The History of the Universe [Archive]

patchx

01-13-2003, 11:28 PM

Scientists keep debating the origin of the universe. They keep telling us that life and the planets and everything else are just byproducts of mere chance.

no they dont

evolution doesn't rely on chance as common creationist propaganda would have you believe but on the enviromental conditions the organism evolving finds itself in

also evolution has nothing to do with big bang theory or the formation of the universe

it is possible to accept evolution and big bang theory and still believe in an intelligent designer behind it all

So why is it that evolution, which is so flawed that its originator disavowed it at the end of his life,

this is a myth, Darwin never recanted on his death bed, its a common yet completely erroneous fairy tale

and many modern scientists accept only because it corresponds with their own worldview, is the only acceptable theory to teach in school?

because it is a scientific theory capable of being disproven and based on reasonable deductions gathered from empirical evidence and open to critical analysis as opposed to creation science which is an attempt to gather evidence to support a preexisting traditional religous belief

evolution is a fact in that it is observable and obvious

there is also the Theory of Evolution

the theory of evolution and the fact of evolution are two different things, the theory of evolution is an attempt to explain and predict the fact of evolution with science

-patch

Tyrion

01-14-2003, 12:04 AM

Originally posted by Master_Keralys
Scientists keep debating the origin of the universe. They keep telling us that life and the planets and everything else are just byproducts of mere chance. On the other hand, there are those who tell us that the universe was designed, and it doesn't necessarily matter who designed it; the point is that it was designed. So why is it that evolution, which is so flawed that its originator disavowed it at the end of his life, and many modern scientists accept only because it corresponds with their own worldview, is the only acceptable theory to teach in school?

*cracks knuckles*

*ahem*

Firstly,Darwin did not say his theory was a lie. Infact,a preacher who was preaching at Downe(his place he lived where he died) who was christian said he said that. His daughter and mother both said that his last words were "I am not in the least afraid to die."

"Darwin was not an atheist. He described himself as an agnostic, and it is likely that he retained a belief in some kind of personal God, although not a diety who, like some master puppeteer, took a direct and continuously intervening role in the evolutionary process and in human affairs. Throughout his life Darwin maintained a sense of deep humility and a concern for his fellow man, fully aware of the limits of science. Darwin was deeply affected by the death of his older brother Erasmus ("Ras") in August 1881, and it is conjectured that his grief may have exacerbated the seriousness of his own poor health. In early 1882 he had several minor heart attacks. His condition worsened and on April 19, 1882, at 73 years of age, he died at Down House, after several hours of nausea, intense vomiting and retching, symptoms of a chronic illness that bedeviled him for the last 40 years of his life. At his bedside, and attending to his needs, were his wife Emma, his daughter Henrietta and his son Francis. A widespread rumor circulated -- facilitated by an evangelist by the name of Lady Hope who preached in Downe during the last years of Darwins life -- that on his deathbed Darwin renounced evolution and declared himself a Christian. This story, totally contradictory to the nature of the man himself, is a falsehood, denied by his daughter Henrietta and those who knew him best and who were actually at his bedside during his last weeks. Darwin's last words, spoken to his wife Emma, were in actuality, "I am not in the least afraid to die."

The link is http://www.public.coe.edu/departments/Biology/darwin_bio.html.

2. I've used the chance theory before. But after a while,it got too boggling. I knew that something had to created us all. Even if by mere chance. So I created my own personal god.

3. The reason why Evoultion is tought in schools,is because it's a theroy,you dont have to use it,and it has the most scientific proof of them all to credit it.(Can Christianity explain why there were Australiopithicus' and ect. to begin with? Or are all those fossils merely ways for him to test us?:rolleyes:

El Sitherino

01-14-2003, 12:14 AM

Originally posted by Tyrion
*cracks knuckles*

*ahem*

Firstly,Darwin did not say his theory was a lie. Infact,a preacher who was preaching at Downe(his place he lived where he died) who was christian said he said that. His daughter and mother both said that his last words were "I am not in the least afraid to die."

"Darwin was not an atheist. He described himself as an agnostic, and it is likely that he retained a belief in some kind of personal God, although not a diety who, like some master puppeteer, took a direct and continuously intervening role in the evolutionary process and in human affairs. Throughout his life Darwin maintained a sense of deep humility and a concern for his fellow man, fully aware of the limits of science. Darwin was deeply affected by the death of his older brother Erasmus ("Ras") in August 1881, and it is conjectured that his grief may have exacerbated the seriousness of his own poor health. In early 1882 he had several minor heart attacks. His condition worsened and on April 19, 1882, at 73 years of age, he died at Down House, after several hours of nausea, intense vomiting and retching, symptoms of a chronic illness that bedeviled him for the last 40 years of his life. At his bedside, and attending to his needs, were his wife Emma, his daughter Henrietta and his son Francis. A widespread rumor circulated -- facilitated by an evangelist by the name of Lady Hope who preached in Downe during the last years of Darwins life -- that on his deathbed Darwin renounced evolution and declared himself a Christian. This story, totally contradictory to the nature of the man himself, is a falsehood, denied by his daughter Henrietta and those who knew him best and who were actually at his bedside during his last weeks. Darwin's last words, spoken to his wife Emma, were in actuality, "I am not in the least afraid to die."

The link is http://www.public.coe.edu/departments/Biology/darwin_bio.html.

2. I've used the chance theory before. But after a while,it got too boggling. I knew that something had to created us all. Even if by mere chance. So I created my own personal god.

3. The reason why Evoultion is tought in schools,is because it's a theroy,you dont have to use it,and it has the most scientific proof of them all to credit it.(Can Christianity explain why there were Australiopithicus' and ect. to begin with? Or are all those fossils merely ways for him to test us?:rolleyes: well said tyrion. i couldnt have said it any better. people need to stop listening to propoganda and check out stuff for themselves. why do people think somethings enemy is gonna teach about it truthfully (ie anti evolutionists teaching about evolution and what it says.) people need to use common sense.

mercatfat

01-14-2003, 12:34 AM

Evolution is totally real. Another term for it is adaptation.

Scientists observing.. Goldfinches, I believe it was, watched the birds and how they changed from season to season to keep eating the nuts in area. Surviving birds' beaks changed from season to season and child to child as the composistion of the shell changed. I don't remember the exact details, but I remember that the beaks got more firm from the get-go in the offspring when the crop had a harder shell, and became sharper when the shell was more.. smooth, I think. I'd have to go look it up.

People that survive bubonic plague get a gene mutation that protects against AIDs, and if two people both have the mutation and reproduce, their Offspring will be immune. Immunity is a form of evolution. This circles back to bacteria, which evolve in a survival of the fittest manner.

The DNA in bacteria is what mutates and becomes more resistant. Why should only bacteria DNA evolve?

C'jais

01-14-2003, 03:44 AM

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
I belive in BOTH creationalism and evolution to an extent... God created all the birds and beasts on the earth, it says so in Genesis but it never proves that evolution didnt happen...

That's because it'll be proof of the negative. It's nearly impossible to prove the non-existance of something. I can't prove there ísn't any god. I can, however, prove that evolution happens.

The difference between evolution as a fact, and evolution as a law is that the model of evolution is the one that goes back in time to explain that man and dinosaurs did not live side by side. The fact of evolution is that we can see with our own eyes that new species have evolved this very day. The model cannot be tested since we won't have a chance to go back in time and see if it holds true. The fact is indisputable, though. I dare you to prove otherwise.

What this debate always bogs down to is how it all started. Creationists generally accept that new species can evolve, but when we start to touch on their Genesis, they get all itchy. Sadly, they can never prove their theory. They're content with nitpicking evolution, even though it haven't been disproven so far. The conclusion always seems to be that God could have planted evidence against the Genesis to test our faith. He could have messed with test results and dating methods because he felt like it. That just doesn't work as an argument. The Genesis is just as much bullcrap as that Raelian theory which involve aliens seeding the earth with life. That's a slightly better theory, however, as we can disprove it once can see that life evolved from bacteria.

Meh.

Master_Keralys

01-14-2003, 10:53 AM

While you are correct in pointing at that one cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, there is proof of a creator. There is a principle known as irreducible complexity. This means that all the parts in that system must be present for it to work. A perfect example is the eye. While the eye could theoretically be reduced to a light-sensitive "eyespot" of cells, it cannot be reduced further than that. The protein process which occurs for even a light-spot is incredibly correct, and if all the proteins are not correct and being selected in the correct order, then the eyespot doesn't work.

Even bacteria have irreducibly complex systems. As far as "newly evolved species" go, there are no such things. Some species of bactia have developed immunities to antibiotics, but this is in no way proof of evolution. This is adaptation, which is a result of natural selection. However, while microevolution is scientific fact, the opposite is true for macro-evolution(changing in species). Nowhere in the fossil record is there even one change from species to species. Furthermore, most of the so-called intermediary forms for humans are little more than jawbones or skull fragments. As well, it must be noted that even full skulls can be structured to appear the way hopeful archeologists want them to. A minor rearrangement of the bones gives you a normal human skull. The so-called proof of evolution, then, is not proof at all.

-s/<itzo-

01-14-2003, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by Cjais
Evolution is a fact. Creationism (Intelligent design) isn't. You can't prove intelligent design in any way.

No, evolution is not a sure known fact thats why its called an "evolution theory".

and creationism is believing in faith.

so no one really no for sure which is the true answer to this question simply because no one lived in that era. but the evolution theory seem more logic than creationism.

C'jais

01-14-2003, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by Master_Keralys
While you are correct in pointing at that one cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, there is proof of a creator. There is a principle known as irreducible complexity.

I asked for the proof of a creator, and you still have not given any. This is a vague attempt at undermining evolution, it is not proof of anything.

And no, you can always reduce the complexity in nature into more basic components. The eye consists of light sensitive cells. Cells are specialized - Whoa! News at ten. This isn't disproof of evolution, nor proof in any way whatsoever of creationism.

As far as "newly evolved species" go, there are no such things.

No such things? Tests have been run on genetically modified fruit flies which resulted in the modified ones being unable and unwilling to mate with normal ones. This is evolution. Do you have any idea how much time it takes for a single new species to emerge?

