|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
Methos said:
Sigh...I'll sum it up as briefly as I can then.
The first verse of the Bible may imply that God created a basic form of the earth before the seven days of creation, and that the seven days was spent modified and putting the finishing touches on that which he had already created. Leading to the possibility that the first seven days listed in the Bible might not be the first seven days of the planet Earth's existence - stuff might have been going on before those seven days.
Or perhaps he created it and then went down to "separate the waters". According the very first sentence, that conclusion would be much more prudent.
Quote:
So once again - and I really though I'd made this clear - I'm not asking if God created Earth, and I'm not out to prove whether he did or didn't. The only thing I'm speculating about is "when." Does the first verse imply that God get started on creating the world before the seven days of Creation?
Uh.....No you're not. You're going at length to argue about it. You're pretty much past any point of "offering speculation".
Quote:
Methos said:
No I'm not. Either you're really not getting what I'm saying, or you're not reading it carefully enough.
You said:
After all, the first line says the heavens and earth were created,
But nowhere in the seven days does it show that the world and heavens and earth were formed from out of nowhere.
More directly adressing this, the Bible, in fact, does not say it came from nowhere, but that God created it and then went to it and rearranged everything.
It certianly wouldn't be a summary of a post explanation as I had asserted, but you were playing with separation of context too much for me to figure that out.
Quote:
That's not at all what I'm doing.
Yes it is. You're proclaiming that because the word "beginning" isn't used multiple times throughout the explanation of the seven days that the world prolly sat their in a disarrayed mess for a long time before God came to fix it up.
Quote:
theory9 said:
In other words, you've never done any such thing, my little penciltop troll. And you haven't "stated" your view yet on this thread, although a chimp could predict what it says.
O I C
So it has to be "on this thread" for you to be comfortable in your own security. It doesn't matter that I posted it numerous times in other threads.
I'll repost it for you though.
Quote:
theory9 said:
More thoughtful tidbits.
Pope John Paul II never said that Catholicism was in allignment with evolution. He said that it was in allignment with micro-evolution. A far patent from macro-evolution. Unfortunately, evolutionists like to use this strawman that natural selection is empirical evidence towards macro-evolution's factual state--WRONG!!
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
Creationism requires the belief in God.
Not necessarily the Christian God. It could be a bunch of alieans for all the name suggests.
Quote:
The existance of God cannot be proven or disproven.
Yes. However, that does not mean that evolution is a logical answer simply because its an alternative prospect.
Quote:
Evolution does not require the belief in God and is not hostile to his/her existance.
In the case of the Christian God, it is. And, abain, even if it does not require a belief in God, that does not mean it's true.
Quote:
Evolution is the more rational of the 2 theories.
No. It's not.
Quote:
BTW, Pariah, I'm still waiting to hear the name of that major research institution that offer a degree of MS or better in Creation Science.
There is none. But I don't see why that should matter. Astrology was almost made a genuine science way back when and it's in the same category of evolution as total bullshit.
Simply because there's an entire field of study that surrounds a subject, that does not make it a genuinely helpful or even factual science. Like Theory, you seem to be of the mind that science creates facts, when it's simply supposed to discover them. Work on that.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
So it has to be "on this thread" for you to be comfortable in your own security. It doesn't matter that I posted it numerous times in other threads.
I'll repost it for you though.
You owe the reader an executive summary and source citation. That's why The Goddess invented footnotes
Pope John Paul II never said that Catholicism was in allignment with evolution. He said that it was in allignment with micro-evolution. A far patent from macro-evolution. Unfortunately, evolutionists like to use this strawman that natural selection is empirical evidence towards macro-evolution's factual state--WRONG!!
You accidently hit on something germaine to the discussion, Pariah. While there is no dispute about evolution in biological science, Natural Selection is controversial (or it was when I took Marine Biology). That topic is debatable.
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
Creationism requires the belief in God.
The existance of God cannot be proven or disproven.
Not necessarily the Christian God. It could be a bunch of alieans for all the name suggests.
Evolution does not require the belief in God and is not hostile to his/her existance.
Evolution is the more rational of the 2 theories.
Yes. However, that does not mean that evolution is a logical answer simply because its an alternative prospect.
In the case of the Christian God, it is. And, abain, even if it does not require a belief in God, that does not mean it's true.
No. It's not.
The existance of life and the universe in its present form are both highly improbable. There are many things that we can explain by observation. God is not one of them. Any theory relying on god is less probable than one that does not. Neither theories is provable but evolution is a better bet.
Quote:
BTW, Pariah, I'm still waiting to hear the name of that major research institution that offer a degree of MS or better in Creation Science.
There is none. But I don't see why that should matter. Astrology was almost made a genuine science way back when and it's in the same category of evolution as total bullshit.
Simply because there's an entire field of study that surrounds a subject, that does not make it a genuinely helpful or even factual science. Like Theory, you seem to be of the mind that science creates facts, when it's simply supposed to discover them. Work on that.
The point is that in academia creation science lacks credibility. Using evolution as a foundation for study a great deal has been learned about the workings of living things. One of the benefits of this approach has been the development of cures for diseases that formerly devastated human population. Creation science is not associated with either of those.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
You owe the reader an executive summary and source citation. That's why The Goddess invented footnotes
You really don't want me to post it again cuz' you know it's just going to corner your ego. So as a last ditch effort, you pull this.
So, has the "goddess" exempted you from quoting sources for every assertion you make? Because I don't see that or a lecture to do so pointed at anyone you agree with.
Quote:
You accidently hit on something germaine to the discussion, Pariah. While there is no dispute about evolution in biological science, Natural Selection is controversial (or it was when I took Marine Biology). That topic is debatable.
Controversial or not, both the Church and evolutionists agree on it.
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
The existance of life and the universe in its present form are both highly improbable. There are many things that we can explain by observation. God is not one of them. Any theory relying on god is less probable than one that does not. Neither theories is provable but evolution is a better bet.
Wrong. The universe is finitely infinite. Now as far as improbability goes, the idea that we can overcome this lack of probability would logically suggest that other alien races or life forms in general would be able to as well. Meaning that the probability is greater than you would suggest that there's an intelligence out there that could have shaped us. I, personally, do not believe it was as pedestrian an intelligence such as ours that created us (biological alien race). It is my belief that it was divine. However, the entire notion of Intelligent Design or Creationism doesn't revolve staunchly around the idea that God made us, but simply that there was a previous intelligent source.
Quote:
The point is that in academia creation science lacks credibility. Using evolution as a foundation for study a great deal has been learned about the workings of living things. One of the benefits of this approach has been the development of cures for diseases that formerly devastated human population. Creation science is not associated with either of those.
This gives the goal of evolution science absolutely no merit or sign of fruition. Its academic standing has nothing to do with the state of its logic. This your penchent for deception speaking up again.
