Originally posted by C'jais
Actually, there have been run several experiments, even high school level ones, where organic molecules formed from inorganic material with the aid of a single jolt of electricity, much as the early conditions were about 4 billion years ago.

Really? I have serious doubts of that. Sources?
And, when I asked for that kind of proof earlier you said:

Originally posted by C'jais
You and I both know full well that it's downright impossible to re-create the scenario of life developing from inorganic materials. It'd require conditions on this earth that does not exist anymore, and a few billion years. I don't have that.

But neither can you re-create any miracle to prove God.
[/B]
So apparently you have a contridiction in what you use as "proof" do you just make this stuff up to try to argue?:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Psydan
So apparently you have a contridiction in what you use as "proof" do you just make this stuff up to try to argue?:rolleyes:

There's a difference between organic compounds/molecules and a recreating strand of RNA. As for sources, I have none on this part, but it's really no big feat considering that nucleic acid is very simple in its construction.

Originally posted by C'jais
There's a difference between organic compounds/molecules and a recreating strand of RNA. As for sources, I have none on this part, but it's really no big feat considering that nucleic acid is very simple in its construction.

If you're talking about making nucleic acid... its already an organic compound. If you're talking about making RNA and DNA, that would require thousands of nucliec acids, carbons and a few other organic molucules. Very unlikely at a highschool level, even professional.

Nucleic Acid: Make up of thousands of nucleotides. A nucleotide contains a phosphate group, a five carbon sugar (ribose in the case of RNA), and one of 4 nitrogenous bases.

Organic Molecule: Basically anything that has carbon, with the exceptions of carbon dioxide and carbon-hydrogen

Not really on topic, but I thought I might as well inform the younger folk who haven't learned about that yet..

Originally posted by C'jais
[B]

Retard is an IQ of 90 or lower last time I checked. I'm not certain of that, but I am certain he's schizophrenic. He's delusional. He sees things that do not exist. He lives in a fantasy world. By the sheer dictionary definition, he's schizophrenic and mentally ill.

[B]


Jack probably isn't crazy, he's just a money hungry bastard who likes propoganda.

Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
I tried to, but you said I wasn't allowed to...because it makes my statements un-touched.

Lie. I said it would be bad etiquette to do so.

You got what you asked for.

I still have not seen any evidence of me "insulting" you.

I never called you stupid either.... yet another lie. Look it up what I said.


Now, Cjais ,who was insulting what I said, by using a sarcastic answer

Lie. The answer was not sarcastic. You just didn't get it.

I was just stating something I saw in the news, and you start attacking me.

Lie. I never attacked you, unless disproving your "evidence" constitutes an attack on you as a person.

I wasn't using it to DEBATE ANYTHING.

Lie. The moment you step into this debate and start slinging evidence around, you are debating.

"Evo is TRUE to there!"

Lie. Putting words in my mouth. Not true. False.

Umm, that isn't debate....it would be just like me saying Creation is true, so there. You can't debate by saying your side is absolutely true...it wouldn't hold squat in a debate at all.

Yet another lie. I never said evolution was the truth.

The term "Christian" isn't always what some people mean. Awhile back, any Catholic was called a Christian, for example.

The "Christian" most of us are talking about are the true Christians. The ones who believe in God, Christ's blood, and the Holy Trinity.

This is not so much a direct lie, since you don't have any idea what you're talking about: Anyone who believes in Christ is a Christian. Catholics are Christians, in fact, they were there before the protestantic church. You're going up against the English language with your ethnocentric views and a ton of prejudice of refusing to see other sections of Christianity, much as Skitzo once tried to do. I won't hold. While you can argue that you are the "true" Christians, you cannot deny that Catholics have their right to call themselves Christians as well.

There's no "I'm just dropping by, don't bother replying to my posts"-immunity here, that renders your statements invulnerable.

This is what I said to you. I did not tell you you couldn't leave. Which makes your postulation an outright lie and vindicates myself. Well done.

What I said was that it's bad form to tell people at the end of your post that we can't reply to your post since you're just "dropping by".

I said, there is no proof...so the debate is pointless

Lie. Since there's proof the earth is older than the Biblical timescale, your theory collapses.

okay. I hope you actually read whatI say instead of putting words in my mouth this time.

Lie. I did no so such thing. You, on the other hand, just did by stating this. Bravo.

Check my posts, I said I was dropping by and saying that the debate is pointless.

You were in this debate from page 2. You have continually said throughout it that you were "just dropping by". You've been "dropping by" for 5 pages now.

All this "discussion" has done is make a moderator directly attack and insults someone elses belief.

Lie. I never directly attacked or insulted anyone's beliefs.

I can't believe you don't know how the human reproduction system works

Lie. Never have I expressed my knowledge (or lack there of) of the human reproductive system.


You just keep pulling lie, after lie, after lie.

Now, lying I never did. Show me where I lied. The three examples you gave me before were not of me lying.

I'm out of here, I hate people who lie just to try to bring down others. Worst moderator I've seen in jk2.

Let me congratulate you on your way out that you've been the most hypocritical man I've ever seen.

Originally posted by Karsec
You say your and your alone is correct, and his is useless. Doesnt that mean inferior? Lesser than, not as useful, pointless, should I go on

Please do. Feel free to argue that his beliefs have ever aided scientific research. That they have ever predicted something. That they can be used to prove something through empirical evidence.

That they're in any way useful beyond making people feel good about themselves, and justifying genocides and insanity.

and Rp, if the mod isnt smart enough to get what you saying, that his own dumb fault. Still, dont keep repeating the same message, because I dont think the mod will ever get ti in his thick skull.

Why thank you. I'm about to stop trying to spoon feed you up to a maturity level where it's possible to debate something without going after the man. Try going for argument next time. If you can't work your way around it, don't dodge the subject and start cursing at that person who said it. Now leave, if you've got nothing intelligent to say.

Now people, listen closely.

Anything further regarding people lying, I won't hear it - take it to the moderators. I will delete any posts from now on that doesn't deal with the thread topic.

In this forum, lying is considered spam, and should be taken to the moderators. You don't respond to spam, you report it.

I've now spent 2 pages refuting ridiculous accusations bordering on being flamy and keeping me from digging up more evidence, which you still demand. This does not further the debate, and is in nobody's interest.

Now, I realize that I am a moderator, but I do not have the power to ban people, if you find that a comfort. Report it to the other moderators, if you think I'm lying, since I already gave countless reasons for why I'm not.

You have been warned.

Which part of my above post did you not read? - C'jais

There is one thing I really don't get. You ask for evidence and proof...and when presented, you arn't happey and you want a source (which I understand), but when given a source, you still don't believe it....so why should I even bother wasting my time getting a source?

Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
There is one thing I really don't get. You ask for evidence and proof...and when presented, you arn't happey and you want a source (which I understand), but when given a source, you still don't believe it....

Because the source usually has no scientific integrity. In fact, if these creationist "scientists" had published a book with these ridiculous claims, they'd get dragged to the UVVU (The commitee concerning lack of scientific integrity). The only reason they have an audience at all is because of the Bible belt and the interweb.

so why should I even bother wasting my time getting a source?

You should spend your time getting a correct source.

All the creationist sources presented in this thread make our resident scientist jackass in Denmark (The skeptical environmentalist - Lomborg) look like a Nobel prize winner.

Can Science Prove God?

Is there a way to scientifically prove God's existence? Let's take a brief look at the scientific method and see if science has any way to prove or disprove the existence of God. In the scientific method, scientists observe some phenomenon and form a conjecture, a theory, about how it works. This theory must predict the outcome of some experiment or observation. Then the scientist does the experiment or makes the observation many times. If the experiment or observation fails, the theory is proven false and the scientist must develop a new theory. The new theory must take into account the actual results of the previous observations and experiments. Then the scientist tries again. No scientific theory is worth anything if it doesn't contain predictions that might prove it false. What if the prediction is true? Does that prove the theory true? No, it just proves the theory is more usefull than the previous theory. The new theory must make new predictions that can be proven true or false by experiment and observation. Many scientific theories have succeeded time and again, only to be disproved in the end. Scientists have come to the conclusion that theories are not true or false, but more useful and less useful.

Well, what about the theory of gravitation? Isn't that proven constantly everywhere around the world and throughout the universe? We know gravity exists. Every time we drop something, every time we don't float away from our chair, we prove gravity exists. But the theory of gravitation seeks to describe the way gravity works. Sir Isaac Newton was the first to "correctly" describe the rules of gravitation (we still don't know how it actually works). His description of the laws of gravity and motion are one of the greatest feats of the human intellect. After many years of being "proven" correct, a young upstart named Albert Einstein proved Newton's laws false. Only a little false, under special conditions, but enough to revolutionize science. Newton's laws still hold for the vast majority in all practical circumstances.

The nice thing about gravity itself is that you can scientifically prove it exists any time you want, just by dropping something and observing whether or not it falls. What about God then? Is there some way to prove His existence at any time by observation, like dropping something proves gravity exists? Even though God is invisible and not perceivable through our senses, is there something about God, His attributes, that can show us any time we think about it that He exists? Or must we just assume He exists, as many do, or assume He doesn't exist, as many others do. We need to KNOW, and stop assuming, for whatever the answer is, it's of paramount importance in each of our lives.


There is a way

If you came to me and said, "Prove to me that gravity exists." I might laugh. But if I took you seriously, I would pick something up and drop it. There are some, so spoiled by philosophy, who would not accept that as proof, but most rational people, scientists included, would find such a demonstration quite acceptable. Remember, the scientist makes a prediction according to the theory and then observes if it's true. The prediction here is: "If I release this object, it will fall. The result is: it does fall. (Obviously, helium baloons are a special case that prove the prediction in an unexpected way.) Is there such a simple demonstration available; proof by observation, to prove God's existence?

