if the mutations are indeed beneficial or detrimental. *
> 
> 2. IS there a weeding out of "less fit" life forms?
> 
> *Well, yes. Take for example mimicry. Some Amazonian butterflies exhibit similar colour patterning on their wings to an entirely different species that is unpalatable to their predators. Butterflies WITH the patterning are less preyed upon since they are avoided by predators, thus more able to survive and procreate, thus passing on the genes responsible for the colouring pattern. Those WITHOUT the patterning are more likely to be picked off by predators such as birds and do not pass their colouring pattern on to the next generation.*
> 
> 3. IS there creation of entirely new species from prior species?
> 
> *If the divergence as a result of adaptation is so drastic that the resultant change in genetic information is no longer compatible with the original species, the new adapted form can no longer breed with the original form and hence must only breed with its own kind in order to survive. Thus speciation occurs.*
> 
> Also, it seems to me that Darwin's titling his theory, "Origin of Species" was unfortunate, because it didn't answer the question. *True that. But it is my contention that we humans will never be able to answer that question. Perhaps Darwin was over-reaching with his title and it should have been "Origin of Life as wer know it on Earth" :wink:*It was also unfortunate for the fact that it's a supernatural question, which science should stay out of. It was also an unfortunate title for the fact that it opened the door for the argument between creationists & atheists: if you're going to say that you've got the answer for the Origin of species, & it directly opposes Genesis, you've set things up for argument. (It also opened the door for people excusing themselves in the name of the theory for _doing_ awful things: the Nazis were big on evolution.)
> 
> Science should "keep it natural": scientists should just try & discover the natural laws & apply that knowledge judiciously.
> 
> At this point, I'm not sure that I'm going to find unbiased peer reviews on the issue. There's the case of the creationist Michael Behe, author of "Darwin's Black Box", & I have the short list of five peers who read it, yet, though no one of these evolutionists was able to refute his scientific findings in favor of Intelligent Design, the article goes down as not having been peer-reviewed.


IMO science can benefit from religion. Religion can benefit from science.

Science needs religion as a moral and ethical compass. As someone pointed out earlier, ethical codes were not _invented_ by any particular religion, however the enforcement of such standards should not necessarily be left to the scientific community alone and most religions are very good at dictating moral standards :wink:

Religion can benefit from science as science provides many answers to the less celestial questions that are of benefit to humanity, regardless of religious affiliation. For example, it is against the beliefs of strict Jehovah's Witnesses to accept blood transfusions. Yet when faced with death approximately 95% will choose to accept the transfusion rather than die. At what point do you choose your religion _over_ science?

It is a personal choice of course but I think that each have something to offer the other and the two should not be mutually exclusive, where each person wishes to sit along that continuum is up to them. But for each to _wholly deny_ the validity of the other is also a mistake.

ETA: Bubba you never answered my question in post #118??


----------



## bubba13

This question?

*Well, so what? My point is that science will NEVER answer everything. Even if they manage to create life, the next question will be where did those molecules come from previously? How did they form? Under what conditions? How did those conditions arise?*

I thought that sort of had been addressed, even in my most recent post. Neither science nor religion can answer the "origin of the universe" question. Science can, however, explain how everything "may" have happened, post-Big Bang. Pre-Big Bang, or pre-"let there be light," no one has any idea. And likely no one ever will.


----------



## Whisper22

I have some more food for thought.
This is a theory that links science and God together. It is an "Intelligence Theory" of Atonement. It is uniquely Mormon but it is just a theory. I found it to be very interesting when I first learned about it only a few years ago. This doesn't really explain it in full detail but these are the key points.


The universe is composed of two basic building blocks: “intelligences” and “elements”.
“Intelligences” are self-aware entities that are self-existent and at various levels of complexity and progression. They are independent and act voluntarily, and cannot be compelled. God is the greatest of the intelligences, and every human is an intelligence at his core and we rank relatively high on the scale of complexity and greatness.
“Element” is matter, and there are two types of matter: spiritual and physical. They are fundamentally the same but exist on two different planes. Element is not voluntary nor even “alive”, but it is self-existent.
God pairs together every intelligence with a portion of element. They are paired in complex but orderly ways, and they are assigned functions and roles and must abide by the physical laws of the universe. Some intelligences are paired with plant life, others with animal life, and every human is an intelligence which is paired with human “element(s)”. Other intelligences are paired with non-organic element(s).
By pairing intelligences with element God is able to command these intelligence/element unions and accomplish the creation of the universe.
God is “God” only because he is respected and loved by the intelligences of the universe. He derives his authority and power because the intelligences, who are paired with element/matter, decide to obey him. He is just and constant and they trust him. If God loses their trust they may no longer respect and obey him, and he would lose his ability to govern them and would essentially cease to be “God”.
God created this Earth and populated it with humans (intelligences paired with element/matter). But these intelligences (humans) broke laws and became undeserving of eternal joy in God’s presence. God cannot simply ignore the laws of justice and bring humans back to his presence because if he did he would lose the trust of the eternal intelligences of the universe, and without that he would cease to be God.
One of the intelligences, Jesus, is infinitely loved and respected by the intelligences of the universe. Jesus is God’s first counselor and advisor, and God works through Jesus in his dealings with the intelligences.
Jesus came to Earth and suffered indescribable pain and torture in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the cross. He did this to soften the hearts of the intelligences of the universe and to gain their approval to allow God to extend mercy to man.
The intelligences of the universe were so moved by Christ’s suffering, which was a display of love and compassion for man, that they choose to allow God to extend mercy to man. Even though God extends undeserved mercy to man, the intelligences remain loyal to and trusting of God which allows God to retain his position as God and also to save mankind.


----------



## Northern

bubba13 said:


> *Well, so what? My point is that science will NEVER answer everything. Even if they manage to create life, the next question will be where did those molecules come from previously? How did they form? Under what conditions? How did those conditions arise?*
> 
> I thought that sort of had been addressed, even in my most recent post. Neither science nor religion can answer the "origin of the universe" question. Science can, however, explain how everything "may" have happened, post-Big Bang. Pre-Big Bang, or pre-"let there be light," no one has any idea. And likely no one ever will.


Right, science can only explain what "may" have happened, so why are there so many evolution-faithful out there, presenting evolution as fact? One poster here said that she was a "devout" evolutionist! The evolutionists are egoically attached to "winning", as Macabre M showed, whereas science is not about winning, it's about fact-finding, regarding how things work in nature.

I also want to say to whoever said to "dispense with" Ms. Coulter's 4 Chapters on evolution: she's already taught me a lot of FACTS, so there's no reason to "dispense", even though she herself isn't a scientist. What with the biases on both sides of the theory, I don't know that being a scientist matters. If I present something from her that's believed to be false, just say so.

More tomorrow.


----------



## Tymer

I think when they (it may have been me...I can't remember) said they were a devout evolutionist they meant they FIRMLY believed in evolution. Personally, after seeing both sides, I truly believe that bacteria evolved into people and all that jazz. I feel like you, Northern, are sometimes taking a few things too seriously. Not an issue, just think about the fact that occasionally words can easily be taken out of context and mean something new. "I shot him, drowned him, then hung him up to dry....Man the picture came out great!"

Random thought. What do you guys all think about the museums of creation? Where they show pictures of humans riding on dinosaurs with saddles, caveman hunting dinosaurs, and such? 
My personal belief is that its a bit ridiculous. Believe what you want about God and creation, but that is a blatant denial of fact! I'm almost 100% sure there is no evidence that shows humans or neanderthals coexisting with dinosaurs. Feel free to change my mind.


----------



## kitten_Val

bubba13 said:


> Pre-Big Bang, or pre-"let there be light," no one has any idea. And likely no one ever will.


Well... May be. But may be not. There are theories of the pre-Big Bang (I _believe_ String Theory is one of those theoretical approaches to it). This one is pretty interesting (not sure how truthful though): Gravity in Extra-dimensions, Manyfold and Pre-Big Bang Universe . Here is another publication on possible experimental data: BBC News - Cosmos may show echoes of events before Big Bang . I know there are some experiements proposed to "re-create" the birth of universe (kinda of course) on one of those big accelerators. Not sure how close it is, but at least they are getting something (like temperatures: Scientists re-create high temperatures from Big Bang - USATODAY.com ).


----------



## sarahver

Yepper, loved the atom smasher article KV! In addition to that one, just _last month_ the rival atom smasher at CERN in Geneva went and set a new world record for beam intensity, which increases the number of particle collisions and thus temperature, thereby getting closer and closer to reproducing the temperatures thought to have been required for the Big Bang to have happened.

The findings will continue. It would be naïve to say that no-one has any idea what happened pre-Big Bang as there is already considerable knowledge out there and it is an active area of research. But since no-one was there to tell the tale (obviously) they will always be theories. Theories backed by current physical evidence.

Northern: I agree and disagree with you regarding the egotistical view that some take of science. I agree that it is indeed about fact finding and not ‘winning’ but I would also argue that the ego can become involved in both sides of the debate. Evolutionist or Creationist we are all human and subject to human imperfections :wink:

Tymer: I think that the idea of humans or cavemen riding dinosaurs is amusing at best and misleading at worst.


----------



## bubba13

OK, not pre-Big Bang then, as I wasn't getting into quantum physics. How about "pre-original atom?" No matter which way you go, there are going to be pre-existing elements of some nature or another that you simply cannot explain or comprehend. Or the void. How do you explain an infinite void? What's outside an infinite void (more void?)? How can anything--or nothing--exist at all, and how can nothing beget something? These are the kinds of questions that really freak people out. No explanation, really, makes any sort of plausible sense when you get right down to the "first mover."


----------



## bubba13

Northern said:


> Right, science can only explain what "may" have happened, so why are there so many evolution-faithful out there, presenting evolution as fact?


Because everything discovered has verified the hypothesis and nothing has been able to come even close to refuting it. Why do so many Christians present Creationism as fact? At least there is physical evidence (and loads of experimental findings) to back up evolution (and refute Creationism at the same time).



> One poster here said that she was a "devout" evolutionist! The evolutionists are egoically attached to "winning", as Macabre M showed, whereas science is not about winning, it's about fact-finding, regarding how things work in nature.


See above.


----------



## Whisper22

I am actually on topic here and now no one is responding. I really am curious what you all thought of what I posted. It's a pretty good theory of how science and God actually have everything to do with eachother. What I posted was to help explain why the Atonement was necessary but I've also listened to a talk where this man uses this theory to explain the miracles performed in the Bible (curring the blind, water to wine, staff to snake, water to blood, ect.)


----------



## bubba13

It's a philosophical theory. As good a one as any, but completely theoretical. As near as I can tell, it doesn't even particularly jive with the Bible (literal interpretations, anyway), nor is it science-based, but it's a fair attempt to explain unknown mysteries.


----------



## kitten_Val

bubba13 said:


> OK, not pre-Big Bang then, as I wasn't getting into quantum physics. How about "pre-original atom?" No matter which way you go, there are going to be pre-existing elements of some nature or another that you simply cannot explain or comprehend. Or the void. How do you explain an infinite void? What's outside an infinite void (more void?)? How can anything--or nothing--exist at all, and how can nothing beget something? These are the kinds of questions that really freak people out. No explanation, really, makes any sort of plausible sense when you get right down to the "first mover."


I think in many ways its nothing but our imagination/ability, which limits us from understanding. Like 3D is just well 3D. What time is? How "parallel" is it? It's just something simple we came up with, but the reality is noone really knows. Like Mobius strip: it's SO simple still amazing if one thinks about it. Very well may be the answer to pre-atom is that simple too.


----------



## sarahver

Whisper22 said:


> I am actually on topic here and now no one is responding. I really am curious what you all thought of what I posted. It's a pretty good theory of how science and God actually have everything to do with eachother. What I posted was to help explain why the Atonement was necessary but I've also listened to a talk where this man uses this theory to explain the miracles performed in the Bible (curring the blind, water to wine, staff to snake, water to blood, ect.)


Firstly, there is absolutely nothing that is scientific in nature in your theory. For it to be a scientific theory you would have to define “matter” and it would have to be quantifiable and measurable. How do you define “matter”? I doubt it is in the same way that scientists define “matter”. You would have to have a rubric for the measurement of complexity, how is complexity measured? Why do humans rank ‘relatively high’? What makes a human rank higher than a dog? Or a beetle? Or bacteria? Is it because they are more highly evolved? Wouldn’t that contradict your beliefs if that were to be the case? The “intelligence” aspect is a _paradigm_, not a theory. A theory can be tested.

Saying that everything must abide by the physical laws of the universe suggests that you _accept_ the physical laws of the universe. Do you? Or are they _your own_ set of physical laws? If they are your own set then there is nothing of _scientific_ merit in any of this.

In short, it is not scientific in any way shape or form, rather it is lip service made to sound marginally scientific to those who want to hear it.

Only read the first four points, the rest is an interpretation of things for which I do not have the knowledge to comment on.


----------



## Whisper22

bubba13 said:


> It's a philosophical theory. As good a one as any, but completely theoretical. As near as I can tell, it doesn't even particularly jive with the Bible (literal interpretations, anyway), nor is it science-based, but it's a fair attempt to explain unknown mysteries.


This is not taught in our church as gospel but was put together by a very respected man in the church. I can't say if it's true or not but I like to think it makes a lot of sense because I've never heard a theory of how God controls the universe quite like it before.

If you heard his talk on how the miracles were made possible, it might jive a little more for you. I went looking for it but couldn't find it on the internet, but I'll keep looking. As far as science based, I couldn't tell ya, I'm not really a science person.



sarahver said:


> Firstly, there is absolutely nothing that is scientific in nature in your theory. For it to be a scientific theory you would have to define “matter” and it would have to be quantifiable and measurable. How do you define “matter”? I doubt it is in the same way that scientists define “matter”. You would have to have a rubric for the measurement of complexity, how is complexity measured? Why do humans rank ‘relatively high’? What makes a human rank higher than a dog? Or a beetle? Or bacteria? Is it because they are more highly evolved? Wouldn’t that contradict your beliefs if that were to be the case? The “intelligence” aspect is a _paradigm_, not a theory. A theory can be tested.
> 
> Saying that everything must abide by the physical laws of the universe suggests that you _accept_ the physical laws of the universe. Do you? Or are they _your own_ set of physical laws? If they are your own set then there is nothing of _scientific_ merit in any of this.
> 
> In short, it is not scientific in any way shape or form, rather it is lip service made to sound marginally scientific to those who want to hear it.
> 
> Only read the first four points, the rest is an interpretation of things for which I do not have the knowledge to comment on.


Well, like I said, these are just the key points. I'm sure he defines matter somwhere, but to be honest I couldn't tell you if it would be the same as a scientists definition. However, the dictionaries definition is the substance or substances of which any physical object consists or is composed, which might be the basics he's going off of. I'm sure he has his ideas as far as a rubric for the measurement of complexity but I would think only God would know the answer to that. My guess would be that we rank higher not because we are more evolved but because we are God's children and God is the highest intelligence. We are direct decendents of the highest. I'm not completely sure a theory has to be able to be tested and who knows, once you have all the facts maybe it can be.

I was under the inpression that the physical laws of the universe were pretty concrete thus making them laws. I'm not really sure how I can have my own set of physical universal laws.

Just because it hasn't been proven true doesn't mean it's not scientific in nature. People wanted to know why science and God couldn't co-exist and I thought this was a very smart idea.


----------



## sarahver

Aha but you are missing the point. To be scientific in nature you must formulate a hypothesis and then devise ways in which to test your hypothesis. Hence the need for quantification, categorization, and measurement. If you cannot do these things then it is not scientific. It is a belief system.

The physical laws of the universe are pretty concrete and are widely accepted, not always by the devoutly religious though, hence whey I thought I would ask if we are speaking of the same laws. Think of it this way: If you accept the physical laws of the universe then you accept that carbon dating is accurate, as is radiometric dating which is in stark contrast to the theory of creationism. I think that _your_ physical laws are vastly different from the commonly accepted scientific ones but no one has ever clarified that particular point directly to you as it becomes far less ‘scientific’ when that distinction is made.

What you posted is absolutely, unequivocally, 100% UN-scientific. It is just fine to have a belief system but I _sincerely_ hope that what you posted is not presented to you as some sort of scientific theory because it most certainly is not.


----------



## Whisper22

I already said it was just a theory of one man. I don't think anyone accepts it as fact considering he himself says it is only a theory. If we are talking only about things that can be sceintifically proven, obviously this theory can not. God can't be proven as we all know, and seeing as he is a major part of that equation. 

I thought at least part of this discussion was who's to say what is responsible for the creation of the world and everything that happens in it. Some people say God and some say science, this theory says both. No it can not be proven as stated above but you seem to be only arguing the science part of it all. If God controls science how are you suposed to prove that with quantification, categorization, and measurement. You can only use those things to prove science itself.

So if there is a co-existence of God and science, and you desperately wanted to believe in both, trying to prove it aside, could this not be possible?


----------



## sarahver

Hmmm, I wasn’t actually desperate to believe in anything, it doesn’t bother me much what others believe when it comes to one’s creed, and, as I have previously stated, I am agnostic so why would I care anyway? The only thing I have said that is _my personal belief_ is that both religion and science can benefit from each other, which I believe to be true. Other than that I am open to possibilities and was providing material for discussion :wink:

In regards to your theory being possible, I don’t profess to know enough of any religion in order to really discuss that aspect however I do profess to know enough of science in order to recognize and comment on the validity of a given ‘scientific theory’. Therefore, _as purely a belief system_ your theory could work and I enjoyed reading it. For the record, I only mentioned these things after you re-posted asking for people’s thoughts.


----------



## Whisper22

I'm sorry if my comments were coming off as hostile, I didn't mean them to be at all. It was a general "you", I certainly didn't mean that you were desperate. I am on the other side of it, I know much more about religion than I do about science. I did apreciate you commenting and giving your thoughts on what I posted. I don't get to discuss it very often and I'm glad you enjoyed reading it. I do wish I had dug a little deeper because what I posted wasn't even the mans words, just how someone else had summerized them, leaving it full of holes, I get that.


----------



## Whisper22

Ok, I found the original talk, the one I listened to when I first heard about this. It can be found on youtube but I posted the link for you to read it if you want to. I thought that might be easier, he was an old man and could get quite monotone. His theory actually isn't completely his, but he's the one that published it. He references several scripture out of the Book of Mormon that specifically talks about intelligences which is what makes it all uniquely Mormon. This is not taught in our church but respected as probable truth and although it is technically just a theory I believe he believes it to be the truth.
It is a long talk, I reccomend starting at the bottom of page one and at least reading all of page two to cut to the chase. 
WhiteBinder.org - The Meaning of the Atonement


----------



## Northern

Tymer said:


> I feel like you, Northern, are sometimes taking a few things too seriously. Not an issue, just think about the fact that occasionally words can easily be taken out of context and mean something new. "I shot him, drowned him, then hung him up to dry....Man the picture came out great!" *I'm not ignorant of the fact that words can be taken out of context/their meaning misconstrued, Tymer. Fact is, maybe millions of people ARE devout evolutionists, as in a religion, as it were! I found it telling that you described your belief in evolution as "devout", therefore. *.





sarahver said:


> Northern: I agree and disagree with you regarding the egotistical view that some take of science. I agree that it is indeed about fact finding and not ‘winning’ but I would also argue that the ego can become involved in both sides of the debate. *Keep your biases, but not to the extent that you're unable to honestly participate in the scientific method, i.e., skewed observation & interpretations, right down to fraud, of which there have been several "proving" evolution (pepper moths already* *discussed). *





Whisper22 said:


> He references several scripture out of the Book of Mormon that specifically talks about intelligences which is what makes it all uniquely Mormon.


 Whisper, what will it take to get you to respect the fact that we are not discussing scriptures of any sort here? Sarah graciously explained to you that the scientific method doesn't involve scripture-reading or discussion. We've already said that because of the nature of Darwin's theory, the question of "the First Cause" does arise, but we're going to just START OUT with looking at the theory itself & the evidence pro or con that's been thus far discovered. Can you wait till we're finished with the hard science, & post on the spiritual ramifications later? Can you see the wisdom in separating the two, for clarification?

In hard science, it doesn't matter whether an electrician is atheist or believer, as long as he knows his stuff. Tell me that you understand this, Whisper22!


----------



## Northern

Here's a question that could be the question for the 7-step scientific process: If it's funny, is it true?

What caused me to ponder this was the funniness of Ann Coulter. She just has the cutest sense of humour, imo, & managed to maintain it in the midst of her efforts to separate fact from fiction re: our theory, which separation is no mean feat!

I recommend "Godless" not only for its plethora of facts on the "science", but because of AC's delightful funnies!


----------



## Northern

Since unbiased "peer-reviewers" on this are regrettably as scarce as hen's teeth or possibly non-existent, as per your own last post, sarah, (you're the one who taught us about the peer-reviewed standard, with all good intentions, & I agreed that we should stick to peer-reviewed works only) I've given up trying to stick to the standard. We'll have to study the works we've got & just do our best to arrive at who's telling the truth & who's mistaken/lying. 

We must remember, also, that it's not impossible for an evolutionist to tell the truth , likewise not impossible for a creationist to tell the truth. 

We're not really at a disadvantage having opposing sides here, because in any case, we've got the task of separating fact from fiction. If you're motivated to prove your opposing side wrong, that just gives you some steam, AS LONG AS you remain honest. 

That said, I thought that completing our list of pro-evolution frauds would be a good idea, since we already got the peppered moth squared away. So, here's a very informative site altogether, (creationist), with my link to their list & explanation of some major frauds, some of which are STILL being perpetrated in textbooks: Evolution Fraud in School Scienfic Textbooks

The list uses "Piltdown" after the infamous Piltdown fraud, to mean "fraudulent". Piltdown Embryo, Horse, Moth, Bird, Movie (Inherit the Wind, with 14 lies listed that the film presents as fact.)


----------



## luckyT

The Bible says in Genesis 1:1,"In the beggining_God created the world._" The world didn't come from a "big bang" or ooze or anything like that.The Bible says that _God created the world_ and thats what happened. If you want to read it for yourself,go get your Bible (King James version is what I have) and sit in a chair and start reading Genesis chapter 1.


----------



## bubba13

Uh-huh. And where did God come from? Just was? How do you explain that?


----------



## Whisper22

Northern said:


> Whisper, what will it take to get you to respect the fact that we are not discussing scriptures of any sort here? Sarah graciously explained to you that the scientific method doesn't involve scripture-reading or discussion. We've already said that because of the nature of Darwin's theory, the question of "the First Cause" does arise, but we're going to just START OUT with looking at the theory itself & the evidence pro or con that's been thus far discovered. Can you wait till we're finished with the hard science, & post on the spiritual ramifications later? Can you see the wisdom in separating the two, for clarification?
> 
> In hard science, it doesn't matter whether an electrician is atheist or believer, as long as he knows his stuff. Tell me that you understand this, Whisper22!


Seriously Northern, what is your problem? Just because you said way back on the first page that YOU wanted this thread to take a different turn doesn't mean everyone has to follow. 

3,4,10,11,13,14,15,17,18,43,64,72,76,78,80,82,88,91,97,101

Those are the posts where religion was brought up and only about half way through this thread. None of those were me but some of them were you. Some of them also had everything to do with what I posted. There are many more if you would like me to go through the rest of the pages. Most people seemed to be more interested in discussing the religion vs science aspect of it than just the science.


----------



## sarahver

Whisper, in regards to your last post, I didn't read it as being hostile at all, no problemo. I can only imagine how insufferable I come across myself in print, what can I say :wink: I'm quite OK in person I promise...

Northern - ye of so little faith :rofl: Ah the irony. I will not fall on my own sword in the name of 'peer reviewed' so here you go:

Tropical birds and mammals that have adapted to arctic conditions by regulating things like body temperature and basal metabolic rate:

ADAPTATION TO COLD IN ARCTIC AND TROPICAL MAMMALS AND BIRDS IN RELATION TO BODY TEMPERATURE, INSULATION, AND BASAL METABOLIC RATE -- SCHOLANDER et al. 99 (2): 259 -- The Biological Bulletin

Mimicry in butterflies similar to the example I gave in a previous post:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2410794

Adaptation of mammals in Western Australia to be able to tolerate Fluoroacetate in their diet:

CSIRO PUBLISHING - Australian Journal of Zoology

Rapid evolution and resulting reproductive isolation in salmon (e.g. speciation):

Rapid Evolution of Reproductive Isolation in the Wild: Evidence from Introduced Salmon

Most importantly, here is the same article I posted earlier, not sure if you saw it or not? It is proof of concept that organisms can adapt and then become reproductively isolated. This is the run down, original findings in PNAS which is most definitely peer reviewed:

New Evidence That Natural Selection Is A General Driving Force Behind The Origin Of Species

IMO the last article is really the seminal article but I would be more than happy to find more individual examples!

ETA: KittenVal, if you are still around, my mind boggles at the same things that you mentioned he he. We are only capable of comprehending a certain amount as mere humans but it is fun to think of possiblities.

Last thought for this post: The peppered moth fiasco is one of the most regrettable things that science has done, hence the need for strict moral compasses in the industry IMO.


----------



## sarahver

Small correction: Whisper I meant your last post addressed to ME on the previous page. Your actual last post on this page had a bit of sting on it!


----------



## Northern

Ok, only the admin can control the reference to scripture/religious confusion brought to the table here. I tried. I DO want to talk the theological side, AFTER the science, as I already said! BUT no!

Now, I could go & create thread #2 on the theory, asking that only the science be presented, but I still would have no control over you, Whisper, & your ilk coming on THERE! (Why do I get the feeling that you would?)

Admin, what can be done to keep a thread on-topic?


----------



## bubba13

If Whisper is bothering you, you could always ignore her posts. Might help stop the off-topic topic-directing on your part.


----------



## Northern

bubba: "off-topic topic-directing"? WTH? nevermind.

Whisper22, get your blooming facts straight: click the link in the OP to see how the discussion on RR thread evolved (get it?) from a discussion of RRs to the theory of evolution, with SpasticDove, Jinbaitti, bubba, & faye wanting me to get into the SCIENCE of the theory of evolution. (rather foaming at the mouth, is the mental imagery I got; but that's neither here nor there). I agreed that I'd like to do that, because on THAT thread, we were talking Reptilian Reptiles, not an in-depth discussion of evolution. With me? So then bubba took the initiative & opened the thread. So, it was NOT that I was the only one who wanted to keep it to science; this whole little group, or perhaps subspecies, wanted to! Got that?

I only wanted to keep discussion of the theory to the hard science AT FIRST, FOR CLARITY. When y'all turned it into a religious free-for-all, the ENTIRE POINT OF THE SEPARATE THREAD WAS RENDERED NULL & VOID. See? 

You know who the false accuser is, so don't go there.


----------



## Northern

Plus, bubba, you keep feeding the underminers of the topic by posting responses to their theological points. Tsk tsk.

I must say at this point, _aside_ from the hijacking, that I'm learning far more by studying on my own than by what's been posted here so far on the topic. I've found factual refutation of so much that the evolutionists have posted here, starting with the pepper moth fraud, that I wouldn't have learned about had I not researched on my own. Am I wrong? Would you, bubba, have set the facts straight on any of the frauds?


----------



## Northern

Here are a couple more (yes, more!) fraudulent "proofs" of evolution:

From AC's "Godless", with ... indicating words omitted (so I needn't type it all out), plus paraphrasing for my convenience:

The Galapagos Finch Fraud:

Darwin's Galapagos Finches are boldly cited as living proof of the creative power of natural selection....Darwin hypothesized that the 13 species [of finches] that he found MIGHT have evolved from one species. There's no evidence of this. There were 13 species in 1835, & there are 13 species now. 

If anything, the finches are a major blow to Darwin's theory of evolution. Despite major changes in the environment on the Galapagos Islands, the formation of new species has never been observed there. The only change ever observed in the finches has been the higher survival rate, during drought, of finches with deeper beaks, but then after a rainy season, the shallower-beaked finch population rebounds.

The Fruit Fly Fraud:

In one experiment attempting to prove "step 2", the "survival of the fittest", fruit flies were bred to avoid eating poison. One would think that a characteristic ensuring survival would be that the life-form avoids eating poison. 

The fruit flies bred to avoid eating poison did not survive. They died out while the original dumb fruit flies with no aversion to eating poison survived to reproduce. Thus, the scientists concluded: Stupid is more fit. The headline in the _New Scientist _was, "Cleverness May Carry Survival Costs."

The fruit fly experiment is now cited as scientific proof of evolution. So, whenever you hear about the "overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution", remember that evolutionists have put this one in their "win" column.


----------



## Whisper22

Northern said:


> bubba: "off-topic topic-directing"? WTH? nevermind.
> 
> Whisper22, get your blooming facts straight: click the link in the OP to see how the discussion on RR thread evolved (get it?) from a discussion of RRs to the theory of evolution, with SpasticDove, Jinbaitti, bubba, & faye wanting me to get into the SCIENCE of the theory of evolution. (rather foaming at the mouth, is the mental imagery I got; but that's neither here nor there). I agreed that I'd like to do that, because on THAT thread, we were talking Reptilian Reptiles, not an in-depth discussion of evolution. With me? So then bubba took the initiative & opened the thread. So, it was NOT that I was the only one who wanted to keep it to science; this whole little group, or perhaps subspecies, wanted to! Got that?
> 
> I only wanted to keep discussion of the theory to the hard science AT FIRST, FOR CLARITY. When y'all turned it into a religious free-for-all, the ENTIRE POINT OF THE SEPARATE THREAD WAS RENDERED NULL & VOID. See?
> 
> You know who the false accuser is, so don't go there.


