Printable View
I want to see anyone stick whatever chemical compounds they want, in a bucket, heat it, shake it, massage it whatever, and see if a bacteria grows. Remember, no bacteria to start with, just like the molten ball that was Earth billions of years ago when my high school english teachers were teenagers.
Isn't that how life started?
Azi
I thought that experiment's been done a few times already ?
http://www.resa.net/nasa/origins_life.htm#precursors
Found it!
If it wasn't 1am on a work night, I would read it. Gives me something to do tomorrow!
Azi
You first. I want to see a beardy fellow in an ill-fitting robe snap his fingers and make a cosmos. :shocked2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Azi Tohak
Silliness apart, try looking up the Miller-Urey experiment and developmental research links. If, of course, you are really looking for information.
Tell me how all the matter that created the big bang got there in the first place. Matter and energy do not create themselves.Quote:
You first. I want to see a beardy fellow in an ill-fitting robe snap his fingers and make a cosmos.
As banq pointed out, amino acids are easily produced in the labratory. One of the building blocks to life. There is also the find back in '98 of the marsian rock containing life, the results from that find have had a profound impact on how life could have developed. I can't even recall the term used for the sub cellular life found in the rock though.
Want to discuss the issue of where the assorted Deus Fabers came from in the first place...?Quote:
Originally Posted by BigTex
That, at least, seems to be a topic where science and faith draw equally blank.
Unless you're in a vacuum of course.Quote:
Matter and energy do not create themselves.
Virtual particles!
Christians don't follow the OT?Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
I was under the impression that the Bible was the Holy Book of Christians.
Bi·ble –noun 1.the collection of sacred writings of the Christian religion, comprising the Old and New Testaments. 2.Also called Hebrew Scriptures. the collection of sacred writings of the Jewish religion: known to Christians as the Old Testament. 3.(often lowercasehttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/g...una/thinsp.png) the sacred writings of any religion. 4.(lowercasehttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/g...una/thinsp.png) any book, reference work, periodical, etc., accepted as authoritative, informative, or reliable: He regarded that particular bird book as the birdwatchers' bible.
"inorganic", sadly. Although I gather from what we know of extremophiles on earth that no one is going to be very surprised if we do find that there was once, or possibly still is, simple life on Mars.Quote:
There is also the find back in '98 of the marsian rock containing life, the results from that find have had a profound impact on how life could have developed. I can't even recall the term used for the sub cellular life found in the rock though.
Oh, no, wait, that's not in the bible. Obviously there can be no life on Mars silly me.
Incidentally, anyone wanting a good read on astrobiology (and lets face it who wouldn't) could do worse than this book: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Rare-Earth-C...e=UTF8&s=books. very interesting indeed. The one sentence conclusion is that life at about the bacterial level is probably pretty common, large multicellular animals walikg abiout are probably very, very rare.
So take care of yourselves: you might be the only intelligent life in the universe.
Not really that true. There are just as many examples of christianity being used in a bad way as there are for islam.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cataphract_Of_The_City
the reason many muslims take the koran literally is because more muslims are uneducated, and therefore belive what they are told/are unable to read into it in the same way... this in no way makes islam a "bad form" religion, when taking the koran literally there is just as much peaceful stuff as bad stuff :2thumbsup:
The new testemant trumps the old.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
For example, Jews are allowed to get divorced, Christians aren't.
Depends which verses you read from which books of the NT .Quote:
The new testemant trumps the old.
For example, Jews are allowed to get divorced, Christians aren't.
Paul is quite a funny read on the whole woman/marriage topic .
Oh, the NT is a mess granted. I often wonder why Paul is in there at all.
Yep , but I was thinking more along the lines of the contradictions between Matt And Mark , since if NT trumps OT surely Gospel trumps letters .
Unbelievable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
You quoted some Quran scriptures showing that "1$L4m = teh sux 4 girlz & infid31s." I posted Biblical scriptures that demonstrated exactly the same thing about Christianity (assuming both books are to be taken literally, which you are doing with the Quran).