Before anything, the main concept of Creationism isn't merely the definition of a Divine hand coming down and shaping the dwellers of the cosmos, although that is the Christian faith's synopsis, as a hardcore non-believer yourself you can still continue to believe it wasn't God that made us. But rather something with an intelligence.
Anyway...
The main evidence of evolution is essentially based upon theory (just a small reminder). It's survival within the media and schools has depended mainly on the fact that we, as earth, share similarities with the animals. The essential misconception here is that-that fact is supposed to mean we must have been among their denominator once upon a time simply because our joints and organs work the same. The thing of it is, this hypothesis is based upon the infamous transitions that are supposed to be numbered in the billions. It's like the last resort that evolutionists keep a death grip on, except the satire is transitions are also their first one. I pretty much look at this with incredulity considering the proof being used to reason evolution's existence. There's what? 9 transitions found that people base their conclusion on? Problem with that is most of them are fake if not really transitions at all.
Piltdown Man: Hoax
The first up is Eoanthropus (Piltdown Man), prolly the most famous of fossils during the 20th century. It was discovered by Charles Dawson and denoted as honing a human like skull with an apelike jaw. He was further reasoned to be transition from crude tools and carvings found in his vicinity. For over 40 years, he was used as proof that evolution existed. In 1953 though, after many more scientists were studying his bones, they found out that Piltdown Man was actually an orangutan's jaw mixed a with a human skull. The teeth of the orangutan were filed down to make it look realistically flush with the human bone fragment and they were placed in chemicals to make them look ancient. It was then buried next to other human skull fragments so they'd be easily found. There was so much blind faith put into this find that none of the scientists even noticed the obvious marks on the teeth or that one of them had been filed down so far that the pulp cavity had been plugged with chewing gum. Hell, no one was even suspicious when an ancient bone tool carved in the shape of a modern cricket bat was dug up at the site. This kinda showed me that evolutionist scientists use just as much, if not more, faith to back up their claims as creationists do.
Nebraska Man: Animal Origin
Hesperopithecus had to be one of the more idiotic proclamations of the existence of evolution ever conjured up. In 1922, the basis for thinking that an ape-like man existed was a singular tooth found in Nebraska. They reconstructed a bust out of the tooth and then proceeded to mediate drawings of full fledged ape-men based off the find. It was accepted by the scientific community as genuine proof of evolution until a few years later when the tooth had turned out to belong to a pig. Interestingly enough, dumbass mistakes like this still happen today. Some fossils mistaken to be early human were in actuality modern dolphin ribs, an extinct horse's toe, and alligator bones.
Rama's Ape: Not Of Human Relation
Ramapithecus was another "missing link" between humans and apes. It was reconstructed using a few teeth, a heavy jaw bone, and some facial fragments. It was swiftly concluded that Rama's Ape was a missing link because he honed certain human-like extremities such as smaller teeth that aren't usual for apes. It was later determined that the bones were assembled incorrectly to give Rama's Ape a human-like appearance. It was also assumed by many evolutionists that the ape walked upright even though there were no hip or leg bones to be found. Then came the bomb-shell in 1979 when they found a complete Ramapithecus skull which had no features that resembled man. In actuality it resembled something similar to modern orangutans.
Southern Ape: Not Of Human Relation
Australopithecus africanus is, today, being denoted by evolutionists as a true ancestor of man. Australopithecines are still considered within the chain of descent connected to humans. The first Australopithecine found was the Taung Child, a small ape skull discovered in 1924. It was in the 1970s, that the Taung Child was discovered to have been an extinct infant ape found amongst the bones of other adults.
Another variety of Australopithecus regarded as a "human ancestor" was Australopithecus boisei. The fossil was discovered in 1959 in Kenya in the shape of a large pile of fragmented bones. There were over 400 different vague pieces, but it was automatically considered that of a human ancestor before it was even reconstructed and was dubbed Zinjanthropus. A few years later, it was discovered to be another extinct ape so it went into the category of the already debunked Australopithecus.
The most famous of the A. arficanus was the Australopithecus afarensis, A.K.A., Lucy. A. afarensis females like Lucy were about 4 ft. tall whilst the males towered over them about a ft., all with ape-sized brains. Further analysis of the transition showed the feet&toes along with the craniums to be chimpanzee-like. Evolutionists even admit to that, so the mass denotation of proof of evolution based all on Lucy is purely speculatory and doesn't really hold any credibility. There were multiple other cases of varietal Australopithecines, which have been taught to be the ancestors of afarensis and arficanus (anamensis, aethiopithecus, robustus), but all of those priors have also been revealed as extinct apes.
Handy Man: Inconsistent Reconstruction
It can be accurately stated that the theory of Australopithecines is still in circulation by evolutionists today because of their dependence on Homo habilis’ legitimacy. It was said that Australopithecines are direct ascendants of Handy Man and, as the name suggests, divulges some of the first human characteristics. The problem with this summation is the completely mirroring factors between Australopithecines and Homo habilis. They are alike in almost every way from the exact shape and size of the cranium to the exact typical height. There's absolutely nothing that would suggest increased efficiency in the form of Homo Habilis from Australopithecine. It is only slight differentials in the bone structure that cause spoken diversity on the matter of comparablitiy between Australopithecines and Homo habilis. Further trouble trying to prove the transitional weight of Handy Man arose in 1972 in Kenya when, a relatively short distance away from the site of Homo habilis, skull and leg bones were found. The skull was so severely shattered, that any assumed shape made into by the fragments would be concluded as highly subjective, but based on the volume of the combined fragments, it is concluded that the size of it would outgrow an Australopithecine’s. The leg bones, however, are unmistakably human. This creates doubt for the evolutionists who still proclaim Handy Man as human-like since the transition site is tainted, if not debunked, by human skeletal fragments being mixed in with ape ones.
Java Man: Time Gap
Homo Erectus was discovered in 1893 in Indonesia. The fossil content consisted of skull fragments and leg bones. The skull cap had some unusual heavy brow rides, which was what caused the speculation, but the femur bone was confirmed to have come from a normal human. The discoverer, Eugene Dubois’, claimed that the bones came from an ape-man and were over 500,000 years old, yet there was a gregarious amount of problems with his story. First, it turned out that the bones within the rock were fifty years apart from each other. Pithecanthropus erectus was also found within a rock accompanied by a normal human skull and other fragments (it was later called Wadjak Man) and were apparently from around the same time period of 500 years earlier. What’s more, Dubois’ had kept the fossils secret for over thirty years, which creates cause for suspicion as to whether or not he re-tooled the skull.
Peking Man: Unknown
Sinanthropus Pekinensis was supposedly one of the best chances for evolutionists to gain some footing (what little footing they could get anyway). Peking Man was denoted as being very similar to Java Man, which led to both fossils being reclassified as Homo erectus, yet the haphazard methods of Dubois instantly titled the possibility as controversial. The greater problem though is there was no substantial study that led to any conclusions before the fossil was lost in WW2. D’oh!