Why the hell would I care what a completely seperate thread was talking about? THIS thread doesn't even belong to you. Bubba has been very accepting of ALL input on this thread and I think that's about all that matters. Go ahead, completely ignore the fact that you made several comments on religion yourself.

The fact is this thread doesn't belong to you.

The fact is more people have talked about religion than whatever it is your whining about.

I would have left a long time ago if it weren't for the people practically begging me to continue. GOT THAT!

I'll leave now but only because you are being down right nasty.


----------



## Northern

Whisper22 said:


> 1.Why the hell would I care what a completely seperate thread was talking about? 2.THIS thread doesn't even belong to you.3. Bubba has been very accepting of ALL input on this thread and I think that's about all that matters. 4.Go ahead, completely ignore the fact that you made several comments on religion yourself.
> 
> 5.The fact is this thread doesn't belong to you.
> 
> 6.The fact is more people have talked about religion than whatever it is your whining about.
> 
> 7.I would have left a long time ago if it weren't for the people practically begging me to continue. GOT THAT!
> 
> 8.I'll leave now but only because you are being down right nasty.


1.You should have cared because THAT thread evolved to a group of people wishing to discuss ONLY THE SCIENCE of evolution on THIS thread. You should have respected that.

2. I know, because if it did, you'd've been banished after a warning upon your first deliberate undermining of the topic.

3. Bubba has been feeding your undermining, as I already said to her. YOU call that "accepting", & then have the nerve to say her trip is all that matters!

4. Anyone is free to read & see that this is not true. My opening post stated that I'd leave theological discussion out of it & stick to science. Then Poseidon asked me point blank if I think atheists are fools. I am not & never have been an on-topic NAZI, so I answered her. It's all there for the reading.

5. See 2. You repeat yourself.

6. You're proud of your undermining, I see. Your behaviour here is going to have people flocking in droves to convert to your Mormonism.

7. You knew that those begging you to continue with your theology-spinning were just feeding your trollish undermining of the topic, EVEN when I asked you to wait till we were finished with the science, so that we could THEN talk of the spiritual ramifications of the theory. 

8. Don't forget to take your fellow-underminers with you! And do join the spiritual discussion of the theory, if it ever happens!


----------



## Whisper22

Northern said:


> 1.You should have cared because THAT thread evolved to a group of people wishing to discuss ONLY THE SCIENCE of evolution on THIS thread. You should have respected that.
> 
> 2. I know, because if it did, you'd've been banished after a warning upon your first deliberate undermining of the topic.
> 
> 3. Bubba has been feeding your undermining, as I already said to her. YOU call that "accepting", & then have the nerve to say her trip is all that matters!
> 
> 4. Anyone is free to read & see that this is not true. My opening post stated that I'd leave theological discussion out of it & stick to science. Then Poseidon asked me point blank if I think atheists are fools. I am not & never have been an on-topic NAZI, so I answered her. It's all there for the reading.
> 
> 5. See 2. You repeat yourself.
> 
> 6. You're proud of your undermining, I see. Your behaviour here is going to have people flocking in droves to convert to your Mormonism.
> 
> 7. You knew that those begging you to continue with your theology-spinning were just feeding your trollish undermining of the topic, EVEN when I asked you to wait till we were finished with the science, so that we could THEN talk of the spiritual ramifications of the theory.
> 
> 8. Don't forget to take your fellow-underminers with you! And do join the spiritual discussion of the theory, if it ever happens!


First of all, my intentions were never to try and convert anyone. Your attack on my character holds absolutely no merrit with me. YOU attacked ME. I'm allowed to defend myself. Whenever someone opens up about being religious, it automatically becomes the easiest copout for anyone disagreeing with them. Thank you for proving that.

No, I would not consider it disrespectful to care more about the OP than some random person wanting things their way. If there were others, they didn't say so.

YOU were the ONLY one complaining about the direction this thread went. Are you seriously claiming that you have never gone off topic or particapated any discussion that was off topic of the original post. I highly doubt the answer is yes. That would make you a hypocrit.

I wasn't being a troll at all. I commented on a topic that was very much already part of the discussion. Refusing to go off topic was actually doing what you asked me to do, but people wouldn't leave it alone. You are not the only person that matters here. Everyone was enjoying the discussion. I would consider you the troll for acting like a child and throwing a tantrum when you didn't get your way.


----------



## aspin231

bubba13 said:


> *That there idjut what don't believe that monkeys is people's grandpappys is one hundred percent plum crazy.* There. Debate OVER.


LOL! I'm roflcoptering right now!
Thank you, Bubba, for making my day.


----------



## sarahver

Quirky fact for you: Darwin is usually misquoted as coining the term "survival of the fittest" and indeed that is what everyone thinks of when they think of Darwinism. In fact, his words were: 

"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but rather the one most adaptable to change." 

Survival of the fittest is the abridged version, Darwin was all about _adaptation_.

The fact that there are still 13 species of finch doesn't disprove Darwin, as an entire species doesn't die out usually in only a few hundred years due to natural forces alone. For a species to become extinct THAT quickly usually requires some sort of human intervention :wink: Adaptation on the other hand can occur much quicker and in the time frame you are talking about.

Just thought of this one over my morning coffee: Why are there far fewer black squirrels than brown squirrels? The used to be more prevalent in the 16th century when forests dense and shaded but are quite rare these days. An evolutionist would argue that they are not able to camoflage as well in the less dense forests of today the as the brown squirrels and are thus picked off more easily by predators.


----------



## bubba13

Seriously? These are the "proving frauds?" Weak, weak, weak....



Northern said:


> The Galapagos Finch Fraud:
> 
> Darwin's Galapagos Finches are boldly cited as living proof of the creative power of natural selection....Darwin hypothesized that the 13 species [of finches] that he found MIGHT have evolved from one species. There's no evidence of this. There were 13 species in 1835, & there are 13 species now.
> 
> If anything, the finches are a major blow to Darwin's theory of evolution. Despite major changes in the environment on the Galapagos Islands, the formation of new species has never been observed there. *The only change ever observed in the finches has been the higher survival rate, during drought, of finches with deeper beaks, but then after a rainy season, the shallower-beaked finch population rebounds.*


For the bolded part, a'yup, and perhaps it would interest you to know the official scientific definition of evolution is:

"Any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next." 

Or in other words, exactly what happens with the finches, with the long-beak vs. short-beak alleles (an allele is one version of a gene, like E vs. e in black/chestnut horses).

Were there a prolonged and lasting drought, one might very reasonably surmise that all of the short-beak finches would die out and be gone for good. Extinct. Death to the least fit.

150+ years is far too short a time period for entirely new species of finch to develop. At most you might see some borderline-significant changes within the gene pool and population of any particular species. So the fact that there have been no new developments is....less than redundant.

Based on phenotypic similarities, geographic distribution, and phylogenetic (DNA) evidence, the finches did _indeed_ evolve from one common ancestor.





> The Fruit Fly Fraud:
> 
> In one experiment attempting to prove "step 2", the "survival of the fittest", fruit flies were bred to avoid eating poison. One would think that a characteristic ensuring survival would be that the life-form avoids eating poison.
> 
> The fruit flies bred to avoid eating poison did not survive. They died out while the original dumb fruit flies with no aversion to eating poison survived to reproduce. Thus, the scientists concluded: Stupid is more fit. The headline in the _New Scientist _was, "Cleverness May Carry Survival Costs."
> 
> The fruit fly experiment is now cited as scientific proof of evolution. So, whenever you hear about the "overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution", remember that evolutionists have put this one in their "win" column.


I don't know the specifics of the experiment, nor when it was published. But the results really aren't all that surprising, given what we know about DNA and gene-linkage. The poison-aversion gene may very well have been tied to the weak-exoskeleton gene (for example; I don't know all the multifaceted things that go wrong with fruit fly metabolism, etc.). So there's a perfectly reasonable explanation, that in no way begins to refute evolution. Not to mention the fact that this experiment was NOT about evolution....it was about artificial selection! There's probably a reason that poison-aversion genes did not evolve in the wild--they do NOT result in a fitter fly! On the contrary, this is a big testament to the power of natural selection producing fitter results than artificial selection.

On a slightly related vein--do you know why so many black people have sickle-cell anemia? Evolution! Why? Malaria is extremely prevalent in Africa, killing a lot of people. A random mutation developed that was actually beneficial: One copy of the gene gives you resistance to malaria, so the gene was passed on as many of the carriers survived while the "normal people" succumbed to the disease. Unfortunately, _two_ copies of the gene gives you sickle-cell anemia. So one-copy people survive to reproduce, two-copy people die/suffer from SCA, and no-copy people die from malaria....


----------



## Northern

sarahver said:


> Quirky fact for you: Darwin is usually misquoted as coining the term "survival of the fittest" and indeed that is what everyone thinks of when they think of Darwinism. In fact, his words were:
> 
> "It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but rather the one most adaptable to change." *Thank you, (NOW you tell me, sarah, after I posted the 3 parts of the theory, with this being one ) However, the question remains, what constitutes "change"? It's not strength nor intelligence that gives capacity to adapt, as well?* *An example of "adaptable" & an example of "change" would help. (not your fault, sarah, since those are Mr. D's words.)*
> .


 Re: the squirrels, I dunno why; can I take a rain check?


----------



## bubba13

Change = random mutations as a result of normal DNA replication in germline cells during meiosis
Some are neutral, some produce a phenotypic effect, either positive or negative
The negative ones die
The positive ones survive and thrive and reproduce in greater numbers
Not only have you elicited a phenotypic change due to the mutation, you have changed the frequency of an allele in a population
-> evolution has occured


----------



## Northern

Whisper22 said:


> YOU were the ONLY one complaining about the direction this thread went. Are you seriously claiming that you have never gone off topic or particapated any discussion that was off topic of the original post. *I already SAID that I'm not a topic NAZI; there's a diff between relevant "asides" & trollish undermining, as you well know*. Everyone was enjoying the discussion..


 Whisper, you said that you were *leaving the building*; obviously, you're not as good as your word. However, perhaps you're right that everyone else wants the mix of science & the theological side of the theory.(& if so, what was the point of making this thread about the science only, but NEVERMIND!) If so, I might as well start the/ANOTHER strictly-science thread, in the hopes that the theology posters will stay here (hope springs eternal ) Here you go, Whisper, can you content yourself with staying here & posting your religion? We'll see.


----------



## BFFofHorses

Wait a sec. bubba started the thread. Not you. So, first you get all religous and deefend creationism. NOW you want to discuss Darwin's theory after leading THIS THREAD off topic several times to RELIGION. Don't blame Whisper/other posters. If you ignored "their" off topic posts, didn't respond and kept on the topic then the thread would continue in an on topic fashion. But that is impossible because you have lead the topic off topic in the first place.


----------



## Speed Racer

WAHHHH!!! Y'ALL AREN'T DOING WHAT I TELL YOU TO DO!!!! DO IT MY WAY!!!! :evil:

Seriously Northern, get a grip. You're not the Queen of the Internetz, and you don't get to tell people what they can or can't discuss on any given thread, _especially_ one you didn't even start.


----------



## Northern

sarahver said:


> The fact that there are still 13 species of finch doesn't disprove Darwin, as an entire species doesn't die out usually in only a few hundred years due to natural forces alone. *OK, so is there any time frame that evolutionists give on how long it takes for a new species to emerge? I see that the "see, no new finches in 170 years" is a specious argument, & thank you for that.[/*QUOTE] Darwinist Peter Grant said that if droughts came only once a decade, natural selection "would transform one species into another within 200 years." Then, THIS statement confuses the issue between actual adaptations/transformations/mutations _within_ a species, & the going extinct of one species, because it DIDN'T adapt: the finches'_ beaks_ DIDN'T adapt; it was just a case of the shallow-beaked finches dying off (from insufficient ability to get enough water).
> 
> 
> 
> bubba13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were there a prolonged and lasting drought, one might very reasonably surmise that all of the short-beak finches would die out and be gone for good. Extinct. *True, because there WAS no mutation within the shallow-beaked species to larger beaks*. Death to the least fit. *So this lack of adaptation to change (environmental change) is not proof of part 2 of the theory (adaptation to change is survival): it's not a proof positive that adaptation occurs.*
> 
> 150+ years is far too short a time period for entirely new species of finch to develop.
> 
> 
> 
> *Understood.*
Click to expand...


----------



## Whisper22

Northern said:


> Whisper, you said that you were *leaving the building*; obviously, you're not as good as your word.


Do I care if you think I'm as good as my word. No. I'm not the first person to be fed up but realize I might have more to say. But as we all know, you're perfect.



> However, perhaps you're right that everyone else wants the mix of science & the theological side of the theory.(& if so, what was the point of making this thread about the science only, but NEVERMIND!) If so, I might as well start the/ANOTHER strictly-science thread, in the hopes that the theology posters will stay here (hope springs eternal )


Smartest thing you've said so far.



> Here you go, Whisper, can you content yourself with staying here & posting your religion? We'll see.


Contrary to what you might believe, my lifes passion is not to follow you around. You might want to look into getting over yourself.


----------



## sarahver

.....Speaking of Darwin's finches I have another article for everyone before I disappear for a few days and attend to matters that are more likely to get me a degree i.e. my exams (!)

Evidence of two species being created from only one:
The secondary contact phase of allopatric speciation in Darwin's finches

That is the last article I am posting for a while, since no-one acknowledged my provision of the salmon/butterfly/marsupial/fruit fly examples....??!! Not even to REBUT!!!

Oh and in case anyone wanted to know how to easily look for peer reviewed journal articles, go to Google Scholar, it is a great resource and will often provide full text articles for free, although sometimes only the abstract is provided. Of course more articles are available using university databases but Google Scholar is often a good start.

Best,
Sarah.

ETA: In regards to how long speciation takes, it depends on a number of things. Namely the generation time for the species in question (i.e. whales evolve more slowly than birds), the average mutation rate in the genome (higher mutation rates produce random mutations quicker) and the severity of the selective forces (a long, severe drought is a more severe environmental force than a gradual warming and drying effect).


----------



## Northern

BFFofHorses said:


> Wait a sec. bubba started the thread. Not you. So, first you get all religous and deefend creationism. NOW you want to discuss Darwin's theory after leading THIS THREAD off topic several times to RELIGION. Don't blame Whisper/other posters. If you ignored "their" off topic posts, didn't respond and kept on the topic then the thread would continue in an on topic fashion. But that is impossible because you have lead the topic off topic in the first place.


LOL! Right, I am blamed for whatever, just like I said would happen, come to think of it. I can only operate by my conscience, & my conscience doesn't condemn me. 



Speed Racer said:


> Seriously Northern, get a grip. You're not the Queen of the Internetz *Right, asking people to stay on-topic is acting* *like I rule*. :shock: and you don't get to tell people what they can or can't discuss on any given thread, _especially_ one you didn't even start. *After I thoroughly recapped how this thread started/what its purpose was, regardless of WHO started it, this is what you throw at me*.:-x


Things are getting increasingly chaotic, imo: asking people to stay on-topic used to be normal, & admin advised doing same. OK, I've adapted to the new regime of "don't ask". Oh, yah, then there's the fact of my new thread sticking to the SCIENCE ONLY of this theory not being allowed to exist. What if other(s) besides me would have also appreciated discussing the science only? :-(


----------



## bubba13

If we were discussing science only without a theological background, we all would have accepted the overwhelming evidence that, in effect, essentially "proves" evolution and refutes all other theories by now. But obviously that is not what anyone wants to do.


----------



## Spastic_Dove

This isn't SCIENCE ONLY but I just had a thoguht. 

The Bible doesn't say HOW God created the universe. What if the way he created it was the big bang? 

I'm running on little sleep though so that could be a dumb idea. It seems to make sense to me right now. 

Re: Finches, etc I don't have much to add other than Evolution can be seen through adaptation rather than a completely new or extinct species and I think that is what we see in species like the finches.


----------



## Whisper22

Spastic_Dove said:


> This isn't SCIENCE ONLY but I just had a thoguht.
> 
> The Bible doesn't say HOW God created the universe. What if the way he created it was the big bang?
> 
> I'm running on little sleep though so that could be a dumb idea. It seems to make sense to me right now.
> 
> Re: Finches, etc I don't have much to add other than Evolution can be seen through adaptation rather than a completely new or extinct species and I think that is what we see in species like the finches.


That's what I was getting at when I was told to shut up. It can not be proven because it IS half religious but it's a good theory on how he created the universe using science. I posted the link to the talk and what page would be best to read.


----------



## Northern

bubba, you need to quit with claims to "overwhelming evidence" for evolution. The only overwhelming evidence so far presented on this thread has been a list of the FRAUDULENT evidence, some of which is STILL in textbooks, unbelievably, one of which was your reommended movie, _Inherit the Wind, _detailing a list of 14 lies. No one here bothered to comment on this list (didn't bother to read?).

The only "evidence" that I've gleaned on the side of evolution so far is that, despite massive environmental changes in the Galapagos Islands, which would have pressured adaptation in the 13 species of finches there, 170 years "isn't enough time" for a new species to develop. And that's not EVIDENCE, it's just your rule, for finches & whatever else. As I said before, the evolutionist Peter Grant claimed that, with a drought every 10 years, within 200 years, a new species of finch'd occur. Yet did he mean that one species (the shallow-beaked) would have died out, or did he mean a NEW species? Seems to me, he meant the shallow-beaked would have died out.

The finches prove none of the 3 parts of the theory: 1. NO random mutation occurred. It remained two kinds of finches, deep-beaked & shallow-beaked. 2. survival of the fittest, according to Darwin, is not based upon intelligence nor strength, but "adaptation to change" so, here, survival of the fittest does not prove the theory, because no adaptation occurred: the deep-beaked finches survived, not due to adaptation, but because they ALREADY HAD the equipment to survive, & the shallow-beaked diminished & rebounded according to the rains. 3. creation of a new species is not proven by this case: no creation of new species occurred ("not enough time").

In the case of the fruit flies, the prerequisite for survival according to Darwin (adaptation to change) again was NOT proven: the flies which were bred to have the adaptation of avoidance of poison were the ones who did NOT survive, while the same old flies who ate poison SURVIVED to reproduce. The evolutionists had the nerve to say this proved evolution, because the adaptation to avoid poison was "cleverness" & Darwin said that intelligence isn't good for survival.


----------



## bubba13

I'm not Peter Grant, and I've never heard of Peter Grant before today, so I can't very well speak for him.

The only potentially-fraudulent "evidence" I've seen on this thread is the moth thing. The others are vast misinterpretations by pseudo-scientists with a Creationist agenda to fulfill. Ann Coulter's finch and fly explanations are quite frankly laughable.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that the fruit fly experiment "proves" evolution, but it does prove that natural selection is better at producing a fit individual than artificial selection. Scientist created poison-avoiding flies, which died. Obviously poison-aversion comes with problems, so those flies are less fit. If poison-avoiding flies were more fit, they would have evolved! But regular flies are more fit, and so they are the ones found in the wild.

The finch beak thing--that is a random mutation, it just occured before they observation period. Otherwise all finches of a particular species would have the same beak type.

How do you explain antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which did not exist a few decades ago?

No, I did not read the very long links you posted. Choose a favorite issue or two and we'll break it down piece by piece. Also, _Inherit the Wind_ was written in 1955 about a 1925 court case....so if there are problems with it, I'm sure scientists know far better now and have corrected their error. It is GOOD because of the overall message, not specific facts. [I did just skim the list of "fallacies," and it's pretty hilarious. They have very few claims against the _science _(save for things that, like I said, mainstream sciece corrected decades ago) and all of their claims are about the _people_, but the play was supposed to be fiction "loosely based on true events," anyway! Grasping at straws much?]


----------



## luckyT

I am quoting bubba13. Uh-huh.And where did God come from?Just was?How do you explain that? unquote. Well,my answer to that would be John 1:1 . _In the beggining_ was the Word, and the Word was with God, and _the Word was God._


----------



## Spastic_Dove

^Can you explain that please


----------



## luckyT

God never was created, He always was existent.Before the world was formed,God was always there.He didn't just appear when he decided to create the earth.


----------



## bubba13

How do you explain God's initial existence? Did He create Himself?


----------



## luckyT

You can't really exlain it. It is an act of faith.You need to have an open mind and heart to believe.There again if you go to John1:1 KJV(King James Version),it says that in the beginning God was.People can argue it and try to figure out the scientific stuff on it,but God simply asks us to take Him by faith.When someone is a child of God, believes in Him,and is obedient to Him,you have a better fulfilled life on earth and an eternity in heaven to look forward to.


----------



## Spastic_Dove

I have faith in evolution and the scientific method.


----------



## luckyT

I do not believe in evolution or the scientific method.I have my Bible and that is what I believe.


----------



## bubba13

I know plenty of very moral/ethical people with very fulfilling lives who are atheists, agnostics, and otherwise non-Christians.

The explanation that "God just was" makes no more sense than "the Big Bang just was." Both are completely unsatisfactory, illogical, unexplainable mysteries.


----------



## bubba13

If you don't believe in the scientific method, I hope you will discard all products that you own, stop driving a car, never get any more medical care, ditch the cell phone, and go back to growing your own (wild-derived) food, because all of the aforementioned commodities are a direct result of experimentation with the scientific method.


----------



## Spastic_Dove

You can have science and religion. I have a Bible too. 

I have no idea how you don't believe in the scientific method. It's not something that disproves or proves a religion or any threat to religion, IMO. :?


----------



## luckyT

No, it won't make sense to an unbeliever,unless they are truly seeking God,and willing to believe what He says.There are gonna be many atheists and non-christians who are gonna be surprised when they have to stand before God and give an account of their unbelief to Him on the judgement day.


----------



## bubba13

Gonna be a whole lot of stone-throwing judgmental Christians who believed but didn't act, and they'll all be scratching their heads as they're tossed into the fiery pits....


----------



## luckyT

What exactly do you mean by the scientific method? When I was referring to the scientific method, I was talking about the evoulution stuff that scientists came up with.


----------



## Spastic_Dove

Steps of the Scientific Method


----------



## luckyT

Yes, there will be people who call themselves Christians,but are not true Christians that will be going to hell.But true Christians will not. They will be going to heaven.Just for the record,I am not pointing fingers at anyone.God is the Judge of all people.


----------



## luckyT

Thanx for filling me in on that,Spastic_Dove.I was referring to evolution.


----------



## Spastic_Dove

Oh well that makes total sense then.


----------



## luckyT

Thanks for understanding.I gotta get off the computer now, but I will check back on this thread some other time.


----------



## bubba13

What does God do with people who never had a chance to hear about Christianity--say they were raised in some sort of aboriginal stae, or something? Is it like automatic damnation, or what?


----------



## sarahver

Spastic_Dove said:


> Oh well that makes total sense then.


:lol::lol::lol:

Ha ha this drew me back in. So I guess it is fair to say that God created 'ole Chucky Darwin and therefore God created the theory of evolution. In which case you better believe it mere mortals or straight to the underground cooker for all those who dare not to follow His will.


----------



## Spastic_Dove

sarahvr, I didn't know you were such the philosopher!


----------



## sarahver

Heh, circular discussions aren't really my 'thing' but I can spout rhetoric with the best of 'em!!


----------



## Whisper22

bubba13 said:


> What does God do with people who never had a chance to hear about Christianity--say they were raised in some sort of aboriginal stae, or something? Is it like automatic damnation, or what?


My belief, and that of my religion, is that it is not as easy as not being a Christian to be sent to hell. I believe all non believers and those who have never heard the gospel will be given a second chance once they die. It is then, when it is right in front of your face, that if you still refuse to accept Jesus as your savior, you will be sent to hell. Believe it or not, there are people who are so bitter and unaccepting that they will take it with them into the afterlife. But even then, hell is not so much a place, as it is a state of mind, very much like what Jesus went through in the Garden of Gethsemane. It is in this state of mind that you will pay for your own sins, since you would not allow Jesus to do it for you. I have no doubt that it will be just as excruciating for you as it was for him, hence the terms in the Bible that refers to it as the fiery pits of hell. After this you will be allowed to return to the lowest kingdom of heaven, but you will never forget what you went through, hence the reference to eternal suffering in hell.


----------



## bubba13

Does the Bible say any of that? And if not, where are you getting it?


----------



## Spastic_Dove

^That's a morman thing I believe (The whole 'levels of heaven' and whatnot)

Is that something the boy prophet said?


----------



## lacyloo

Yes I do believe it is _in the bible_ that those that have not heard the gospel will be sent to heaven. Also children under a certain age (which I cant recall) will be forgiven. 

I could be 100% wrong. Afterall, my previous preacher was a brick shy of a load. :wink:


----------



## Whisper22

Spastic_Dove said:


> ^That's a morman thing I believe (The whole 'levels of heaven' and whatnot)
> 
> Is that something the boy prophet said?


As a matter of fact it is. Funny how we have a answer for everything . 

This, however, is not. Basically what this says is that the actual translation of heaven and hell are the same thing. This is a fact.

*Sheol* (pronounced "Sheh-ol"), in Hebrew שְׁאוֹל (She'ol), is the "grave", or "pit" or "abyss".[1][2]
In Judaism She'ol[3] is the earliest conception of the afterlife in the Jewish Scriptures. It is a place of darkness to which all dead go regardless of the moral choices made in life and where they are "removed from the light of God" (see the Book of Job). She'ol is a concept that predates the Christian and Muslim ideas of judgement after death and also predates, and is different from, Heaven and Hell. It is unclear whether Sheol was to be considered a real place or a way of describing the unknown status of a person's conscious being.
The word "hades" (= underworld) was substituted for "sheol" when the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek (see Septuagint) in ancient Alexandria around 200 BCE (see Hellenistic Judaism).
In the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) _Sheol_ is the common destination of both the righteous and the unrighteous flesh, as recounted in Ecclesiastes and Job. The New Testament (written in Greek) also uses "Hades" to refer to the abode of the dead. (Revelation 20:13) The belief that those in _Sheol_ awaited the resurrection either in comfort (in the bosom of Abraham) or in torment may be reflected in the story of the New Testament of Lazarus and Dives.[4] English translations of the Hebrew scriptures have variously rendered the word _Sheol_ as "Hell"[5] or "the grave".[6]

Also, the kingdoms of heaven are mention in the Bible, in 1Corinthians I believe.


----------



## Whisper22

lacyloo said:


> Yes I do believe it is _in the bible_ that those that have not heard the gospel will be sent to heaven. Also children under a certain age (which I cant recall) will be forgiven.
> 
> I could be 100% wrong. Afterall, my previous preacher was a brick shy of a load. :wink:


Children under the age of 8, you are absolutely correct.


----------



## Spastic_Dove

Sorry, does the prophet have a name...? Title?

Is Sheol anything like the idea of purgatory?


----------



## Whisper22

The first Prophet of the Church was Joseph Smith and our Prophet now is Thomas S. Monson. I'm not sure what you mean by title, he is our Prophet and the President of the Church.

We don't use the term "pergatory" so I couldn't tell ya, but I guess you could look it up and see if it matches.

I gotta go, horsey time. But if there's anything else I'll answer when I get back.


----------



## luckyT

Prophet ??


----------



## Spastic_Dove

Read earlier in the thread, Lucky. She is a Morman and sort of explained that a few pages back.


----------



## hotreddun

The great thing about science is it is ALWAYS up for debate and peer-review...whereas religion never is:shock:

Carry on...I'll continue lurking...


----------



## luckyT

I know she is a Mormon. I just wondered why they don't call him a preacher instead of a Prophet.


----------



## Spastic_Dove

That's because the basis of religion is faith and the basis of science lays in the scientific method. 

Makes it hard to debate


ETA: That's because from the sounds of it he was a Prophet, not a preacher. Very different.


----------



## luckyT

Amen!!


----------



## Spastic_Dove

To Clarify: 

proph·et/ˈpräfit/Noun
1. A person regarded as an inspired teacher or proclaimer of the will of God

So basically a prophet gets the will of God first hand and then the preacher just preaches said gospel. It's like the preacher goes through the middle man (prophet) to get to God.


----------



## Northern

In answer to your question of me, bubba, from my understanding, bacteria mutate strains, & viruses, too, but they always remain bacteria & viruses, so do not change into new species.

I realize now that the theory of evolution cannot be disproven, because it's a tautology(circular reasoning), at least as "used" by those who want to prove it. The fruit fly experiment proves that. Whoever survives, it's "See, survival of the fittest!", in this case, fruit flies who ate poison.  

Human scientists, the crowning glory of the Universe, according to Darwin, in trying to prove his theory, killed a bunch of flies. How can the crowning glory of natural selection, survival of the fittest, & species change be so clueless?

So I wisely give up trying to disprove it. I've gathered a lot more data than I had at the start, so it's been fruit flyfull.  

Here is a neat series of 4 videos on yet further evolution frauds than I've thus far posted: 



 is the first, & you can find the rest from there.

"The Simidae then branched off into two great stems, the New World and the Old World* monkeys*; and from the latter, at a remote period, MAN, the wonder and the glory of the Universe, proceeded." 

--Charles Darwin


----------



## Spastic_Dove

But viruses do mutate and from new strains. It does not have to be a new species to show mutation or adaptation.


----------



## Spastic_Dove

Sort of on the same subject: Human Genome Shows Proof of Recent Evolution, Survey Finds

Shows positive selection for desirable genes. No, a new species has not formed so don't be expecting to read that. But it sort of goes along the 'survival of the fittest' vein we were discussing.