Consider dogs. Take the Chihuahua and the Grand Danois (big Dane :)). One is the size of a rat, the other the size of a small horse. They're both dogs. Now, we're going to run some serious selective breeding on these two dog species. We pick the smallest Chihuahuas to breed with each other, and do the same to the GD's, except we pick the largest in this case. We'd continue to reduce the size of the Chihuahua to that of a rat, and we'd continue to enlargen the GD to that of a pony. It would take many, many decades for this selective breeding to reach these stages, but you cannot doubt that it could be done with persistance.
Now, take these two dogs, and place them in different environments. We'd place the Chihuahua in an underground environment, where it'd have to use it paws to dig through the earth, and we'd use the enlargened GD's as riding beasts for little children. The Grand Danois would need strong legs and some healthy paws for this, so we'd naturally pick the most suited for this role, breeding our way to tougher feet and stronger legs. Again, it can be done.

At this stage, clearly the two kinds of dogs are both unable and unwilling to reproduce with each other; if left on their own they'd only naturally pick dogs from their own race, since no other kind of dogs match them in size and shape anymore.

We now have two different species. They're no longer dogs after these centuries of selective breeding. We have a tiny mammal suited to borrow underground, and a big beast of burden suited to carry luggage and children. The DNA of these creatures have now changed so radically from a regular dog, and since they're both unable and unwilling to mate with normal dogs anymore, we can safely label them a new species. But where is the missing link? We now have rodent like tunnelers, powerful riding beasts... and regular dogs. They couldn't possibly be connected, could they? After all, there are no links between the regular dog and the little rodent-like creature. And none between the riding beast and regular dogs. Surely they must be 3 individual species.

Nowhere in the fossil record is there even one change from species to species.

The fossil record will always be incomplete. A certain creationist called Gish has given rise to Gish's law: "The gaps in the fossil record equals the amount of missing links."

No matter how many "missing" links we dig up, you'll always categorize them as an entirely new species which has no relation to others and proceed on your merry way. You want us to unearth some weird chimeric monster with equal traits from both parent and daughter species. This is impossible, yet the Archeopteryx comes close. But I guess this is a seperate species with no relation to neither dinosaurs nor birds, right?

Another good example might be whales. Hippos are very much alike whales in bone structure. Their feet strikingly resemble fins. This has led to the suspicion that whales were once whales stranded on shallow water and thus began to grow some crude feet for extra mobility. This has been proved when arheologists dug up a specimen resembling a temporary cross over between hippo and whale. But this is probably another species with no relation whatsoever to whales and hippos.

Humans. "Missing" links have been found, among them Erectus, Africanus and Afarensis. And no, their skulls are far too different from ours to be a simple bad reconstruction.

Now, the decaying speed of isotopes, the non-decaying speed of light, the many idiotic built-in flaws in humans, the layers in the earth, the tectonic movements, the observed changes in isolated species, the fossil record and DNA all point to there being no need for a creator, the earth being immensely old (this is not a proof against a creator, but many Christians insist on the earth being a measly 10k years old) and the model of evolution fact.

Skitzo: Evolution is a fact because it can be used to predict prehistoric data. If, for example, we found a human fossil embedded in the layers of the Jurassic period, evolution would be more or less in doubt. But since it has so far worked flawlessly, and is able to predict much more detailed findings, it is fact. It can also be used to predict future events, such as disease epidemics. Without evolution, we wouldn't have the knowledge of genes, cross-breeding and life itself.

Lastly, read this. (http://www.rice.edu/armadillo/Sciacademy/riggins/things.htm#silly) All of it. I like this link, yes.

I'm going to give you Creationists a task to solve. Present to me empirical proof of the Earth being created as written in the Bible. And before you start, No, trying to inanely disprove the evolutionary model is not proof of the Biblical creation happening in any way.
Y'see, the way things work these days is to present empirical proof of your own theories, it is not trying to debunk the other dudes' theories.

If you don't believe in the Biblical creation of things, great. Score one for rational thought. But if you don't, please present whatever theory you might have in its place.

Master_Keralys

01-14-2003, 07:33 PM

Consider dogs. Take the Chihuahua and the Grand Danois (big Dane ). One is the size of a rat, the other the size of a small horse. They're both dogs. Now, we're going to run some serious selective breeding on these two dog species. We pick the smallest Chihuahuas to breed with each other, and do the same to the GD's, except we pick the largest in this case. We'd continue to reduce the size of the Chihuahua to that of a rat, and we'd continue to enlargen the GD to that of a pony. It would take many, many decades for this selective breeding to reach these stages, but you cannot doubt that it could be done with persistance.
Now, take these two dogs, and place them in different environments. We'd place the Chihuahua in an underground environment, where it'd have to use it paws to dig through the earth, and we'd use the enlargened GD's as riding beasts for little children. The Grand Danois would need strong legs and some healthy paws for this, so we'd naturally pick the most suited for this role, breeding our way to tougher feet and stronger legs. Again, it can be done.

At this stage, clearly the two kinds of dogs are both unable and unwilling to reproduce with each other; if left on their own they'd only naturally pick dogs from their own race, since no other kind of dogs match them in size and shape anymore.

We now have two different species. They're no longer dogs after these centuries of selective breeding. We have a tiny mammal suited to borrow underground, and a big beast of burden suited to carry luggage and children. The DNA of these creatures have now changed so radically from a regular dog, and since they're both unable and unwilling to mate with normal dogs anymore, we can safely label them a new species. But where is the missing link? We now have rodent like tunnelers, powerful riding beasts... and regular dogs. They couldn't possibly be connected, could they? After all, there are no links between the regular dog and the little rodent-like creature. And none between the riding beast and regular dogs. Surely they must be 3 individual species.

You're missing the fact that this doesn't happen. There are limits to what breeding can do, eg the sugar beet. No matter how hard the breeders try, even with new genetic manipulation, they can't get past 17% sugar content. Why? There should be an infinite amount of changeability, right? But there simply isn't.

Next the moon is moving away at about 2 inches per year. If the moon were two million years old, then at that time, the moon would be causing tides to cover all land twice a day. And the generally accepted time of birth is 2 billion years old!

Space dust still exists. It wouldn't if the universe were 15 billion years old: it would all have been caught by various sources of gravity. Furthermore, the accumulation rate of dust on the moon is about 2.7 inches per million years. If the moon was 2 billion years old, it would have 2700 inches of dush on it - a fifth of a mile. If you recall, that's why they put the huge landing pads on the Apollo's because they thought it was so deep. In reality, it's only about .5 inches deep.

Next off, dating based on radioactive isotopes only works in an environment where the magnetic field is stable. Earth's isn't - it's deteriorating, so it doesn't work.

Irreducible complexity means that an individual cell with it's proteins is useful. Try reducing an eyespot to something useful in each cell - it doesn't happen. So it doesn't evolve: there's nothing useful about such cells unless the whole system is present, so the fish or whatever doesn't have any use for it. It's just extra baggage that has no help value for the organism, so any such mutation would be selected against!

Finally, the sheer complexity of the universe, combined with the Anthropic Principle (which I'll explain tomorrow if I have time) indicates that such a universe could not be byproducts of mere happenstance. Also, the whole thing with the Big Bang doesn't work. More on that tomorrow, too. I have to go, now.

C'jais

01-15-2003, 03:44 AM

Originally posted by Master_Keralys
You're missing the fact that this doesn't happen. There are limits to what breeding can do, eg the sugar beet.

And what exactly is a "sugar beet"?

No matter how hard the breeders try, even with new genetic manipulation, they can't get past 17% sugar content. Why? There should be an infinite amount of changeability, right?

No. First of all, you cannot relate this in any way to the dog example. It has no relevance. We agree we can grow dogs bigger, right? And smaller as well (otherwise all the dog races just popped into existence which we have very recent records of them not doing). Where exactly is the defining line between what we can do with breeding and what we can't do? There isn't any line. While the bone structure may prevent us from selectively breed our way towards jellyfish, it does not not prevent us from gradually making dogs bigger, as evidenced in the dog races we have already done so to.

Second of all, this is not proof of anything. It means there's something science hasn't explained yet. Shocking, right?

Next the moon is moving away at about 2 inches per year.

Wrong. The moon's orbit around earth is fluctuating. You know why we get Ice ages? They happen due to fluctuations in orbits of the earth, the sun's radioactive shields and comets. Geologists can actually predict that we'll have another ice age our way due to geological research and knowledge of earth's immensely old history. But I guess you don't believe in ice ages anyway. Nevermind though, when we'll get another ice age, we'll all see who was least false.

Space dust still exists. It wouldn't if the universe were 15 billion years old.

This isn't proof of a creator. It's not disproof of evolution. It might vaguely be taken for proof of the earth being very young, but even this doesn't hold up to all the other real evidence pointing the other way. You can't date the earth with this technique.

I'll tell you what it is though. It's proof that God designed a universe in which he was required to do miracles every freakin' nanosecond for it to hold together. Take the second law of thermodynamics (which I'm sure you'll bring up eventually) - if it actually worked the way creationists like to describe it, God made a miracle every time a snowflake formed. It'd be extremely stupid for God to make a universe in which he was required to constantly maintain it.

Bottom line: You're God-gapping here: using God as an excuse to fill in the currently unexplained holes in science. But this dubious way of thinking will be on constant retreat from science. People once had no idea what fire was. People once had no idea what created a baby. People once had no idea that the earth was flat. People once had no idea what created the plagues. People now currently have no real answer on how life first appeared on earth. But it will never stay that way.

Next off, dating based on radioactive isotopes only works in an environment where the magnetic field is stable. Earth's isn't - it's deteriorating, so it doesn't work.

Yet it has worked fine so far. Isotope dating have actually predicted geological and archeological discoveries. And it has happened so many times to prove they're not merely being extremely lucky.

Irreducible complexity means that an individual cell with it's proteins is useful.

And you are to say that a cell in our eye isn't being useful? That it can't sustain itself? That it doesn't benefit from, and contribute to the communion of cells around the body?

There are things called single organisms and multiple celled organisms. You're confusing the two. Cells in many celled organisms are extremely specialized. Big news. They're so specialized that they wouldn't survive if taken out of the organism. Your understanding of even simple biology is astounding.

And yes, they can evolve. Changes happen gradually, and at a very slow pace.

While we're on the topic of specialized eye cells. Certain cave fish exist, who have non-functional eyes. That's right, they have eyes, yet they're blind. Why would a creator make them this way? Evolution can explain this weird phenomena though, they evolved from fish who no longer needed sight in dark caves. You can call this "adaptation" all you want, yet it's only proof of evolution.

Finally, the sheer complexity of the universe, combined with the Anthropic Principle (which I'll explain tomorrow if I have time) indicates that such a universe could not be byproducts of mere happenstance. Also, the whole thing with the Big Bang doesn't work. More on that tomorrow, too. I have to go, now.

