Rubiduim used in a geochronometer makes the earth 4.55 billion years old. Apparently the half life of Rubidium isn't known for sure, so how one can measure something with a "ruler" of unknown length I don't know.
I wonder where the old God from the Bible went. He was something to believe in! Phophets of Baal? Kill them all! Egyptians? Wipe 'em out! Numerous tribes living in the wrong place - massive slaughter! Ethiopians attack - 1 million killed!
OK, so you had no idea how to please God as His temper made him like a psychotic off medication but He was certainly there!
Then after an interlude of something like 450 years we then get the "flower power" attack where apart from some people cured of a disease and some wine God has run out of steam. Insults that would have meant the purpetrator was the centre of a vitrified crater are now forgiven.
Personally I think God got married. Suddenly it all becomes clear - the teenager has grown up and has settled down. 450 years off whilst the newly weds got settled in, and then He's Mr Respectable.
:focus:
Death as a way of advancement? Oh, so that's why Christians have killed so many people - they're helping them! Obvious really...
Yeah, Creationism came first, and was found to be marred with errors and unworkable. Eventually the Christians realised they couldn't kill everyone that disagreed with them (nor for want of trying!), so they backed off and regrouped.
Then the breakthrough - intelligent design!
Propaganda - what propaganda? You yourself seem to agree that survival of the fittest takes place. So, considering that that is a key part of evolution, what part are you not so keen on?
~:smoking:
06-16-2006, 19:34
crossroad
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Martyr, I had no idea you were a Pastafarian.
Crossroads, I'm curious -- if you accept that evolution occurs on the micro-level, what leads you to believe that the same rules to not apply to more complex organisms?
I used the word micro for your benefit, in reference to adaptation. The fossil record is void of evidence of one species evolving into another.
06-16-2006, 19:38
rory_20_uk
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by crossroad
The fossil record is void of evidence of one species evolving into another.
That again is based on faith. To be able to use a few bones to detect the nuances of evolution is going to be extremely difficult.
New species can be created by scientists, so we don't need to go far to show that it does happen.
~:smoking:
06-16-2006, 19:43
Lemur
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by crossroad
I used the word micro for your benefit, in reference to adaptation.
Not quite sure I follow your distinction. Evolution is demonstrable among bacteria and viruses. If it were not, a lot of drug makers would be out of business, and microbiology would be a very boring field indeed.
Are you drawing a distinction between adaptation and evolution? I would like to follow your reasoning, but you may need to connect some dots for a lemur ...
06-16-2006, 19:50
crossroad
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
So you need evidence to believe something then. So what evidence do you have that:
1 God exists.
2 That God greated the universe.
3 That evolution is a myth.
1 The Universe. Jesus Christ. The Bible. The improbiblity of a human eye evolving... to mention a few.
2 Read the first post.
3 Fossil record, geochronometers, huge holes in the theory... to mention a few.
06-16-2006, 19:55
crossroad
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by yesdachi
There is a nice line in the bible that says “The righteous will live by faith.” Anyone trying to prove gods existence is going against gods will? No?
Actually, that verse is pointing out that you cannot work your way into God's favor.
06-16-2006, 19:57
doc_bean
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by crossroad
Actually, that's survival of the fittest, the natural progression of nature. Some species go extinct. Are you saying death is a way of advancement? Strange concept unless you are a Christian. But we can save that debate for another Thread.
So all creatures that live and have ever lived have been created and some creatures go extinct, so in the end there will only be one creature left ? Or just a few ? Now, does that mean there were humans when there were dinosaurs ? because that seems to be what you're implying here....
Quote:
Actually, evolution is a reaction to creation,
Not really, evolution was a progression of scientific theory at the time, creation wasn't really taken into account. That's like saying the 'round earth' theory is a reaction to the flat earth belief. It isn't, one was a belief, not based on evidence, the other is a scientific theory, based on observation.
Quote:
which obviously was the first belief. The Bible came before Origin of the Species. Have you looked up the word Theory? Theory does not mean Proven Fact.
No a scientific theory is a (mathematical) model of observed facts, based on extrapolation of certain observation a theory is formed to predict future observations. The theory that best predicts observations is considered the best, and if it's really good it can be accepted as truth (see gravity).
Quote:
Go back and read the beginning of this thread. I simply said I was a creationist. It is I who am having to defend myself by the onslot of evolution propaganda. Look up geochronometer. The majority of them suggest a young earth.
You're defending yourself, or trying to, by attacking the opposing theory, it doesn't work that way. you have to prove why your theory is good or better, not (just) by pointing out the faults in the other theory but by providing solutions to the existing problems or even unexplained phenomena. Creationism has more holes than evolution, which we will gladly point out (and can) because we're protecting the established scientific theory. A new theory has little to no use if it doesn't at least explain everything the previous one could.
BTW if God could create the universe how he wanted, why wouldn't he have done it through evolution ? Can you accept the *possibility* of God AND evolution ?
06-16-2006, 20:01
crossroad
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
If there's no support, then there's no reason to warrant a conclusion. Creation may have happened as described, but until I'm shown the logic behind it, I have no justification to that belief. I also have no proof of many other things, and no disproof, and I wonder why one would believe one reasonless conclusion above all the others and w/o all the others.
The two basic thoughts here are, either, everything came from nothing, or everything came from something. (I know some are going to go crazy with that one) But, if you narrow it down, that is what you have. It is cause and effect at the core, as evolution is built on, but evolution does not have a cause for its origin. But the Big Bang is the cause, right? No, the Big Bang is the effect of something. I choose to believe that everything came from Something.
06-16-2006, 20:06
crossroad
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Martyr_
Im not talking about some empty universe that God was sitting around on his own in. Im talking about the birds and the trees, the mountains and lakes and of course, humans. How old are all of these? The Bible indicates an age of about 6000 years. Is this correct do you think?
I think more. But not more than 100,000. 100,000 would really be pushing it.
06-16-2006, 20:10
doc_bean
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by crossroad
The two basic thoughts here are, either, everything came from nothing, or everything came from something. (I know some are going to go crazy with that one) But, if you narrow it down, that is what you have. It is cause and effect at the core, as evolution is built on, but evolution does not have a cause for its origin. But the Big Bang is the cause, right? No, the Big Bang is the effect of something. I choose to believe that everything came from Something.
But what did that Something come from then ?
If you say that Something is God, why not say that something is the universe and it has always been, possible expanding and contracting, forever and ever and ever... ?
06-16-2006, 20:17
Banquo's Ghost
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by crossroad
I think more. But not more than 100,000. 100,000 would really be pushing it.
So you argue the Bible is completely wrong on the age of the earth?
Look, crossroad, I have this book that argues the world is actually flat and rides through space on the back of a turtle. I find it really convincing, because, let's face it, if you look really hard at the horizon in a squinty manner, it's sort of curved like a big turtle shell.