----------



## bubba13

YouTube is telling me that the video is not available--could be my computer.

How in the world is this circular reasoning? Explain to me.

How can bacteria mutate strains if there is no random mutation (especially not with desirable outcomes), as you claim? Also, "bacteria" is not a species. It's a kingdom, with many species. One could easily argue that the drug-resistant strain is a new species, in fact, depending on the definition used.

How in the WORLD are you using the fruit fly example as fuel for your fire? It works quite the other way....


----------



## Northern

jiminy christmas, I type in a url, then it comes up a screen, with "unavailable" on it, I go to delete & can't because a pop-up with no way to get it removed goes right over everything! Let's try this one, which is part 2:


----------



## Northern

ok, google Scientific Fraud, EP-1, EP-2, EP-3, EP-4.

Dog is wanting his walk, later.


----------



## Spastic_Dove

Here is episode three. Couldnt view 1/2

It kind of annoys me how he is just sarcastic the entire time. 
It's like saying "Hahahahah do you believe these people think some guy made water into WINE? Isn't that a riot?" 
I mean sure, some people do. But most people regard those types as asshats.


----------



## bubba13

OK, there's no way a 13 minute video is going to load on my computer, but I see the title. So the Nebraska man was a fallacy. So what? That's _one_ example of _millions_.

All of the "crying Madonnas" are caused by natural events, not miracles. Therefore, I have just proved conclusively that God does not exist.


----------



## bubba13

Read this: Creationist Arguments: Nebraska Man


----------



## Northern

Thanks, SD, I'm not the most pc-literate person out there. If you google *Scientific Fraud youtube*, you can get E-P 1, it's at the top of the page & the author (it's a kinda creepy moniker, I know) is vudumojo. I'm sure it'll please you to know that somewhere in there, he says that he's neither an evolutionist _nor_ a creationist.

Did no one think that it was worth commenting on that Darwin DID say that humans came from monkeys, as per my quote? Evolutionists commonly say it's just a common ancestor, the monkeys & apes on a separate branch from man's ancestors, but here again are Darwin's words:

"The Simidae then branched off into two great stems, the New World and the Old World monkeys; and from the latter, at a a remote period, MAN, the wonder and the glory of the Universe, proceeded."

Here is another really good site about the issue: Apes and Humans

I see at this point that:

1. I'm getting undeservedly bashed here, & I'm not willing to labor under it. I also don't feel that you, bubba, have been working with me toward finding the facts, but rather have wanted to "win". Science means knowledge. The scientists who killed the fruit flies had no knowledge of what to do for fruit flies; that's all that was proven by their actions.

2. As I said, the theory is a tautology, therefore it cannot be disproven, even though no evolutionist HAS proved it. The link below talks about the lack of proof for this theory.

3. I've posted lots of good information for evolutionists to look at/listen to. I would only be wasting time typing it all out, because it's already been done & is available to you.

3. There's another element of life, called symbiosis, which is factual, which Darwin doesn't discuss. It involves cooperation between life forms. I've got a book at libe on it, & I want to start reading it.


----------



## Northern

bubba13 said:


> .All of the "crying Madonnas" are caused by natural events, not miracles. Therefore, I have just proved conclusively that God does not exist.


 Non sequitur.



bubba13 said:


> Read this: Creationist Arguments: Nebraska Man


 "They were just mistaken, not dishonest." How are we going to find out which it was? Bottom line: no proof of evolution. The video series, in addition to the other frauds I've posted, has the Neanderthal, Peking, Java, E. Africa frauds, so there've been more than enough frauds re: this theory.


----------



## Marlea Warlea

god is soo totally real!!


god has done so much for me!!

In church when we sing songs (mainly how great is our god) i usually bawl out crying... dont ask me why, it just always happens, i am so proud to be in his army!!


----------



## bubba13

Northern said:


> Did no one think that it was worth commenting on that Darwin DID say that humans came from monkeys, as per my quote? Evolutionists commonly say it's just a common ancestor, the monkeys & apes on a separate branch from man's ancestors, but here again are Darwin's words:
> 
> "The Simidae then branched off into two great stems, the New World and the Old World monkeys; and from the latter, at a a remote period, MAN, the wonder and the glory of the Universe, proceeded."


You're equivocating the word "monkey." Darwin is using it to mean a common ancestor, not a modern-day species of monkey that we would know and recognize--from the simians came a group which developed into Old World monkeys, and from those came the Great Apes, of which humans are a member. It's no coincidence that chimps and humans share something like 99% of their genetic material. No coincidence either that chimps use tools, can be taught sign language, closely resemble us, etc.




> 1. I'm getting undeservedly bashed here, & I'm not willing to labor under it. I also don't feel that you, bubba, have been working with me toward finding the facts, but rather have wanted to "win". Science means knowledge. The scientists who killed the fruit flies had no knowledge of what to do for fruit flies; that's all that was proven by their actions.


Do you understand how genetics and inheritance work? Because it's really seeming like you don't. If you do, how the hellfire and damnation are you (mis)-interpreting the fruitfly example in your argument's favor?

What facts have I failed to supply? All I've done is point out the significant errors in many of the sources you have cited.



> 2. As I said, the theory is a tautology, therefore it cannot be disproven, even though no evolutionist HAS proved it. The link below talks about the lack of proof for this theory.


HOW is it a tautology? And see below regarding "proof." By the way, what is the science-based evidence that supports Creationism?



> 3. There's another element of life, called symbiosis, which is factual, which Darwin doesn't discuss. It involves cooperation between life forms. I've got a book at libe on it, & I want to start reading it.


OK....and? But it is relevant, in the sense that that is how all higher life forms likely evolved--from symbiotic relationships!





 
Video description: This video shows an oversimplified and comical account of the endosymbiotic theory for eukaryotic evolution. It is widely believe that mitochondria and chloroplasts evolved from an initial symbiotic relationship between heterotrophic phagocytotic bacteria and smaller prokaryotes, some of which were highly efficient at oxidation and others which were autotrophic. These smaller organisms would have benefited from the protection and the anaerobic environment inside their host, while the latter would have received the capacity for photosynthesis and efficient energy utilization. Evidence supports this theory: mitochondria and chloroplasts replicate separately from nuclear mitosis, contain their own DNA (which is circular and has several deviations from the so-called "universal genetic code"), and have smaller ribosomes, corresponding more to a bacterial size. In sexual reproduction of multicellular organisms, the offspring of a mating receive mitochondria only from the maternal side (mtDNA).




Northern said:


> Non sequitur.


As was the Nebraska man example, and all of the _Inherit the Wind_ "fallacies" you pulled out, and nearly every other example trotted out as a "fraud." Totally irrelevant to the _real_ science of the matter.



> "They were just mistaken, not dishonest." How are we going to find out which it was? Bottom line: no proof of evolution. The video series, in addition to the other frauds I've posted, has the Neanderthal, Peking, Java, E. Africa frauds, so there've been more than enough frauds re: this theory.


What do you mean, how are we going to find out? That webpage spells it out as clearly as can be, with direct quotes. How more blunt can it get?

No proof of evolution? Nope--can't prove that it _has_ happened, because that would require a time machine. But we can prove that it's occuring right now. And it is. Do you even recall the _scientific_ definition of evolution, which I posted ages and pages ago? Because, um, that always is and always has been going on, and anyone who attempts to refute that, regardless of their belief system, is a total idiot. Ignoring a fact does not make it go away....

Speciation as it relates to evolution is more difficult to prove in action, but the bacteria examples do a fair job. Then we have the fossil record and DNA evidence to reach back into history.


----------



## sarahver

Haven't had time to look at the vids yet, will have a look on the weekend. I do want to say that science _should_ be treated with skepticism, good science will stand up to that. I plan to add more _good_ science later illustrating some of the phylogenetic patterns of inheritance that several of us have alluded to.

Archaeologists, well, they have made numerous mistakes and have been found to be unscrupulous with their findings over the years, they are a funny bunch. One point to consider though; when such frauds occur it is actually _science_ that corrects itself. Go back and have a look how it was determined that archaeological findings turned out to be either not as old as previously thought, or were planted/falsified. I would bet that it was the gene jockeys testing the DNA that came out and said "So, you're wrong."

Such is the nature of science. Not always right _initially_ but always fact finding. Scientists eat their young I am sure of it. Another piece of information about 'peer reviewing' which might shed some light on the scientific process: Peer reviewing sounds like you just send off your findings to your peers. Well, not really. The way it works is that you must send articles off to be reviewed by other experts in your field _that are in no way related to your lab/research_.

You think THEY want to see your work published? No way! They are your _competitors_. So, if work is to be published you have to satisfy the harshest critics in the world, far harsher than you Northern!

Lastly in response to a comment that bothered me earlier in this thread (don't remember who) where someone expressed disbelief that others didn't know certain things about evolution from their time at school, well, many schools here in Texas STILL to this day refuse to teach the theory of evolution as it contradicts the teachings of the Bible. So no, not everyone has the same educational history.


----------



## Northern

bubba13 said:


> You're equivocating the word "monkey." Darwin is using it to mean a common ancestor, not a modern-day species of monkey that we would know and recognize--from the simians came a group which developed into Old World monkeys, and from those came t*he Great* *Apes, of which humans are a member*. It's no coincidence that chimps and humans share something like 99% of their genetic material. No coincidence either that chimps use tools, can be taught sign language, closely resemble us, etc.
> 
> Don't falsely accuse me of equivocating, bubba. I never said that Darwin didn't mean a common ancestor OF today's simians, & OF today's man. Your additional info, OW monkeys to *Great Apes, of which humans are a member* - well, there you are, you're saying that humans are (refined-looking, most of us?) apes! Unless Great Apes aren't really apes?
> 
> You further "prove" this contention by "it's no coincidence that chimps & humans share [98.7, to be exact,] genetic material." This is factual, yet it doesn't prove the theory, because daffodils & humans share 35% genetic material. Correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
> 
> Do you understand how genetics and inheritance work? Because it's really seeming like you don't. *I'm a layman, I didn't take science at university, I've SAID that I'm learning from scratch here, HOW many times? YOU want to beat me over the head for it, instead of be helpful*!If you do, *how the hellfire and damnation* are you (mis)-interpreting the fruitfly example in your argument's favor? Is it necessary for you to be so abrasive, bubba? In my favor? I'm attempting to be unbiased, as I've stated from the start. Yet, if I find no evidence for evolution, you accuse me of bias. Re: the fruit flies, I was unable, as always, to DISprove evolution (tautology), but I found that the experiment gave no PROOF of it. The crowning glory of "natural selection", (two) humans, had no knowledge of what fruit flies needed to survive to reproduce. What they needed was to be left alone. You said that was proof of evolution, just like those two did, because whatever survives "proves" "survival of the fittest". It's unknown whether those flies which were left alone mutated/naturally selected at ALL.


More later.


----------



## bubba13

_



Don't falsely accuse me of equivocating, bubba. I never said that Darwin didn't mean a common ancestor OF today's simians, & OF today's man. Your additional info, OW monkeys to *Great Apes, of which humans are a member* - well, there you are, you're saying that humans are (refined-looking, most of us?) apes! Unless Great Apes aren't really apes?

Click to expand...

__Depends how you define “ape.” As a modern, recognizeable species, no. As a common apelike ancestor with simian/humanoid features, yes. Most Creationists love to refute Darwin by totally redefining his words, saying he meant that people came from chimps, then laughing because chimps still exist. If that was not your intention, I apologize. But how would a common ancestor possibly not be apelike?_

_



You further "prove" this contention by "it's no coincidence that chimps & humans share [98.7, to be exact,] genetic material." This is factual, yet it doesn't prove the theory, because daffodils & humans share 35% genetic material. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Click to expand...

__Yes, all living organisms contain “some” of the same genetic material. The more they share, the more closely related they are, and the more recently they split off from the evolutionary path. Humans and daffodils diverged long, long before humans and other apelike creatures went their separate ways._


*



I'm a layman, I didn't take science at university, I've SAID that I'm learning from scratch here, HOW many times? YOU want to beat me over the head for it, instead of be helpful

Click to expand...

*


> _!_


_Then why are you attempting to explain/interpret things in a scientific context when you have no understanding? It’s like me trying to translate the Hebrew Bible. Not gonna happen. But really, this is high school level, for the most part, with some middle school thrown in. But as sarahver said, some schools are very sadly lacking in biology basics, so maybe you missed it. Plus horse color genetics stuff is plastered all over forums like this, so I (mistakenly) assumed you would be familiar with at least the basics of alleles and inheritance…_

_



Is it necessary for you to be so abrasive, bubba? In my favor? I'm attempting to be unbiased, as I've stated from the start. Yet, if I find no evidence for evolution, you accuse me of bias. Re: the fruit flies, I was unable, as always, to DISprove evolution (tautology), but I found that the experiment gave no PROOF of it. The crowning glory of "natural selection", (two) humans, had no knowledge of what fruit flies needed to survive to reproduce. What they needed was to be left alone. You said that was proof of evolution, just like those two did, because whatever survives "proves" "survival of the fittest". It's unknown whether those flies which were left alone mutated/naturally selected at ALL.

Click to expand...

__I apologize for my vernacular._

_For the tenth time, HOW is evolution theory a tautology?_

_I NEVER said there was proof of speciation occuring in the past. We have no time machine to “prove” it. But again, we have overwhelming evidence from 1) fossils 2) DNA 3) the way things currently work._

_Do you have a link to the original fruit fly study? I’ll go right to the source and explain it, because this is getting ridiculous._


----------



## Northern

bubba13 said:


> HOW is it a tautology? Do you want to take up my time by having me endlessly repeat myself? Because that's all that I can do for you. Re-read for comprehension, I've been really clear on HOW the theory is a tautology. By the way, what is the science-based evidence that supports Creationism? The topic is,"is there any scientific proof of Darwins' theory of evolution?" However, I'll answer that as best I can: There isn't any. From the 7 laws of the scientific process, an atheist cannot prove that there is a God. (not that he's going to want to, but using an atheist scientist for the purpose of lack of bias).
> 
> 
> With the scientific process, one can see/discover how _nature_ works, only. That said, the theory of evolution has this inherent "issue", as I said in OP, because it goes back to the_ first_ life-form, which raises the question of what the ORIGIN of life is. It's a "natural" question, because of our natural awareness of the principle of causation, yet God/Life is beyond the realm of nature.
> 
> However, we can carry on with the scientific process, which doesn't discriminate between atheist, agnostic, or believer.
> 
> As was the Nebraska man example, and all of the _Inherit the Wind_ "fallacies" you pulled out, and nearly every other example trotted out as a "fraud." Totally irrelevant to the _real_ science of the matter. Eliminating frauds, many of which are still in textbooks, is hardly irrelevant. Fraud of pepper moths was first "proof" presented to me on this thread. Would any evolutionists have straightened me out on that?
> 
> What do you mean, how are we going to find out? That webpage spells it out as clearly as can be, with direct quotes. How more blunt can it get?
> 
> What I mean, is, that now we have two histories of what happened; from two opposing sides! This is what you'll find on down the line re: this issue. So, to stick to the topic question, no *proof* of evolution found here, since it was a pig's tooth.


More later. I have to brush my teeth & stuff.


----------



## Northern

Pop-ups keep blocking my edit button, wanted to add that no one can prove Creationism scientifically, since bubba said Creationism/the Genesis account, rather than just "God".


----------



## Northern

bubba13 said:


> _ Most Creationists love to refute Darwin by totally redefining his words, saying he meant that people came from chimps, then laughing because chimps still exist. If that was not your intention, I apologize. Apology accepted. But how would a common ancestor possibly not be apelike? As I've said, how many times? - I'm only after the hard science, not trying to PROVE Genesis! Darwin SAID that man came from Old World Monkeys, & that the New World monkeys went down a separate branch. The original common ancestor could NOT be other than apelike! That this happened is yet unproven scientifically._
> 
> _Yes, all living organisms contain “some” of the same genetic material. The more they share, the more closely related they are, and the more recently they split off from the evolutionary path. Humans and daffodils diverged long, long before humans and other apelike creatures went their separate ways. By the fact of apes looking a lot like us, & being mammals, the 98.7 % seems to point to evolution, but the fact that daffodils look nothing like us, in fact are flowers instead of mammals, but STILL share *35%* genetic material is a less impressive argument for the genome argument, it seems to me._ You keep stating evolutionary theory as fact, bubba. If it were proven, we'd no longer be discussing it.
> 
> 
> 
> _Then why are you attempting to explain/interpret things in a scientific context when you have no understanding? It’s like me trying to translate the Hebrew Bible. Not gonna happen. _
> 
> _I was never interested in science; don't know how I skated by. I never read the genetic horse threads, therefore. Yet, I've come to appreciate the honest, logical scientific process through study here._
> 
> _For the tenth time, HOW is evolution theory a tautology? _
> 
> _For the 11th time, go back & read. I truly can't bring myself to repeat it._
> 
> _I NEVER said there was proof of speciation occuring in the past. We have no time machine to “prove” it. But again, we have overwhelming evidence from 1) fossils 2) DNA 3) the way things currently work._
> 
> _Yes, now I need to learn about the so-called "overwhelming evidence" from fossils, DNA, & the last one, I don't know to what you refer._
> 
> _Do you have a link to the original fruit fly study? I’ll go right to the source and explain it, because this is getting ridiculous._


 No, I don't. You'll have to google.


----------



## Northern

It seems to me that one of the parts of the theory has been proven, *partly*: mutation. Mutation of the AIDS virus has been proven to have happened & the proof is ongoing. 

Yet, Darwin said that mutation had to be "random/accidental", rather than coming from intelligence (I already quoted his statement that intelligence isn't a cause of mutation).

How is science to prove that mutation has no intelligence behind it?

On the "God issue": I said in prior post that science cannot prove that there is God, in answer to bubba: also, science cannot prove that there _isn't_ one. This is the ongoing emotional argument with this theory, between "evos" & Creationists.

This is why it makes sense to accept the discipline of dealing with hard science only.


----------



## bubba13

_



As I've said, how many times? - I'm only after the hard science, not trying to PROVE Genesis! Darwin SAID that man came from Old World Monkeys, & that the New World monkeys went down a separate branch. The original common ancestor could NOT be other than apelike! That this happened is yet unproven scientifically.

Click to expand...

_
_I have an honest question that I don’t know the answer to. How many apelike fossils of any type—whether of monkeys, primitive hominids, various apes, or humans—have scientists found from “old” time periods? If total numbers have been small, that might very well explain some of your “lack of evidence.”_

_Regardless, here is a link to peruse: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/cre_args.html_
_The main site: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/_

_



By the fact of apes looking a lot like us, & being mammals, the 98.7 % seems to point to evolution, but the fact that daffodils look nothing like us, in fact are flowers instead of mammals, but STILL share *35%* genetic material is a less impressive argument for the genome argument, it seems to me.

Click to expand...

_
_How do you figure? All of life shares a common ancestor. Genes code for proteins, and all of life requires many of the same proteins. The more closely organisms are related—the more recently they split off from a common ancestor—the more genetic information they share. Humans are more closely related to chimps than horses, more closely to horses than cockatiels, more closely to cockatiels than dandelions, and more closely to dandelions than E. coli. Phylogenetic evidence shows that the DNA percent match correlates with these relationships, as we would expect from phenotypic similarity and rate of gene mutation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetics _

_



You keep stating evolutionary theory as fact, bubba. If it were proven, we'd no longer be discussing it.

Click to expand...

_Not so. People are very good at denying facts and turning a blind eye to blatant evidence. Denial is bliss.

_



For the 11th time, go back & read. I truly can't bring myself to repeat it.

Click to expand...

_
_All you have said is, “It is circular reasoning and thus cannot be disproven!” and yet you have never explained said circular process. Because, in short, it is not circular._

_Also, do you know how many –thousands- of fruit fly studies have been published? How in the world am I supposed to magically google and find the right one? This is all I turned up, and it’s not much use. http://whyfiles.org/shorties/285fly_taste/ _


----------



## bubba13

> _The topic is,"is there any scientific proof of Darwins' theory of evolution?" However, I'll answer that as best I can: There isn't any. From the 7 laws of the scientific process, an atheist cannot prove that there is a God. (not that he's going to want to, but using an atheist scientist for the purpose of lack of bias)._




_No one can prove or disprove the existence of God. We’ve beaten around the “proof” bush a zillion times, but no one has come up with any evidence that casts even a shred of doubt on evolution (or supports an alternative process), while loads and loads of evidence has been compiled that very much supports the theory.__


__



With the scientific process, one can see/discover how nature works, only. That said, the theory of evolution has this inherent "issue", as I said in OP, because it goes back to the first life-form, which raises the question of what the ORIGIN of life is. It's a "natural" question, because of our natural awareness of the principle of causation, yet God/Life is beyond the realm of nature.

Click to expand...

_ 
_Again. Evolution has NOTHING to do with the origin of life. That is a separate issue. Evolution as it relates to speciation begins with a single bacterium. It does not matter how that bacterium got there. It may have arisen spontaneously from the primordial ooze. Aliens may have planted it there. God may have created it. Doesn’t matter. After that, natural selection takes over, and a few billion years later, its great-to-the-power-of-Avogadro’s-number grandchild is sitting here, typing these very words.__


_


> It seems to me that one of the parts of the theory has been proven, *partly*: mutation. Mutation of the AIDS virus has been proven to have happened & the proof is ongoing.


 
Random mutation—in all organisms—has been more than proven, and is always ongoing. That is where genetic diseases arise from, for one example. 



> Yet, Darwin said that mutation had to be "random/accidental", rather than coming from intelligence (I already quoted his statement that intelligence isn't a cause of mutation).


 
Yes, the mutation is random. Is it possible that this “randomness” is directed by a higher power? Sure. Regardless of what Darwin believed. Just because he gets his name attached to it, that doesn’t mean he’s the end all and be all of evolutionary theory. Far from it. His ideas seem pretty primitive nowadays. He didn’t even know a thing about genes!


----------



## Northern

bubba13 said:


> _I have an honest question that I don’t know the answer to. How many apelike fossils of any type—whether of monkeys, primitive hominids, various apes, or humans—have scientists found from “old” time periods? If total numbers have been small, that might very well explain some of your “lack of evidence.”_
> 
> As I said, that's the next "dept." I need to look at; now that we've gotten the frauds out of the way. I've stumbled over "none" that prove the theory quite a lot, but need to know more.
> 
> _Regardless, here is a link to peruse: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/cre_args.html_
> _The main site: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/_
> 
> 
> 
> _How do you figure? All of life shares a common ancestor. Genes code for proteins, and all of life requires many of the same proteins. The more closely organisms are related—the more recently they split off from a common ancestor—the more genetic information they share. Humans are more closely related to chimps than horses, more closely to horses than cockatiels, more closely to cockatiels than dandelions, and more closely to dandelions than E. coli. Phylogenetic evidence shows that the DNA percent match correlates with these relationships, as we would expect from phenotypic similarity and rate of gene mutation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetics _
> 
> _My answer on the daffodils wasn't scientific, true, it was just my emotional response to finding that DAFFODILS share about 1/3 of our genes, & they're flowers. When I first learned that we share 98.7 with apes, I was impressed, & learning about the daffodils tempered that. Do you happen to know the % we share with horsjes?_
> 
> 
> _All you have said is, “It is circular reasoning and thus cannot be disproven!” and yet you have never explained said circular process. Because, in short, it is not circular. _
> 
> _Yes, I_ did_, as best as I could. Here's a reminder: when evolutionists say that the "fit" always survive, then whatever/whoever survives always proves the theory! That's circular reasoning. That's what happened in the fruit fly case I already typed out: the scientists set out to prove that a mutation to avoid poison would make the flies fitter for survival/reproduction, never dreaming that the opposite would occur, yet WHEN the mutated flies died, & the UNmutated flies lived/reproduced, the scientists cleverly said, "It's survival of the fittest after all!" The reason was that "cleverness poses survival risks/those poison-avoiding flies were too smart for their own good!" So, this case shows how whatever survives "proves" the theory. Except that it doesn't. As I said, the only thing this experiment proved was that these scientists were clueless as to how to help fruit flies survive/reproduce. Remember?_
> 
> _I got this account from ACoulter, so I never had an online source._
> 
> _Also, do you know how many –thousands- of fruit fly studies have been published? How in the world am I supposed to magically google and find the right one? This is all I turned up, and it’s not much use. http://whyfiles.org/shorties/285fly_taste/ _




_ Really, I was faithful to AC's account, so I don't see the need to find it from another source. It's a simple story that would be hard to put a spin on, I trust that you'd agree._


----------



## sarahver

I have more evidence, this time documenting natural selection as an agent leading to the development of AIDS resistance in some populations in Africa. Also makes reference to, and is the same principle as, the sickle cell/malaria example previously discussed.

http://fire.biol.wwu.edu/trent/trent/HIVnaturalselection.pdf

Was going to write more but am exhausted *yawn*


----------



## Northern

bubba13 said:


> Yes, the mutation is random. Is it possible that this “randomness” is directed by a higher power? Sure. Regardless of what Darwin believed. Just because he gets his name attached to it, that doesn’t mean he’s the end all and be all of evolutionary theory. Far from it. His ideas seem pretty primitive nowadays. He didn’t even know a thing about genes!


"the mutation is random/chance" conflicts with "the mutation's randomness is DIRECTED by a higher power", as I see it. There's a possibility of starting the "randomness machine", & letting it do its thing, however. Yet, I don't see that the randomness, whichever way it's meant, can be proven to BE random/undirected by a higher intelligence. You can't forget about the claim of randomness/chance, because it's intrinsic to the theory.

And that's more of the built-in circular reasoning of the theory. The very first words, "random/chance mutation" are an unprovable tautology, yet of course, within the scientific realm, can never be DISproven.


----------



## Northern

Sarah want to say that my pc doesn't like pdf's! Sorry!:wink:


----------



## sarahver

Northern said:


> "the mutation is random/chance" conflicts with "the mutation's randomness is DIRECTED by a higher power", as I see it. There's a possibility of starting the "randomness machine", & letting it do its thing, however. Yet, I don't see that the randomness, whichever way it's meant, can be proven to BE random/undirected by a higher intelligence. You can't forget about the claim of randomness/chance, because it's intrinsic to the theory.
> 
> And that's more of the built-in circular reasoning of the theory. The very first words, "random/chance mutation" are an unprovable tautology, yet of course, within the scientific realm, can never be DISproven.


I don't know if I am so tired that I am seeing double or just having trouble comprehending, but if I understand this correctly this is a suggestion that the random mutation is not random at all but in fact directed by a higher power?

If that is the idea, well perhaps. It is possible. Who am I to say?

Randomness is defined by mathematics, a very earthly concept. Mathmatics, and other sciences are defined concepts, celestial input really is a separate issue.

Regardless of whether the mutation is random or sent from above, genetic evidence will tell the same story: That we are more closely related to chimps than we are to armadillos.

Sorry I forgot about the pdf thing, you are missing out on the GOOD stuff!!


----------



## bubba13

_



My answer on the daffodils wasn't scientific, true, it was just my emotional response to finding that DAFFODILS share about 1/3 of our genes, & they're flowers. When I first learned that we share 98.7 with apes, I was impressed, & learning about the daffodils tempered that. Do you happen to know the % we share with horsjes?

Click to expand...

_ 
_Wish I did, but google though I might, I can’t find it. I distinctly recall being handed a sheet sometime in my eighth grade year that detailed the percent DNA overlap of various organisms and humans. Of the selected species, chimps topped the list (obviously) and slime mold was at the bottom (yuck). Among the mammals, I was mildly surprised to see that we are more closely related to kangaroos than horses, but I can’t recall the actual numbers._

_Be careful, though, about saying “genes” when you instead want “DNA.” Much of DNA is not genes, meaning that it does not code for proteins. Rather, it is evolutionary baggage whose actual function is largely yet unknown—may be partially obsolete and redundant, may be involved in regulation of gene expression, may have to do with epigenetics (which is not all that related to the topic at hand, but an interesting read if you’ve got the time). The non-coding (non-gene) portion of DNA undergoes random mutations at the same rate as the gene portion, but it is less likely to have hugely devastating or beneficial results. Instead, since we know the rate at which mutations occur, we can “go back in time” to see how long ago two species diverged.






Yes, I did, as best as I could. Here's a reminder: when evolutionists say that the "fit" always survive, then whatever/whoever survives always proves the theory! That's circular reasoning.

Click to expand...

_ 
_Common sense scenario: I have two pedigreed dogs. Both, of course, belong to the same species. One is a malamute and one is a Mexican hairless. I move to the Antarctic and turn my dogs loose to fend for themselves. Which one lasts longer? Which one goes on to have puppies and pass on its genetic material, assuming there are other dogs in the area and there are plenty of penguins to eat?_

_And so on._

_



That's what happened in the fruit fly case I already typed out: the scientists set out to prove that a mutation to avoid poison would make the flies fitter for survival/reproduction, never dreaming that the opposite would occur, yet WHEN the mutated flies died, & the UNmutated flies lived/reproduced, the scientists cleverly said, "It's survival of the fittest after all!" The reason was that "cleverness poses survival risks/those poison-avoiding flies were too smart for their own good!" So, this case shows how whatever survives "proves" the theory. Except that it doesn't. As I said, the only thing this experiment proved was that these scientists were clueless as to how to help fruit flies survive/reproduce. Remember?