There were hundreds of other Homo erectus fossils discovered in Africa and Asia that are perhaps the most speculative of all cases. While the fossils do include unusual characteristics such as sloped forehead, ridges above the eyes, relatively acute facial angle (for humans), large teeth, and receding chin, the cranial structure is well within human standards and the odd features aren’t dissimilar of characteristics caused by poor body maintenance. It was discovered that these creature used tools, fire, and paint, thus they were considered intelligent. For these reasons, it is largely thought that this is an extinct race of humans with a possible vitamin deficiency, so Homo erectus would be more accurately described as Homo Sapien (True man). Additionally, H. erectus was contemporary with H. habilis and H. Sapiens throughout the hominid fossil record. This shows that H. erectus should not be shown as an evolutionary link between the Australopithecine apes and “modern” humans.
Neanderthal Man: Fully Human-Time Inconsistency
In 1856, Homo Neanderthalensis was found in Germany and said to have “ape-like” characteristics. After their first discovery, media was all over it. People assembled Neanderthal Man’s bones in the shape of a sitting stooped brutish caveman figure. As we all know, this coverage reached far and wide creating imaginative realities with naked families honing brute extremities and living out of the light. Their copious coverage convincing us that this was a “missing link” ancestor. Unfortunately for the publicizing paleontologists, Homo Neanderthalensis was an evolutionary dream-bubble later popped by further analysis. It was discovered that the Neanderthal wasn’t a stooped postured, stupid, shuffling individual, but rather an intelligent and civilized Homo Sapien. Unearthed evidence shows that Neanderthals weren’t only lingual tool users, but also physically superior to humans in just about every way. They had larger more powerful muscles and bones along with 11% more brain mass. It is now admitted by evolutionists that Neanderthals are fully human and thus, they were dubbed Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis. Furthermore, it has become evident that the Neanderthals and modern man lived as contemporaries. Bones of modern man and Neanderthals were found only yards apart from each other. This suggests that Neanderthals are an extinct race of humans that lived along side modern man or that they were a minority of humans afflicted with a body deforming disease reminiscent of giantry.
Cro-Magnon Man: Fully Human
Homo Sapiens Sapiens are in much the same category of Neanderthals in their speculation and their forms. Cro-Magnon’s were found in 1868 and were considered to be sub-human due to cranial deformities, but it is now clear that they merely had larger brains and are clarified as a tribe that lived in the cave and hunted Bison. In all actuality, Cro-Magnon’s are identical to modern man except for the surplus of brain matter.
On a side-note, the Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal aren’t the only victims of evolution. There was a fossil bird called Archaeopteryx, which was proclaimed a missing link between the bird and the dinosaur, but upon closer inspection, it was shown to have flight feathers and hollow bones like modern birds do today. The unusual features consisting of teeth, elongated tail, claws, and breastbone, while rare, are not unknown for some modern birds to have. So as it turns out, Archaeopteryx is a True Bird. There was also another case involving a supposed ancestor of the horse called Hyracotherium because the find resembled that of the African hyrax (rock rabbit), but evolutionist scientists later speculated that it had the similarities of a horse, so they titled it “Eohippus”. An evolutionary tree was constructed to illustrate how the Eohippus had evolved into a modern day Equus, emphasizing an increase in size and reduction of toes over time. This conclusion wasn’t as clear-cut as it sounds though; the Eohippus had eighteen pairs of ribs, but its supposed descendent, Orohippus, had only fifteen pairs of ribs; a later stage in the tree illustrated that Pliohippus had nineteen pairs of ribs, while the modern day horse has eighteen pairs of ribs. This inconsistency is strong evidence that the horse series doesn’t truly exist and that it’s actually a collection of mammals that share a similar overall body plan. Further problems with the horse series come from the fact that it’s composed of fossils found from all over the world. Some were found in India, others in Europe, and others in North America, so there’s a big problem there. Scientists also dispute the series because the Eohippus does not resemble a horse.
Those are pretty much the main arguments that speak for evolution, but as I said, they’re full of holes. Of course Darwinism didn’t actually die out pre-mid 21st century cuz’ of these finds since most of them weren’t studied yet. No, Darwinism was written off due to the fossil finds that dated back thousands of years. Evolution’s truth is/was based off of, of course, transitional forms. These forms, even Darwin admitted, would have to be many….many, many, many, many, many, many times cycled. Every fossil find revealing an ancient animal ranging from pre-historic to Neolithic would have to have very tiny changes for each specimen. But to evolutionists’ dread, with each fossil, they just found a basic repeat of all the modern animals with no changes in structure at all. An obvious implication to this would be total function with each and every small transition that occurs within the body of the animal. One of the mascots of this theory is the bat, which is taught to be descended from a shrew-like rodent. The problem with this assumption is the wings. Over a long enough transitional phase, the slow development of the webbing on the claws of the creature would impede on its ability to live. What’s more, transitional paleontology has revealed no transitional developments between insectivores and bats, which is coupled with the fact that the earliest known fossil of a bat is the Eocene bat Icaronycteris, which is 100% bat.
With these break downs in the theory of Darwinist evolution, came the birth of splinter theories, one being Punctuated Equilibrium. This theory is based on macro mutation. More to point, the theory is flawed due to its basis of small transitional steps taken place through the descending generations, which is, of course, identical to the base argument that tries to back up Darwinism (the current laws of heredity stating that organisms have a limit for inherited traits also speak against it as well as against Darwin). The only differences between the two theories are that Punctuated Equilibrium dictates the transitions as being much more voluminous and far more random. That additive though makes it even more fallacious. The term for this is called the Hopeful Monster; the implication that thousands of macro mutations throughout the biological structure of a creature will eventually create a harmonious genetic makeup, thus the term “equilibrium”. The problem with this theory is pretty obvious: There’s nothing to dictate (even from the POV of the theoretical single-cell evolution) that those mutations would coordinate an outline between the different species’ of the earth let alone a single life form. Even if P.E. did create our bodies to be genetically harmonious with themselves and not have our organs impede on each other, that many random changes isn’t going to create different families of animals or even separate sexes (let alone have a standard). Every mutated form would be its own unique design. Every mutation for every singular life form would be different. All of this is piled on top of the fact that even if Punctuated Evolution were true, 5 billon years wouldn’t have been enough to create us, let alone every other species on this earth. There is the more popular theory founded by De Vries that the macro mutations would depend of the environment the creature’s in, meaning that theory works together with Darwin’s analysis of Natural Selection. Darwin’s already shown to be false analysis aside, going for a last ditch effort and saying environment dictates thousands of small “errors” (De Vries labeled the macro mutations as “errors” because they were supposedly trying to contradict the existing biology of the organism depending on the environment) throughout your system is ludicrous. The errors wouldn’t happen fast enough for a creature to not be unhealthily affected, perhaps even destroyed and chances are that the changes would kill the organism instantly thus the mutations would cease to continue. Hopeful Monster would need way more time to work as well as it has (also needs a few bugs checked out) assuming that it’s what created us. Evolutionists are proposing more of a miracle with Punctuated Evolution than creationists are. Fo’ real!
