PDA

View Full Version : Evolution vs. Creation Myths/other scientific theories


Dagobahn Eagle
05-15-2003, 10:31 PM
I asked in a post in the "questions about religion" thread if evolution existed. The answers convinced me that it's something that occupies a good deal of people.

Evolution
Evolution, while not 100% proven, is the best, and most widely recognized theory around of how life evolved.

"There is no evidence for evolution".
Huh?

We've got "a few" fossils from around the world, although I do not see how you can say "a few". We've got a fossil of early apes, late apes, and primates, and then humans. Basically, slowly evolving into people. Same with animals. Pretty good evidence to me. And we know they are fossils, that's been proven as well: When today's beings deteriorate, they leave behind the same stuff.

Carbon 14-dating. How can anyone say it's baloney? It's been proven scientifically (do you have any idea of how many houndred times a theory must be tested before it can be as widely accepted as C14-dating?). Thing is, let's say I have a child tomorrow (ooookay:)), and five years from now, the child sees me make a coin. Now, 120 years from then, the child's child brings the coin to a scientists who measures its age using the C14 method, and figures that it was made.. 120 years ago. That's how they proved it.

Different human skin colours: If evolution doesn't exist, why did the "descendants of Adam and Eve", or humans, change skin colours as they populated the world? Tell me that.

Do it with any item, and they will find the right age. It's based on the theory of half-life, which I will not elaborate on since you should be familiar with every aspect of evolution before you turn it down.

It's not like some crazy scientist just thought it up and they used it without ever testing it.

Godly creation (with Godly, Reverend, I'm afraid I mean any God)

Well, what can I say, Reverend? The Bible says so, but presents no evidence. Your Bible has been wrong countless times before. It thought the Earth was flat. It said that the universe revolved around the Earth. It said that the whole world flooded (which is physically impossible).

It says Cain chased Abel (or the other way around) into the labyrinth without giving any darned clue as to why the heck Cain and Abel, as the only two sentiment people on the planet, would build a darned labyrinth in the first place. Just to give some examples.

My good christians, why do you still cling so dearly to the Bible? It's allright to believe in religion, so do I. But why still cling to something when 99% of all recognized scientists recognize it as wrong? And when it cannot back its theories up with facts.

Reverend, you are quick to say that "Carbon 4 dating is just a theory". But what about your Bible? Our theories at least give evidence; the Bible gives no evidence. You say that you cannot trust people who are around today in this modern world, and who give evidence for their theories and statements; yet, you expect us to blindly follow you in your worship of people long past, and who presented little or no evidence whatsoever of their beliefs. I encourage faith; but remember that faith is just that: Faith. I may have faith that I'll get a video game for my birthday, beause I told my parents I wanted one; yet, I know it's not 100% certain. If I see the presents and not a single one resemble something that could be a video game, I lose faith.

Your God can't lie? Well, he obviously has, if he's the one behind the Bible. "Everything revolves around the Earth...:D"

Did you ever see Galaxy Quest?
As a Star Trek-like show airs on Earth, a distant race hinges on a few survivors on the brink of destruction from a superior race. Then, as their destruction seems imminent, they come across (don't remember how) "documentaries on a war fought by Earthlings and their space vessels". Now, the same way as no author today writes creation/religious stories as fiction on the same line as Tolkien wrote Fantasy books on the same line as fiction.. no one in this distant world makes fictional TV shows or write fictional stories, of war.

Thus they create a replica of the USS Enterprise (or, I think they used some other non-star trek ship to avoid copyright lawsuits), and beam the "crew" of the ship to their planet to fight their invaders. The crew, of course, are only the actors of the TV show.
Just a side note.

SkinWalker
05-16-2003, 02:18 AM
Evolution isn't so much something to be "believed in" as it is a concept to accept. Evolution is also not a single concept, but rather a myriad of hypotheses that describe the history of life as we have so far observed.

One of the key things to bear in mind is HYPOTHESIS.

Richard Feynman said, "When a scientist doesn't know the answer to a problem, he is ignorant. When he has a hunch as to what the result is, he is uncertain. And when he is pretty darn sure of what the result is going to be, he is still in some doubt. We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain.

This is why religion is not a valid hypothesis for the proliferation of life on Earth or any other planet. It relies on faith rather than evidence and does not recognize ignorance or leave room for doubt. Religion is an "unbounded" concept, whereas scientific method creates "bounded" hypotheses. Bounded meaning that the rules of science apply. "God's will" and other supernatural forces cannot be invoked. Also, with scientific method, there is room for "update, change, modification" or even out-right "disregard" for any hypothesis that doesn't continue to hold up to testing.

I don't see an accurate choice in your poll for me to make. One cannot believe "in" evolution, but rather one can believe that evolution is the most plausible and probable answer to the proliferation of life on this planet.

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
"There is no evidence for evolution".
Huh?

You obviously quoted someone who is ignorant. They have one of Feynman's scientific traits and don't even realize it. :p


Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Carbon 14-dating. How can anyone say it's baloney?

The ignorant and those that refuse to acknowledge scientific method (except where their computers, cars, and consumer goods are concerned) routinely spout the "flaws" of carbon dating. Usually in contexts that are wholey inappropriate for that type of dating. Scientists, as pointed out by Feynman, do not consider themselves as flawless and therefore publicly announce margins for error.

Those that wish to discredit dating methods are quick to jump on this as reason to point out the inaccuracy of, say, Carbon Dating. What they don't understand is the difference between "accuracy" and "precision." What the scientist who use dating methods are concerned with is "precision" (the preferred dating method for many sites these days is argon-argon).

For instance: when I was in the army it was considered "ACCURATE" if you could hit the target during rifle evaluations. If you could hit the target, you qualified with your rifle. It was, however, considered to be "PRECISE" if you could put all of your shots in a very tight group on a consistant basis.

In many situations, the accuracy of even Carbon dating is very good. It's precision is often within a 150-200 year margin of error. This is a minor MOE when looking at 30, 000 years. Precision can often be had by merely using additional dating methods, such as tree-ring dating or paleo-magnetic dating.

BrodieCadden
05-16-2003, 03:45 AM
Although Macro-evolution isn't a proved scientific fact, I do find it the most logical approach and I do believe it to be true. It doesn't contradict my faith and anyone who says it has "no evidence" has some pretty bias sources.

On the topic of Evolution and Creationism, go to www.christianforums.com and go to the Open Debate for Christians and Non-Christians. There is all you need there, it has been discussed so many damn times.

Homuncul
05-16-2003, 04:47 AM
This is why religion is not a valid hypothesis for the proliferation of life on Earth or any other planet. It relies on faith rather than evidence and does not recognize ignorance or leave room for doubt. Religion is an "unbounded" concept, whereas scientific method creates "bounded" hypotheses. Bounded meaning that the rules of science apply. "God's will" and other supernatural forces cannot be invoked. Also, with scientific method, there is room for "update, change, modification" or even out-right "disregard" for any hypothesis that doesn't continue to hold up to testing.

Science is dealing with a lot more difficult things Bible will ever pretend to posess like probability. It discribes our world through the loop of possibility of some event and actual probability of it's existence. When this step in science was first made everything lost it's absoluteness, even abstractions. But that doesn't mean we can't consider something we find subjectively almost proven a really proven thing and furthermore we must do such an assumption. Our reality is so complicated that we can't see it as a full image. Something is always unsaid. But it is really something absurd to not consider anything proven till it is proven implicitly and can't be changed at any condition. WE HAVEN'T GOT ANYTHING NOW WE CAN CALL PROVEN (in a common old way that many accept and anything can be so "logically" perverted that nothing in this world would make any sense). The actual meaning of this word is lost through time by a lot of people. But many scientists still know what's the difference between "just proven logically" and the what's been proven logically with probability involved. At one time probability was more like a superstring theory for us now. But as you see it's worldwide accepted. True logic prevail.

Everything in our lives is subjective so "logically speaking" nothing really makes sense cause it's all VR. Do christians see how futile this assumption is and how much was actually not been taken in calculation to that. And how exponencially this data will grow with probability involved and how absurdly it would be then called proven (in a common way) to be NOT AT ALL SO. We are now so dumbed up that we can't even call our predictions true or false. (in a common way again)

David Deutsch in some of his works concerning epistemology pointed out that the growth of our future knowledge would depend on "imaginative logic" (supersting theory for example) as I call it for simplicity. So I pointed out for myself that even less counted proven theories (or hypothesis or whatever you falsly call it) than evolution should be taken as PROVEN

Someone here is still living in a classical world while it's been actually left behind completely more than 30 years ago. It took scientists to realize this 30 years, it'll take for common people - 100 years (probably), it may never happen to christians ever (due to their strong faith).

I didn't want to offend anyone but I sometimes grow aggressive and can't contriollllllllll myself. It's just an opinion after all (made on great amount of data taken in calculation) :(

Dagobahn Eagle
05-16-2003, 11:45 AM
SkinWalker, you sound like my chem teacher. I like the insight:).

Cosmos Jack
05-16-2003, 12:17 PM
EKK ! ! I'm afraid to get in this pool here. I might take a pisss and make a few people mad, but I guess I will test the water.

The theory of Evolution is like a latter with missing steps. Does the lack of a few steps keep it from being a latter? Are we incorrect to assume that it is what it is? All the animals that have ever existed will never be found. Possibly all the missing links to human evolution will not be found, however; there is enough steps in the latter to make it a latter. Religion if compared to a latter all you would have is two long boards with no connection. The back cover and the front cover and nothing to stand on in the middle. Will faith hold you up?

It took me only a few minutes when I was a child after being introduced to the idea of evolution to except it over creationism and religion all together. It just makes since. Some people fined it hard to except evolution on the grounds nobody wants to think they are nothing more than a relatively hairless talking monkey. I am comfortable with it myself and see that all live is related and dependent on each other in some way. One of my biggest peeves with religion especially Christianity is that it makes people think quote "GOD made the Earth and all it's creatures to benefit man." When I read that it makes me feel low like to the ground low. I want to go on a Christian smashing crusade of my own at times. All the problems that exist in this world, because of human arrogance encouraged by religion. I hate to quote a movie, but humans have turned into viruses. We don't benefit the world or any other living thing, but ourselves. We should be trying to make the world a better place for all life not just humanity.

I also fined it relatively agonizing to think how many people still cling to Christianity or any other religion for support in there daily lives. I have found where there is a hopelessly religious person you have a hopelessly week mind. A person that preys for every little thing to go their way. I want at times to put them out of MY MISERY. I have discovered threw my own trial and error nothing comes to you unless you make it come to you. I have accomplished nothing in life with the help of any god and nobody does. I have had a lot of set backs and disappointments. I have made it threw on my own and come out successful. Not because I believed in a god, but because I believed in myself. People don't give themselves enough credit for there accomplishments.

I know I come off as a relatively heartless rude person may I add unemotional as well, however; I will stop in the middle of the road to rescue a turtle. I got tested for few minutes the night before last, because I wouldn't kill a spider instead I cot it and let it loose outside. Why harm something unless it trying to harm me. A small house spider isn't going to kill anyone. I also don't believe in owning pets, because I don't believe in owning a living thing.

If it were up to the human species all life that would exist would be cows, horses, dogs, cats, fish, pigs, and chickens. Maybe a few others. Human ignorance and arrogance go hand in hand and utterly disgust me. Religion encourages these ideas. I don't totally agree with everything Scientific Pantheism is about but it supports a lot of how I feel and for all purposes is a good replacement for religion especially Christianity.

Religion is simple minds way of answering the tuff questions. Who am I, Where did I come from, and Where am I going. These are things you have to answer for yourself nobody else can answer them for you not even an omnipotent being.

Pardin my bad typing I worked all night, and I'm going to bed now...........

Here are some sites that make me laugh, make me cuss, and really pisss me the hell off.
1. http://www.jesus21.com/poppydixon/pillbox/fiction.html
2. http://www.jesus21.com/writers/belinda/dinosaurs.html
3. http://www.christiananswers.net/dinosaurs/j-where1.html
4.http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/dinos.shtml

Dagobahn Eagle
05-16-2003, 07:51 PM
I also fined it relatively agonizing to think how many people still cling to Christianity or any other religion for support in there daily lives. I have found where there is a hopelessly religious person you have a hopelessly week mind. A person that preys for every little thing to go their way.
Prayer has been known to make you feel better. I pray sometimes, when I really feel down, and while I don't know if anyone's listening (while of course I want to believe, and have faith in, that someone does), it does make me feel better. It's sort of like carrying a four-leafed cloever or crossing your fingers.

Religion, imo, is okay as long as it doesn't override science.

I want at times to put them out of MY MISERY.
LOL :D!

Um.. why don't anyone who are against evolution post? LS1, where are you?

Cosmos Jack
05-16-2003, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Religion, imo, is okay as long as it doesn't override science.
Religion was born in a environment where science didn't exist. It's very purpose is to support, give answers, and set boundaries of how people act and think. The problem with the bible is it was written by a man for man. With no evidence or proof required other than the words with in. Science is also written by men. The difference here is do you take the word of a obviously delusional person or a educated person that devotes their time and effort in answering all the questions that there is to life. Are you a copout and take the easy excuse that god did everything or are you going to fined out why the wind blows and trees grow.

God doesn't make it rain or snow. God doesn't make earthquakes or tornados. Satan doesn't posses people and there are no such things as ghost. All this supernatural nonsense needs to go extinct and humanity needs to start focusing on what's real.

If Christianity had it's way all humanity would set around in a church every time they had a problem. With their thumb up their rear. Hoping god would save them. These people need to get the hell out of the way and let humanity evolve. They need stop dragging the world down. In some futile attempt to reassure their place in a nonexistent afterlife.

Breton
05-16-2003, 09:13 PM
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/

Can't say these people aren't trying, but their arguments are so f-in weak it's scary. Unfortunatly, people who doesn't know better can be fooled by the direct and indirect lies and false arguments on this site. If a lie is repeated many enough times, it becomes a truth. So is it with this site, it has absolutly nothing to back up their arguments, their arguments are more full of holes that a Swiss cheese.

Dagobahn Eagle
05-16-2003, 10:02 PM
A more accurate link would be:
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/creation.shtml[size=1]

Creation Versus Evolution

If there is no support for the theory of evolution, why is no alternative taught? We can only think of two reasons:

The Bible’s creation account is not “politically acceptable.”
The authors, book publishers, and school boards do not have all the facts.
The simple reason is that the Bible has NO evidence, like you claim evolution has no evidence.

The Bible is not a science book, yet it is scientifically accurate. We are not aware of any scientific evidence that contradicts the Bible.
Well, come out from under your rock then.

*Snickers* 132, verse 15. And behold, a bright light appeared, and there was the angel of Dagobahn Eagle. Instantly, the forummers were afraid. "Do not fear", said Dagobahn Eagle. "But let me communicate that it is written: 'That site is a disgrace to all of christianity'. "That is the word of God". And then the Angel disappeared in the Heavenly light:D

shukrallah
05-16-2003, 11:28 PM
Well, what can I say, Reverend? The Bible says so, but presents no evidence. Your Bible has been wrong countless times before. It thought the Earth was flat. It said that the universe revolved around the Earth. It said that the whole world flooded (which is physically impossible).

It says Cain chased Abel (or the other way around) into the labyrinth without giving any darned clue as to why the heck Cain and Abel, as the only two sentiment people on the planet, would build a darned labyrinth in the first place. Just to give some examples.


Your God can't lie? Well, he obviously has, if he's the one behind the Bible. "Everything revolves around the Earth..."


real, quick where did the bible say any of this?
never seen any of it, please, just say the verses, ill look em up.

It said that the whole world flooded (which is physically impossible).

Actually, FYI scientists said, that the earth was once covered in water. Ahhh, you have contradicted yourself. Didnt they say, during the Precambrian Time period, on the geological scale, that the earth was coverd with water, and eventually, dry land appeared, then amphibians went on the land and could live there, but laid eggs in water, when the eggs could be hatched on land, eventually dinosaurs evolved, and so on, and so on..........


-lukeskywalker1

Dagobahn Eagle
05-16-2003, 11:48 PM
1. I've heard a good deal of times that the christians were the ones who thought Earth was the center of the universe, and that it was someplace in the bible. When Galileo stated otherwise, the church argued against him, didn't it?

2. The bible definetly said the Earth was flooded, but what I meant is that it said the Earth was flooded while humans were on it. As in, after humans had gotten to Earth and the ice caps had formed.

3. And some envious guy chased some other guy trough a labyrinth, I'm sure of it. Think it was because a sacrifice that God didn't accept or something..

Actually, FYI scientists said, that the earth was once covered in water. Ahhh, you have contradicted yourself. Didnt they say, during the Precambrian Time period, on the geological scale, that the earth was coverd with water, and eventually, dry land appeared, then amphibians went on the land and could live there, but laid eggs in water, when the eggs could be hatched on land, eventually dinosaurs evolved, and so on, and so on..........
Yes, but it also said that no humans or even land existed while the Earth was flooded. Totally different thing.

According to science, it's:

1. Earth was flooded.

2. Species started evolving and growing underwater and on water.

3. Land appeared.

4. Species started evolving onto land.

This is not remotely what it says in the Bible.

Cosmos Jack
05-16-2003, 11:59 PM
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
1. I've heard a good deal of times that the christians were the ones who thought Earth was the center of the universe, and that it was someplace in the bible. When Galileo stated otherwise, the church argued against him, didn't it? Actuly they put him in prision and think excuminicated him. They didn't let him back into the church intell a few years ago lol. He didn't recieve the punishment others that thought like him did. They were burnt at the stake for saying the earth revolved around the sun.
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
2. The bible definetly said the Earth was flooded, but what I meant is that it said the Earth was flooded while humans were on it. As in, after humans had gotten to Earth and the ice caps had formed. This time period that the earth was covered with mostly water was billions of years before life even evolved beyond microbs. If all the water was to melt it wouldn't be like the movie water world. There would still be landmasses above water. Not many, however; but no a total loss.

shukrallah
05-17-2003, 12:11 AM
The problem with the bible is it was written by a man for man. With no evidence or proof required other than the words with in.

over half of the New Testament is letters to people, that were never even intended to be in a book.