Click to expand...

_

_I would disagree with some of the interpretation. Obviously, to begin with, the hypothesis was incorrect. Happens all the time…. Now, given the scenario of two flies identical in every single way except that one eats poison and one doesn’t, which will live when there is poison around? The latter, obviously. Except that’s not what the results showed. So we must attack our premises, since the conclusion seems sound. The flies must NOT be identical in every single other way. The scientists failed to detect the other (catastrophic) occurrences that are linked to poison-aversion. Given what we know of epigenetics and gene linkage, there is almost certainly some sort of negative phenotypic repercussion that is tied to the poison-aversion gene. Like how whiteness in horses is linked to intestinal problems and death in the homozygous form (overo lethal white syndrome; dominant white). White color itself does not kill you (unless you get cancer from sun exposure or something). But the faulty gene that makes you white has other effects, and one of them is OLWS._

_If the part about cleverness in quotation marks is a direct quote from the researchers, than I vehemently disagree with their reasoning until given more information._

_Don’t you think that there would be more poison-avoiding flies in the wild if they were better adapted for survival?_
_
__



I got this account from ACoulter, so I never had an online source.

Click to expand...

_ 
_Title/date/publication info???

_


----------



## bubba13

Northern said:


> "the mutation is random/chance" conflicts with "the mutation's randomness is DIRECTED by a higher power", as I see it. There's a possibility of starting the "randomness machine", & letting it do its thing, however. Yet, I don't see that the randomness, whichever way it's meant, can be proven to BE random/undirected by a higher intelligence. You can't forget about the claim of randomness/chance, because it's intrinsic to the theory.
> 
> And that's more of the built-in circular reasoning of the theory. The very first words, "random/chance mutation" are an unprovable tautology, yet of course, within the scientific realm, can never be DISproven.


This is something that is beyond our comprehension.

It certainly appears random to our eyes. During sexual reproduction, when meiosis occurs and egg and sperm are formed, the recombination of genes is an entirely happenstantial process. Some recombination is intentional and gives genetic diversity. Some is accidental, and results in diseases like Down Syndrome (trisomy 21--interesting process if you look it up). Then there can be errors during crossing-over (that is likely how the gray gene developed in horses--part of a chromosome was replicated and laid back to back when it shouldn't have been). There can be errors (and are errors, despite the cell's rigorous double-checking) during normal DNA replication. Many genetic diseases, again like sickle cell anemia or PSSM in horses, are caused by a single base substitution! This is mind-boggling.

There is a theoretical/philosophical entity called Laplace's Demon which can see all atoms and particles at the same time. Knowing their initial positions and velocities, it can thus predict all future events stemming from the first mover. Suddenly macro-random events are explained by micro-controlled motion.

Now, quantum mechanics and the Heisenbuerg Uncertainty Principle have brought the randomness back into the micro sphere. They say the Demon's knowledge is impossible to ascertain. It is beyond human comprehension.

But could some multidimensional Higher Being understand and control it? Why not? "Random" is a relative term.


----------



## bubba13

While looking up Laplace stuff for confirmation, I stumbled upon this review of Ann Coulter's _Godless_, which should certainly interest you, Northern. The Coulter Hoax: How Ann Coulter Exposed the Intelligent Design Movement | LiveScience


----------



## bubba13

Managed to track down not the original fruit fly article, but a review (check it out: The Cost of Smarts | The Loom | Discover Magazine ). From the comments I gleaned what was going on.

The "smart" flies had more motor connections / neurons, which required more energy to support, which burned them out too fast and so they had shorter lifespans. Makes perfect sense, really.

Cleverness didn't kill them. They just couldn't keep up the energy / metabolism to support their own ganglia.


----------



## Northern

Before I respond to the latest posts, I want to say that I realize that I don't believe in the "old earth". This is nothing that I can prove scientifically, it's a feeling in my heart. Now, AC seems to accept the "old earth" belief, since she discusses the Cambrian Period, which lasted about 5 million years, if I recall. 

My lack of belief in the old earth probably will make discussion of evo even more difficult. I can only be honest: the statements including an old earth leave me cold.

Here's a question: if we all are the products of "survival of the fittest", how is the belief in God explained? It is centuries old, & a characteristic of many people.


----------



## Northern

bubba13 said:


> _Common sense scenario: I have two pedigreed dogs. Both, of course, belong to the same species. One is a malamute and one is a Mexican hairless. I move to the Antarctic and turn my dogs loose to fend for themselves. Which one lasts longer? Which one goes on to have puppies and pass on its genetic material, assuming there are other dogs in the area and there are plenty of penguins to eat? Barring a miracle, the malamute, but it ALREADY was equipped for survival; there was no mutation. The hairless also, wouldn't have had rapid mutation that would enable it to survive. So, I don't see how this example proves any of the 3 parts of evolution._


Whatever is said about genes, I accept, because it's proven.


----------



## Northern

[/QUOTE]



bubba13 said:


> It certainly appears random to our eyes. Ok, but the theory CLAIMS "random"! During sexual reproduction, when meiosis occurs and egg and sperm are formed, the recombination of genes is an entirely happenstantial process._ Apparently_, to some humans. :wink:
> There is a theoretical/philosophical entity called Laplace's Demon I'll pass on the theoretical/philosophical demon. Too many RRs as it is! :wink:
> 
> "Random" is a relative term.


The facts are not relative terms, though, & facts are the goal of science.


----------



## Northern

bubba13 said:


> The Coulter Hoax: How Ann Coulter Exposed the Intelligent Design Movement | LiveScience


 Thanks. Upon my first quick read-through, I'm unconvinced that AC's book is a hoax. I'll read again tomorrow.



bubba13 said:


> Managed to track down not the original fruit fly article, but a review (check it out: The Cost of Smarts | The Loom | Discover Magazine ). From the comments I gleaned what was going on.
> 
> The "smart" flies had more motor connections / neurons, which required more energy to support, which burned them out too fast and so they had shorter lifespans. Makes perfect sense, really.
> 
> Cleverness didn't kill them. They just couldn't keep up the energy / metabolism to support their own ganglia.


 It wasn't general cleverness, but the "cleverness" of poison-avoidance, which required more motor connections/neurons, etc. It's neat to know exactly what caused the shorter lifespans, though; thanks. Evolution isn't proven by the experiment, though; all that was proven was that the scientists lacked knowledge.


----------



## sarahver

Northern said:


> My lack of belief in the old earth probably will make discussion of evo even more difficult. I can only be honest: the statements including an old earth leave me cold.
> 
> Here's a question: if we all are the products of "survival of the fittest", how is the belief in God explained? It is centuries old, & a characteristic of many people.


Two things: 

I can deal with your disbelief an old earth. It was your definition of randomness that threw me more. Mathematical randomness depends on a two main concepts; probablility and statistical significance. In this case to compare randomness as defined by science with randomness as defined by a higher presence would be comparing apples and oranges. 

Second, anthrolopogically speaking, religion is present in various forms in all culture. Religion itself, _cross culturally_ is the systematic patterns of beliefs, values, and behavior and can be found in hundreds of forms throughout the globe with different references to deities. No offense here but God as you know him is not universal. However the idea of an Omniscient being IS universal and in every culture. More than just centuries old in many religions too :wink:

Sociologists suggest that such belief systems help to explain the unexplainable (bumper crop years vs. times of drought) and to instill a sense of deservedness for the hard working (I will be rewarded) and a sense of dread for the immoral (I will be punished).



Northern said:


> Whatever is said about genes, I accept, because it's proven.


HA! Gotcha now...


OK so think of Darwin's theory as a bottom up approach: Trying to prove evolution with a theory that begins at the beginning i.e. origin of species (all terminology quibbles aside for the moment).

Genetics however takes a top down approach: Looking at the similarity of genes between species and asking why are they so similar? Assessing patterns of similarities between species and making conclusions based upon DNA sequences.

Here is a picture that probably won't clarify anything but I am hoping it may demonstrate the kind of similarity I am talking about. This is a picture comparing the sequence similarity of the mouse/human SR gene, involved in immune response.

On the y axis is a percentage, this is the percentage similarity between the two at the DNA level. Each individual graph is a splice variant, for the purposes of simplicity splice variants are alternative forms of the same gene.

On the x axis is the number of bases, e.g. how many nucleotides are in that particular piece of DNA, starting from 0 and extending up to 50,000 for the largest splice variant.

The red bars at the top of the graph that are marked '217 nucleotides' or the like represent areas of 100% identity.

Blue shaded regions are coding regions which are the parts of the gene that express protein.









So what does this say? Well, that there is some conservation between the mouse and human DNA in this particular gene. Given such a low mutation rate in the mammalian genes (1 X 10-7 per base ber generation roughly) how on earth did these two organisms evolve such _similar_ genes?

It is estimated that there are around 30,000 genes in the human genome and roughly the same number in the mouse. Many of which share strikingly similar characteristics. What are the chances of that many genes evolving seperately and becoming so similar? In so many different species?

This example is just ONE gene between TWO species. In reality there are thousands of genes in thousands of species that have been show to have such similar characteristics.

If you look at the zebrafish there is less similarity but still regions of conservation, particularly in constitutively expressed cellular regulation type of genes. If you look at chimp genes they are almost exactly the same as human genes. This is the logic behind the reasoning: The mutation rate is known, the generation time is known so by looking at the genes, identifying those that are most similar and then working backwards, evolutionary relationships can be determined.

Basically, phylogenetics takes a different approach by comparing genetic similarity and classifying organisms based on the findings, starting from today, in the here and now, and working backwards.


----------



## bubba13

Northern said:


> Here's a question: if we all are the products of "survival of the fittest", how is the belief in God explained? It is centuries old, & a characteristic of many people.


I read recently in a Temple Grandin book that there is actually a region of the human brain that, when stimulated, gives you a feeling of knowing a higher power; of being in God's presence. All people have this, despite all of their very different cultural and religious beliefs.

Maybe it's a fluke. Maybe the Divine Being planted it there. Maybe it actually is a "survival of the fittest" evolutionary mechanism that gives people hope to go on in desperate times.


----------



## bubba13

_



Barring a miracle, the malamute, but it ALREADY was equipped for survival; there was no mutation. The hairless also, wouldn't have had rapid mutation that would enable it to survive. So, I don't see how this example proves any of the 3 parts of evolution.

Click to expand...

_ 
_Survival of the fittest! The malamute is fit, the hairless is not. So we know (it is proven) that there is random mutation (you can call it “random” mutation, if you prefer). We know (it has been shown) that some of these mutations have beneficial phenotypic effects. For example, long, thick fur in dogs (granted this did not occur in the time frame of observation). Or if you prefer, resistance to malaria. Or antibiotic resistance in bacteria, as we have actually witnessed that one in action. _

_That the fit survive and the unfit die is hardly something that needs to be proven time and time again with rigorous scientific experimentation. It’s simply common sense, and something we can see every day in our own backyards._

_What happens to albino deer in the wild?_

____________

_Unrelated to the above: Did you check out the talkorigin links from a few posts back, about the fossil evidence for human evolution?_

_I do recommend you reread the Ann Coulter review. Sounds like someone may have been bamboozled; hoodwinked...._


----------



## Whisper22

Romans 1:25 declares, “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.”

“The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'” (Psalm 14:1; 53:1)
Apearantly Northern was right.

Foolishness does not imply a lack of intelligence. Most evolutionary scientists are brilliant intellectually. Foolishness indicates an inability to properly apply knowledge. Proverbs 1:7 tells us, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline.”

"For atheism to be true, there must be an alternate explanation—other than a Creator—for how the universe and life came into existence. Although belief in some form of evolution predated Charles Darwin, he was the first to develop a plausible model for the process of evolution—natural selection. Darwin once identified himself as a Christian but as a result of some tragedies that took place in his life, he later renounced the Christian faith and the existence of God. Evolution was invented by an atheist. Darwin's goal was not to disprove God's existence, but that is one of the end results of the theory of evolution. Evolution is an enabler of atheism. Evolutionary scientists likely would not admit that their goal is to give an alternate explanation of the origins of life, and thereby to give a foundation for atheism, but according to the Bible, that is exactly why the theory of evolution exists."

My take on the whole thing is that you can begin to prove almost anything if you go searching for "evidence" to prove your already formed idea. The tricky part is forming ideas based on evidence already found. 

Charles Darwin NEEDED another explaination for our existence.


----------



## Whisper22

I don't get the whole fruit fly thing. As I said, I'm not a science person at all. But from what I gather, whoever is conducting that experiment, has an idea that they desperately want the fruit flies to prove. So whenever they do the tiniest thing the say "SEE, EVIDENCE!"


----------



## Northern

sarahver said:


> HA! Gotcha now... to clarify, I said that I've no problem with genetics, because it's been verified over so many years, & applied to things in real life, like horse breeding. I recall it was a monk named Mendel who first discovered genes in a plant (peas?) & was able to _demonstrate_, via_ results_, how genetics works. So, genetics doesn't prove evolution.


 Haven't studied the rest of your post, need to do that later.



bubba13 said:


> I read recently in a Temple Grandin book that there is actually a region of the human brain that, when stimulated, gives you a feeling of knowing a higher power; of being in God's presence. All people have this, despite all of their very different cultural and religious beliefs.  I got her book at library, & I want to type later how EMOTIONS are necessary for SURVIVAL! Proven that if your emotional "components" are disabled, you will not be able to make decisions to take care of yourself!
> 
> Maybe it's a fluke. Maybe the Divine Being planted it there. Maybe it actually is a "survival of the fittest" evolutionary mechanism that gives people hope to go on in desperate times.


 Well, bubba, this is the problem with evolutionists: nothing but "maybes" & "might haves".



Whisper22 said:


> I don't get the whole fruit fly thing. As I said, I'm not a science person at all. That's ok, around here we don't judge you for that. :wink:But from what I gather, whoever is conducting that experiment, has an idea that they desperately want the fruit flies to prove. So whenever they do the tiniest thing the say "SEE, EVIDENCE!"


 DING!DING!DING! That's the circular reasoning! Whoever/whatever survives, it proves "survival of the fittest"! 

Put the malamute & the hairless in the desert, & the hairless would survive, but the evolutionist would say, "See? Survival of the fittest"! So, WHICH dog is the "fittest"? It depends on the environment! Also, the example of the malamute & the hairless doesn't prove survival of the fittest from the standpoint that BOTH dogs came from SUCCESSFUL mutations!

Gotta take care of my life so I can survive to post more,:lol: later!


----------



## JustDressageIt

Oh Good Lord. This discussion is going nowhere. Northern, why are you arguing things you haven't the faintest clue about?


----------



## sarahver

Northern said:


> Haven't studied the rest of your post, need to do that later.


You are 100% correct about Mendel, father of modern genetics. Led to the concept of Mendelian inheritance patterns. Genetics is very much about inheritance; where things came from. Because of this it has EVERYTHING to do with evolution.

The rest of my last post goes into more detail, I won't bore everyone to tears with re-iterating.


----------



## Northern

JustDressageIt said:


> Oh Good Lord. This discussion is going nowhere. Northern, why are you arguing things you haven't the faintest clue about?


JDI, you're welcome to join the discussion with something constructive. Your post here shows nothing of the sort. 

Also, you have no idea what I know or don't know. You don't know me, so to dismiss me as being entirely ignorant is just personal attack. 

So, enlighten us with your understanding, JDI.


----------



## Northern

bubba, I read the article claiming AC's "Godless" is a hoax atempting to point up the "fact" that the right has gone "conspiracy theory" on the left. This article is rife with error & biased atheistic statements, like how some scientist *showed* how the hand of God doesn't uphold the solar system. The book is NOT a hoax, but rather a straightforward explanation of the liberal agenda, which is in fact a religion at this point, the first 7 chapters of which discuss the evidence of this aside from the evolution discussion of the last 4 chapters. This article's author may have been smoking funny-smelling cigarettes.


----------



## Northern

sarahver said:


> Two things:
> 
> I can deal with your disbelief an old earth. That's good of you; evolutionists often pounce on those who don't trust the dating methods. However, AC says that the theory of evolution doesn't have to do with how old the earth is. True, it's not stated as part of the 3-part theory, but every evolutionist opts for "old", so seems that all those extra millions of years for the creation of new species is figured as helpful to find "proofs". It was your definition of randomness that threw me more. Mathematical randomness depends on a two main concepts; probablility and statistical significance. In this case to compare randomness as defined by science with randomness as defined by a higher presence would be comparing apples and oranges. Yes, we do need to define our terms.
> Second, anthrolopogically speaking, religion is present in various forms in all culture. Yes, so how is this phenom explained via evolution (the phenom has survived through the generations)?
> 
> OK so think of Darwin's theory as a bottom up approach: Trying to prove evolution with a theory that begins at the beginning i.e. origin of species (all terminology quibbles aside for the moment). Yes, "bottoms up!":wink:
> 
> Genetics however takes a top down approach: Looking at the similarity of genes between species and asking why are they so similar? Assessing patterns of similarities between species and making conclusions based upon DNA sequences. Yes.
> 
> Here is a picture that probably won't clarify anything Clarify? It makes my eyes glaze over! :shock:
> Blue shaded regions are coding regions which are the parts of the gene that express protein. Don't they always?:lol:
> 
> It is estimated that there are around 30,000 genes in the human genome and roughly the same number in the mouse. Is that why the cat loves them meeses to pieces? Many of which share strikingly similar characteristics. What are the chances of that many genes evolving seperately and becoming so similar? In so many different species? No chance at all, unless we have evolution! :shock: Random chance is the ONLY chance!:wink:
> 
> This example is just ONE gene between TWO species. In reality there are thousands of genes in thousands of species that have been show to have such similar characteristics. Right, but thousands of genes shared by thousands of species does not prove evolution.
> 
> This is the logic behind the reasoning: The mutation rate is known, the generation time is known so by looking at the genes, identifying those that are most similar and then working backwards, evolutionary relationships can be determined. I don't see how, because you can only go back so far, then all that you have are fossils, which don't show parent-to-descendant relationships.
> 
> Basically, phylogenetics takes a different approach by comparing genetic similarity and classifying organisms based on the findings, starting from today, in the here and now, and working backwards.


 Yes, and that makes a LOT more sense. Which is why it WORKS, in horse breeding, e.g.


----------



## Northern

Whisper22 said:


> Romans 1:25 declares, “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.”
> 
> “The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'” (Psalm 14:1; 53:1)
> Apearantly Northern was right. What are the mathematical probabilities of that?
> 
> Foolishness does not imply a lack of intelligence. Most evolutionary scientists are brilliant intellectually. I know, right? Foolishness indicates an inability to properly apply knowledge. Like the scientists who were going to improve the survival odds of the fruit flies! Proverbs 1:7 tells us, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline.”  I know, right? Since the fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, HOW ON EARTH can an atheist/agnostic give you knowledge? The author of this theory was an agnostic.
> 
> Darwin's goal was not to disprove God's existence, but that is one of the end results of the theory of evolution. Evolution is an enabler of atheism. Evolutionary scientists likely would not admit that their goal is to give an alternate explanation of the origins of life, and thereby to give a foundation for atheism, but according to the Bible, that is exactly why the theory of evolution exists. Bears repeating!
> 
> My take on the whole thing is that you can begin to prove almost anything if you go searching for "evidence" to prove your already formed idea. Yes! That's where evo's say, "give us more time": more time for a new species to emerge out of an old one, for the "missing link" to be unearthed in the fossil record, etc. Basing science on evidence "already found": well, yeah!
> 
> Charles Darwin NEEDED another explaination for our existence.


Yes, about as much as he needed a hole in his head!


----------



## Northern

*Temple Grandin: emotions are for survival*

Quotes, sometimes paraphrased: 

"Emotion is so important that if you had to choose between having an intact emotion system in the brain and having an intact cognitive system, the right choice [for survival] would be emotion....In the brain, logic and reason are never separate from emotion...either positive or negative. Nothing is neutral...People with brain damage to their emotional systems have a horrible time making any decision at all, and when they do make a decision, it's usually bad_...Descarte's Error, _by Dr. Damasio. Dr. D has done a huge amount of work with frontal lobe patients who lost the ability to have what we call a _gut feeling_. Even though these patients still had completely normal IQs and logical reasoning abilities, they couldn't function as normal adults. They needed other adults to take care of them...Nature seems to have tried to wire animals and people to have_ useful emotions, useful meaning emotions that keep us alive long enough to reproduce._ Emotions keep us alive by letting us make good predictions about the future, and good predictions let us make good decisions about what comes next."


----------



## bubba13

Whisper22 said:


> Romans 1:25 declares, “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.”


And that is relevant....how? Who's worshipping idols?



> “The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'” (Psalm 14:1; 53:1)
> Apearantly Northern was right.


Evolution, AGAIN AGAIN AGAIN, has nothing whatsoever to do with the existence or absence of God. It's a totally separate issue.



> Foolishness does not imply a lack of intelligence. Most evolutionary scientists are brilliant intellectually. Foolishness indicates an inability to properly apply knowledge. Proverbs 1:7 tells us, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline.”


So if we gain knowledge that contradicts earlier beliefs (for which there is no evidence), we must discount our new learnings because we must instead believe blindly in what we have been told? That's bass-ackwards, and the exact OPPOSITE of how wisdom and discipline work.



> "For atheism to be true, there must be an alternate explanation—other than a Creator—for how the universe and life came into existence.


That is true, as it relates to atheism and the origin of life. But evolution has NOTHING to do with either.



> Although belief in some form of evolution predated Charles Darwin, he was the first to develop a plausible model for the process of evolution—natural selection. Darwin once identified himself as a Christian but as a result of some tragedies that took place in his life, he later renounced the Christian faith and the existence of God. Evolution was invented by an atheist.


Evolution was not invented by an atheist or anyone else. Evolution was "invented" by natural processes, chemistry, physics, and whatever else you have. Including an Intelligent Creator, if you want.



> Darwin's goal was not to disprove God's existence, but that is one of the end results of the theory of evolution.


How does evolution deny the existence of God? Oh, that's right, it doesn't.



> Evolution is an enabler of atheism.


Only if you let it.



> Evolutionary scientists likely would not admit that their goal is to give an alternate explanation of the origins of life, and thereby to give a foundation for atheism, but according to the Bible, that is exactly why the theory of evolution exists."


According to the Bible? So the Bible mentions evolutionary scientists? News to me.

EVOLUTION DOES NOT EXPLAIN THE INITIAL ORIGINS OF LIFE.

IT DOES NOT GIVE A FOUNDATION FOR ATHEISM.



> My take on the whole thing is that you can begin to prove almost anything if you go searching for "evidence" to prove your already formed idea. The tricky part is forming ideas based on evidence already found.


No, you can't proof anything unless there IS evidence, and there WON'T be evidence unless such a thing exists. Want to prove that there are Reptilian Royals? Fine. Where's the evidence? Nowhere. Nothing but crappy circustantial speculation and off-kilter, beyond-crazy conspiracy theories.

GOOD science, which is the only REAL science, does not operate in the way you just typed. It doesn't make stuff up or "prove" hypotheses before testing. Scientists are disappointed to see their hypotheses fail every day. But they don't fudge their results to give the expected results anyway. Instead, it's back to the drawing board to try again. They wouldn't last long as scientists, otherwise--they'd be ridiculed and fired, and they'd sure never get any research published.



Whisper22 said:


> I don't get the whole fruit fly thing. As I said, I'm not a science person at all. But from what I gather, whoever is conducting that experiment, has an idea that they desperately want the fruit flies to prove. So whenever they do the tiniest thing the say "SEE, EVIDENCE!"


OK, that's may be what you gather, but it's flat-out wrong.

The fruit flies did NOT give the expected results. Instead, scientists were excited to learn something NEW which they had not anticipated. It was a bonus that greatly improved their understanding of neural connections as they relate to longevity. Which had nothing to do with the original study, but it was a fortuitous surprise.



JustDressageIt said:


> Oh Good Lord. This discussion is going nowhere. Northern, why are you arguing things you haven't the faintest clue about?


Because it's far easier to attack something you don't understand than something you do. Grab the tail end of an argument--the only part written in layman's terms--and then find some crazy kook who will refute it. Like, say, some blogger raging about how the landing on the moon was staged, or how Elvis is still alive. Nevermind all of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary--check this out! Proof: Elvis is Alive!! - Elvis Presley, the man, the myth, the legend, the king of rock-n-roll, IS ALIVE and working as an undercover agent for the DEA


----------



## bubba13

> Well, bubba, this is the problem with evolutionists: nothing but "maybes" & "might haves".




Ah, but some people are wise enough to be very careful about giving absolutes. If we do not know the EXACT answer, and do not have it pinned down carefully with complete and total proof, then we will not claim to know. A marked contrast from the way the rest of the blustering world works, I know.

“Only a fool knows everything. The wise man knows how little he knows.” – Anonymous

“I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.” – Socrates




> DING!DING!DING! That's the circular reasoning! Whoever/whatever survives, it proves "survival of the fittest"!
> 
> Put the malamute & the hairless in the desert, & the hairless would survive, but the evolutionist would say, "See? Survival of the fittest"! So, WHICH dog is the "fittest"? It depends on the environment! Also, the example of the malamute & the hairless doesn't prove survival of the fittest from the standpoint that BOTH dogs came from SUCCESSFUL mutations!


 
DING!DING!DING! Of COURSE it depends on environment! In fact, that’s kind of the whole point!

If the environment did not ever change and species remained in stagnant conditions eternally, there would be no evolution. Natural selection would continue to weed out the unfit individuals, but the characteristics of the fit ones would remain constant. That’s why humans and domestic animals are not currently under any extreme evolutionary pressures—we have controlled our environment in a static state.

But for all other species, the environment DOES change over eons. Ice ages, shifting of continents, the introduction of new predatory or competing species, natural catastrophes, etc. What was once a swamp is now a desert. If the swamp-dwelling critters don’t change, drastically, they will die as surely as the hairless dog in the blizzard.


----------



## bubba13

> bubba, I read the article claiming AC's "Godless" is a hoax atempting to point up the "fact" that the right has gone "conspiracy theory" on the left. This article is rife with error & biased atheistic statements, like how some scientist *showed* how the hand of God doesn't uphold the solar system. The book is NOT a hoax, but rather a straightforward explanation of the liberal agenda, which is in fact a religion at this point, the first 7 chapters of which discuss the evidence of this aside from the evolution discussion of the last 4 chapters. This article's author may have been smoking funny-smelling cigarettes.


 
Quote from the review: “Inserting mystical or religious explanations for natural phenomena is not new and did not even escape the great Isaac Newton. He believed that the solar system was unstable and required the occasional touch of the hand of God to stay in order. Later, the French scientist Pierre-Simon Laplace showed that the solar system was indeed stable without the hand of God. By that time, Newton was long dead but would easily have accepted Laplace’s theory about the solar system without losing his faith that God was ultimately responsible for its creation.”

HOW does that say or prove that God does not exist? Oh, that’s right, again it doesn’t. It simply says that the laws of motion of planets work just hunky-dory without God’s constant intervention, regardless of whether or not God exists. Beware of gross misinterpretations and extrapolations.

How is this atheism on the author’s part? 
“The tale of Newton and Laplace brings us to the question why there is, in some circles, such fear of science. Coulter points out that no science is frightening to Christians, thus encouraging people to accept that scientific results are not a threat to their faith. I certainly agree. Richard Dawkins and Kenneth Miller disagree about God’s existence, and it is up to you to decide with whom you agree. 
However, when it comes to evolutionary biology, they agree and they know what they are talking about. It is unfortunate that some people are so insecure in their faith that they fear their own intellects, especially as the concept of man’s free choice is central in Christian theology, making it perfectly logical that God has created the world so that we can explain it without assuming Him as a hypothesis. Coulter offers these encouraging words: ‘Of course it’s possible to believe in God and in evolution” and “If evolution is true, then God created evolution.’”

Answer: It isn’t. Actually sounds to me like the author may very well believe in God.


I am absolutely appalled at the treatment of “liberalism” as a religion. How many democrats/liberals are Christians? **** many. And I’d wager a guess that some of them are Creationists, too.



> I know, right? Since the fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, HOW ON EARTH can an atheist/agnostic give you knowledge? The author of this theory was an agnostic.




Buddha and Socrates sure were no-nothing idiots, weren’t they?


----------



## Northern

bubba13 said:


> And that is relevant....how? Who's worshipping idols? OK, bubba, right here you say that the theory of evolution has no anti-God of the Bible agenda, but here you call the God of the Bible "idols".
> 
> Evolution, AGAIN AGAIN AGAIN, has nothing whatsoever to do with the existence or absence of God. It's a totally separate issue. We've discussed this again, & again, & again: intrinsic to the theory is atheism & at best agnosticism because it DENIES Genesis.
> 
> So if we gain knowledge that contradicts earlier beliefs (for which there is no evidence), we must discount our new learnings because we must instead believe blindly in what we have been told? We've NOT gained knowledge that Genesis is the lie.
> 
> How does evolution deny the existence of God? Oh, that's right, it doesn't. It denies Genesis, flat out, as we've said repeatedly.
> 
> EVOLUTION DOES NOT EXPLAIN THE INITIAL ORIGINS OF LIFE. Right you are! Yet, the problem is that intrinsic in the theory is the atheism/agnosticism if you stretch it: Genesis is OUT, & "we don't know" is IN.
> 
> IT DOES NOT GIVE A FOUNDATION FOR ATHEISM. The interpretations of no other scientific theory ever gave rise to eugenics & all of the cruelties of the Nazi regime. People wouldn't have been ABLE to extract such interpretations from Genesis!
> 
> No, you can't proof anything unless there IS evidence, and there WON'T be evidence unless such a thing exists. Want to prove that there are Reptilian Royals? Fine. Where's the evidence? Nowhere. Omg, I'm so embarrassed! Plus, I was so SURPRISED that the hard evidence wasn't in! I said repeatedly that it was for fun, & if there was any info that anyone had, great! You do know, bubba, that the human brain is 3 brains in one, the most primitive being the reptilian brain? No one even brought this relevant fact up, but instead went to bashing me. Most unscientific!