Yes. You do that. And while you're at it, present some proof of your theory as well. Trying to disprove mine won't make you look any better in the end, unless you have substantial, empirical proof of your own as well.

Even if you should succeed in disproving evolution, that does not make you right at all. Suppose we found out the earth was really only 10k years old, and that every species had once been planted on earth by something else, it still would not need, explain or show God. Aliens are actually a more logical choice in explaining why this occured, and this makes even the Raelians more right that you.

Tyrion

01-15-2003, 04:00 AM

Since I havent taken Astronomy yet..or even studied,I'll use the paragraphs I know...

Finally, the sheer complexity of the universe, combined with the Anthropic Principle (which I'll explain tomorrow if I have time) indicates that such a universe could not be byproducts of mere happenstance. Also, the whole thing with the Big Bang doesn't work. More on that tomorrow, too. I have to go, now.

The general theory of the big bang is that the universe collapses,going back to it's center point of gravity,eventually becoming super densed.Then it'll all explode,expanding until it collapses,ect.

Rogue_Ace

01-15-2003, 03:53 PM

The general theory of the big bang is that the universe collapses,going back to it's center point of gravity,eventually becoming super densed.Then it'll all explode,expanding until it collapses,ect.

Can you tell me where it gets the energy to explode every time. If it collapses in on itself every time then does it not signify the loss energy. Where does it fill its preverbal gas tank.

And as for life evolving on earth over billions of years look at this. If the earth is as old as you say then it still wouldn't be able to support life until recently. Dont believe me then go to any website about the decay of the magnetic field that surronds earth. Even if the speed of deacy is slowing down (like the speed of light) the earth would not have been able to support life for more then 10,000 years (give or take a couple thousand).

C'jais

01-15-2003, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by Rogue_Ace
And as for life evolving on earth over billions of years look at this. If the earth is as old as you say then it still wouldn't be able to support life until recently. Dont believe me then go to any website about the decay of the magnetic field that surronds earth. Even if the speed of deacy is slowing down (like the speed of light) the earth would not have been able to support life for more then 10,000 years (give or take a couple thousand).

Wrong. The magnetic field is fluctuating wildly. You lack the proper timescale to state this.

And again: Even if your post was true, it'd still not be proof of a creator. It'd still not be proof of God. And it would by NO means disprove evolution. What you're doing here is trying to argue the earth is younger than what every respectable scientist states.

The comment about the big bang is just God-gapping. It won't do.

Rogue_Ace

01-15-2003, 04:27 PM

What you're doing here is trying to argue the earth is younger than what every respectable scientist states.

Thats because whenever a respectable scientist realises the fact that the current view of evolution is not compleatly valid and states it in a public manor, he suddenly becomes a God loving wacko and no one will listen to him/her anymore. BTW I dont presume to know everything and the second that you give me hard data then I will of course admit i'm wrong.:D

griff38

01-15-2003, 05:06 PM

Well it's possible that Intelligence used evolution to create life, but it clearly has been shown random events with enough time can lead to enviroments capable of supporting basic single cell life.

Also, remember evolution makes no explanation of the Universes origins. That's the job of astronomy. Which backs up Geology, which backs up Archeology, which backs up Evolution. That's too many independent sciences to all be wrong.

Always remember anyone who claims to be 100% sure of anything does not know what they are talking about.

OH and where does it say the Earths magnet field can be harmful to lifeforms?

C'jais

01-16-2003, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by Rogue_Ace
Thats because whenever a respectable scientist realises the fact that the current view of evolution is not compleatly valid and states it in a public manor, he suddenly becomes a God loving wacko and no one will listen to him/her anymore.

Simply not true. Whenever such a person postulates something like that he does not have his facts right, and as such becomes pariah in the scientific world.

BTW I dont presume to know everything and the second that you give me hard data then I will of course admit i'm wrong.:D

I already gave you hard data. You have given me none so far.

The trick is, you still haven't presented a theory yourself backed up by empirical proof. Until you've done that, you cannot convince anyone, since the best you can do is shoot at the age of the earth and use this as some phantasmic proof of a creator.

Pad

01-16-2003, 04:36 PM

i also believe in the EVOLUTION as its the best thing to describe how evrything works/will work. for example: a bacteria irresitant to a medicin can evolve to a new form thats actually resistant to the medicine.

and in my opinion creationism (god,...) are just the imagination of ppl when they are in trouble or havin difficult times. whenever there is war, plagues,... ppl go back to praying ;)

Master_Keralys

01-17-2003, 06:41 PM

Theory: an unproved assumption: CONJECTURE (source: Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary)

A theory can not be proven. Anything that has been conclusively proven is considered a law. Cjais, no argument you've given has been any more convincing than the creationists' view.

I have said before and I say again, simply because one is religious and-or disagrees with you does not mean he is not able to have a rational argument. Whenever such a person postulates something like that he does not have his facts right, and as such becomes pariah in the scientific world. Here you say that anyone who says anything that doesn't line up with your train of thought is unilaterally wrong. Well, this isn't necessarily the case.

Furthermore, you have presented no empirical evidence yourself. Those blind fish you were talking about - their eyes aren't useless because they "evolved" to be specifically useless. The fact is, they have not had that trait selected against. It's not that blindness has been selected, but that it hasn't been not selected. Natural selection in no way proves evolution. An intelligent God would have provided ways for creatures to adapt; else, they would die as soon as there was a minor change in environment. So how is it that it disproves God again?

Padanime - I can tell you from experience that people stick with God besides when there's times of trouble. If you don't agree, go look up any of the great Christians. Also - in times of difficulty, people are more likely to blame God for their problems and leave HIm than to turn to Him.

C'jais

01-18-2003, 08:05 AM

Originally posted by Master_Keralys
Theory: an unproved assumption: CONJECTURE (source: Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary)

That's not the scientific use of the word "Theory" (and scientists should know, since they coined the term):

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspects of the natural order that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses. No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization of nature. When scientists talk about the theory of evolution - or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter - they are not expressing reservations about its truth. (source: Sciam.com)

I have said before and I say again, simply because one is religious and-or disagrees with you does not mean he is not able to have a rational argument.

It does. Stating the Genesis is factual truth is irrational. It defies the fossil record and other facts. Stating I can fly because it's written is irrational, everyone can see I can't fly.

Here you say that anyone who says anything that doesn't line up with your train of thought is unilaterally wrong. Well, this isn't necessarily the case.

My train of thought is less false than yours. This is not about disproving God as seem to think, that would be impossible. Disproving an invisible, supernatural being is incredibly hard. This is, however, about blasting your "Genesis" into the ground. Proving evolution does not NOT disprove God.

The Pope has already accepted the evolutionary model as fact. He, of all Christians accepted that the Bible is not correct in this instance. Why can't you?

Furthermore, these "scientists" who attack evolution, again, lack scientific, empirical evidence. At best they state that certain evolutionary problems are unsolved (which is correct).

Furthermore, you have presented no empirical evidence yourself. Those blind fish you were talking about - their eyes aren't useless because they "evolved" to be specifically useless. The fact is, they have not had that trait selected against. It's not that blindness has been selected, but that it hasn't been not selected. Natural selection in no way proves evolution. An intelligent God would have provided ways for creatures to adapt; else, they would die as soon as there was a minor change in environment. So how is it that it disproves God again?

What exactly are you trying to say? That adaptation is fact, but evolution isn't? What's the exact difference between the two?

Adaptation: An alteration or adjustment in structure or habits, often hereditary, by which a species or individual improves its condition in relationship to its environment.

Evolution: Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

These are not my words. Just taken from an online dictionary. As you said, natural selection is a fact. That the genetic composition changes during successive genrations is a fact. It appears evolution as described in the English language is a fact.

Also - in times of difficulty, people are more likely to blame God for their problems and leave HIm than to turn to Him.

This is just flat out wrong again. History clearly shows that a population is more than likely to turn to their God during times of great difficulty. Look at the exodus in the Bible, the Plague and the two world wars. People turn to, or even invent (as shown in the Bible) God, during times of trouble.

Tyrion

01-18-2003, 01:06 PM

Just to make it clear,the pope is catholic,not christian.

So that's a moot point,since Christians(or at least some) think that Catholicsm is,well, a perverted twisted belief of Christianity.

(Note that the perverted twisted stuff came from someone else's mouth,not mine...)

Katarn07

01-18-2003, 02:21 PM

Evolution does indeed exist, but to the point that they can become so smart and all?

The universe was designed. But over the years, yes, animals have evolved, as humans have.

ie Appendix is no longer used....

Psydan

01-18-2003, 02:34 PM

Ok, once again we're making this a religious question which could go on forever because everyone has different opinions. The question was EVOLUTION or INTELLIGENT DESIGN. I think the main point was that evolution ( by that I mean that all life today came from an original "accidental" life form) is such an impossible thing that there must be something out there that is seperated from our constraints of physics and is able to create life. It doesn't have to be a debate over religion, and Cjais you are the one who keeps saying that a good argument isn't about disproving your opponents veiw, well you are the one who keeps trying to prove a belief in Creationism wrong, and bringing religion into it. There must be something wrong with evolutionary theories right now or else we wouldn't be debating over it.
(BTW, I know you're thinking "well doesn't that make Creationists wrong too?" well, there is no direct physical evidence of Intelligent design that isn't circumstantial, but it isn't a science, it's a belief. Evolution is science, so it should be able to be proven without a doubt by direct physical evidence, so go ahead and tell me that they've proven without a doubt that humans are decendants of some ancient one-celled organism that was given life through random chance. I believe in gravity beause they can prove it without a doubt, and prove it as a given constant.) Furthermore, if all life came from an accident, and evolved completely through more accidents and natural selection, where did differentsexes come in? I mean there are a lot of complex things that seperate male from female, and while all of those were being perfected, who were these mutant males/females mating with to pass on this new trait? Also, how does evolution explain the bombardier beetle?(look it up if you dont know, or I will explain it later)there are just too many reasons to not believe in evolution. But that's just my opinion, and Im not trying to make anyone angry over it.

ET Warrior

01-18-2003, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by Cjais
And what exactly is a "sugar beet"?

Ooooo, ooooooo I know this one!

Sugar beets are the beets that are used to make sugar. I'm not sure of the exact processes that they go through.....but they're brown, beet-shaped, and approximately as big as a football. Yes, i know, my knowledge astounds you all......:cool:

Actually we have a sugar beet factory in my town.........