Another theory originated from one Ernst Haeckel in 1868. Haekel came up with the theory of Embryonic Recapitulation, which was essentially the slow process of the embryo inside a woman’s womb going through an evolutionary recount starting from invertebrate to his present form. This discovery turned out to be fraud; Ernst had doctored the pictures of the embryo. It was learned that he deliberately falsified his evidence to give his views bearing six years after the theories exposure……And it’s still in the high school biology books. The main view taught today is that the embryo develops temporary gill slits. These so-called gill slits are actually pouches of skin that develop into different extraneous organs (middle-ear canals, thyroid gland, parathyroid gland). They have no ability whatsoever to allow the embryo to breath in water in any stage of its development and they do not develop into respiratory related structures. The human embryo, by all evidence is simply shaped as it needs to be to fill out into infant form. Embryonic Recapitulation = Bogus.
The currently believed theory is actually on par with the audacity of Punctuated Equilibrium and assumes a lot more than it can prove. The current formation of Neo-Darwinism uses the fact that random and isolated mutations happen within animals. For example: Dual-Cepholapthy (two heads) and Polydactyly (extra fingers) and other things of that nature are considered possible preludes to environmental selection of those mutations, which would carry stronger influence within the genes farther down that certain strain. i.e. If a human is born or develops a mutation like a third leg (no, not that), and then survives with that leg, that human’s family will inherit that third leg and eventually create a newly individual species of man. This theory, in my opinion, is the most ludicrous to date. At least with the idea that your surroundings governed your mutations, you’d have more of an unfalsifiable baseline seeing as how a certain strain of species can go through permanent exterior changes over a long enough period of time, but to say that random defects are responsible for this many successful [extinct species/species] that number somewhere around 350 million is way out there. Logically, we would need much more time than around 2.5 billion years to become what we are and what we have been now. Essentially, what evolutionists are trying to do is play the odds and then declare that such a theory is not only possible, but also plausible. Allow me to show why that isn’t the case:
(Rate of mutation) = r X (Plausibility of random morphology[=0]) = p X (Window of opportunity for variety of mutations) = w X (Suspected amount of time for mutation to be successful within a particular strain of species) = s X (Individual circumstances following the evolution of every species on the planet) = i X (Number of transistions that every species on earth has gone through)= n X (Theory) = t
RxPxWxSxIxNxT=Y
y = Equals the pending odds of this theory of evolution being "plausible". This theory is, in fact, implausible. And what’s more insane is the supposed “evidence” evolutionists try to say otherwise with. Tracing back to the thesis here, evolutionists believe that the mere presence of genetic mutations and defects in animals is evidence enough of such a theory being true. It is most certainly not true. Not only is it the fact that no amount of observed mutations in animals have led to consistent mutations down the line of the strain that make this bogus, but it’s also the fact that parents who have lived with alleged polydactyl genes have not passed their effects on to their children—Even the cases where the extra limbs weren’t removed, it didn’t create such turnout! So quite simply: Saying that because there are mutations, they can generate a new species, without actually seeing it happen, is slippery slope. And two final ridiculous notions that evolutionists try to use in acts of desperation are size differential and bacterial mutation. The reference used by evolutionists regarding the mutation of bacteria is essentially a claim that because bacteria can mutate, so can the body. Well, first of all, we all know the body can “mutate”. That, however, is not a strict form of evolution and has yet to be confirmed as such by their own current theory. Second of all: Our building blocks are not totally comparable to that of bacteria. We carry the same biological components such as Guanine, Adenine, Thiamine, and Cytosine that link into a type of Deoxyribonucleic Acid—However, the overall biological protocol of every different bacterial strain are too statically different and foreign to use them as mediators. Third of all: Simply because it’s in the nature of bacteria, that does not mean it is within our nature. Simply because we’re alike in that we’re bio-organisms doesn’t change that fact. And finally: Even if it was for some reason decided to make bacteria a confirmable baseline of evolution from which to base structural morphology on, bacteria is a far cry from the human body itself. Merely because the chemical and biological reactions within the body can vary greatly, that does not mean that the shape of your body is going to change. All evolutionists can prove is that bacteria effects your immune system. Moving onto size differential: The idea behind this is that because Natural Selection/Adaptation can cause a creature’s body to grow and shrink (See also: Great Dane, See also: Chihuahua), that would count as a type of evolution. This is not so because the size of the creature remains a type of exterior change. The creature remains the same biologically and structurally. Thus, it doesn’t work for their case.
There’s also the Cambrian Explosion. This is strong evidence against the single-celled theory. If the evolutionist presumption that single-cell evolution is fact were the reality of things, there’s a very puzzling contradicted posed by the lack of multiple celled evolution within the fossil records. Single-celled colonies should be found within them in many different forms and elevating their existence through the fossil timeline creating much diverse life. There has been no such progression. When geologists study Cambrian rocks, they find in the fossil a record of a sudden outburst of living things of great variety, showing no evidence of evolution. Practically empty Precambrian rocks suddenly giving way to Cambrian rocks teeming with many representatives of every major animal phylum in existence today, plus other phyla that are now extinct. Evolutionists call this “mystery” the Cambrian Explosion because life seems to have “exploded” onto the scene. However, this arrangement is just what we would expect if life were created.
“If there has been evolution of life, the absence of requisite in fossils in the rocks older than the Cambrian is puzzling.”