Yes, there is! In fact there are many. Not quite as simple as snapping your fingers and having God appear like some genie, but convincing enough to satisfy most people. The demonstration of the existence of gravity is one. The existence of something to drop. The existence of somewhere for it to drop. The existence of the object dropped. And the existence of the one who dropped it and the mind that observed and interpreted the dropping. Just the observation that things exist, that there is a creation, is a proof of God. You can't have a creation without a creator. God is the great Creator. That is His job, it's what He does. The whole universe and all that's in it is a great testimony to and proof of the existence of God. But some scientists say that existance is inevitable, given the laws of the universe.


Creation is perfect and consistent

The creation is ordered and predictable. Things don't suddenly appear or disappear. Gravity doesn't suddenly turn off at unexpected times. A kilogram of iron doesn't become half a kilogram one day and two kilograms the next. Everything works perfectly and in total harmony. No matter how wild and violent and strange things may seem here on earth and out in the universe, everything follows universal laws. The world turns, we have night and day. Earth orbits the sun, we have the seasons. We don't have to worry about the sun not coming up tomorrow morning or winter lasting five years. Isn't it nice that everything that God created always works? Wouldn't it be nice if everything people create would always work? (Well, maybe not everything!) It strains the mind to try to imagine such a perfect universe arising by chance. (It strains the mind to try to imagine anything at all arising by chance.) Such perfection and consistency could only be the product of a great mind. This is another proof of the existence of a perfect and consistent God.

Astronomers have observed regions of the universe thousands of millions of light years away. They have never found any difference in the behavior of matter and energy anywhere in the universe, nor do they ever expect to. Things work consistently here, where we are, and they work consistently everywhere else. As far as can be determined, they've worked that way from the beginning and will always work that way. But scientists speculate that in the first few seconds of the existance of the universe it was wildly different.


Matter and energy prove God

That young upstart mentioned earlier, Albert Einstein, showed that matter and energy are interchangeable. He described their relationship in what is probably the most famous equation in the world: E=mc2. One of the most basic laws of the universe is that matter and energy cannot be either created or destroyed. Matter can be changed from one kind to another and so can energy. Matter can be changed to energy and energy to matter. But in no case is there ever a loss or gain in the total amount. Yet science has also found that the universe has not always existed. The universe is expanding and ,according to evolution, thousands of millions of years ago it all seems to have started at one point. Where did all the matter and energy come from?

There Was a Beginning

One of the great discoveries of science is that there was no past eternity of matter and energy. According to many cosmologists, all matter and energy suddenly appeared at some time in the remote past. They call that occurrence "The Big Bang". Other theories have been proposed but so far haven't withstood the tests of science. According to the Big Bang theory, the whole universe began as a tiny unimaginably compressed ball of matter and energy. It exploded and is still expanding after tens of thousands of millions of years. If this is true, where did this tiny ball of matter and energy come from?

Some cosmologists theorize that such a thing must happen inevitibly. The paradox of the great law that says matter and energy cannot be created and the observations that prove there has been no past eternity of matter and energy point inexorably to a great Creator God.


Life proves God

What we can see of the universe through our telescopes is simple compared to the life on earth and all its forms and interactions. Leaving aside the environmental upsets caused by human exploitation, living creatures and ecosystems on this earth are beautifully functional and balanced. Yes, things go wrong occasionally, living things and whole communities of living things get sick. But even then, there is a healing capacity designed into every living creature and every ecosystem. Yes, designed in! Have you watched many nature shows on TV? Even though the whole focus is on evolution, you might be surprised to count the number of times the word design is used. God is the master Designer and life giver.

Down through history, people have dreamed of creating life. Occasionally you will read of some scientific discovery that is said to be a major step toward creating life in the laboratory. How many major steps are needed? When scientists still have no idea what life is, how can they tell if it's a major step or just incidental? What is life? Obviously, creatures from the largest Blue Whale and Giant Sequoia to the smallest microbe have things in common that define what we call life. But there is some controversy among scientists concerning viruses. Recently, a new disease producer has been discovered that is just a protein. A part of living things to be sure, but not alive itself. Where is the line between living and nonliving drawn? Only God knows. God is the great life giver. Only He knows what life is and only He can produce life. But what if life is only a natural chemical process following known physical laws? Would that disprove the existance of God?


Science tries to answer

Now these proofs and others of God's existence would satisfy most people, but many scientists have hypothetical explanations that don't require God. Though they have never produced life in the laboratory and have never seen it spontaneously appear, they believe as an article of faith that given the proper circumstances and enough time, life must appear. They say that the reason the universe is so perfectly formed and balanced is that if it were not, we wouldn't be here to observe and speculate on it. Perhaps, they say, infinitely many universes have arisen that weren"t able to produce intelligent life and so no one observed them. They even postulate laws that require the spontaneous creation of the tiny ball of matter and energy that started the Big Bang from nothing; that the universe created itself.

Science has no answer

But these are not really answers, they are just attempts to explain the unexplainable. What they overlook in all this is something without which all their speculations are worthless. It is also the greatest proof of the existence of God; the one which no one can dispute. That is the existence of physical law. Gravity follows law. That law was described by Newton and later modified by Einstein. Puny man may not yet perfectly describe that law, but it undeniably exists. It never changes, though human descriptions of it may change. The whole universe follows the law of gravitation and myriad other laws. From the smallest subatomic particle to the largest galaxy, laws are followed perfectly and for all time.

Living things follow laws; from the laws of chemistry inside the living cells to the laws of inter-species interactions in a large ecosystem. Not one of these laws ever changes or wavers. No scientist has ever created or destroyed or even slightly modified the actual operation of a physical law. No scientist would even know how to go about changing a law. Not one of these laws ever contends with another; all the laws of the universe are in perfect balance and harmony. Because all of the laws work together so perfectly, some scientists feel strongly that there may be a single universal law from which all other laws are derived. If this is someday found to be true, where did that law come from? Even when cosmologists speculate regarding the creation of the universe from the Big Bang, they develop speculative laws and then extrapolate from those speculative laws. Where did all these laws come from if not from the mind of the great Lawgiver, the mighty Creator of all matter, energy, law, and order? Even if it is ultimately discovered that the universe had to arise from nothing, that life had to arise from nonliving, those would be laws. The uncountable, perfectly balanced, harmonious multitude of laws just cannot spring from nothing! And if they all spring from one great law, that law cannot spring from nothing. There is no other answer, God the great law giver does exist!

Now that the existence of God has been indisputably proven, what does that mean to you and to your future? Don't you think you should find out if the Great Creator God who created the whole universe has any interest in you? Does He have a plan for you? Does He have things He wants you to do and are there things He wants to do for you? The answers to these questions are in the Holy Bible. The Bible has been much misunderstood and characterized by some as the meaningless ramblings of a minor tribe of people who lived in the Middle East thousands of years ago. Yet the Bible is owned by more people in the world than any other book. Why this strange paradox?

For you Big Bang fans

Fred Hoyle did some detailed calculations, and announced that a big bang would produce only light elements—helium, deuterium and lithium (the latter two are actually quite rare). He calculated that if the density of the universe were about one atom per eight cubic metres, the amounts of these three light elements would be quite close to those actually observed. In this way, a new version of the theory was put forward which was nothing like the older theories. This no longer mentioned the cosmic rays of Lemaоtre, or the heavy elements of Gamow. Instead, the evidence put forward was the microwave background and three light elements. Yet none of this constitutes conclusive proof for the big bang. A major problem was the extreme smoothness of the background microwave radiation. The so-called irregularities in the background are so small that these fluctuations would not have had time to grow into galaxies—not unless there was a lot more matter (and therefore a lot more gravity) around than appears to be the case.

There were other problems, too. How does it come about that bits of matter flying in opposite directions all managed to reach the same temperature, and all at the same time (the "horizon" problem)? The partisans of the theory present the alleged origins of the universe as a model of mathematical perfection, all perfectly regular, a regular "Eden of symmetry whose characteristics conform to pure reason," as Lerner puts it. But the present universe is anything but perfectly symmetrical. It is irregular, contradictory, "lumpy." One of the problems is why did the big bang not produce a smooth universe? Why did not the original simple material and energy just spread out evenly in space as an immense haze of dust and gas? Why is the present universe so "lumpy"? Where did all these galaxies and stars come from? So how did we get from A to B? How did the pure symmetry of the early universe give rise to the present irregular one we see before our eyes?

and here's something for you, just for fun


One reason why Evolution is false...using only a Rubik's Cube and some math.

Yes, it's true...a Rubik's Cube could help prove the theory of Evolution to be completely false. I hope that you all know what a Rubik's Cube is, so I'm not going to worry about an explanation. Let's get going:



Imagine 100,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,

000 (10^50) blind men stretched throughout the universe, all holding a messed up Rubik's Cube. Imagine the odds of all 100 billion-kajillion blind men completing the Rubik's Cube at the exact same time...pretty big odds. As a matter of fact, the average odds against each success of a Rubik's Cube is 40,000,000,000,000,000,000 (4 x 10^19) to 1. Multiply:



(10^50) x (4 x 10^19) = 4,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000, -

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (4^69)



"So, what's your point?"...According to the Nobel Prize-winning scientists Sir Fred Hoyle, that's about the same odds of one functioning protein molecule evolving by chance on the ancient Earth. Actually, he's probably being generous with those odds.

With those odds, we can pretty much rule out the chance of one protein molecule, let alone the many, very many, of them that are required to even contain life, and look at all of the complex life systems that we have today and every day.

Of course, you get those people that say that since there is a "chance" of this happening, it had to have happened becuase we are here today...they assume that we have evolved without actually proving it (and we all know what assuming does).

It's your choice. The odds are 4^69:1...would you bet $100 on it? How about your stereo? How about your beliefs? How about...your eternity? Your choice, choose wisely.