Nah, Elvis has left the building.


----------



## Northern

The fruit flies did NOT give the expected results. Instead, scientists were excited to learn something NEW which they had not anticipated. It was a bonus that greatly improved their understanding of neural connections as they relate to longevity. Which had nothing to do with the original study, but it was a fortuitous surprise. They chalked it up to "survival of the fittest" anyway, not to worry. As far as the new stuff they learned, that was definitely real & a bonus for them.

Quote from the review: “Inserting mystical or religious explanations for natural phenomena is not new and did not even escape the great Isaac Newton. He believed that the solar system was unstable and required the occasional touch of the hand of God to stay in order. *Later, the French scientist Pierre-Simon Laplace showed that the solar system was indeed stable without the hand of God*. By that time, Newton was long dead but would easily have accepted Laplace’s theory about the solar system without losing his faith that God was ultimately responsible for its creation.” 

HOW does that say or prove that God does not exist? It says that Laplace SHOWED that the solar system was indeed stable without the hand of God! The guy *couldn't* have SHOWN that at ALL!  As for what Newton believed: that the solar system was unstable & required the OCCASIONAL TOUCH of the hand of GOD in order to stay in order, it's irrelevant what he believed, since it's unverified and unverifiable within the natural realm of science. 
How is this atheism on the author’s part? The whole tenor of his article, the denial of Genesis, the embrace of evolution, the lack of understanding of Christian theology, his missing of AC's point in her statement below, etc. etc. 
“The tale of Newton and Laplace brings us to the question why there is, in some circles, such fear of science. Coulter points out that no science is frightening to Christians, thus encouraging people to accept that scientific results are not a threat to their faith. I certainly agree. Richard Dawkins and Kenneth Miller disagree about God’s existence, and it is up to you to decide with whom you agree. 
However, when it comes to evolutionary biology, they agree and they know what they are talking about. It is unfortunate that some people are so insecure in their faith that they fear their own intellects, especially as the concept of man’s free choice is central in Christian theology, the concept of man's free will is not central in Christian theology making it perfectly logical that God has created the world so that we can explain it without assuming Him as a hypothesis. Coulter offers these encouraging words: ‘Of course it’s possible to believe in God and in evolution” and “If evolution is true, then God created evolution.’” Yes, but this is to make the point, as I made in OP, that God is always already, whatever scientific findings may occur. It's NOT to say that "maybe evolution is the fact".

Answer: It isn’t. Actually sounds to me like the author may very well believe in God.  Sounds to me like he doesn't, so we'd have to ask him at this point.

I am absolutely appalled at the treatment of “liberalism” as a religion. How many democrats/liberals are Christians? **** many. And I’d wager a guess that some of them are Creationists, too.  You should read the book, bubba, before you dismiss ACs contention; tons of appalling information for her case.

Buddha and Socrates sure were no-nothing idiots, weren’t they?[/QUOTE]

Maybe that beats being yes-something idiots.


----------



## Northern

Northern said:


> This article is rife with error & biased atheistic statements, like how some scientist *showed* how the hand of God doesn't uphold the solar system..


 Perhaps this wasn't atheistic, but NOT shown, as I explained. It's just that when people aren't absolutely honest about NOT having shown what God is doing, that shows disrespect for God/atheism, usually.


----------



## bubba13

> _ OK, bubba, right here you say that the theory of evolution has no anti-God of the Bible agenda, but here you call the God of the Bible "idols"._




_What? I did not call God an idol—it was in reference to Whisper’s quote about scientists worshipping idols, or something ridiculous and nonsensical like that. _“They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.” Which has nothing to do with evolution, but everything to do with golden cattle.

_

_


> _We've discussed this again, & again, & again: intrinsic to the theory is atheism & at best agnosticism because it DENIES Genesis. _




_Denies literal Genesis, sure. The whole Adam and Eve / seven days thing is out the window. Does NOT deny the message of the Bible, or the moral beliefs of Christianity, or even the divinity of Jesus. Just simply paints it all in a symbolic light—meant as an parable rather than an actual history. Because really, if you think about it, how plausible are Noah’s ark and Jonah and the whale? You like science and hard facts now, you say. Both stories are impossible. Unless you rely on divine intervention, in which case all science is completely and utterly useless._

_Also, “atheism” simply means lack of belief in a god. Um, there are plenty of people who believe in a god who is not the Christian God, you know. They aren’t atheist, but they sure don’t believe in Genesis. Beware ethnocentrism.






It denies Genesis, flat out, as we've said repeatedly.

Click to expand...

_

_But not the existence of God.





Right you are! Yet, the problem is that intrinsic in the theory is the atheism/agnosticism if you stretch it: Genesis is OUT, & "we don't know" is IN.

Click to expand...

_

_Right. Though I fail to see how that poses a problem. As we discussed many pages ago, scientists have shown that it is at least theoretically possible for inorganic matter to spontaneously spring into life. Or there could be God. Or aliens. Lots of explanations, with varying degrees of plausibility.





The interpretations of no other scientific theory ever gave rise to eugenics & all of the cruelties of the Nazi regime. People wouldn't have been ABLE to extract such interpretations from Genesis!

Click to expand...

_

_And the Crusades and Salem Witch Trials would not have been possible without the Bible, nor would the mass discrimination against and massacre of Jews, or the rape and murder of any “infidels” by righteous Christian warriors, or the oppression and enslavement of native peoples by Conquistadors...._

_Not to mention the fact that Nazi eugenics has far less to do with evolution than it does with selective breeding, which people were doing for thousands of years before Darwin came along._

_And the fact that this is a totally irrelevant and ridiculous point.





Omg, I'm so embarrassed! Plus, I was so SURPRISED that the hard evidence wasn't in! I said repeatedly that it was for fun, & if there was any info that anyone had, great! You do know, bubba, that the human brain is 3 brains in one, the most primitive being the reptilian brain? No one even brought this relevant fact up, but instead went to bashing me. Most unscientific!

Click to expand...

_

_I did know that about the brain. “Reptilian,” of course, referring to its evolutionary origins among reptile-like creatures, from which mammals and later humans later diverged. All reptiles, birds, and mammals have such a functioning region of the brain—more evidence for evolution, but sadly, nothing to do with the royal family._


----------



## bubba13

> They chalked it up to "survival of the fittest" anyway, not to worry. As far as the new stuff they learned, that was definitely real & a bonus for them.


 
You’re treating these poor researchers like they had some kind of devious agenda. And you haven’t even read the original paper to see what their actual words were! And haven’t we already addressed how it was, after all, survival of the best, since the clever flies quite literally burned out early?




> It says that Laplace SHOWED that the solar system was indeed stable without the hand of God!





> The guy *couldn't* have SHOWN that at ALL!




It’s called math.

Doesn’t say how the universe originated, but it does say that gravity is real and always works. Or don’t you believe that?




> Maybe that beats being yes-something idiots.


 
How embarrassing. Noticed my phonetic typo, but it was already too late to hit the edit button. But the point stands—wisdom from Socrates and Buddha must be stupid, irrelevant, and useless, since they did not believe in the Christian God.


----------



## Whisper22

bubba13 said:


> And that is relevant....how? Who's worshipping idols?


The point was simply to show what the Bible says about evolution. No, it does not specifically say "evolution" but it would fall under this category.



> Evolution, AGAIN AGAIN AGAIN, has nothing whatsoever to do with the existence or absence of God. It's a totally separate issue.


No, it's not. That's what the above scripture is saying. To believe in such a thing as evolution is doing exactly that. Why worship created things if you believe in God and his word?



> So if we gain knowledge that contradicts earlier beliefs (for which there is no evidence), we must discount our new learnings because we must instead believe blindly in what we have been told? That's bass-ackwards, and the exact OPPOSITE of how wisdom and discipline work.


You are abandoning beliefs in something for which there is no evidence in exchange for something in which there is no evidence. You were given wisdom, that is HIS word. You are to have discipline to follow his word and not serve created things. You cannot have wisdom and discipline in everything you are told, that would defiet the purpose.

*Proverbs 3:7*
Do not be wise in *your own* eyes; fear the LORD and shun evil.



> That is true, as it relates to atheism and the origin of life. But evolution has NOTHING to do with either.


It has EVERYTHING to do with the origin of HUMAN life and to say it has nothing to do with atheism is just not true. You can not believe in God and his word but also believe in evolution. You can not pick and choose what part of the gospel to believe in, you either believe in it or you don't.



> Evolution was not invented by an atheist or anyone else. Evolution was "invented" by natural processes, chemistry, physics, and whatever else you have. Including an Intelligent Creator, if you want.


I would have to disagree. Evolution was created by those who needed an alternative to God's word. Adaptation would have suficed if you just wanted to understand how things survived.



> How does evolution deny the existence of God? Oh, that's right, it doesn't.


It might not deny the existence of a higher power, but it absolutely denies the existence of GOD. 




> According to the Bible? So the Bible mentions evolutionary scientists? News to me.


It doesn't mention evolutionary scientists by name but it does mention those who exchange the truth of God for a lie and worship and serve created things. Evolution being created by those who needed an alternative to the word of God.



> EVOLUTION DOES NOT EXPLAIN THE INITIAL ORIGINS OF LIFE.


As humans yes it does.



> No, you can't proof anything unless there IS evidence, and there WON'T be evidence unless such a thing exists. Want to prove that there are Reptilian Royals? Fine. Where's the evidence? Nowhere. Nothing but crappy circustantial speculation and off-kilter, beyond-crazy conspiracy theories.


That's why I said "begin to prove". Evolution is a theory that can not be proven. Adaptation can be proven. There is no proof that we started out as one species and completely changed into another. Just like the Reptilian Royals. Someone had a crazy idea that they weren't human and started searching for clues that they weren't human.



> GOOD science, which is the only REAL science, does not operate in the way you just typed. It doesn't make stuff up or "prove" hypotheses before testing. Scientists are disappointed to see their hypotheses fail every day. But they don't fudge their results to give the expected results anyway. Instead, it's back to the drawing board to try again. They wouldn't last long as scientists, otherwise--they'd be ridiculed and fired, and they'd sure never get any research published.


I never said all science was done that way. Obviosly science has helped us understand a great many things.



> OK, that's may be what you gather, but it's flat-out wrong.
> 
> The fruit flies did NOT give the expected results. Instead, scientists were excited to learn something NEW which they had not anticipated. It was a bonus that greatly improved their understanding of neural connections as they relate to longevity. Which had nothing to do with the original study, but it was a fortuitous surprise.


That's to be expected, I know nothing about fruit flies and that study. If it was more a step towards proving evolution wrong, all the better.

I know I repeat myself a lot. I had a lot to say, but it's late and the same words keep coming to mind lol.


----------



## bubba13

All lot of these issues were addressed in my previous post to Northern, so pardon my short and simplistic replies.



Whisper22 said:


> The point was simply to show what the Bible says about evolution. No, it does not specifically say "evolution" but it would fall under this category.


Are you sure that "created things" refers to things created by God, and not by man (golden cattle, idols, false gods, etc.)? Regardless, that's a pretty big leap to "evolution," and I'm not sure that a Biblical scholar would agree with that interpretation.





> No, it's not. That's what the above scripture is saying. To believe in such a thing as evolution is doing exactly that. Why worship created things if you believe in God and his word?


Again, who is worshipping anything? Scientist may _marvel_ (and rightly so) at biodiversity and such, but that's a far cry from _worship_.





> You are abandoning beliefs in something for which there is no evidence in exchange for something in which there is no evidence.


Except there is evidence, and plenty of it. You can say "it was all planted by the Devil to fool us," and truly there is nothing I can say to contradict that, but regardless, the evidence still exists.



> You were given wisdom, that is HIS word. You are to have discipline to follow his word and not serve created things.


Serve? The goal of science is to "serve" humanity and the world; to make the latter a better place and increase our understanding. Which, in a way, is glory to God the Creator, is it not?, but certainly not service to idols!



> *Proverbs 3:7*
> Do not be wise in *your own* eyes; fear the LORD and shun evil.


Again, the wise man knows that he is not wise.





> It has EVERYTHING to do with the origin of HUMAN life and to say it has nothing to do with atheism is just not true. You can not believe in God and his word but also believe in evolution. You can not pick and choose what part of the gospel to believe in, you either believe in it or you don't.


You can believe in God. You just can't interpret the Bible literally. See previous posts.





> I would have to disagree. Evolution was created by those who needed an alternative to God's word. Adaptation would have suficed if you just wanted to understand how things survived.


And adaptation is evolution. There is no difference.





> It might not deny the existence of a higher power, but it absolutely denies the existence of GOD.


See above.





> It doesn't mention evolutionary scientists by name but it does mention those who exchange the truth of God for a lie and worship and serve created things. Evolution being created by those who needed an alternative to the word of God.


See above.





> That's why I said "begin to prove". Evolution is a theory that can not be proven. Adaptation can be proven. There is no proof that we started out as one species and completely changed into another. Just like the Reptilian Royals. Someone had a crazy idea that they weren't human and started searching for clues that they weren't human.


No proof, but plenty of evidence. We've discussed the dating thing, and the DNA thing, and the implausibilty of literal Genesis thing, and here's a link I've already posted but suspect no one read: 
Fossil Hominids: the evidence for human evolution



> That's to be expected, I know nothing about fruit flies and that study. If it was more a step towards proving evolution wrong, all the better.


It wasn't that, either.


----------



## Whisper22

I think "created things" refers to anything that contradicts the Bible. Both idols and evolution would fall under that.

"Worshipping" being what you believe to be true.

I don't know enough about the evidence found for other things on this earth, but as far as humans go, bones that they would consider to be evidence for human evolution is just their theory. It is impossible to prove that we evolved from the species those bones belonged to. It is completely possible that those were seperate species of apes that eventually died off.

These are versus from Genesis 1 to show exactly how God intended species to reproduce. Verse 26 clearly says that humans were created in his own image. This is where it gets a little tricky because most Christians don't believe that God has a physical body, but Mormons do, that being why it says in his OWN image. So I am entitled to believe that God does not look like a monkey

_11_ And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, _and_ the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed _is_ in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
_12_ And the earth brought forth grass, _and_ herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed _was_ in itself, after his kind: and God saw that _it was_ good.
_21_ And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that _it was_ good.
_24_ ¶ And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
_25_ And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that _it was_ good.
_26_ ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, 1 Cor. 11.7 after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
_27_ So God created man in his _own_ image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Mt. 19.4 · Mk. 10.6 

I don't see this being open for interpretation. God is pretty clear on how we came to exist. To interpret it differently would be grasping for an alternate explaination.

I agree that science serves humanity in a lot of cases I believe it is here for our benefit, but that doesn't mean that it can't be abused.

I was referring to subtle adaptation as aposed to the development of a completely new species.


----------



## sarahver

Wow, you guys have been busy! Obviously I am more on the science side of things but now I am exhausted and will just give credit to worthy debate opponents:

Northern - wouldn't be the first time I have made someone's eyes glaze over he he. 

Bubba - Your biology/biochem/whatever degree is 110% on track.

Everyone else that stopped in and added in material too, I have learnt quite a bit on the theology side of things and I am always interested to learn new things. 

It seems like if I could impart all the knowledge I have gained over the years then my viewpoint would be better understood. At the same time if others could impart all of their knowledge to me, perhaps I would better understand their viewpoint. But that is not going to happen in a week on a horse forum :wink:

This scientist is signing off, perhaps going to look for a job as an extra on the Big Bang Theory, part of me really identifies with that show ha ha.


----------



## bubba13

Whisper22 said:


> I think "created things" refers to anything that contradicts the Bible. Both idols and evolution would fall under that.


So the only authority, ever, is the Bible, and again we're left with a very narrow framework. No moral teaching (again, Socrates/Buddha) that comes outside of Christian frameworks is allowable, and your Prophet is right out, too. Also, no science at all, which means no technology, which means no cars or computers or cell phones or airplanes or medicine. Why, we're back in the Stone Ages....except I guess the Stone Ages never existed?



> "Worshipping" being what you believe to be true.


How is that a sensible interpretation of the word? I believe the sky is blue. Therefore, I worship the sky and curse God.



> I don't know enough about the evidence found for other things on this earth, but as far as humans go, bones that they would consider to be evidence for human evolution is just their theory. It is impossible to prove that we evolved from the species those bones belonged to.


Barring a time machine, it is impossible to prove that anything in the past actually happened. Was there really a Holocaust? The documents and photos could have been faked; the people who "remember" it could have been brainwashed. You can't prove otherwise.



> It is completely possible that those were seperate species of apes that eventually died off.


Yes, bipedal apes with huge brains that walked and looked very much like modern humans. I suppose that is the case. Why would God create ape-people human lookalikes, which even hunted and acted like aboriginal people today? Some kind of sick joke?



> These are versus from Genesis 1 to show exactly how God intended species to reproduce. Verse 26 clearly says that humans were created in his own image. This is where it gets a little tricky because most Christians don't believe that God has a physical body, but Mormons do, that being why it says in his OWN image. So I am entitled to believe that God does not look like a monkey


_Assuming_ that God does have a physical body, and _assuming_ that modern-day humans resemble it, then why couldn't God just have set the wheels of evolution in time to create the crowning glory of his image, mankind? Though I must say, I do tend to prefer the interpretation of "image" to mean a spiritual/intellectual/moral sense.



> _26_ ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, 1 Cor. 11.7 after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
> _27_ So God created man in his _own_ image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Mt. 19.4 · Mk. 10.6




Doesn't say _how_ he created them, now does it?



> I don't see this being open for interpretation. God is pretty clear on how we came to exist. To interpret it differently would be grasping for an alternate explaination.


Yeah, he "created" them. Meaning what, exactly? Couldn't he just have sparked a little bacterium and watched over the epochs as his creation and plan slowly came to fruition?



> I agree that science serves humanity in a lot of cases I believe it is here for our benefit, but that doesn't mean that it can't be abused.


I fail to see how making discoveries and drawing conclusions is "abuse." Now, cloning people to be used as spare organ donors, _that_ might be abuse....



> I was referring to subtle adaptation as aposed to the development of a completely new species.


But if you accept adaptation, then you must at the very least admit to the possibility of speciation.



sarahver said:


> Bubba - Your biology/biochem/whatever degree is 110% on track.


Aw, shucks. Workin' on that Biology major with Chemistry minor....and a Global Studies minor, too, so don't let anyone accuse me of being a closed-minded scientist. I have a considerable theological/philosophical/cultural background, as really any well-rounded person should.

Glad to hear I've actually learned something and am not just BS-ing half-truths, though!


----------



## NdAppy

Just FYI for the poeple throwing out that people are "worshiping" science...

This is the definition of worshipping - 



> *2worship*
> 
> _verb_
> *worshipped* _also_ *worshiped**worship·ping* _also_ *worship·ing*
> *Definition of WORSHIP*
> 
> transitive verb
> 1
> *:* to honor or reverence as a divine being or supernatural power
> 
> 2
> *:* to regard with great or extravagant respect, honor, or devotion <a celebrity _worshipped_ by her fans>
> 
> intransitive verb
> *:* to perform or take part in worship or an act of worship
> 
> — *wor·ship·per* or *wor·ship·er* _noun_
> See worship defined for English-language learners »
> 
> *Examples of WORSHIP*
> 
> 
> 
> Many ancient cultures _worshipped_ the sun and moon.
> They _worship_ at this temple.
> I _worship_ God in my own way.
> 
> *First Known Use of WORSHIP*
> 
> 13th century
> 
> *Related to WORSHIP*
> 
> *Synonyms:* adore, deify, glorify, revere, reverence, venerate
> *Antonyms:* abhor, abominate, despise, detest, execrate, hate, loathe
> 
> [+]more


Not in one place do I see that learning is considered "worshiping" in any sense or form... Nor is it "what you beleive to be true."


----------



## Northern

bubba13 said:


> And that is relevant....how? *Who's worshipping idols? *Sorry if I misinterpreted this as an accusatory question. Judging by your posts, it's understandable, however. What do you mean by, "Who's worshipping idols?" The verse simply says that God alone is to be worshipped & that created things are everything else, whether in nature, man-made, or IDEAS coming from man that CONTRADICT God's specific revelation TO man, such as Genesis. (you know, Adam was created perfect, having no Simidae for ancestors!)
> 
> EVOLUTION DOES NOT EXPLAIN THE INITIAL ORIGINS OF LIFE. RIght, and Genesis does.
> 
> IT DOES NOT GIVE A FOUNDATION FOR ATHEISM. It does in that it DENIES Genesis. Only the atheist/agnostic is satisfied going through life with no causal connection between Life & the first cell. To others, the question arises and it's clear that there must be an Origin of LIFE.
> 
> They wouldn't last long as scientists, otherwise--they'd be ridiculed and fired, and they'd sure never get any research published. Yah, right, that's why some of those evolution frauds lasted for half a century, and are STILL in textbooks! I've also found that some fraudulent claims were peer-reviewed (not to bash you, sarah!)
> 
> “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.” Which has nothing to do with evolution, but everything to do with golden cattle. Wrong, as already explained. The truth of God=Genesis, the lie=Darwin's Origin of Species.
> 
> _Denies literal Genesis, sure. The whole Adam and Eve / seven days thing is out the window. In your mind, bubba.Does NOT deny the message of the Bible, or the moral beliefs of Christianity, or even the divinity of Jesus. YES IT DOES, because Jesus says ACCEPT GENESIS!Just simply paints it all in a symbolic light—meant as an parable rather than an actual history. Because really, if you think about it, how plausible are Noah’s ark and Jonah and the whale? You are telling GOD what's "plausible", "leaning to your own understanding"! You like science and hard facts now, you say. Both stories are impossible. NO! No contradiction! True science has given us MUCH! The scientific process IS workable, proof being its applicability. _
> _Also, “atheism” simply means lack of belief in a god. Um, there are plenty of people who believe in a god who is not the Christian God, you know. They aren’t atheist, but they sure don’t believe in Genesis. Beware *ethnocentrism*. Well, here, you are putting a derogatory name on belief in Genesis, which is most unscientific, because ALL of the gods & ALL of the religions cannot be the truth! You can't prove which one is true in the lab, but you can be scientific in not unfairly dismissing Genesis. Which is exactly what evolutionists DO!
> __
> __Right. Though I fail to see how that poses a problem. As we discussed many pages ago, scientists have shown that it is at least theoretically possible for inorganic matter to spontaneously spring into life. I found out more on that experiment: first: "theoretically possible" doesn't cut it!__ We've DISCUSSED this! Seondly, the conditions under which they got amino acids to form were not the conditions of earth back then, (if you accept all that gassy atmosphere of the "old" earth, which I don't), so the whole experiment was not a "win" for evolution.
> _
> 
> _And the Crusades and Salem Witch Trials would not have been possible without the Bible, How do you figure? All of this sin was *against* scripture!nor would the mass discrimination against and massacre of Jews, No, the "social Darwinism", NOT the Bible, was the philosophical enabler of the Nazis , NOT the Bible! or the rape and murder of any “infidels” by righteous Christian warriors, or the oppression and enslavement of native peoples by Conquistadors....All of this sin was contrary to scriptural injunctions._
> 
> 
> _I did know that about the brain. Yah, I knew it.“Reptilian,” of course, referring to its evolutionary origins among reptile-like creatures, from which mammals and later humans later diverged. All reptiles, birds, and mammals have such a functioning region of the brain—more evidence for evolution, but sadly, nothing to do with the royal family. You haven't proven that! _





bubba13 said:


> ...and your Prophet is right out, too. Whisper's Mormon, I'm not, to get that clear. Also, no science at all, which means no technology, which means no cars or computers or cell phones or airplanes or medicine. NO! That's not what acceptance of the Bible means, as already said!
> 
> _Assuming_ that God does have a physical body, and _assuming_ that modern-day humans resemble it, then why couldn't God just have set the wheels of evolution in time to create the crowning glory of his image, mankind? He COULD have, but the fact is that He DIDN'T.
> 
> 
> _Yeah, he "created" them. Meaning what, exactly? Couldn't he just have sparked a little bacterium and watched over the epochs as his creation and plan slowly came to fruition? He COULD have, but the fact is that He DIDN'T._
> 
> Aw, shucks. Workin' on that Biology major with Chemistry minor....and a Global Studies minor, too, so don't let anyone accuse me of being a closed-minded scientist. I accuse you of being close-minded as to the facts that are laid forth about creation in Genesis, the Word of God. You've proven by your posts that you reject Genesis, although you have no good reason to do so. THAT is not true science.
> Glad to hear I've actually learned something and am not just BS-ing half-truths, though!


  It looks to me to be the exact opposite: you've learned nothiing here, etc. It reminds me of the Bible verse "ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of the truth".


----------



## NdAppy

Question for you Northern... the bible has been edited so many times, how do you know that what you beleive is what God wanted to be passed down and that you are not believing something completely false or off the mark?


----------



## Northern

In my own case, it's been a process that's taken years. I was deeply convinced of unbiblical faiths as a young adult on into middle age. I scoffed at the idea of God creating all humans from just an original couple. It happened in spite of myself, really, by the irresistible Grace of God. By grace, I began to deal with the differences in the Bible, such as Genesis, as compared with other faiths. There's a lot more disparity than just Genesis, so I had to deal with the rest, too, even though the devotees of other faiths denied the differences/explained them away. It was a lot like this thread trying to prove evolution: the other faiths ended up with no proof that the literal account of Genesis plus the rest of the Bible was wrong or had some errors in it. (this is not to say that there are some _translation_ errors from the old languages; there are).

The Bible says, "The natural mind is at enmity with God." The natural human mind is against the truth of God, and will therefore "naturally" do things like come up with alternative faiths & alternative theories, such as evolution, to the Bible. 

For God to bring a naturally rebellious human OUT of that way of being is the only way that the human will change, so that his mind is subject to God. It's entirely up to God in whom He wants to effect this change.


----------



## bubba13

> _Sorry if I misinterpreted this as an accusatory question. Judging by your posts, it's understandable, however. What do you mean by, "Who's worshipping idols?" The verse simply says that God alone is to be worshipped & that created things are everything else, whether in nature, man-made, or IDEAS coming from man that CONTRADICT God's specific revelation TO man, such as Genesis. (you know, Adam was created perfect, having no Simidae for ancestors!)_




_Adam was created perfect, with no genetic diseases, and yet we now have genetic diseases, which could have only come from random mutation. Huh. What color/race was Adam? How do you explain the existence of blacks in Africa and whites in Europe?_

_Again, see Appy’s definition of “worship.” Not really applicable here._

_Also, “judging by [my] posts?” LOL! You have NO idea what my religious beliefs are!




EVOLUTION DOES NOT EXPLAIN THE INITIAL ORIGINS OF LIFE.

Click to expand...





 RIght, and Genesis does.

Click to expand...

_

_Yep. A very poor one that says “don’t think for yourself or try to explain things logically; just accept blindly what you are told, even though God gave you a brain and natural curiosity, and even though there is no evidence for Genesis, and plenty of evidence for alternative explanations.”_

_Not to mention, there ARE scientific explanations that can account for the origin of life in the absence of God. They just aren’t fundamental to or necessary for evolution.




IT DOES NOT GIVE A FOUNDATION FOR ATHEISM.

Click to expand...





It does in that it DENIES Genesis. Only the atheist/agnostic is satisfied going through life with no causal connection between Life & the first cell. To others, the question arises and it's clear that there must be an Origin of LIFE.

Click to expand...

_

_Yes. Uh-huh. Which we’ve addressed ad nauseum. Could be God, aliens, or primordial ooze. Plenty of options for any belief system. And again, just because one does not interpret the Bible literally, that does not mean that one is an atheist. I think you might need to trot over to the dictionary and explore the word for yourself.





Yah, right, that's why some of those evolution frauds lasted for half a century, and are STILL in textbooks! I've also found that some fraudulent claims were peer-reviewed (not to bash you, sarah!)

Click to expand...

_

_You obviously have no idea how science and research work, and that’s frightening. You also obviously have never cracked open a middle/high school history textbook, to see how rife it is with errors and bias. Grade school textbooks aren’t exactly high-class, reputable material, and they are seldom updated.





Wrong, as already explained. The truth of God=Genesis, the lie=Darwin's Origin of Species.

Click to expand...

_

_In your apparently not-even-remotely-humble opinion. Which has no evidence to support it.





YES IT DOES, because Jesus says ACCEPT GENESIS!

Click to expand...