Then you make up a bunch of crazy justifications saying how the Christianity is still "kinder and gentler" (you even went so far as to for Crissake change one of the Biblical quotes to suit your purposes), and say you can't understand what I am talking about.
Mental midgetry at its finest...
For the record:
I am not a big fan of either Islam or Christianity, as they are currently practiced (mostly hypocrisy and intolerance, instead of love and acceptance). I am not out to defend Islam.
I am simply pointing out to you that, well, I think Jesus said it best:
He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone...
Now Vuk, verily do I bid thee, go forth and sin no more.
Trying to find something different to say in this debate - how's this:
Let us suppose Navros is right - that the world was created in seven days as described in the bible and that if we don't believe it we will be eternally damned - then it really matters. You can understand why he (and others) are so passionate about it. This could be the difference between heaven and hell. If I believed that I would feel duty bound to try to convert everyone I knew to the right way of thinking. If I am right and the big bang theory and evolution are basically correct, what does it matter what Navros thinks? It won't save him in any sense of the word to be converted to the scientific view. Why then, are there so many passionate anti-creationists? Surely we just lay out the scientific evidence and if people accept it fine and if not, so what? Of course if people spout nonsense claiming it is science, we might say "no, it isn't" but even then why get worked up about it?
I can't speak for everyone, but as I mentioned earlier I am not anti-creationist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester
I am simply against having creationists try to pass their beliefs off as science and teach them to my children in school.
I have no problem with this museum at all.
Sneering at a fellow board member by a Moderator? You have a responsibility to maintain the civility here and if you fail to do so, then why are you a moderator?Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
I said I was looking for information. It happened to be 1am when I found it. But I also found this:
http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise...gy/miller.html
Note the objections raised to the admittedly interesting experiements.
So you can (sort of) claim that the basis of life can be formed. The next step is how they came to work together right? Now I'm hunting for info on that too.
Azi
I agree with Goofball.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
I'm a Christian going to a strong Baptist church here in Texas. But I'm also a scientist (well applied science anyway, Chemical Engineering degree) and I fail to see why evolutionary theory is so often proclaimed as (pardon the pun) gospel.
My objection is that while evolution looks good, as far as I can tell it simply has too many holes for me to accept that it is a Law of Science, as so many people seem to think it is. Scientific Laws like those of Thermodynamics I have no problem with because I can't find a hole in them.
Azi
P.S. Sorry for the double post.
Meh. That's probably because with something like thermodynamics all you really have to do is test the whole thing in real life. Biology? You can't emulate millions of years of evolutionary process in a matter of days, months, or even years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Azi Tohak
The study had always focused on both fossil evidence and living life forms, among other things. And, pardon the pun, the study of evolution is still evolving.
It's the same as history. There are an incredible amount of holes in our knowledge of human history despite the way it's taught as simple facts. Are we going to say history is false and Genghis Khan's a Chinese lie just because there are holes in our knowledge?
Oh wait, I think those extremists already did. 6000 years of Earth life my butt. My French teacher is older than that.
Also, the unusual stance that the Theory of Evolution takes in popular imagination -- the antagonist of your Most Holy Bible, an alternate Gospel -- is due to the religious' response, not the scientists' insistence. So the Church took issue with Darwin, a religious man by all accounts; now a bunch of nutjobs take issue with "evolutionists" (what a stupid term) just because. It all makes those who happen to support the theory defend it, and the nutjobs repeat their attack on it, so the supporters had to defend it again, and a vicious cycle is born. Bang. Evolution's now at the forefront of the public imagination.
It had something to do with Darwin's theory directly contradicting the Genesis, I guess. But I couldn't in my right mind somehow believe my Most Honorable Nameless Ancestor descended from some nudist in hott gardens 'round Armenia anyway.
Pascal's wager. I've always thought that was for cowards :beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester
I guess some of us just have this funny idea that truth matters. Actually I suppose both sides have that idea. One side prefers to find truth by disengaging brain and seeing what it says in the Big Book Of Not Thinking For Yourself, (AKA faith, AKA believing things without a good reason*) the other side engages brain, even if we all know that our brains are pretty fallable objects.