ShadowTemplar

01-18-2003, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by Rogue_Ace
Can you tell me where it gets the energy to explode every time. If it collapses in on itself every time then does it not signify the loss energy. Where does it fill its preverbal gas tank.

Check www.sciam.com. If you're lucky you can find an article on it. If not, you get a veiw of REAL science, for a change.

Originally posted by Rogue_Ace
And as for life evolving on earth over billions of years look at this. If the earth is as old as you say then it still wouldn't be able to support life until recently. Dont believe me then go to any website about the decay of the magnetic field that surronds earth.

Tsk, tsk, tsk, never heard about polar turns?

Originally posted by Rogue_Ace
Even if the speed of deacy is slowing down (like the speed of light) the earth would not have been able to support life for more then 10,000 years (give or take a couple thousand).

When did the nondecaying speed of light begin to decay?

C'jais

01-18-2003, 07:46 PM

Originally posted by Psydan
Ok, once again we're making this a religious question which could go on forever because everyone has different opinions.

This is not a religious debate. Look at the mud-slinging between "Christians" and Catholics - that's a religious debate.

This is not about opinions. This is not about getting you to see our side of things. This is about getting you to realize facts.

The question was EVOLUTION or INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

Intelligent design is the same as Creationism, which, in the Christian sense of it, is the Genesis.

I think the main point was that evolution ( by that I mean that all life today came from an original "accidental" life form)

NO. Abiogenesis is the science of explaining how we got here in the first place - IE bacteria, God or whatnot. Evolution is about explaining how we evolved after we got here. According to Darwin, he did not try to refute the Bible - he believed that it was still possible God created life in the original forms. The only thing he cared for was how we evolved from then on.

and Cjais you are the one who keeps saying that a good argument isn't about disproving your opponents veiw,

I never said that. Quote me, please.

well you are the one who keeps trying to prove a belief in Creationism wrong, and bringing religion into it.

Religion is what makes you believe the Genesis is fact. Religion is what makes you convinced that evolution isn't fact. Religion is the central point of this debate.

There must be something wrong with evolutionary theories right now or else we wouldn't be debating over it.

False assumption. Just as I can claim that I'm able to fly and thus defy the laws of gravity, this does not mean that there are somehow "holes" in the law of gravity.

What we have here are facts, and people who don't accept them. If you think there are some weird holes in evolution, why don't you go ahead and tell us exactly where they are?

This debate is about you, the Christian people.

so go ahead and tell me that they've proven without a doubt that humans are decendants of some ancient one-celled organism that was given life through random chance.

Again, this is not evolution you wish proved. This is abiogenesis.

While we currently do not know with 100% certainty how the first cells formed, we do have a pretty plausible theory, which is more than can be said about your Genesis.

Furthermore, if all life came from an accident, and evolved completely through more accidents and natural selection, where did differentsexes come in?

Abiogenesis, yet again. The difference between sexes are not complicated on a molecular level. All it takes is one cell to be different from the other. From an evolutionary point of view, it's a benefit that the offspring is different from the parents (opposite of asexual breeding = cloning) - it'd have more new traits to put to the test and thus improve the species a lot faster.

Also, how does evolution explain the bombardier beetle?

Explain, if you will. But know that this is not a hole in the evolutionary theory, or that it has anything to do God, whatever you're going to state.

ShadowTemplar

01-18-2003, 07:54 PM

Originally posted by Psydan
Ok, once again we're making this a religious question which could go on forever because everyone has different opinions.

You confuse opinion and fact. In a democracy you have to yield to cold, hard fact, or said democracy would collapse with the first demagouge to stick out his head.

Originally posted by Psydan
The question was EVOLUTION or INTELLIGENT DESIGN. I think the main point was that evolution ( by that I mean that all life today came from an original "accidental" life form) is such an impossible thing that there must be something out there that is seperated from our constraints of physics and is able to create life.

Do you know anything about the Theory of Evolution? At all. Evolution does not cover what happened before life appeared. Only what life did after. Of course rationalists will often hold a scientific view of both, but that doesn't make them the same.

Apart from that, I haven't seen any probability calculation that showed that creation by chance is impossible.

Originally posted by Psydan
It doesn't have to be a debate over religion, and Cjais you are the one who keeps saying that a good argument isn't about disproving your opponents veiw, well you are the one who keeps trying to prove a belief in Creationism wrong, and bringing religion into it.

It becomes a debate over religion when you start denouncing facts like evolution.

Originally posted by Psydan
There must be something wrong with evolutionary theories right now or else we wouldn't be debating over it.

Either that, or you know too little about it. In some African banana republics it is debated whether HIV is a sexually transmitted disease.

Does that mean the the theory that HIV is sexually transmitted is faulty, or that some Presidentes don't like the prospect of having to found safe-sex programs?

Originally posted by Psydan
Evolution is science, so it should be able to be proven without a doubt by direct physical evidence, so go ahead and tell me that they've proven without a doubt that humans are decendants of some ancient one-celled organism that was given life through random chance.

The first living organism didn't appear by random chance. As I explained above, nature favors certain chemical reactions. Luckily for us, some of them produced life. So let me say this in no uncertain terms:

NEVER, EVER, CLAIM THAT EVOLUTION REQUIRES LIFE TO BE CREATED BY "RANDOM CHANCE" AGAIN!

Unless, of course, you wish to make fun of yourself...

Originally posted by Psydan
I believe in gravity beause they can prove it without a doubt, and prove it as a given constant.)

Then you do not believe. You must learn to make the distinction between belief and fact.

Originally posted by Psydan
Furthermore, if all life came from an accident, and evolved completely through more accidents and natural selection, where did differentsexes come in?

That "missing link" is no longer missing. On Iceland (I think) a one-celled organism was found that habitually engieered its own DNA sequence. The step to gender-based reproduction is not great from that point.

Originally posted by Psydan
I mean there are a lot of complex things that seperate male from female, and while all of those were being perfected, who were these mutant males/females mating with to pass on this new trait?

The distinction between genders needs not to be complex. Malaria uses both genderbased and nongenderbased breeding in different phases of its lifecycle, for example. And Malaria is a simple organism.

And several deep-sea organisms can reproduce both sexually and asexually. This method of breeding could be a cross-form.

Originally posted by Psydan
Also, how does evolution explain the bombardier beetle?(look it up if you dont know, or I will explain it later)

I know what the Bombardier Beetle is, but I don't see in what way it disproves evolution.

Originally posted by Psydan
there are just too many reasons to not believe in evolution. But that's just my opinion, and Im not trying to make anyone angry over it.

There are many reasons not to believe in evolution. Chiefly: You don't need to believe in something that you can see with your own two eyes.

Psydan

01-18-2003, 09:45 PM

First of all:
Believe
v. tr.
1.To accept as true or real: Do you believe the news stories?
2.To credit with veracity: I believe you.
3.To expect or suppose; think: I believe they will arrive shortly.
So, yah i think that accepting evolution, even if it has been "proven", is believing in it.

Next:
Creationism
n.
1.Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.
But Master_Keralys specifically said as the topic beginner:

Quote by Master_Keralys : "On the other hand, there are those who tell us that the universe was designed, and it doesn't necessarily matter who designed it; the point is that it was designed."
So, this isn't a debate over creationism, it is about Intelligent design vs. Evolution
Evolution in this debate would be the veiwpoint that:

Quote byMaster_Keralys: "life and the planets and everything else are just byproducts of mere chance"

If you believe that some being put us here intelligently then you are for intelligent design.
If you believe that everything was created through natural events, whatever they may be, but that no intelligent life helped life began, then you are on the "evolutionist" side.
You could be in the middle, but then what do you believe, and are you just trying to argue?
And:
Abiogenesis
n :
a hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter.
How does this relate to male/female formation?

Quote by Cjais:"I never said that. Quote me, please."
Quote by Cjais:"Yes. You do that. And while you're at it, present some proof of your theory as well. Trying to disprove mine won't make you look any better in the end, unless you have substantial, empirical proof of your own as well."
I interpreted if that as you saying that we should be backing up our own side, not attacking the other side. Please excuse me if I interpreted it incorrectly.

Quote by ShadowTemplar:"The distinction between genders needs not to be complex. Malaria uses both genderbased and nongenderbased breeding in different phases of its lifecycle, for example. And Malaria is a simple organism.

And several deep-sea organisms can reproduce both sexually and asexually. This method of breeding could be a cross-form."

Quote by Cjais:"Abiogenesis, yet again. The difference between sexes are not complicated on a molecular level. All it takes is one cell to be different from the other. From an evolutionary point of view, it's a benefit that the offspring is different from the parents (opposite of asexual breeding = cloning) - it'd have more new traits to put to the test and thus improve the species a lot faster."

Well, I wasn't saying that the actual organism had to be complex, just that the distinction between genders, look at even the simplest sexually-reproducing species, there are major differences in even the organisms charecteristics that seperate male and female. And, aren't sex cells a type of cell? So wouldn't it have to be a multi-cellular organism to have a gender?
What I'm saying is that if the first female is born, is it really possible that there will be a male that is perfectly programmed (using the word programmed as a loose term) to reproduce with that female? Also, isn't cloning a type of asexual reproduction, not the opposite of it?

Quote by ShadowTemplar: "I know what the Bombardier Beetle is, but I don't see in what way it disproves evolution."
Well, the bombadier beetle uses a special type of self-defense. It's able to spray a stream of steaming hot liquid, that makes a loud popping noise, and that blinds and can burn the predator.
It sprays hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide out of seperate sacs, and when they mix they combine to form a chemical reaction. Now how could evolution produce this? Could it be possible that a creator made this special function? How would these particular chemicals naturally be made into the beetle, and how would it adapt to create these chemicals, how would the beetle know that these chemicals would be a good defense mechanism?But, you could go ahead and say whatever you want, because really you'll never believe anything that I say.(speaking of which, it's kind of dumb in my opinion to be arguing about the use of words like believe, but thats just my opinion)
And, "evolution" (species adapting to the environment, which by the way is one of the characteristics that all things must have to be considered "living")has been proven, many times, so it is a fact, and I'm not doubting it, but I do doubt "evolution" as it relates to this post topic (being the alternative to ID. The theory that no intelligent being(s) formed life on Earth).

ShadowTemplar

01-18-2003, 11:20 PM

Originally posted by Psydan
First of all:
Believe
v. tr.
1.To accept as true or real: Do you believe the news stories?
2.To credit with veracity: I believe you.
3.To expect or suppose; think: I believe they will arrive shortly.
So, yah i think that accepting evolution, even if it has been "proven", is believing in it.