_ 
_Where does Jesus mention Adam or Noah or evolution or the like? Or should we accept and follow the whole Old Testament, which condones slavery and polygamy and all that fun stuff?_



> _You are telling GOD what's "plausible", "leaning to your own understanding"!_




_What happened to “hard science only?” With hard science only, Noah and Jonas are impossible. If you allow miracles and such, all science is useless and worthless, and there was no point to starting this discussion (which you so desperately wanted) in the first place._



> _NO! No contradiction! True science has given us MUCH! The scientific process IS workable, proof being its applicability__. _




_So science is only good if it affirms the beliefs you already hold. Huh. I can prove through MATH alone, not even using the slightest bit of science, that it is physically impossible to cram all of the species of animals in the world onto a boat…_

_ 
_


> _Well, here, you are putting a derogatory name on belief in Genesis, which is most unscientific, because ALL of the gods & ALL of the religions cannot be the truth!_




_That’s kind of my point. There are loads and loads of world religions. Even within Christianity, there are countless belief systems. At absolute most, only ONE of all of the above can be true! How are you so certain that you’re it? You don’t even have an open mind! Had you been born and raised in Afghanistan, had you never been exposed to Christianity, you would be a fundamentalist Muslim. You would believe that ISLAM is the only way, and Christianity is the devil, and you would curse the lies of corrupt Western religion!_

_



 You can't prove which one is true in the lab, but you can be scientific in not unfairly dismissing Genesis. Which is exactly what evolutionists DO!

Click to expand...

_

_Unlike you, I allow for the possibility of things beyond my worldview. While there is no evidence for Genesis and loads of evidence for evolution, I will fully admit that literal Genesis is possible, in the same way that it is possible that *I* am God, and I am dreaming this illusion of life in the creation of my mind. In that scenario, you do not exist at all. Hmmmm…I think I’d rather like to be God, come to think of it….





I found out more on that experiment: first: "theoretically possible" doesn't cut it! We've DISCUSSED this! Seondly, the conditions under which they got amino acids to form were not the conditions of earth back then, (if you accept all that gassy atmosphere of the "old" earth, which I don't), so the whole experiment was not a "win" for evolution.

Click to expand...

_

_Were not the conditions of primitive Earth….according to whom? Or does it really matter, either way, since they still created organic material from inorganic substrate (do you even know what that means, or what the implications are?)?_

_Or we could just stick our fingers in our ears again and go LALALALALALA so it’s easy to deny all the aging evidence. Remember, science is only “right,” “truthful,” and “useful” when it agrees with us. When it provides fun technology or saves lives, it’s very easy to look the other way and ignore all the “immoral” implications of those “godless” scientists. 






No, the "social Darwinism", NOT the Bible, was the philosophical enabler of the Nazis , NOT the Bible!

Click to expand...

_

_Mind telling me what social Darwinism has to do with Darwin OR evolution? I’ll answer for you: nothing! Darwin wrote NOTHING about such things in The Origin of Species—he sure as hell didn’t condone genocide. Also, social Darwinism is a *******ization of “survival of the fittest,” which becomes “survival of the strongest,” which is not at all what evolution is about._


----------



## bubba13

_



...and your Prophet is right out, too.

Click to expand...

_


> _Whisper's__Mormon, I'm not, to get that clear_


_I was addressing Whisper, not you, to get that clear._

_



Assuming that God does have a physical body, and assuming that modern-day humans resemble it, then why couldn't God just have set the wheels of evolution in time to create the crowning glory of his image, mankind?

Click to expand...

_


> _He COULD have, but the fact is that He DIDN'T. _


_There is absolutely, positively, 100% NO WAY you can possibly know that.__







I accuse you of being close-minded as to the facts that are laid forth about creation in Genesis, the Word of God. You've proven by your posts that you reject Genesis, although you have no good reason todo so. THAT is not true science.

Click to expand...

__I don’t think you know what “science” means, either._

* “The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.”*

_Also, they aren’t “facts.” They are a “story.” Which may or may not be true, but is most likely not true, due to lack of evidence and disparity among details in the varying world religions’ creation stories. No one knows that they are the Word of God, except through the sense of your favorite word: tautology!_

_







_ 




> It looks to me to be the exact opposite: you've learned nothiing here, etc. It reminds me of the Bible verse "ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of the truth".


_I was referring, actually, to my university education in Biology and Chemistry. I’ve learned a lot from THAT._

_But I have learned some stuff from this thread, too. Sarah helped fill in a few details I was missing and Whisper keyed me in on some of tenets of Mormon faith. Then I learned about human nature—people lie all the time. They dismiss things that threaten their world view, even when presented with considerable evidence to the contrary. They twist words, misinterpret, and deliberately misunderstand. They **** things that they can’t even comprehend, rather than trying to first understand them. They dig their feet in and refuse to budge even as the ground crumbles away beneath them, and then they attack their opponents on an entirely foolish and nonsensical point. In short, they follow the “advice” I gave in another thread: http://www.horseforum.com/general-off-topic-discussion/how-win-argument-84444/_

_If we could climb into a time machine and meet with Mr. Missing Link the ape-man himself, you would STILL find a way to twist and deny, deny, deny. God himself could not budge your brainwashed indoctrination and devotion to irrelevant stories which are nonessential to the message of Christianity, anyway!_


----------



## Northern

*Whoa!*

First, bubba, you're really over-the-top nasty: the sarcasm when I clarified that I'm not Mormon, the insinuations that I'm a liar, unscientific, the ground is crumbling under my feet because I'm unconvinced of evolution, etc. 

Now, you do understand, that although I may be dumb, there are many people who are of high IQ who also remain unconvinced, scientifically & morally, of Darwin's theory of evolution. So, if you could take the focus off of me alone & see that Ann Coulter, e.g., who is a 4-time New York Times best-selling author (way more claim to fame than I'll ever have!), says that there's not one shred of hard scientific evidence to prove evolution, then you'd see that you have to accuse her of all that you've accused me of. As well as all of the rest of the people who don't buy evolution.

I've not tossed hard science to the breeze; all of the evolutionary "proofs" have not proven it, to my mind. I have waded through the frauds, I've listened to your "proofs" re: finches & flies & the formation of amino acids in a lab, & hypothetical cases like the dogs, & I HONESTLY don't find proof, just like the others who don't find proof. 

You have admitted, from the start, that the theory of evolution DENIES the creation account in Genesis. So, instead of endlessly offering "proofs" of evolution that don't make sense to me (& Ms. Coulter ), that involve insects, birds & dogs, which presents problems because the mutation part IS proven, perhaps it'd help for a denier of Genesis to DISPROVE Genesis! Not only that, but to disprove the most cut & dried issue: that of the first human being created perfectly human, without ancestry of any sort, whether a cell or Simidae. The burden of proof is really on the accuser, anyway. Darwin & his followers say, "No!" to Genesis, so let's see the scientific proof that it is a lie! Don't forget, Genesis says that Adam & Eve & the animals were all created in 6 days.

True scientific discoveries have been applicable to real life, thus useful. None of them claimed that Genesis is a lie. Since evolution says, "Lie!" to Genesis, the burden of proof rests with it. 

Here's a quote from Darwin:

"We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and out medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination [of children] has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to smallpox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race, but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed."


----------



## HowClever

Just wanted to throw this out there....

"Regardless of exactly how the response is structured, what is important to remember here is that some response is expected. The “burden of proof” is not something static which one party must always carry; rather, it is something which legitimately shifts during the course of a debate as arguments and counter-arguments are made. You are, of course, under no obligation to accept any particular claim as true, but if you insist that a claim isn’t reasonable or credible, you should be willing to explain how and why"

And...

"We suggest that when the subject is a long-accepted scientific theory, it’s a perversion of the burden of proof to challenge the theory with nothing other than “Oh yeah?” Why do we say that? Because for something (like evolution) to have achieved the universally-recognized status of a scientific theory, it has already met that burden. The original hypothesis has been challenged and tested again and again, and it has survived such challenges. That’s why it is regarded as a theory. It also makes predictions that can be demonstrated to be true (see, e.g.: The Lessons of Tiktaalik).

We aren’t living in the years before Darwin, when evolution was nothing but a vague idea, unsupported by an organized body of evidence and a testable mechanism. We’re now living 150 years later, and the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Thus it is the creationist who is making the claim. Specifically, his claim is that evolution is false — and it is therefore the creationist who has the burden of proof."


----------



## NdAppy

Very well put HowClever.


----------



## LoveStory10

Um.. I'm going to jump on here. 

I dont believe in God, at all. But I am never rude around a christian. Ever. Why is that? Because it's what they believe, and what I do, and nothing will change the minds.

I am Pagen, or whatever you would like to call it. I worship the Greek Gods. BUT i believe in evolution, because there is proof.

So does that make me a bad person? In my eyes no. In bubba's eyes, most probably


----------



## NdAppy

LoveStory10 said:


> Um.. I'm going to jump on here.
> 
> I dont believe in God, at all. But I am never rude around a christian. Ever. Why is that? Because it's what they believe, and what I do, and nothing will change the minds.
> 
> I am Pagen, or whatever you would like to call it. I worship the Greek Gods. BUT i believe in evolution, because there is proof.
> 
> So does that make me a bad person? In my eyes no. I*n bubba's eyes, most probably*


How exactly in Bubba's eyes would that make you a bad person. Not one time has she even posted anything remotely that says anyone is bad for believing in God, Gods, or various other things. Northern on the other hand...


----------



## LoveStory10

I'm so sorry, I meant Northern, I got the posts mixed up


----------



## NdAppy

That makes more sense then.


----------



## Northern

HowClever said:


> Just wanted to throw this out there....
> 
> "Regardless of exactly how the response is structured, what is important to remember here is that some response is expected. The “burden of proof” is not something static which one party must always carry; rather, it is something which legitimately shifts during the course of a debate as arguments and counter-arguments are made. You are, of course, under no obligation to accept any particular claim as true, but if you insist that a claim isn’t reasonable or credible, you should be willing to explain how and why"
> 
> I've _discussed_ why I don't see proof, of the "proofs" given, many times here. I've also given several links to tons of scientific & factual evidence written by much more knowledgeable people than myself. Anyone here who's dissatisfied with my attempts to explain why I haven't seen proof in the examples discussed can go to these sites. Since there's such an abundance of these sites, as I stated pages ago, it's not necessary for me to continue typing out of books & articles, or using my own words, any further, unless I see some further reason to do so. I wouldn't say anything different than has already been said!
> 
> Obviously, as is the case with EVERY evolutionist vs EVERY creation scientist/intelligent, accomplished anti-evolutionary like Ann Coulter, there's no agreement REGARDLESS of how LONG the argument goes on! I therefore find it unreasonable for anyone here to insist that I continue arguing, at this point.
> 
> And...
> 
> "We suggest that when the subject is a long-accepted scientific theory, it’s a perversion of the burden of proof to challenge the theory with nothing other than “Oh yeah?” Why do we say that? Because for something (like evolution) to have achieved the universally-recognized status of a scientific theory, it has already met that burden. The original hypothesis has been challenged and tested again and again, and it has survived such challenges. That’s why it is regarded as a theory. It also makes predictions that can be demonstrated to be true (see, e.g.: The Lessons of Tiktaalik). The original hypothesis that man descended from a single-cell organism (along with all life-forms) yet more "recently" from an "ape-like" creature has_ not_ been proven.
> 
> We aren’t living in the years before Darwin, when evolution was nothing but a vague idea, unsupported by an organized body of evidence and a testable mechanism. We’re now living 150 years later, and the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Thus it is the creationist who is making the claim. Specifically, his claim is that evolution is false — and it is therefore the creationist who has the burden of proof."


 Here, we can see that evolutionists & creationists disagree on whether the "overwhelming evidence" is a fact. There is still no evidence that the first man was not as described in Genesis, nothing "ape-like" that would need millions of years to mutate into **** sapiens. That's why I suggested that we take this most obvious claim of the evolutionists & see what the scientific evidence is for it.

Also, I've already discussed how evolution, by its "survival of the fittest" tautology, can never be DISproven. So, for evolutionists to refuse to admit this, but throw the burden of proof back on "unbelievers", is disingenuous. (Whoever/whatever survives, "proves" "survival of the fittest"!)


----------



## SEAmom

I'm surprised there hasn't been any mention of the change in humans over the millenia. I'm doing this from my phone and at work, so I can't type much. How do you explain the changes in height, skeletal structure, skin type, etc? Genetic adaptation easily and scientifically explains all of these things. It's not someone just plopping a person on the planet and *poof* hundreds of different "types" of people exist from one single person. That's like saying an inuit could give birth to a child of native ethiopian build and appearance.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Whisper22

Ok, I'm not even sure what I'm trying to argue at this point anymore lol. I seem to have gotten in the middle of something that can only go around and around in circles. Northern is saying it better than I am at this point. 
I think we have established time and again that God can not be scientifically proven. If that is all you are looking for, then this will go nowhere.

I know very little about science but I know a hell of a lot more than most people I come across about Christianity. My original argument when I first entered this discussion was that you can not convince a TRUE Christian of evolution, and I stand by my statement still.

You claim that evolutionists can also be Christians, right? Now let's think about that for a minute. What is a Christian? Someone who accepts Jesus Christ as their savior. So let me get this straight. You (general) believe that a man, as human as you or I, took upon himself every sin that has been and will be committed, died for us, was resurrected (scientifically impossible), and they have a hard time believing God created the universe. Give me a break. I'm sorry but if you want to be a Christian you can't pick and choose things like that. Those are two pretty important ideas in the Bible and Christians follow the Bible.

Just because we came up with our own definition for worship doesn't mean that's how God meant it. Yes, there is evidence, that doesn't necessarily PROVE anything. The fact of the matter is, we don't know how these ape things hunted or how they acted. Just because another animal closely resembles a human does not mean they eventually turned into a human. I will always believe that because the Bible does in fact tell us exactly how God created Adam. 7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. The Bible is the only authority to a Christian. I can't speak for a Buddhist.

"Yes, bipedal apes with huge brains that walked and looked very much like modern humans. I suppose that is the case. Why would God create ape-people human lookalikes, which even hunted and acted like aboriginal people today? Some kind of sick joke?"

Sure why not, It's called a test. Evolutionists failed.
Northern was correct when she said he could have but he didn't. There are a lot of things he could have done to make our existence unquestionable but that would kind of defiet our purpose. We were sent here knowing that we would not remember our previous existence and that we would be tested along the way. We took that challenge, and as time goes on, especially in this day and age, more and more people are failing their tests.

God gave us science and using it to prove something than can never be proven for the sole purpose of having an alternate answer other than what the Bible tells us, is abuse. How would you feel if you gave someone a gift to help them, but instead they used it to hurt you? Probably not too good. You do realize that evolutionists turn people away from God every day. As a Chrsitian I am entitled to believe that is the work of Satan.

"Adam was created perfect, with no genetic diseases, and yet we now have genetic diseases, which could have only come from random mutation. Huh. What color/race was Adam? How do you explain the existence of blacks in Africa and whites in Europe?"

People also lived to be hundreds of years old in Adams time, things weaken over time. Mutations do happen to a degree, obviously, but they don't cause us to change species, mainly because the Bible tells us it doesn't. Choosing not to believe that is your choice but, like I said, test failed.

Different colored skin wasn't a mutation. Decendents of certain people needed to be differenciated. I won't get into that though.

“don’t think for yourself or try to explain things logically; just accept blindly what you are told, even though God gave you a brain and natural curiosity, and even though there is no evidence for Genesis, and plenty of evidence for alternative explanations.”

Not exactly, you are told to pray about it. Our brain and natural curiosity is part of free agency, that is the whole point to life. We are given tests, and if you can make it through and still get back to Heavenly Father you've done everything you were supposed to.

This is getting tireing. I can only say so much before I start repeating myself. I can not prove what I know to be true. You need to find that for yourself. I am lucky to have a Prophet that clarifies all those nit picky things in the Bible. I know what is literal and what is figurative, but I can't MAKE you believe that. The Bible can not be proven, therefor nothing I say can be proven and this will go on forever. The Bible says (along with the BOOK of Mormon) that which I believe. Plain and simple.


----------



## Northern

I want to add that there are quite a lot of good youtube videos on creation science, & here's one that discusses the interesting facts of the *polonium "halo effect" in granite: Evolution Theory Proven False by Scientific Observation - Science and Evidence For Creation - 1/3, youtube.*

There are online articles on the same subject; google polonium halo effect in granite.


----------



## Northern

> We’re now living 150 years later, and the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Thus it is the creationist who is making the claim. Specifically, his claim is that evolution is false — and it is therefore the creationist who has the burden of proof."


 From my learning/reading since starting this thread, I can now say, along with AC, that this is TYPICAL evolutionist "overwhelming evidence" strategy. It remains to be proven that Adam wasn't the first MAN,_ by those who deny it._ 



Whisper22 said:


> God gave us science and using it to prove something than can never be proven for the sole purpose of having an alternate answer other than what the Bible tells us, is abuse. How would you feel if you gave someone a gift to help them, but instead they used it to hurt you? Probably not too good. You do realize that evolutionists turn people away from God every day. As a Chrsitian I am entitled to believe that is the work of Satan.
> 
> "Adam was created perfect, with no genetic diseases, and yet we now have genetic diseases, which could have only come from random mutation....
> People also lived to be hundreds of years old in Adams time, things weaken over time. Mutations do happen to a degree, obviously, but they don't cause us to change species, mainly because the Bible tells us it doesn't.  I've been reading a bit more on mutations: seems that, rather than increase survival, they /decrease/destroy it. The one fruit fly experiment we discussed seems to have been only one of many wherein all of the mutations brought disability or death.
> 
> “don’t think for yourself or try to explain things logically; just accept blindly what you are told, even though God gave you a brain and natural curiosity, ...It's the new faith of evolution, and it's illegal to say/teach anything even on intelligent design, alongside evolution, in public schools (Dover court case).
> 
> This is getting tiring. I can only say so much before I start repeating myself. ...


 We may have some hard science here for evolutionists to ponder!


----------



## BFFofHorses

Just wanted to point one thing out about the whole Adam thing. Adam and Eve were the FIRST couple God made, it never says they were the ONLY.


----------



## SEAmom

You haven't presented anything closely resembling "hard science" that can be taken as science rather than regurgitated biblical references and assumptions. That's like saying that because a mathematician can't define the entire value of pi that it's not really a number and hundreds of years of mathematicians are wrong. Evolution has proof the same way geometry does. You have to have a mind open enough to understand that. Whisper, you have made it very clear that you are unwilling to believe in anything other than the religious rhetoric to which you are accustomed. Northern, you're not far off from that either. You can't prove creation nor can you disprove evolution, so you shut down and look for any religious tie to making evolution impossible. All the arguments you've presented are fundamentally flawed and lacking a scientifically-based process. "because the bible says so" isn't science. Its a book that a bunch of men got together and wrote a few thousand years ago. That's what it really boils down to. God didn't write the book himself nor did he interpret it into different languages. You're believing what someone wrote down.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Whisper22

SEAmom said:


> You haven't presented anything closely resembling "hard science" that can be taken as science rather than regurgitated biblical references and assumptions. That's like saying that because a mathematician can't define the entire value of pi that it's not really a number and hundreds of years of mathematicians are wrong. Evolution has proof the same way geometry does. You have to have a mind open enough to understand that. Whisper, you have made it very clear that you are unwilling to believe in anything other than the religious rhetoric to which you are accustomed. Northern, you're not far off from that either. You can't prove creation nor can you disprove evolution, so you shut down and look for any religious tie to making evolution impossible. All the arguments you've presented are fundamentally flawed and lacking a scientifically-based process. "because the bible says so" isn't science. Its a book that a bunch of men got together and wrote a few thousand years ago. That's what it really boils down to. God didn't write the book himself nor did he interpret it into different languages. You're believing what someone wrote down.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I never calimed that I can prove the existence of God or that he created man with hard science. I don't need to have an open mind about evolution because I am a Christian. At the very beginning of this discussion it was asked why evolution and creation couldn't have worked together. My answer, as a Christian who should be following the Bible to a T, you shouldn't believe in evolution. Human evolution has no proof, subtle adaptations are obvious when it comes to certain things.

Obviously my arguments are lacking a scientifically based process, I never claimed that they had one. Because they Bible says so is exactly why a TRUE Christian should believe in creation over evolution.

Your last few sentences shows me how little you actually know about the Bible, who wrote it, and what it actually contains.


----------



## Whisper22

Northern said:


> From my learning/reading since starting this thread, I can now say, along with AC, that this is TYPICAL evolutionist "overwhelming evidence" strategy. It remains to be proven that Adam wasn't the first MAN,_ by those who deny it._
> 
> We may have some hard science here for evolutionists to ponder!


That is interesting and actually makes a lot of sense, I'll tell you why.



BFFofHorses said:


> Just wanted to point one thing out about the whole Adam thing. Adam and Eve were the FIRST couple God made, it never says they were the ONLY.


I don't believe God MADE more than Adam and Eve. Yes this means that brother and sister had to procreate. What we think of incest now wasn't the same when Adam and Eve were created. It was necessary and because they were so perfectly made, it was possible. Our bodies can't handle that now and, like a lot of things given to us by the Lord, it was abused. It came to a point where there were enough people for the relation to stay far enough apart that it was no longer necessary. Eventually in the Bible it is forbidden.


----------



## Speed Racer

Whisper22 said:


> I don't need to have an open mind about evolution because I am a Christian.


Really? Because _I'm_ a Christian and I have no trouble at all with evolution. I find that evolution and creationism dovetail quite nicely. But then, I've always been a person who thought for myself and didn't buy into the mind numbing rhetoric that I have no business asking questions.

You're actually a perfect Christian Whisper, because religion doesn't WANT its followers to think, only_ believe_. You're as blindly, unquestioningly devout as any Islamic who thinks blowing themselves up will get them immediate access to Paradise.

God gave us free will to choose, and you're squandering that gift by being a closed minded prig of a religious nut. IT AIN'T IN THE BIBLE SO IT AIN'T TRUE!!!! 

The Bible was _originally _a set of stories handed down verbally. It wasn't until hundreds of years after Judaism took root that _any_ of what you believe was 'written' by God was put down on parchment. In Hebrew. Can you read ancient Hebrew? No? I didn't think so.

The New Testament gospels and books weren't put together until 150-200 years_ after_ Christ's death, and some of the gospels were deliberately left out. So if it's _all_ the word of God, why were some of the gospels left out? Could it be that they told conflicting stories and the MEN who put them into what we call the New Testament didn't want to upset the apple cart? Again, the gospels and letters weren't written in English, they were written in Hebrew.

The Bible was now a bunch of parchments that were in ancient Hebrew. Those parchments were eventually, over the course of a thousand years, rewritten over and over into different languages with each new interpreter putting their own spin, hypocrisies, beliefs, and prejudices on the stories.

Theologians have great, sweeping arguments today about what a _single_ _word_ can mean in a text, because there are many meanings for very similar Hebraic words.

So yes, you go on believing that the Bible is the completely unadulterated Word of God. Those of us who have actually _studied_ its history have come to different conclusions.


----------



## Speed Racer

Oh, and Whisper, your slimy, insinuating reference to the Descendants of Ham didn't go unnoticed.

How about a nice big helping of white supremacy to go along with your lunatic religious fervor? :evil:


----------



## Whisper22

Speed Racer said:


> Really? Because _I'm_ a Christian and I have no trouble at all with evolution. I find that evolution and creationism dovetail quite nicely. But then, I've always been a person who thought for myself and didn't buy into the mind numbing rhetoric that I have no business asking questions.


Subtle adaptations are OBVIOUS. So in a way they do dovetail nicely together. Because I believe in what the Bible tells me 



> You're actually a perfect Christian Whisper, because religion doesn't WANT its followers to think, only_ believe_. You're as blindly, unquestioningly devout as any Islamic who thinks blowing themselves up will get them immediate access to Paradise.


If you knew anything about my religion you would know how much we are given to think about. Things you don't here with every other Christian religion, no doubtably yours. If anyone is thinking about what should be important, it is my religion. I actually gave a very nice example of how science and religion could have worked together to create the universe. No one wanted to here it. Big surprise. Another thing you might not want to here is that Mormons are far more advanced in our understanding of the words of God. I have no doubt that I understand them far better than you do. Your words mean nothing to me. Call me prideful, I never claimed to be perfect.



> God gave us free will to choose, and you're squandering that gift by being a closed minded prig of a religious nut. IT AIN'T IN THE BIBLE SO IT AIN'T TRUE!!!!


What makes you think I havn't chosen? Why is it that just because I chose to believe the Bible, LIKE GOD TELLS ME TO, I'm squandering that gift. I think God would disagree with you lol. I'm NOT a close minded person but when it comes to evolution, I already know what is true and what isn't. I know, I'm so horrible.



> The Bible was _originally _a set of stories handed down verbally. It wasn't until hundreds of years after Judaism took root that _any_ of what you believe was 'written' by God was put down on parchment. In Hebrew. Can you read ancient Hebrew? No? I didn't think so.
> 
> The New Testament gospels and books weren't put together until 150-200 years_ after_ Christ's death, and some of the gospels were deliberately left out. So if it's _all_ the word of God, why were some of the gospels left out? Could it be that they told conflicting stories and the MEN who put them into what we call the New Testament didn't want to upset the apple cart? Again, the gospels and letters weren't written in English, they were written in Hebrew.


This was already addressed and I've already answered. Sounds to me like you are quoteing straight from the discovery channel, good job.



> The Bible was now a bunch of parchments that were in ancient Hebrew. Those parchments were eventually, over the course of a thousand years, rewritten over and over into different languages with each new interpreter putting their own spin, hypocrisies, beliefs, and prejudices on the stories.
> 
> Theologians have great, sweeping arguments today about what a _single_ _word_ can mean in a text, because there are many meanings for very similar Hebraic words.
> 
> So yes, you go on believing that the Bible is the completely unadulterated Word of God. Those of us who have actually _studied_ its history have come to different conclusions.


This is exactly why you need a modern Prophet. There ARE things that have been tampered with but what is important for us to know is still there and guess what? We have one. People complain and complain how you can't possibly know what the Bible is talking about, but when a solution is presented they have no use for it. Who is being close minded? I grew up in a very anti-Moromon church, so believe me, I'm not close minded and have thought plenty for myself. You might want to read the Book of Mormon. That book hasn't been touched since it was written in roughly 400AD other than Joseph Smith. But I doubt you will.


----------



## Whisper22

Speed Racer said:


> Oh, and Whisper, your slimy, insinuating reference to the Descendants of Ham didn't go unnoticed.
> 
> How about a nice big helping of white supremacy to go along with your lunatic religious fervor? :evil:


:rofl: OH GIVE ME A BREAK! Yeah I havn't heard that before. Perfect example of how you know nothing of my religion. The color of a persons skin doesn't matter, it's whether or not they follow the gospel. What exactly is your brilliant theory of where they came from?


----------



## Lakotababii

Okay I have an honest question that maybe one of you (who are obviously very scientific) can help me out with. 

I was raised Christian, and was taught evolution too. I was wondering if there is a difference between micro and macro evolution? 

I guess I am asking because I am much more likely to believe in micro-evolution (which I do), because I have seen how animals adapt and change to their environments. 

Macro-evolution, I don't buy that, because it really cant be proven (in my opinion) and I know its just my opinion.

But my question remains, aren't we kind of arguing 2 different points? Cuz it is a lot easier to acknowledge evolution when you are talking about a species adapting then when you talk about a species becoming a new species. Hope someone can clarify that for me. This conversation is very interesting to me.

I especially was curious since some seem to think that "evolution and Christianity do not go together." I guess it depends on what kind of evolution we are talking about? Someone help me out here, is there a difference or am I misled?


----------



## Northern

SEAmom said:


> Northern, you're not far off from that either. :shock:You can't prove creation nor can you disprove evolution, so you shut down and look for any religious tie to making evolution impossible. No, I do not look for any religious tie to making evolution impossible. We've already agreed that beyond nature, humans can prove nothing, so I've not wasted time trying. You can find lots of factual arguments in what I've posted, including the revelations of frauds. The articles linked certainly have more than I've typed out, but that's why we give links. The last one, on polonium's halo effect in granite & what that means, is totally scientific. A lot of time has been spent arguing whether the evolution "proofs" are not in fact tautology, result being disagreement. Plus, I already said that more scientific info is easily available, so excuse me for not burning out on typing more out here. I started a new thread on _just_ the hard science & it was not allowed, by admin. You can read for yourself my OP & the entire thread to see that I didn't want to talk theology here. However, as I said in OP, intrinsic to this theory_is_ "theology", because the theory DENIES Genesis.





Speed Racer said:


> Really? Because _I'm_ a Christian and I have no trouble at all with evolution. I find that evolution and creationism dovetail quite nicely. Even our resident evolutionist, bubba, has said from the start that intrinsic to evolution's claims, it DENIES Genesis/creationism. Feel free to explain how these two can possibly dovetail.
> 
> Can you read ancient Hebrew? No? I didn't think so. You needn't be snide.
> 
> So yes, you go on believing that the Bible is the completely unadulterated Word of God. Those of us who have actually _studied_ its history have come to different conclusions.


 And acquired such kindness & modesty in the process!


----------



## Northern

It wouldn't hurt to remember that those who believe Genesis are not only Christians, but Jews (at least the orthodox?). I get the idea that evolutionists only think of Christians when they think of creationists.


----------



## Northern

I checked, & *2/3 & 3/3* of the Evolution Theory Proven False by Scientific Observation - Science and Evidence for Creation - 1/3 are accessible on youtube, as well.


----------



## Northern

Looking for info on the fossil record, I found this fun & informative article with cool pics of fossils, on Darwin's ****, Defending Creationism.org. There are other D's **** articles, too, which look interesting. The information about the fossils fossilizing quickly ties in with the 3-part video about the super-quick formation of granite, (as well as the super-quick arrival of all kinds of life in the Cambrian period) as opposed to the very slow changes claimed by evolutionists.