Um.. why don't anyone who are against evolution post? LS1, where are you?

cool, im wanted...LOL actually, ive only been checking my thread, i havnt even visited the senate, ive been using the user cp thing.



We should be trying to make the world a better place for all life not just humanity.

Wow, what an idea, too bad, since everyone tries to do that, they never have enough time to look at themselves, and improve themselves. Hey hers an idea, why dont we all do that, then maybe the world might just be a better place. LOL.

Evolution, while not 100% proven, is the best, and most widely recognized theory around of how life evolved.

maybe, but ive heard scientists are turning away from that now. Hey if Darwin denounced HIS OWN THEORY then, it cant be true. Now ill admit, i dont know how true that story is.

Actuly they put him in prision and think excuminicated him. They didn't let him back into the church intell a few years ago lol. He didn't recieve the punishment others that thought like him did. They were burnt at the stake for saying the earth revolved around the sun.

Ive never understood why any of that happend, when the bible says thou (i cant spell it LOL) shall not kill.

The only thing I can think of, was, they were not "born again" christians. Hey anyone can say they are a christian, and you can tell by there actions whether they are or not.


3. And some envious guy chased some other guy trough a labyrinth, I'm sure of it. Think it was because a sacrifice that God didn't accept or something..

maybe, i might have to look into that. wasnt that some greek myth though... with the monster thingy.... ahh, whatever.



They were burnt at the stake for saying the earth revolved around the sun.

I dont know of anywhere the bible says the sun revolved around the earth. I think that was just stuff people made up.

-lukeskywalker1

shukrallah
05-17-2003, 12:21 AM
yeah, i just read part of the bible, it says nothing about anything revolving around each other.

it says God made the bright light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. It also says they will be in the sky to give light to the earth. which is how it is right? i know the moon doesnt creat light, but it reflects light, so it is a light.

Reborn Outcast
05-17-2003, 12:34 AM
Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
We've got "a few" fossils from around the world, although I do not see how you can say "a few". We've got a fossil of early apes, late apes, and primates, and then humans. Basically, slowly evolving into people. Same with animals. Pretty good evidence to me. And we know they are fossils, that's been proven as well: When today's beings deteriorate, they leave behind the same stuff.

I'm assuming that you believe in Darwin's evolution by natural selection theory correct?

If so, he said that humans didn't come from apes. Just wanted to get that straight.

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Carbon 14-dating. How can anyone say it's baloney? It's been proven scientifically (do you have any idea of how many houndred times a theory must be tested before it can be as widely accepted as C14-dating?). Thing is, let's say I have a child tomorrow (ooookay:)), and five years from now, the child sees me make a coin. Now, 120 years from then, the child's child brings the coin to a scientists who measures its age using the C14 method, and figures that it was made.. 120 years ago. That's how they proved it.

Well, I'll have to find a link on this but for now, yes Carbon 14 dating is accurate to about the timescale that some people interpret that the Bible says the Earth was made in

Also, I have heard of ways of the isotope decay being delayed under certain conditions. I'll have to look this up though.

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Different human skin colours: If evolution doesn't exist, why did the "descendants of Adam and Eve", or humans, change skin colours as they populated the world? Tell me that.

This is not necessarily evolution. It could be a mutation in which the trait was passed down from generation to generation. Not necessarily a trait that was effected by the environment. (If that was unclear, I'll try to explain it a little better)

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Do it with any item, and they will find the right age. It's based on the theory of half-life, which I will not elaborate on since you should be familiar with every aspect of evolution before you turn it down.

Like I said up a little.


Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Well, what can I say, Reverend? The Bible says so, but presents no evidence. Your Bible has been wrong countless times before. It thought the Earth was flat. It said that the universe revolved around the Earth. It said that the whole world flooded (which is physically impossible).

First off:

Give me scripture in which the Bible says that the Earth is flat. I want the exact verse and book and chapter.

Same for the universe thing.

And how is it physically impossible for the entire Earth to be flooded? Most of the Earth (according to non-God believing scientists) was covered in a shallow sea. Hmmm... so you're saying that that water level couldn't rise?

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
It says Cain chased Abel (or the other way around) into the labyrinth without giving any darned clue as to why the heck Cain and Abel, as the only two sentiment people on the planet, would build a darned labyrinth in the first place. Just to give some examples.

:confused: Ok yea I'm gonna need to see the chapter verse and book in the Bible for the labyrinth thing to.

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
My good christians, why do you still cling so dearly to the Bible? It's allright to believe in religion, so do I. But why still cling to something when 99% of all recognized scientists recognize it as wrong? And when it cannot back its theories up with facts.

My good scientist, why do you still think that all Christians don't accept that evolution and the Bible go together? I believe that they can, who and where in the Bible does is say that God is NOT controlling evolution?

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Reverend, you are quick to say that "Carbon 4 dating is just a theory". But what about your Bible? Our theories at least give evidence; the Bible gives no evidence. You say that you cannot trust people who are around today in this modern world, and who give evidence for their theories and statements; yet, you expect us to blindly follow you in your worship of people long past, and who presented little or no evidence whatsoever of their beliefs. I encourage faith; but remember that faith is just that: Faith. I may have faith that I'll get a video game for my birthday, beause I told my parents I wanted one; yet, I know it's not 100% certain. If I see the presents and not a single one resemble something that could be a video game, I lose faith.

Well, the only thing I have to say for this is that your analogy is quite flawed. About the presents... Just because the box doesn't look like one, does that mean its 100% certain that it isn't a vidoe game? Could be in disguise by your parents.

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Your God can't lie? Well, he obviously has, if he's the one behind the Bible. "Everything revolves around the Earth...:D"

:rolleyes: Once again, give me the exact verse, chapter and book in the Bible where God says this. If you can't, then, frankly, you're pulling it out of your ass.

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Did you ever see Galaxy Quest?
As a Star Trek-like show airs on Earth, a distant race hinges on a few survivors on the brink of destruction from a superior race. Then, as their destruction seems imminent, they come across (don't remember how) "documentaries on a war fought by Earthlings and their space vessels". Now, the same way as no author today writes creation/religious stories as fiction on the same line as Tolkien wrote Fantasy books on the same line as fiction.. no one in this distant world makes fictional TV shows or write fictional stories, of war.

Thus they create a replica of the USS Enterprise (or, I think they used some other non-star trek ship to avoid copyright lawsuits), and beam the "crew" of the ship to their planet to fight their invaders. The crew, of course, are only the actors of the TV show.
Just a side note.

This just got me very confused... where were you going with this?




I don't expect you to read all of this. Its just that this is the first time in a while I've been in a good debate and it would give me pleasure to see your responses.

shukrallah
05-17-2003, 12:42 AM
Um.. why don't anyone who are against evolution post? LS1, where are you?

Another thing, i think people are actually getting tired of these threads now. Look, i started talking in the other evolution vs creationism thread, which i believe was about 40-50 pages long right? Anyways, here is what ive noticed, just within these 2 threads. Half of us, have just simply gotten tired of this debate. I mostly posted in the revelation thread, and i think thats where a lot this ended. Lets c, I havnt even seen C'Jais, Tyrion, Reborn Outcast, Obi wan 13, or RptheHotrod post as much anymore, just bacause this is getting old... ive seen them a little, but it gets tiring saying the same thing 50 times. Now then, ive only just met you guys. Well then again, maybe I knew a couple of you. But what Ive learned through all these thread is this.

Are you honestly going to change your opinion? Im not, no matter what you throw at me. I doubt your going to change, but weve heard each others side, i guess thats all that needs to be said. or we could jsut keep having a worthless debate till everyone gets tired of this thread, and in a few months someone else will make 1.

BTW, i think this is why they made this section, because the people in the swamp got tired of our Christian and Evolution threads. LOL

-lukeskywalker1


EDIT: LOL Reborn posted while i was typing...lol

shukrallah
05-17-2003, 12:49 AM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
I'm assuming that you believe in Darwin's evolution by natural selection theory correct?

If so, he said that humans didn't come from apes. Just wanted to get that straight.



Well, I'll have to find a link on this but for now, yes Carbon 14 dating is accurate to about the timescale that some people interpret that the Bible says the Earth was made in

Also, I have heard of ways of the isotope decay being delayed under certain conditions. I'll have to look this up though.



This is not necessarily evolution. It could be a mutation in which the trait was passed down from generation to generation. Not necessarily a trait that was effected by the environment. (If that was unclear, I'll try to explain it a little better)



Like I said up a little.




First off:

Give me scripture in which the Bible says that the Earth is flat. I want the exact verse and book and chapter.

Same for the universe thing.

And how is it physically impossible for the entire Earth to be flooded? Most of the Earth (according to non-God believing scientists) was covered in a shallow sea. Hmmm... so you're saying that that water level couldn't rise?



:confused: Ok yea I'm gonna need to see the chapter verse and book in the Bible for the labyrinth thing to.



My good scientist, why do you still think that all Christians don't accept that evolution and the Bible go together? I believe that they can, who and where in the Bible does is say that God is NOT controlling evolution?



Well, the only thing I have to say for this is that your analogy is quite flawed. About the presents... Just because the box doesn't look like one, does that mean its 100% certain that it isn't a vidoe game? Could be in disguise by your parents.



:rolleyes: Once again, give me the exact verse, chapter and book in the Bible where God says this. If you can't, then, frankly, you're pulling it out of your ass.



This just got me very confused... where were you going with this?




I don't expect you to read all of this. Its just that this is the first time in a while I've been in a good debate and it would give me pleasure to see your responses.


pretty good job. lol. :D

munik
05-17-2003, 02:34 AM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Give me scripture in which the Bible says that the Earth is flat. I want the exact verse and book and chapter.First, we'll start with the flat earth

Daniel 4:10-11: From the top of Daniels dream tree you can see to the ends of the earth, only possible if it was flat.

Revelations 1:7: John says that when jesus returns in the clouds that every eye will see him. This too is only possible on a flat earth.

Isaiah 11:12: Isaiah talks about god gathering those of Judah from the four corners of the earth. Only a flat earth has corners.

Ezekial 7:2: Ezekial says that god told him the end is come upon the four corners of the land. Once again, only a flat earth has corners.

Luke 4:5: The devil took jesus atop a high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world. You can't see everything in the world from a high place unless it was flat.

Now, verses that show everything rotates around the earth.

Joshua 10:13: The sun and the moon stood still for about a day. They could only stay still if they were revolving around the earth. If the earth stopped spinning, the sun would appear to stand still, but no one would notice because they would be too busy with being flung into space at a ludicrous speed.

Second Kings 20:11: Isaiah has god move the sun backwards ten degrees as proof for Hezekiah. This can only happen if the sun rotates around the earth. If the earth reversed it's rotation, then resumed it, we would have the same problem with inertia.

First Chronicles 16:30: David says that the earth is stable, that it will not move. If the earth does not move, then that means everything else must rotate around the earth.

Psalms 93:1: Says the world is stablished, and cannot be moved. So everything must rotate around it.

There are more verses that talk about the earths foundations, but I believe those to be more metaphorical then actual proof that people believed the earth was the center of the universe.

So, I provided these to help Dagobahn out a little, as Reborn seems quite skeptical. He didn't pull it out of his ass. Maybe the labrynth one, because I couldn't find anything about that, but the flat earth and center of the universe things are in the bible.

shukrallah
05-17-2003, 03:06 AM
Daniel 4:10-11: From the top of Daniels dream tree you can see to the ends of the earth, only possible if it was flat.

lol, before that, daniel says he had a vision.

Revelations 1:7: John says that when jesus returns in the clouds that every eye will see him. This too is only possible on a flat earth.

yeah, but are we forgetting, Christ the son of God. (supernatural powers) anyways, who knows what will happen in the future? thats what revelation is, a prophecy of the future.

Isaiah 11:12: Isaiah talks about god gathering those of Judah from the four corners of the earth. Only a flat earth has corners.

you have to realize all of the future prophecies in the bible are filled with figures. All i know is, this prophecy is like halfway complete. Remember, they saw a different time period, they didnt know exactly how to explain these things they saw.

Luke 4:5: The devil took jesus atop a high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world. You can't see everything in the world from a high place unless it was flat.

Satan has supernatural powers, not to mention, only half of the world had kingdoms on it at that time. LOL

Joshua 10:13: The sun and the moon stood still for about a day. They could only stay still if they were revolving around the earth. If the earth stopped spinning, the sun would appear to stand still, but no one would notice because they would be too busy with being flung into space at a ludicrous speed.

How do we know the earth didnt stop moving, ive read somewhere that scientists say we have lost 1 day out of the year, or that there is a missing day...something like that. it was like 23 hours.

Second Kings 20:11: Isaiah has god move the sun backwards ten degrees as proof for Hezekiah. This can only happen if the sun rotates around the earth. If the earth reversed it's rotation, then resumed it, we would have the same problem with inertia.

the rest of that missing day. ill c if i can find a link sometime.

First Chronicles 16:30: David says that the earth is stable, that it will not move. If the earth does not move, then that means everything else must rotate around the earth.

meaning, no one is strong enough to mess with what God has made. Remember, sometimes things mean other things. Half of the others you listed are prophecies, or visions.... and the next one you quoted is the same as the one i just answered.

-lukeskywalker1

SkinWalker
05-17-2003, 03:20 AM
Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
... maybe, but ive heard scientists are turning away from that now.

Where did you hear that? Just curious. I'm fairly tied into the scientific community through my readings of journals... if anything, I've seen a proliferation of new data that supports the various theories that surround evolution.

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
Hey if Darwin denounced HIS OWN THEORY then, it cant be true. Now ill admit, i dont know how true that story is.

Darwin is not documented to have denounced or renounced any of his theories about natural selection. This repeated claim continues to resurface, however, it is without merit.

Most scientists do agree with Darwins basic concepts, though much of his theory has been modified or even disproved. But this is the nature of science.

SkinWalker
05-17-2003, 03:51 AM
Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
Another thing, i think people are actually getting tired of these threads now. Half of us, have just simply gotten tired of this debate. ...
... but weve heard each others side, i guess thats all that needs to be said.

And yet people still post out-right poppycock and unsupported statements that misrepresent facts.

For instance, the Darwin thing came up in the afore mentioned thread, yet you state it again.

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Well, I'll have to find a link on this but for now, yes Carbon 14 dating is accurate to about the timescale that some people interpret that the Bible says the Earth was made in

Another issue that was discussed in the afore mentioned thread. Radiocarbon dating (one of MANY dating methods) is accurate in samples up to around 50, 000 years old without the use of a particle accelerator, which can increase accuracy out to 80, 000 years. I believe it was mentioned in the "afore mentioned thread" that the age of the Earth was limited to only around 10, 000 years. So your statement is a bit misleading.

Also, I have heard of ways of the isotope decay being delayed under certain conditions.

Perhaps, though you must understand that these variables are always taken into account. "Margins of Error" are established and precision is fine tuned so as to minimize these MOE by use of multiple dating methods. Chemical analysis of bones/teeth to examine flourine, uranium, and/or nitrogen content can be used. As can Thermoluminescence Dating, Electron Spin Dating, and more specific methods such as Potassium-Argon or Argon-Argon Dating.

"Creationists" frequently employ these weak arguments as well as others. Soon, we'll hear from someone about the "lack of fossils," "lack of transition fossils," "sudden catastrophic events on a global scale," "Pilt-Down Hoax is proof that science isn't serious," blah, blah, blah.

I'll gladly address each of these (and others) with ease.

What I would find interesting would be if "creationists" would spend as much time debunking a sciences such as chemistry, physics, biology and geology directly rather than just attacking those few aspects of these disciplines that threaten their belief systems.

We are so willing to trust scientists to make new discoveries that innovators can capitalize upon and manufacture consumer goods like cell phones and smaller, faster computers. But when scientists use the same method of discovery in a way that threatens the superstition of the religious establishment, some become fundamentalists.

Cosmos Jack
05-17-2003, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast This is not necessarily evolution. It could be a mutation in which the trait was passed down from generation to generation. Not necessarily a trait that was effected by the environment. (If that was unclear, I'll try to explain it a little better) Evolution is mutation there guy. Evolution doesn't have to be a total adaptation to the environment random mutations happen as well. If they are beneficial or simply neutral neither bad or good. If this is so they are maintained if not beneficial well they don't get passed on as easily..
Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 over half of the New Testament is letters to people, that were never even intended to be in a book. Ok and what does this have to do with it being true? The bible is fake there is nothing to argue.

Arguing with a hopelessly religious person is like arguing with a schizophrenic. Trying to tell them their buddies Bod, Joe, and Jesus setting in the corner don't really exist. They also told them to kill their dad. A lot of the fanatical religious practices of the past few hundred year like witch burnings and crap have been contributed to a narcotic producing bacteria in the grain they were eating. They were hallucinating. I wouldn't doubt the guy who wrote the bible was freaking high, schizophrenic, or maybe just plain board.