Can you provide logical arguments as to why my book is wrong and yours is right? :inquisitive:
(Martyr, I too have been Touched by His Noodly Appendage and 'tis only through his Sauce that I find the courage to engage in this 'debate')
06-16-2006, 20:18
crossroad
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Rubiduim used in a geochronometer makes the earth 4.55 billion years old. Apparently the half life of Rubidium isn't known for sure, so how one can measure something with a "ruler" of unknown length I don't know.
I wonder where the old God from the Bible went. He was something to believe in! Phophets of Baal? Kill them all! Egyptians? Wipe 'em out! Numerous tribes living in the wrong place - massive slaughter! Ethiopians attack - 1 million killed!
OK, so you had no idea how to please God as His temper made him like a psychotic off medication but He was certainly there!
Then after an interlude of something like 450 years we then get the "flower power" attack where apart from some people cured of a disease and some wine God has run out of steam. Insults that would have meant the purpetrator was the centre of a vitrified crater are now forgiven.
Personally I think God got married. Suddenly it all becomes clear - the teenager has grown up and has settled down. 450 years off whilst the newly weds got settled in, and then He's Mr Respectable.:
I'm going to ask Him about all that. Seriously, He created them, He can do whatever the heck He wants with them. Weak arguement, I know, but you have to consider that He is a God with a plan.
:focus:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Death as a way of advancement? Oh, so that's why Christians have killed so many people - they're helping them! Obvious really...:
The bible clearly states what a Christian is. And a murder is not one. Because Hitler called himself superior, did that make his so?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Yeah, Creationism came first, and was found to be marred with errors and unworkable. Eventually the Christians realised they couldn't kill everyone that disagreed with them (nor for want of trying!), so they backed off and regrouped.:
You really don't know what it means to be Christian, do you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Propaganda - what propaganda? You yourself seem to agree that survival of the fittest takes place. So, considering that that is a key part of evolution, what part are you not so keen on?
I just love repeating myself over and over. A species does not change into another species.
06-16-2006, 20:21
crossroad
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
That again is based on faith. To be able to use a few bones to detect the nuances of evolution is going to be extremely difficult.
New species can be created by scientists, so we don't need to go far to show that it does happen.
~:smoking:
Ahh, so you're saying species need the help of a scientist to make it happen. So it does not happen on its own...
06-16-2006, 20:27
crossroad
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Not quite sure I follow your distinction. Evolution is demonstrable among bacteria and viruses. If it were not, a lot of drug makers would be out of business, and microbiology would be a very boring field indeed.
Are you drawing a distinction between adaptation and evolution? I would like to follow your reasoning, but you may need to connect some dots for a lemur ...
Yes, I am drawing a distinction. Viruses and bacteria adapt, but they will and forever shall be viruses and bacteria. I'll say again. A species will not evolve into another species.
It just accured to me that God could make evolution start happening if He wants to, but it has not happened in the past.
06-16-2006, 20:34
crossroad
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
But what did that Something come from then ?
If you say that Something is God, why not say that something is the universe and it has always been, possible expanding and contracting, forever and ever and ever... ?
Are you kidding me? You're trying to impose God-like characters on the Universe. :juggle2:
06-16-2006, 20:39
Lemur
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by crossroad
Viruses and bacteria adapt, but they will and forever shall be viruses and bacteria.
What is the cause of viral "adaptation"? Is it caused by selective breeding, or by another mechanism?
06-16-2006, 20:40
doc_bean
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by crossroad
Are you kidding me? You're trying to impose God-like characters on the Universe. :juggle2:
Why wouldn't I ? How is your theory of a God better than mine of an Eternal universe ?
Seriously, i can see the universe, or at least part of, God has yet to reveal Himself...
06-16-2006, 20:45
_Martyr_
Re: Creation vs Evolution
I point you towards the Vostok or EPICA ice cores which can be dated to 420,000 and 720,000 years respectively. These cores are many km long, having been drilled vertically downward into the ice caps. When the cores are examined, the snowfall of each year can be chemically and otherwise examined, and then by adding up the number of anual layers, we get the age of the oldest layer. How do you explain this? Snow that fell 620,000 years before the earth was formed?
Also, if the Bible implies that the world is 6000 years old, why do you as a Creationist claim it is 100,000 years old? Surely the Bible knows best in this matter? Or is it aligorical?
Also, explain sedamentary rock, the existence of fossils in general, fossil fuels which came from once living organisms, pretty much the entire area of radiometric dating (explain Pb/Pb isochron age of the earth as about 4.55 (+- 1%) billion years for instance...), the common age of the rest of the solar system, I could go on and on...
06-16-2006, 20:45
crossroad
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
So you argue the Bible is completely wrong on the age of the earth?
Can you provide logical arguments as to why my book is wrong and yours is right?
Oh, right, I forgot that on page 72 of the Bible, it says the age of the earth is exactly...:wall: No, the Bible never says. The truth is, we really don't know. How old was Adam, the day after he was created? One day? Thirty? If a doctor examined him how old would he appear?
The truth is, I don't know how old the Universe is. It could appear to be billions of years old, and may only have existed for 6,000 years.
God can do what He wants.
06-16-2006, 20:46
Ronin
Re: Creation vs Evolution
not this damn discussion again.....
It´s evolution baby!.....case closed....
but....better than any argument I can present......here are my views on creationism, spoken by a true poet....
P.S. - warning - a couple of F* bombs in there......but the truth shines through none the less...:P
06-16-2006, 20:46
Duke of Gloucester
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
New species can be created by scientists, so we don't need to go far to show that it does happen.
Interesting. Examples please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
So if I'm understanding your reasoning correctly, what is the cause of "adaptation"? Is it caused by selective breeding, or by another mechanism?
Evidence for adaptation is strong, especially for bacteria and viruses, but you can't claim that this alone is strong support for the theory of evolution. A weakness in the evidence base is that, as far as I know, there is no actual direct evidence to demonstrate one species changing in to another. That is why I am interested in Rory's claim, because this would bolster the evidence for the theory of evolution.
06-16-2006, 20:48
Duke of Gloucester
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
It´s evolution baby!.....case closed....
As unscientific a statement as any made by a creationist. In science, the case is never closed.
06-16-2006, 20:52
Lemur
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester
Evidence for adaptation is strong, especially for bacteria and viruses, but you can't claim that this alone is strong support for the theory of evolution.
Once again we have the distinction between adaptation and evolution. I ask again, what is the mechanism for adaptation? If you do not agree that selective breeding is the cause, what is your proposal? This is a straightforward question.
06-16-2006, 20:53
crossroad
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
Why wouldn't I ? How is your theory of a God better than mine of an Eternal universe ?
Seriously, i can see the universe, or at least part of, God has yet to reveal Himself...
I think you may be on to something doc. One more step and you may see what I see! And, if you look in the right places, maybe God will reveal Himself to you.
06-16-2006, 20:58
KafirChobee
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by crossroad
Actually, that's survival of the fittest, the natural progression of nature. Some species go extinct. Are you saying death is a way of advancement? Strange concept unless you are a Christian. But we can save that debate for another Thread.