----------



## HowClever

Northern, I am not sure why you keep clinging to Ann Coulter's works as fact. If she, as a lawyer and author is worthy of having her words accepted as fact, why is it that the countless qualified scientists who have proven varying degrees of evolution are not?

Honestly, reading about Miss Coulter, she sounds like nothing more than a right wing nut job. She has no "science" to add. Only her opinion.


----------



## Northern

You can't really judge her book by the few points/examples of evolution fallacy that I've extracted from it & posted; a fair & honest evaluation must stem from reading it yourself. There are 7 chapters prior to the 4 discussing evolution theory; quite meaty. 

I've found, from my "research", that she is true to the scientific facts that I've found elsewhere; though, of course, I've not verified every word.

I've no need to "cling" to her book at this point, since I've found the same information and more, online: like the polonium halo effect on granite.


----------



## HowClever

Well, then maybe I have done more research on her than you yourself have. She has 7 books and is a regularly featured columnist in several places. 

Every thing she has written is coloured by her own opinion, which she openly admits herself. 

I would love to know exactly where you are finding the scientific facts to verify her opinion with.


----------



## AlexS

Whisper22 said:


> :rofl: OH GIVE ME A BREAK! Yeah I havn't heard that before. Perfect example of how you know nothing of my religion. The color of a persons skin doesn't matter, it's whether or not they follow the gospel. What exactly is your brilliant theory of where they came from?




Whisper, can you please explain your beliefs in relation to what SR is saying?


----------



## Northern

HowClever said:


> Well, then maybe I have done more research on her than you yourself have. She has 7 books and is a regularly featured columnist in several places. I've not done _any_ research on her, except that I was familiar with her from her appearances on tv. This is the first book of hers that I've picked up. It doesn't matter, she's not falsified information on the history of evolutionary fraud & the lack of proofs & so forth.  She's in the public eye, & has a lot to lose by twisting the facts about what happened in the fruit fly experiment & so on. (aside from professing the Christian faith, which is really against lying!) There's no reason to bash a serviceable first overview of the history & main experiments & so on, just because she's not a scientist. If you don't want to use her in your own research, fine.
> 
> I would love to know exactly where you are finding the scientific facts to verify her opinion with.


 All you need do is to gather all of my links to articles/videos, right on this thread. That'll give you lots of scientific facts. You can then find any "missing links" right online; plenty more good articles/videos. The problem is, no one seems to have looked into any of them, judging by the lack of commentary. I can't help that. 

It's also a fact that faye left the building a long time ago, as well as SpasticDove, both of whom wanted me to participate in a thread on the scientific facts of evolution ( bubba is the only one of that trio who's still here.) sarahver has bowed out, as well. It can be seen that I did participate, did post the relevant links, did come back here when my "hard science only" thread was not allowed, to continue my consideration of the next part of the theory, the moral/spiritual issues intrinsic to the theory.

My posts & links are here. I'm quite sure that I have no further words to add, at this point.


----------



## LoveStory10

Whisper22 said:


> :rofl: OH GIVE ME A BREAK! Yeah I haven't heard that before. Perfect example of how you know nothing of my religion. The color of a persons skin doesn't matter, it's whether or not they follow the gospel. What exactly is your brilliant theory of where they came from?


So if some one doesn't follow the gospel they are not important? Or they are sinner's and wrong? I don't follow it, I follow my own. Many christian friends I have are full worshippers, they love and praise God, but they have told me they don't actually follow the gospel properly. Are they bad?? I don't think so.

In MY religion it is said that mankind was made from clay, and life was breathed into them. Isn't it similar in YOUR religion? Basically. So that in my eyes is PROOF that one religion is similar to another, so none is the "right' one.

In evolution, when man kind evolved (as I've been taught), those that evolved further North had lighter skin to those in the South, due to the sun and climate difference. Most dark skinned people originated from Africa and places like that, before moving around the world many many years ago.


----------



## HowClever

I'm guessing that you can't see the irony Northern.

You are the one who wanted to see nothing but scientific sources and yet right from the beginning you have been quoting Ann Coulter and other sources that have no scientific merit. 

So it is only those of us who accept the theory of evolution that need to prove it now, huh?


----------



## Whisper22

AlexS said:


> Whisper, can you please explain your beliefs in relation to what SR is saying?


This idea goes way back and is one of the earliest interpretations of the curse of Ham. It is in no way racist on my part, just where I believe their origin began. I'm sorry if my beliefs are not PC enough for some people. I don't mold my beliefs around what makes others happy.



LoveStory10 said:


> So if some one doesn't follow the gospel they are not important? Or they are sinner's and wrong? I don't follow it, I follow my own. Many christian friends I have are full worshippers, they love and praise God, but they have told me they don't actually follow the gospel properly. Are they bad?? I don't think so.
> 
> In MY religion it is said that mankind was made from clay, and life was breathed into them. Isn't it similar in YOUR religion? Basically. So that in my eyes is PROOF that one religion is similar to another, so none is the "right' one.
> 
> In evolution, when man kind evolved (as I've been taught), those that evolved further North had lighter skin to those in the South, due to the sun and climate difference. Most dark skinned people originated from Africa and places like that, before moving around the world many many years ago.


I think it is no surprise that several religions believe theirs is the right one. I'm not going to argue my right as a devout Christian and Mormon to believe mine is the true Church. My point about the gospel was that it doesn't matter what color skin we have when it comes to our worthiness to be in the Lords presence, it is how we followed the gospel. We are all sinners, some more than others. If your friends do not follow the gospel properly, then that WILL affect their worthiness to be in the Lords presence. Please do not get this confused with me telling you they are going to hell.

The fact that your religion is similar, to me, only means that the story of creation made it's way around and was used to fit with others belief systems. You will see very similar stories from people who don't even believe in the same God all over the world if you look. 

If you want to believe that's where black people came from, that is perfectly fine. Our salvation is not based on where we think black people came from.


----------



## bubba13

Popping in for a quick second during stressful-as-hell (better get used to it now, right?!) finals week:

You do realize that the Creation story written of in Genesis predates Christianity and the Bible, right? So _who_ did the passing-around and borrowing?

Check this out, while you're at it: The History of Genesis and the Creation Stories
It should greatly interest those who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. Which version is the correct one, eh?


----------



## LoveStory10

Greek worship was around longer than Christianity, so your religion got creation from mine, and I believe in evolution anyway...

So by me NOT following it AT ALL that means I will never be going to Heaven or where ever?

Not true... When I die I will go to the Elysium Fields. My Gods dont lessen our worthiness if we dont do exactly as told in our religious book, which is exactly why I turned away from Christianity. I'm sorry but I don't like how you seem to think that you are correct about all this and those of us that believe in evolution are sinners, you and Northern. (no offence to any one else)


----------



## bubba13

I already can't edit my post--this time limit thing is so frustrating. Anyway, the entirety of the link I posted is extremely interesting--please read it, if you believe in the Bible whatsoever!


----------



## Lakotababii

bubba13 said:


> Popping in for a quick second during stressful-as-hell (better get used to it now, right?!) finals week:
> 
> You do realize that the Creation story written of in Genesis predates Christianity and the Bible, right? So _who_ did the passing-around and borrowing?
> 
> Check this out, while you're at it: The History of Genesis and the Creation Stories
> It should greatly interest those who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. Which version is the correct one, eh?


Very interesting article indeed. However, where did the author get his information? He has no citations. How do I know he isn't making it up? I am not saying that he is, but he cites no sources on the page and thus I do not consider him a credible researcher. It is definitely a good article, food for thought.

Oh and PS Bubba, good luck on your finals!! I am in the same boat


----------



## Whisper22

LoveStory10 said:


> Greek worship was around longer than Christianity, so your religion got creation from mine, and I believe in evolution anyway...
> 
> So by me NOT following it AT ALL that means I will never be going to Heaven or where ever?
> 
> Not true... When I die I will go to the Elysium Fields. My Gods dont lessen our worthiness if we dont do exactly as told in our religious book, which is exactly why I turned away from Christianity. I'm sorry but I don't like how you seem to think that you are correct about all this and those of us that believe in evolution are sinners, you and Northern. (no offence to any one else)


The Greek religion is older than Jesus but it is not older than Christianity. Christianity has been around since the beginning, since Adam and Eve.

EVERYONE is a sinner, and as a matter of fact my religion also believes that pretty much everyone goes to heaven. Like I said, I am not going to argue my right to believe that I know the truth. You also have that same right, believe away. Why shouldn't I say so, if that's what I believe? I am more than willing to answer any questions and even discuss our differences. I have not been hostile to anyone on this thread over our differences, I have simply discussed my beliefs, and I would apreciate the same from everyone else.


----------



## coffeeaddict

The way I see it, the die hard christains should be thrilled if there are people who don't believe. When the end of days arrives we can take care of your valuables for you while you go to heaven. 

Don't want your car sitting around collecting rust while you're up in the great beyond? No problem! Got a mansion that needs living in? I'll get right on that!


Please note, this offer will probably only extend to those wealthy christians that have high end, overpriced things....I'm just saying. 

(this comes from a bumper sticker I read yesterday that said "all good christians should go to heaven...and leave your mercedes right there so I can drive it home.")


----------



## Whisper22

coffeeaddict said:


> The way I see it, the die hard christains should be thrilled if there are people who don't believe. When the end of days arrives we can take care of your valuables for you while you go to heaven.
> 
> Don't want your car sitting around collecting rust while you're up in the great beyond? No problem! Got a mansion that needs living in? I'll get right on that!
> 
> 
> Please note, this offer will probably only extend to those wealthy christians that have high end, overpriced things....I'm just saying.
> 
> (this comes from a bumper sticker I read yesterday that said "all good christians should go to heaven...and leave your mercedes right there so I can drive it home.")


LOL, I have no doubt there will be plenty of mercedes protecters when that day comes. I don't have one though, so I guess my stuff is crap out of luck.


----------



## Alwaysbehind

coffeeaddict said:


> The way I see it, the die hard christains should be thrilled if there are people who don't believe. When the end of days arrives we can take care of your valuables for you while you go to heaven.
> 
> Don't want your car sitting around collecting rust while you're up in the great beyond? No problem! Got a mansion that needs living in? I'll get right on that!
> 
> 
> Please note, this offer will probably only extend to those wealthy christians that have high end, overpriced things....I'm just saying.
> 
> (this comes from a bumper sticker I read yesterday that said "all good christians should go to heaven...and leave your mercedes right there so I can drive it home.")


Now that is a great plan.


----------



## bubba13

Lakotababii said:


> Very interesting article indeed. However, where did the author get his information? He has no citations. How do I know he isn't making it up? I am not saying that he is, but he cites no sources on the page and thus I do not consider him a credible researcher. It is definitely a good article, food for thought.
> 
> Oh and PS Bubba, good luck on your finals!! I am in the same boat


Thanks! One down, two to go....luck to you as well. Or divine blessings. Whichever. :wink:

As for cited sources, I'm not Bible scholar, so I haven't a clue. It is from a college website, though, and I have heard much of the information before (from my own college professors and from various [reputable] written sources), so I'm inclined to believe it.

Regardless, you can't deny the contradictions in the two Genesis stories--pick up any Bible and there they are in black and white. Northern, Whisper--what are your takes?


----------



## tempest

Whisper22 said:


> The Greek religion is older than Jesus but it is not older than Christianity. Christianity has been around since the beginning, since Adam and Eve.


 Actually Whisper, Christianity started with Jesus, where do you think the word _Christ_ianity came from. It didn't start with Adam and Eve.


----------



## Northern

bubba13 said:


> Thanks! One down, two to go....luck to you as well. Or divine blessings. Whichever. :wink: Not so fast, pardner!:wink:
> 
> As for cited sources, I'm not Bible scholar, so I haven't a clue. Yes, it's perfectly fine for you to cite an article from a college wesbsite author who's obviously biased in his intent to discredit Genesis. is from a college website, though, and I have heard much of the information before that doesn't make it true!(from my own college professors and from various [reputable] say reputable & that makes it so? written sources), so I'm inclined to believe it. We already knew that! Yet, the question remains, *"**Why* are you so inclined to believe this article refuting Genesis, since no one, including you, has given a shred of evidence that a single-celled organism, then "ape-like" creatures, pre-dated the first man over millions of years?"
> 
> Regardless, you can't deny the contradictions in the two Genesis stories--pick up any Bible and there they are in black and white. Northern, Whisper--what are your takes?


 If anyone wants to be UNbiased, he listens to both sides of a debate & tries to ascertain the facts. You'd think, bubba, that before doing all of this, that you'd've done so.


Here's a scholarly article which answers to the accusations of your article:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2194

There are plenty more online, as well.


----------



## bubba13

All of the author's "reconciliations" are speculation, which you say you hate. If the Bible is to be interpreted, which it must be to explain the discrepancy (even the author of the link you posted admits this, as he speaks of different "views" and what different scholars "agree"), then it is no longer being taken literally, at face value.

You can't have it both ways. Either it needs to be interpreted in its symbolism and meaning, or it is literally true. Not both. And the literal aspect cannot be the case, since there are indeed chronology problems which have to be explained away.


----------



## bubba13

Also, I think it's pretty funny how everyone who is even remotely critical of the literal aspects of Genesis is immediately labeled "biased" by you. The link I posted was not biased. From research I have done it the past, the facts and commentary it lays out appear to be correct. It is not in any way trying to discredit Genesis with some Satanist intent--it's quoting Bible scholars historical debates, and laying out the original text with some scientific commentary besides.


----------



## Whisper22

bubba13 said:


> Thanks! One down, two to go....luck to you as well. Or divine blessings. Whichever. :wink:
> 
> As for cited sources, I'm not Bible scholar, so I haven't a clue. It is from a college website, though, and I have heard much of the information before (from my own college professors and from various [reputable] written sources), so I'm inclined to believe it.
> 
> Regardless, you can't deny the contradictions in the two Genesis stories--pick up any Bible and there they are in black and white. Northern, Whisper--what are your takes?


In the beginning of the article where it's talking about two different stories is just conjecture. Elohim is actually Eloheim which means Gods. That was confusing for those that translated the Bible so it was made singular to only say "God". Yaweh or Jahovah is actually referring to Jesus and in the Bible where it says "Lord God" it is also referring to Jesus. You must remember that Jesus has ALWAYS been with God and when translated correctly the story of the creation of the Earth is actually saying that the Gods, under Heavenly Fathers direction, created the Earth. I believe "Gods" meant us, not on the same level but as the same beings. But because of how the Bible was translated, that makes no sense to most people. If you were to read through the Bible very carefully you would notice the different variations of "GOD" "God" "LORD" and "Lord". This is way more complicated than I can even begin to touch on here, and just so we are clear I am not forcing anyone to believe me but I am simply stateing what I know to be true because I was asked.

It is correct to say that we can not be sure how long exactly it took to create the Earth. We don't know what measurement of time Heavenly Father was using exactly, all we know is that it took 6 periods of whatever time that may be.



tempest said:


> Actually Whisper, Christianity started with Jesus, where do you think the word _Christ_ianity came from. It didn't start with Adam and Eve.


Just because man didn't give it the name Christianity until Jesus, doesn't mean it wasn't there. Do you think that God didn't know Jesus would be on this Earth and that he would do what he did? That was the plan, also from the very beginning. If after Jesus was the only time that mattered we wouldn't have the Old Testament. Adam and Eve had the same truth that Christians do.



bubba13 said:


> You can't have it both ways. Either it needs to be interpreted in its symbolism and meaning, or it is literally true. Not both. And the literal aspect cannot be the case, since there are indeed chronology problems which have to be explained away.


I am curious why you think it can only be one way or the other. I certainly believe it is both.


----------



## Alwaysbehind

bubba13 said:


> immediately labeled "biased" by you.


Some people think that anyone who does not agree with them is obviously biased. :wink:


----------



## NdAppy

Whisper22 said:


> ...
> I am curious why you think it can only be one way or the other. I certainly believe it is both.


No, it can't. Who would decide which parts are to be literally and which are be interpreted? Sorry but it is not that simple.


----------



## Whisper22

That is exactly why Mormons feel it is necessary to have a modern day prophet. Look how messed up religion in general is. No one agrees and most people just fall into it because that's how they were raised. The only person who could tell you for sure would be someone who is in direct contact with God. It is promised in the Bible that when the true Church is restored again on the Earth, it will be the last time before the end. Because we are given so much technology and a Prophet to spread the gospel, this is our last chance to reach as many people as we can. 

I would agree that interpreting the Bible is not simple, surely not as simple as it's ALL literal or it's ALL figurative.


----------



## Lakotababii

bubba13 said:


> Also, I think it's pretty funny how everyone who is even remotely critical of the literal aspects of Genesis is immediately labeled "biased" by you. The link I posted was not biased. From research I have done it the past, the facts and commentary it lays out appear to be correct. It is not in any way trying to discredit Genesis with some Satanist intent--it's quoting Bible scholars historical debates, and laying out the original text with some scientific commentary besides.



AMEN!! lol :wink:

I do think that it is okay to be critical of the bible and its teachings, because it IS so complex. Personally I believe it has literal and figurative speech in it, and thus why it can be so hard to understand. 

Thus why I also believe salvation is achieved through the teaching that Jesus is your savior and you need him to go to heaven. Other than that, while everything else is important, it pales in comparison to salvation. 

I do not think it bias to be critical. After all, God gave us a brain for a reason. We are not supposed to take things spoon fed to us, but instead analyze and decide for ourselves. It will strengthen your faith to have it tested and challenged and to decide for yourself, not weaken it. 

And for those of you who don't believe it, its cool to analyze and criticize, its all in learning what you do and don't believe.


----------



## BFFofHorses

My personal opinion on the accuracy of the Bible is this. God is all-powerful and all seeing- so how much would He really allow His Word to be changed? Yes, there are pieces left out, but I have a friend who reads ancient Hebrew and she says that there is not that mcuh of a difference- diffferent wording but the same message. No matter how much people change the words around, the message will remain clear. Just my opinion.


----------



## Northern

bubba, a main thrust, if not THE main thrust of your "unbiased" evolutionist's invalidation of Genesis was that Genesis is in fact TWO accounts that CONTRADICT each other! The article I linked explained that quite well, did it not? Whatever I provide is invalidated or not even read/looked at.! How about the videos on the polonium? No comment from you or anyone! 

At this point, since articles/videos are disagreed upon, there's nothing more to be done: it'd go on till the end of time.

It remains for you, bubba, to provide the scientific proof of the first "modern" man having descended from a single-celled life-form on through an "ape-like" creature, over millions of years. If you agree with Darwin, who denied Genesis, then it's up to you to provide the evidence.

"


Whisper22 said:


> In the beginning of the article where it's talking about two different stories is just conjecture.  Yes, & there are many articles online which explain this, aside from the one I linked. If you were to read through the Bible very carefully you would notice the different variations of "GOD" "God" "LORD" and "Lord". This is way more complicated than I can even begin to touch on here, and just so we are clear I am not forcing anyone to believe me but I am simply stating what I know to be true because I was asked. Whisper's words give rise to another fact: the Bible is an EXTREMELY difficult book to understand! This is why Bible scholars spend their entire lives pondering (and some praying) its words! Whether that's "fair" or not, it's the fact of the matter! Moreover, the Bible is a spiritual book, thus spiritually discerned: it talks about God Himself blinding the eyes of those whom He wants blinded, and His hardening human hearts against the gospel! "whom He will, He hardeneth.". He hardened Pharaoh's heart against Moses & the Jews more than once! So, for an evolutionist, who's already set his face/been hardened by God to write his anti-Genesis article, we'd better be really careful in ascertaining whether he has any valid points at all, or has sincere questions, or is simply invalidating. "The natural mind is at enmity with God." Evolutionists are operating from their natural minds, I think we can all agree!:wink:
> 
> Just because man didn't give it the name Christianity until Jesus, doesn't mean it wasn't there. Do you think that God didn't know Jesus would be on this Earth and that he would do what he did? That was the plan, also from the very beginning. If after Jesus was the only time that mattered we wouldn't have the Old Testament. Adam and Eve had the same truth that Christians do.


 Yes, God is from everlasting to everlasting, & He changes not!


----------



## bubba13

Pot-kettle. Everything I post, you dismissed as "biased" and "unproven." You distort and misinterpret scientific facts, and somehow in your mind twist them in your favor. The things you quote--Ann Coulter, evangelical creationists' sites--are about as biased as they come, yet YOU were the one initially demanding peer-reviewed, hard science only!

You have also completely ignored the fossil record stuff I posted (multiple times), and the mitochondrial Eve stuff, and all of the DNA stuff that sarahver took the time to explain....

I've already stated that my time is very short for the next few days, so I have not had a chance to read thoroughly all of the stuff posted. If the thread is not locked by the time finals week is over, I will take a closer look and respond as appropriate.

I also told you how the article "explaining away" the two-storied Genesis account does NOT allow for a literal interpretation of the Bible. You fail to acknowledge that fact, but even your cited author seems to agree, and the logical inconsistency remains.


----------



## Northern

bubba13 said:


> All I can say is what I said before: I HONESTLY don't see the "proofs" that you say are there. I also said before that maybe I'm too dumb too see that you've proven something. You have years of science that I don't have. Yet, I'm not going to agree with you if I DON't see that you've proved anything. I hope that you wouldn't want me to. If you've already got the hard evidence that the first modern-looking man came from an Old World Monkey/ape-like creature, & just aren't sharing that with us, why don't you go ahead and share?  The things you quote--Ann Coulter, you & howclever are absurd in your accusations of AC twisting facts; I'm finished explaining on that one. (she has a lousy index, though!) YOU were the one initially demanding peer-reviewed, hard science only! Yes, & I've not changed, except for the peer-reviewing, because we agreed, did we not, that in the case of evolution, peer-reviewed is meaningless, due to people's biases. For example, the Piltdown Man hoax was peer-reviewed: experts confirmed its authenticity, it was given a Latin name, the discoverer was showered with awards, & for 40+ years, the hoax was accepted as fact.
> 
> You have also completely ignored the fossil record stuff I posted (multiple times), and the mitochondrial Eve stuff, and all of the DNA stuff that sarahver took the time to explain....I've told you, I next have to look at the fossil record, & whatever else. I do have to take care of the rest of my life, & then, of course, there's recreation. Like, maybe I want to look at old **** Cavett shows tonight, rather than slog away at findiing _some_ fact that you won't refute, because it'll never happen, anyway!  I HAVE looked more at the fossil record, & so far, there's nothing/no fossils to prove ape-like creature to **** sapiens, nor a wingless creature developing wings & turning into a bird. I think that it might be just that simple. Darwin himself lamented the dearth of fossils that might prove his theory.
> 
> I've already stated that my time is very short for the next few days, THANK you, GOD of GENESIS! :wink: so I have not had a chance to read thoroughly all of the stuff posted. If the thread is not locked by the time finals week is over, I will take a closer look and respond as appropriate. Really, bubba, what good will it do? I'm seeing now that ON down the line, there's only disagreement on what ANY evidence means! So, I'm not holding you to it.
> 
> I also told you how the article "explaining away" the two-storied Genesis account does NOT allow for a literal interpretation of the Bible. You fail to acknowledge that fact, Not intentionally: I skimmed the article & saw where author gave a good explanation for the apparent-to-some contradictory Genesis accounts. So now I need to go back & see how this same article "does NOT allow for a literal interp of the Bible? Plus, even if it doesn't, it doesn't invalidate his explanation of the issue, which COULD then be taken for a literal interp.


 Btw, did you read the paragraph I posted on Darwin's social-responsibility/lack thereof ideas? No comment from anyone on that, either. That paragraph provided me with a link for the "social" Darwinism that sprang from his writings & theory. Too bad it's the only link yet found!


----------



## bubba13

I don't know what you're so dead-set on demonizing Darwin. His point was valid. It's also descriptive, not proscriptive. He simply states the facts--our control of our environment has allowed for the propogation of very sickly individuals who A) are not productive to society (which is where you're trying to draw the line to Hitler) and B) have very poor quality of life. Darwin does NOT advocate mass extermination of these individuals. Neither does any sane, rational person. The same is true for forced sterilization. But should people be more careful when "breeding?" Many, including myself, would argue for "yes." Because the kid shouldn't have to pay. I'm all for genetic testing before choosing to have biological kids--it can save the poor child a lot of pain and heartache. That's not saying euthanize the ones who are already here....it's saying that when you know you have a high chance of bringing that suffering on your baby, why the hell would you take the risk? That's just selfish and unethical.

BTW--http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/1028320...e/t/early-bird-fossil-features-dinosaur-feet/


----------



## HowClever

Northern, your thinly veiled insults are not going unnoticed and they do nothing to help your credibility.

BTW, by all means insult, but have the nerve to do it plainly.


----------



## Northern

Ok, in response to your statement that the author "seems" to disallow a literalist interp of Genesis, I reread his article; there's nothing to suggest that this is so, & the whole article points to his belief in a literal Genesis. Further proof can be found in the context of the entire site: click on Creation vs Evolution for many articles, & one article answers the question of whether "the site" believes in the literal 6-days of creation, answer being yes.

The articles in the C-v-E section look like they've got a lot of info, btw.


----------



## bubba13

Quote from the article: 
_Fourth, Genesis 1 and 2 are said to contradict each other in the relative creation-order of plants and man. In chapter 1, it is argued, plants were created on the third day of the initial week (11-12), and man was made on the sixth day (26ff.), whereas in chapter 2, plants and herbs seem not to appear until after the formation of man (5ff.). The real problem exists only in the mind of the critic. There are possible means by which to resolve the alleged difficulty._
_Some suggest that in Genesis 1 the original *creation* of the botanical world is in view, while in Genesis 2 the emphasis is upon the fact that plant *reproduction* had not commenced, for as yet there was not sufficient moisture, nor a cultivator of the ground, which factors are remedied in verses 6-7 (Jacobus, 1864, 1:96)._
_Others agree that entirely different matters are in view in these respective accounts. In Genesis 1:11-12 vegetation in general is under consideration, but in Genesis 2:5ff. the writer is discussing the specific sort of vegetation that requires human cultivation. It has been observed “that the words rendered *plant*, *field,* and *grew*, never occur in the first chapter; they are terms expressive of the produce of labour and cultivation; so that the historian evidently means that no cultivated land and no vegetables fit for the use of man were yet in existence on the earth” (Browne, 1981, 1:39, emp. in orig.)._
_Another view is that Genesis 2:5 does not refer to the condition of the Earth at large; rather, the writer simply is discussing the preparation of the beautiful garden in which man was to live (Young, p. 61). In any event, we must stress this point: whenever there is the possibility of legitimate reconciliation between passages that superficially appear to conflict, no contradiction can be charged!_
_Fifth, it is argued that Genesis 1 represents animals as existing before man (24-26), yet Genesis 2 has Adam created before the animals are formed (19). The text of Genesis 2:19 merely suggests that the animals were formed before being brought to man; it says nothing about the relative origins of man and beast in terms of chronology. The critic is reading something into the text that simply is not there. William Green pointed out that when noted scholar Franz Delitzsch (1813-1890), an advocate of the Documentary Hypothesis, first authored his famous commentary on Genesis, he employed this argument as a proof of a discrepancy between Genesis 1 and 2. However, in the last edition of his work, after his knowledge had matured, he repudiated this quibble and argued for the harmony of 2:19 with chapter 1 (Green, 1979, p. 26)._

There should be no need for the disagreement if a strict literal interpretation was followed. It would be cut and dry, and scholars wouldn't have to quibble over the details. And of course, the "unbiased" author of this article does not quote the multitude of modern-day Bible scholars who disagree with his interpretation and stick to the two-story, two-author theory.

Hey, what'd you think of my dinobird?


----------



## Northern

HowClever said:


> Northern, your thinly veiled insults are not going unnoticed and they do nothing to help your credibility.
> 
> BTW, by all means insult, but have the nerve to do it plainly.


I don't know where you think that I insulted you "from under a thin veil", hc! To which words do you refer? "I think I'll toss a thinly-veiled insult at hc !" was not my thought process.

Plus, I'm wondering why MY credibility matters to you or bubba or anyone else here, re: this unproven theory? None of you know me from *pardon the expression* Adam! 

Me, I'm learning, so it's been good for me.