Here's something for you to read.


Evolution - A False Doctrine
by SIVAN TUMARKIN
April 1996


The Evolution Theory is a false doctrine devised by scientists lacking modern technology and
knowledge in an attempt to escape the aggressive confines of Religion, thereby forming a new
faith referred to as "natural selection". Throughout time, evolution mechanisms have been
developed to account for many barriers facing evolutionists. From Lamarckism developed by
Jean Baptisete DeLamarck (1829) to Darwinism by Charles Darwin (1859) to The Mutation
Theory by Hugo deVries (1901) right up to the current theory of Neo-Darwinism, modifications to
this doctrine have evolved to include modern scientific principles of Biology, Anthropology,
Physics and Mathematics. The concept of "Evolution" as proposed by Charles Darwin does not
in itself present opposition to creation by a higher order of intelligence. Evolution simply implies
"gradual change through time". Thus, a creator might have employed such means of creation
just as humans gradually design and build newer cars with an increased variety of shapes and
colors. The conflict arise when Naturalists insist that all life gradually evolved from non-living
matter by the process of natural selection which is a direct violation of The Law of Biogenesis1 .
Naturalistic evolution is considered and taught to be a fact rather than a theory by many
scientists and teachers. It is an everyday event to watch a television show such as the
Discovery Channel and constantly be reminded of how evolutionary mechanisms caused the
rise of life on Earth. Any inquiries questioning evolution are immediately suppressed or
answered with evolutionary terms such as "survival of the fittest" which is a tautology and hence
can not be disputed with out proper knowledge or deep understanding of the clauses used.
Although the theory itself offers abundant examples of "evolutionary paradoxes", many scientists
choose to dismiss these confrontations and faithfully follow the evolution doctrine. Careful
biological examinations of various organisms prove that purely accidental evolution is definitely
unattainable and offer proof to illustrate why many built in mechanisms in animals are either fully
functional as a whole, or are rejected.
Mathematical probabilities defy all arguments presented by evolutionists and clearly disqualify
natural selection as being a credible scientific theory. Furthermore, The Evolution Theory finds
itself strangled when trying to dispute its rationale against physics laws which govern this
universe. Darwinists insult science by refusing to follow scientific regulations and forcing this
"faith" as a fact before endorsing it as a theory. It is accepted by many scientists as the only
explanation for the origin of life, consequently omitting all other theories including creation. "We
in NASA were often asked what the real reason was for the amazing string of successes we had
with our Apollo flights to the Moon. I think the only honest answer we could give was that we
tried to never overlook anything. It is in that same sense of scientific honesty that I endorse the
presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life and man in the science
classroom. It would be an error to overlook the possibility that the universe was planned rather
than happened by chance." 2 The Evolution Theory is based on evidence gathered by "expert"
scientists to justify their claim of an evolutionary chain. In many cases, evolutionists use
strategies to shine their theory on to the public by means of media shows such as the famous
Scopes trial as well as secretly generating false "evidence" displaying skeletons of missing links
such as the Piltdown Man and refusal to claim responsibility for conclusions mistakenly made;
such as the case of Lucy. In addition, "evidence" supporting the evolutionary chain is invalid in
view of the tremendous lack of intermediate links between species as well as, all the evidence
pointing towards evolution is prominently based on the assumption that evolution has occurred.
Thus, once an assumption has become the evidence for the premeditated conclusion, it is
somewhat obvious to view that conclusion as the only logical explanation. One of the most well
known conflicts between Creation and Darwinism called the Scopes case, occurred in the
1920's which was especially engineered to make a mockery of Creationism. The Tennessee
legislature had passed a statue prohibiting the teaching of evolution. Opponents of the law
engineered a case test in which a former substitute teacher named Scopes volunteered to be
the defendant. William Jennings Bryan, three-time Democratic presidential candidate and a
Bible believer led the prosecution. The Scope's defense team was led by the famous criminal
lawyer Clarence Darrow. Darrow called Bryan to the stand as a Bible expert and presented him
with a tooth belonging to the Nebraska Man (prehistoric man within the evolutionary chain).
Darrow humiliated Bryan in a devastating cross-examination in which he showed that the
leading "scientific authorities" in the world confirmed the tooth belonged to a prehistoric man.
The "monkey-trial" was a triumph for Darwinism and had a powerful impact on the general
public. "However, years after the trial, the skeleton of the animal which the tooth came from was
found. As it turns out, the tooth on which the Nebraska Man was created belonged to an extinct
species of pig. The "authorities" who ridiculed Mr.Bryan for his ignorance, created an entire race
of humanity out of the tooth of a pig!"3 Such "authority figures" have been governing and
monitoring the media in an attempt to establish Evolution as a fact and not a theory. "It is
absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that
person is ignorant, stupid or insane!" 4 Nevertheless, not all scientists are limiting themselves
to one possible conclusion. There are those who openly admit flaws within this theory and try to
reasonably establish evidence to support their claims as true scientists. If they lack such
evidence, they permit criticism and act as respected scientists by drawing objective conclusions
based on their initial hypothesis and gathered observations. Such is the case with the founder
of the Theory of Evolution, Charles Darwin. "As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms
must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the
earth? The number of extinct species must have been inconceivably great!... not one change of
species into another is on record... we cannot prove that a single species has been changed!...
He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole
theory." 5 Throughout the history of the Evolution Theory, many people have tried to help natural
selection "evidence" by engineering false proof that will in turn prove the missing link between
humans and apes. In 1912, Charles Dawson (a fossiologist) discovered some bones, teeth and
primitive implements in a gravel pit at Piltdown, Sussex, England. He took them to Dr. Author
Smith Woodward (well known and respected paleontologist) at the British Museum. The
remains were marked as being 500,000 years old. This new discovery generated mass media
coverage all over the world and "Evolution" became the primary theory for the origin of life. The
evolutionary link between man and ape was found! On October 1956, using a new method to
date bones based on fluoride absorption, the Piltdown bones were found to be fraudulent.
Further, critical investigation revealed that the jawbone actually belonged to an ape that had died
only 50 years previously. The skeleton, tested and confirmed by "expert scientific authorities"
proved to be a fake. This did not matter; the promotion of "Evolution" has been successful in
planting the idea that soon, the real missing link will be found, instead of generating an inquiry
as to the validity of this theory. "When it comes to the origin of life on the earth, there are only
two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (Evolution). There is no third way.
Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other
conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We can not accept that on philosophical grounds
(personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose
spontaneously by chance." 6 Present day speculation about human evolution is mainly based
on a group of fossils called autralopithecines and in particular, a specimen called Lucy, a 40%
complete skeleton. During investigations conducted from 1972-1977 in a far area of Ethiopia,
D.C. Johanson discovered a skeleton later to be known as Lucy. This again, generated mass
media coverage as an evolutionary link between humans and apes was found. In a National
Geographic article (December 1976), Joahnson claimed that "the angle of the thigh bone and
the flattened surface at its knee joint end... proved she walked on two legs." "However, evidence
regarding the actual discovery of the knee joint that was used to 'prove' that Lucy walked upright
was found more than 200 feet lower in the strata and more than two miles away. The knee joint
end of the femur was severely crushed; therefore, Johanson's conclusion is pure speculation."7
Anatomist Charles Oxnard, using a computer technique for analysis of skeletal relationships,
has concluded that the australopithecines did not walk upright (not in the same manner as
humans). Furthermore, there is evidence that people including Kanapoi hominid and
Castennedolo Man walked upright before the time of Lucy. Obviously, if people walked before
Lucy, than once again, this "evidence" is disqualified as an evolutionary ancestor. Thus, the only
scientific basis for concluding that Lucy was an evolutionary link, was the assumption that
evolution did occur. When lining evidence on the assumption that a theory is a fact, the only
possible conclusion which could be generated is that fact; "the fact of evolution" (closed circle).
"Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observations and
wholly unsupported by facts." 8 One of the most serious blows to the Evolution Theory is the
absence of transitional forms. As Darwin was honest enough to admit the defect in his theory
regarding these intermediate links, his assumptions were credible. "The explanation lies,
however, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record." 9 In 1859, this explanation
drove geologists to vigorously search for fossils of these "links". Although it has been over 100
years since Darwin's time, we now have fewer samples of "transitional forms" than we did back
then. Instead of heaving more samples, we actually have less because some of the old classic
examples of evolution have been recently discarded due to new information and findings, and no
new transitional forms have been found. "The fossil material is now so complete that the lack of
transitional series cannot be explained by the scarcity of the material. The deficiencies are real,
they will never be filled." 10 Nevertheless, evolutionists still maintain their determination to put
their faith before the evidence. It is not with facts that evolutionists argue against the
theory of creation, but rather, with tentative assumptions based on faith and inability to explain
the paradoxes in nature. When confronted with questions such as "who came first, the chicken
or the egg?", they reply with philosophical answers containing no shred of evidence. Throughout
the natural environment, organisms have been discovered and examined revealing clear
evidence of defiance to the Evolution Theory. From the ingenious design of the human eye, to
the magnificent relationship between symbiotic organisms, right to the marvelous design of body
structures and color variation in nature, the notion of "it" happening by "mere coincidence" is
completely preposterous and a ridiculous theory for science to acknowledge. In addition to the
visual beauty in nature, DNA serves as an impenetrable shield to the Creation Theory and a fatal
weapon against the Theory of Evolution. "Take the human body alone-the chance that all the
functions of the individual could just happen, is a statistical monstrosity!" 11 Evolutionists are
helpless when trying to explain the step by step evolution of the human eye. As one of the most
intriguing organs of the body, it contains automatic aiming, automatic focusing, and automatic
aperture adjustment. The human eye can function from almost complete darkness to bright
sunlight. It sees an object with a diameter of a fine hair, and makes about 100,000 separate
motions in an average day. Then, while we sleep, it carries out its own maintenance work. The
human eye is so sophisticated that scientists are still trying to understand how it functions.
When objectively questioning his own theory, Charles Darwin confirmed that "to suppose that
the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for
admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration,
could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest
possible degree... The belief that an organ as perfect as the eye could have been formed by
natural selection is more than enough to stagger anyone." Nonetheless, evolutionists still stick
to their "faith" and a paralyzed answer, "it happened somehow, somewhere". It is hopeless to
try and explain how the eye evolved step by step because, it is either a complete structure
(including all other organs such as brain to perceive the information and then analyze it like a
computer, as well as all other organs such as heart, blood vessels, etc.), or it is incomplete, in
which case it will be rejected by the organism. It either functions as an integrated whole or not
at all. Darwin has stated that "if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which
could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory
would absolutely break down." However, the human eye is just the tip of the iceberg.
Evolutionists' problems are further complicated by the fact that hundreds of different eyes exist in