-Marshal Kay and Edwin H. Colbert,
Stratigraphy and Life History
The final point I want to address is the assumed conclusions which evolutionists place on their hierarchal timeframe for fossils. Quite simply, it’s based upon circular reasoning. Evolutionists have lined up the chronology of fossils using the Geologic Column, a type of natural time chart to show approximately the era from which the fossil derives. The idea is basically taking a slice out of the earth’s surface and viewing the vertical layers compounded by the large land mass and separating the strata into different time periods. The Geological Column, while concluded as being proof of evolution, is most certainly not in the least as such. The arrangement is purely hypothetical and since it cannot be viewed anywhere on the face of the earth, it means nothing. The most evolutionists have been able to use this column is when they guess how far down on what assumed layer an unconfirmed time-slot is labeled. The succession of fossils indicated by the Geologic Column occurs nowhere in the world. There’s no real strict evolutionary progression within the column, they are actually sorted mainly by habitat and mobility. That trilobites (a small type of extinct arthropod) lived before dinosaurs, and dinosaurs lived before mammals is an assumption based on the hypothesis of evolution; the fossil record merely indicates that trilobites, dinosaurs, and mammals were usually buried in different places (perhaps because they lived in different habitats). This leads back to “circular reasoning”, an argument based on the very assumption it attempts to prove; evolution being backed up by the Geologic Column is a perfect example. A more critical example of this is Radiometric Dating, a type of system used by evolutionists to lend credence to the fossils’ ancient dates. Radiometric Dating is based on the fact that atoms of certain elements break down into other elements (known as “daughter” elements) at relatively constant rates. The decay of these naturally occurring radioactive elements can (in principle) be used to calculate the age of a rock or fossil. In practice, however, Radiometric Dating of fossils (like the Geologic Column itself), is based on circular reasoning. This is true because the decay of an element cannot be used to calculate the age of a rock or fossil unless both the original and final amounts of radioactive element in the sample are known. Although the present composition of the sample is easily measured, there is no way to measure how much the “parent” and “daughter” elements were originally in the sample. Nor is there any way to measure how much of the “parent” or “daughter” element entered or escaped the sample during the decay process. Thus the scientist must estimate the amount based on several guesses. Because the estimates made by most scientists are usually based on evolutionary assumptions, circular reasoning enters the argument once again: The assumption of evolution is used to estimate the original ratio of “parent” and “daughter” elements, which is used to calculate a date, which “proves” the assumption of evolution. In other words, radiometric dates are largely determined by the assumptions of the person doing the dating. In fact, if evolutionary assumptions are replaced with creationist assumptions, the dates given by several dating methods often become more or less consistent with the Genesis chronology. Because of the subjective nature of Radiometric Dating, if a date is obtained that does not fit the Geologic Column, it is a simple matter to adjust one’s guesses to the evolutionary time scale. The hypothesis of evolution determines which dates are “acceptable”; dates outside this range are deemed erroneous and discarded.
There are also such dating devices of C-14 that are used to date the geology that surrounds the fossils. Because the carbon in the fossils has long since deteriorated, the radiocarbon of the earth is used to narrow down the dates of the fossils within the respective fossil layers. There are a number of things wrong with this: 1) Because the sedimentary layers constantly move and shift, there’s no telling that the radiocarbon from the spot their dating would give the date that’s consistent with the layer they’re dating—The moving and shifting furthermore evidences the fact that the fossils don’t stay in one place either. 2) The sediment layers are, again, assumed] to be as old as they’re said to be. With the sediment layers constantly moving and the amount of carbon being switched back and forth all around, the samples become verily corrupted. This leads to one of two conclusions on the part of the evolutionist scientist: a) If the sample isn’t old enough to be apart of the sediment layer, the test is disregarded and he moves onto Radiometric and b) If the sample is at least in the estimated date vicinity of what the evolutionist scientist expected it to be in, he dubs the test accurate and prolly doesn’t bother with Radiometric on the fossil (wouldn’t help much anyway though). And 3) C-14 is plagued with problems of inaccuracy. It can be trusted—However, the conditions have to be perfect for the dating to be accurate. The biggest problem encountered by the use of C-14 in paleontology and geology is temperature concerns. Carbon can be sustained by cold weather and degraded by heat. Climate changes have a way of corrupting the tests. For instance, scientists find it rather convenient that the Woolly Mammoth found frozen in the arctic (along with other tropical animals) were dated back to 8000 years and all of the Mammoth carcasses found farther and farther away from the cold area of the arctic keep getting older. This is especially suspicious sense even evolutionists surmise that they migrated out of the arctic—Meaning the bodies found in the center should be the oldest. This is all piled onto by C-14’s many other problems:
Problems with Radiometric and C-14
In the end, what’s left is the Sun and ambiogensis. Two theories that are more the toppings on the cake. Straight to the point: The Sun is seen as absolute proof of the earth’s age as its universally viewed to be 5 billion years old. Problems with this is the fact that everything revolving around Sol (that isn’t planets) is 99% theory. So people don’t truly know if it or the earth is that old based only on its presence. And regarding ambiogensis: This simply hasn’t been proven. This is allegedly the pre-requisite for evolution since it would have created the material for evolution’s eventual fruition (us). But so far, non-living matter has not been able to be synthesized into living matter. Neither naturally, nor manually has such a reaction occurred. We are furthermore not given any reason to believe as such.
So really, the difference in the theories of evolution and creationism is publicity. Take my word for it: Evolution has destroyed 70% of the integrity of modern science.
Additionally, one of the biggest fallacies encountered in these types of discussions is unfair advantage of one’s explanation’s theory over another’s through corruption of spectator opinion. The public has become so attuned to the idea that evolution is reality, they don’t even bother to observe what evidence they claim exists, because they think it’s that thing that everyone knows but simply doesn’t talk about—And in turn, people start remembering what made it so “credible”. In the end, the only real proof they can think of is the fact that the media buffs have paid homage to the idea of evolution. The popular sci-fis, the teen flicks, cartoons, news—Everyone/Everywhere. Even if their existed such proof, the fact that people reference it and don’t actually understand its dynamics or realize that it’s outdated or don’t even understand what they’re talking about creates the very rightfully placed perception of intellectual dissonance and the overall idea that they’re drones eating out of the hands of a corrupt authority. Considering this voice is almost monopolized by people on the left, I find that very humorous. The real culprit behind such a quagmire isn’t any sort of informational atrophy, but rather the direct blame goes straight back to the progenitors of the theory in question. Which brings me back to my point: Evolutionists have made intensely desperate efforts to see that the theory, or what still remains of it, survives. When every single one of their “transitions” or “sustainable theories” was debunked, they, very quietly, concurred with these multiple falsifications, but made almost no efforts to inform anyone about it. By such a time, evolution had already taken up residence within the minds of almost everyone on the face of the planet, and thus, they refused to care. Pure biasness was the cause for this theory’s survival. Biasness is the reason why these “transitions” and “discoveries” weren’t taken out of the biology text-books for multiple decades. And eventually, even with the bulk of them gone, “evolution” was still stuck in everyone’s head and exploited in the media. So when you walk up to a person on the street and ask them about the subject, they’re more than likely going to recite the exploits of Cro-Magnon, Neanderthal, Lucy, etc. and say that they’re undisputable proof of evolution—When they’re not. And this piled onto the fact that whilst the higher up scientists of the profession were busy not educating people on the fact that their evidence has been reduced to shambles, the current ones are claiming that evolution has gone through the proper channels of falsifiablity/unfalsifiablity. And that’s definitely not true since their theory wasn’t bothered to be refined for a full 80 years onward. You see, from the 1900s+ evolution was hanging on by a thread, because it had yet to gain total popularity at that time. The only thing keeping it from being totally destroyed was a) The more active secularists’ unwillingness to believe in a creator and b) Piltdown Man. PM’s presence was enough to squash any argument due to his believed infallibility. The problem was that scientists lacked anything beyond theoretical application to name him a true transition. However, because he was overall present and unlike nothing ever seen before, retaining both human and ape characteristics, he was automatically labeled a true transitional fossil without further manipulation of the theory. So Piltdown Man was unofficially-officially a transition due to a break in theory. Unwittingly, this also crossed a line that science said it wouldn’t cross due to its anti-religious nature in the face of faith; it proclaimed a theory, backed up by pseudo-science to be infallible. Evolution supposedly spear-headed the conclusion that science was more believable than religion because it kept itself open to falsifiablity whereas religion had a set doctrine that couldn’t be tampered with. In which case, the idea of “refining” theories based on trial and error (i.e. the numerous theories of evolution) became convenient wordplay and scattered reasoning that would simply allow evolution to survive. Because these theories weren’t actually changed through step by step procedure and rather remained a type of doctrine, evolution proved itself less credible than religion—Not only in the case of faith, but also in its hypocrisy of violating the proclamation of “falsifiability” (of course I’m only going off of secular standards when I say “less credible than religion” since I obviously believe in a religion). Religion at least admits to having/had a consistent tune.