Go wright your own bible for me. Than go tell the world that god wrote it threw you and see what they do with you. I will be handing you 2 orange juices and a sandwich for your midnight snack while you stay the lovely mental hospital I work at.
Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 How do we know the earth didnt stop moving, ive read somewhere that scientists say we have lost 1 day out of the year, or that there is a missing day...something like that. it was like 23 hours. Hmm you are talking about how we get leap year lol. I thought everyone knew and understood that. It is impossible for the earth to stop revolving around the sun. Not that it can't be moved of course at which we would all be in for a really bad day. We get leap year from the simple fact that our calendar that we have inherited from our ancestors is slightly inaccurate. This is corrected by adding a extra day every 4 year on February 29th.
Originally posted by lukeskywalker1 Wow, what an idea, too bad, since everyone tries to do that, they never have enough time to look at themselves, and improve themselves. Hey hers an idea, why dont we all do that, then maybe the world might just be a better place. LOL.
People will better themselves by bettering and understanding the world we live in. Not by taking advantage of it and thinking the hole world was put here for us. Christianity is obsolete. It's purpose has gone it's time for a change. There is one thing I regret about my life and that is I won't live to see the day when there are no Christians or believing in a deity of any kind. When it is treated as false as Roman mythology is now. Religion is simply primitive.

I'm sorry some people need to think that their life has some big purpose in some grand scheme. I'm sorry some people have to believe that they are special more so than all other life. Created in the image of god is it? I'm sorry some people have to think there is something after life to look forward to. Even more so I'm sorry some people have to believe that there is some kind of a god watching over them that is always with them.

Reborn Outcast
05-17-2003, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by Cosmos Jack
Evolution is mutation there guy. Evolution doesn't have to be a total adaptation to the environment random mutations happen as well. If they are beneficial or simply neutral neither bad or good. If this is so they are maintained if not beneficial well they don't get passed on as easily..

Are you a believer of the Darwin theory? If not, what do you believe? (I have to clarify this before I can answer your post)

Originally posted by munik
Daniel 4:10-11: From the top of Daniels dream tree you can see to the ends of the earth, only possible if it was flat.

Ok here we go. Take this verse into context. He's having a vision. Do visions always go with what we can see and do in real life? No.

(And by the way, it's King Nebuchadnezzar's Dream, not Daniel's.)

Originally posted by munik
Revelations 1:7: John says that when jesus returns in the clouds that every eye will see him. This too is only possible on a flat earth.

Do I daresay that people could have visions of Him? He is God, is he not? He could appear in multiple places at once.

Originally posted by munik
Isaiah 11:12: Isaiah talks about god gathering those of Judah from the four corners of the earth. Only a flat earth has corners.

"The four corners of the earth" is an expression that is still used today to express something like "all over the earth."

Originally posted by munik
Ezekial 7:2: Ezekial says that god told him the end is come upon the four corners of the land. Once again, only a flat earth has corners.

See above.

Originally posted by munik
Luke 4:5: The devil took jesus atop a high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world. You can't see everything in the world from a high place unless it was flat.

Take a look at who is in that verse. First, we have Jesus, who is God and is allmighty. Couldn't he see everything? And then we have the devil, who is very powerful, be nowhere near as God. Be he still has power. Also, the high place was just for effect to try to get Jesus to forsake his Father and Heaven.

And like luke said, even science has proven that there were kingdoms only in Europe and Asia at that time.

Originally posted by munik
Joshua 10:13: The sun and the moon stood still for about a day. They could only stay still if they were revolving around the earth. If the earth stopped spinning, the sun would appear to stand still, but no one would notice because they would be too busy with being flung into space at a ludicrous speed.

Once again, look at the context. In verse 14 it says, "There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the Lord listened to a man."

God is allpowerful. And it says that he did it. So, if he's allpowerful, he could stop the Earth and Sun. Thus does NOT mean that they thought that the earth was the center of the universe. In fact, I don't really see where it implies it.

Originally posted by munik
Second Kings 20:11: Isaiah has god move the sun backwards ten degrees as proof for Hezekiah. This can only happen if the sun rotates around the earth. If the earth reversed it's rotation, then resumed it, we would have the same problem with inertia.

Once again, this is God. He is allpowerful... doesn't that mean that he controls how everything works and he can alter them?

Originally posted by munik
First Chronicles 16:30: David says that the earth is stable, that it will not move. If the earth does not move, then that means everything else must rotate around the earth.

Are you sure that you're interpreting this correctly?

Originally posted by munik
Psalms 93:1: Says the world is stablished, and cannot be moved. So everything must rotate around it.

Once again, are you sure that you're interpreting "established" correctly?

Cosmos Jack
05-17-2003, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Are you a believer of the Darwin theory? If not, what do you believe? (I have to clarify this before I can answer your post)
I thought it was pretty self explanatory that I was. I really don't see what you can answer to it. I didn't state an opinion with what I said about evolution.

The problem with evolution is nobody wants to be the one to hang religion so it is kept as a theory. If you set religion and evolution up as a court case with an impartial jury. Religion would be convicted as being false and evolution true. All the evidence christians bring up or try to use is from the bible or something else manipulated to support the twisted little book.

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Ok here we go. Take this verse into context. He's having a vision. Do visions always go with what we can see and do in real life? No.

(And by the way, it's King Nebuchadnezzar's Dream, not Daniel's.) So visions are real if there in the bible? Personally I would say get off the crack. How much of the Bible is dependent on the proof by visions?
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
"The four corners of the earth" is an expression that is still used today to express something like "all over the earth."Yes and the expression is a draw back from when people actually thought the Earth was flat.

I don't want to answer anymore of your replies to "MUNIK". I think he did a very good job. I wouldn't have gone through the trouble of listing all the references he did. It's odd that you are battling with him, because he is reading the bible for what it says. Why are you trying to twist everything in response to what is stated and than ask "Are you sure that you're interpreting this correctly?" I mean read it for what it is it's not that hard. It's funny you even argue on how to interpret "established."

This all sounds like when you catch someone in a lie. Their story twists and changes trying to keep up with your questions. This discussion lol is not any different. Religion has been caught in a lie and it's trying to wiggle it's way out.

Religion is simply the greatest lie ever told...

munik
05-18-2003, 05:17 AM
A note on why it would be nigh impossible for the world to stop turning.

Enrico Fermi has a simple way to come up with the circumference of the earth, figuring that a time zone is about 1000 miles wide. Which would roughly make the circumference of the earth 24,000 miles. So, if it takes 24 hours to make one complete rotation, and doing so travel a distance of 24,000 miles, you would roughly be moving at 1,000 miles per hour. Now, if the earth were to stop moving, considering the fact that you are not attached to the earth, you would continue to move at 1,000 mph because of inertia (the tendency of a body in motion to remain in motion).

It's similiar to riding in a car travelling at 60mph. If that car hits a tree and stops, you will go flying out the windshield at 60mph, unless of course you are wearing your seatbelt.

So, if the earth stopped, the one who asked god to stop it would go flying away. Unless god in his omnipotence altered that as well. And there are other problems as well, probaly the top of layer of the earths crust would rip off and everything on it would go away.

No one back then knew that everything did not rotate around the earth. If they did, he would have asked god to stop the world from turning, instead of stopping the sun. In fact, stopping the world from turning and altering all the variables to compensate for it is a much more awesome act then stopping a sun that revolves around the earth.

C'jais
05-18-2003, 10:14 AM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Ok here we go. Take this verse into context. He's having a vision. Do visions always go with what we can see and do in real life? No.

(And by the way, it's King Nebuchadnezzar's Dream, not Daniel's.)

Do I daresay that people could have visions of Him? He is God, is he not? He could appear in multiple places at once.

"The four corners of the earth" is an expression that is still used today to express something like "all over the earth."

Once again, look at the context. In verse 14 it says, "There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the Lord listened to a man."

Are you sure that you're interpreting this correctly?

Once again, are you sure that you're interpreting "established" correctly?

Reborn, you speak so much of context, metaphors and interpretation. How do we know where to read the Bible literally, or take it as a metaphor for something else?

Have you thought about how the vast majority of Christians around the world thinks the Genesis should be read as a metaphor, and taken as context. It doesn't make the slightest sense if we interpret it literally, does it?

Why do you believe that you have to read the Genesis a specific way in order to be a true Christian?

Cosmos Jack
05-18-2003, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by C'jais
Why do you believe that you have to read the Genesis a specific way in order to be a true Christian? All Christians think you have to read the bible a certain way to be a true Christian. That's why there are so many denominations and they all think they are going to heaven and the others aren't.

C'jais
05-18-2003, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by Cosmos Jack
All Christians think you have to read the bible a certain way to be a true Christian. That's why there are so many denominations and they all think they are going to heaven and the others aren't.

Rhetorical questions aren't meant to be answered ;)



Still, I can't believe Reborn thinks he'd be missing out on heaven if he thought of Genesis as a metaphor.

Cosmos Jack
05-18-2003, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by C'jais
Rhetorical questions aren't meant to be answered ;)
:giveup:

munik
05-18-2003, 11:00 PM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Once again, look at the context. In verse 14 it says, "There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the Lord listened to a man."

God is allpowerful. And it says that he did it. So, if he's allpowerful, he could stop the Earth and Sun. Thus does NOT mean that they thought that the earth was the center of the universe. In fact, I don't really see where it implies it.I don't understand how Joshua 10:14 puts the previous verse into context. Does it also put Second Kings 20:11, another verse I listed, into context? Isaiah asked almost the same thing of god, and he did it for him.

Joshua asked god to stop the sun and the moon. In reality, one moves and the other does not. This was unknown back then, though. So, if instead of stopping the sun (which isn't reasonable, considering the sun doesn't move) god stopped the earth, which would extend the length of daylight. By default, god would also have to stop the moon, to preserve the lunar cycle. He would also have to stop an assload of other things as well, a few that I mentioned in my previous post. So, do you believe that Joshua asked god to stop the moon as well so as to keep the lunar cycle normal? If that's the case, wouldn't he also ask god to stop inertia from acting on them and flinging them away? Of course he didn't ask for those, because he did not know the earth was spinning, and rotating around the sun. He believed in the exact opposite.

Look, I accept the fact that those who believe in god and the bible do so with faith. Faith is necessary, or else it just wouldn't work. But, does the bible state that it is infallible? Does god say it is? Do you have to believe that the bible is infallible to be a christian? If not, how come you cannot accept that maybe something in the bible is wrong, or false, or never happened? If faith is your reason for believing, then does it matter if anything in the bible is false?

It is not necessary to try and explain all the illogical things in the bible, and put a christian spin on them. If it looks like bullsh*t, smells like bullsh*t, and feels like bullsh*t, then it probaly is bullsh*t. You don't have to try and find a reason to say it's true. Just say, "Yep, that sure doesn't sound feasible, probaly some tall tale that guy wanted to put in the bible". No one will jump down your throat, or throw it in your face. Because you believed by faith before, there is no reason that the realization that some things in the bible are wrong should make your faith falter.

In fact, that is a definition of faith, to believe in something that has no logical proof.

Homuncul
05-19-2003, 06:29 AM
Some questions are relevant here

Does evolution theory really explains better than Bible "theory"?
What's really a difference. Both evolution and Bible discribes our reality. Evolution and science use entities as causality and logic, Bible - faith and sometimes common sense. All of them are considered axioms in different groups. These enteties even posess similar properies:
Logic is closed, faith is blind, causality is infinitly dependent on ultimate cause (call it god), common sense is subjectively dependent on us (humans).(mixing them purposely).

Although logic excludes faith and faith excludes logic there's a link.

True logic is dependent on how accurate its multiplyers are difined (physically), true faith is dependent on the accuracy of an explanation (of a prophet, messiah). So it comes to how accurately can we tell that either evolution took place or biblical myth was explained implicitly right?

Evidence gives nothing to evolutionists to prove faith keepers are wrong cauze these rely on faith which excludes logic. Evolutionists can't rely on predictions (of Hell or Heaven) because they know via logic that predictions don't prove a theory.

So...

I can't see any accuracy in Bible, it discribes things differently in different parts. And I can't see why faith even should be mentioned. Some so called heresies say one thing, bible says the other and whether words of God are true or not is difined by the holy church. So it's really hard to say (if not impossible) what's really been spoken by god and what was made up by people. (if biblical god assumed).

Evolution is accurate on the contrary. It's positions are very accurate taking in calculation every aspect of our nature. It's predictions don't prove it but they're are very very accurate at least. I hope noone would argue that or I'm lost

That's why I can say that evolution discribes our reality better than bible. Either we have to invent a better conception of god either admitt bible is wrong. Now choose... but do it wisely... ha ha

In the end I don not exclude god I believe in it but not biblical one. It's too simple there to be true. Maybe it's just one side of it.

C'jais
05-19-2003, 08:34 AM
Originally posted by Homuncul
Evidence gives nothing to evolutionists to prove faith keepers are wrong cauze these rely on faith which excludes logic.

I thought the act of proving was based on logical inference?

If we have established through definition that flying is gliding on air currents, and I suddenly see a bird do just that, can I not logically conclude that the bird is flying?

Evolutionists can't rely on predictions (of Hell or Heaven) because they know via logic that predictions don't prove a theory.

What exactly do you mean with this?

As I understood it, Evolution is a collection of theories, and these theories are tested to see if they hold true. We must have set some predictions for them to be tested against.

Example: Some paleonthologists speculated that the origin of feathers was started on land living, dinosaur predators, such as the velociraptor. The earliest form of feathers were used as insulation (in lieu with fur), and these feathers were later evolved to fit small tree-top gliding dinosaurs. This was later proved to be correct, when a fossil that resembled such a creature gliding from tree top to tree top (think flying squirrel) was found. Is this now how it works? I mean, if they had found a sea living creature with the early form of the feather, that theory would have been ruined, and a new one would have been established in its place.

The problem with religious dogma is that it can never be proved wrong or right. It's just there, and faith is not to be questioned.

Cosmos Jack
05-19-2003, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by C'jais
The problem with religious dogma is that it can never be proved wrong or right. It's just there, and faith is not to be questioned. Makes me think of line from the Terminator movie "Doesn't require a shred of proof. Most paranoid delusions are intricate, but this is brilliant." Dr. Silverman
:p I think that best somes up how religion is. To me it's just a fad started by a delusion.

Homuncul
05-20-2003, 04:58 AM
If we have established through definition that flying is gliding on air currents, and I suddenly see a bird do just that, can I not logically conclude that the bird is flying?

That's a paradox of faith/logic. Like wave/particle duality can we now call it faith/logic duality? Just fooling around...
Okey you're right. Proving isn't right. Let's use convincing. This word was used through history.

Example: Some paleonthologists speculated that the origin of feathers was started on land living, dinosaur predators, such as the velociraptor. The earliest form of feathers were used as insulation (in lieu with fur), and these feathers were later evolved to fit small tree-top gliding dinosaurs. This was later proved to be correct, when a fossil that resembled such a creature gliding from tree top to tree top (think flying squirrel) was found. Is this now how it works? I mean, if they had found a sea living creature with the early form of the feather, that theory would have been ruined, and a new one would have been established in its place.

Predictions can only prove something wrong. For me evolution is proven not because we found some fossils that fit these theories because we predicted them to exist but out of observation of how it actually is happening. Those fossils only help us test evolution in a long term.

Imagine Darwin thinking about: "Oh damn! What a great idea I established lately, I've observed several species of finches and found them to be very alike. But how can I prove my idea/theory. Maybe I should analyse some other species. Oh yeah! I found a species which are very alike to both different and alike creatures I analized before. I think it's a link between them . Now that I know a lot about that idea I can predict that between dinosaurs and birds must be some link, subspecies, half dinosaurs half birds. I wonder if anyone can prove my idea to be right and to discover what I predicted to be trully so."

Now imagine Cuvier thinking: "I assumed evolution carefuly and classified 4 basic groups of animals observing their bone planning: vertebrates,molluscs, articulates and radiates. I think it's right cause i see and can explain every living being. But it's not proven yet. Yeehaa dudes! I found the proof. Let's observe an embryo of any being. Everything is similar. I think it's my ultimate proof. All of this together."

And in the end ladies and gentlemen sir Julian Huxley:"A child of two can tell a pig from a man, a hen from a monkey, an elephant, from a snake... When they are early embryos, they were so alike that not merely the average man but the average biologist would not be able to distinguish among them". So you see the true proof is quite accurate.

The problem with religious dogma is that it can never be proved wrong or right. It's just there, and faith is not to be questioned.

But they change. Some truths become heresies. Some heresies reabilitate and become dogmas. We can see that through history. These things are finite and if they are then why they can not be changed?. I believe this is what will happen with time, religion would have to adapt to evolution understanding futileness of it's contradiction with such a powerful theory. Then perhaps we could measure even god but that's far away from where we are now.

Jah Warrior
05-20-2003, 06:36 AM
damnit deduct one from the no count, i didnt read the question properly:rolleyes:

Evolution is the only sane answer there. the other answers hit a brick wall when logic is brought into the equation.

Cosmos Jack
05-20-2003, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by Homuncul
Predictions can only prove something wrong. For me evolution is proven not because we found some fossils that fit these theories because we predicted them to exist but out of observation of how it actually is happening. Those fossils only help us test evolution in a long term.
A theory is an educated guess. The way you go about supporting theories is to make a assumption test it observe the results and if they support your assumption or they prove it wrong. From there you either keep your original assumption or you make a new one if it was proven wrong.

The theory of the origin of feathers was a educated guess. They tested it by looking for a dinosaurs with feathers. The guess was proven right by finding the proof. The idea of Dinosaurs evolving into birds was really a hard one to get support for. Now it is widely excepted as fact. We have proof that they developed feathers and now a lot of art work depictions of dinosaurs have animals like Velocirapters with feathers.

Predictions prove things right and prove things wrong that just what happens in scientific method, however; you can think what you want.;)

Homuncul
05-21-2003, 03:44 AM
Predictions are merely some of the consequences that we deduce from the explanation of a theory.What makes theory of evolution through natural selection so important is not that it can predict half dinosaurs half birds which "classical" biology could not but that it receals and explains previously unsuspected aspects of reality like our true origin from a single cell organism and many others.

The theory of feathers is a tested prediction of a deeper theory of evolution.