different organisms. These different eyes are built with absolutely distinct designs. A squid's
eyes are structurally different than a human's eyes or a crab's eyes, etc. To compare the
structures of these eyes is like comparing a radio's design with a computer's design. Both
receive and output signals but have completely different architectural designs. Such a case of
evolution, of many different eyes, each astonishingly designed and crafted, is surely a dilemma
an evolutionist must face. To illustrate, the Trilobite eye; unlike the lens of a human eye, which
is composed of living, organic tissues, trilobite eyes are composed of inorganic calcite. Unlike
human eyes which are composed of a single lens, trilobite eyes have a very special double lens
design with anywhere from 100 to 15,000 lenses in each eye (depending on the sub-species).
This special design allows the trilobites to see under water perfectly, without distortions.
Sufficient knowledge of Abbe's Sine Law, Fermat's Principle, and various other principles of
optics are fundamental in the design of these lenses. They appear to have been carefully crafted
by a very knowledgeable physicist.
Astonishing symbiotic relationships between organisms found in nature, mock the Evolution
Theory. There are many instances where organisms of different species are completely
dependent upon each other for survival. For instance, "the Pronuba moth lives in a cocoon in
the sand at the base of the Yucca plant. Pronuba moths can only hatch on certain nights of the
year, which are also the only nights that Yucca flowers bloom. When the Pronuba moth
hatches, it enters an open Yucca flower and gathers pollen12 . It then flies to a different yucca
plant, backs into the flower and lays its eggs with the Yucca's seed cells. It pushes the pollen it
had gathered into a hole in the Yucca flower's pistil, so the pollen will fertilize the Yucca's seed
cells where the moth laid its eggs. The moth then dies. As the moth's eggs incubate, the yucca
seeds ripen. When the eggs hatch, the moth larvae eat about one fifth of the Yucca seeds.
They then cut through the seed pod and spin a thread that they use to slide down to the desert
floor. They proceed into the sand and spin a cocoon and the cycle continues. There are several
kinds of Yucca plants, each pollinated by its own kind of moth that is the right size to enter the
particular flower. The Yucca plant and the Pronuba moth are dependent on each other for
reproduction, thus survival." 13 Another example of a symbiotic relationship is found between
large fish and usually smaller fish and shrimp. Many large fish feed on smaller fish and shrimp.
However, once these large fish find that their mouths have become littered with debris and
parasites, they swim to places were smaller fish and shrimp clean their mouths. When the
large fish opens its mouth and gill chambers, baring vicious-looking teeth, the little fish and
shrimp swim inside the large fish until they finish their job of eating all the debris and then swim
out unharmed and the big fish swims away. Both parties involved in this relationship benefit and
override the instincts developed by "Evolution" for self-preservation to eat the smaller fish and
shrimp, as well as, for the cleaning animals' unnatural suicidal tendency to walk straight into the
mouth of this large fish. This relationship is not limited to fish. The bird Egyptian Plover is
designed to freely walk into the mouth of the Nile crocodile to clean out parasites and leaves
completely unharmed. Such relationships challenge the Evolution concept of each animal's
instinct for self-preservation. However, such a relationship can occur if the organisms had
implanted information within their genetic program for them to act out and follow. A computer
will do whatever it is instructed according to the program it runs by. It will not display feelings or
change course out of will. It will only act as it was programmed to act. As stated by Charles
Darwin, "if it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed
for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have
been produced through natural selection." Therefore, the evidence of the Pronuba moth and the
Yucca flower clearly present a relationship in which not just one particular part of a structure of
an organism is necessary for the survival of another specie, but they are both completely linked
in a reproductive cycle in which both species had to "evolve" at the same time absolutely
annihilating the concept of "gradual evolution" by "chance"; a paradox equivalent to the famous
question of "who came first, the chicken or the egg?" Another paradox is "who came first, male
or female?" If the male or the female evolved first, then why would nature complicate itself by
allowing for that organism to "start evolving" two genders that have to be 100% compatible with
each other, as well as, each gender be attracted to the opposite gender, and many other
considerations to be taken in order to assure reproduction. It would be ridiculous to even
consider the possibility of both genders (in every specie containing two genders) evolving at the
same time with such complexity and compatibility. "The explanatory doctrines of biological
evolution do not stand up to an in-depth criticism."14 Another fine example of such paradox in
nature is the Bombardier beetle. The Bombardier beetle is a small insect that is armed with an
impressive defense system. Whenever threatened by an enemy attack, this organism ejects
irritating and odious gases, which are at 2120F, out from two tail pipes right into the face of its
predator. Hermann Schildknecht, a German chemist, studied the Bombardier beetle to find out
how he accomplishes this chemical achievement. He learned that the beetle makes his
explosive weapon by mixing together two very dangerous chemicals (hydroquinone and
hydrogen peroxide). In addition to these two chemicals, there is a third chemical known as the
"inhibitor". The inhibitor prevents the chemicals from blowing up and enables the beetle to store
these chemicals in his body. Whenever the beetle is approached by a predator, such as a frog,
he squirts the stored chemicals into the two combustion tubes and, at the precisely right
moment, he ads another chemical (an anti-inhibitor). A violent explosion occurs right in the face
of the attacker. When analyzing the "evolutionary process" that allowed the Bombardier beetle
to develop such a chemical weapon, we are forced to speculate that first, there must have been
thousands of generations of beetles improperly mixing these hazardous chemicals in fatal
evolutionary experiments, blowing themselves to pieces. Eventually, we assume, they have
arrived at the magic formula, but what about the development of the inhibitor? There is no need
to evolve an inhibitor unless you already have the two chemicals you are trying to inhibit. On the
other hand, if you already have the two chemicals without the inhibitor, it is already too late, for
you have just blown yourself up. Obviously, such design and pre-meditative arrangement would
have to arise from intelligent foresight and planning. Nevertheless, assuming that the beetle
somehow managed to simultaneously develop the two chemicals along with the important
inhibitor. The solution would offer no benefit at all to the beetle, for it would just sit there as a
harmless mixture. To be of any value to the beetle, an anti-inhibitor must be added to the
solution. So, once again, for thousands of generations we are supposed to believe that these
poor beetles mixed and stored these chemicals for no particular reason or advantage, until
finally, the anti-inhibitor was perfected. With the anti-inhibitor developed he still can't touch his
predators because he still needs to "evolve" the two combustion tubes and a precise
communications and timing network to control and adjust the critical direction and timing of the
explosion. So once again, for thousands of generations, the beetles blew themselves up to
pieces until they finally mastered this long range plan. Such a defense mechanism requires
vast amount of knowledge to design and construct. To argue that it all just evolved
instantaneously is absurd and to suggest that for thousands of generations, "natural selection"
aimed to achieve this specific and remarkable design is not within the Evolution Theory's
capabilities. 15 In addition to the superb design of structural engineering, nature, is filled with
magnificent varieties of colors arranged in geometric shapes and sizes. Many organisms exhibit
such architectural designs clearly showing intelligent pattern. Butterflies, fish, flowers, birds,
and many other types of organisms have color decorations as a part of their genetic makeup.
An animal such as the Zebra, contains an intelligent design of black and white stripes makes it
a very easy target for hunting (see cover page for illustration). Furthermore, these stripes on the
Zebra are composed of billions of cells, each have the proper chemicals to produce that specific
color in the specific location. When demonstrating how an evolutionary mechanism could have
developed the Zebra's patterned looks, the process can be paralleled to programming a
computer to randomly produce colored pixels on the screen and waiting to see if a pattern such
as black line, white line, black line, white line, etc. would occur. Furthermore, it is not enough to
hope for the black and white lines to appear (orderly), how can they possibly be genetically
integrated into the Zebra's coded DNA? Would a computer for no reason, program itself to
display these lines on the screen if you smash it everytime it didn't? Because of the Zebra's
patterned look, it can be seen from vast distances and killed. Evolutionary thinking is so
focused on what is practical and what is required for self-preservation, that when presented with
such a widespread of beauty which in many cases serve no purpose except for decoration, they
must either capitulate or ignore the facts. Such is the case with the fish, Rhodicthys.
Rhodicthys is of a bright red color. Yet, it lives in total darkness, 1.5 miles below the surface of
the ocean. Likewise, the deep-sea Neoscopelus macrolepidotus is vividly colored with azure
blue, bright red, silver spots, and black circles! Even the eggs of some of the deep-sea
creatures are brilliantly colored. Furthermore, naturalists' obsession for defending evolution no
matter what, has produced absurd and absolutely senseless statements regarding animals
such as the peacock.
"Do the creation scientists really suppose their Creator saw fit to create a bird that couldn't
reproduce without six feet of bulky feathers that make it easy for leopards?"16 It seems to me
that a peacock is just the kind of animal an artistic Creator would favor, but an "uncaring
mechanical process" like natural selection would never permit to develop. "I reject evolution
because I deem it obsolete; because the knowledge, hard won since 1830, of anatomy,
histology, cytology, and embryology, cannot be made to accord with its basic idea. The
foundationless, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long
deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep-rooted in the hearts of man."17
Ultimately, DNA is without a doubt the strongest weapon to hinder the Theory of Evolution. "Now
we know that the cell itself is far more complex than we had imagined. It includes thousands of
functioning enzymes, each one of them a complex machine itself. Furthermore, each enzyme
comes into being in response to a gene, a strand of DNA. The information content of this gene
(its complexity) must be as great as that of the enzyme it controls." 18 DNA is the coded
language on which the foundation of life is based on. Unlike electronic devices built by human
beings employing the rules of electricity (on, off) , DNA is an extremely more complex and
mystifying method for transmitting ordered information for it is founded on four acids (4 parts)
which make up a language far more detailed than that of two parts. DNA molecules can only be
replicated with the assistance of specific enzymes, which in turn, can only be produced by the
controlling DNA molecule. Each is absolutely necessary for the other and both must be present
for replication to occur. Thus, we can conclude that the basic grounds on which "evolutionary
mechanisms" operate, are in themselves, a paradox on the molecular level. "The capacity of
DNA to store information vastly exceeds that of modern technology. The information needed to
specify the design all the species of organisms which ever lived (known) could be held in a
teaspoon and there would still be room left to hold all the information in every book ever written."
19 Such extraordinary sophistication can only reflect super-intelligent design. In addition,
computer scientists have demonstrated conclusively that information does not and cannot arise
spontaneously.20 "The Information Theory has shown that mistakes cannot improve a code of
information; they can only reduce a code's ability to transmit meaningful information.
Information results only from the expenditure of energy (to arrange letters and words) and under
the all-important direction of intelligence." 21 DNA is information. The only logical and
reasonable conclusion that can be drawn is that DNA was formed by intelligence. The
paradoxes facing evolutionists are unconquerable simply because, what used to be their most
convenient answer "we had millions of years for this to happen", is no longer valid for answering
questions such as, "who came first the chicken or the egg? Male or female? Pronuba moths or
the Yucca plant? DNA molecule or the enzymes responsible for its development? and so forth.
"To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of
chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the
facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely
complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically
and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest."