Actually, evolution is a reaction to creation, which obviously was the first belief. The Bible came before Origin of the Species. Have you looked up the word Theory? Theory does not mean Proven Fact.
Go back and read the beginning of this thread. I simply said I was a creationist. It is I who am having to defend myself by the onslot of evolution propaganda. Look up geochronometer. The majority of them suggest a young earth.
CROSSROAD, first you use an evolutionary concept - "survival of the fittest". The primary theory expounded by Darwin; that and natural selection.
Second, you attempt to claim that evolutionists are re-acting to creationism. In fact, if you knew anything about Darwin as a man, you would know that he was a very devote Christian. That his observations, studies, and ultimate theories bothered him - however, he adjusted his faith to the realization that no man can fully know, comprehend, or understand the workings of God - or why he allowed evolution to progress beyond the dinasours.
Then you come to the time or measure of earth's, nay the universes existance. First you said it might be 60billion years, but once someone pointed out that the creationists believe it is 6,000 years you back it down to maybe 100,000.
A young earth? Well, if 3billion years is young - yes. It is younger than the universe.
I hold in part, with Doc Bean though. However for me a true Christian has no difficulty resolving evolution with their beliefs. Where as one that is in doubt feels it imparative to justify that the bible be taken verbatim - attempting to deny that God is wiser than they are.
BTW, which God? The old one or the new one?
*edited for spelling and some grammar - some.
06-16-2006, 21:00
Ronin
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester
As unscientific a statement as any made by a creationist. In science, the case is never closed.
fine....show up with another explanation with some evidence behind it and I´ll look at it.
some old book that we don´t even know when, why, and who wrote is not what i´d call "proof" of anything.
06-16-2006, 21:02
crossroad
Re: Creation vs Evolution
BTW, thank you for playing this game with me. I'm trying to answer all posts necessary, between work, home, family. I hope I do not sound abrasive in any of my posts, so please do not take offense.:shame:
Happy posting!:2thumbsup:
06-16-2006, 21:18
Lemur
Re: Creation vs Evolution
It's our pleasure, Crossroads, and you're being a very good sport.
Why is it always creationists, though? Why can't we get a Flat Earther or a Geocentrist in here sometime?
06-16-2006, 21:24
Duke of Gloucester
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Once again we have the distinction between adaptation and evolution. I ask again, what is the mechanism for adaptation? If you do not agree that selective breeding is the cause, what is your proposal? This is a straightforward question.
Well I go along with Darwin and say it is the "survival of the fittest". Btw selective breeding is not the answer because that is artificial selection. Natural selection says that, especially in difficult times, those orgamisms of a population best adapted to survive do so, reproduce and pass those advantageous traits to their offspring. Add in the possibility of the introduction of random traits which can also be passed on and we can see how organisms remain adapted to a changing environment (or not and become extinct). Where I disagree with you is when you say that because we see this process, evolution must be true.
As I said before, there is no evidence of one species changing into another (unless Rory provides me with some) but Darwin's theory does provide a plausible explanation of how that might happen. It is not just plausible, it is elegant and powerful, since if it is accepted, organisms must be adapted to their environment and traits must be useful, so in studying an organism you ask of every trait "what is this for?" "how does it help this orgamism reproduce?"
This is why I don't like Ronin's "case closed" statement. It's not that I think that the Theory of Evolution is wrong; I like it, and it is the best explanation we have at present, but in science, the jury is always popping in and out and revising its verdict as new evidence is discovered. It's one of the things that makes science interesting.
Quote:
some old book that we don´t even know when, why, and who wrote is not what i´d call "proof" of anything.
Today 20:58
It is not appropriate to talk about "proof" when discussing evolution, only the balance of probabilities. Any creationist with intellectual rigour would have to accept the weight of scientific evidence is against the bible account of creation (strictly speaking against either of the bible's two acounts of creation), but they are still free to believe it if they wish. Personally, I don't think the bible is a science text-book.
06-16-2006, 21:37
Lemur
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester
Well I go along with Darwin and say it is the "survival of the fittest".
Actually, Darwin never said that; the phrase came from Herbert Spencer.
You are quite right, however, in that "natural selection" is a much more correct description of the process than "selective breeding." Mea culpa.
All I am attempting to establish is whether or not selective breeding is the mechanism we observe when "adaptation" occurs in microbiology. If it is not, what is the mechanism. You're getting a lot of mileage by arguing about whether or not this "proves" evolution, a step I have deliberately not taken.
06-16-2006, 21:54
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Re: Creation vs Evolution
I'll just jump in here, I'm not an evelutionary biolagist but this occurs to me. The basic genes contained in all animals are the same. The same gene governs your arm and a fly's wing. That surely is compelling evidence of a common ancestor.
Now, take a snake for example. The snake has the genes to create legs but it's genome switches the gene off on every vertebrae and they all register a chest cavety with ribs instead but should the switch be flicked back on the snake could have ten legs.
Look at Coyotes and Wolves, virtually the same genetically, they must have a common ancestor, if evolution is true, they look different but genetically the difference is close to nill. So maybe in looking at the record you need to fuzz the definition of species to see the crossover.
06-16-2006, 22:13
Tribesman
Re: Creation vs Evolution
The bible clearly states what a Christian is. And a murder is not one
Don'tya jusrt love confronting some feckwit who claims shite from the bible , yet who has probably not read or understoodfeical from the bible .
So come on crossroads , you want to talk biblical shite ,lets get real old testament , as in answering genesis and book of Genesis , throw in book of Enoch and any other faith based thoughts you might have, been through it all before and it don't amount to a pile of beans .
Now young man , would you care to reference the passage from the bible where it says murder is OK ? or are we talking King Panzer vs Type XXII
Two butterfly species have been bred in the lab to make a third distinct species, the journal Nature reports.
In a species, individuals need to be capable of interbreeding to produce fertile offspring.
The study demonstrates that two animal species can evolve to form one, instead of the more common scenario where one species diverges to form two.
The process has been likened to building a new bike from a pair of second-hand ones.
The Heliconius heurippa butterfly appears to be the product of a process called hybrid speciation.
Most species are thought to form when groups of organisms gradually diverge from one another over successive generations.
But these distinctive red and yellow butterflies seem to be the product of two existing varieties.
Genetic mismatch
Hybrid speciation is thought to be rare or absent in animals where, it has been argued, hybrid offspring would be less likely to survive and breed than the parent species.
This is because genes from different species are sometimes "incompatible".
A well known example is the mule - a sterile hybrid between the donkey and the horse. It is useful for carrying heavy loads but is a reproductive dead-end.
A team of researchers from Panama, Colombia and the UK managed to recreate Heliconius heurippa in the laboratory by crossing two other species of butterfly; Heliconius cydno and Heliconius melpomene.
"The fact we've recreated this species in the lab provides a pretty convincing route by which the natural species came about," co-author Chris Jiggins, of the University of Edinburgh, told BBC News.