Some people today consider that the main purpose of a theory is not to explain but to make predictions, furthermore they consider that any consistent explanation that a theory may give for its predictions is as good as any other or any explanation. Instrumentalists they are called cauze they consider theory an instrument for making predictions while it's really IS an explanation for our reality.

Cosmos Jack
05-21-2003, 05:24 PM
All I did is state for the most part what I learned from my Biology Professors a little ways back. I pretty much agree with how they see it.

The idea you have which is close just isn't what's going on, but as I said you can think what you want.

SkinWalker
05-25-2003, 03:34 AM
http://www.ntskeptics.org/2000/2000february/prasad03.gif

Cosmos Jack
05-25-2003, 07:21 PM
lol:p

Homuncul
05-30-2003, 05:58 AM
I'd like to talk about subject that has a connection to evolution/creation conflict which I think is worth to mention. That's why I 've posted it here instead of starting a new thread.

Let's think about creationists first. While my thoughts may appear offensive I didn't mean to offend (or I did but that's not the point.)
I can understand why they by any means can't adopt evolution (faith is not to be questioned by logic) but what I can't get is why they don't want to understand it.

I think nowadays creationists are inconsistently dependent on theory of evolution. The most obvious evidence for that is that holy church has to accept some of its positions and I want to make some thought about that.

The common thought of creationist (but some even would not admit it) is: "World was created 6 thousand years ago but from the place where we're now it looks like millions of years of evolution took place". This point of view is futile and I can guess why and then lead to another thing I really ment to talk about

Any theory is basicly about questions what?, how? and then why? Also any theory is a problem solving process. And there was a problem in science before evolution was introduced - some unsuspected things that science could not answer what they are and why they are. At some point a new explanation for it appeared in opposition to a main theory of that time (divine): a theory of evolution through natural selection which explained why do we see these dinosaur fossils and how a single cell has evolved into us and many other major things. And church felt that somehow it needs to defend itself from a looking-like-better-explanious-theory of evolution. That's when it takes its fatal posittion. So the question with creationism and evolutionism is not merely barried by faith but also by the question what explanation is more satisfactory and better discribes reality at present moment. Creationism explains why world looks like evolution took place through god but it doesn't explain why god would want to do that in any way. The main point here is that creationism introduces itself through another theory and this is it's fatal weakness, it fails to solve the problem it was supposed to solve. It can not explain things now without using the complexity of evolution theory. And as I can see now it's just excessively complex to be taken as adequate by common sense which church accepts. In that manner faith barrier becomes nothing more than a justification and really it has nothing to do with not accepting logic (logic here I think is irrelevant).

The subject I wanted to discuss is hidden in the words "present moment". I guess creationists problem is also in their overwhelming perfectionism. It's like they long for something that can't yet get any explanation from. They try to jump over their heads.
Our explanations change from time (like Newtonian gravity was replaced by general relativity) and so change the criteria for what to consider real improving our understanding of it. If that is our main goal then we must find satisfactory to classify some things as real and others as illusory or imaginative? On the other hand as we do consider Newtonian gravity to be illusory we still use it sometimes not to waste time for example when high accuracy of predictions is not important.

Real is merely a word to discribe our external surroundings and not the matter of whether it exist at all like in solipsism theory. After all it's a theory that doesn't explain better than others do that's why it is abandoned. If it was otherwise it would probably overwhelm all others. That's why I prepose to consider evolution real and creation illusory and imaginary for now (but I prefer to think it to be for a very long time til a better explanation of god comes).

Maybe then I'm too hard on the creationism so I'd like to aologize and speak about evolution. At present moment I think there're some correctives to make there (or I'm wrong).

The overwhelming understanding among scientists about evolution now is this: We have one biological language on earth that apparently every lifeform speaks. We can see it's alphabet in so called genetic adapters. But there could exist many other languages at the dawn of life. The main point of evolution was that the fittest overwhelmed the others and so it's the most adequate and maybe I can even assert why these theories about aliens looking morhically alike us in every part of our universe appeared. But it looks like this position now is abandoning. The main purpose of a cell: consume and multiply. And late researches tell us that actually any language and not the fittest one could survive but the one which accidentally outnumbered and consumed all the others and that evolution bagan not with natural selection but by natural election. What do you think about that?

Solbe M'ko
06-03-2003, 10:10 PM
I'm sorry I don't have time to read every post in this thread.


I think that evolution is perfectly plausible, given the information we have right now. However, religion gives us some great clues as to our past. Many religions make reference to floods and many make reference to regular people being communicated with by things that are not explained by any scientific theory. I think of most religions as a type of science/history that developed to explain things that couldn't be explained otherwise.

I, for one, don't accept arguments that are made by people about, say, the Bible, who didn't learn of the Bible on their own. If you go to church every week since your childhood and someone tells you that God created everything, you won't learn to question it. If you don't compare theories, you will never be able to grow out of what you believe to be "fact" (whatever that is).
I recommend that you read "A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking, no matter what your belief system. I also recommend "Chariots of the Gods", although you really should be critical of some of the evidence in that one...

And yes, predictions only eliminate possibilities, they don't make definitive conclusions. We can't do that until we understand every possible outcome, which, as we have seen with things like evolution, are far beyond human capacity, and therefore considered "endless" in number.

Homuncul
06-04-2003, 04:16 AM
I recommend that you read "A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking, no matter what your belief system. I also recommend "Chariots of the Gods", although you really should be critical of some of the evidence in that one...

I read them already a long time ago. Maube you mean I must reread them. Perhaps I'll do but it doesn't change my opinion about evolution as I had nothing rather then these mass culture, pop books to compare with the ideas I picked up in other books.


And yes, predictions only eliminate possibilities, they don't make definitive conclusions. We can't do that until we understand every possible outcome, which, as we have seen with things like evolution, are far beyond human capacity, and therefore considered "endless" in number.

Not necessarily we need every possible outcome to be justified with prediction to say evolution is right. It's a instrumentalistic thought which I always try to fight with. We don't need to know and understand every possible outcome and observe it factual truth through prediction. Although I do not like the word, we have to extrapolate intentively explanation of a theory on all of it's possible predictions. Of course there may be mistakes, than a theory is abandoned. But sometimes even the most competent theories give us a pig. Sometimes we get right predictions from a wrong theory (for a not very long time).

Of course we may want to make predictions to see a theory is proven, to make a research and the capacity of that theory but these are all finite numbers. And we're finite and work by finite means.

SkinWalker
06-04-2003, 04:42 AM
Originally posted by Solbe M'ko
I also recommend "Chariots of the Gods", although you really should be critical of some of the evidence in that one...

... because that one is utter rubbish. I read Von Daniken when I was a mere child and, unfortunately, very immpressionable. I actually bought into his nonsense about UFO's and, if I recall, that Earth once orbited the Sun in 288 days as recorded by some ancient civilization. Kepler's third law was fortunate enough to enlighten me, since it dictates that for this to be possible, the Earth would have to have been much closer to the Sun... around the vicinity of Venus.

A better choice for you would be A Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan. I consider this to be my bible, and it sets a very sensible foundation for anyone interested in expressing their intellect or examining the intellect of others.

Homuncul, I've got your book about three down this list ;) I've some other ideas to slide past you, perhaps in this thread or maybe I'll dig up the "parallel universes" thread.... keep looking.

Homuncul
06-04-2003, 07:32 AM
Homuncul, I've got your book about three down this list I've some other ideas to slide past you, perhaps in this thread or maybe I'll dig up the "parallel universes" thread.... keep looking.

I'd like to call it "my" but unfortunately these are not at all my ideas I always annoy people about. I make a mixture of what I prefer and I always welcome healthy criticism as it is also a problem solving component of a theory development process. And it's really encouraging me that people try to think differently and even question their world view. Thanks Skin :D

About "some other ideas"... I'm looking:confused:

Wanderer
06-06-2003, 03:23 PM
Exactly the the second point goes for me. Evolution with divine influence.
Look at all what is on earth...humans...animals...trees....
See how they develop...that there are rules for evolution...rules for having children (natural rules I mean).
Look at all this...
And then tell me this all is caused by random and we are the only people in the wide wide universe.
My point-> everything is made of divine energy in the end.
Evolution is real....that what science find out how life and things are developing needn't to interfere with the believing of divine influence....in my opinion both go hand in hand.

shukrallah
06-06-2003, 07:28 PM
Sorry i havnt posted in a while, ive been busy.


A man went to a barber shop to have his hair and his beard cut as always. He started to have a good conversation with the barber who attended him. They talked about so many things and various subjects. Suddenly, they touched the subject of God. The barber said: "Look man, I don't believe that God exists as you say."

"Why do you say that?" asked the client.

"Well, it's so easy, you just have to go out in the street to realize that God does not exist. Oh, tell me, if God existed, would there be so many sick people? Would there be abandoned children? If God existed, there would be no suffering nor pain. I can't think of loving a God who permits all of these things."

The client stopped for a moment thinking, but he didn't want to respond so as to cause an argument. The barber finished his job and the client went out of the shop. Just after he left the barber shop he saw a man in the street with a long hair and beard (it seems that it had been a long time since he had his cut and he looked so untidy).

Then the client again entered the barber shop and he said to the barber:
"You know what? Barbers do not exist."

"How can you say they don't exist?" asked the barber. "Well, I am here and I am a barber."
"No!" the client exclaimed. "They don't exist because if they did there would be no people with long hair and beard like that man who walks in the street."


"Ah, barbers do exist, what happens is that people do not come to me."

"Exactly!"- affirmed the client. "That's the point. God does exist. What happens is people don't go to Him and do not look for Him. That's why there's so much pain and suffering in the world."



K, lets say I walked down the street yesterday, no one saw me. Theres no proof that I was there or not. Does that mean it didnt happen, just cause I cant prove I walked down the street?



BTW, i wasnt talking about leap year when i posted about a missing day, it was something else.... I read it at church, maybe I can find a link somewhere.


I, for one, don't accept arguments that are made by people about, say, the Bible, who didn't learn of the Bible on their own. If you go to church every week since your childhood and someone tells you that God created everything, you won't learn to question it. If you don't compare theories, you will never be able to grow out of what you believe to be "fact" (whatever that is).


Didnt grow up in a church. Ive only been going to church for 2 years. And anyways, how much of the bible is taught in a normal public school? We are not told anything about it, only about evolution. In all my books, if they mention something about christianity, they leave stuff out, mainly the basis for christianity, that Jesus died, and rose again so we could be forgiven. So if you dont have any knowledge of christianity, even in school, your not told the "whole story" about it, basically, we are only given 1 belief, which is evolution.


Just a thought, couldnt you consider evolution as a religion. I mean, not all religions have gods or a god. None of them can be really proven (no, evolution cant be completly proven, if it is at all) Look at Athiesm.

You guys say, that some people could have just wrote stuff down. It goes both ways, how do you know some scientists dont just make stuff up? You dont. They are human, and can also lie. Just like gravity and things like that on other planets, how do they know? No one has been there. They could just make up numbers, couldnt they. What makes them so believable?

-lukeskywalker1

SkinWalker
06-06-2003, 08:04 PM
Originally posted by Wanderer
Exactly the the second point goes for me. Evolution with divine influence.
Look at all what is on earth...humans...animals...trees....
See how they develop...that there are rules for evolution...rules for having children (natural rules I mean).
Look at all this...

Natural selection.

There are billions of billions of galaxies in the known universe. This is true because we can observe it. Each of these galaxies has billions of stars and billions of planets. Mathematically speaking, our small bubble of existance isn't the only one!

It also amazes me how quickly people are to accept the idea that time will go on into the future infinitly, but not consider that it may also go on into the past with the same infinity. If we had more advance propulsion systems, I would not be surprised to find that for life NOT to exist elsewhere in the universe is rare indeed.

SkinWalker
06-07-2003, 05:40 AM
Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
"How can you say they don't exist?" asked the barber. "Well, I am here and I am a barber."
"No!" the client exclaimed. "They don't exist because if they did there would be no people with long hair and beard like that man who walks in the street."

Strawman caricacture (client to the barber). The barber has a state issued license on the wall. One can collect hair samples from his floor. He can be observed in his natural state by independent observers. He can be captured on the video surveillance tape... etc., etc., etc.

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
K, lets say I walked down the street yesterday, no one saw me. Theres no proof that I was there or not. Does that mean it didnt happen, just cause I cant prove I walked down the street?

If you were suspected of committing a crime, that would be a poor alibi. You would need a bit of evidence. Mulitple, independent witnesses, a receipt from the 7-11 where you purchased a 24 oz coffee, etc. The evidence against you would have to be in less preponderance than the evidence you provide for you alibi.

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
And anyways, how much of the bible is taught in a normal public school?

Hopefully, none. Except as it relates to a discussion about the world's many religions. There is a separation of church and state in our country (he and I are both in the U.S.). As much to protect the religious freedoms of minority religions as anything else.

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
We are not told anything about it, only about evolution.

This is because the preponderance of evidence is in favor of evolution rather than "other claims."

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
... basically, we are only given 1 belief, which is evolution.

"belief" would be an inappropriate word. Hypothesis would be better. Evolution is but one hypothesis for how the world as we know it came to be. It just happens to be the most likely based on the evidence. Creation ideas of fundamentalists in many religions are other hypothesis, but they are extremely weak as they often are based upon oral and written traditions that fail to take into account new information. They are also based upon unbounded concepts of supernatural sources.


Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
Just a thought, couldnt you consider evolution as a religion.

No. Religions involve rituals, worship, etc. of unbounded concepts. Scientific theories involve bounded concepts, meaning that there are certain rules and constraints that cannot be violated without rewriting the rules. Constants such as gravity, light, nuclear bonds of atoms, etc.

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
You guys say, that some people could have just wrote stuff down. It goes both ways, how do you know some scientists dont just make stuff up? You dont.

You do if you spend the time and effort to educate yourself rather than buy into fundamental aspects of a religion without questioning the world around you.

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
They are human, and can also lie.

They would be caught in very short order, and have been. I have many examples of poor science that was debunked if you are ever interested. Scientists are peer reviewed and question EVERYthing. Before a theory is published, it goes through a thourogh and rigorous examination and testing by the postulator. Scientists and intellectuals who are successful in debunking, correcting, disproving, etc. the claims of another scientiest gain nearly as much prestige as the scientist whos claims survive such strict peer review.

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
Just like gravity and things like that on other planets, how do they know? No one has been there. They could just make up numbers, couldnt they. What makes them so believable?

It would be beyond the scope of this thread, even this forum, to provide a physics or chemistry class. I suggest involving yourself in both if you are still in High School. Also, be sure to take trigonometry. If nothing else, take these so you can more thouroughly debunk the claims of those who tout science above religion. It would help to understand the basis for their arguments in order to structure your own efficiently.

Solbe M'ko
06-07-2003, 08:05 PM
Evolution makes sense right now, just as the soul being located in the skull made sense a long time ago. Very few theories have, or will hold up as our methods of observation improve, but for right now, we can accept it because it offers adequate explanation for our purposes, in my opinion.

It's important to keep in mind that most religions developed from "science".

"How come there are trees, daddy?"
"Well... um... because somebody put them there."
"Who?"
"God, I suppose."

Thats the kind of reasoning that most creation myths go by, because when they were being told, we didn't know about microbes and quasars. Conversely, our theory of evolution will seem very ignorant if we somehow found a way to observe God directly. I take the side of evolution, mostly because it makes more sense to my situation, but if someone says that supernatural forces designed the natural world, I will have a hard time convincing them otherwise.

shukrallah
06-07-2003, 08:56 PM
What from christianity came from science?

Solbe M'ko
06-07-2003, 09:05 PM
Christianity came directly from science, the creation part at least.

Someone asked the question why, adn since he knew no better, said that God did it. All creation myths are like this, in fact, all myths period are like this, they explain something based not on fact, but on something else, I call it storytelling.

-Edit- You have to understand that most modern, western, monotheist religions come from the Hebrew faith, or at least borrow heavily from it. Creation myths were the best way of explaining things when sophisticated methods of observation didn't exist. For example, in Egypt, when it was too damn hot, the Sun god was busy, and so on...

shukrallah
06-07-2003, 09:16 PM
Yeah, thats what myths are. Heres the thing, how long did people think the earth was flat? hundreds of years right? And it got disproven, so the same thing could happen with evolution. Just figure this, it can never be "fully" proven, if it is at all, because no one was around to see any of it.

Strawman caricacture (client to the barber). The barber has a state issued license on the wall. One can collect hair samples from his floor. He can be observed in his natural state by independent observers. He can be captured on the video surveillance tape... etc., etc., etc.

You sort of missed the clients point....
The barber said God wasnt real because there were too many bad things happening, so if God was real there wouldnt be bad things. The man sees a guy with long hair, and says there are no barbers, because if there were there wouldnt be people with long hair like that, then the barber says he didnt come to get his hair cut, and the man says thats why bad things happen, because people dont turn to God. If you got that point, then you were just arguing needlessly.




If you were suspected of committing a crime, that would be a poor alibi. You would need a bit of evidence. Mulitple, independent witnesses, a receipt from the 7-11 where you purchased a 24 oz coffee, etc. The evidence against you would have to be in less preponderance than the evidence you provide for you alibi.


I wasnt talking about a crime, I just walked down the street, and lets say, some one doesnt beleive me because he didnt see me, does that mean that i didnt, just because i cant prove i went down the street? Its the same with God, just because you havnt seen him doesnt mean that hes not real does it? Ill discuss this further later, i have to go....

-lukeskywalker1

Breton
06-07-2003, 10:24 PM
Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

You sort of missed the clients point....
The barber said God wasnt real because there were too many bad things happening, so if God was real there wouldnt be bad things. The man sees a guy with long hair, and says there are no barbers, because if there were there wouldnt be people with long hair like that, then the barber says he didnt come to get his hair cut, and the man says thats why bad things happen, because people dont turn to God. If you got that point, then you were just arguing needlessly.