I doubt you're going to read any of what I just posted, because it seems people try to get around stuff that challenges their evolution belief.

However, if you did read it all, good for you.

Good work, Rp.

But before I tear into this, let me ask you: Do you believe in this? That the universe was created from God making the Big Bang?

Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
I doubt you're going to read any of what I just posted, because it seems people try to get around stuff that challenges their evolution belief.

However, if you did read it all, good for you.

I'm reading it.

But not the last one, I'm afraid, as I can't read it when it's all scattered about. Could you edit it to make it more readable?

I don't believe He used the Big Bang, thought it is some interesting reading.



I'll try to edit it when I'm back from work. (Roughly 4 to 5 hours)

Either that or you can copy and paste it into word

C'jais, we could all agree that in this universe there is a beginning and a end, correct? If this is true, what was the beginning of the big bang; how was that energy ball created? I have been thinking, and this is the only possible way to live in a dimension without a higher power:

Somewhere, if multiple dimensions do exist, there was a dimension that had no beginning or end. Somehow the energy that would be the big bang was created and brought to this dimension.

I'm not too sure if I believe in multi-dimensions, they were only tools of sci-fi writers. I would find it more convincing to believe that there is a being beyond all imagination that brought about the existence of the universe.

What are your views on the pre-big bang situation?

Very good info Rp!!! Congrats. The only problem is, now I'm going to kill you because my eyes hurt so much. :D


Oh and Rp I already posted the probability of evolution happening on page 1 or 2 or something and I was counted wrong... But still, very good stuff.

Wow, Rp, that took a while to read, but I think it had a lot of good stuff in it. After reading it all, I can't see how people could have very strong beliefs about the universe having no creator. And Cjais what the heck are you talking about? I dont see how you can get RNA out of what you said. Its rather obvious that you said in one post that it was impossible to create life, and in the other you said that it could be done at High School level. Either way, Im thinking it's probably highly improbable that you could create a strand of RNA either.

Thanks guys. It's best you copy and paste that article and paste it in word. Easier for us both, heh.

Guess I've got a little catching up to do ;-)

It seems this debate never goes away..... that's cool. It's fun to discuss.

The thing about evolution versus creation that come immediately to mind is that evolution is a scientific theory and creation is not.

Scientific theory operates under testable hypothesis and theories must be bounded. In otherwords, they apply only to a particular field of inquiry. If I discover that pushing the small round button on my monitor causes it to turn off or on, depending on it's current state, then I can reasonably apply this rule, or bounded theory, to other monitors.

I can't really say it was "god's will" since that could apply to the reason my car won't run without petrol. "God's will" is an unbounded explaination. It can apply to floods, death's, or my monitor switch.

Bounded theories can be tested (try many, many monitors.... same effect.... theory is strengthened), unbounded ones cannot.

Evolution is not a religion. It is science. That's it.

Creation, on the other hand generally relies heavily on religion. But so far as I've seen here, the only creation idea that is mentioned is the christian one. There are many other cults out there that have their own views of creation. Some similar, many different. It's a bit ethnocentric to just consider one possibility for creation.... if you reject the science, that is.

Although the theory itself offers abundant examples of "evolutionary paradoxes", many scientists
choose to dismiss these confrontations and faithfully follow the evolution doctrine.

Hmmm... one cannot apply the same reasoning that cult followers utilize to scientists. Scientists do not "faithfully follow" "evolution doctrine."

Evolution is a theory, not a religion and cannot be a doctrine, since it is by nature, correctable. Evolution by natural selection has fullfilled the requirements of a scientific theory superbly. I'm sure it will continue to be refined in the future, as what we have now is a theory based on over 2000 years of observation and correction. It's the end product of a long chain of hypothesizing and testing.

Creation, on the other hand, is not scientifically fruitful. The idea of creation (and I'm not just refering to the christian idea) came into being within cultures that had little ability to test their observations. Understanding of the world around them being severely limited, they did the best job they could at explaining the universe and it's existence. Had this idea, over time, been corrected or updated it would have held more validity, however, since creation is an idea that, especially in the christian view, is unchanging, it is therefore invalid.

I'll stop here for now, because, as Rp pointed out, longer posts are harded to read.... But I'll be around. I've finally got school / work sorted into some kind of routine :-)

Well, its time i got myself involved... I guess you could say im new to this place. New to this place, mind you, so dont bother treating me like a full-fledged newbie. So now, where to begin...

...i can see we have some ignoramuses here that are jsut gonna waste my time when i start arguing, namely C'Jais. So do me a favor, and keep your adolecent mind out of my dealings, would you/ ill permit you to comment on them, but reading this post makes me sure youll only make an ass out of yourself if you try and 'argue'. And Pnut Master? good form, indeed. So then, ill jsut begin at the basics. Though evolution and the big bang theory are not always synonimous, im sure most evolutionists beleive in the big bang. So then, which one of you psyco-babbling evolutionists wants to tell me, according to the evolution/big bang theories, how the universe started... and from what? Please, enchant me.

With that attitude, prepare to leave this place soon. How old are you? -C'jais

Originally posted by Kickwhit
Well, its time i got myself involved... I guess you could say im new to this place. New to this place, mind you, so dont bother treating me like a full-fledged newbie.

Welcome... Enjoy your stay. I bet it's short, but welcome none the less! We'll just refer to you as... say a half-fledged newbie then! j/k :-)

Originally posted by Kickwhit
...i can see we have some ignoramuses here that are jsut gonna waste my time when i start arguing, namely C'Jais. So do me a favor, and keep your adolecent mind out of my dealings, would you/ ill permit you to comment on them,

Well... that's very good of you. I'm sure C'Jais will appreciate it.


Originally posted by Kickwhit
So then, which one of you psyco-babbling evolutionists wants to tell me, according to the evolution/big bang theories, how the universe started... and from what? Please, enchant me.

Well.... actually, I've never really concerned myself with the Big Bang theory... as theories go, it has about as much validity as any other... including the "god factor." But, both of these theories (as well as the others) are not testable, so they rely on existing observation to make hypothesis on.

Big bang actually does have observable evidence that would support it as a theory. I'm not really into astronomy, but it is related to the motion (red shift / blue shift) of the universe as observed by astronomers that indicates that it is expanding outward from a common center.

Religious documents is about the only evidence that remains to support the opposing theory. One is observable and somewhat testable... the other is ... well... the word of the author(s).

Actually, I find the events of the last 4.6 billion years to be far more interesting. Natural selection and genetic mutation have certainly provided us with an wonderful abundance of life forms for our planet. The diversity of species is as broad and interesting as the diversity of environments.

I've never actually understood the need for debate over two ideas: creation as a belief really doesn't hold up to modern understanding of chemistry, physics, geology, biology, etc.

Originally posted by Kickwhit
which one of you psyco-babbling evolutionists

Originally posted by Kickwhit
...i can see we have some ignoramuses

Perhaps. I would assume that the root of that last noun to be "ignorant," which means to be without knowledge. If true, then you may be interested to know that psychobabble is a term that refers to "writing or talk using jargon from psychiatry or psychotherapy without particular accuracy or relevance." We're actually discussing chemistry, biology, genetics, physics, theology, and the like. Not much going on in the way of psychology.

Just didn't want you to go around as an ignoramus, I think more highly of you than that.

Cheers,
SkinWalker

Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
and here's something for you, just for fun


One reason why Evolution is false.