Jesus Mavarez, another author from the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama, explained: "We found that a wing pattern almost identical to that of the hybrid can be obtained in months - just three generations of lab crosses between H. cydno and H. melpomene.
Wing patterns
"Moreover, natural hybrids from San Cristobal, Venezuela, show wing patterns very similar to H. heurippa, further supporting the idea of a hybrid origin for this species."
In addition, there is growing circumstantial evidence for hybrid speciation in Ragoletis fruit flies, swordtail fish and African cichlid fish.
Some also suspect the American red wolf could be the product of hybridisation between coyotes and wolves.
Colour patterns on the wings of the butterflies may be crucial in forming new species, because they serve as mating cues. These butterflies are extremely choosey about finding mates with their own, species-specific wing pattern.
The wing patterns of H. heurippa individuals make them undesirable as mates for members of their parent species, but attractive to each other - reinforcing patterns of mating that lead to a new species.
These species-specific patterns are also crucial in deterring predators. The butterflies produce toxins when eaten and predators learn to recognise and avoid a specific wing pattern.
This is so finely tuned that butterflies with even slight deviations in colour pattern suffer from higher predation.
~:smoking:
06-16-2006, 22:24
Tribesman
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Actually, that's survival of the fittest, the natural progression of nature.
Well bugger me sideways with a yardbrush and call me Sandra , crossroads understands evolution:dizzy2:
06-16-2006, 22:29
Duke of Gloucester
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
All I am attempting to establish is whether or not selective breeding is the mechanism we observe when "adaptation" occurs in microbiology. If it is not, what is the mechanism. You're getting a lot of mileage by arguing about whether or not this "proves" evolution, a step I have deliberately not taken.
True, but others have.
Quote:
I'll just jump in here, I'm not an evelutionary biolagist but this occurs to me. The basic genes contained in all animals are the same. The same gene governs your arm and a fly's wing. That surely is compelling evidence of a common ancestor.
Now, take a snake for example. The snake has the genes to create legs but it's genome switches the gene off on every vertebrae and they all register a chest cavety with ribs instead but should the switch be flicked back on the snake could have ten legs.
Of course this could also be evidence of the same creator, although a common ancestor is a plausible explanation.
Quote:
Look at Coyotes and Wolves, virtually the same genetically, they must have a common ancestor, if evolution is true, they look different but genetically the difference is close to nill. So maybe in looking at the record you need to fuzz the definition of species to see the crossover.
The definition of species is pretty fuzzy in any case. The Cyote/Wolf situation could also be explained by reference to a creator.
06-16-2006, 22:35
Duke of Gloucester
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Thanks, Rory. I would like to see the original article though. The BBC link is not clear and I can't see why this is a new species. Nature probably explains it better.
"Colour patterns on the wings of the butterflies may be crucial in forming new species, because they serve as mating cues. These butterflies are extremely choosey about finding mates with their own, species-specific wing pattern."
This is interesting though, because it suggests that the butterflies know what they look like. Strange.
06-16-2006, 22:44
Kralizec
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by crossroad
Yes, I am drawing a distinction. Viruses and bacteria adapt, but they will and forever shall be viruses and bacteria. I'll say again. A species will not evolve into another species.
You're right, bacteria evolve into different species of bacteria. Next: "until I see a cat turn into a plant right before my eyes, evolution is false" :laugh4:
A real scientific theory is made like this: a scientists observes facts, notes patterns or apparent connections, make an early conclusion, see if this fits with the observed facts and if not, repeat the process until you have a sound theory (one that is not in disagreeance with the facts)
In addition, it must be falsifiable: meaning that by crosschecking the theory with additional facts that may not be known at the time, the theory or some aspects of it could turn out false.
Creationists already knew the conclusion before they started. Of course, a scientist may have a hunch or some idea that he is trying to prove, but if he's a good scientist he will put that aside and formulate patterns and perceived causalities based on all facts he encounters. Not by disregarding facts that don't support, or cherrypicking only facts that support the initial conclusion (as it appears in Genesis, for example)
In addition, creationists themselves are always happy to shed light on its lack of scientific merits by pointing out that the theory is not falsifiable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesus in John 20:29
Jesus saith unto him, Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
Even the Bible puts belief without "having seen" above belief that is based on (percieved) facts. So why don't you? I have no trouble with people who say who say they have faith, but I do have a problem with people who disguise their beliefs as science to further their dogma.
06-16-2006, 22:45
Quietus
Re: Creation vs Evolution
crossroad, take the Leprechaun Test:
Do Leprechauns exist? (how did you know?)
Does God exist? (how did you know?)
What's the difference between God and Leprechauns? :)
06-16-2006, 22:54
_Martyr_
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Leprechauns have red beards and green clothes, whilst God has a white beard and white clothes. They have a lot in common though, I mean for a start, they're both Irish...:laugh4:
06-16-2006, 23:19
crossroad
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
The bible clearly states what a Christian is. And a murder is not one
Don'tya jusrt love confronting some feckwit who claims shite from the bible , yet who has probably not read or understoodfeical from the bible .
So come on crossroads , you want to talk biblical shite ,lets get real old testament , as in answering genesis and book of Genesis , throw in book of Enoch and any other faith based thoughts you might have, been through it all before and it don't amount to a pile of beans .
Now young man , would you care to reference the passage from the bible where it says murder is OK ? or are we talking King Panzer vs Type XXII
Ahh, there is no book of Enoch.:book: :inquisitive:
06-16-2006, 23:21
crossroad
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Actually, that's survival of the fittest, the natural progression of nature.
Well bugger me sideways with a yardbrush and call me Sandra , crossroads understands evolution:dizzy2:
Yes, that is why I am a creationist. :2thumbsup:
06-16-2006, 23:36
crossroad
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
crossroad, take the Leprechaun Test:
Do Leprechauns exist? (how did you know?)
Does God exist? (how did you know?)
What's the difference between God and Leprechauns? :)
So, if I can't see God, or touch God, or hear God, does that mean He does not exist?
Wait a minute... what about Quietus's brain... I can't see it, touch it, hear it, does that mean it does not exist?
BTW, I think Leprechauns went extinct.:laugh4:
06-17-2006, 00:08
Big King Sanctaphrax
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Wait a minute... what about Quietus's brain... I can't see it, touch it, hear it, does that mean it does not exist?
Unless you use a CT scan of course...or crack his skull open.
If you were being serious, that was an absolutely dreadful analogy.
06-17-2006, 00:19
Tribesman
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Ahh, there is no book of Enoch
Typical , someone who claims to follow scriptures teachings but doesn't know scripture .:dizzy2: tyical creationist
You really are stuck at a crossroads aren't you crossroads .:oops:
Now young man , would you care to reference the passage from the bible where it says murder is OK ?
Hmmmmm....is the reply the sound of silence from someone who is pushing scripture but doesn't know scripture ?????