Keywords: Accept, credit, and expect or suppose. All are subjective. Useless crap.

Cold, hard facts are not subjective. Usefull tools. See what I'm getting at? If you hold something to be applicable because that is what empirical evidence suggests, then you are beyond faith. That is sense (percieved by the senses).

So, you could believe evolution, but there would be no point to it, because it is proven fact, so there is no need to believe in it anymore.

Originally posted by Psydan
Quote byMaster_Keralys: "life and the planets and everything else are just byproducts of mere chance"

This is a demagougic argument. Evolution doesn't claim that everything happens according to chance. See above (I could repeat myself, but I'm too lazy for that).

Originally posted by Psydan
If you believe that some being put us here intelligently then you are for intelligent design.
If you believe that everything was created through natural events, whatever they may be, but that no intelligent life helped life began, then you are on the "evolutionist" side.

Yes. What's the news in that? Oh, and it's still wrong to say that you "believe" that no intelligent life helped. It's not belief, its fact.

Originally posted by Psydan
And:
Abiogenesis
n :
a hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter.
How does this relate to male/female formation?

I didn't relate the two, did I? Gee I'm too tired for this.

Originally posted by Psydan
Quote by Cjais:"I never said that. Quote me, please."
Quote by Cjais:"Yes. You do that. And while you're at it, present some proof of your theory as well. Trying to disprove mine won't make you look any better in the end, unless you have substantial, empirical proof of your own as well."
I interpreted if that as you saying that we should be backing up our own side, not attacking the other side. Please excuse me if I interpreted it incorrectly.

What he said was that you cannot prove the positive by proving the negative. And you also can't prove the negative, so you are basically wasting your time trying. In short: Prove the positive. If this excludes some other hypothesises, tough. But dispelling such faulty hypothesises would belong after you have proved the positive.

Originally posted by Psydan
Quote by ShadowTemplar:"The distinction between genders needs not to be complex.

[...]

Well, I wasn't saying that the actual organism had to be complex, just that the distinction between genders, look at even the simplest sexually-reproducing species, there are major differences in even the organisms charecteristics that seperate male and female.

No. Again I turn to my beloved marine creatures. There are many creatures that are natural hermafrodites. A marked example is a marine creature that fights to aviod bearing the young. The male sexual organ of the winner will impregnate the loser. This means that the winner can impregnate another specimen and so on, until it loses.

It is actually (I think) the same creature that I mentioned above as being able to breed asexually as well. This gives it a flexibility that is seen in few other places.

Originally posted by Psydan
And, aren't sex cells a type of cell? So wouldn't it have to be a multi-cellular organism to have a gender?

No. Sexual reproduction signifies a mixing of genes between the parents. You don't need specialized sex cells.

*calls in the residential Biology expert (C'Jais) to back me up*

Originally posted by Psydan
What I'm saying is that if the first female is born, is it really possible that there will be a male that is perfectly programmed (using the word programmed as a loose term) to reproduce with that female?

As I have proven with the above example, it wouldn't be neccesary. And, besides, the "first female" wouldn't just appear out of nowhere among a whole group of specimens that reproduced asexually. There is a sliding transfer.

Originally posted by Psydan
Also, isn't cloning a type of asexual reproduction, not the opposite of it?

WOOT? Of course it is asexual reproduction. What did I miss out here?

Originally posted by Psydan
Quote by ShadowTemplar: "I know what the Bombardier Beetle is, but I don't see in what way it disproves evolution."
Well, the bombadier beetle uses a special type of self-defense. It's able to spray a stream of steaming hot liquid, that makes a loud popping noise, and that blinds and can burn the predator.
It sprays hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide out of seperate sacs, and when they mix they combine to form a chemical reaction. Now how could evolution produce this?

If, and I'm not saying that that's how it happened ('cause then I'd have to read up on it), if a beetle species began to produce some unpleasant liquid, then predators would be less inclined to eat it = greater survivability. Then the rest is fine-tuning.

For more Q&A to "whole-greater-than-the-sum-of-the-parts-nonsense" go to www.sciam.com and search on "15 answers". You'll find an article called "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense". Therein lie all the answers you need.

BTW: What is the structure formula for hydroquinone? Not that I think that you're lying, I just want to see if I can put it to some use, or make a model of the reaction or something.

Originally posted by Psydan
because really you'll never believe anything that I say.(speaking of which, it's kind of dumb in my opinion to be arguing about the use of words like believe, but thats just my opinion)

I'll never believe anything. If you have to believe it, then I for one find it too far out.

Originally posted by Psydan
And, "evolution" (species adapting to the environment, which by the way is one of the characteristics that all things must have to be considered "living")has been proven, many times, so it is a fact, and I'm not doubting it, but I do doubt "evolution" as it relates to this post topic (being the alternative to ID. The theory that no intelligent being(s) formed life on Earth).

Big, fat, glaring why. Why would the model not be applicable to life as a whole, when it so exellently describes the life that we see now?

BCanr2d2

01-19-2003, 08:06 AM

Evolution, a relatively new term, or supposedly new anyway. Let's clear up where we are as a race first. We, in the 21st Century are not that advanced. We should not consider the Ancient Greek or Egyptian civilisations less intelligent, since they were around a long time ago. Along the way, as we fought and razed buildings to the ground, the winners wrote history, the losers were absorbed.
Archimedes, Socrates, Plato ARE amongst some of the most intelligent thinkers to grace this Earth EVER. BUT once the Athenaen way of life was no more, what civilisation would really want to promote the ideas of a race they had just conquered?
The only reason people believe the Pyramids were made by slaves, is that it may, not sure haven't read it, the Bible states that it was the case. Now with currently excavation at the site surrounding the pyramids shows a more affluent kind of people were working on them, due to the kind of everyday items they had. All of a sudden going from a bunch of rank amatuers creating monoliths that have stood for over 4000 years, to having the ancient equivalent of a trained construction company doing the work.

In the last 10-20 years, it has been found that the current line of thinking, due to acts of war, amongst other things, makes the current western world not as intelligent as everyone would believe.

How many Greek texts, amongst others, were lost when the great library in Alexandria was burnt to the ground, removing traces of great thinkers like Archimedes....

Not even Da Vinci, one of the modern times most outstanding thinkers, could create the odometer that Archimedes had created for the Roman empire, due to some incorrect assumptions. There are lot of things that may be a lot further advanced and developed if not for the ravages of war that made most of the Hellenistic ideas lost to the world.

Over time, mans thinking, or intelligence have evolved and devolved according to whoever took control. Not until the last 50 or 60 years has the world started to think in a relatively uniform way, that will help us understand a lot more things.
It has taken us over 2000 years to catch up, in a relative sense, to where the Greeks were all that time ago. In realistic terms, the Theory of Evolution is relatively young in the terms of time and thinking. So, to find holes in something that tries to describe how we have changed since life arrived on Earth isn't going to be that hard.
The fact that about 80 years after the events, the Bible was being written, in that day and ages, was about three generations away from people who had seen any of it directly. It's like asking your grandchildren to write in about 120 years from now what it was like today, not a great deal of accuracy....
The fact that it took one Pope in the Middle Ages to declare the Bible as a literal statement of fact. That was about 1000 years after the book had been taught as a metaphorical text, in line with the people who wrote it. Why didn't all the other Popes before him make this declaration, OR did they not believe it to be literal?
There are scientists out there that say Evolution and Creation can go hand in hand. That the six days of creation, are describing the different times of the world that it took to arrive at a point where humans now roamed it.
How do we even know the King of Kings was actually Jesus, Emmanuel in other languages, and not some, what is now in modern Turkey, a man who through his family trees joined two seperate lines of kings from two dynasties. It seems as if that story in the Bible is a "chinese whisper" of this event. The events of the Bible may speak the truth to things that have happened, but are not in themselves totally irrefutable.

I'd believe something written by Archimedes over the Bible, even if they are of the same age.
We are nowhere near the stage of "If it hasn't been explained, therefore it's unexplainable" We know more about the moon and outer space that we do about the ocean floor. We don't totally understand our own planet, yet have a complete knowledge of our closest satellite....
Current Western thinking is relatively new after the Dark Ages, so consider us on 500 years into the new way of thinking, and not try to make it a total life sum of everything ever known on this earth. It just doesn't work like that, just because the Romans and the Greeks were advanced, does not make for a straight line of developed thinking from them.
The Greeks lost their fight for freedom, their ideas were lost to the world, the Romans lost too, so plenty of their ideas were thrown away as well.....

Mandalorian54

01-21-2003, 05:08 PM

The only reason people believe the Pyramids were made by slaves, is that it may, not sure haven't read it, the Bible states that it was the case. Now with currently excavation at the site surrounding the pyramids shows a more affluent kind of people were working on them, due to the kind of everyday items they had. All of a sudden going from a bunch of rank amatuers creating monoliths that have stood for over 4000 years, to having the ancient equivalent of a trained construction company doing the work.

acctually the slaves only hauled the blocks of clay or whatever pyramids are made of. the slaves also made the clay and straw blocks, but they were directed by the egyptians. Do you think that our construction workers design the bricks and model things. No they use the bricks, carpenters are a different story.

Also there are historical records to support it, and egyptian hiroglifacs or however it's spelt.

The fact that about 80 years after the events, the Bible was being written, in that day and ages, was about three generations away from people who had seen any of it directly. It's like asking your grandchildren to write in about 120 years from now what it was like today, not a great deal of accuracy....

according to historical documents it is exactly accurate.

The fact that it took one Pope in the Middle Ages to declare the Bible as a literal statement of fact. That was about 1000 years after the book had been taught as a metaphorical text, in line with the people who wrote it. Why didn't all the other Popes before him make this declaration, OR did they not believe it to be literal?

You need to get your facts straight.

Many people then believed it as many of us do now, some of the Bible is literal and some is metaphorical.

That is why so many people study it. And thats why we have pastors at churches, to study and teach the congragation.

And Constantine had done that before any Pope existed, by the way, the Pope is Catholic and the Catholic Bible has two added books to it, so the Bible he was talking about was a bit faulty.

----------------------

okay I don't have time to re-read evry post and point out all your mistakes.

Evolution is not a FACT!!!!!!!!!!!

it can not be proven!!!!!!!!!!!

God was not created! He reated Time! GOD has no beginging and will have no end. Is that so hard to imagine?

so tell me cjas, where do you think the first cell come from?