"So, what's your point?"...According to the Nobel Prize-winning scientists Sir Fred Hoyle, that's about the same odds of one functioning protein molecule evolving by chance on the ancient Earth. Actually, he's probably being generous with those odds.

With those odds, we can pretty much rule out the chance of one protein molecule, let alone the many, very many, of them that are required to even contain life, and look at all of the complex life systems that we have today and every day.

What Sir Hoyle was trying to do was support a theory that life on Earth was the result of outside, or off-world, introduction of biological matter, which resulted in the diversity we have now.

I take the view that all the genes that we have were already here, and the event that added them to the Earth was 570 million years ago. You know, the beginning of the Cambrian, that great event. And that everything that we have subsequently used has been simply a question of permuting and combining what came in at that time.

That's a quote from Sir Hoyle Interviewed by Brig Klyce at The Institute for Astronomy, Cambridge, England, 5 July 1996. He also said in that same interview:

t's my nature — I recognize that it must be an accident in my upbringing and the turn of the century when I was at the university — I just go from observation. I don't say, "It's absurd that there should be bacteria in space." I don't say that. It fits the observation, so it's the best theory we have. I don't care if it's absurd. So I didn't hesitate to publish it. That of course was the beginning of the disaster, the ridiculous. [With irony, of those who ridiculed the finding:] They know! They're born to know that the particles in space are not bacteria. God has told them.

Just some interesting info I had.

SkinWalker

Rp, the main problem with you posted essay is that it comes from an essay mill. It's difficult to see sources from essays, since they are basically opinion based upon facts as the author sees it. Still, there are some points worth discussing there.

There's a point (in there somewhere) about the lack of transitional species in fossil record. One has to understand that fossils that exist now are but a very few, VERY few, of the population that existed. I don't know the math, but conditions to permit fossilization are few: secondary mineralization, remineralization, leaching of bone mineral, and biologically-induced mineralization begin very rapidly after the bone is exposed to the environment. If the bone is not buried or underwater within 1-2 years of defleshing, it will literally become dust in the wind. The bone fragments may persist for several more years, but they are unrecognizable as to species. If the bone is buried or underwater, diagenetic processes begin rapidly. A bone can be completely remineralized within 5-10 years. Secondary mineralization can fill all the porosity elements within a few months in some environments. These are the environments which preserve bone the best.

There's also a point about the pronuba moth and yucca plant needing each other for survival. That's the relationship they have now. It is quite probably that natural selection was at work here. The original plant and moth may have survived quite well through other relationships, but the plants that had this relationship survived more consistently when the two species worked together. Over time, the two species became dependent upon each other since other mechanisms were lost during natural selection.

One has only to look at the invention of antibiotics and vaccines to see natural selection in action. Modern medicine has all but wiped out many of the worlds more significant diseases, however, current strains are resistant to medicines. The less resistant individuals died off, leaving the more resistant ones, which propagated and passed on the traits that make them resistant to antibiotics and vaccines. Thus, current strains of malaria and small pox are more hardy than their predecessors.

The theory of evolution may not be correct, but the evidence that is currently observable would indicate that it is considerably more valid than the idea of creation. The main validating trait of evolution is that it is scientific theory and is therefore testable and correctable. Creation is neither.

SkinWalker

I just posed that "essay" because it had some interesting information. It wasn't meant for anything other than that.

And time for me to enter the debate... I'll be brutally honest about two things:

1) Im not an expert in evolutionary theory but I'm not a total newbie to the concept

2) I am obsessed with philosophy. (Take note of that sentence)

Moving on...

I read with great intrest the argument put forth by some of the people that disagree with evolution could simply not have occured and that a grand plan is in place. To sum up what I have heard: creationism happened and evolution didn't. Ok, you are entitled to an opinion and in some cases an educated opinion. But I have to ask you this:

If life did not evolve on earth as purposed in CURRENT evolutionary theory and some form of creationism took place, then explain to me how a divine creator is more plausible?

Think about it. I forget whom posted about how they could prove god's existence, but the basic argument was that you can prove it through everything around us. The fact that it exists. Ok, so let's try to apply this elsewhere. A divine creator cannot exist for the simpler reason that we exist. The argument must be presupposed by an argument proving we exist. Now, even then, the argument does not stand because of Cartesian Dualism.

So now you are probably saying: whats my point? Well my point is that just because evolution may have "flaws" does not mean that we have to revert automatically and say that we are a "divine creation". Its irrational. Furthermore, even if you do automatically assume creation you have no scientific proof that a creator exists. Its simply an assumption based on the unknown because it is much easier to just say a mystical being did it and we don't know why then to prove it scientifically. Blind faith? Go right ahead, just understand that you cannot use "blind faith" as a successful argument because it basically is the adsence of reason and rational...

Well put, Luke. It could also be said that 570 million years of evolution in a 4.6 billion year old planet is, in itself, a divine plan. I've seen no evidence to suggest divine intervention, but that makes more sense than other creation ideas I've heard/read.

SkinWalker

Ok, I'm for evolution. There's scientific evidence of it, and the idea of a divine creator seems ridiculous to me.

I'll go into the logic, or illogic, of "god". He's a perfect being. Screeeeetch. Wiat a minute, if he's a pefect being, why did he need us? Something perfect cannot lack anything, and therefore would have no need to create anything. We are created in god's image. Yeah, ok, so a perfect being spawns beings created as embodyments of him and are flawed. So some claim that adam and eve where perfect, but when they ****ed up (impossible for perfect beings) and betrayed god, and then spawned descendants through original sin, we've changed into flawed beings who sin and dont always believe. So how, if god is perfect, how could his little experiment screw up so royally? And who created god? And how can Earth be 4.6 billion years old when it was created only 5000 years ago?

These are questions I've never heard a creationist account for, and that is why I dont believe.

Religion can easily be explained as a human condition. The lack of knowledge breeds myth.

i, personaly, find that those who say that the 'idea of a divine creator/God is ridiculous' have to keep saying it, almsot as if they are trying to make themselves beleive it. And SkinWalker? Thanks for the noble introduction :p But saying that the only 'evidence' is the authors word, only goes to show ho unpublicized the real evidence is. Can anyone tell me about Lucia? the shroud of Turin? Our Lady of Guatalupe? These are miracles, pure and simple. If something could do that, why couldnt he create a petty existance?

and also, if we are created in Gods image, why are we flawed? Thats an oximoronic irrelevance. We are in his physical image, no one said a damn thing about his high state of being, what powers he might have or his intellect. And by the way, its 8000, not 5000 and, you love this part, i can proove it, too ;) but ill wait for tommorow night... im tired.

Ok, Don't have much time, but I just want to say that you can rant on and repeat yourselves as much as you want that creationism is "irrational", but evolutionary theory in itself is "irrational". Everything has to have a beginning by the scientific veiwpoints. That is logical, you can't have a universe of diversified energy and matter suddenly appear and then become incredibly dense, and hot, and then for some unexplained reason explode, creating all that we see around us, and after billions of years on some desolate rock, with just the right conditions for the life we see around us, some kind of "accident" happens that makes what we call life to suddenly spring into being. When you look at this Earth, how is it rational to say that it came from an explosion, from random coincidences, chance, and against all odds? I believe that there is a God, who has always been, and will always be here. I believe in the Creation found in the Bible. Either way, no matter what your veiw on God or religion is, it is rational (at least to me) to believe that some force, not bound to our rules of time, space, and physics, was able to create the universe, because if not, where did life come from, and where did all of the matter and energy here come from?

Well, what would you do in His "shoes"? You just exists, and always have.

I'd want some company, something to do.

How about create the human race.

Originally posted by Kickwhit
And SkinWalker? Thanks for the noble introduction

You're quite welcome! Please accept this humble fruit basket as token of community acceptance (to have fruit basket FTD'd, simply email this to 10 of your friends then press F8) :p

Originally posted by Kickwhit
But saying that the only 'evidence' is the authors word, only goes to show ho unpublicized the real evidence is. Can anyone tell me about Lucia?

Never heard of it.

Originally posted by Kickwhit
the shroud of Turin?

It was a hoax.

Originally posted by Kickwhit
Our Lady of Guatalupe?

Not sure about her either.

Originally posted by Kickwhit
These are miracles, pure and simple. If something could do that, why couldnt he create a petty existance?

Indeed.

The shroud of Turin was found to be created in 14th century and the image to be made up of "billions of submicron pigment particles (red ochre and vermilion) in a collagen tempera medium." In laymens' terms: paint. See sources at bottom of post.

Originally posted by Kickwhit
And by the way, its 8000, not 5000 and, you love this part, i can proove it, too ;) but ill wait for tommorow night... im tired.

I'm still waiting for this one... :) *cracks knuckles*

Sources mentioned.
Microscope 1980, 28, 105, 115; 1981, 29, 19
Wiener Berichte uber Naturwissenschaft in der Kunst 1987/1988, 4/5, 50
Accounts of Chemical Research 1990, 23, 77-83.
McCrone Research Institute (http://www.mcri.org/Shroud.html)

Originally posted by Psydan
When you look at this Earth, how is it rational to say that it came from an explosion, from random coincidences, chance, and against all odds?

It's at least as rational as saying, "some old dude was lonely and said let there be light."

Originally posted by Psydan
where did life come from, and where did all of the matter and energy here come from?

Where did this deity come from? What was his/her/it's origin? Is there a god for god?

Of course questions about the origin of the universe cannot be answered. Not at this plane of existence. There, undoubtedly, is more to the physics of the universe than we now know. In terms of understanding how the universe works and is made up, we are but infants, barely able to crawl.

Not having any ability to observe creation, it is impossible for any one person to say, unequivicably that they know how it occured. We can only observe the universe around us, make hypotheses, see if additional observation supports or disproves an individual hypothesis, then create a theory. A theory based upon several hypotheses that compliment each other and are the best explaination.