Hey Bubba , its your topic , you bought it up , just like it is bought up every couple of weeks .
So have you any idea what you are on about , or is it just links to numerous sites that have already been shown to be bullshit ?
06-17-2006, 00:26
InsaneApache
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Genesis 5:18-24 [18] Jared lived one hundred and sixty-two years, and begot Enoch. [19] After he begot Enoch, Jared lived eight hundred years, and had sons and daughters. [20] So all the days of Jared were nine hundred and sixty-two years; and he died. [21] Enoch lived sixty-five years, and begot Methuselah. [22] After he begot Methuselah, Enoch walked with God three hundred years, and had sons and daughters. [23] So all the days of Enoch were three hundred and sixty-five years. [24] And Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him.
Bloody hell, So all the days of Jared were nine hundred and sixty-two years, some health system they had in the early bronze age. That's it, I'm gonna sign up to this.
If I lived that long I'd bankrupt uncle Tonys utopia. Now there's a reason to lose my rationale. :laugh4:
06-17-2006, 00:58
Papewaio
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by crossroad
Here is a couple of the difinitions of Religion. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.
Religion: A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
You do realise that using that definition so broadly to imply that evolution is a religion... it would also mean that every 15 year old boy is a zealot of masturbation and that the worlds largest institution of worship would be the surfing of porn...
06-17-2006, 01:12
Papewaio
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by crossroad
The two basic thoughts here are, either, everything came from nothing, or everything came from something. (I know some are going to go crazy with that one) But, if you narrow it down, that is what you have. It is cause and effect at the core, as evolution is built on, but evolution does not have a cause for its origin. But the Big Bang is the cause, right? No, the Big Bang is the effect of something. I choose to believe that everything came from Something.
Evolution is a theory in Biology.
The Big Bang is a snappy name made for media to descride the starting few seconds of our universe... it is part of a theory in Cosmology (Physics).
Gravity is a theory in Physics.
They are all separate theories.
Gravity has a cause for it: Classical version is the mass of objects attract each other. Relativity basically explains it as a warping of space... much like putting a bowling ball onto a trampoline will warp it, if you then place a tennis ball on the trampoline it will follow the warped fabric down to the bowling ball, if you gave the tennis ball a push it could circle the bowling ball... each circle would be an orbit.
Evolution: Is caused by things reproducing imperfectly. Overtime these errors will either kill the mutant (more likely) or give it a subtle advantage. No where in the theory of evolution is the Big Bang the cause of it. Evolution will work regardless of how the universe was started, if it has lasted for infinity or it had different laws of gravity.
In fact evolution may be the only theory that would consistently work across multiverses that have different laws of physics (it may be the only Meta-law so to speak).
Evolution and Gravity are separate theories, just as the Big Bang is too.
If everything came from something you have two sets of problems to solve... where did the something come from,
Quantum Physics:
random nature therefore untraceable cause and effect,
singularities
vacuum created particles (how we see black holes for instance).
06-17-2006, 01:34
Tribesman
Re: Creation vs Evolution
But I don't understand , which is better Igloo or Tapir?
06-17-2006, 04:18
Quietus
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by crossroad
So, if I can't see God, or touch God, or hear God, does that mean He does not exist?
If you have no proof, how can you say/claim God exists?
Quote:
Wait a minute... what about Quietus's brain... I can't see it, touch it, hear it, does that mean it does not exist?
I have 100% proof that my brain exists and yet you're skeptical. You have 0% proof of God and you're not skeptical! :skull:
Quote:
BTW, I think Leprechauns went extinct.:laugh4:
Really? Then you must have a lot of proof (such as, oh let's say, Leprechaun fossils). :laugh4:
"Famous British astrophysicist Stephen Hawking says pope told him not to study beginning of universe"
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
By MIN LEE Associated Press Writer
2006-06-15
HONG KONG (AP) - Famous astrophysicist Stephen Hawking said Thursday that the late Pope John Paul II once told scientists they should not study the beginning of the universe because it was the work of God.
The British author _ who wrote the best-seller "A Brief History of Time" _ said that the pope made the comments at a cosmology conference at the Vatican.
Hawking, who didn't say when the meeting was held, quoted the pope as saying, "It's OK to study the universe and where it began. But we should not enquire into the beginning itelf because that was the moment of creation and the work of God."
The scientist then joked during a lecture in Hong Kong, "I was glad he didn't realize I had presented a paper at the conference suggesting how the universe began. I didn't fancy the thought of being handed over to the Inquisition like Galileo."
The church condemned Galileo in the 17th century for supporting Nicholas Copernicus' discovery that Earth revolved around the sun. Church teaching at the time placed Earth at the center of the universe.
But in 1992, Pope John Paul II issued a declaration saying that the church's denunciation of Galileo was an error resulting from "tragic mutual incomprehension."
Hawking is one of the best-known theoretical physicists of his generation. He has done groundbreaking research on black holes and the origins of the universe. He proposes that space and time have no beginning and no end.
His hourlong lecture to a sold-out audience at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology was highly theoretical and technical. During the question-and-answer session, Hawking was asked where constants like gravity come from and whether gravity can distort light.
But there were several light, humorous moments.
Hawking _ who must communicate with an electronic speech synthesizer _ said he once considered using a machine that gave him a French accent but he couldn't use it because his wife would divorce him.
The astrophysicist is wheelchair-bound and uses an electronic voice because he has the neurological disorder called amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS.
Hawking was asked why his computerized voice has an American accent.
"The voice I use is a very old hardware speech synthesizer made in 1986," he said. "I keep it because I have not heard a voice I like better and because I have identified with it."
But Hawking said he's shopping for a new system because the hardware he uses is large and fragile. He also said it uses components that are no longer made.
"I have been trying to get a software version, but it seems very difficult," he said.
He urged people with physical disabilities not to give up on their ambitions.
"You can't afford to be disabled in spirit as well as physically," he said. "People won't have time for you."
The moderator at the lecture told the audience that at a recent dinner, she asked Hawking what his ambitions were. He said he wanted to know how the universe began, what happens inside black holes and how can humans survive the next 100 years, she said.
But she added he had one more great ambition: "I would also like to understand women."
Hawking ended his lecture saying, "We are getting closer to answering the age-old questions: Why are we here? Where did we come from?"
Sounds like the late Pope was afraid what Hawking will discover. :sweatdrop:
06-17-2006, 04:26
Quietus
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Martyr_
Leprechauns have red beards and green clothes, whilst God has a white beard and white clothes. They have a lot in common though, I mean for a start, they're both Irish...:laugh4:
~:joker: And Santa has white beard and red/white clothes (they are all related).
06-17-2006, 06:24
crossroad
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax
Unless you use a CT scan of course...or crack his skull open.
If you were being serious, that was an absolutely dreadful analogy.