Breaching further into the subject of “falsifiablity/unfalsifiablity”, evolutionist have a habit of being rather slippery slope in labeling what makes their case for saying evolution is unfalsifiable (like gravity). Their main assertion for saying such a claim is substantiated is Natural Selection and Adaptation. These are two Darwinian theories that Christians concur with—However, to say that their confirmed presence alone is evident enough of unfalsifiability doesn’t work. NS and adaptation both involve a singular creature changing in mannerism and its exterior mutating to its environment so it can be better suited. This is the part creationists and evolutionists can agree upon. However, both theories also imply morphological physiology on the part of that creature. Obviously, this wouldn’t fly now because morphology isn’t proven. But due to Piltdown Man’s influence, both parts of the theories applied to its unfalsifiability. Today, logically, this shouldn’t be the case…But it is. It could not be supported as unfalsifiable back then without the entirety of the implications from both terms, and yet evolutionists think its incompleteness is still enough for it to work now. The main brunt and controversial segment of evolution is its attempt to decree that an animal’s shape changes over a long enough timeline depending on the certain environment that animal inhabits. Again, this is called “morphological physiology”. Such a thing, however, has not been proven. The non-controversial segment is, obviously, that a creature’s skin and/or hair and habits change according to the surroundings. Because this segment doesn’t support the full morphing of one thing into something else completely, it cannot be used to justify unfalsifiability.
Another point regarding the one-sidedness of such conversations is the misconception that science is a type of anti-religion—When it’s not. Secularists do not have a monopoly of scientific use. Such a perception is created based on merely the fact that popular media has drawn to the conclusion that the very existence of science means lack of existence on the part of a certain faith’s god, which is utter malarkey. A proper context is that science proved a religion wrong (it hasn’t actually done that either though). Meaning that religion itself can indeed use science to prove its points as well. The popular view of science as being a secular invention is simply ignorance at its peak. Even if one was to say that proclaiming science as an anti-religious invention was merely a type of bypass of all the litany and conclusions that tried to reason, through scientific analysis, the idea that science is inherently anti-religion, and not, by nature, anti-religious, such reasoning still wouldn’t hold water since logic doesn’t dictate that a god can’t exist. Trying to use “science” in such a broad fashion to instantly repel religiously-based arguments is only proof of more fallacy on the part of secularists. “Science” is a type of organization for many different individual and respective fields of analytical analysis (synonymous)—This does not, however, mean that every one of those fields would be a valid study (i.e. junk science). It simply means that it is a study. Period. “Science” is not an insta-gib device meant to ward off a certain argument or arguer. So while secularists are busy monopolizing labels like “pragmatist” and “intellectualist”, Christian’s are labeled as lunatics because arguing with such a concept like “pragmatism” is unthinkable.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
|
|
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203 |
Very interesting, Pariah. Who wrote it?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Pariah said: Take my word for it: Evolution has destroyed 70% of the integrity of modern science.
Your 8th grade diploma certainly backs up that statement.
Come back with your spiel once you've gotten a real education and achieved some things with your life and are doing more than spouting another person's words. Then maybe we'll talk.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
theory9 said:
Very interesting, Pariah. Who wrote it?
I'm not sure if you're joking or not, but...I wrote it.
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Your 8th grade diploma certainly backs up that statement.
If you went to high school, you'd know that there's no such thing as an eighth grade diploma.
Quote:
Come back with your spiel once you've gotten a real education and achieved some things with your life and are doing more than spouting another person's words. Then maybe we'll talk.
Awwww! Poor Jim can't come to grips with the fact that he doesn't know shit about evolution.
Jim, does this mean every time you decide to write down documented fact or opinion about something that's not related to your profession that I can use the knee jerk argument, "Get a degree in such and such, and then we'll talk"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
|
|
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203 |
I wasn't joking, Pariah--the aforementioned post was lucid, calm, and informative. But I'd still like to see some citations--links and the like.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
|
|
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203 |
I'll frame my response by offering a quote from a web page related to the Lucy fossil (and applies to both sides): Quote:
"Everyone...is entitled to their beliefs, but once belief supercedes evidence, a dangerous ground is encroached."
What I found interesting:
- Your methodology in rationally refuting famous fossils is quite sound, and I applaud you for asking questions. After poking around a bit (just on the 'net, no books--wish I had more time) I found some inconsistencies in your narrative. Please keep in mind these are cursory searches I've performed and don't claim them to be the end-all.
- Your assertions about Dubois appear to not take intoaccount all sides of the story. Alluding to the idea that he may have altered the skull won't influence anyone either, as it lacks credibility.
- Your reliance on fossils as the primary method of disproving evolution assumes that everyone agrees on every significant fossil discovery. Numerous searches on the "Taung Child" didn't reveal the conclusions you claim in your original post. (Now I understand that both the religious and scientists have their own dogma, but I accessed several pages without a mention. Which is why I asked for your sources.) Your conjecture simply isn't enough to sway opinion without additional proof.
- Your characterization of evolution falls closely to the classic straw-man argument, setting up the weakest of theories to be shot down. When you ignore arguemnts contrary to your own opinion, you cannot strengthen your argument. For a scientific argument to be worthwhile, you must consider the weapons of your enemies.
- The problem with posting equations is that they're akin to statistics: they can be used to prove whatever the author wants to prove. Words like "suspected" and "circumstances" leave room for interpretation, and that debate would only lead back to the beginning of the argument.
- When trying to convince readers that an intelligent being is responsible for life on Earth, you should avoid using the phrase "circular reasoning". Any attempt to empirically prove the existence of God/intelligent being relies on circular reasoning, unless you're able to prove otherwise. Otherwise, a person is merely choosing what type of circular reasoning they'd prefer to believe, with no real results obtained.
- Your central thesis, that " [e]volutionists have made intensely desperate efforts to see that the theory, or what still remains of it, survives" makes what was a relatively balanced paper another faceless proclomation of "I'm right, you're wrong". In discrediting evolution, you have neglected the proposition of your own countertheory that explains what evolution cannot. (And, as I mentioned before, your "debunking" is dubious in several places.)