If we are infants now, then man was but a mere blastula during the period in which the idea of creation was first told. We did not have the benefit of advanced knowledge and technology that would allow us to make informed hypotheses.

SkinWalker

Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
I'd want some company, something to do.

How about create the human race.


I'd argue that that's how man created his gods. "How can it be that we are the most intelligent life? Who made us?" These are the questions that have been asked perhaps since man came into existence 2.5 million years ago. Without benefit of informed observation, the best explanaition was a supreme being.

Religion has served many purposes throughout history. It's kept people in line, given common purpose, redistributed wealth (sometimes even in a fair manner), an provided ethical conduct for followers.

I suggest that man created religion (many, many religions... not just christianity) because he was lonely.

SkinWalker

May I clear somethings up?

1. I say some Catholics are Christains. Ok? MY Grandma is a Catholic. Some people though think that going to church makes them a Christain.

2. A FYI all of you are Neo-darwinist not Darwinist.

Darwinists adhere to *Darwin’s idea that natural selection is the sole mechanism (although in a later book, *Darwin rejected it—and returned to Lamarckism, the inheritance of acquired characteristics).

Neo-Darwinists declare that the mechanisms by which evolution occurred and are now occurring are mutations, which are then refined by natural selection.

Hopeful monster advocates(PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUMIST) pin their hopes on sudden, massive mutations, producing a new species all at once. Their view is that a billion-billion beneficial mutations occurs every 50,000 years in two newborns—a male and a female—located a short distance apart.

But all are evolutionist. :)

3. Please both sides no flaming. You get your point through better when you don't flame.


Where did this deity come from? What was his/her/it's origin?

Who says it had to have a origin? May I define eternal?

eternal- ...with out begining or end

May I remind you all what the word Super-Natural means.

Super-Above, Greater than...

So there for

Super-Natural means "Above Nature"

And tell me if God is super-natural why must he live in the laws of the universe?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Kickwhit
the shroud of Turin?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It was a hoax.

True it was.

---------

Also here is something about proteins I found in a book I have been reading.

"BLUE GENE—As we near press time on this paperback, announcement has been made that IBM has begun work on their largest computer to-date. It is called "Blue gene"; and it must be powerful, for they have been building ever larger supercomputers since the 1940s. This one will be 100 times more powerful than Big Blue, the computer used to defeat Kasperson in chess several years ago.

They are trying to figure out something which is so utterly complicated that no lesser computer can handle the task. No, not something simple like computing a trip to Saturn and back. Their objective is solving something far more complicated. —It is figuring out how a protein folds!

In every cell in your body, brainless proteins assemble more proteins from amino acids. They put them into their proper sequence (!), and then, as soon as the task is ended, the new protein automatically folds down into a clump, as complicated as a piece of steel wool. IBM is trying to figure out the fold pattern instantly made by this microscopic piece of mindless, newborn protein!

The computer will cost $100 million, and Stanford University is trying to get people to let them use their home computers to help with the task (go to standford.edu for details). They say they need the information to figure out drugs to counteract HIV and other viruses. So far, they can only get the protein to wiggle; they cannot get it to fold (NPR, Wednesday evening, September 27, 2000).

As we go to press: It has recently been discovered that the terrible plague of Mad Cow Disease, (initially brought into existence by cannibalism) is caused by protiens that do not fold correctly."

This is only to find out how these things fold.
-------
Oh and Cjais. I have something about those Bacteria for you.

"(RESISTANT STRAINS—But soon hopes ran high again. It was discovered that strains of bacteria resistant to penicillin, aureomycin, or chloromycetin appeared when these drugs were given for various diseases. Could it be that here were the "beneficial mutations" that science had been searching for, which natural selection was favoring?

These hopes were dashed when it was discovered that those variations did not arise because of exposure to antibiotics, but instead occurred spontaneously at a constant rate—regardless of whether or not antibiotics were present.

"Certain strains of bacteria and flies seemed to be induced which were resistant to penicillin and DDT, after exposure to these chemicals. As will be shown later they already existed and it only seemed that the fittest were surviving."—Walter E. Larnmerts, book review, in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1977, p. 75.

Most resistant strains were actually natural unmutated varieties. They had always been there, but as the unresistant strains were reduced, the naturally resistant types increased in number for a time.

But then came even worse news: A few resistant strains were found to, indeed, be mutants. But it was obvious that these were always weaker and soon died out from natural causes other than the antibiotics.

In regard to the mutated form: Doses of antibiotic reduce the number of the natural strain, and the mutated form takes over. Then when the antibiotic treatment is stopped, the natural strain increases and the resistant strain soon dies out—because, as a mutated form it never was strong.

So both normal variants and occasional mutated forms can be involved. *Georghiou explains the resistance of houseflies to DDT and certain other chemicals, a resistance which is parallel to that of resistant bacteria. He says it is due to normal variant strains, not mutated forms:

"It is now well established that the development of increased ability in insects to survive exposure is not induced directly by the insecticides themselves. These chemicals do not cause the genetic changes in insects [therefore they are not mutation-inducing agents]; they serve only as selective agents, eliminating the more susceptible insects and enabling the more tolerant survivors to increase and fill the void created by the destruction of susceptible individuals."—*C.P. Georghiou, et. al., "Housefly Resistance to lnsecticides," in California Agriculture, 19:8-10.

The resistance of certain strains of bacteria, flies, Indian meal moths, and Anopheles (malaria) mosquitoes to DDT and other pesticides is not evolution, any more than the breeding of new varieties of dogs and cats is evolution.)"


--------
Nice job RP. My eyes hurt now, but nice job anyways.

Oh Skin did I ever send you the thing about the guy eaten by the whale? I finaly got a scanner. I think I still got it in my room some where.

no, the shroud of Turin was dated (via Carbon Dating ;)) as a 14th century work. Carbon Dating also has this thing about dating to within 5 millenia. So it could ahve been made 300 years from now, if you relate to Carbon Dating; so its still not a hoax. Our Lady of Guadalope was the large painting of Our Lady on St... cant remember his names... robe when he found flowers blooming in the snow in 1642. Most people will look at it and say 'aww, its jsut a painting!' but theres sotmhing interesting about it. If you look into someones eye, you see a refection of yourself or whatever it is they're looking at. If you take a microscope and examine the eye of Our Lady on this painting, you can see photorealistic depicture of the estonishment on the peoples faces' that were present for its original reveilment. That was not possible in 1642

Originally posted by Kickwhit
Carbon Dating also has this thing about dating to within 5 millenia. So it could ahve been made 300 years from now, if you relate to Carbon Dating; so its still not a hoax.

Ridiculous. Do you even know what a half-life is? Do you even know how carbon dating is done, and how it works?

No, it doesn't have "this thing to within 5 millenia". It's very accurate, but it does have it limits - it can only go back 50.000 years, which conveniently would be enough to collapse the entire young earth theory. How pathetic.

It's a hoax.

Sorry for not being so active in this debate, but I have a lot of work to do currently, and don't have the time to read up on this stuff (no, I don't simply copy/paste from websites) -C'jais

how do you know carbon dating is accurate?:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Mandolorian54
how do you know carbon dating is accurate?:rolleyes:

I hope you weren't serious because there was about a page about this...

I think for Reference I better put down the C-14 method.

C-14 is made when radiation enters the atmosphere(I don't know what the exact chemical reaction is, but We don't need the details there) The ratio of C-14 to C-12 is 1-1,000,000,000,000
Plants absorb C-14 and C-12 and animals get C-14 and C-12 from eating other plant and animals. When the plant or animal dies the C-14 starts it's radio-active decay. They compair C-14 to C-12 in order to get a date.

THe limits on C-14 dating is that

1. It may only be used on once living things

2. C-14's full-life(Time it takes for almost no useable C-14 is left) is 50,000-60,000 years.

(And please anyone if I forgot anything about this pleaes correct me.)

It's very accurate

Read a quote by J.Gordon Ogden,who is a director of a radiocarbon lab.

I find myself increasingly distressed that users of Radio Carbon dates fail to understand or appreciate what the quoted figures realy mean... all that a date represents is a "best estimate" of radiocarbon content of the sample received by the laboratory. It includes none of the sampling or physical and biological errors sources mentioned earlier... It may come as a shock to some, but fewer than 50 percent of the radiocarbon dates from geological and archaeological samples in northeastern North America have been adopted as "acceptable" by investigators.[b]-"The use and Abuse of RadioCarbon dating" Annals of the New york Academy of science 288(1977): 173

-I got more, but I have to go with my brother to a doctor apointment so I can't finish it now.

Originally posted by Mandolorian54
how do you know carbon dating is accurate?:rolleyes:

Isotope dating is very accurate, given the timescale. Granted, they may be a few millions years off the scale when they're into the billions but this is to be expected, and is of no matter really.

Isotope dating is used in conjunction with each other, to even out the results, and decrease the chance of getting haywire results by a huge margin. Basically, when using several different isotope dating methods, they're never wrong about the age, as they give the same result. Sure, dig up some half-true evidence of where several differents method were wrong about the same material - it is completely irrelevant given the record of its fantastic prediction power.

Now, isotope dating methods aren't used alone by themselves, either. They're also used in conjunction with the counting of the annual layers of ice cores from greenland - something which has nothing to do with radioactivity. And not only that, but also in conjunction with dendrochronology - the annual layers in tree rings.

They can be used to predict results. Say we found this sample in strata from a certain layer in the earth. Everything from this layer must be within, say, 1 million to 300.000 thousand years old. Several isotope dating methods are run on it, and to top it off, we compare the results from a dendrochronological sample from the same layer. They all give the same result. Which means they're accurate and do not produce weird ass results at random. Which means they can be used for dating the earth.

The oldest rock on earth has been dated by several isotope dating methods, and their results vary very little, no matter how many times it's tested. It all points to be several billion years old.