I know, I couldn't help but use it. Sorry Quietus. ~:cheers:
06-17-2006, 06:51
crossroad
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Ahh, there is no book of Enoch
Typical , someone who claims to follow scriptures teachings but doesn't know scripture .:dizzy2: tyical creationist
You really are stuck at a crossroads aren't you crossroads
There is no book of Enoch in the Bible. It was removed from Scriptures by the Sanhedrin in 90AD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Now young man , would you care to reference the passage from the bible where it says murder is OK ?
Hmmmmm....is the reply the sound of silence from someone who is pushing scripture but doesn't know scripture ?????
Hey Bubba , its your topic , you bought it up , just like it is bought up every couple of weeks .
So have you any idea what you are on about , or is it just links to numerous sites that have already been shown to be bullshit ?
The silence comes as a result of loaded questions. If you knew anything about being a Christian, you would know the answers you are seeking.
06-17-2006, 06:52
Divinus Arma
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Well, I am entering this thread quite late. And since I am doing so, I will not read anybody elses comments before I share my own opinion first.
I cannot see how the two concepts are mutually exclusive.
Evidence supports evolution more than creationism. That much is pure and simple science. So let's start from the acceptance of creationism/adaptation and assume it as fact.
Now consider this: Long before Darwin and evolution was the bible, which states that adam and eve were created from dust. They ate the apple and became aware of the difference between good and evil.
Does this not fully embrace evolution? First, Adam in the original hebrew Torah (the REAL bible), means mankind. Not a guy named Adam. Secondly: Formed from dust. I doubt the ancients would differentiate between dust and single celled organisms.
As a final point: The "apple" represents the crucial moment in human history when we became aware of good and evil and truly seprated from our animal roots. It was at that moment that the Lord empowered Humans to freely choose to do good or evil. One cannot engage in evil if one is not aware that it is evil (the basis for insanity pleas in court, btw). My point is this: That event, be it an apple or otherwise, should be CELBRATED! We should not be ashamed of the moment that God made us free-willed beings, capable of doing his works by our choice.
Thus the two are not mutually exclusive, but supportive.
Finally, let us make an inclusion from a second and third existential perspectives. Budhism teaches that everything is impermanent and that all matter will return to its original form. In Hindusim, the highest relationship between humanity and divinity is unity with Brahman, the one God. These perspectives meld with Christianity and science where the body returns to the earth and the soul returns to God.
Lest we forget my friends: Solidity is an illusion. It does not exist as we perceive it. Neither does the relationship between time/distance, since that is merely a perspective of interacting energy.
Eclectism answers all. :bow:
06-17-2006, 07:19
crossroad
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Bloody hell, So all the days of Jared were nine hundred and sixty-two years, some health system they had in the early bronze age. That's it, I'm gonna sign up to this.
If I lived that long I'd bankrupt uncle Tonys utopia. Now there's a reason to lose my rationale. :laugh4:
The earth was more like a green house at that time, before the world wide flood. More oxygen and carbon dioxide and a possible canopy of water vapor in the earth's outer atmosphere would have protected people from much of the sun's radiation. The conditions of the atmosphere became much harsher after the flood and significantly shortened life spans. http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...0/i4/years.asp http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=...n=view&page=54
06-17-2006, 07:48
Ser Clegane
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by crossroad
He uses any method He wants. Didn't I just say that?:wall:
I would not begin to put Him a my own little box of explaination.
Actually you are already "putting Him in a box" by saying that he certainly didn't use "macro-evolution".
Interestingly you dismiss evolution (for which you say no evidence exists) but apparently accept any other way of "creation" that God might have chosen, although you have not evidence for that either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by crossroad
The improbiblity of a human eye evolving...
So - God using macroevolution to "develop" the human eye is improbable, while God using the "human-eye-appears-out-of-thin-air"-method is more likely...
It is amazing how hardcore-creationists apparently dismiss evolution not because it would be in conflict with the existance of God, but rather because it is not in conflict with the non-existance of God.
06-17-2006, 08:09
Avicenna
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by crossroad
The earth was more like a green house at that time, before the world wide flood. More oxygen and carbon dioxide and a possible canopy of water vapor in the earth's outer atmosphere would have protected people from much of the sun's radiation. The conditions of the atmosphere became much harsher after the flood and significantly shortened life spans. http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...0/i4/years.asp http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=...n=view&page=54
So why on earth would Mister Noah live for quite a bit longer than any of us live.. after the flood? Also, UV radiation causes skin cancer. Not every old person dies from skin cancer, or, as you imply from the claim of abundant oxygen and carbon dioxide, from suffocation or cold. The cells begin to stop dividing after a certain point, and the human gets older and eventually stops functioning and so dies.
06-17-2006, 08:10
Duke of Gloucester
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
It is amazing how hardcore-creationists apparently dismiss evolution not because it would be in conflict with the existance of God, but rather because it is not in conflict with the non-existance of God.
Very true. Creationist also tend to be biblical fundamentalists so see evolution as a threat to scripture. They are encouraged in this by non-scientists who claim that evolution is proved so the bible must be wrong and by some scientists who argue that evolution [B]supports/B] the non-existance of God.
06-17-2006, 08:16
Divinus Arma
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
So - God using macroevolution to "develop" the human eye is improbable, while God using the "human-eye-appears-out-of-thin-air"-method is more likely...
Exactly. Crap-appears-out-of-nothing method. Like a damn magician. I think science and evolutiuon would be MORE bad ass for the Lord! Any second rate God can pull a rabbit out his hat. This one happens to take a billion years and 40 versions to do it! lolol! :juggle2: (What would we do without proof of the saber tooth jackrabbit?) :laugh4:
Quote:
It is amazing how hardcore-creationists apparently dismiss evolution not because it would be in conflict with the existance of God, but rather because it is not in conflict with the non-existance of God.
ya.what he said. cause the earth was born yesterday from a divine fart.
06-17-2006, 08:18
crossroad
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Martyr_
I point you towards the Vostok or EPICA ice cores which can be dated to 420,000 and 720,000 years respectively. These cores are many km long, having been drilled vertically downward into the ice caps. When the cores are examined, the snowfall of each year can be chemically and otherwise examined, and then by adding up the number of anual layers, we get the age of the oldest layer. How do you explain this? Snow that fell 620,000 years before the earth was formed?
Also, explain sedamentary rock, the existence of fossils in general, fossil fuels which came from once living organisms, pretty much the entire area of radiometric dating (explain Pb/Pb isochron age of the earth as about 4.55 (+- 1%) billion years for instance...), the common age of the rest of the solar system, I could go on and on...
They are encouraged in this by non-scientists who claim that evolution is proved so the bible must be wrong and by some scientists who argue that evolution [b]supports/B] the non-existance of God.
Good point - dogmatic thinking (regardless of its nature) rarely leads to enlightenment.
06-17-2006, 08:52
naut
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
There's no paradox in being a theist who believes in evolution. I'm also in that boat, and as a Christian, I find the majority of the arguments put forward by creationists downright offensive.
