Evolution makes sense right now, just as the soul being located in the skull made sense a long time ago. Very few theories have, or will hold up as our methods of observation improve, but for right now, we can accept it because it offers adequate explanation for our purposes, in my opinion.

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

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

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

What from christianity came from science?

Christianity came directly from science, the creation part at least.

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

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

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

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

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




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


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

-lukeskywalker1

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1st off, in another thread somewhere, some one said about there being more than one god, let me clear that up





Isaiah (46:9)

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



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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

first off, the discovery of america



Isaiah (46:11)

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


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

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





Isaiah (40:22)

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


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


Almost infinite extent of the sidereal universe:








Isaiah (55:9)

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


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

Evaporation:




Isaiah (55:10)

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




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




Ecclesiastes (1:7)

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





Law of conservation of mass and energy:



Peter 2 (3:7)

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



The stars:

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

Jeremiah (33:22)

The importance of blood:



Leviticus (17:11)


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


Another thing proven by the bible.


whats this? theres more....


Circulation of the atmosphere:



Ecclesiastes (1:6)

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




and finally the gravitational feild:


Job (26:7)

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



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

-lukeskywalker1

That doesn't prove or disprove divine intervention.

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

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

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

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

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

The next one explains nothing, just makes an observation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
.. well then, for christianity "religion" would be an inappropriate word. A relationship with Jesus Christ would be better.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

However...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers! :p

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
You sort of missed the clients point....

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, i got that barber story in an email, and i was going to write about a docter, but it was easir to cut and paste it.

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

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

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

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



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

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

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



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

I have biology next semester...

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

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

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

I see your point, but its implyed.

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

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



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

I try and make time to read the bible.

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

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




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

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


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

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



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

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




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

Yeah, but the universe doesnt go on forever.

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

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

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


:confused:




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


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




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

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

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

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


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

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

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

-lukeskywalker1

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
Hmmm, but God doesnt keep on making stuff up to why you cant see him. ....

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why wouldn't it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

True, ill think of something about this though.


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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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



about the big bang, i thought this up:

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

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


-lukeskywalker1

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
.. although the teachers do comment on how i dont listen in any of there classes, mainly science and math, i play around and talk to people in science, and sleep in math.

It's showing :D


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

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



about the big bang, i thought this up:

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

Doubtful.

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

Ever heard of the bible code?

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


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

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

-lukeskywalker1

No, I do not believe in Evolution, because I see no need to believe in fact.

Why wouldn't it?

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

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

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

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

well anyways, i did some research and heres what i found.


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

http://www.biblecodedigest.com/)

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

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

-lukeskywalker1

31:28 And hast not suffered me to kiss my sons and my daughters? thou hast now done foolishly in so doing.

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

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

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

BS, that's what I call it.

ShadowTemplar - Templar of No God, Champion of No Cause

A better explanation of the bible code fallacy is at this website (http://www.nmsr.org/biblecod.htm).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Originally posted by SkinWalker
A better explanation of the bible code fallacy is at this website (http://www.nmsr.org/biblecod.htm).

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

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


I didnt say i believed it.


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



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

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

EX:

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

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

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

IUIODYKTILTWTSEITT

4:


IRTDPESLHTSNUO

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


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

-lukeskywalker1

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

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

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

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

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

Michael Drosnin, who wrote The Bible Code, has a new book out called, not surprisingly, the Bible Code II.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers. :cool: :cool:

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

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

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

Well I see this is still goiong on even though I have been away from this forum for who know how long.

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

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

Newsweek (November 3, 1980)

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

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

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

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
Well I see this is still goiong on even though I have been away from this forum for who know how long.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
I know Steven J. Gould(Spelling?) has alreay dumped it.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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



?
:confused:

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


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


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


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

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

****

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

-lukeskywalker1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
?
:confused:

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


sounds familar....

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

i get what you say pretty much...

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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


-lukeskywalker1

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

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

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

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

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

Evolution...

Not: Christians are evil because.....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-lukeskywalker1

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
Catholics are not christians!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Darn... I might actually have to moderate!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I woship this post :p

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's a Native American creation myth from the Iroquis Nation.... I thought it interesting, since we've only presented two views: Scientific and Christian.

Iroquois Creation Myth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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