Well, the barber's argument wasn't that good, really. But know that as long as we have no reason to think God excist, there is no point in assuming he does. I'll come back to that later in the post.

But on the other hand, you know as well as me that bad things also happens just as much to those who turn to God. That's like people going to a barber and their hair isn't being cut, wich proves that either the barber doesn't excist, or he does a pretty bad job.

Its the same with God, just because you havnt seen him doesnt mean that hes not real does it?

The universe was created last month, when a friend of mine sneezed it out.

Tell me one reason why christianity is more valid than this theory, and one reason why ichristianity should be more likely.

Yeah, thats what myths are. Heres the thing, how long did people think the earth was flat? hundreds of years right? And it got disproven, so the same thing could happen with evolution. Just figure this, it can never be "fully" proven, if it is at all, because no one was around to see any of it.

Let me remind you that the belief of the earth being flat was because people simply didn't know what shape it was, and therefore assumed it was flat. It's pretty much the same about religion: People don't really know how the universe was created, so they assumed someone had made it on 6 days, even though there is nothing that supports this, they simply only guess it was that that happened.

shukrallah
06-08-2003, 12:37 AM
1st off, in another thread somewhere, some one said about there being more than one god, let me clear that up





Isaiah (46:9)

Remember what happend long ago.
Remember that I am God, and there is no other God.
I am God, there is no one like me.



"belief" would be an inappropriate word. Hypothesis would be better.

k, well then, for christianity "religion" would be an inappropriate word. A relationship with Jesus Christ would be better.

ive dug up a lot of info, that will help prove that the bible is real.
lol, i was wrong, there is "science" in the bible. Look, no one can prove that some men didnt just sit down and say stuff. The old testimate is what? like 1000 years, i think..... the new testement, maybe 60-70. Lets just say it is true (i believe it is) then most of the men, could have never met each other right? Ok, so they made over 1000 prophecies, and they said God said it, and IT WILLl happen. Either, they really are men of God (after all a prophet has to get all of the thigns he says 100% true, or hes a false prophet) or they are insane, or just plain lyers. Lets face it, you know it as well as i do, the Bible is the best moral code there is, so if a bunch of lyers or insane men wrote it, theres something wrong........... Look at it, its design almost impossible for a group of insane or men that have never met, that lived thousands of years away from each other, could have figured out. I mean... this is weird, but i cant remember it exacly. ive read, the middle chapter of the bible is say 32, and the middle book is say 32, and the middle verse is say 32, (thats not the right number, im just saying though..... its something like that, which is almost impossible for any book, unless God had something to do with it.)

K, now for the science (this part isnt about the bible)

You say evolution is a mutation sort of.... right so when we, or any other species evolves, its because there is some sort of mutation in there DNA. But the problem is.... mutations take away from our DNA, they dont add, or enhance it! Blind people, Albinos, they have part of there DNA taken away. Diseases such as cancer, are mutations, so there for basically, the theory disproves itself.


The universe was created last month, when a friend of mine sneezed it out.

Tell me one reason why christianity is more valid than this theory, and one reason why ichristianity should be more likely.


LOL, i was here 2 months ago. dont have an answere why christianity isnt less likley than that, but heres where the science in the bible comes into it:

This will prove lots of stuff about things mentioned in this thread, and in others. It will pretty much prove the bible is real. I mean, look, what other religion has prophecies that are coming true???? huh??? what other book has scientific facts stated, be4 we could even figure them out?

One that comes to my mind is, the discovery of America, yeah sounds weird, huh? Actually, he figured there was land on the other side of the earth, and that it was round, because of the bible (yes the bible says its round, ill get to it in a min)

first off, the discovery of america



Isaiah (46:11)

I am calling a man from the east to carry
out my plan;
he will come like a hawk from a
country far away.
I will make what I have said come true;
I will do what I have planned.


Columbus was in Spain, or at least, he was in the east, and far away, from America. We consider Europe the east right? So theres your discovery of America, fortold in the bible. But of coarse i cant just leave it at that.

The fact that the earth is round, is also in Isaiah.





Isaiah (40:22)

God sits on his throne above the circle
of the earth,
and compared to him, people are like
grasshoppers.
He stretches out the skies like a peice of
cloth
and spreads them out like a tent to sit under.


i believe it said CIRCLE OF THE EARTH, ah, a circle is round, then the earth must be round! WOW!!!! Maybe, geeze, it was right under the scientists noses after all, i mean, people spend all of this time trying to figure things out, that have already been figured out. But then again, i dont know why people eventually changed there minds..... must of been a scientist trying to disprove the bible....


Almost infinite extent of the sidereal universe:








Isaiah (55:9)

Just as the heavens are higher than the
earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts higher than your
thoughts.


The heavens, is another word used for universe, which means, God said they are higher than earth, meaning that theres more than just earth.... and the heavens keep going past earth.

Evaporation:




Isaiah (55:10)

Rain and snow fall from the sky
and don't return without watering the
gound.
They cause plants to sprout and
grow,
making seeds for the farmer
and bread for the people.




You see the rain and snow came from the sky, so when it says return, it means, go back to the sky. Hmmm, makes lots of sense, but didnt the scientists say something like that too????? but theres more on this subject:




Ecclesiastes (1:7)

All the rivers flo to the sea,
but the sea never becomes full.





Law of conservation of mass and energy:



Peter 2 (3:7)

And that same word of God is keeping heaven and earth that we now have in order to be destroyed by fire. They are being kept for the Judgement Day and the destruction of all who are against God.



The stars:

Well, we already know the bible says you cant count the stars many times anyways, but if your interested

Jeremiah (33:22)

The importance of blood:



Leviticus (17:11)


This is because the life of the body is in the blood, and I have given you rules for pouring that blood on the alter to remove your sins so you will belong to the LORD. It is the blood that removes sins, because it is life.


Another thing proven by the bible.


whats this? theres more....


Circulation of the atmosphere:



Ecclesiastes (1:6)

The wind blows to the south;
it blows to the north.
It blows from one direction and then
another.
Then it turns around and repeats the
same pattern, going nowhere




and finally the gravitational feild:


Job (26:7)

God stretches the northern sky out over
empty space
and hangs the earth on nothing.



WOW, that was a lot......

-lukeskywalker1

Solbe M'ko
06-08-2003, 01:59 AM
That doesn't prove or disprove divine intervention.

(Keep in mind that I have not actually read the Bible, so I'm going strictly by what you posted)

That whole America thing could have meant just about anything. It could have reffered to Ghengis Kahn or Marco Polo, or for that matter, anyone else who ever lived.

A long time ago people thought that the earth was flat, they never said it wasn't round, just that it wasn't spherical, so from what I read in that passage, a) it was translated inaccurately b) it was written like that, hence the author (yes, I said author) could have though the earth was flat.

The next passage makes no reference to an infinity, so I'll leave it at that.

Well, this next one is a grey area. It doesn't actually say that the water evaporates. That one is interesting.

The next one explains nothing, just makes an observation.

This next one I don't quite get. What is the context?

People knew that blood was necessary long before Christianity. People knew that they could bleed to death. I don't care to find a quote, but I'm sure there is one out there.

This next one is another observation. People could lick their fingers and hold them up a long time ago. They, being mostly farmers, could probably also observe certain atmospheric patterns during certain times of the year.

The gravity one is less than convincing. It says that the earth is held "up" by nothing, not that it is held up by gravity.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, just that these passages don't really prove anything. They make you think though, so I salute you.

-Edit- Oh, and, uh... all mutations are not negative. Blind albinos could do quite well in a place with no light. Mutation has benefits. People who live in places like Africa where there is lots of sunlight, don't get sunburns or skin cancer as much because of the pigmentation of their skin. This is, according to evolution, a mutation, and, because it did more good than harm, the trait became prevalent over time.

SkinWalker
06-08-2003, 05:07 AM
Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
.. well then, for christianity "religion" would be an inappropriate word. A relationship with Jesus Christ would be better.

Ahh.... but I'm not so ethnocentric as to attempt to invalidate just christianity... I try to include all cults in that j/k ;)

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
Ok, so they made over 1000 prophecies, and they said God said it, and IT WILLl happen.

I'd like to see an example of any verifiable, prophetic claim that cannot be attributed to interpretation. (IBHTTVP) <--- a prophecy of my own.... ;)

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
You say evolution is a mutation sort of.... right so when we, or any other species evolves, its because there is some sort of mutation in there DNA. But the problem is.... mutations take away from our DNA, they dont add, or enhance it!

Poppycock. Take a class in biology that includes genetics (or at least pay closer attention if you are in one). You will see that deletion mutation (which you describe above) isn't the only type of mutation. You totally disregard point mutation, translocation mutation, and inversion mutation. In these mutations dna strands can not only lengthen (translocation), but remain the same length (point & inversion). The latter two, I gather, are the more common, but this is really not my area of expertise. In fact, I got a C+ in biology... but I paid that much attention....

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
... but heres where the science in the bible comes into it:

And if you are lazy like me and don't have time to read the bible, here's a link (http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml) to a site that has, amazingly enough, the same information and more.... handy for cutting and pasting.

However...

In Genesis 1:16 it says something about god creating two lights... meaning the sun and the moon (even though the moon is only a reflection of the sun with it's light)... one to rule the day and one to rule the night. oh... and he created the stars (lights for his other experiments in creation?). But the moon spends half it's time on the daylight side... what a bad ruler it is. Okay... perhaps this is too early in the bible for any real science....

Deuteronomy 17:2-6 or 7... I forget. It makes a passage about killing all that don't believe in god or worship in other religions..... Deuteronomy is filled with hatred and killing, though... God sure got the science of homicide down pat... but maybe this is still too early on in the bible.

Joshua ... somewhere around chapter 10, god makes the sun and moon stand still so Josh can get on with the science of homicide before supper time.

In the second book of Sammuel (or was it the first?), David kills 20, 000 people in one day... Perhaps Pres. Bush will uncover his WMD's as Darth Rumsfeld digs up Iraq. ;)

Are we to assume that 2 Kings 20:11 was any less sincere than the quotes you gave above? If so, then the Earth stood still... nay, it counter-rotated!

Job 39:13-16! Not only was science done poorly in biblical times, but they were poor observers as well (myopia probably hadn't been diagnosed by then). The account of ostriches is absolutely contrary to their nature... Job cites them as unfit parents, when they are actually very attentive parents to their eggs and young.

Finally, Revelations, Chapter 7 reveals that the Earth is flat with "four corners." (tounge firmly planted in cheek).

The bible is so general and open to interpretation it makes a "psychic's" cold read look complex by comparisson. Just as astrologers can give a reading that will fit anyone who is looking for answers, so, too, can many of the religious documents (the bible is but one of many).

Cheers! :p

SkinWalker
06-08-2003, 05:36 AM
Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
You sort of missed the clients point....

Not only did I get the "client's" point, but I got yours as well. I said it was a Strawman argument because the client attempted to create a point that would be attacked in vain (this is essentially what this debate term means) by the barber. The story, by Divya Venkataraman, which you told to us (you really should have given Divya credit, btw) was also a strawman argument in itself. We are meant to attack is premise and thus avoid the real issue of evolution versus creation mythology.

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
If you got that point, then you were just arguing needlessly.

Which is the point of the Strawman Caricature... to get someone to argue needlessly.


Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
I wasnt talking about a crime,....

I was attempting to show the value of physical evidence... not suggest you were a criminal.

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
Its the same with God, just because you havnt seen him doesnt mean that hes not real does it?

When I joined the army in 1984, I remember, rather distinctly, that many of the recruits that I was in basic training with seemed to have a hotrod at home! (I know what you're thinking... what has this to do with god, etc.? Bear with me a minute...)

I came to the conclusion that, while a certain number of these soldiers actually did have hotrods, many only claimed to in order to be accepted or to attain status... I merely nodded and grinned as one would go on about it's supercharger or blower or tires, etc.

But let me tell you: I have a hotrod in my garage.
"Let's see it," you ask!
"Oh, I'll open the garage, but you can't see it.. it's invisible."
"Ahh.... well I'll throw some talcum powder on the driveway and you can drive across it so I can see how wide your tire treads are."
I say, "that won't work.. you see this hotrod is invisible and it floats on air."
"So start it up! I'll listen to the engine purr."
"Sorry," I add, "it doesn't make a sound at all."
"So I'll just throw this talcum powder on it and we'll see it's outline where the powder rests."
"Nope. Won't work," I suggest... this hotrod is incorporeal and the powder would just fall through to the floor, above which it floats."

So for every test of evidence you devise, I merely add a new rule... you will never be able to prove I don't have a hotrod. Hell, I'll even create a bill of sale so you can see written evidence... but this evidence cannot be verified... even the notarization could have be forged or a notary's press "borrowed."

Now... by using the bounded rules of science, the evidence is against the existance of my hotrod, even though there is a chance, albeit a slim one, that there are as yet unknown rules of physics and chemistry that might apply.

To be fair, I borrowed that analogy from Carl Sagan, who had a Dragon in his garage... not a hotrod.

shukrallah
06-08-2003, 03:31 PM
Oh, i got that barber story in an email, and i was going to write about a docter, but it was easir to cut and paste it.

But let me tell you: I have a hotrod in my garage.
"Let's see it," you ask!
"Oh, I'll open the garage, but you can't see it.. it's invisible."
"Ahh.... well I'll throw some talcum powder on the driveway and you can drive across it so I can see how wide your tire treads are."
I say, "that won't work.. you see this hotrod is invisible and it floats on air."
"So start it up! I'll listen to the engine purr."
"Sorry," I add, "it doesn't make a sound at all."
"So I'll just throw this talcum powder on it and we'll see it's outline where the powder rests."
"Nope. Won't work," I suggest... this hotrod is incorporeal and the powder would just fall through to the floor, above which it floats."

So for every test of evidence you devise, I merely add a new rule... you will never be able to prove I don't have a hotrod. Hell, I'll even create a bill of sale so you can see written evidence... but this evidence cannot be verified... even the notarization could have be forged or a notary's press "borrowed."

Now... by using the bounded rules of science, the evidence is against the existance of my hotrod, even though there is a chance, albeit a slim one, that there are as yet unknown rules of physics and chemistry that might apply.

To be fair, I borrowed that analogy from Carl Sagan, who had a Dragon in his garage... not a hotrod.



Hmmm, but God doesnt keep on making stuff up to why you cant see him. You have never seen outer space with your own eyes (or you could have, but lets say you havnt) but you still know and believe its there right? its the same with christians (true christians) they can feel God, its something you would have to go through yourself to really understand.

(IBHTTVP) <--- a prophecy of my own....

Whats the prophecy? (i guess im slow...)



Poppycock. Take a class in biology that includes genetics (or at least pay closer attention if you are in one).

I have biology next semester...

I'd like to see an example of any verifiable, prophetic claim that cannot be attributed to interpretation.

It doesnt have to say that IT WILL HAPPEN, just when you make a prophecy, it has to come true, or its not real, right? And of course, why make just make something up and make yourself look like a fool?

Well, this next one is a grey area. It doesn't actually say that the water evaporates. That one is interesting.

I see your point, but its implyed.

-Edit- Oh, and, uh... all mutations are not negative. Blind albinos could do quite well in a place with no light. Mutation has benefits. People who live in places like Africa where there is lots of sunlight, don't get sunburns or skin cancer as much because of the pigmentation of their skin. This is, according to evolution, a mutation, and, because it did more good than harm, the trait became prevalent over time.

Hmm, thats true. I read somewhere, on some site... about the single celled organisms. Wasnt it an ameba, or however you spell it. So if we evolved form that, then why do they attack us?



And if you are lazy like me and don't have time to read the bible,

I try and make time to read the bible.

In the second book of Sammuel (or was it the first?), David kills 20, 000 people in one day... Perhaps Pres. Bush will uncover his WMD's as Darth Rumsfeld digs up Iraq.

Im not sure if your saying it could, or couldnt happen, but even though, if a man had God's help, its possible. And also, it would depend on the method he used to kill the men, say he used a catipalt, that could take out some men....




That whole America thing could have meant just about anything. It could have reffered to Ghengis Kahn or Marco Polo, or for that matter, anyone else who ever lived.

A long time ago people thought that the earth was flat, they never said it wasn't round, just that it wasn't spherical, so from what I read in that passage, a) it was translated inaccurately b) it was written like that, hence the author (yes, I said author) could have though the earth was flat.


Yeah, i could have meany anyone, but still, im pretty sure this was said somewhere in Israel, so the only place east of Israel is Asia, so that narrows it down sort of.... but east of north america is Europe, where columbus was.

About the flat thing, yeah, they could have thought it was flat, but modern geometry didnt exist back then, did it? im not sure? so i doubt they used the word sphere, and either way, no matter which way you look at a sphere, it looks like a circle, right? Each side, top or bottom, at every angle looks like a circle just like earth.



Are we to assume that 2 Kings 20:11 was any less sincere than the quotes you gave above? If so, then the Earth stood still... nay, it counter-rotated!

All i can say is, all things are possible through God. man, even Christ said, if you have as much faith as the size of a mustard seed, you could move a mountain.




The next passage makes no reference to an infinity, so I'll leave it at that.

Yeah, but the universe doesnt go on forever.

This next one I don't quite get. What is the context?

I got it from some site, i dont get it... there was also another one i left out, i really didnt get:
(of course i looked up every verse in my own bible, just to make sure, except this one):

Law of increasing entropy (Psalm 102:25-27)
I dont have a clue what that is.... but its there, i guess


:confused:




People knew that blood was necessary long before Christianity. People knew that they could bleed to death. I don't care to find a quote, but I'm sure there is one out there.


that was written be4 Christianity.... in fact that was written like over 4000 years ago....




Finally, Revelations, Chapter 7 reveals that the Earth is flat with "four corners." (tounge firmly planted in cheek).