*this comment should be taken to be addressed at using faith to determine what to believe about observable phenomenon in the so called real world, where brain engagement is a viable option. No slur is intended at those who have faith that there is a god, or that god likes them, or any other theological issue, as to which it is only possible to have a faith based position. I thenkyew
I'm sorry that you felt I was sneering. Moderators happen to be allowed to have opinions too you know. :beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by Azi Tohak
To explain: You opened your request for knowledge thusly:
I read that as a pretty silly demand of science to prove its hypothesis by a clearly impossible demonstration.Quote:
Originally Posted by Azi Tohak
My counter was to put the creationist viewpoint to the same silly degree of proof. I had an astonished smiley to underline the point, and added in the next paragraph, "Silliness apart..."
The idea was to highlight that the standards of "proof" demanded by creationists from science invariably are not applied to their own theories.
I'm glad that you are really looking for information. :book2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Azi Tohak
A similar argument I suppose, but I am not suggesting people believe creationism "just in case". It is more a case of seeing why people try to convert others to creationism, but not understanding similar zeal in the prophets of the Theory of Evolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
It is very egotistical to believe that our understanding of a situation differs from another because of some inherent superiority in ourselves, and that, therefore our ideas are superiour. I don't think for a minute that you or I have thought for ourselves more than Navros has. I could be wrong and you might have worked out evolution and the big bang from first principles or you could be a cosmologist or evolutionary biologist. If not, you are like me, influenced by different people from Navros. He doesn't believe the bible because he is too lazy to think for himself, but because things in his life have led him to believe the bible has authority. In the same way we rely on the scientific method because of our experiences and influences.Quote:
I guess some of us just have this funny idea that truth matters. Actually I suppose both sides have that idea. One side prefers to find truth by disengaging brain and seeing what it says in the Big Book Of Not Thinking For Yourself, (AKA faith, AKA believing things without a good reason*) the other side engages brain, even if we all know that our brains are pretty fallable objects.
It is also not the case that the Big Bang and Evolution are "the truth". They are the best explanations that fit the scientific evidence as it stands. A truly scientific stance would embrace the possibility that they might be wrong - it might actually be excited at the prospect that just around the corner there will be some strong evidence that leads us away from these ideas in the same way we have moved away from the ideas of caloric and the phlogiston theory. This is another reason I can't understand the evolutionary zealots.
Of course one area where we can stand up for the truth is when false science is put forward to support creationism, but even then the rebuttals should be scientific and measured. That's the way scientists (are meant to) operate. Rival theories and disagreements are good for science.
There are probably some holes in them if you look into quantum physics and related experiments. Almost all engineering is based on 18th-19th century science, combined with mid 20th century math, it's not usually state of the art as far as 'understanding' goes, that's not the point, the point of engineering is application.Quote:
Originally Posted by Azi Tohak
NO law of science is absolute, or 'holy', that's what makes it science, it's debatable, open to scrutiny. So is evolution, but some people seem to take this as a hint that it's not a valid theory. It is, it is the best scientific theory available at the moment (and the only one on its subject, afaik). Just like Newtonian physics were once the best available theory for, well, physics.
I think the Laws of Thermodynamics are sound (according to current understanding) and are a macroscopic manifestation of quantum mechanics in operation, but I agree that it would not make any difference to Engineering if it turned out there were exceptions in extreme circumstances.Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
:yes:Quote:
NO law of science is absolute, or 'holy', that's what makes it science, it's debatable, open to scrutiny. So is evolution, but some people seem to take this as a hint that it's not a valid theory. It is, it is the best scientific theory available at the moment (and the only one on its subject, afaik). Just like Newtonian physics were once the best available theory for, well, physics.
The point about there being no serious rival to evolution is interesting. The most interesting thought in science occurs when there are rival explanations, so maybe those who put forward Intelligent Design are doing science a favour by making biologists check evolutionary ideas more carefully.