- Your point about science being the domain of all is true--but your slippery slope is here for all to see. To say " that religion itself can indeed use science to prove its points as well" is to say that science becomes a didactic tool for selective use; science isn't a book where you can Sharpie over the lines that don't suit you. Science proposes open-ended theories that will either continue to be proven true or disproven as our knowledge of the world around us expands. Your wielding of religion as a limited weapon against secularism belies your biases and weakens your overall argument. If you believe science is valid, then you believe in the answers it provides regardless of your personal orientations. But to say that science should be used only to prove the points you want to prove is silly, limited and unconvincing.
I will now ask the question: why should anyone doubt/not believe in evolution while believing in intelligent design?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
theory9 said:
But I'd still like to see some citations--links and the like.
Every single one of my sources was from books moreso than websites. Very few, I made sure, were relgious. However, I could not find all of this information from a singular source. Every book I read usually catered to the representatation of evolutionary evidence by saying, "This is false--But all these are true!" Each time there'd be a different denotation of what's false out of the bunch. Anyways, I'd have to get to writing down my citations later, but I'm 90% sure that there's an online source for everyone of my references. I mean, I'm pretty sure I checked before hand.
Quote:
theory9 said:
Your reliance on fossils as the primary method of disproving evolution assumes that everyone agrees on every significant fossil discovery.
Hold on there. I haven't been using the fossils, or lack there of, to disprove evolution. Four things I've tried to demonstrate with their mention:
a) Evolutionary discovery has irreversably corrupted modern science through the use of false evidence.
b) This so called evolutionary empirical evidence ceased to give evolution any sort of empirical value over half a century ago.
c) Evolutionist scientists who proclaim science much more credible than religion in the rite that scientific discovery doesn't require faith are throwing stones in a glass house.
d) Modern Darwinism is supported by nothing. What its followers say it's supported by was debunked as either falsly labeled or inconclusive, and yet any 8 out of 10 people on the street you talk to will answer, "Missing links" to the question of, "What proves evolution?"
Quote:
Numerous searches on the "Taung Child" didn't reveal the conclusions you claim in your original post. (Now I understand that both the religious and scientists have their own dogma, but I accessed several pages without a mention. Which is why I asked for your sources.) Your conjecture simply isn't enough to sway opinion without additional proof.
Again, all of my sources were from various secular and slight few religous books, I don't have them on hand. I did, however, www.fuckinggoogleit.com and came up with a mention on my first try.
Scroll down till you hit "Australopithecus Africanus", and then there's a summary below.
Quote:
Your characterization of evolution falls closely to the classic straw-man argument, setting up the weakest of theories to be shot down.
I've already explained the nature of evolution as scientific theory when I outlined the fallacy of labeling it unfalsifiable within my post. I didn't slouch on that subject. The transitions were just categorically easier to write out first.
Quote:
When you ignore arguemnts contrary to your own opinion, you cannot strengthen your argument.
Point of information: The idea that Miller-Urey was able to synthesize living material from non-living material is a mass misinterpretation. Just like Fredriech Wohler's synthesization of Urea, the Miller-Urey was able to synthesize a merely organic material. However, it is a common misconception that "organic" means "living" when it simply means that there is a presence of carbon.
Quote:
For a scientific argument to be worthwhile, you must consider the weapons of your enemies.
I have covered each and every single one of the points listed within that wikipedia article ranging from the hypothetical nature of the fossil record, to the horse family, to the growth and shape of limbs.
Quote:
The problem with posting equations is that they're akin to statistics: they can be used to prove whatever the author wants to prove. Words like "suspected" and "circumstances" leave room for interpretation, and that debate would only lead back to the beginning of the argument.
Definitely not in this case. The equation I negotiated was based on my highly critical analysis of the evolutionist tone, which says freak accident mutations make the transitition. Trying to measure the probability of freak mutation is impossible since mutation is completely and totally random. Therefore, any assumed date they choose will be wildly inaccurate if based purely on the, supposedly, transitional fossil. This, of course, was coupled with the noted implausability that their theory of random mutation wouldn't have nearly enough time to take fruition, but not primarily.
Quote:
When trying to convince readers that an intelligent being is responsible for life on Earth, you should avoid using the phrase "circular reasoning". Any attempt to empirically prove the existence of God/intelligent being relies on circular reasoning, unless you're able to prove otherwise. Otherwise, a person is merely choosing what type of circular reasoning they'd prefer to believe, with no real results obtained.
This would only be the case if I was asking people to believe in a creator--And I'm not. I'm simply demonstating how evolution has just as much speaking for it as intelligent design does in terms of evidence and faith. And the fact that evolutionists say otherwise is what I'm grilling here.
Quote:
Your central thesis, that " [e]volutionists have made intensely desperate efforts to see that the theory, or what still remains of it, survives" makes what was a relatively balanced paper another faceless proclomation of "I'm right, you're wrong".
Again, I haven't been trying to convince people that there is a God with that post.
Quote:
Your point about science being the domain of all is true--but your slippery slope is here for all to see. To say " that religion itself can indeed use science to prove its points as well" is to say that science becomes a didactic tool for selective use; science isn't a book where you can Sharpie over the lines that don't suit you.
I honestly do not know how you come to such a conclusion. I said that science has proved certain religious accounts correct in some instances. That does not mean that religion uses science to prove every single assertion it makes whatever it may be.
Quote:
If you believe science is valid, then you believe in the answers it provides regardless of your personal orientations.
Of course, but it always depends on how that science was used. It's like your same convictions towards creationists in that they misuse science. I'm saying that evolutionists are victim of the same prideful and bias folly--Even moreso than creationists. If, however, your leading to the idea that science disproves God with this statement: That's not something science has proved wrong (because it can't).
Quote:
But to say that science should be used only to prove the points you want to prove is silly, limited and unconvincing.
I have never said anything of the sort.
Quote:
I will now ask the question: why should anyone doubt/not believe in evolution while believing in intelligent design?
I'm not saying anyone should believe in Intelligent Design. I am, however, saying that there's is ample reason not to believe in Evolution.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
|
|
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240 |
Princess Elisa:" I fucked Glacier16 and all I got was this stupid T-shirt."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 40,854
Schlub 15000+ posts
|
|
Schlub 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 40,854 |
Quote:
Pig Iron said:
Princess Elisa:" I fucked Glacier16 and all I got was this stupid T-shirt."
And, to be fair, one of my favorite friends there is blind and I take every opportunity available to make fun of that and we're still friends. That guy never fit there. He never got the spirit of the RKMBs. We're gonna keep an eye on the obits, see if he finally left or if he really did have a heart attack.
2,506,410.81 CAD Rack points
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
|
|
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203 |
Pariah--
Now why can't you post like that all the time?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 85
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 85 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
Methos said:
Sigh...I'll sum it up as briefly as I can then.
The first verse of the Bible may imply that God created a basic form of the earth before the seven days of creation, and that the seven days was spent modified and putting the finishing touches on that which he had already created. Leading to the possibility that the first seven days listed in the Bible might not be the first seven days of the planet Earth's existence - stuff might have been going on before those seven days.