Breton

01-21-2003, 05:50 PM

Originally posted by Mandolorian54
acctually the slaves only hauled the blocks of clay or whatever pyramids are made of. the slaves also made the clay and straw blocks, but they were directed by the egyptians. Do you think that our construction workers design the bricks and model things. No they use the bricks, carpenters are a different story.

Also there are historical records to support it, and egyptian hiroglifacs or however it's spelt.

Firstly, the blocks weren't made of clay, but some kind of stone (sandstone or something). Also, there is nothing that indicates that there was slaves who built the monuments, workers yes, but why should it be slaves? I quote a website: "The pyramids of Egypt – believe it or not – were built by the Egyptians."

http://www.nunki.net/PerDud/TheWorks/Express/WhoBuiltPyrimads.html

Evolution is not a FACT!!!!!!!!!!!

it can not be proven!!!!!!!!!!!

Most people thinks that bacterias evolving resistance against antibiotics it evidence enough.

Breton

01-21-2003, 06:00 PM

"The story so far:
In the beginning the universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
Many races belive that it was created by some kind of god, though the Jatravartid people of Viltvodle VI belive that the entire universe was in fact sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure.
The Jatravartids, who live in perpetual fear of the time they call The Coming of the Great White Handkerchief, are small blue creatures with more than fifty arms each, who are therefore unique in being the only race in history to have invented the aerosol deodorant before the wheel.
However, the Great Green Arkleseizure Theory is not widely acceptd outside Viltvodle VI and so, the Universe being the puzzling place it is, other explanations are constantly being sought."

-The beginning of "The Resturant at the End of the Universe" by Douglas Adams

Reborn Outcast

01-21-2003, 06:22 PM

Ok yet again I am here late. :)

My reasons that evolution is not true: THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL SPECIES FOSSILS IN THE WORLD. And don't go trying to tell me that Archaeopteryx is a transitional species because it is FAKE. Why are their only 6 fossils of Archaeopteryx in the world and why do ony 2 have feathers? Because its fake.

From a website that I found:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
If you ask an evolutionist to tell you a transitional link, he will probably say: Archaeopteryx. So, what is, or what was this creature? Archaeopteryx is supposed to be a transition between a dinosaur—a reptile— and a bird, basically a bird-sized, feathered reptile. There is much evidence that this fossil is a fraud. If this is a real transitional species, it is the only one to be found anywhere on earth.

There are 6 alleged fossils of this animal. There should be millions, if it was a transitional link. Only 2 of these 6 fossils have feathers, the London and Berlin specimens. Since 1980, prominent scientists have charged that the two Archaeopteryx fossils with visible feathers are forgeries. "Allegedly, thin layers of cement were spread on two fossils of a chicken-size dinosaur, called Compsognathus. Bird feathers were then imprinted into the wet cement."

After examining this fossil from closer, we will see that everything points to it being a fraud.

All Archaeopteryx fossils come from the Solnhofen limestone formation in Bavaria, Germany. It is interesting that they were all found here, and that the owners of the mine made a great profit from selling the fossils.

The body of this animal strangely resembles Compsognathus, a bird-sized dinosaur. Were it not for the feathers, Archaeopteryx would be classified as Compsognathus. The feathers are exactly the same as for modern birds. The forger of Archaeopteryx probably just made feather imprints on a fossil of Compsognathus. This is also proven by the fact that all the feathers of Archaeopteryx are all laid out flat where the main slab and counterslab meet (these are the two sides of a fossil).

This animal probably couldn’t fly, since it doesn’t have a sternum (breast bone), which all birds and even bats need to have.

Other evidence pointing to forgery:

The feather imprints show double strike, which means that the feathers were imprinted twice in slightly displaced positions, when the forger placed the two blocks of limestone together.
Only the London specimen has a visible furcula, unique feature of birds.This furcula (or wishbone) is abnormally large and upside-down. It is even broken. How could such a flexible bone buried in soft sediments break, unless the forger accidentally broke it when taking it out of another fossil? The imprint of the furcula on the counter slab is not smooth, and shows the rough work of a chisel.
There is a strange, small grained material (called a "chewing gum blob") under the feather imprints. This material differs from the limestone surrounding the fossil. This is probably the wet cement used by the forger to make the feather imprints.
The main and counter slabs do not perfectly mate. There are bumps on the counterslab, made of the same fine-grained material found under the feathers. These bumps don’t have any corresponding depressions on the other slab.
There was much disagreement about these fossils until 1986, when they were analyzed with an X-ray resonance spectrograph, and definitive conclusions reached. It was found that the fine-grained material was significantly different in chemistry from the surrounding limestone, and the rock of the quarry in Germany where the fossils were found.
It has been proven that Archaeopteryx is a forgery that has deceived scientists for over 125 years.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Ok so that rules out the transitional link. No cross between species found when their should be MILLIONS of fossils like that.

Second reason: Their are NO TRANSITIONAL ORGANS TO BE FOUND. From that same website:

---------------------------------------------------------------
Besides the missing transitional species, there are no transitional organs either, e.g. there are no half scale and half feathers, no half leg and half wings (when reptiles are supposed to have turned into birds).

The other problem with transitional species is that if they ever lived, they would quickly have died and not passed on their genes. When evolving into a bird, the leg of a reptile would become a bad leg long before it became a good wing. Natural selection would select the reptile with normal legs, and the one that started to evolve into a bird would be unfit and die. Therefore, evolution would not occur.

How could the eye evolve for example? Natural selection wouldn’t select an animal with a partially evolved eye. For an eye to work properly, all its parts need to be in their place. A transitional eye wouldn’t be any good, and that’s why we never find such things in the fossil record. The eye could only appear with all its parts at the same time. This can only be done by a Creator.

Darwin was speculating in The Origin of Species, how the eye could have evolved, but he admitted:

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.
-------------------------------------------------------

So even Darwin, the creator of the theory of evolution, was hesitant.

Lets see what we have now, No transitional species, no transitional organs. Dinosaurs did not change all of a sudden into birds. So where are the transitional fossils. THERE ARE NONE. Sorry but evolution sound pretty wrong to me.

Now look at this from that same website:

-------------------------------------------------------
Let's try to imagine how the dinosaur—bird process could take place. First of all, we need approximately 100 million years. At the beginning of this period, there is the four-legged dino, and at the end the two-legged, two-winged bird. Well, our little dinosaur was in deep trouble, because predators were killing his family, and he couldn't run fast enough, or his environment had changed and he didn't have any place to hide. And then by chance (random mutation) a rather curious little dinosaur hatched which had a few feathers on his back and his two front legs were less functional. Curiously, he survived. By chance again, his offspring had more feathers and even less functional front legs. This process continued for 50 million years, until our dino-bird had neither well-running front legs, nor developed wings to fly. So, instead of being a better survivor than others of his original species, as expected by the evolutionary theory, he was a worse one. Poor chap, he couldn't even exist, because he would have been the first to be eaten by the predators.
-------------------------------------------------------

So there are the hard facts that evolution is not true.

C'jais

01-21-2003, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn
Most people thinks that bacterias evolving resistance against antibiotics it evidence enough.

Oh, they're just adapting. That this adaptation involves severe DNA changes is a minor issue.

That we can date our relationship with other races via DNA substitutions, which records the time of separation from the common ancestor is also just an unimportant detail.

If you found a skull in a desert which resembled a cross over between a human and an ape, how would you react?

How would you react if you were told that a chimpanzee shares 98% of its genes with us, and that it's more closely related to us than to orangutangs?

Murtaugh

01-21-2003, 06:38 PM

Aliens created the universe, just like they created earth!
http://www.rael.org/int/english/index.html
All hail Rael!!!

TheWhiteRaider

01-22-2003, 01:09 AM

Oh boy here we go again.

BTW do you know why the bacteria are able to stand agains anti-biotics? I would like to see if you know.

And how accurate is you dating methods?

C'jais

01-22-2003, 01:57 AM

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
BTW do you know why the bacteria are able to stand agains anti-biotics? I would like to see if you know.

Natural selection. Out of a huge bunch of bacteria, a select few have the right mutation to withstand the applied anti-biotic. They'll survive, and pass on the gene when they multiply afterwards.

And how accurate is you dating methods?

Pretty accurate. So accurate, in fact, that they're able to predict where the fossils are, how deep they're buried and that we're not supposed to find human fossils in strata from the Jurassic period. If we ever did that, our dating methods would be way off, but this hasn't happened yet. The mere fact that they can predict fossil findings ought to be enough to ensure you that they aren't merely lucky numbers and wild pot-shots.

C'jais

01-22-2003, 02:19 AM

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
My reasons that evolution is not true: THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL SPECIES FOSSILS IN THE WORLD. And don't go trying to tell me that Archaeopteryx is a transitional species because it is FAKE. Why are their only 6 fossils of Archaeopteryx in the world and why do ony 2 have feathers? Because its fake.

Creationist conspiracy theory yet again. The 6 Archeopteryx fossils aren't fakes. The first one was excavated in the bloody 19th century. At that point, no one had got the slightest idea of dinosaurs being related to birds. It was this fossil that turned it upside down, not an attempt to convince the non-creationists at that point.

And it is plain false to state they were all excavated in Bavaria, Germany - they have been found deep in Asia as well.

Presuming we'd be able to find millions of transitional fossils if it wasn't a forgey only shows how little they know of fossilization and the theory of evolution. And using this one example gives you no right at all to dismiss the countless other transitional fossils. How about Lucy, the Neanderthals, Homo Erectus, Homo Habilis and the several transitional fossils found, showing a smooth transition between fish and land living creatures?

When evolving into a bird, the leg of a reptile would become a bad leg long before it became a good wing.

Again more bullsnot. The first flyers came from forest dwellers, leaping from tree to tree, like the flying snakes and squirrells today. Tiny creatures, which spread their limbs and glided from the treetops. Natural selection would at first select the ones with increasingly more skin stretched out between their arms and legs, so as to make for better gliding. Once this had reached a comfortable stage, tiny feathers began to appear, and it'd instantly help these gliders. Now comes the fine tuning - from being a mere assist in gliding, these feathers slowly grew to the whole body and began to form wings which the creatures would need to steer with.

How could the eye evolve for example?

Imagine that you're one of the very first many celled fish living at the beginning of evolution in water. You have no eyes. The water is incredibly dark. You cannot distinguish the water surface from the water bottom. Now, light sensitive cells begin to evolve. You still can't see anything, but now your new light sensitive cells react when confronted with light, allowing you to see the surface. An immense aid. The rest is fine tuning - these light sensitive cells grew more and more specialized and accurate, allowing you to make crude patterns in the terrain and thus making sure you don't bumb into anything etc.