Your point is reasonable, except that Intelligent Design does no one a favour because it is not a testable theory. It doesn't make anyone check facts more thoroughly, because it's a joke theory masquerading as science. I have no problem with anyone positing that God or someone started the whole thing - but that's not science, its mythology - it can't be tested, because you can't test God. Similarly with ID - it may well be that someone is guiding the whole thing, but its inherently untestable, so it can't be science.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester
If God is behind evolution, he goes to immense lengths to disguise his presence. This is fine - again, I can't prove it either way, so I have no issue with those who believe this as a possibility. It doesn't affect the reality of evolution.
But: there are no serious rivals to the theory of evolution through natural selection, because it is very solidly based in observation, just like gravity. There are several competing strains of thought as to how selection works to create the evolution - for example, are the selective pressures at the gene level or the species level. There are several competing arguments as to whether evolution progresses steadily or in bursts and so on. These theories provide quite enough questions for our assumptions.
The last serious challenge to Darwinian evolution (natural selection) was Lamarckian evolution, which was still evolution but with characteristics learned and developed in life being passed on to subsequent generations, rather than mutuations being acted on by selective forces. Interestingly, there are some observational data that now make us think there may be some life in Lamarck yet in some circumstances, but probably only behaviourally.
It is a mistake to think evolution is a less solid theory than gravity or heliocentrism. Our understanding of how it happens is improving all the time, but all real scientists accept that species evolved from simple to complex forms. That's what evolution means. That's what all the data shows.
The only other theory that can be put against evolution of species is that all species were created at the same time, unchanging. That is clearly untrue and can be demonstrated very easily to be untrue - as science. If someone believes it as an article of faith despite the evidence, all well and good, but in the realm of science, it is a failed theory with not a shred of viable evidence.
Evolution is not a law of science. It is a theory, and no serious scientist ever holds it out to be anything other than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Azi Tohak
It's not necessary to buy into it 100%. That's the whole idea behind a theory. Theories are constantly tested against observations and are subject to change when observations and evidence suggest something contrary to the original theory.
So even if you believe the theory to be incomplete, there is no need to dismiss it entirely.
Creationism on the other hand, is static, untestable, and unchangable. It has no basis in science and should never be held out as such. That is the problem with what creationists are trying to do.
Keep your creation stories in religious studies classes, and we'll keep evolutionary theory in science classes.
Good God. Could you imagine what would happen if a scientist proposed that due to the "vast number of holes in creationist stories, we believe it only fair that scientists should be able to teach evolution in churches, just to offer an alternate point of view to children."
~:eek:
I don't think ID is what you say it is. ID, as I understand it, is the suggestion that organisms were designed by an intelligent creator. This is susceptible to scientific consideration. It may not be a testable theory, but the same criticism is leveled at evolution. The truth is there is more to science than the positing of testable hypotheses and their subsequent falsification or otherwise. It probably is a bit of a joke theory - after all there is enough redundancy and overlap of systems (mamalian brain for example) to suggest that organisms evolved rather than each creature being designed from scratch and those who put if forward are motivated by something other than the pure search for scientific truth, but if you think this makes them different from other scientists then you have an idealistic view of the way science is carried out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
Surely it is more solid than either of these. It is accepted that our understanding of gravity is incomplete since we have not discovered the particle that mediates it. As for heliocentrism, the sun is at the centre of the solar system. The important point is that we should be ready for the theory to move on, either by modification at the fringes (in the same way as gravity) or by revolutionary thinking (no pun intended) like heliocentrism.Quote:
It is a mistake to think evolution is a less solid theory than gravity or heliocentrism. Our understanding of how it happens is improving all the time, but all real scientists accept that species evolved from simple to complex forms. That's what evolution means. That's what all the data shows.