Or perhaps he created it and then went down to "separate the waters". According the very first sentence, that conclusion would be much more prudent.
Doesn't that count as creating and then modifying, which is exactly what I'm proposing as a possibility?
Quote:
So once again - and I really though I'd made this clear - I'm not asking if God created Earth, and I'm not out to prove whether he did or didn't. The only thing I'm speculating about is "when." Does the first verse imply that God get started on creating the world before the seven days of Creation?
Uh.....No you're not. You're going at length to argue about it. You're pretty much past any point of "offering speculation".
What great lengths? You didn't seem to get my point and I'm clarifying out of the kindness of my heart just on the off chance I hadn't made myself clear.
Quote:
Methos said:
No I'm not. Either you're really not getting what I'm saying, or you're not reading it carefully enough.
You said:
After all, the first line says the heavens and earth were created,
But nowhere in the seven days does it show that the world and heavens and earth were formed from out of nowhere.
More directly adressing this, the Bible, in fact, does not say it came from nowhere, but that God created it and then went to it and rearranged everything.
THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG!!!
Quote:
It certianly wouldn't be a summary of a post explanation as I had asserted, but you were playing with separation of context too much for me to figure that out.
Passing the blame to me because you couldn't figure out what I was so clearly saying?
Quote:
That's not at all what I'm doing.
Quote:
Yes it is. You're proclaiming that because the word "beginning" isn't used multiple times throughout the explanation of the seven days that the world prolly sat their in a disarrayed mess for a long time before God came to fix it up.
Nice way of maniplating what I'm actually saying.
If this is what every discussion around here is going to be like, the hell with it. If anyone wants to debate what I'm actually saying, fine. But I'm not wasting any time trying to play clean-up because people are either too stupid to figure out what I'm saying or feel like they have to manipulate what other people say to come out on top of an argument.
It's been fun, but I've had it. Anarchy and chaos I can deal with. Deliberate idiocy...forget it.
"Just because I don't like to fight doesn't mean that I can't."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
 Wow. Pariah drove someone from the forum. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Bsams ain't got nuthin' on smee!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Pariah, you've won nothing. I doubt you've converted a single person to the ID theory or creation myth for all the verbage you've spent on it. Maybe that's not your goal. I didn't join in because I know this argument to be futile. I can live with agreeing to disagree.
The thing I'm left wondering is how, at your youthful age, did you become so closed minded? You seem to think that everything worth knowing was known in the first millenium. What happened to you? Why do you need such rigid thinking?
You remind me of economists I studied in college that were constantly bemoaning the failure of reality to conform to their theories.
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." John Stuart Mill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. Oscar Wilde
He who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
|
|
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203 |
WBAM--
You left out two "blah"s.
Sincerely,
Theo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah.
Did you say something? Fuckin' bastard
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." John Stuart Mill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. Oscar Wilde
He who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah.
At least you spelled it right.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah.
At least you spelled it right.
well played!
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah.
Did you say something? Fuckin' bastard
No, acctually I didn't.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah.
At least you spelled it right.
Heh.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
...acctually...
Well, there goes THAT winning streak.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,747
I've got more guns than you. 6000+ posts
|
|
I've got more guns than you. 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,747 |
Oh, Jesus.
"Ah good. Now I'm on the internet clearly saying I like tranny cleavage. This shouldn't get me harassed at all." -- Lothar of the Hill People
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
Newsday
Long Island
Compromise between Darwin and God
In effort to challenge the belief by some that God, Darwin’s theories don’t jibe, clergy group calls for coexistence
February 11, 2006, 9:31 PM EST
BY CAROL EISENBERG, STAFF WRITER
The Rev. Richard E. Edwards will not mince words in his sermon today about God and Charles Darwin, the 19th century naturalist whose theory of evolution rocked the world.
"I want to reaffirm the compatibility of Biblical tradition and modern science," said Edwards, pastor of Stony Brook Community Church, a small, Methodist congregation that draws members from the nearby university and medical center. "This is a community where science counts, and where folks really need to hear that."
At a time when conservative Christians are mounting aggressive challenges to the teaching of evolution in public schools, Edwards is one of about 400 pastors nationwide, mostly from mainline Protestant churches, who are participating in "Evolution Sunday" to promote the idea that Christianity and .science may coexist peacefully.
Today, on Darwin's birthday, some will draw upon the Book of Job to validate the innate human thirst for understanding. Others will lead discussions about how to reconcile a divine Creator with the notion that life evolved through a random process of .natural selection.
"I believe that instead of suppressing or falsifying science, we people of faith need to go back to the theological drawing board in order to rethink our existing theology in the light of new data -- just as Martin Luther and John Calvin did nearly five centuries ago," said the Rev. Byron E. Shafer of Rutgers Presbyterian Church on the Upper West Side of Manhattan.
Evolution Sunday is part of a broader campaign begun a year ago called the Clergy Letter Project. Through e-mail and word-of-mouth, 10,266 clergy have now signed an online letter backing evolution as "a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests."
The project is the brainchild of Michael Zimmerman, a biologist rather than a clergyman, who said he was fed up with Christian preachers who told people that they had to choose between evolution and God -- "and that if you choose evolution, you're going to hell, and if you choose our version of .religion, you'll be saved."
"One of the goals of the Clergy Letter Project," Zimmerman said, "is to demonstrate that the choice that people are trying to foist on them is a false dichotomy. The fact that thousands of clergy are standing up and saying, 'We are comfortable in our beliefs, in our faith and in our God, and we are comfortable with modern science,' is a very forceful statement."
Zimmerman, a Wisconsin college administrator, declined to elaborate on his own religious beliefs beyond saying he does not attend church.
Many of the clergy participating in Evolution Sunday say they have no doubt that God is behind the process of natural selection -- but unlike backers of intelligent design, they describe those beliefs as religious, rather than scientific, and therefore, appropriate for Sunday school rather than science class.
A few acknowledge they are struggling themselves with how to reconcile Darwin's concepts with a .Christian world view.
The notion that life evolved through a random and often brutal process does not square easily, Shafer said, with Christian notions of creation -- or, for that matter, a benevolent God.
"People want to believe that we humans are special in the sight of God, and that we are a distinct and separate creation," he said. "So obviously those who are challenging that concept have a lot of .explaining to do."
Others are more sanguine about reconciling the world views -- if only to enhance their appreciation of the .complexity of God's creation.
"Does the theory of natural selection raise questions for us?" asked the Rev. Catherine Schuyler, Protestant chaplain at Stony Brook University and pastor of Grace Presbyterian Church in Selden, who is .married to Edwards.
"Yes, of course. But I don't think questions are such a scary thing. Questions are how we go deeper into our understanding, and therefore, deeper into our own faith."
Last edited by the G-man; 2006-02-12 4:53 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