That was answered earlier in the thread, but anyways its a prophecy of the future, and it doesnt say flat it syas angels will go to the 4 corners of the earth. but also it was a vision john was having, and even right now, very slowly those prophecies are coming true.

Perhaps Pres. Bush will uncover his WMD's as Darth Rumsfeld digs up Iraq.

yeah, uhh... i dont know what happend there.....


but ive been thinking, for The Revelation to take place, the antichrist must basically take over the world. What dictater (Im taliing about suddam and others) would give up there throne? but if they were already overthrown, there would be no opposition, then the currencies are starting to become one, and even the language, english is now the world's business language, just about everyone knows english. All there needs is for the world to unite into one huge organization (the UN possibly?) and then for some awful tragedy, that effects most of the world to take place (rapture possibly??) then they need one man, to make peace treaties, and do some work, things like that, and hes on top of the world just about.... of coarse, none of this has happend yet, so we will just have to wait and see, and it might not happen like this, its my prediction, based on what the bible says.

not to mention, the bible says the end will be in babylon, which, suddamm was rebuilding, k, so hes out of power, some one else could finish the job, hes already invested billions of dollars to build it up.

then we need the temple of God to be rebuilt, so the antichrist can go in, and say hes god. Theres a group somewhere raising money to rebuild it.... dont think they have started yet though....
its prophecies like these, that if they come true, will prove the bible true right? if this happens, it will be hard to argue then wont it?

-lukeskywalker1

SkinWalker
06-08-2003, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
Hmmm, but God doesnt keep on making stuff up to why you cant see him. ....

.... Im not sure if your saying it could, or couldnt happen, but even though, if a man had God's help, its possible.

.... All i can say is, all things are possible through God.

And that is one of my two main points.... That was the point with the hotrod story. "All things are possible with god." Meaning god is an unbounded idea. Whereas science is bounded. Theories in science must follow strict rules. Whenever religion can't answer a question, the reply is usually something along the lines of "it was god's will." Total poppycock for educated people... acceptable for a primative culture that has limited educational systems, however.

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
Whats the prophecy? (i guess im slow...)

I was challenging you to describe a prophecy in the bible that has been considered fullfilled. There are several from the perspective of those that "believe," but none, in the opinion of many skeptics is valid or verifiable and all are open to interpretation. My "prophecy" is about the one I think you, or someone reading this will choose. I'll reveal it if someone suggests a fullfilled prophecy or two.

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
Yeah, but the universe doesnt go on forever.

Why wouldn't it?

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
Law of increasing entropy (Psalm 102:25-27)
I dont have a clue what that is.... but its there, i guess

My second point exactly. Not to come off as rude, but it would benefit your side of the argument to educate yourself in science. Then your arguments about why scientific explanations for our universe (local or as a whole) aren't as valid as christian. The same applies to those of other faiths that might be lurking this thread.

Actually, I'd like to hear what other faiths have to say about creation/evolution. One of the leading christian denominations, catholism, accepts the tenents of evolution. The pope made a statement years ago to that effect. Its fundamentalist christian groups who reject the idea.

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
... its prophecies like these, that if they come true, will prove the bible true right?

Doubtful... people have been claiming that Nostrodamus' claims have been coming true for hundreds of years.... same with revelations. In fact, there was a student who created a prophecy in the style of Nostrodamus and put it on the web as his "lost" prophecy and people bought it -hook, line and sinker. In fact, it was attributed to 9/11 as well as other events. You see, the "prophecies" are so vague as to be interpreted many, many ways to mean many things.

shukrallah
06-08-2003, 04:38 PM
And that is one of my two main points.... That was the point with the hotrod story. "All things are possible with god." Meaning god is an unbounded idea. Whereas science is bounded. Theories in science must follow strict rules. Whenever religion can't answer a question, the reply is usually something along the lines of "it was god's will." Total poppycock for educated people... acceptable for a primative culture that has limited educational systems, however.

True, ill think of something about this though.


I was challenging you to describe a prophecy in the bible that has been considered fullfilled. There are several from the perspective of those that "believe," but none, in the opinion of many skeptics is valid or verifiable and all are open to interpretation. My "prophecy" is about the one I think you, or someone reading this will choose. I'll reveal it if someone suggests a fullfilled prophecy or two.

ok, ok, heres 60 of em: (yeah, 60, and you only wanted 1 or 2...)

http://www.fehq.org/public/prophecy.htm

And ill find more hopefully as the day progresses, but i think you have read this link b4....



My second point exactly. Not to come off as rude, but it would benefit your side of the argument to educate yourself in science. Then your arguments about why scientific explanations for our universe (local or as a whole) aren't as valid as christian. The same applies to those of other faiths that might be lurking this thread.

Im just finishing up Earth Science, i have B or A average on a 6 point grading scale, although the teachers do comment on how i dont listen in any of there classes, mainly science and math, i play around and talk to people in science, and sleep in math.

Doubtful... people have been claiming that Nostrodamus' claims have been coming true for hundreds of years.... same with revelations. In fact, there was a student who created a prophecy in the style of Nostrodamus and put it on the web as his "lost" prophecy and people bought it -hook, line and sinker. In fact, it was attributed to 9/11 as well as other events. You see, the "prophecies" are so vague as to be interpreted many, many ways to mean many things.

i have no doubt 9-11 is in the bible....



about the big bang, i thought this up:

it started with one single atom right? with some fission and big explosions all of this appeared over time....

but heres what i dont get, theres a law somewhere, that says matter cannot be created or destroyed, but then how did one atom, become a universe..... which is at least 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000
bigger than that atom??


-lukeskywalker1

SkinWalker
06-08-2003, 06:18 PM
Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
.. although the teachers do comment on how i dont listen in any of there classes, mainly science and math, i play around and talk to people in science, and sleep in math.

It's showing :D


Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
i have no doubt 9-11 is in the bible....

Not possible... but feel free to look it up and share with us.



about the big bang, i thought this up:

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
it started with one single atom right?

Doubtful.

Don't misunderstand what some of us are saying here..... science cannot, and likely will not, be able to explain everything. New understandings create new questions, and so forth. That's the nature of science. Still, it is better than simply assigning an unproven, supernatural causation.

shukrallah
06-08-2003, 08:49 PM
Ever heard of the bible code?

http://www.grapho.net/codes/slide17.html#Eng


i dont know how true it is, nor do i know a lot about it, but hey if its true....

its some kind of mathmatical equation in the bible, something to do with the verses, or the number of letters... but anyways, theres the link, ill do more research later, gtg to church.

-lukeskywalker1

ShadowTemplar
06-08-2003, 11:34 PM
No, I do not believe in Evolution, because I see no need to believe in fact.

Why wouldn't it?

It would not if the universe had less than a certain critical mass. However, it seems that it is pretty much exactly at the critical mass (you fiddle a little with the numbers on the right, fiddle with the numbers on the left, insert a Cosmic Constant, and they come out zero: That means that we can do Math with i, which in turn means that we are happy). Since we're so close to the critical mass, it is hard to determine wether we are above, below, or on target. Still, however, it might not be a one-shot affair: We could be living in an oscilliating universe, which would cycle in a Big Bang->Big Crunch->Big Bang-> -cycle forever. It is, however, not as yet acertained which of the aforementioned three scenarioes is correct (maybe they all are - in a wierd quantum-mechanical sense).

Asking, however, what came before/will come after the Universe is without meaning. When you measure, you basically ask the Universe a question. So asking what came before/will come after is like asking what you remember from before you were born/will remember after you die.

Hope that made sense, I'm a little tired.

Sincerely, ShadowTemplar - Templar of No God, Champion of No Cause

shukrallah
06-09-2003, 12:10 AM
well anyways, i did some research and heres what i found.


http://www.csicop.org/si/9711/bible-code.html

http://www.biblecodedigest.com/

http://www.biblecodedigest.com/page.php/9

its worth just taking a look at, even if you dont believe, its interesting.

-lukeskywalker1

ShadowTemplar
06-09-2003, 12:26 AM
31:28 And hast not suffered me to kiss my sons and my daughters? thou hast now done foolishly in so doing.

If you start at the R in "daughters," and skip over three letters to the O in "thou," and three more to the S in "hast," and so on, the hidden message "Roswell" is revealed! This message has a step value of 4, as shown in Figure 1.

When Drosnin finds a name or word match for a given step value n, he then rearranges the letters into a huge matrix

All of these are arbitrarily chosen, which means that any random order of letters, no matter how much gibberish it is, will yield some result if this method is applied to it.

BS, that's what I call it.

ShadowTemplar - Templar of No God, Champion of No Cause

SkinWalker
06-09-2003, 01:57 AM
A better explanation of the bible code fallacy is at this website (http://www.nmsr.org/biblecod.htm).

But you must understand, that your willingness to "believe" in superstitious things such as this says something. Drosnin was interested in selling books and making a dollar. Not in revealing anything new about god or religion.

Skepticism doesn not come at near as high a price as fallibility.

Homuncul
06-09-2003, 06:43 AM
Wow... I've been off for a few days and I thought this debate was over but it seems that both camps are in fire again. Evolutionists keep answering the same questions and creationists still stick with their divine arguments.

I only wanted to give argument on what shot deeply in to my artificial soul and resonated with whole spectrum of emotion. I only apologize here for not naming the originators of a quote

You guys say, that some people could have just wrote stuff down. It goes both ways, how do you know some scientists dont just make stuff up? You dont. They are human, and can also lie. Just like gravity and things like that on other planets, how do they know? No one has been there. They could just make up numbers, couldnt they. What makes them so believable?

So what makes it so believable is it's explanation. For some reason the explanation of life through evolution is accepted because of this:
1. Evolution discribed more and necessarily deeper than any other theory before it
2. Evolution leaves fewer unexplained things than bible or Aristotle's animated life does
3. Evolution survives criticism (and not just criticism with logic) while bible does not by any means
4. And not the last argument. Evolution (today version of it) describes our REALITY with great dependency on all consistent, competent and nonquestionable theories humanity have developed through it's existence.

Thats the kind of reasoning that most creation myths go by, because when they were being told, we didn't know about microbes and quasars. Conversely, our theory of evolution will seem very ignorant if we somehow found a way to observe God directly. I take the side of evolution, mostly because it makes more sense to my situation, but if someone says that supernatural forces designed the natural world, I will have a hard time convincing them otherwise.

Arthur C. Clarke said: "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". This can work both ways. Furthermore I can replace magic with divine (if it's really needed).

If we would've find some supernatural anomaly as biblical god we would search an explanation for it. The common questions for it would be why didn't we see it before?. why laws of physics doesn't discribe it?. Why laws that bible theory prepose contradict with laws of physics? why our most competent theories describe our reality with such autonomity and complexity and they predict with such an accuracy some things and can't resolve the problem of god anomaly? Why laws of physics don't need biblical god? Can we measure god with methods we possess? If we made a mistake than does bible discribes our reality with god better than our theories did? Why bible explanations is full of so many unexplained things and maybe we should try to explain them? Do we still have right than to call anything rational instead of faithfully and trust everything god says through it's prophets? Why were we so mistaken before? Do in the end fundamental laws fail before god anomaly?
This simple criticism of an idea through many leads will lead to a simple conclution: that as god anomaly exists but we see that none of the fundamental laws of universe fails if not "kicked back" by god anomaly iself (something like magic or miracles) then we must leave both bible and today science for better understanding and it's inevitable that biblical conception of god would be unsatisfactory and too simple which would probably lead to an all new theory of god/physics universe that would discribe better.

But it's all fiction. None of our scientific theories yet needed god and explained better with god than without one. Then many devoted scientists still look for observing God but it looks like none of our scientific methods gives us such opportunity and as for now our fundamental theories (evolution) don't need god and and all of it's rivals are criticised and theory itself survived criticism, then for the present moment we MUST consider evolution to be REAL while god anomaly would only create unadequate complication to what we have. Is this still so hard to believe.

In the End of the Universe (cauze I know my words are stil no argument) I would very much like that people hear a prey of a poor dispair Homuncul and try to read at least these books not to stay ignorant to the world we live and die in:

1. Dummies guide to biolody, evolution, genetics, religion, esotery, metaphysics, quantum theory, epistemology, phylosophy or anything of that kind
2. Darwin all works
3. Richard Dawkins "The Selfish Gene", "Blind Watchmaker"
4. David Deutsch's "Fabric of reality" and not for the sake of multiverse , just something to correct your world view and help you solve your debate problems
5. Karl Popper, all works you can find. Extremely necessary. It's about epistemology
6. Frank Tipler "The anthropic cosmological principle", "Physics of Immortality"!!! Just cool
7. Hawking, all works
8. Umberto Eco "Il Pendolo di Foucault". It's a bit large and heavy, but it contains everything an average user of esotery must know. + it's a facinating story
That's for the start... the list is endless as is our knowledge...


P.S. I'm in love with esoteric sciences and it's almost divine knowledge to me. The Bible code is just small portion of what you can get when start esotery. And it's so hypnotic that at some point i felt I could not perceive anything without numbers of Tritemi and sacred words of Kabbalah. And everything is so Hermetic

shukrallah
06-09-2003, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by SkinWalker
A better explanation of the bible code fallacy is at this website (http://www.nmsr.org/biblecod.htm).

But you must understand, that your willingness to "believe" in superstitious things such as this says something. Drosnin was interested in selling books and making a dollar. Not in revealing anything new about god or religion.

Skepticism doesn not come at near as high a price as fallibility.


I didnt say i believed it.


All of these are arbitrarily chosen, which means that any random order of letters, no matter how much gibberish it is, will yield some result if this method is applied to it.



You dont seem to get it, they didnt just pick letters, its a pattern, like every 5 letters, say theres a book, and you go through and take every 5th letter, and it makes a word. now as to how true the bible code is, i dont know.

If your going to randomly pick letters, i could do that with the sentence I just wrote.

EX:

men
me
stupid
those are all words, with letter randomly chosen out of my sentence.

now ill skip 2 letters (because im in school, and really bored... and dont have anything else to do....)

IOGNONMPKTRCLOAITSTCISRE k, if i misscounted, its because i rushed....and after reviewing that, theres nothing that resembles a word, ill keep going with 3 letters

IUIODYKTILTWTSEITT

4:


IRTDPESLHTSNUO

still nothing.... ill try it with my bible when i get home, and c what happens....


but then again, i guess it would depend on the version you are using, the NCV, and the NIV have different words than the KJV, same meaning, just in normal english, like we write (just so you know what im talking about since some of you dont read it)

-lukeskywalker1

SkinWalker
06-15-2003, 05:10 PM
Here's a link to a story about three 160,000 year-old skulls found (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/06/030612090827.htm) that support the Out-of-Africa theory of human evolution.

"The fossilized skulls of two adults and one child discovered in the Afar region of eastern Ethiopia have been dated at 160,000 years, making them the oldest known fossils of modern humans, or Homo sapiens. "

Also unearthed were bone fragments of other, similar, hominids, over 600 stone tools, and hippopotamus bones with tool marks: all from the same geologic strata, which clearly indicates that they're from the same era.

One of the scientists involved stated that the Out of Africa hypothesis is now tested, proving that we did not evolve from Neandertals, which merely went extinct. This also provides a more intermediate find between pre-humans and modern humans. Pre-human species have been located that dated back to 300, 000 years and the oldest modern human find was, until now, 100,000 years.

Clearly, the Earth is a bit older than 8, 000 to 10, 000 years.

SkinWalker
06-15-2003, 05:46 PM
Michael Drosnin, who wrote The Bible Code, has a new book out called, not surprisingly, the Bible Code II.

The problem with both books is that they're bunk.

The process relies on pure random chance to predict events....which include assassinations of Sadat, Rabin, and Kennedy as well as events such as the Holocaust, Watergate, and Hiroshima. The first book predicted the end of the world in 2000, so I suppose he's able to print Bible Code II since the publishing industry survived this armegedden.

In the new version, Drosnin predicts the WTC disaster, the Bush-Gore election conflict and the Monica Lewinsky scandal. The main problem with all of his predictions is that he made them after they already happened, claiming that they were there in the bible all along. The only predictions that he made before they happened, never came to pass, such as the end of the world in 2000.

A Danish physicist named Niels Bohr disputed Drosnin's work (as did other skeptics) and Drosnin replied with, "When my critics find a message about the assassination of a prime minister encrypted in Moby Dick, I'll believe them." So that's what Brenden McKay (http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/moby.html) , an Australian mathematician did. and was able to predict the assassinations of Ghandi, Rabin, Kennedy, and Martin Luther King, Jr. among others.

An American physicist, David E. Thomas (http://www.nmsr.org/biblecod.htm), discovered the phrase, "the Bible code is a silly, dumb, fake, false, evil, nasty, dismal fraud and snake-oil hoax" within the excerpt of the Bible Code II found on Amazon.com by applying a little math.

While being interviewed on CrossFire on CNN (http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0212/02/cf.00.html) , Drosnin stated "Let me start by telling you I'm only a reporter. I didn't figure it all out. A very famous mathematician in Israel is the man who discovered the Bible code. I'm only the reporter who is telling his story and who is using the code that he created to see what is predicted. And it is indeed very frightening."

Yep... very profitable too. That quote is about two-thirds down the transcript if you care to click the link. Just search for "Drosnin." Drosnin defends his work (or I should say this "very famous mathemetician's" work) without much convincing testimony.

Cheers. :cool: :cool:

Psydan
06-18-2003, 03:57 AM
Ok, just to add my 2 cents to the growing pile of change (which we still can't use to buy anything useful) has anyone here read "Darwin on trial" by Phillip E. Johnson? well, in it are very good arguments against "evolution" as people refer to the modern scientific theory of how we came to be at this stage of "advancement". So though you can fling mud at the "Christian" theory of Creation, your theory of "evolution" is already very very grimy.