----------



## Northern

bubba13 said:


> Quote from the article:
> _Fourth, Genesis 1 and 2 are said to contradict each other in the relative creation-order of plants and man. In chapter 1, it is argued, plants were created on the third day of the initial week (11-12), and man was made on the sixth day (26ff.), whereas in chapter 2, plants and herbs seem not to appear until after the formation of man (5ff.). The real problem exists only in the mind of the critic. There are possible means by which to resolve the alleged difficulty. This is just to say, "listen up!":_
> _Some suggest that in Genesis 1 the original *creation* of the botanical world is in view, while in Genesis 2 the emphasis is upon the fact that plant *reproduction* had not commenced, for as yet there was not sufficient moisture, nor a cultivator of the ground, which factors are remedied in verses 6-7 (Jacobus, 1864, 1:96). This is true: no moisture nor cultivator till verses 6-7._
> _Others agree that entirely different matters are in view in these respective accounts. In Genesis 1:11-12 vegetation in general is under consideration, but in Genesis 2:5ff. the writer is discussing the specific sort of vegetation that requires human cultivation. It has been observed “that the words rendered *plant*, *field,* and *grew*, never occur in the first chapter; they are terms expressive of the produce of labour and cultivation; so that the historian evidently means that no cultivated land and no vegetables fit for the use of man were yet in existence on the earth” (Browne, 1981, 1:39, emp. in orig.). This is ALSO true! _
> _Another view is that Genesis 2:5 does not refer to the condition of the Earth at large; rather, the writer simply is discussing the preparation of the beautiful garden in which man was to live (Young, p. 61). In any event, we must stress this point: whenever there is the possibility of legitimate reconciliation between passages that superficially appear to conflict, no contradiction can be charged! This is ALSO true: prep of Eden._
> _Fifth, it is argued that Genesis 1 represents animals as existing before man (24-26), yet Genesis 2 has Adam created before the animals are formed (19). The text of Genesis 2:19 merely suggests that the animals were formed before being brought to man; *it says nothing about* the relative origins of man and beast in terms of *chronology*. The critic is reading something into the text that simply is not there. William Green pointed out that when noted scholar Franz Delitzsch (1813-1890), an advocate of the Documentary Hypothesis, first authored his famous commentary on Genesis, he employed this argument as a proof of a discrepancy between Genesis 1 and 2. However, in the last edition of his work, after his knowledge had matured, *he repudiated this quibble and argued for the harmony of 2:19 with chapter 1* (Green, 1979, p. 26)._
> 
> There should be no need for the disagreement if a strict literal interpretation was followed. What's misleading here is the author's word choices, in your blue words. ALL of these statements are right there in Genesis 2. That said, I've already explained how hard it is to get people to agree on/understand WHAT it's saying! You just have to accept that, & give yourself a reasonable base, like to say that those who accept that God made everything in 6 days are Genesis literalists. And of course, the "unbiased" author of this article does not quote the multitude of modern-day Bible scholars who disagree with his interpretation and stick to the two-story, two-author theory. Right, you could say that he's a "cohesive Genesis-literalist", as am I, not because I want to be unscientific, but because I SEE no contradictions here, & all of the answers to the accusations of the 2-2 theory make sense to me.
> ,
> Hey, what'd you think of my dinobird?


Fabulous!:wink:


----------



## bubba13

But depending on which blue you choose, it's a slightly different story/chronology/message! Does it matter? Maybe, maybe not...


----------



## Northern

bubba13 said:


> I don't know what you're so dead-set on demonizing Darwin. Oh, just a few details, like he denied Genesis & Lord-knows-what-else in the Bible, set up a theory to bulwark that denial in the minds & hearts of all he could, said unprovedly that my ancestors were Old World Monkeys, & wrote such words as this paragraph. His point was valid.:shock: It's also descriptive, not proscriptive. I disagree; seemed that he was suggesting that our caring for the infirm, etc. would do well to change, & that we should breed ourselves for vigor as we breed animals. I sympathize with the latter to some degree, but not saying that I know that I'm right to do so.  He simply states the facts--our control of our environment has allowed for the propogation of very sickly individuals who A) are not productive to society (which is where you're trying to draw the line to Hitler) Marx & Hitler drew the line for themselves, didn't they? and B) have very poor quality of life. Darwin does NOT advocate mass extermination of these individuals.


He doesn't specify, so you really can't say what he'd've wanted in any specific situation. Mass extermination of incurable AIDS victims: would Darwin have advocated for that, rather than spend the resources to keep each one alive as long as possible?


----------



## bubba13

That has nothing to do with genetics, so obviously not. Darwin was not trying to enact social change, though you and others can corrupt and extrapolate his words however you will...


----------



## Northern

bubba13 said:


> But depending on which blue you choose, it's a slightly different story/chronology/message! Does it matter? Maybe, maybe not...


 I don't see each blue as causing the story to be different; I see that each blue contributes another element that is in the account.


----------



## Northern

bubba13 said:


> That has nothing to do with genetics, so obviously not. Darwin was not trying to enact social change, though you and others can corrupt and extrapolate his words however you will...


Where's howclever? I feel a thinly-veiled insult coming on!

bubba, you can't speak for Darwin on what he'd do in any specific situation. I've no intention, & neither have many people who've traced the connections from Darwin's theory to "social" Darwinism, of corrupting his words.

OMG, I just felt such a wave of boredom over this topic.:shock: Time for some cool old tv videos!


----------



## Whisper22

bubba13 said:


> Quote from the article:
> _Fourth, Genesis 1 and 2 are said to contradict each other in the relative creation-order of plants and man. In chapter 1, it is argued, plants were created on the third day of the initial week (11-12), and man was made on the sixth day (26ff.), whereas in chapter 2, plants and herbs seem not to appear until after the formation of man (5ff.). The real problem exists only in the mind of the critic. There are possible means by which to resolve the alleged difficulty._
> _Some suggest that in Genesis 1 the original *creation* of the botanical world is in view, while in Genesis 2 the emphasis is upon the fact that plant *reproduction* had not commenced, for as yet there was not sufficient moisture, nor a cultivator of the ground, which factors are remedied in verses 6-7 (Jacobus, 1864, 1:96)._
> _Others agree that entirely different matters are in view in these respective accounts. In Genesis 1:11-12 vegetation in general is under consideration, but in Genesis 2:5ff. the writer is discussing the specific sort of vegetation that requires human cultivation. It has been observed “that the words rendered *plant*, *field,* and *grew*, never occur in the first chapter; they are terms expressive of the produce of labour and cultivation; so that the historian evidently means that no cultivated land and no vegetables fit for the use of man were yet in existence on the earth” (Browne, 1981, 1:39, emp. in orig.)._
> _Another view is that Genesis 2:5 does not refer to the condition of the Earth at large; rather, the writer simply is discussing the preparation of the beautiful garden in which man was to live (Young, p. 61). In any event, we must stress this point: whenever there is the possibility of legitimate reconciliation between passages that superficially appear to conflict, no contradiction can be charged!_
> _Fifth, it is argued that Genesis 1 represents animals as existing before man (24-26), yet Genesis 2 has Adam created before the animals are formed (19). The text of Genesis 2:19 merely suggests that the animals were formed before being brought to man; it says nothing about the relative origins of man and beast in terms of chronology. The critic is reading something into the text that simply is not there. William Green pointed out that when noted scholar Franz Delitzsch (1813-1890), an advocate of the Documentary Hypothesis, first authored his famous commentary on Genesis, he employed this argument as a proof of a discrepancy between Genesis 1 and 2. However, in the last edition of his work, after his knowledge had matured, he repudiated this quibble and argued for the harmony of 2:19 with chapter 1 (Green, 1979, p. 26)._
> 
> There should be no need for the disagreement if a strict literal interpretation was followed. It would be cut and dry, and scholars wouldn't have to quibble over the details. And of course, the "unbiased" author of this article does not quote the multitude of modern-day Bible scholars who disagree with his interpretation and stick to the two-story, two-author theory.
> 
> Hey, what'd you think of my dinobird?


I just read through both Genesis 1 & 2 and the way it came off to me was not this at all. 

In Genesis 2 it says

*19*And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

The "And" is not saying, to me anyway, that the beast came next. Only that the beast of the field, and every fowl of the air that were formed out of the ground were then brought to Adam to name.

I guess you could read it like this
And every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air whom the LORD God (had) formed out of the ground where brought unto Adam to see what he would call them.
It's not a huge difference but reads completely different.

Anyhow, I could be wrong, but I think we have all agreed that the Bible has been tampered with quite a few times and certain wording is bound to be mistranslated. The fact is, this is really insignificant to our purpose and gole and comes down to semantics which will never be agreed apon.


----------



## Northern

Re: the polonium theory of Robert V. Gentry (3 videos posted), now I find that some evolution scientists & geologists have disagreed with him, & I got sick of reading the back & forth, especially since I'm not a nuclear physicist nor a geologist. 

So, as it seems to be with every point on this issue, disagreement reigns.


----------



## LoveStory10

tempest said:


> Actually Whisper, Christianity started with Jesus, where do you think the word _Christ_ianity came from. It didn't start with Adam and Eve.


Exactly. And if you would look, I don't know exactly where in the Bible, but there are two references to two of my Gods; Artemis and Zeus, so that indicates to me that Greek worship was around long before Christianity, as there is NO mention of Christianity in my religious book.

Just saying...


----------



## tempest

LoveStory10 said:


> Exactly. And if you would look, I don't know exactly where in the Bible, but there are two references to two of my Gods; Artemis and Zeus, so that indicates to me that Greek worship was around long before Christianity, as there is NO mention of Christianity in my religious book.


If you find them would you let me know where. I would really like to read that section. It sound extremely interesting.


----------



## LoveStory10

tempest said:


> If you find them would you let me know where. I would really like to read that section. It sound extremely interesting.


Of course  I'll go look now and see where it is


----------



## LoveStory10

Ok I cant seem to find the one with Zeus, but I found the one with Artemis. It is Acts 19, from verse 21 to 41... Here's some quotes:

24. "A certain silversmith names Demetrius made silver models of the temple of the goddess Artemis..."

27."...Not only that, but there is a danger that the temple of the great goddess Artemis will come to mean nothing and that her greatness will be destroyed..."


----------



## Whisper22

They are being mentioned because they WERE around before JESUS, but Jesus is not the beginning, as I've already said, or we would not have the Old Testament. The Bible is simply aknowledging that poeple were worshipping other gods because that is the truth, but it doesn't make it right. The name "Chritians" was given by man, and was originally a derogatory term. The ORIGIN of that name is insignificant.


----------



## LoveStory10

So it's not right that people have other religions? Am I not right? Are the Buddists etc not right? Maybe in your eyes, but not in the eyes of the religion THEY believe in


----------



## Whisper22

Of course you have that right. But as far as the Bible is concerned, there is only one God that should be worshipped. If you don't want to follow the Bible, again, that is your right.

I am simply defending my beliefs,as are you. If I think you have been misinformed, why shouldn't I say so? You are taking this way too personally.


----------



## LoveStory10

Of course I'm taking this personally... I could quote 10000000 things from my religious book saying why you are "misinformed", but I don't, because I respect that you believe in God, as do many of my friends. I go to a catholic school, so I am fully exposed.

I find you telling me that I am "misinformed" about my beliefs highly rude, because you don't see me telling you that, because it's what YOU believe, as opposed to what I believe. You don't see me telling all the christians or atheists that they are wrong and whatever for not believing what I do. You SHOULDN'T say so, because it is RUDE, and you should not be judging others on what they believe.

I am a Greek worshipper, and I support evolution. If that means I am wrong and going to have my importance lessened, so be it.


----------



## Northern

The Greek gods went extinct YEARS ago; hasn't anyone told you?:wink:

I've run across this Intelligent Design (as distinguished from Creationist) scientist. (Princeton PhD) He's written several books with intriguing titles, & there's a quickie video on his site, plus more clips:

Site: Biography - David Berlinski

Clips: Youtube: Dr. David Berlinski - Self-criticism

Also, I conclude, from my reading, plus a Berlinski clip statement, that the "evidence" for evolution from the fossil record that faye stated as fact is nonexistent: 1. Fossils don't reveal a parent-descendant relationship. 2. Even if two fossils could be shown to be parent-descendant, the cause of the change/the "random/chance mutation" is unknown.


----------



## Spastic_Dove

Northern;1030694[B said:


> ]The Greek gods went extinct YEARS ago; hasn't anyone told you?:wink:
> [/B]


:shock: Wow, that was unnecessary. 

I've remained lurking on here but decided not to post because it seems pointless at this point. But that was just uncalled for. Greek and Roman gods are not nearly as popular as they were at one point, but I would hardly say they went 'extinct'.


----------



## Northern

SD, did you think I was presenting a scientific statement of fact here? That winking emoticon means tongue-in-cheek, usually.

Anything's possible, so to clarify, it was an attempt at humour.

I couldn't help myself, the joke was begging to be posted! "Extinct", get it? - even in the realm of the gods/God, get it?


----------



## Whisper22

LoveStory10 said:


> Of course I'm taking this personally... I could quote 10000000 things from my religious book saying why you are "misinformed", but I don't, because I respect that you believe in God, as do many of my friends. I go to a catholic school, so I am fully exposed.
> 
> I find you telling me that I am "misinformed" about my beliefs highly rude, because you don't see me telling you that, because it's what YOU believe, as opposed to what I believe. You don't see me telling all the christians or atheists that they are wrong and whatever for not believing what I do. You SHOULDN'T say so, because it is RUDE, and you should not be judging others on what they believe.
> 
> I am a Greek worshipper, and I support evolution. If that means I am wrong and going to have my importance lessened, so be it.


Well, then maybe this discussion isn't for you. If you thought I was misinformed I wouldn't get offended because, AGAIN, that is your right. However, I would be interested in dicussing it, maybe even a little debateing it, with you. All in good fun of course. I never said your imortance was lessened, God loves us all equally :wink:.


----------



## Whisper22

Northern said:


> I was wondering if someone'd take offense at a bit of tongue-in-cheek, & there you are.
> 
> I couldn't help myself, the joke was begging to be posted!
> 
> SpasticD, life is too nasty, brutish, & short to eliminate humour! Especially on this thread!


Agreed. People have made jokes about the Christian religion on this thread and I didn't see anyone getting offended.


----------



## bubba13

Northern said:


> Also, I conclude, from my reading, plus a Berlinski clip statement, that the "evidence" for evolution from the fossil record that faye stated as fact is nonexistent: 1. Fossils don't reveal a parent-descendant relationship. 2. Even if two fossils could be shown to be parent-descendant, the cause of the change/the "random/chance mutation" is unknown.


Don't have time to watch the video right now, but I am familiar with variations on the Intelligent Design theory. Usually seems to be somewhere bridging the gap between Creationism and Evolution. More or less made up as we go, too, as there's neither any physical evidence nor a holy text to work from. But it's a decent enough attempt at explanation that would explain both the origin of life (from a mostly non-scientific standpoint) and the driving force of evolution "peaking" at humanity (if you still insist on being an anthropocentrist).

As for your exceptions,

1. Well, no, fossils don't show a mommy and baby in the sense that mom is an ape-thing (or a dinosaur) and the kid is a human (or a bird). But that's not how evolution/speciation works, anyway, and the fossils DO show _trends_ over time. With plenty of "missing links," like all of the homonid fossils I posted, or the velociraptor-bird, that come in the geologic periods in between more recognizeable fossil species.

2. The cause of the change? Well, we already said it's random. Random mutations are happening now, so of course they were happening "way back when." Survival of the fittest is happening now, so of course it was happening way back when. And the environment is always changing and is always the driving force for adaptation/evolution, so I'm not seeing where the issue crops up at all....


----------



## BFFofHorses

Jesus would be proud of some us "Christian " folks acting so Christ-like ....
Have more respect for other people's beliefs.


----------



## Spastic_Dove

Not sure which to respond to since it looks like you editied your post after it was quoted. For anything someone has said negative about Christianity, there's been someone to freak out and talk about TRUE Christians and sinners and blahblahblah. So now I guess we're even


----------



## corinowalk

Wait just one second. Something just clicked in my brain. So, Northern thinks it is entirely possible that the Royals are descendents of Reptiles but the though that we have evolved is absurd? Really?


----------



## Whisper22

Spastic_Dove said:


> Not sure which to respond to since it looks like you editied your post after it was quoted. For anything someone has said negative about Christianity, there's been someone to freak out and talk about TRUE Christians and sinners and blahblahblah. So now I guess we're even


Do you people seriously not understand the concept of a discussion or a debate. There has been no freaking out.

You say something, then I say something. You tell me how I'm wrong, then I tell you how you're wrong. That's how it works. If you can't handle it, then move to a discussion more your speed.


----------



## Spastic_Dove

Hmm. I'll agree to disagree.


----------



## Whisper22

fair enough.


----------



## Northern

bubba13 said:


> ...nor a holy text to work from. I get your point, bubba, but coming from you, this is funny! LOL! 1. Well, no, fossils don't show a mommy and baby in the sense that mom is an ape-thing (or a dinosaur) and the kid is a human (or a bird). But that's not how evolution/speciation works, anyway, and the fossils DO show _trends_ over time. With plenty of "missing links," like all of the homonid fossils I posted, or the velociraptor-bird, that come in the geologic periods in between more recognizeable fossil species. Proofs needed, bubba. Look, I say again that I may be too dumb to see your proofs, but I say again, too, that these ID folks are brains, some creationists are brainy enough to be nuclear physicists, & even our beloved AC is a 4x NY Times best-selling author, and THEY HONESTLY don't see proofs of the theory, AT ALL!
> 
> 2. The cause of the change? Well, we already said it's random. Proof needed. Random mutations are happening now, so of course they were happening "way back when." Proof needed.Survival of the fittest is happening now, so of course it was happening way back when. What constitutes "fitness"? Oh, yah, whatever/whoever survives. "T" word!  And the environment is always changing and is always the driving force for adaptation/evolution, so I'm not seeing where the issue crops up at all....


 I wonder why evolutionists are so devoted to a theory which says that their ancestors are Old World Monkeys & various & assorted ape-like creatures, PLUS says that intelligence plays NO PART in these accidental mutations! 



Spastic_Dove said:


> Not sure which to respond to since it looks like you editied your post after it was quoted. When someone edits, they want the edited to be the "authorized" post. Whisper jumped on it. Yet, the point is in both, so take your pick. For anything someone has said negative about Christianity, there's been someone to freak out and talk about TRUE Christians and sinners and blahblahblah. So now I guess we're even


 I haven't freaked out here, & I don't think I've "blahblahblah"'d: then, I injected some humour into this heretofore grim discussion. I don't feel the need to apologize for anything. We're even? Great, let's move on.



corinowalk said:


> Wait just one second. Something just clicked in my brain. So, Northern thinks it is entirely possible that the Royals are descendents of Reptiles but the though that we have evolved is absurd? Really?


 Man, I hate that "REALLY? SERIOUSLY?" thing going around nowadays! What I think is that comparing the RR POSSIBLE genetic lines to RANDOM evolution theory is like comparing apples to oranges. The whole point of the RRs is NO randomness/TOTAL strategic matings to ensure the "survival of the reptiles", ENGINEERED by the diabolical INTELLIGENCE of the RRs. No intelligence allowed for "survival of the fittest", remember? TOTAL randomness/chance/accidental "mutations".


----------



## bubba13

You're wrong about the intelligence thing. In the case of the fruit flies, it was shown that increased neural connections consumed too much energy for the survival of _Drosophila_. Just them, as far as that experiment goes. Extrapolating the results may or may not be applicable. Obviously, in some circumstances, intelligence can be beneficial so long as it does not come at the cost of other survival mechanisms.

Why are "evolutionists," as you call scientists (as though they belong to some sort of controversial cult) so devoted to the theory? Because it's logical, and all signs point to it, and there's really nothing to be feared from it. So what if man is not the ruling apex of creation? All the better, as we are interconnected in this marvelous web of life! Let us always "stop to smell the roses;" let us revel in the beauty of a glorious spring day; let us have more respect and compassion for our animal brethren. It shows the beauty and complexity of nature, and for many of us, points to the reality of a divine force. The most beautiful book I've ever read--and I'll recommend it to anyone with the slightest of philosophical leanings--is Annie Dillard's _Pilgrim at Tinker Creek_. She is far more eloquent than I.

"Proof needed" on the dating thing: We have found fossils. Using radioactive methods and geological evidence (I'm not a geologist or a physicist, so I'm no real expert on how those things work), we have a consistent timeline that shows a clear progression. I predict you'll take exception to the accuracy of such dating methods, saying they aren't infallible/can't be proven/etc., but they certainly seem to work, and the scientific community agrees that they work, and they have been "proven" to work, and they give such a timeline as I alluded to above, showing the progression of fossils all the way from simple bacteria through plants, dinosaurs, and eventually humans, as all branched off from the initial genetic line. The first bacterial fossils I believe are somewhere on the magnitude of 3.5 _billion_ years old. The human species, on the other hand, is only 1-2 _million_ years old.

Ann Coulter is not a scientist, so her opinion is really of no weight here. I don't care how many books she's sold--it's irrelevant. A nuclear physicist is not a biologist or a paleontologist, either. Say, have you run across any paleontologists who believe in Genesis Creationism? 

Random mutations in DNA have been conclusively proven, even to your "strict" and unbelieving standards. I don't have any specific link, but a quick google search should turn up loads and loads of results. DNA replication is not perfect, and neither is the process of meiosis, so mistakes get made all the time. And a mistake = a mutation.

Come on now, too. Do you really not see the obvious logic in "survival of the fittest?" Remember the malamute/hairless example? It's hardly even a scientific or academic concept--just common sense and reasoning! Cause and effect!


----------



## LoveStory10

BFFofHorses said:


> Jesus would be proud of some us "Christian " folks acting so Christ-like ....
> Have more respect for other people's beliefs.


Thank you! I was just about to say that. Does it not say in the Bible something about don't judge unless you want to be judged, or something like that?

Northern, you keep asking for proof, that's all I see in your above post "proof needed". There is evidence of evolution, have you never seen fossils? In the Bible it says how lions, tigers, bears, birds etc were made and named, but not a thing about dinosaurs, yet we know they existed, as there are many bones and fossils that have been found, same thing for prehistoric man.

There have been 5 full fossils of man found in the Drakensberg mountains and Pilgrims Rest alone in my country. There were olden day (and I mean real old) tools and equipment found with them, and they were identified as being from a prehistoric era. Yay, proof!

And I'm sorry, I don't care if it was an attempt at humor, your "The Greek Gods went extinct years ago" comment was highly rude, as I did not in any circumstances make "humorous" comments about your religion.


----------



## coffeeaddict

As someone who could not care less about this subject matter, I must say I find it highly amusing that this thread has made it to over 400 pages. Holy cow. (pun intended)

I do wonder if those of you who are debating this actually think you'll change someone's mind? It's a loosing battle no matter what side you're on.


----------



## Northern

bubba13;1031241
Why are "evolutionists said:


> Scientists are not all evolutionists! Some scientists are creationists e.g[/COLOR] The evolutionists, I am convinced, DO belong to an unscientific cult.
> 
> Say, have you run across any paleontologists who believe in Genesis Creationism?  No, but I haven't looked, & it's a good idea to look. However, if every paleontologist on earth was an evolutionist, that wouldn't prove that Genesis is wrong!
> 
> Come on now, too. Do you really not see the obvious logic in "survival of the fittest?" No, I do not. As I've said, many smarter, more accomplished, more educated in science, etc., people also do not! So why is it so hard for you to wrap your mind around the fact that I, someone who didn't even graduate college, don't see the validity of the theory? And why do you care?Remember the malamute/hairless example? It's hardly even a scientific or academic concept--just common sense and reasoning! Cause and effect!


 I agree, it's cause & effect, but cause & effect aren't the same as the 3 parts of the theory. Cause & effect are compatible with Genesis, for one thing.


----------



## Whisper22

Nothing annoys me more than a non-Christian telling a Christian how a Christian should act. So basically we are not allowed to give our oppinion because if we do we are being judgemental. Give me a break. I don't recall telling anyone they are an idiot for believing what they do. As far as I'm concerned, I passed no judgement on anyone. I even start most of my statements with "I believe", just so no one gets their panties in a twist thinking I expect them to accept it just because I said it.

Those of us who are actually involved in the discussion are having a good time with it, which is why we have been in it so long. I'll say it again, if you can't handle it, maybe you should remove yourself from it.

IMO, these "tools" you speak of don't look like anything a monkey today couldn't figure out how to use.


----------



## Northern

*Three atheistic scientists' words on evolution:*

Sir Fred Hoyle: Late Cambridge astrophysicist, much-awarded.
Chandra Wickramasinghe: Sir Hoyle's collaborator, Cambridge, the first to propose the theory that dust in interstellar space and comets was mostly organic, a theory that has now been proved correct. Hoyle determined the mathematical probability of the basic enzymes of life arising by random processes. The conclusion was that the odds were "so utterly miniscule" as to make the theory absurd. Hoyle said a "common-sense interpretation of the facts" is that "a superintellect has monkeyed [did he have to use that word? ] with physics, as well as with chemistry an biology and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature." His calculations from the facts, he said, "seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

Francis Crick: winner of the Nobel Prize for his codiscovery of DNA. "The probability of life originating at random is so utterly miniscule as to make it absurd."

Here's a good article on Charles Darwin: Charles Darwin; Time For the Truth to be Told. It covers a lot of ground, and if you scroll down, bubba, to the subtitle "Darwin's Basic Theory", the author explains nicely the circular reasoning in the theory that I've encountered, as well.


----------



## Northern

Sorry, all, for the color red not taking in my post, I redid it & it still came out like that. It does that a lot.


----------



## Northern

coffeeaddict said:


> I do wonder if those of you who are debating this actually think you'll change someone's mind? It's a loosing battle no matter what side you're on.


 My OP says that I know that the opinions are already "in stone".


----------



## HowClever

The time has come for me to back away from this thread.

I have too many other, actually important, things happening to keep coming back and being offended by what certain people are saying. 

At least I know that my original conclusions have been confirmed.


----------



## Northern

*I already stated that dinosaurs are biblical.*



LoveStory10 said:


> Northern, you keep asking for proof, that's all I see in your above post "proof needed". There is evidence of evolution, have you never seen fossils? The fact that fossils exist (& no honest person denies it) doesn't prove evolution! The fact that malamutes & Mexican hairless dogs exist, & the malamute would die sooner than the hairless in the desert doesn't prove evolution! And so on! As I said many pages ago, I've provided links to very detailed information on all aspects of the issue, starting with the fossil frauds, from people far more knowledgeable than I on this subject. I suggest that you avail yourself of these links, & if there's something still unanswered for you, just google, as I've done.
> There have been 5 full fossils of man found in the Drakensberg mountains and Pilgrims Rest alone in my country. There were olden day (and I mean real old) tools and equipment found with them, and they were identified as being from a prehistoric era. "Prehistoric era" needs defining: does that mean prior to **** sapiens, thus an "ape-like" creature? Yay, proof! No, this is not proof, because of the "interpretation" that evolutionists put on the ages of the fossils, & possibly how they "interpret" what kind of creatures they are. (I'm not claiming anything either way about these two - I'll put them on my to-do list) Read the Piltdown Hoaxes I linked for how this "misinterp" has occurred numerous times.
> 
> And I'm sorry, I don't care if it was an attempt at humor, your "The Greek Gods went extinct years ago" comment was highly rude, as I did not in any circumstances make "humorous" comments about your religion.


Since you're not the admin here, from whom my attempt at humor brought no undesirable consequences, you might want to move on.

Re: dinosaurs: there are plenty of online articles which cover the subject. Here's one: Dinosaurs and the Bible: ChristianCourier.com. Dinosaurs are biblical creatures.


----------



## Northern

*Dino-bird Nonsense*

Evolutionist & ornithologist Alan Feduccia has stated, "All in all, I find the whole dino-bird business a total hoax." For the article: The Origin of Birds and Flight - Harun Yahya.

Dr. Xu Xing, a paleontologist (bubba, a paleontologist here!) exposed Archaeoraptor liaoningenesis as a fraud iin 2000 if I recall. The different parts of the skeleton were from different animals. Info easy to google.


----------



## bubba13

Are the Odds Against the Origin of Life Too Great to Accept? (Addendum B to Review of David Foster's The Philosophical Scientists)


----------



## Northern

*Are you smarter than a rat?*

The article posted at the end of this story talks about evolutionists making the assumption that they can figure it all out themselves/ naturally. This story by Temple Grandin illustrates the folly of that assumption:

"There are definitely times when normal people's [author's autistic] high level of general intelligence [as opposed to many animals' specialism] makes them too smart for their own good. My favorite example is the rats who beat the humans in a lever-pressing task. Years ago someone decided to compare rats to humans in the kind of standard operant conditioning task experimenters usually do only with animals. (Remember, operant conditioning means the animal or person gets a reward when he dos what the experimenter wants him to do.) The rats and the humans had to look at a TV screen and press the lever anytime a dot appeared in the top half of the screen. The experimenter didn't tell the human subjects that's what they were supposed to do; they had to figure it out for themselves the same way the rats did.

The experiment was set up so that 70 percent of the time the dot was in the top of the screen. Since there wasn't any punishment for a wrong response, the smartest strategy was just to push the bar 100 percent of the time. That way you'd end up getting a reward 70 percent of the time, even though you didn't have a clue what the pattern was.

That's what the rats did. They just kept pressing the bar every time the screen changed.

But the humans never figured this out. They kept trying to come up with a rule, ...some of them thought they had to come up with a rule...they were deluded....the rats ended up with lots more rewards than the humans.

...Normal people have an interpreter in their left brain that takes all the random, contradictory details of whatever they're doing or remembering at the moment, and smoothes everything out into one coherent story....Some left brain stories can be so far off from reality that they sound like confabulations.

...The human subjects kept trying to come up with a story about the dots, and when they did come up with a story, they stuck to it."

Evolution: Facts, Fallacies, and Implications


----------



## bubba13

You do realize that Temple Grandin fully believes in and supports the theory of evolution and all its implications, right?


----------



## Northern

bubba13 said:


> You do realize that Temple Grandin fully believes in and supports the theory of evolution and all its implications, right?


Yes, I gleaned that from looking through her book. However, this experiment on the rats as compared to the humans in their scores on an operant conditioning task has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

Temple's sharing of her life with autism, & her information on how the autistic human's brain shares characteristics of animals' brains (weaker frontal lobes, etc.) is a marvelous contribution to our knowledge. Likewise, her many accounts of real-life experiments & results with both animals & people. Because she's a believer in evolution is no reason, therefore, to "throw the baby out with the bathwater".


----------