And one last thing regarding fossils:

Fossilization takes time. It has been proven. If all animals lived alongside each other (not that there'd be any space for them), how come we're only able to find fossils of the old ones, dated with our seemingly useless radioactive isotope dating methods?

ShadowTemplar

01-22-2003, 04:09 AM

ShadowTemplar

01-22-2003, 04:16 AM

Originally posted by Murtaugh
Aliens created the universe, just like they created earth!
http://www.rael.org/int/english/index.html
All hail Rael!!!

Remember "Independence Day"? UFOs should not unconditionally be welcomed. Besides: There is a reason why ET hasn't dropped by yet: There are probably incredibly few civilized planets in the galaxy (if you browse www.sciam.com you may of may not be able to find the Sceptic article in which this is explained, but the basic point is that L is too small).

BCanr2d2

01-22-2003, 04:41 AM

according to historical documents it is exactly accurate.

You need to get your facts straight.

So, you think three generations removed from the actual events isn't enough? When not every person has easy access to record everything that they see or hear. They can't put a story in the news without a direct source, yet people will change their lives and beliefs to some "someone told someone who told someone" written book. If you went to anywhere with this kind of disassociation from the source, they would think you are nuts...

Hindsight is great, I agree that the Bible fits in with many, but not all events in it. The Romans did not have a census that forced Mary and Joseph to go to Jerusalem. Explain this so called pivotal event that forced them to move from one town to another? If the most advanced civilisation at the time didn't do it, who did?
It is also contentius the ay that certain key words have been interpreted. Of where the Bible states things were meant to be based, the languages are very similar, and to interpret in the wrong language makes a mockery of what is said in the Bible. Jesus is not actually named in the Bible, since it wasn't written in English, I think it is more likely to be Emmanuel that is the name that is stated....

Many people then believed it as many of us do now, some of the Bible is literal and some is metaphorical.

That is why so many people study it. And thats why we have pastors at churches, to study and teach the congragation.

And Constantine had done that before any Pope existed, by the way, the Pope is Catholic and the Catholic Bible has two added books to it, so the Bible he was talking about was a bit faulty.

BTW its ROMAN Catholicism - The East Roman Empire, ie Byzantine Empire took it as their official religion. When the Byzantine Empire existed, it took in approx 2/3rds of the original Roman Empire, which was approx 80-90% of the known civilised world at the time.
Some love to talk about Christianity and all the different denominations, does anyone bother to really look up as to when they actually were formed?
Lutheran - Middle Ages, bordering on Reniassance. I think you will find that the doctorine taught in many of these denominations are about 1200-1500 ingrained from Catholicism, due to the influence of the Roman Empire. So when the Pope said it was literal, more than a fair share of the world had to go along with interpretation.

You also state the evolution is not a fact, none of us deny that, but how can you prove that the Bible is fact too? All we have is people who will try to debunk evolution, well science actually, using stories from texts that are 20-40 years old.

I ask you this:

If the Bible is able to be read differently by everyone, then wouldn't you tend to agree that it was actually written as parables, rather than actual fact? The Jews writing style was that of parables, and they were the ones who wrote it. Why would they change one text?

C'jais

01-22-2003, 04:13 PM

I am all that is. None of you exist.

The world began with me. Time was created when I were born. History before my birth has no meaning, because I am all that is.

My environment is a world desperately pulled over my eyes to blind me from the truth - that I am alone. The names I see on my screen before my eyes are nothing. Merely electric impulses interpreted by my brain. The air I breathe is Me myself. Everything revolves back to me, and the world will cease to exist when I die. But I will never die. The concept of time and death are mine, and mine alone. The universe will crumble and everything will be erased when I am no longer here. There will be no history beyond my death and birth, for I am all that is.

You are but figments on my eyes. Nothing. Everything is a mirror of Me. Everything exists on my perception, and mine alone. I am All. You are Nothing.

Prove. Me. Wrong.

Reborn Outcast

01-22-2003, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by Cjais
The world began with me. Time was created when I were born. History before my birth has no meaning, because I am all that is. Prove. Me. Wrong.

If you are trying to be God... he was never born, he always has been there. I proved that you are not God.

If you are trying to be Jesus then time did not start when he was born. And the time before he was born had a great meaning because it was setting the stage for his birth. I just proved that you are not Jesus.

Master_Keralys

01-22-2003, 04:31 PM

Cjais - that's philosophy now for one thing. For another, if that's the case, then you're the same nothing, and I am everything. "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it still fall?"

If you're all that exists - you are all and everything else in the universe is subject to your perceptions - then where did you come from? If nothing else exists, then where did you come from? If uyou have existed eternally, then you could be what we call God. Except that I know you're not, given that god exists outside of spacetime, and you say its simply one of your illusions.

Master_Keralys

01-22-2003, 04:33 PM

Exactly Reborn. Nicely stated.

C'jais

01-22-2003, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
If you are trying to be God... he was never born, he always has been there. I proved that you are not God.

That is a postulate. I can see that I'm all that is. I can see that everything is but a reflection of my perceptions.

If you are trying to be Jesus then time did not start when he was born. And the time before he was born had a great meaning because it was setting the stage for his birth. I just proved that you are not Jesus.

The concept of religion, time and Jesus were not created until my birth. There is no history before my birth. Prove it.

And no, I'm not trying to be God, and neither Jesus. I am all that is, and nothing has any relevance except for me.

C'jais

01-22-2003, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by Master_Keralys
Cjais - that's philosophy now for one thing.

Everything is philosophy. Prove the opposite.

then where did you come from?

The concept of time did not exist before I.

I am not God. God is an omnipotent concept. I am not omnipotent.

Everything exists the way I perceive it. Everything revolves around Me.

Psydan

01-22-2003, 08:44 PM

But Cjais I can see, for a fact, beyond doubt, that I am here. Though you may not believe this it is quite obvious to me. Of course from my perception all of that may be true for me, and you can't prove me wrong either. This is because you have created for yourself an effective lie that turns everything we say into nothing because it might just be your perception that causes you to think that we're saying this, and this can't be proven wrong, or are you even still waiting for a clever argument, you know as well as I that this is pointless, and now, go ahead and continue to assult my religion, I know that that is the point your trying to bring home, well I don't care. If you choose to reject God's gift then that is a tragically bad mistake, and I wish you would reconsider, but I'm not going to keep up this charade of you trying to be clever, and trying to prove us wrong. The question was how you thought the universe began. Can we at least have a good session of creative opinions instead of proving each other wrong, because apparently none of the arguments are even affecting the other side. As for Christianity the Bible says(KJV 2 Corinthians 5:7)
7(For we walk by faith, not by sight: ) <----(Not a smilie)

I've decided that I don't need to argue, you don't care, and I don't need to disprove you, because always by your perception you will be right (And I will always be equally right, at least in my perception), so let's stop trying to prove each other wrong, I know you're going to disagree, (of course, it wouldn't be in any of our nature to actually agree) but I don't think we should argue every point, because I will always believe in God as the creator of the universe.

TheWhiteRaider

01-23-2003, 12:55 AM

Originally posted by Cjais
Natural selection. Out of a huge bunch of bacteria, a select few have the right mutation to withstand the applied anti-biotic. They'll survive, and pass on the gene when they multiply afterwards.

[B]

You sort of dodged the question. I mean do you know what is the machine is not what made it.

Pretty accurate. So accurate, in fact, that they're able to predict where the fossils are, how deep they're buried and that we're not supposed to find human fossils in strata from the Jurassic period. If we ever did that, our dating methods would be way off, but this hasn't happened yet. The mere fact that they can predict fossil findings ought to be enough to ensure you that they aren't merely lucky numbers and wild pot-shots.

Oh realy? Then I guess you would not know that Half-lives can be changed would you? It has been proven. And some of the methods are based on so little proof?

The East Roman Empire, ie Byzantine Empire took it as their official religion

Not realy.

C'jais

01-23-2003, 05:19 AM

Originally posted by Psydan
This is because you have created for yourself an effective lie that turns everything we say into nothing because it might just be your perception that causes you to think that we're saying this, and this can't be proven wrong, or are you even still waiting for a clever argument

You finally got my point. Good.

Now apply this to every point you have made.

There's a trick though. Instead of whining, postulating bullcrap, you could dish up some testable evidence that the earth is older than my current age. Books and statements are not going to help you. You cannot prove these are older than me. On the other hand, if you carbon-14 date something to be 10.000 years old, you'll have proved without a doubt that I'm lying. Because I can test this myself. And so can you. Only testable, empirical evidence is going to help you. B!tching that I can't possibly bring philosophy into an already philosophical debate is not going to further this.

because I will always believe in God as the creator of the universe.

And that is called blind faith. No matter what damning evidence we dig up, you'll apparently always blindly believe in the biblical creation. Fundementalism is a disease of the mind, and if you're that cornered and skewed, I'm not even going to try to change your views on this.

Now I ask you: Are you willing to change your interpretation of the Bible if presented with damning proof? If you're not, get the hell out. I mean it. I'm not going to waste my time.

If you are, tell me why it's so important for you to take the Bible that literally. God can still exist if you "believe" in evolution. God can always be there, and I'm not even trying to disprove Him.

C'jais

01-23-2003, 05:25 AM

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
You sort of dodged the question. I mean do you know what is the machine is not what made it.

And you sort of dodged the answer.

It's not relevant what does the genetic change (mutations eh?) - fact is, it happens. Evolution (or adaptation, if you prefer) so obviously happens, and I frankly don't care if it's God who is doing it all, or nature itself.

Oh realy? Then I guess you would not know that Half-lives can be changed would you? It has been proven. And some of the methods are based on so little proof?

Oh really? I don't care, it's worked so far that it cannot plausibly be mere luck that did the predictions. Could God have made the predictions, the isotopes, the fossils? No matter. It works, with or without God.

Not realy.

Would you be so kind as to explain just what religion it was, if it wasn't Catholicism?

Reborn Outcast

01-23-2003, 06:30 AM

Originally posted by Cjais
And that is called blind faith. No matter what damning evidence we dig up, you'll apparently always blindly believe in the biblical creation.

I would rather have blind faith and believe that there is something after death, than not have any faith at all.

BCanr2d2

01-23-2003, 06:48 AM

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
Not realy.

This being in reference to the Byzantine Empire not having Catholicism as their religion.....