SkinWalker
06-18-2003, 04:40 AM
Originally posted by Psydan
... has anyone here read "Darwin on trial" by Phillip E. Johnson? well, in it are very good arguments against "evolution" as people refer to the modern scientific theory of how we came to be at this stage of "advancement".

Never read it. But please, feel free to provide us with examples that we might discuss.

TheWhiteRaider
06-21-2003, 09:31 PM
Well I see this is still goiong on even though I have been away from this forum for who know how long.

Something I have found for all you Neo-Darwinist (People who believe that Evolution came about by mutations) Have any of you heard of the 1980 Evolution Conference held in Chicago? That is when 150 of the top evolutionist from all over the world got together to hear about the evidence against evolution. The outcome of this was that over 65% said,

"...that the neo-Darwinian mechanism could no longer be regarded as scientifically valid or tenable..."

Newsweek (November 3, 1980)

So while it does not disprove Evolution completely it does say that the popular view of evolution is not upheld by the P.H.D. guys.

I got a site for you guys to check out. It isn't the best, but it does have some useful info. You might have alot of reading to do though(About 1000 pages worth) I gets better in some of the later chapters.

http://www.evolution-facts.org/c01a.htm

SkinWalker
06-21-2003, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
Well I see this is still goiong on even though I have been away from this forum for who know how long.

Personally, I like this topic... it helps me re-enforce my educational pursuits.

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
Something I have found for all you Neo-Darwinist (People who believe that Evolution came about by mutations)

Well, mutations are but one, very small, aspect of the theory of evolution, but it is a basic tenet if you consider its role in natural selection. It's also important to note, that, while many of Darwins theories and ideas have been revised or even abandoned by science, the basic tenents he suggested are still valid.

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
Have any of you heard of the 1980 Evolution Conference held in Chicago? That is when 150 of the top evolutionist from all over the world got together to hear about the evidence against evolution.

Interesting.... I just searched the peer reviewed literature of at least 20 of the "top 150" scientists who are currently researching aspects of evolution. I noticed no counter-evolutionary claims. I did, however, note several revisions in various theories. But if anything, these continue to support the idea of evolution more than ever.

Perhaps you could post a few of their names? Newsweek apparently doesn't have this article archived, nor does Lexis-Nexis, or Ebsco.


Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
So while it does not disprove Evolution completely it does say that the popular view of evolution is not upheld by the P.H.D. guys.

I'm always fascinated by claims from creationist / religious zealots that "scientists are more and more siding against evolution." The evidence doesn't support this. In fact, in my quick search for that Newsweek article, I noticed that no counter-evolution articles appeared in the peer reviewed lists (I searched here for peer-reviewed articles that might have cited the Newsweek article or "chicago conference"). It appears that there are literally thousands of peer-reviewed (that's research papers by those "leading scientists" for those that do not know) articles each year on the subject of evolution.

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
I got a site for you guys to check out. It isn't the best, but it does have some useful info.

Admittidly, I didn't spend more than 30 minutes on this site, but I found nothing useful. In fact, I noted time and again the misuse of scientific theories, laws, and out-right lies. Nearly every single point that was made on that site is either completely false or otherwise invalid based on the "science" that it's trying to use against the idea of evolution. It definately demonstrates the ignorance and/or partial education of its webmaster.

Jubatus
06-22-2003, 01:32 AM
It's now 4:55am here and I'm tired, but I've read about 90% of what's been written in this thread. If I picked things out here and there from the whole thread I don't think there will be anything left for me to add, and that is not really the reason I'm writing this.

The reason is this: I want, in my grumpy state of being, utter what many here must surely be thinking, but dare not say.

Lukeskywalker1.....Watching you flaunt your naive and most likely indoctrinated narrowmindedness (could also be the result of a reaction to some kinda trauma you've experienced) actually hurts physically at times. Your ignorance is astounding and more so your lacking to realize that it would be immensily wiser to just keep your thoughts to yourself instead of disclosing your foggy little wondrous lala-land point of view to the public.

Deep down a defiance stirs within me, a defiance that demands you're actually right, that God actually does exist. And this defiance demands that come Judgement Day I will be flung into the bowels of fiery Hell and you will ascend to angelhood. This defiance is sooo demanding that you will look down upon me from up high and pity my unfortune, and then you'll see my defiance in the form of a single finger to you and your God.

Emotion and logic are one another's greatest adversaries, but should Christianity be right, I will be on Satan's side, defiant and hating with all my being. I can't deny that all this science against the Bible isn't some elaborate scheme construed by the Devil (as part of his brilliant act of making us believe he doesn't exist). I do not believe in guilt, as I do not believe in free will, not even in God, so I won't blame him, I won't hate him, but I will hate existence for being what it is should there actually be something after death, and then I will let emotion rage, for eternity, in any state of being - Hell or Heaven can offer but 2 roads; total enlightenment or insanity. My sole purpose in eternity will be the annihilation of All, and I hope Satan is with me on this one - if not then he's as loathsome as God.

All this is besides (not entirely) the point of this thread, and I can only pardon myself with me being tired. But let no man say I can't offer to the topic of a thread!: I am a fan of evolution - it might take one hell of a time, but eventually we will either fade away or reach total enlightenment...Either way, go us!

TheWhiteRaider
06-22-2003, 04:22 AM
Admittidly, I didn't spend more than 30 minutes on this site, but I found nothing useful. In fact, I noted time and again the misuse of scientific theories, laws, and out-right lies. Nearly every single point that was made on that site is either completely false or otherwise invalid based on the "science" that it's trying to use against the idea of evolution. It definately demonstrates the ignorance and/or partial education of its webmaster. [/B]

First Few chapters I could realy care less. This isn't my choice of info anyways.

The book Tornado in a Junkyard is one of the best. It is Writen by James Perloff who was once a evolutionist.


Interesting.... I just searched the peer reviewed literature of at least 20 of the "top 150" scientists who are currently researching aspects of evolution. I noticed no counter-evolutionary claims. I did, however, note several revisions in various theories. But if anything, these continue to support the idea of evolution more than ever.

Did I say they don't believe evolution is true? No I said they don't prefer neo-Darwinist views. I notice though that some of the older scientist are moving from neo-Darwinism. I know Steven J. Gould(Spelling?) has alreay dumped it.

A note as well is that I have found 4 different sources that quote the same part from NewsWeek. So now I am curious. I will look for this copy of NewsWeek as well. I think the CDA library has every copy of NewsWeek so I will make a point of going there. If I should find it I will give it to you. I do have a scanner so all I would need is an e-mail address.

Here is a quote. The man is an evolutionist at the meeting btw.

"[Evolution] is undergoing its broadest and deepest revolution in nearly 50 years . . Exactly how evolution happened is now a matter of great controversy among biologists . . No clear resolution of the controversies was in sight [at the meeting]."—*Boyce Rensberger, Macroevolution Theory Stirs Hottest Debate Since Darwin,' "

Personally, I like this topic... it helps me re-enforce my educational pursuits

I do like the topic. Just wish I had a little more info to give.

I'm always fascinated by claims from creationist / religious zealots that "scientists are more and more siding against evolution." The evidence doesn't support this. In fact, in my quick search for that Newsweek article, I noticed that no counter-evolution articles appeared in the peer reviewed lists (I searched here for peer-reviewed articles that might have cited the Newsweek article or "Chicago conference"). It appears that there are literally thousands of peer-reviewed (that's research papers by those "leading scientists" for those that do not know) articles each year on the subject of evolution.

You assume that they would come out and tell you. I know someone who over heard their biology professor talking in his office and I quote him "All that stuff I said out there was complete crap. I know it wasn't true. I only teach it because that is what they want to hear." For legal reasons I can say his name here. Some people care more about their reputation than the truth I noticed anyone who tries to look from some other answer besides evolution is often discredited and bashed upon. You forget that they are human and they can lie. I mean who knew President Clinton was in bed with another woman. Almost no one! So did that mean it wasn't true? My point is don't take everything at face value there may be more under the surface.

I think someone was planning on running the monkey on the type writer experiment using a supercomputer. I remember seeing it somewhere I will have to look for it. *sigh* So much to look for so little time.

Here's a link to a story about three 160,000 year-old skulls found that support the Out-of-Africa theory of human evolution.

"The fossilized skulls of two adults and one child discovered in the Afar region of eastern Ethiopia have been dated at 160,000 years, making them the oldest known fossils of modern humans, or Homo sapiens.”

Also unearthed were bone fragments of other, similar, hominids, over 600 stone tools, and hippopotamus bones with tool marks: all from the same geologic strata, which clearly indicates that they're from the same era.

One of the scientists involved stated that the Out of Africa hypothesis is now tested, proving that we did not evolve from Neandertals, which merely went extinct. This also provides a more intermediate find between pre-humans and modern humans. Pre-human species have been located that dated back to 300, 000 years and the oldest modern human find was, until now, 100,000 years.

Clearly, the Earth is a bit older than 8, 000 to 10, 000 years.

I read it and not once did they tell you how they dated it. Only that it has been dated at 160,000 years old. So how did they do it? Not even as much as listing a RA dating method. Even in the original news report. Just pointing that out.


Here is one question I want answered. How could amino acids form in an oxygen rich atmosphere? Oxygen destroys lone amino acids. Only when it is in protein form is it safe. By the way this has been known since 1950's so don't go off on how I know that. I can pull up some literature on it later, but now it is 11:00 PM and I can't keep my eyes open so I am off to bed.

I am also sorry for any spelling errors. I know there are most likely some in there, but my brain isn't working and I can't fix them as of now.

SkinWalker
06-22-2003, 05:29 AM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
I know Steven J. Gould(Spelling?) has alreay dumped it.

The late Steven Gould (1941 - 2002) only revised his theories about some of the nuances in "evolution." Until the day he died, he still accepted the basic tenents of Darwin's theories, only in a modified format. Space/time limitations (it's really late ;) ) preclude me from going into more details at this time.

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
Here is a quote. The man is an evolutionist at the meeting btw.

"[Evolution] is undergoing its broadest and deepest revolution in nearly 50 years . . Exactly how evolution happened is now a matter of great controversy among biologists . . No clear resolution of the controversies was in sight [at the meeting]."—*Boyce Rensberger, Macroevolution Theory Stirs Hottest Debate Since Darwin,' "

That doesn't sound like it in any way supports creationism! :cool: You have to understand how science works: we constantly revise, update, and (at times) toss out hypotheses and theories that don't work. Scientists debate each other endlessly over many of the nuances within theories and disciplines.


Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
You assume that they would come out and tell you.

It appears that it may not be a moot point after all. I suspect that the "controversy" 20 years ago in Chicago was typical scientist competition and debate. This is hard for creationists to understand, since the idea of their basic doctrine undergoing revision as new data comes in is heresy.

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
I know someone who over heard their biology professor talking in his office and I quote him "All that stuff I said out there was complete crap. I know it wasn't true. I only teach it because that is what they want to hear."

"I know someone who over heard" someone? Come on, man, you know me better than that! ;) That kind of annecdotal account means very little. If you make a claim about "x number of people" you should be able to support that with some sort of evidence... a statistical source, a signed petition, etc. Otherwise, what's the point? I could easily (perhaps rightfully) claim that many former creationists have now accepted the common sense of evolution.


Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
I think someone was planning on running the monkey on the type writer experiment using a supercomputer.

The formula for that kind of probability isn't that complicated to need a supercomputer.... anyway, typewriting monkies have little to do with anything, right?


Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
I read it and not once did they tell you how they dated it. Only that it has been dated at 160,000 years old. So how did they do it? Not even as much as listing a RA dating method. Even in the original news report. Just pointing that out.

I would suggest that you read this LINK (http://home.earthlink.net/~ctfeagans/Nature june 2003 Hominids.pdf) . This is the original paper submitted by Tim White, the lead researcher. It points out that two primary methods were used to date the find: stratigraphy and radioisotopy. Specifically, the remains were found in the Upper Herto Member of the Bouri Formation of geologic strata. The radioisotopic dating method was 40^Ar/39^Ar and both methods placed the remains at between 160, 000 to 154, 000 years ago. Methods of this sort are usually not included in secondary and tertiary literature (such as newspaper and magazines).


Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
Here is one question I want answered. How could amino acids form in an oxygen rich atmosphere?

I'll have to get back to you on that... sleep is calling me.

shukrallah
06-22-2003, 06:30 PM
sorry i havnt been checking this latley...
and by the way, i completly forgot to do that bible thing... ill just ake your word on it, doesnt matter much to me, maybe ill research it more later on.

Lukeskywalker1.....Watching you flaunt your naive and most likely indoctrinated narrowmindedness (could also be the result of a reaction to some kinda trauma you've experienced) actually hurts physically at times. Your ignorance is astounding and more so your lacking to realize that it would be immensily wiser to just keep your thoughts to yourself instead of disclosing your foggy little wondrous lala-land point of view to the public.



?
:confused:

heh, in the end, it all depends on your point of veiw. my thoughts? half of this i got from other websites, and rewrote it, or cut and pasted it.... cause i thought it true, or most of it..... well, anyways, thanks for the tip! ;) it means nothing to me....


Deep down a defiance stirs within me, a defiance that demands you're actually right, that God actually does exist. And this defiance demands that come Judgement Day I will be flung into the bowels of fiery Hell and you will ascend to angelhood. This defiance is sooo demanding that you will look down upon me from up high and pity my unfortune, and then you'll see my defiance in the form of a single finger to you and your God.


hmmm, many people say thats God tugging on your heart. heh, the only way to find out is too try it and c.... your choice. And ive said be4, it doesnt matter if your right, and im wrong, we all die, big deal right? but if im right, well... you know. Is it worth the chance?


You assume that they would come out and tell you. I know someone who over heard their biology professor talking in his office and I quote him "All that stuff I said out there was complete crap. I know it wasn't true. I only teach it because that is what they want to hear." For legal reasons I can say his name here. Some people care more about their reputation than the truth I noticed anyone who tries to look from some other answer besides evolution is often discredited and bashed upon. You forget that they are human and they can lie. I mean who knew President Clinton was in bed with another woman. Almost no one! So did that mean it wasn't true? My point is don't take everything at face value there may be more under the surface.

i agree with this.... i said something like it be4, but you seem to have said it better....

****

Either way, with dating methods, there are millions of possibilities, i mean, erosion, earthquakes, and even humans (not knowing it) could effect whatever dates they think theve found. They dont know everything... and werent around back then to really know, its a "best guess" based on what they think they know.

-lukeskywalker1

SkinWalker
06-22-2003, 07:38 PM
Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
Either way, with dating methods, there are millions of possibilities, i mean, erosion, earthquakes, and even humans (not knowing it) could effect whatever dates they think theve found.

How? I'm not saying you are completely wrong in this instance, but I'm wondering if you know how. The 'how' part is important, because these are all considerations made when dating anything. Erosion doesn't really have a huge effect, since the geologic strata is only exposed by erosion in most cases, rather than washed away. It is true that objects found in alluvial deposits, varves and beneath landslide deposits are changed in their original stratigraphic location, but this is often easy to figure out by comparisson of rock samples with the intact strata.

Earthquakes do little to change geologic strata beyond the occasional landslide (the law of original horizontality). When this happens it is very apparent. Faults are also easily identified and the original strata can be traced beyond faults. In fact, earthquakes are often helpful when dating strata by creating the fault and exposing strata.

Humans certainly affect the surroundings that they come into contact with. Had the Hurto site remained exposed longer than it did, eventually people would have disturbed the evidence. It is much like a crime scene with regard to forensics. However, they came upon this site after a recent rainy season had exposed the Hurto member in that locality. Little to no sign of human presence was detected. Both dating methods relatively concurred.

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
They dont know everything... and werent around back then to really know, its a "best guess" based on what they think they know.

True, but it is a very educated best guess. I would trust his guesses before I trusted a lot of peoples' facts. Tim White's hypotheses are also supported by evidence.

But then, one can also say the same (not being around back then) about creation mythology. Note that I did not say religious beliefs in general, but rather the mythos of creation. Even the vatican recognizes evolution as the most probable explanation of life on our planet.

Jubatus
06-22-2003, 07:57 PM
Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
?
:confused:

....thanks for the tip! ;) it means nothing to me....

This does not surprise me, I'm sorry to say.

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
hmmm, many people say thats God tugging on your heart. heh, the only way to find out is too try it and c.... your choice. And ive said be4, it doesnt matter if your right, and im wrong, we all die, big deal right? but if im right, well... you know. Is it worth the chance?

Worth the chance (or risk rather)? Here's where my defiance comes in, because I refuse to automatically tug tail in the face of the revelation of God's truth, I'm not gonna go "Oh, it's all true!? I'd better save my sorry self, cower down before God in fear lest he smites me and casts me out!". No! As I said, if it is true and I thus have an eternal soul that can only know different states of being and no annihilation, then my eternity will be spent, first in frustration and hatred then insanity for all eternity...Really something to look forward to, yes?

shukrallah
06-23-2003, 01:40 AM
Worth the chance (or risk rather)? Here's where my defiance comes in, because I refuse to automatically tug tail in the face of the revelation of God's truth, I'm not gonna go "Oh, it's all true!? I'd better save my sorry self, cower down before God in fear lest he smites me and casts me out!". No! As I said, if it is true and I thus have an eternal soul that can only know different states of being and no annihilation, then my eternity will be spent, first in frustration and hatred then insanity for all eternity...Really something to look forward to, yes?

i can understand it... i was the same way... but i changed...


Earthquakes do little to change geologic strata beyond the occasional landslide (the law of original horizontality). When this happens it is very apparent. Faults are also easily identified and the original strata can be traced beyond faults. In fact, earthquakes are often helpful when dating strata by creating the fault and exposing strata.


sounds familar....