Why these people believe that God must operate using any mechanism they can understand is beyond me. God is, by definition, infinite and unknowable. If you can't handle that, and you need to boil the Almighty down into something simple you can understand, you're missing the essence and the substance of faith.
Here Here!!! :balloon3:
EDIT: Also if people(creationists in particular) can't understand that genisis is an interpretation of what happened, NOT a factual account of happenings well then they are ..... :juggle2:
06-17-2006, 09:17
Duke of Gloucester
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
"Famous British astrophysicist Stephen Hawking says pope told him not to study beginning of universe"
Sounds like the late Pope was afraid what Hawking will discover.
I think that Stephen Hawking was not remembering properly. He has made this claim before:
The earth was more like a green house at that time, before the world wide flood. More oxygen and carbon dioxide and a possible canopy of water vapor in the earth's outer atmosphere would have protected people from much of the sun's radiation. The conditions of the atmosphere became much harsher after the flood and significantly shortened life spans.
This kind of rampant nonsense should convince everyone arguing with crossroad to drop the bone. He is unable to understand your arguments because his personal paradigm is utterly different from yours. He lives in a world of utter certainty and mediaeval fantasy, where thought is heretical.
And in a last post (as pointless as a broken pencil) I give you the most recent transitional fossil. Not billions of examples, I'm afraid, just the one. Enjoy and dismiss as appropriate.
(Oh, and DA, nice try but the bible is a story - a bunch of myths collected in the middle east. Why on God's Green Earth do it's pretty tales have more relevance to reality than the Dreamtime of the Australian aborigines - stories that are at least 30,000 years older? Or any other myth? Why do you accept biblical pre-eminence just because it's familiar to you?)
:wall:
06-17-2006, 09:52
rory_20_uk
Re: Creation vs Evolution
And for God's sake: which Bible? The Catholic one, King James or New international? That's three.
Then if you consider who make the bible (a man) isn't there a good chance that the other books are just as holy? When the central plank of religious fevor es examined even for a moment it is clearly rotten to the core.
~:smoking:
06-17-2006, 10:31
InsaneApache
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
And for God's sake: which Bible? The Catholic one, King James or New international? That's three.
Then if you consider who make the bible (a man) isn't there a god chance that the other books are just as holy? When the bentral plank of religious fevoures examined even for a moment it is clearly wrotten to the core.
~:smoking:
Have a late night rory? :laugh4:
06-17-2006, 10:37
Tribesman
Re: Creation vs Evolution
There is no book of Enoch in the Bible. It was removed from Scriptures by the Sanhedrin in 90AD.
Oh , I see :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
So this book that gives you all the answers has had bits taken away from it , whodathunkit .
So your arguement for creation is based on a heavily altered , heavily edited multiply mistranslated document .:dizzy2:
The silence comes as a result of loaded questions.
perhaps you should have remained silent:laugh4:
06-17-2006, 10:37
rory_20_uk
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Either way, it's still all gold... words from above I tells ya... :dizzy2:
~:smoking:
06-17-2006, 10:59
Ironside
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by crossroad
Nah, do a search in yahoo or google. Use "billions of fossils".
If 6 billion humans died tomorrow and some archeologists would find 60.000 of them in a million year it would be a fantastic find. That's 0,001% of all humans living at the time. The reason why it's plenty of fossiles isn't that the dead specimens commonly forms fossiles, but because it has lived a lot of them during a very long period. How many 500 year old skeletons of elephants exist?
Quote:
Originally Posted by crossroad
I don't mind using the word micro-evolution. Its macro-evolution that is a fallacy. Like I said before about the flu (viruses) a virus will always be a virus, a dog is a dog and always will be, a human is a human...etc.
The dogs evolved from wolves and a chihuahua and a grand danois can hardly mate with eachother naturally. Now in nature there's several examples of "cousins", that is simular species, but not the same. And unlike the dogs, thier hybrids (caused mostly artificially) is often sterile.
Now I've been mention human involvment in many cases, but what exactly makes it impossible for God to use the same methods (AKA divine controlled evolution) as Pape pointed out?
Science and God isn't mutually exclusive, but as long as you cannot scientifically prove the existance of God, they aren't in the same field.
The interesting thing about Ignicoccus is that it's periplasm is so large that it looks like it has a nucleous, like the eucaryotes. What's making it even more interesting is that some specimen have "parasites" (non-symbiotic, but the Ignicoccus doesn't seem to be hurt by it) on the outside that cannot live except on it's host. If this develops into a symbiotic relationship, then mitocondrical structures isn't far away.
So is it transitional?
Quote:
Originally Posted by crossroad
The earth was more like a green house at that time, before the world wide flood. More oxygen and carbon dioxide and a possible canopy of water vapor in the earth's outer atmosphere would have protected people from much of the sun's radiation. The conditions of the atmosphere became much harsher after the flood and significantly shortened life spans.
You're aware that increased levels on carbondioxide and more importantly oxygen would decrease the life span? Oxygen is cancerogenic and choking kills you by carbondioxide poisoning, not oxygen shortage.
This lush world would probably make human bigger too (better abillities to sustain a larger biomass often leades to larger creatures), but that's another issue.
And the suggestion about a bottleneck of long living people creating short living people feels a bit odd. :inquisitive:
06-17-2006, 11:12
naut
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
n nature there's several examples of "cousins", that is simular species, but not the same. And unlike the dogs, thier hybrids (caused mostly artificially) is often sterile.
Such as mules, a sterile hybrid.
06-17-2006, 20:50
Quietus
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by crossroad
I know, I couldn't help but use it. Sorry Quietus. ~:cheers:
There's nothing to apologize for actually.
You do know that you forced yourself to say Leprechauns exists (or at least existed).
06-17-2006, 20:59
Quietus
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester
I think that Stephen Hawking was not remembering properly. He has made this claim before:
- "all right to study the evolution of the universe"
- "after the big bang"
- "should not inquire into the big bang itself"
- "moment of Creation"
- "therefore the work of God"
He will make all that up and flat out lie?
06-17-2006, 21:19
Divinus Arma
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
(Oh, and DA, nice try but the bible is a story - a bunch of myths collected in the middle east. Why on God's Green Earth do it's pretty tales have more relevance to reality than the Dreamtime of the Australian aborigines - stories that are at least 30,000 years older? Or any other myth? Why do you accept biblical pre-eminence just because it's familiar to you?)
What are you talking about? I am not trying to say that the bible is factual- only that there are themes in all major religions that closely match what science has discovered today.
I absolutely do not accept the Torah as anything more than equal to every single other major religion.
06-17-2006, 21:26
Zain
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Wow, I just sat there and read all of those posts. It must have taken hours! Either way, I joined the thread rather late, and I wish I wouldn't have waited.