Then answer me this, why is the Byzantine Empire also known as the East Roman Empire or the HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE? It was the Western Roman Empire that did not take catholicism with them, they are the ones who continued to persecute the Catholics....
Religion is one thing that split the Roman Empire in two....

St Sophia's in Istanbul wasn't built as a mosque, it was a Catholic Church, which is in sight of the Blue Mosque. Why would the Byzantines spend relatively a lot of money to build a large Church on top of the Hill in the Topkapi region, the Ottoman Palace is in this area as well, which is the highest region on the European side of Istanbul, IF Catholicism wasn't their main religion?

Naturally occuring isotopes - now lets discuss this term if you want to pick on science once again. What kind of extreme laboratory conditions have to exist for these isotopes to change half life? Then tell me if you can replicate them naturally on this earth?
It's like me saying I can make your head explode, now explain to me where on this Earth will it happen naturally? Personally, it'd happen if it was in a vacuum, but they don't occur on Earth, and space isn't one either......

Cjais,

Love the way you made your point there.

Reborn,
he never said he was God, he was suggesting that he was a god. Why has christianity just used a noun, spell it with an uppercase letter and hijack the word? I am sure this was a term that came from other languages and religions before Christianity came along.

Let everyone wonder when the Gulf Stream Atlantic Ocean Current is interupted by the freshwater melt from the Arctic ice, where their god is, and why this severe change in world climate has occured.
Did their god create fossil fuels (Hmm, if you don't believe evolution, then why bother with science at all and the time to create deposits of oil, coal etc) to force a hole in the ozone layer, and then to create the Arctic ice to melt to bring one what could potentially be the beginnings of the next Ice Age?

Explain, if Evolution isn't true, therefore giving the Earth a lot shorter time span, explain how the fossil fuels burnt to provide you the electricity you use, and the fuel for the car you drive?

C'jais

01-23-2003, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
I would rather have blind faith and believe that there is something after death, than not have any faith at all.

And I would rather believe I'm the be all, end all of everything rather than having no faith at all.

It's a nice thought. It makes you feel good. But it is an empty illusion.

Listen guys, have you heard about the Old viking myths? They're called myths, but they were in reality a religion once. Their "Genesis" is even more funked up than yours - it involves carving the meat of a giant into earth, and swetting out humans from its armpits.

Or, how about the Raelian religion? Aliens created all life on earth with DNA manipulation?

I'm sure you'd all like to see Creationism taught as an alternative to evolution in schools.

I can "prove" all of the above myths with the same technique you're applying to evolution. Trying to debunk science and telling us that on the one hand, you have a God that has apparently planted major evidence for a non-Biblical creation theory, and on the other hand seemingly "likes" to bend reality's laws to suit his follower's views on things.

Here's how it goes. If you should ever succeed in debunking evolution (and science), I'll immediately step in from the left and use my very own viking religion (it's a religion now that its myths are "true") instead of the biblical Genesis. Then we can argue over which religion is hotter.

But I warn you, I already have my facts straight: The viking myths haven't even caused a 1/10 of the murders that the Christian ones have.

C'jais

01-23-2003, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by BCanr2d2
Explain, if Evolution isn't true, therefore giving the Earth a lot shorter time span, explain how the fossil fuels burnt to provide you the electricity you use, and the fuel for the car you drive?

Very good point, but I'm afraid I can already answer for my fellow Creationists on this one:

It has not been proven that fossilization takes time. Our dating methods are inherently wrong when it comes to these matters. Even though scientists act like they know what they're talking about, when it comes to determining if fossils indeed do create fossil fuels over a very long time, they don't know anything.

And even though they still insist we will run dry of fossil fuels because we're burning it faster that it's being created (from where? Fossils? Cannot be), they're just talking out of their ass. Nevermind, we will see when the time comes and God no doubt will create a huge extra surplus of fossil fuels for us to burn. Then they'll know their failure.

Good point again.

Master_Keralys

01-23-2003, 05:48 PM

why is the Byzantine Empire also known as the East Roman Empire or the HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE?

It's not. The Holy Roman Empire is the area occupied by Germanic tribes united under Charlemagne and his successors in the latter half of the dark ages. Get it straight man.:)

And that is called blind faith. No matter what damning evidence we dig up, you'll apparently always blindly believe in the biblical creation.

Nonsense. Blind faith is accepting something without questioning it. I question, often daily, the validity of my faith. Something tells me it's true though. Point 1: it's the only view on life that offers any hope. If there's no hope, no reason to live, why don't we just lie down and die now? But I don't see anyone doing that.

Point 2: Every piece of information in the Bible that can be verified with current archeological evidence - is right. Example - the date of the worldwide flood. The oldest tree in the world is ~ 4400 years old - exactly the age it would be if it started growing immediately after the end of the Biblical flood. The Grand Canyon could have been created at the same time, and probably was, if you ask some more objective archologists. Also, every culture in the world has a flood legend. Coincidence? I don't hink so.

Jesus - a clearly historical figure. Aristotle - we accept his historicity, correct? Well, the first manuscript we have of his works is from 1400 years after his death. But he's still viewed as real, correct? Okay, the first manuscript of the gospels are less than 80 years after his deat [and resurrection]. Aristotle - around 15 early manuscripts. Jesus - around 25000. The Bible is true in every other respect, why wouldn't it be regarding God.

Finally, I state that if one could conclusively prove the existence of God - there would be no need for belief or faith, everyone would know the same thing, that He exists. Here's the thing - let's stick to science in this post, and I'll start another one on theology.

As far as fossil fuels go, Cjais was right. The other thing is, given the pressures and the like - the fossil fuels couldn't be more than 10-14000 years old. More proof that the Biblical timeline is correct.

Evolution doesn't explain why human nature is inherently corrupt and power hungry. In actuality, it would be more profitable to have a nature that benefits the society and thereby benefits and protects the individual. Next, the process of natural selection doesn't prove evolution. Nor does it prove a Designer. It actually doesn't prove anything, except that living creatures have the ability to adapt.

Reborn Outcast

01-23-2003, 06:06 PM

Originally posted by BCanr2d2
Religion is one thing that split the Roman Empire in two....
No it was split into two parts because the Empire was falling apart. The new ruler (can't remember his name) Decided it would make the empire easier to rule if it were in two parts. He still had control over everything but he had a lower "king" working on the western half. Religion had nothing to do with it. Economy and the state of the empire did.

Originally posted by Cjais
I'm sure you'd all like to see Creationism taught as an alternative to evolution in schools.

The only reason its not taught in public schools is because of the law that states there is to be no crossing of the government and the church.

Originally posted by Cjais
Our dating methods are inherently wrong when it comes to these matters.

Ah an dcorrect you are. I'll look it up but I heard a story about some scientists who did a carbon date on a piece of paper that had just been made 10 minutes earlier and it dated it at 10,000 years old... the oldest tree known is around 4400 and we dont use fossilised things for paper..

Psydan

01-23-2003, 07:49 PM

Originally posted by BCanr2d2
Did their god create fossil fuels (Hmm, if you don't believe evolution, then why bother with science at all and the time to create deposits of oil, coal etc) to force a hole in the ozone layer, and then to create the Arctic ice to melt to bring one what could potentially be the beginnings of the next Ice Age?

Explain, if Evolution isn't true, therefore giving the Earth a lot shorter time span, explain how the fossil fuels burnt to provide you the electricity you use, and the fuel for the car you drive?

Just to let you know, they found an iron pot,(it is very obviously not natural)buried in layers of coal! Now, if we find pots made by humans, buried in coal, that kind of shows that it doesn't take so long for coal to be formed as some people think.
(just found this today) Very good website: http://www.creationevidence.org/cemframes.html
shows a lot of proof for creation, though I'm sure somebody could cause endless debates on the information, as many seem to want to.
Also, Cjais, I just wanted to say that using your theory I could just say that the carbon testing is only a perception of my reality, and that they don't prove anything. Also you have yet to give any "proof" that all life came through evolution, go ahead, show me how science has proved beyond reasonable doubt that humans came from a freak event, and millions of years of accidental changes, and you'll have some proof, or let some scientist use whatever non-organic things he can to try to produce life. If you can reproduce the same results every time, then that is good proof that life could have come without a creator, but I've never seen any "proof" of random events producing life.

Reborn Outcast

01-23-2003, 08:13 PM

Cjais explain this... How were those first bacteria formed? I have not heard you talk about that once.

TheWhiteRaider

01-24-2003, 01:12 AM

Then answer me this, why is the Byzantine Empire also known as the East Roman Empire or the HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE?

MAby you should get some facts straight. The Holy Roman Empire was where Germany is now(somewhere around there.

The East part has the Orthodox church ok? There is a huge difference between the two.

And you sort of dodged the answer.

No you misunderstood the question.

Naturally occuring isotopes - now lets discuss this term if you want to pick on science once again. What kind of extreme laboratory conditions have to exist for these isotopes to change half life? Then tell me if you can replicate them naturally on this earth?

FIRST I AM NOT PICKING ON SCIENCE!
I am questioning your theory ok? You get nowhere in science without questions.

You real want to know how?

RA=radioactive(below)

Scientist have done it by just putting non-RA iron next to RA Iron. The non-RA iron became RA with it's RA clock reset to 0 and the first RA iron lost about 300 years on it.

Also they have found that pressure, water, and heat will change the rate of decay. Here is a quote from geologist Wakefield Dort, Jr., found in the Antarctic Journal(September-October 1971):211

"The apparent radiocarbon age of the Lake Bonney seal known to have been dead for no more than a few weeks was determined to be 615 +/- 100 years. A seal freshly killed at McMurdo had an apparent age of 1,300 years."

I'm sure you'd all like to see Creationism taught as an alternative to evolution in schools.

You know that even some evolutionist are for teaching Creation is schools? As Richard D. Alexander points out.

"No teacher should be dismayed at efforts to present creation as an alternative to evolution in biology courses; indeed, at this moment creation is the only alternative to evolution. Not only is this worth mentioning, but a compairison of two alternatives can be an excellent exercise in logic and reason. Our primary goal as educators should be to teach students to think, and such a comparison, particularly because it concerns an issue in which many have speacial interests or are even emotionally involved, may accomplish that purpose better than most others."

Cjais explain this... How were those first bacteria formed? I have not heard you talk about that once.

In the last E vs. C debate it was Gonk that mainly talked about it. But Cjais will.

How about Lucy

Oh you mean the fossel that it's bones were found 50 miles apart and they were not of the same host?