But then, one can also say the same (not being around back then) about creation mythology. Note that I did not say religious beliefs in general, but rather the mythos of creation. Even the vatican recognizes evolution as the most probable explanation of life on our planet.


true... the vatican... its late at night, and i just got through some stuff sort of unpleasent, im not really thinking straight. im talking about christians, and if thats a certain denomination of christianity, cathlic im thinking... but im really tired.. they are not really "christians"

actually, i got a little pamphlet today in church about it, and im reading it now.... but from reading the 1st pages... it doesnt sound like "true born again" christianity, in fact its far from what the bible teaches, and heh, this was kind of amazing, but they worship false gods, sort of uknowingly, only the high up guys know of it... like baal, and things like that... right from birth they are sort of exposed to demonic powers... i wont gety into it..lol

SkinWalker
06-23-2003, 04:16 AM
Going into the ritual practices of any of the religious organizations (I'm inclined to type 'cult,' since this is the literal definition, however I realize that it offends some people's sensibilities) is really getting of base of the topic "Evolution vs. Creation Myths / Other Scientific Theories."

From an anthropological view, catholism is the 'base' cult of all christianity that is considered contemporary. Even the baptist faith is a descendent. One thing that I find interesting is that most fundamentalist cults (Hare Krishna, Jehova's Witness, Amway, Heaven's Gate, Potter's House, etc.) tend to create negative stories about their competition. For instance, pamphlets printed & distributed, faith studies, class lectures, etc. This information is usually degrading and will typically demonstrate how "evil" or wrong the other cults are. The idea is to create a visual picture in the follower's head and "sell" them on the wrongness of other cults.

Very much the same thing occurs in the debates that go on about science and fundamentalist christian/islamic views (but primarily christian). Fundamentalists seem to consider science/evolution as a cult, so it very often gets treated the same way as other cults in the disinformation campaigns. In both cases, outright lies and certainly out-of-context information is used to create false information.

Next, I suggest considering the way people learn to believe. There is considerable evidence that points to cognitive development as the root of religious thought. People generally find it easy to believe. Many beliefs would vanish if people would apply commonsense principles of mental management like the following:


Only allow clear and precise thoughts to enter your mind.
Only allow consistent thoughts.
Consider the evidence for a claim before accepting it.
Only consider refutable claims.


People believe,because they fail to (or forget to, have no time to, are unwilling to, or just cannot) censure ill-formed or poorly justified thoughts.

shukrallah
06-23-2003, 11:58 PM
i get what you say pretty much...

in fact i was reading more about catholics, ok, really fast, cause in shool they just say christian, and when they say that, it could mean catholic, or true christian...

well, the settlers who came over werent they roman catholic? i was reading i found that they burned people, for religious beliefs stuff like that, and they committed the crimes in the name of 'god' that c'jais was talking about in earlier dscussions... so were they?

if so, then that clears christianity, they dont even worship the same god! yeah, but after doing research they dont, in fact it all comes from babylon, and even the egyptians got there 'gods' from babylon, im sure youve heard of baal, hes mentioned a lot in the bible.... ok, so this was off topic, but somewhere you guys were talking about something and christians burning people, well, it wasnt true christians, it was people who think they are christians. You see, the higher up guys know about all of this, but the ordinary people dont... they think they are worshiping God, but really they are going against the bible, just something to think about.


People believe,because they fail to (or forget to, have no time to, are unwilling to, or just cannot) censure ill-formed or poorly justified thoughts.


it depends, im pretty much an A, B sometimes C student, i pass even though i dont believe or i disagree with what they say... i dont listen sometimes, and im amazed i pass... the reason i dont know half of this stuff, is cause ive jsut finished 9th grade abotu a week ago... (dont know if you knew) heh, one time i was talking about this, and someone found out my age... well, it was pretty funny, lol.

everything changes when you become a christian... yes i know, many religious teachers lie... but there are some that teach it right... (yes ive been studying the catholic church) and ive found, just about all of there stuff is a lie... a bad lie.. ok... so if a catholic comes along ill have to explain this. And ive been studying islam, and ive learned a thing or 2 about that, and it also turns out to be lies.... (of coarse, you believe that all religion is a lie)

if you really research this stuff, christianity "TRUE christianity" is the only religion that doesnt have any flaws... (like, being able to trace God to any other religions) or just contradictions, when you find one, its not a contradiction, cause it all works out...

yeah ok, the old and new testaments may collide, but thats cause everything changed... it was better. And new rules were set up, think of the old testament, as a book of wisdom, and a history of isreal, and the new the current 'law' or way to live, i hope that makes sence...


-lukeskywalker1

El Sitherino
06-25-2003, 01:28 AM
you ever hear of vlad the impaler? he was a priest and a king. you may know him better as count dracula. his stories of killing people and staking them weren't just for blood lust but because he and many other priests believed those that were not pure should be killed and cast to hell. sure he eventually went against the church but that was much later after he stopped killing in name of Romania.

SkinWalker
06-25-2003, 01:25 PM
Guys! This is an "Evolution / Creation" thread, not a nit-pick religion thread. If you can't show a correlation with evolution, leave it out...

I'd like to answer, or attempt to answer, more creationists issues with the idea of religion. Or perhaps attempt to convince some that evolution and christianity can co-exist without invoking creation mythology. The fact remains, the Pope and the Vatican have publically supported evolution (though they regard it as god's tool). The fact is, whether you choose to accept it or not, that catholism is a type of christianity. To millions of catholics it is THE sect of christianity. They worship one god, believe in the trinity, that jesus/god died for our sins, yada, yada, yada....

Many, even non-catholics, consider the Vatican to be an authority on christianity. This is important for evolutionists because it defines most of catholism as non-fundamentalist in the sense that most of the creation mythology is rejected or at least regarded with skeptism. I think that the first denomination of christianity to embrace skeptism and scientific method as "tools of god" for man, will begin to show progress and a willingness to keep up with man's evolution as a species and the evolution of intellect.

The fundamentalist religions that reject change, progress and evolution (of ideas as well as life) will slowly fall by the wayside. Even now, their survival depends upon evangelicalism and revivalism... two very misunderstood by fundamentalists and secularists alike.

Evolution...

Not: Christians are evil because.....

I'm not trying to point anyone out, but if your name starts with Insane and ends with Sith, it might apply :D

C'jais
06-25-2003, 08:11 PM
Well said, Skin. One must not forget that Catholocism is one of the largest, if not THE largest, sect of Christianity. What the pope has said about evolution is a grand attempt of staying up-to-date. I really do applaud him for this (though his fouls with condoms is starting to make up for it).

It's really funny how much space and attention extremist Christians and their ultraconservative, flaky phantom theories get. Maybe you're not going to believe it, but where I live, the creationist theory is regarded as comical relief from diehard fanatics who don't know any better, and definately shouldn't get a say in politics. People who believe in that stuff really shouldn't expect to be taken seriously at all, and in fact, very few people know of this - except when [i]Teenage[i] magazines decides to make an article about it to ridicule it.

Then, a leading science magazine such as Scientific American publishes an article to assist in "defending" evolutionary facts, and I start to wonder.

I wonder why USA, the most technologically advanced nation and one of the founders of modern democracy, is "allowing" weird religious mythos in schools and their zealous inventors in public media and politics. Strange, bizarre - perhaps a harsh reaction to modern times?

shukrallah
06-26-2003, 12:42 AM
hmmm... so your saying why do they allow religion in schools c'jais? well, they dont... you can talk about it, but you cant teach it, thats illegal, ever hear of seperation of church and state...

Catholics are not christians! simple, they may appear to be, but htye dont worship God, nor follow the bible, sure they have it open durin church service, but they arent following it... in fact, they are directly disobeying it... thats why, i could care less what the pope says, cause, hes not a christian... he just appears to be a christian. They really follow Baal. All along, i thought they just did a few things different then normal christians... but they do everything different, so much different that they disobey the bible.... like 4 example, the 7 sacrements, if you can acheive those, then youll go to heaven, wrong, the bible never says, you have to acheive 7 sacrements (is acheive the right word?) it says, the only way to the Father is through the Son, so it means, follow christ, and youll get to heaven (of coarse theres more to it than that but.. you get what i mean) Look, the catholic church is a cult! they dont worship God, so if they say evolution is correct, no christian should care, cause they arent christians, they are considered christians. All the people who go there dont know this, its the part thats never talked about till you get high up. Right from birth the people aree exposed to demonic influence. They dont know it, but if they would look in the bible, they would c that everything in the church is wrong... i didnt know it was this bad till i started reading on it... i read a little pamphlet called ARE ROMAN CATHOLICS CHRISTIANS, and the answere is no.

And yes, this is still on the topic, cause im just saying, the pope doesnt matter to any christians when he says evolution was used by God or whatever, cause he doesnt worship God. Man, the some of the past popes claim to be God! Do i need to go further to prove catholism isnt christianity? ITS ALL A LIE!!! Man, they worship symbols, such as the monstrance, which was made by the egyptains, who called it Osiris... be4 popes called it Jesus

Sorry that waas long but... had to get my point accross...

you ever hear of vlad the impaler? he was a priest and a king. you may know him better as count dracula. his stories of killing people and staking them weren't just for blood lust but because he and many other priests believed those that were not pure should be killed and cast to hell. sure he eventually went against the church but that was much later after he stopped killing in name of Romania.

interesting, but just cause there a preist doesnt mean there a christian.... in fact, catholics put people on stakes and burned them.. you see, you know the last supper... be4 christ was crucified, well, christians do something the same way, but its in remembrance of him (like the bible says) you know that thing where he says this is my body, this is my blood (and it was symbolic, it wasnt really his blood and his body) well, the catholics do some thing and then do this and that, then all of a sudden christ 'becomes' that little peice of bread, or whatever they use, and a long time ago, if anyone said it wasnt really God, then they would put them on a stake and burn them, and do other ways of tourture... just cause they said it was a symbol... you understand... another way, that catholics arent christians, and another reason why, i dont need to listen to what the pope says. He knows this is true, as do the preists

-lukeskywalker1

SkinWalker
06-26-2003, 03:23 AM
Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
Catholics are not christians!

I can only say that you are absolutely wrong in this case. As an anthropology student, I've made some careful study of various religions of the world and I can tell you that the assumptions that you make in that post are without meritt. Each is invalid.

I've attended catholic mass (among other gatherings of other religions) and I can tell you first hand that what is discussed is VERY much like a baptist church service or any of the other protestant sects. There are some very obvious differences, particularly in ritual, but the content is roughly the same. Latin is occasionally used, but then English wasn't the bible's original language either. The priest spoke of Jesus, god and the trinity and of being baptised and belief in christ, god and the trinity, etc.

The only real difference in protestant and catholic religion is being "saved."

You also have to understand the history of protestantism... it came about when the King of England wanted to divorce his wife. The church (a.k.a. Rome) wouldn't allow it, so the King (being of divine province) created his own religion and called it the Church of England. That began the many splits and separations that christianity experienced over several hundred years and thus we have a gizillion denominations of 'christianity.'

So you see, this is all a bunch of hogwash (or, more accurately, brainwash) that you are getting from your own cult group about another. From a secular or even atheist point of view, catholism is the more valid form of christianity.

Personally, I could give a crap. My concern is the 'dumbing' of my country, which I cover in the next post... hopefully, this ends the "my version of christianity is the right version and all others are devil worship" argument....

If posts from here on out are related to evolution -v- creation, heavy editing/deletion might be needed.... :cool:

Darn... I might actually have to moderate!

SkinWalker
06-26-2003, 03:52 AM
Originally posted by C'jais
I wonder why USA, the most technologically advanced nation and one of the founders of modern democracy, is "allowing" weird religious mythos in schools and their zealous inventors in public media and politics. Strange, bizarre - perhaps a harsh reaction to modern times?

This is one of the reasons why I persist in debates about creation -v- evolution.

The root of the problem is actually in the successes of my nation. As a country, we have made wonderful technological advancements and progressed in ways that most nations of the world are now struggling to achieve. Part of this success was due to the opportunity that awaited those who immigrated in the 18th and 19th centuries and were able to rise above their 'station in life.'

One did not have to be born of an aristocracy in order to achieve success, one needed only to have the desire to succeed and a motivation plus an idea.... innovation was the driving force. Innovations in industry, manufacturing, consumerism, etc. were fed by new inventions and progress in transportation and communication.

The computer was the final innovation, in my opinion. We have reached a point that we are used to our 'station in life.' Kids are born with everything they need... vcrs, televisions, playstations, stereos, cars when they're 16, the newest and most expensive clothes, sneakers endorsed by Michael Jordan, and generally just the 'good life.'

Why learn the difficult subjects in school? Science won't buy that new car... in fact, the fast track is business and sports. No science is needed. No calculus (basic arithmetic is best for accounting and keeping the books and none needed for executing a play on the football field), no chemistry, no physics. Why get bad grades for nothing....

Truancy in the United States is at an all time high. Juvenile crime is skyrocketing.....

Our nation now has to import our scientists, engineers and physicians. Universities can't fill their rolls with American students, so student visas to Asian, Near Eastern, and Middle Eastern countries is on the rise.

Consequently, fundementalist religions are gaining a foothold with Americans again through revivalization movements. The idea of prayer in school has gained momentum and arguments against teaching evolution (which is one of the most contrary ideas to the tenents of fudamentalist religions which cling to creation mythology) are cropping up more and more. Just two years ago, there was a big stink over it in Kansas, a state where there is a huge population of fundamental christians.

Our country is becoming 'dumb.' In the 50's and 60's, every kid wanted to learn about science, since this is what was sending us to the Moon and that's what Kennedy promised. It was prevalent in nearly every aspect of contemporary culture of the time and it's remnants can be seen by driving across the country and looking at old signs and markers for things like the Satellite Inn (a motel), the Star Cinema (movie theater/cinema) whose marquee was shaped like a rocketship, and a multitude of other commercial establishments that survived the era.

People should be free to pursue their own belief systems, but they should also be free to question authority. Especially if that authority is cautioning against knowledge, understanding, and ideas that are contrary to their own. That applies to government or religious authority.

Certainly science has "authority," but it is important to note that it is primarily an egalitarian one. Religion and politics rarely are. This means that one is free to question the doctrines of science. In fact, one is encouraged to question, scrutinize, debate, or rebuke any aspect of science that they can prove othewise. Polititians find this difficult to accept and religious leaders consider it heresy/blasphemy.

Homuncul
06-26-2003, 06:34 AM
I woship this post :p

And I'm crying because I'm happy, at least there are people in this world who understand these things :rolleyes:

But then I... :o Z-z-z-Z-z-z

shukrallah
06-27-2003, 12:58 AM
There are some very obvious differences, particularly in ritual, but the content is roughly the same. Latin is occasionally used, but then English wasn't the bible's original language either. The priest spoke of Jesus, god and the trinity and of being baptised and belief in christ, god and the trinity, etc.

ill just say this, there not the same god christ or trinity... its completly different... id go into it, but its really long, i tried to make it short, and i guess i messed it up... who cares what its considered... it is what it is.

So you see, this is all a bunch of hogwash (or, more accurately, brainwash) that you are getting from your own cult group about another.

k, so one more thing on that subject... my group, or cult as you call it, didnt tell me any of this, ive been researching it, i believed all of this b4 i started going to church... and still do.

The computer was the final innovation, in my opinion. We have reached a point that we are used to our 'station in life.' Kids are born with everything they need... vcrs, televisions, playstations, stereos, cars when they're 16, the newest and most expensive clothes, sneakers endorsed by Michael Jordan, and generally just the 'good life.'

heh, most of that is made overseas, like japan places like that. Well, some is made by americans overseas because of cheaper prices....

SkinWalker
07-03-2003, 04:32 AM
Here's a Native American creation myth from the Iroquis Nation.... I thought it interesting, since we've only presented two views: Scientific and Christian.

Iroquois Creation Myth

Long before the world was created there was an island, floating in the sky, upon which the Sky People lived. They lived quietly and happily. No one ever died or was born or experienced sadness. However one day one of the Sky Women realized she was going to give birth to twins. She told her husband, who flew into a rage. In the center of the island there was a tree which gave light to the entire island since the sun hadn't been created yet. He tore up this tree, creating a huge hole in the middle of the island. Curiously, the woman peered into the hole. Far below she could see the waters that covered the earth. At that moment her husband pushed her. She fell through the hole, tumbling towards the waters below.

Water animals already existed on the earth, so far below the floating island two birds saw the Sky Woman fall. Just before she reached the waters they caught her on their backs and brought her to the other animals. Determined to help the woman they dove into the water to get mud from the bottom of the seas. One after another the animals tried and failed. Finally, Little Toad tried and when he reappeared his mouth was full of mud. The animals took it and spread it on the back of Big Turtle. The mud began to grow and grow and grow until it became the size of North America.

Then the woman stepped onto the land. She sprinkled dust into the air and created stars. Then she created the moon and sun.
The Sky Woman gave birth to twin sons. She named one Sapling. He grew to be kind and gentle. She named the other Flint and his heart was as cold as his name. They grew quickly and began filling the earth with their creations.

Sapling created what is good. He made animals that are useful to humans. He made rivers that went two ways and into these he put fish without bones. He made plants that people could eat easily. If he was able to do all the work himself there would be no suffering.

Flint destroyed much of Sapling's work and created all that is bad. He made the rivers flow only in one direction. He put bones in fish and thorns on berry bushes. He created winter, but Sapling gave it life so that it could move to give way to Spring. He created monsters which his brother drove beneath the Earth.

Eventually Sapling and Flint decided to fight till one conquered the other. Neither was able to win at first, but finally Flint was beaten. Because he was a god Flint could not die, so he was forced to live on Big Turtle's back. Occasionally his anger is felt in the form of a volcano.

The Iroquois people hold a great respect for all animals. This is mirrored in their creation myth by the role the animals play. Without the animals' help the Sky Woman may have sunk to the bottom of the sea and earth may not have been created.