I asked in a post in the "questions about religion" thread if evolution existed. The answers convinced me that it's something that occupies a good deal of people.

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

"There is no evidence for evolution".
Huh?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SkinWalker, you sound like my chem teacher. I like the insight:).

EKK ! ! I'm afraid to get in this pool here. I might take a pisss and make a few people mad, but I guess I will test the water.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/)

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

A more accurate link would be:
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/creation.shtml[size=1])

Creation Versus Evolution

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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


-lukeskywalker1

1. I've heard a good deal of times that the christians were the ones who thought Earth was the center of the universe, and that it was someplace in the bible. When Galileo stated otherwise, the church argued against him, didn't it?

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

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

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

According to science, it's:

1. Earth was flooded.

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

3. Land appeared.

4. Species started evolving onto land.

This is not remotely what it says in the Bible.

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

The problem with the bible is it was written by a man for man. With no evidence or proof required other than the words with in.

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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



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

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

-lukeskywalker1

yeah, i just read part of the bible, it says nothing about anything revolving around each other.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Like I said up a little.


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

First off:

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

Same for the universe thing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

-lukeskywalker1


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

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

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



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

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



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



Like I said up a little.




First off:

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

Same for the universe thing.

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



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



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



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



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



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




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


pretty good job. lol. :D

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Give me scripture in which the Bible says that the Earth is flat. I want the exact verse and book and chapter.First, we'll start with the flat earth

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

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

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

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

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

Now, verses that show everything rotates around the earth.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-lukeskywalker1

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
... maybe, but ive heard scientists are turning away from that now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See above.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you sure that you're interpreting this correctly?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Religion is simply the greatest lie ever told...

A note on why it would be nigh impossible for the world to stop turning.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you sure that you're interpreting this correctly?

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

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by Cosmos Jack
All Christians think you have to read the bible a certain way to be a true Christian. That's why there are so many denominations and they all think they are going to heaven and the others aren't.

Rhetorical questions aren't meant to be answered ;)



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

Originally posted by C'jais
Rhetorical questions aren't meant to be answered ;)
:giveup:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some questions are relevant here

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

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

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

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

So...

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by Homuncul
Evidence gives nothing to evolutionists to prove faith keepers are wrong cauze these rely on faith which excludes logic.

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

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

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

What exactly do you mean with this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

damnit deduct one from the no count, i didnt read the question properly:rolleyes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All I did is state for the most part what I learned from my Biology Professors a little ways back. I pretty much agree with how they see it.

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

http://www.ntskeptics.org/2000/2000february/prasad03.gif)

lol:p

I'd like to talk about subject that has a connection to evolution/creation conflict which I think is worth to mention. That's why I 've posted it here instead of starting a new thread.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm sorry I don't have time to read every post in this thread.


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Originally posted by Solbe M'ko
I also recommend "Chariots of the Gods", although you really should be critical of some of the evidence in that one...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry i havnt posted in a while, ive been busy.


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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



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



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


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


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


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

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

-lukeskywalker1

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

Natural selection.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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