Just because it is the only theory that is put against evolution of species, this does not mean it is the only one that can be. In addition you haven't stated the rival theory fairly. You have limited it by including "at the same time, unchanging". The "at the same time" bit is against the evidence of the fossil record, but I am not sure that means it is "demonstrated very easily to be untrue". The "unchanging" part can be demonstrated as false because change within a species can be observed. What has not been observed unequivocally (yet) is the emergence of a new species from an old one. Of course that does not mean that this has not happened in the past in precisely the way Darwin suggested.Quote:
The only other theory that can be put against evolution of species is that all species were created at the same time, unchanging. That is clearly untrue and can be demonstrated very easily to be untrue - as science. If someone believes it as an article of faith despite the evidence, all well and good, but in the realm of science, it is a failed theory with not a shred of viable evidence.
Please don't think I am sticking up for ID. In fact I would go so far as to say that anyone who believes in creationism should have the intellectual honesty to say that their beliefs run contrary to the weight of scientific evidence and not just current scientific thinking. On the other hand science should be strong enough to stand or fall on its own evidence and not need to be promoted with a quasi religious zeal.
I am also a bit cautious about your use of the term "real scientists". There was a time when no "real scientists" believed in plate tectonics, or earlier the microbe theory of contagion. Science needs its mavericks and tends to be held back by a notion that there is an orthodoxy that must be followed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Christians were required to sacrifice lambs as a symbol of Christ coming and being sacrificed for them. You put your blame into the perfect lamb and he was slain for your sins and offerred to God. When Jesus died it was no longer nessecary. Jesus said that people should study God's Word. As there was not a New Testament at that time, He was obviously referring to the Old Testament. Jesus's death did away with the richuals of the law - not the law. The Old Testament is as relevant as today as when it was written.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cataphract_Of_The_City
Christianity is not unfair to women. Those were rules for THAT society, not ours. Those rules were to protect women and still be fair to men.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yunus Dogus
Saying the truth isn't Christian? You obviously don't know ANYTHING about Christianity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
Now I'm not quite sure, but I think that is bordering on blasphemy... Tell me, how do you now God has a beard? Or even a physical form? God said He created man in His image, but not that he ever had a physical form.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
My purpose was NOT to say that the koran (note the spelling :D) was bad to women/"infedels". I was simply defending that from my first argument as I was called on to do so. The Biblical Scriptures you posted were editted (which God said is a BIG no-no...you know, an eternal damnation type of no-no...)
I didn't say it was either kind or gentle, truth is, life isn't either. The Bible is completely fair and without fault. To tell you the truth, there are a lot of things in it I don't understand, but I know that what God said is right (It's called Faith). You twisted the Bible, not me. I took my quote DIRECTLY from my KJ Bible. Word for Word.
Also, I did not give my opinion on the koran, as I would probably be banned if I did. I simply stated fact. I don't think that all muslims are bad, but I do think that the koran is a book of hate. I think muhamed fabricated it, and I think it was written to get fanatical followers (which it has). That is fact; please don't ask for my opinion. I have read a lot on both muhamed and the islamic religion, and what I post is fact. The only religion I give my opinion on is Christianity. If that offends anyone, that is what ignore is for. I am Christian, and on a thread about Christianity, I will express my opinion where appropriate. Christians disagree on a lot of things, and no one knows everything (not even the mighty Vuk :D), but I KNOW that God created the world, and that Christ Jesus was His Son sent to save us. I also know that EVERYTHING in the Bible is true. The blasphemous things people say about God and the Bible is very offencive (including things BG says...very disrespectfull. You don't here me going around talking about big bubba muhamed and his harem of pearls...). That was my point, and no one seems to be heeding it - convincing me more and more to start a thread in the WatchTower.
What do you mean Ironwall? Paul is what you could call the most important doctrinary of the earlier christians. In fact, you could consider his letters the most substancial part of the whole New Testament.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
What about the billion or so Muslims who "have faith" that their book is the one full of truths and fairness? Why should I believe you more than them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
Yes, you did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
No, you stated opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
And you have just stated another opinion...Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
...that you immediately tried to pass off as fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
Quite pathetic, really.
I think we now both know that to be patently untrue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
Oh, please do. I wouldn't miss it for the world...Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
Let me take a guess at your possible choice of title. How about:
"Budha, You Fat Bastard..."
:idea2:
Happy Friday...
~:cheers:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
I'm afraid you'll have to edit that to make it possible to read and understand before I can reply to it. Sorry, but I have no idea at all what you just said :P
He tried to starve himself to death, after all. I'd consider the fatness to be an aftershock effect of the anorexic experience, hence an unfair accusation in this particular case of gravitational difference :smug: (ignoring that it's the Chinese who fed until he's fat, of course; the Indians, they taught him how to fast like a man :balloon: )Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
*nobody's taking this seriously, I hope? Else I'll lose a lot my faith in mankind*
Duke of Gloucester: While your concerns on those who trumpet Evolutionary Theory to be some sort of the herald of science is valid -- there are indeed those people around -- I don't believe it's really happening in this thread.
Moreover, I personally interpret Banquo's "real scientist" quip to mean not conformist thinking, but an ability to properly questions and challenges the existing dominant theory. Considering most of these creationists who keep complaining of holes in the evolutionary theory cannot even provide a good summary of what it entails, or explains about the actual holes, I'd consider their criticism to be not particularly engaging to the scientific community.
Vuk: For someone who appears to be extremely easily offended, you prove to be quite capable of being offensive yourself, I must say.
this bit is especially interesting -->Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
:2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
A lot of what Paul says directly contradicts Jesus, its late so I'm not going to post examples now but if you want I will tomorrow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
Paul makes Christianity pallatable to a Roman audience and hence to us. Without Paul we're all be circumsised and abstaining from pork.
So in the same paragraph, you say complain about people saying things you consider blasphemous, and you also call the foundation of several Org members' (including one of the Backroom mods) beliefs to be a "book of hate". You go right ahead with that Watchtower thread, I would be curious to see Dariush's comments. :laugh4: Good luck with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
Now while I am a Christian and have a strong belief in God, I must say that does who claim that evolution is not a sound theory must review what has been called animal husbandry - which is the use of artifical selection to breed traits or to remove traits from domestic animals. Many of the current breeds of cattle, pigs, dogs, horses, cats, chickens, and just about any other animal that man uses has been changed by man through this selection process from the orginal species.
To claim evolution is not a valid theory falls flat on its face when faced with artifical selection as a validation observation. What one could argue is that there is gaping holes in the natural selection criteria, because Darwin's theory was primarily an observation based upon small sample, a micro-environment I believe is the term for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Those who claim that evolution is a theory fall flat on their face as it is not. It does not fit the nessecary criteria for a theory.
You are wrong you know. First, I don't see how you can believe in both, and I hope that's not what you're saying.
Second, selective breeding is accomplished by isolating exsisting traits, not making new ones. You cannot selectively breed a new species. God made all the genes that there are and you cannot make new ones. NO new genes have ever been created. God had to create the world in that way in order for people and animals to adapt to changing enviorments. The "theory" for lack of a better word, of evolution is so flawed that it is not worth considering. If you were to investigate it in detail, you would see what I mean. The fossil record, DNA, and everything else proves evolution wrong.
You do understand what constitutes a theory? There a plently of available websites that explain what a theory is and what it isn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
That is exactly what I am saying. Nothing in my Christian Belief states that evolution is not a valid theory as an explanation of life. Nothing in belief in God requires an individual to believe in a literal translation of the Bible.Quote:
You are wrong you know. First, I don't see how you can believe in both, and I hope that's not what you're saying.
Care to bet. Did you know that they are finding out that some hybrid animals are actually fertile.Quote:
Second, selective breeding is accomplished by isolating exsisting traits, not making new ones.
Care to bet, once again - take a look at hybrid animals - also know as cross breeding. Mules are the best know examble of such.Quote:
You cannot selectively breed a new species. God made all the genes that there are and you cannot make new ones. NO new genes have ever been created. God had to create the world in that way in order for people and animals to adapt to changing enviorments. The "theory" for lack of a better word, of evolution is so flawed that it is not worth considering. If you were to investigate it in detail, you would see what I mean. The fossil record, DNA, and everything else proves evolution wrong.
http://www.hemmy.net/2006/06/19/top-10-hybrid-animals/
http://www.bartleby.com/11/9001.html
Then if I really want to demonstrate some points - I would suggest you take a close look at what they are doing in horse breeding. There has been some fairly recent articles published on that. It was rather a new thing when I was involved with it prior to my joining the army.
And that isn't even half of it, Plants also.
Which one Vuk ? there are a lot of them you know:laugh4:Quote:
The Bible is completely fair and without fault.
Which flavour of Christianity Vuk ? there are a lot of them you know :laugh4:Quote:
Christianity is not unfair to women.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: OK forget which version for now to make it easy for you to comprehend .Quote:
I also know that EVERYTHING in the Bible is true.
Pick a version of your preferance and answer these two simple questions .
If something in Letters directly contradicts something in Gospel which is true ?
If something in one Gospel directly contradicts something in another Gospel which one is true ?
Your statement does make me wonder how well you know the collection of books that you so loudly support .
As I said before , this brand of cretinism is the realm of those who lack faith , and have little knowledge of either scripture or science .
So Vuk how well do you know scripture ? going by your posts you have read very little of it and understood even less .
God made some animals able to interbreed with others, but not to produce fertile offspring. No hybrid animals are fertile. A theory is something that can be tested again and again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
This will sound as a mockery but I'm serious: Is there an evangelium from Jesus? From where do you get what Jesus says and does?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
You'll certainly answer: From the apostles and not from THE apostle Paul. Because they supposedly lived with Jesus, and therefore they know better. However most of apostles are nothing more than narrators of the history, while Paul really talks about new separated rules expressed in some organized manner.
Now if we talk about faith and logic. Following christian catholic apostolic teachins God (and therefore Jesus) might communicate with us in a visual and auditive manner, it follows then that an enlightned person like Paul (as he was enlightned on subjects of religion) really had one of this experiences and God really spoke to him. So if Jesus is God and God is Jesus, if God dictates the rules of the Universe, if God is perfect, if God communicated with Paul, what makes the teachings of Paul the ones contradictory with the supposed word of Jesus.
About he making it more pallatable for the Romans, I don't know. Why do you say that anyway?
All this notwithstanding you could go forward and present the quotes.
There is only one Bible. I spent a lot of days and a whole thread explaining this to you before and am not about to do it again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Nothing in any part of the Bible contradicts anything in any other part of the Bible. I have read the full Bible many times with many different translation. I have a much better understanding than a guy like you who probably never read the whole Bible once in your life.
Oh dear you really don't know scripture do youQuote:
There is only one Bible.
You explain nothing , and it appears you remember nothing either .Quote:
I spent a lot of days and a whole thread explaining this to you before and am not about to do it again.
Oh dear oh dear you really really do not know scripture at all do you .Quote:
Nothing in any part of the Bible contradicts anything in any other part of the Bible.
Two possible explanations there , either that statement is false or you have demonstrated a particularly faulty memory .Quote:
I have read the full Bible many times with many different translation.
Now that young man is just about the most foolish assumption you could make .Quote:
I have a much better understanding than a guy like you who probably never read the whole Bible once in your life.
Oh and finally can I repeat this little bit again......this brand of cretinism is the realm of those who lack faith , and have little knowledge of either scripture or science .
So with this statement........you have definately managed to prove that your knowledge of science is just as limited as your knowledge of scripture .:oops:Quote:
No hybrid animals are fertile.
You really are not doing very well are you .
Talk, Talk, as long as you can, your talking doesn't add up to snuff, I'm the show sum proof man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
It is nice to just say things again and again, it is another thing to prove them.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: Proof :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
Talk, Talk, as long as you can, your talking doesn't add up to snuff, I'm the show sum proof man.
It is nice to just say things again and again, it is another thing to prove them.
Look Vuk , see if you can borrow a bible from somewhere and read it . Wigferth bought up a subject earlier .... Divorce .
Forget for now the contradiction between I Corinthians and Gospels , concentrate instead on the contradictions betwen the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Matthew .
Then try and repeat your rather :dizzy2: Nothing in any part of the Bible contradicts anything in any other part of the Bible. statement .
Incorrect - the cross breeding of draft horses to thoroughbreds has resulted in fertile hybrids. There was provided a link that demonstrates that some hybrid breed's females are indeed fertile.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
Artifical selection has been tested again and again.Quote:
A theory is something that can be tested again and again.
I don't think he want to listen Red:shrug:Quote:
Incorrect - the cross breeding of draft horses to thoroughbreds has resulted in fertile hybrids. There was provided a link that demonstrates that some hybrid breed's females are indeed fertile.
Though there are better examples than domestic horses
But if he does want to listen would you like to introduce him to the bit where the fertile female hybrids male offsping are fertile or shall I ?
Or do you think perhaps that would be too much of a shock for his frail faith to handle ?
Anyhow .....you heretic :2thumbsup:Quote:
Nothing in my Christian Belief states that evolution is not a valid theory as an explanation of life. Nothing in belief in God requires an individual to believe in a literal translation of the Bible.
Well horses and dogs are what I know best. That and sheep and cattle. But yes I have even seen that report that some hybrid females are indeed bearing fertile male offspring. I think its covered in the link I provide also, however in my initial skim, I only read to the fertile females.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Its a good thing I wasn't alive during the 1500's.Quote:
Anyhow ..... you heretic :2thumbsup:
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: burn baby burn:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
Its a good thing I wasn't alive during the 1500's.
Though to go even earlier St Augustine does a nice little bit of spiel on the problems some people seem to find with scripture and science .
It is his words that I base my all too often repeated ......this brand of cretinism is the realm of those who lack faith , and have little knowledge of either scripture or science .
....statement on .
This thread--
https://img187.imageshack.us/img187/...fighter1fs.jpg
If you want another contradiction in the bible, which happens to be directly relevant to the discussion and you don't have to read very far through the bible to find it, look at the two creation stories. Genesis 1 says God created things in this order:
plants -> fish and other water creatures and birds -> animals -> men and women
Genesis one says the order of creation was:
man -> plants -> animals and birds -> woman
Which one is correct? (My view neither is literally true. Both contain important truths.)
Nor do I. I just wanted to say something different. Most of this thread (including what I have written above) is a re-hash of old arguments.Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
Of course even on this threat there might be some examples (like the post directly above this one). True. Science does beat religion in the same way the my washing machine is much better at cleaning clothes than my car.
You are probably right about BG. I have certainly never seen a proper scientific challenge to the theory of evolution. The problem is that if we start to believe there can't ever be one, evolution itself moves from being a scientific theory to being an article of scientific faith. That would not be consistent with the way science is meant to be done.Quote:
Moreover, I personally interpret Banquo's "real scientist" quip to mean not conformist thinking, but an ability to properly questions and challenges the existing dominant theory. Considering most of these creationists who keep complaining of holes in the evolutionary theory cannot even provide a good summary of what it entails, or explains about the actual holes, I'd consider their criticism to be not particularly engaging to the scientific community.
I ahve not logged in since yesterday afternoon since I went to the cinema to see "Babel" with Mrs. Clegane.
Now what do I see here? A discussion that over the last 2 pages or so could also run under this title (at laest for a major part).
We had a lot of discussions about evolution vs. creation already and at this point I do not see that this thread adds a fresh and new perspective to the debate.
Adding to that, presenting personal views/opinions as undisputable fact and attacking other religions (which has nothing to do with the topic, BTW) is not really a sign of good debating/discussion culture.
This thread has passed its date of expiry.
My thanks (and my apologies for closing the thread) go to those who tried to have a good and civilised discussion here :bow:
Closed