Did you get all this? By now, I want some clear cut evidence that these dating methods simply do not work. Whatever that evidence may be. If you can't dig up this one irrefutable evidence that the isotope dating methods are useless, then you're facing overwhelming proof of a very old Earth.

If you wish, I could likewise present overwhelming proof that there's no way for a huge, global flood to have occured, but I'm saving that for now. I want to see you twitch on this for a while.

For the shroud of Turin, scientists sent samples to three different labs along with three control samples of known age (they were several centuries old).

All three labs correctly identified the ages of the control samples within acceptable margins of error. Neither lab knew the control samples from the shroud's.

The shroud samples each dated with a 95% confidence level, that the flax plants used to create the Shroud of Turin had only come in to existence between AD1260 and AD1390.

In general, its accepted that Carbon dating of recent objects (a few thousand years old) is more accurate than earlier objects (more toward the 30, 000 year limit... 70, 000 years with a particle accelorator). C-14 has a half life of 5730 years. When dealing with objects of only a few thousand years old, +/- 200 years is a margin for error that is not uncommon. Thus you have the above date range, since +/- 130 years was the expected margin for error in this test.

It must be noted that for a date to fall out of this margin is extremely unlikely. C-14 testing is based upon many years of data gathering and comparisons from various other sources, such as tree ring dating, ring varve comparison, etc. Carbon levels have been analyzed using stalagmites and stalagtite formations worldwide, which are formed by calciumcarbonate deposition (note that this compound is comprised of calcium and carbon).

I realize that this type of science is above the heads of many who have not studied it... I've studied it a bit, and still find it quite complex.

But the same ethical and scientific method goes into dating research and procedure as goes into the scientific disciplines that give us such wonders as Pentium processors. I think we can all agree that these are accurate and work. I'm always amazed that one can trust science for the material things that we "covet" but not to explain the things that go contrary to established, religious dogma. Perhaps this is the same feeling Copernicus and Galilei had when they attempted to tell the church they were wrong.

SkinWalker

Originally posted by Pnut_Master
C'jais, we could all agree that in this universe there is a beginning and a end, correct?

[...]

What are your views on the pre-big bang situation?

Big Bang is an extreme situation. Basically the laws of Physics are up for grabs (at the moment). Pre-Big Bang? There are currently no models to describe that (or rather there are too many models).

But, seriously, that question is tantamount to asking: What time was it before time began? What if there was simply nothing? Why is it easier to believe that there was a god, than that there was only an infinite, pitiless nothing?

Still, like I said before: No theories at the moment, only hypothesises, as far as I know.

But we can rule out God, because It would not have disappeared afterwards, and It is clearly not present in the present universe.

That's why some people believe in a god, that cluster of gas and elements didn't pop up out of nowhere.. If you're not religious don't call it a God, call it a "higher power" :P

Originally posted by Pnut_Master
That's why some people believe in a god, that cluster of gas and elements didn't pop up out of nowhere..

What if it did?

In quantum physics, particles pop into existence from nothing all the time. There is no cause behind them. It's very likely that it was a sudden influx of these particles from nothing that triggered the Big Bang from a vacuum of nothing.

Religious people always attribute God to the unknown. There was a time when people didn't know what caused thunderstorms and natural disasters, so they attributed God to it, or even invented specific gods to take care of the explanation. Same story with stars and other objects in the sky - God made because he could, and because it looks pretty. Then we found out what they really were, and God could take a hike again.

And let's not forget diseases - they're God's punishment for our sinful living, right? Yes, until we discovered they were just natural results of natural causes. No magic behind them.

When we stare at the great unknown beyond death, God is once more invoked to explain what we cannot understand. When we try to understand and come to terms with that which we can't, the beginning of the universe, God is called into service yet again. But he will always be retreating. Science is taking his place, filling the gaps of our understanding with ever more knowledge, and forcing God to occupy ever less territory of our comprehension.

In the end, God will die a slow, natural death. Through sheer rationality, people will realize that God is a codex of morals designed to keep you in line with the age old "carrot-and-stick" technique - a system of hope and fear to make you accept the things you can't comprehend.

God has meaning and relevance only if you want him to. If you can picture a world without God, it'd function the same way as ours, only there wouldn't be the "God-factor" in your mind to watch over you, to grant you hope and fear, and to take away the burden of getting to grips with the world.

God is useless. It is very possible to have healthy morals without him. The world won't be a worse place to live, objectively. Of course, there won't be any afterlive in your mind if you don't believe. But I can live with that. Immortality is a childish, immature fantasy, and I won't regress to the stage of a school bully who thinks it's cool to go around and scare his subjects into following him, "cuz you'll get cool extra life this way, and if you don't, you'll burn forever! hahahah!". Pathetic excuse. Pathetic bully. A cheap trick I can't believe somebody would fall for. Desiring immortality is about as selfish as it gets. There is no lower form of wanting to look superior to others, and none more childish. Eternal damnation is about the most ridiculous trick to make you look above and beyond others, and to reassure and affirm your choices to yourself. It's the most inane guilt trip I've ever witnessed.

There are no servants of God to me. There are only slaves to mental constructs and abstract illusions designed to hold the masses in line with hope, fear and immortality.

I want none of it.

Originally posted by C'jais

God is useless. It is very possible to have healthy morals without him.

I would have to disagree with the first sentance but agree with the second.

Anthropologically speaking, god(s) do serve a purpose (I intentionally omit referrance to the christian "God"): a deity can unify people to a common culture, give them a common purpose, provide social identity, construct value and ethics systems, etc.

Throughout history, societies have benefited (as well as perished) because of religious beliefs. Entire states have been created, based solely on religious heritage.

The problem in today's global system, is that religion is now one of the limiting factors in many nation-states (so is transnationalist corporations, but that might be another thread :) ). Judeism and Islam are head-to-head over a small bit of land and it isn't to secure its natural resources. Research in genetics and cloning is being impeded by religious ethics that aren't qualified to comment on the new sciences being developed. Ethics for this type of science doesn't yet exist.

But speaking from an objective perspective (I personally think christianity, islam, etc. is merely propaganda or societal indoctrination), I wonder if our societies are ready yet to accept that their brief existances in this universe are, indeed, limited. If it was common belief that it didn't matter what one did in this world, what would cause one to act within societal norms and ethics?

Hey... it's just my rambling.... I try to remain objective when looking at cultures. There's definately two distinct cultures here: a christian one and a non-religious one. I'm sure others exist and that many of those posting are members of more than one culture, but those two appear to dominate.

Like the android said, "Would you please continue the petty bickering? I find it most intruiging." j/k :P

SkinWalker

PS..... if anyone was wondering, I recently switched from majoring in History, to majoring in Anthropology....

Originally posted by SkinWalker
I recently switched from majoring in History, to majoring in Anthropology....

...And a fine switch it was ;)

As you said, religion can both be a benefit to society as well as a hindrance (mostly to others). When looking at religion in the short time frame, it gives people hope, inspires them and makes them perform fantastic feats - though religion has no monopoly on this, as Der Fьhrer could inspire the same things.

But when examining the last millenium, religion seems to have been a global plague, destroying nations and keeping people and science opressed. If there had been no religion present in the dark ages, no people would have been able to abuse it to their own ends, and wage wars on other nations. It doesn't matter that these people and the ones following them were not religious in the slightest - it matters that religion was there to be abused. It is such a powerful tool, yet so easily manipulated to sway entire populations into a frothing mass of vindictive crusaders.

If we were just as religious today as for 700 years ago, science would be all but extinct. No one would dare to research astronomy or genetics for fear of finding God, and realizing he's not even there. If Catholocism had had its way, we'd have either subdued most of the Asian continent, or destroyed ourselves in the attempt. Religion creates barriers, and people can react violently if a well-meaning missionary comes up and try to convert them.

In the long run, we'll have to abandon religion as the focal point for unification. With the discoveries in science, vastly increased population and overcrowding in huge but poor countries, we cannot afford to let our gods decide our fate as a species.

While religion certainly is an asset in many ways, in the grand perspective of things we cannot let it rule over an overcrowded earth with many different faiths and ethics. A single, unifying faith will lead to chaos as the dark ages proved when the Catholic church tore itself apart from built up stress and domination. Religion simply won't work looking at the future and its many towering ethical obstacles and poor living conditions for many people, and comparing with the past and its Hall-of-Shame for religions that terrorized, subdued and dominated entire populations in a mirage of God-given right, promised afterlives and dreadful mind torture of eternal punishment.

As for the individual, I say we adopt some strong, utilitarian morals without basis in any religion. I, myself, can proudly say I've had inspiration from both the Bible and Buddhist teachings in building up my own, personalized codex of morals. It works. I'm a good person, and treat others as I'd like to be treated myself. Yet God plays no part in this, and I realize trying to ram a skewed spriritual world view down another's throat is never going to be as effective as simply telling him how the morally best way to behave would be. Fanatical doctrine hurts people mentally - just take a look at these Christians in this thread, which have gone so far as to refuse to acknowledge fact because it inconveniently collides with their God's scriptures and they evidently have the right mindset for flying planes into buildings.

I don't hurt others - not because of God, but because I know through and through that it's a Bad Idea. I treat others well - not because God commands me to, but because I know through trial and error (and a visit from Captain Obvious) that it's the best course of action to take.

I come from a country completely devoid of God. Creationism is taken nation-wide as a joke and an example of just how nutty those 'Mericans really are. Not kidding, talking to Christians in this forum was the first run-in I had with religious people. Really, excepting the odd priest, I can safely say that I've never met any religious young people in my life. This is part of the reason why I seemingly make a bee-line for Christians whenever I can - the other being that they're so convinced creationism is true that I cannot bear to let their uneducation take the better of them.

'Peyce.