I've noticed that Crossroad (There is NO "S" at the end of that!) has been giving TONS of links and proof of his evaluations, and so have some of the others. But, what's the use of proof when one doesn't even look at it? Doesn't even think of it? They all say they are baised. NOBODY is unbaised, all information you find on the internet is baised on way or the other because that's human nature. Many of you are demanding textual evidence of Crossroad's evaluations, and when he gives them you say something like,
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Now then , how many creationist topics have we had here recently , and how many times have they posted links to that bollox of a site :dizzy2:
and...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
wow isn't it amazing how much rubbish you can find on the internet .
creation vs evolution
religeous theories vs science theories
what a pile of tripe
whatever next , house vs tree , submarine vs colour ?
This was said after Crossroad gave all of these links!
If you would like more, just let me know. :2thumbsup:
Interesting how ONLY Crossroad's links have been knocked down. And he hasn't done that to you.
I am a Creationist because the idea of the bible being wrong doesn't work in my mind. The bible said He created MAN on the sixth day in His image. And if my memory serves me right, evolution says that man evolved from monkeys, and back and back to single celled organisms.
Answer me this, IF we evolved from monkeys, why in the world are there still monkeys? And why isn't the world pulling out a Planet of the Apes effect? Aren't the monkeys supposed to become more human-like?
I believe in Natural Selection, Survival of the Fittest, and God's Will. No evolving just because it wants to. Change doesn't happen for no reason in nature. God made it that way, and he's not going to change it because he is reliable, just like when he promised Noah that he would never flood the Earth again.
This post was longer then I wanted, but hopefully I answered questions, and I'm ready to get second guessed, because that's what happens on these kind of threads. Bring the heat, you can't bring me down. (hence my sub-name) :2thumbsup:
06-17-2006, 21:26
crossroad
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
There is no book of Enoch in the Bible. It was removed from Scriptures by the Sanhedrin in 90AD.
Oh , I see :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
So this book that gives you all the answers has had bits taken away from it , whodathunkit .
So your arguement for creation is based on a heavily altered , heavily edited multiply mistranslated document .:dizzy2:
The silence comes as a result of loaded questions.
perhaps you should have remained silent:laugh4:
Let me educate you on how the Bible came about. Although the details are some what sketchy, depening on who you talk to, The earliest Christian canon is dated to around 100 AD, and at the time did not include the New Testament. The Bible is actually a compilation of books that early Christians found inspiring in worship and teaching and was not canonized until around 397 AD. So, the Bible did not exist as the Bible until the 4th century. The books you speak of that were omited (BTW, there are thousands of writings that are not in the Bible) say nothing about creation, so I'm not sure what that has to do with the subject (other than more rantings from grasping-at-straws evolutionists).:juggle2: :juggle2: :juggle2: :juggle2:
06-17-2006, 21:46
rory_20_uk
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Who set the cannon? A man did. Who edited out all the other stuff? Men. I don't see where god fits in at all. All the other books contained nothing about creation??!? WOW! You're read them all? All of them! I thought many of them were incomplete or destroyed. Or you're lying.
I guess I can see how you think most of the workd is grasping at straws. Any person who compares the world to a greenhouse can believe anything...
One explanation from one site...
"Question: Where did the light come from before the sun and moon were created?
Answer: The light in the first three days was probably from God himself."
He created the light coming from himself? I have to take my hat off to them managing to shoehorn something to fit the text...
Question: Why should I believe that the Christian Bible's story of creation rather than evolution?
Answer: Creation and evolution are frameworks to think about the past. In the strict sense neither is science since science is done by REPEATABLE experiments in the PRESENT. The Christian version is the only correct one because it is true and is documented from the very beginning. All other creation stories can't be true if the Christian version is true. Either it's true or not. If it's not what historical documentation can be produced to substantiate another view? None as powerful as the Bible!!! Order from chaos conflicts with ALL we know about the real world. The laws of physics, the order in living things, information theory, etc. etc. I recommend the newly published book by Michael Behe (an evolutionist) as a place to help answer the question of order from chaos.
I love the bit "all others can't be true if the Christian version is true... Oh, and the Bible is the Best! (Ignoring it is a rip off of the Torah).
Thus I view this site as extremely low grade "evidence", since it is "we're right, you're wrong" when it comes down to requiring proof.
Why the bible? Loads of other "holy" books around. Why not one of them? And which version of the Bible? There are so many! And let's not get into the inconsistencies...
Since you'd not accept microevolution unless you saw it with your own eyes (made even more difficult as yours would most likely be closed) the evidence required to prove this to you is greater than the proof for any event in the Bible itself.
~:smoking:
06-17-2006, 21:53
crossroad
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zain
Answer me this, IF we evolved from monkeys, why in the world are there still monkeys? And why isn't the world pulling out a Planet of the Apes effect?
Great point Zain. We should be able to see evolution in the trees and caves right now. From the monkeys, through the different stages of cavemen, to humans as we know them now. Where are these animal-people? Why did they die off - hundreds if not thousands of stages of them, gone, but strangly, the monkeys did not!?!?!?!? :inquisitive:
06-17-2006, 22:02
rory_20_uk
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Oh dear oh dear... A small amount of knowledge is a dangerous thing, but complete ignorance... :no:
Ok... There are ecological niches in the world. We did NOT evolve from modern day monkeys. We both evolved from a common ancestor. The paths we took were different, as the niches we occupy are different.
Other types of "animal person" have been found. They are no longer around, either out fought or out bred by our ancestors (NOT us - they were slightly different).
I'm assuming you've never heard that human features are becoming more delicate as time goes on, human brains are increasing in size slowly and the expression of certain genes is showing a population shift (such as ones to digest milk, and for brain size).
Species are the snapshot of "now". We don't have a tail of our ancestors - they're dead. Perhaps ones from 5,000 years ago would on average be noticably different to us, 50,000 probably different to us. Genes drfted slowly to what we are now. There was not a fork in each species, the ancestral line of the humans metamorphosed and has almost artificial distinctions as to the nomenclature of the different types - in some cases possibly unhelpful.
Oh, you've not used the "how did the human eye develop without God" argument - that's another classic.
~:smoking:
06-17-2006, 22:12
Zain
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Ok... There are ecological niches in the world. We did NOT evolve from modern day monkeys. We both evolved from a common ancestor. The paths we took were different, as the niches we occupy are different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
There was not a fork in each species,
Unless I misinterpreted what you said, i'm going to say that those two statements are COMPLETELY contradictory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Oh, you've not used the "how did the human eye develop without God" argument - that's another classic.
How about another argument, how did the reproductive system come out PERFECT without God?
06-17-2006, 22:13
rory_20_uk
Re: Creation vs Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by crossroad
Great point Zain. We should be able to see evolution in the trees and caves right now. From the monkeys, through the different stages of cavemen, to humans as we know them now. Where are these animal-people? Why did they die off - hundreds if not thousands of stages of them, gone, but strangly, the monkeys did not!?!?!?!? :inquisitive:
There's an oak tree outside my house. It's bloody big. There's no trace of the acorn it once was, but it grew from the acorn. You can't see the tree grow. There are no smaller trees embedded in the larger one. But it did grow from the acorn.
You'll just have to take that one on belief ok? :thumbsup:
