Have any of you read Greg Bear's Blood Music? The reason I bring it up is because you mentioned the contents of DNA and the book brings to bare an interesting theory on what is there. Kind of off topic but oh well. ;)

I went and saw GWAR tonight. BOY HOWDY! [link] The only band in the world with a plumbing system. I am one with my inner troglodyte.

Good god why? They suck big time.

This debate is simply fascinating. I really enjoy the different viewpoints.... and I really respect people who are willing to state their beliefs, whatever they may be. (Although you do get points for clarity.) During a similar debate, my boyfriend once said "Science is just another religion," and while I'm quite sure I'll get some backlash for it, I think there's a point to that.

“Science is just another religion”

That is a good point and in some aspects it is true. I have had formal training in “science”. I worked in a research lab for 2.5 years and have presented my research at academic conferences, etc., etc. There are some in the academic community, i.e. science, that have an agenda, and in my experience I have witnessed a few “scientists” that use “science” to further an agenda. *Cough* Glade Whitney [link] For the most part scientists seek to understand and explain the order of the universe and try to be as impartial as humanly possible. The difference between (good) science and religion is that religion gathers facts to support a preconceived notion of how the world works (dogma) while science gathers facts in order to better understand how the world works, and with ample evidence will amend and/or change its notion of how the world works. Science is forever changing as new understanding sheds light on the matter at hand. What science does not claim is to know the absolute truth. Are there dogmatists in science? Absolutely. That is the exception and not the norm.

Pilliars of the earth being shaken....hmm...thats a hard one. Do you think that maybe possible they are talking about the pillers ON the earth? Look at places like rome. They have pillars all over the place. If they were to ever fall, it would be a horrible tragety. And about the DNA. As mentioned earlier, there are tons of bases in the Human DNA. Take a box of Legos, None of them attached to eachother, and if you can make them look even close to a human without toughing the legos. Just by "thinking hard and hoping", maybe they will "magicly" attach.

Here is something else. Lets say you are right, ok? When we die, what happens? This is a serious question.

Pollscrewer what the hell. Do you actually know what DNA is or how it works? Why are you ignoring what we said before?

What happens when we die? I'll have you know, theology isn't the only type of religion. I am Buddhist. I believe in reincarnation. Suprisingly, Buddhism is in keeping with western science. Many of the ideas support eachother!

Word. :)

Yes, I know plenty well what DNA is. I had to do a report on it in Biology. I've even seen it under a microscope. That really has nothing to do with anything. Forget I even said that I've seen it. And you know what? I'm getting sick of this. I have better things to do.

evidently, making an intelligent reply isn't one of them.

So are you saying that shutting up about the subject and moving on with life isn't an intelligent responce? I'm wasting my time. Youu guys aren't gonna change your mind about it, and I'm not either. So lets just get on with life.

forgot to log-in. I'm the previous Anonymous Coward.

Good for you, we figured that.

Bah I say. Bah.

*sighs* You can state you opinion, but I wouldn't expect to be trying to change anyone elses.

I get my opinions changed all the time, if a sufficiently good argument is given to me. Pollscrew hasn't even come close.

Hey guys, is is true that the Bible says the world or universe for that matter is only 6000 years old?

Wow, pollscrewer, you could see DNA under a microscope? I had no idea they were installing multi-million dollar electron microscopes in high schools these days. Argument to expand the scope of ideas is one thing, but arguing just to argue (and badly at that) is annoying. Do some research, get your facts straight, and learn to use proper verbiage before you start pontificating.

I do not believe research is his expertise. Though I have to admit, I actually started to snicker when I read "I've even seen it under a microscope. That really has nothing to do with anything. Forget I even said that I've seen it.". He even caught himself. That is true comedy :)

That is pretty funny.

well, I think it was DNA. It looked like it. And my Biology teacher said it was, so I believed him. so...hows life everybody?

Hey Pollscrewer, like I said. Is it true the bible says the World or Universe for that matter is only 6000-10 000 years old?

It doesn't say that exactly like that. But as we know, it is 2002 AD meaning after Christ was born. And there are mentions of years that come out to estimate about 4,000 years before Christ. Thats how we come up with the age. but don't hold me to that 100% because I haven't studied it very hard.

Yes, actually it does say that, when you trace the people from Adam to Abram all the way down to Joseph and Jesus. The exact family tree states that the earth is 6000 to 10 000 years old. The churches confirm this. I know this because I attend a Catholic school. And I am forced to attend church on Christian holidays by my school. We no that for a fact the earth is not 6000-10 000 years old! Infact, it is a proven fact that the earth is 4.5 billion years old! Pollscrewer, what do you think about this...and the fact of the recent Hominid discovery in south africa. A primate skull with both unique human and ape traits dated 50 million years old. My gosh! Another Missing Link and its older than adam and eve!
What-Will...We Do-Now. I Can...Only-Think of-the po-ssiblities to come! HAHAHA! Your using the fact that some old fasion people still use AD instead of CE as evidence to Creationism?

Wow, Pollscrewer, have you ever read the bible? I have, In my school we have to. The more you read the more you see that it is a poorly written-poorly translated story. Sure it has good morals, but so does nearly every other religion.

a theory is something that has not been proven, but is widely belived ;)

Hmm no comment...

Old skulls are a point well taken, however, one does not have to discount science to have a religion. You can have both, just because I know that people existed millions of years before the Bible was written and understood as best as it could be written and understood by the people existing at that time, doesn't mean that I think I am just a body that is going to die and then I will be nothing.

Very true daydream. I get really sick of people saying you HAVE to choose one way or the other. I wish Christians and every other religion would be more open to ADDING to their religious beliefs without having to replace anything. I mean damn people, the bibles been contradicted before, and everybody made excuses then.

I also totally believe that. BUT LET ME TELL YOU...Not all religions are theologist. Buddhism isn't, infact it's in keeping with western science, more so than any other religion. Daydream, please try to remember-Christianity isnt the only religion.

Found a skull.....hmm. sounds awfully familiar. I remember 2 previously found "missing link" skulls. One turned out to be a grinded down chimpanzee jawbone, the other was something else... I can't remember. I'm having a bad day. and how do you know that your carbon dating is very accurate? how do you know you could have gotten some numbers mixed up? I mean, you sure weren't there when these things lived.

I believe I said that several post ago, when I said that it seems like some people would think that christians were the only ones who believed in creation, when that's not true. I also stated that I respected people's religious beliefs, whether they thought there was reincarnation, "heaven" or nothing at all.

I was responding to the statement about my knowing of the existence of other religions, not polly.

Sigh, The issue at hand here is not choice between science and religion, it creationism versus evolution. But to address your point, people who believe in evolution often times choose not to be christians because it is ridiculous when you have seen the evidence and have not excused it irrationally. People who claim to be christians and believe in evolution are ridiculous, they are stuck with these ingrained beliefs so they try to combine the two. Believing in god, and jesus, is fine, but claiming to be christian and believe in evolution is just frivolous.

Pollscrew he didn't say carbon dating. Carbon dating can only be used to date something that is not much older than 50,000 years link]">link . It also must get its carbon from the air. It was probably soil dating. There are different techniques for finding the age of something. You weren't alive when these things lived? What a stupid argument.

a theory is something that has not been proven, but is widely belived
Theory(dictionary.com)
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

That was just me, your fucking login at the top of the page says it works but doesn't. Fucking annoying. IE 6, win2000 machine. Wish I could go back and fix it so it says it was me. Ricky, do you keep IP logs?

You know, you don't have to call me ridiculous. I believe what I believe. I think both can exist. Evolution and creationism is the same argument as science and religion. I understand if you disagree, I respect your thoughts, but you don't have to insult my intelligence by calling mine ridiculous.

You can be a christian and believe in evolution. What I meant, but didn't explain it right, was that you cannot really believe in evolution and the creationism you find in the average christian bible because it is not compatible. At least if you, like many a christian, are taking it literally. What is 7 days to God? Could have been billions of years. But when you take the bible literally and believe in it along with evolutionism it is, in my opinion, ridiculous. I mean no insult though.

I can see what you mean.

Cool.

i made this statement before, God did not make the earth in billions of years, but 7 days. Wait now, let me fix that. God made the earth in 1 day. Plants another day, birds, mammals, fish, and all those other things, seprate days. 6 days of work, and he rested on the 7th day. The word actualy used in the old Bible was a word that meant 24 hours. I really need to learnnot to come back anymore. I always say i'm gonna leave this argument, but I never do. oh well.

SPAZZA IS WITHOUT DOUBT THE SINGLE MOST GEEKIEST MAN EVER TO TAP ON A PC

what does that have to do with anything?

HE MADE BEER!!! MMMMM!

I will pay 250 000 dollars to anyone who can factually prove that god exsists.

-Tom

The subject with believing in God is that it is up to you whether you want to believe in God.

Its not that simple; watch this magic trick; GOD MAKE WATER ICE! ZAP!

Now, you could jump down my throat and say SEE HE DOESNT!
but that's not the point . you can't really see any scientific proof.
Well, actually you could but chances of you being skeptical or cynical about the discovery would probably be high.

Now, if you truly truly want to find out. You could go on a quest FOR YEARS!!!
Maybe achieve your moksha or nirvana e.t.c This can be done by exploring all different religions and pratices.

However, incidentally I came across an article which suggest that when you achieve moksha, nirvana that it is all images and feelings made up of the brain. I'll try to get it scanned.

"I also totally believe that. BUT LET ME TELL YOU...Not all religions are theologist. Buddhism isn't, infact it's in keeping with western science, more so than any other religion. Daydream, please try to remember-Christianity isnt the only religion."

THAT IS TRUE!!!!!!!
because of ignorance of religion; WHY IS THERE SO MUCH WAR? im just screaming thoughts out loud. doesn't need to be answered

I know you said it doesn't need to be answered, BUT.......

I will say again since you used a quote that has my name in it....

THAT I SATED SEVERAL TIMES THAT CHRISTIANITY WASN'T THE ONLY RELIGION annnnddddd THAT I RESPECT OTHER PEOPLE'S BELIEFS. DAMN IT!

JESUS CAN LICK MY BALLS DRY OF ALL EVIL......evolution is real anyone do doesnt think so just because of their religion needs to grow up... Now for the sake of peace on earth...grow the fuck up!

Speaking of growing up, that was the inmature freaking comment .

errors in the bible.

[link]

colege evoloution simpl walls farther.
You can't spell too well eh?

..error correction/dectection and empty space.
It's why skin cancer is so rare.

colege what's that then?

DNA contains all the information needed for life. Although they are not all utilised at one time in a cell, or not even used at all, there is absolutely no empty space. Skin cancer usually occurs due to exposure to radiation from the sun; in theory it damages the DNA chain in the skin cells causing it to multiply uncontrollably - some people are more prone due to genetic history and/or skin color. Dont show your ignorance by spewing shit.

All the base pairs not used for protein expression, aren't part of a gene. There are around 30,000 genes used to create a human, taking up about 2% of the 30 billion base pairs.

Here's a question: why is 98% of our DNA not used? Why is it just random noise? One explanation is that having all this empty space between genes reduces the likelihood of damage occurring to them due to radiation.

I was using empty space rather abstractly to describe the massive parts of DNA not containing genes.

the Bible is completely real and the idea that we evolved is incorrect. If u do believe in God then how can you undermine his authority and say he didnt make it all. and if you dont then why not, are you afraid to commit your life to God?
why not have a friend a comforter an almighty God to turn to. If you dont then your forfiting your life and commiting yourself to be banished to an eternity in hell. this is not a good way to spend an eternity if u have questions talk to someone who knows about

"the Bible is completely real and the idea that we evolved is incorrect"

Were going to need a little more evidence then that, evolution has enough scientific evidence to be labled as a scientific fact. Therefor, I do not believe in an Omnipotent god; a conclusion I have come to after three years of analyzation of the facts, probabilities, and the history of mankind-the universe, and behaivoral patterns. Creationism is a Christian belief, and Christianity has just as much evidence-if not less- then all of the other world religions, Hinduism, Islam, Ba'ha, Sikhism, Native Belief Systems...etc. Why then, do so many attempt to attatch themsleves and cling to the notion of an absolute [God]?

"why not have a friend a comforter an almighty God to turn to?"
Because the truth is, I do not need a comforter or almighty God to turn to, I already have my beliefs, and they hold up to my own very rigourous scrutinization, and the everyday life test. Many would define me as a very spiritual person, and I believe this to be true. I no longer have to BELIEVE, because now I KNOW, and REALISE the truth.

"If you dont then your forfiting your life and commiting yourself to be banished to an eternity in hell. " This very belief has a lot to do with why I left Christianity, if that sentence is true- then your god is unjust, and I would never want to spend an eternity with him/her; someone who punishes based on belief, not action and will send 5.6 Billion people on this earth to hell because they have different beliefs. If what you say is true, then 66% of the population is doomed to Infinite Punishment for Finite Sins. Is that just?

To say that your god must exsist because we cannot prove that he does not exsist is hipocritical; for your first commandment states that all other gods or even belief systems are incorrect- can you disprove these gods?

Infact, I came upon a very informative article, proving that an Omnipotent god is impossible- [link]

It is very well written and informative; a good read, I highly recommend it.

It is not my wish to discredit Christianity, rather to open your eyes to the hipocrisy of what you have befallen. The only truth is toleration- of all religions and belief systems. The religion that I have chosen: Buddhism. Thus, I do not discredit any other belief systems. I have faith in tolerance- only in tolerance is truth. Until that is realised by many others, I do not wish to follow a belief system that says that Ghandi was, and the Dalai Lama and other such people are doomed to hell despite their actions. Follow your religion avidly, but if a certain rule or teaching causes more harm then good, why would you continue with that teaching?

-Thomas

Dont believe there lies,those who claim that EVILutionis the answer are in direct league with Satan. Only God himself could have created such a beautiful world as ours and only satan would try to corrupt us by using tools like "science" to lure us away from our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

DONT BELIVE THE LIES! CALL YOUR CHILDS SCHOOL NOW AND TELL THEM TO GET THESE EVIL TEXTBOOKS OUT OF YOUR CHILDS SCHOOL FOR THE SAKE OF THERE SOULS!

Im not even going to bother...

... I believe firmly in the bible. Ironically enough, i've recently been searching for scientific proof that creation is what truly happened. I've actually found a good deal of resources. I also looked on the other end of the spectrum and read up on some sites that attempt to disprove the bible. I admit, the arguments seemed pretty firm and waterproof... yet several of them were just allegations. One of my personal favorites was some research done by physicist Robert Gentry.

Granite is hard, strong, and solid without cracks or seams. Granite cannot be created by scientists. It is considered to be an "original" material of Earth. When melted and allowed to resolidify, it's crystal structure becomes much smaller and changes into a different rock, "rhyolite". Granite also never contains fossils like many sedimentary rocks.

Polonium 218 is an element that is a radioactive isotope, meaning it is "unstable" and continually emits alpha, beta, and gamma particles until it decays into a smaller atom and eventually into lead. Polonium 218 takes only 3 minutes until half of it has changed into a lighter element. This is known as it's "half-life". Polonium 218 can also be created from larger radioactive isotopes, such as Uranium 238. Uranium 238, just like Polonium 218, decays into smaller atoms until it becomes lead.

Gentry found Polonium 218 halos (or spheres of damaged material surrounding the decaying atom) in granite rock. What does this mean? Well... in order for the halos to be preserved, the granite had to be in a solid state. Yet, Polonium 218 only has a 3 minute half-life. That rules out the Polonium 218 being in the granite while it was still in liquid form and staying there until it solidified. That supposedly takes many years. The Polonium 218 couldn't have happened to fall into a crack or seam of the granite. I mentioned before, granite has no cracks or seams. The Polonium couldn't have come from it's parent isotope, Uranium 238 because there were no other halos found in the granite. The only explanation is that at one moment, there was no granite, and then at the next moment, there suddenly was granite with the Polonium 218 already locked inside. This is commonly referred to as "Creation Fingerprints". Think what you may.

I'm very eager to hear any arguments against this. I enjoy apologetics.

If you'd like some resources pertaining to this material, feel free to search "Polonium 218" on Yahoo! or Google.

You have singlehandedly insulted the very nature of what it is to be Christian. You should be utterly ashamed of yourself. To breed this kind of ignorance shows the extent to which ignorance itself lives in you. No one is trying to lure anyone away for religion, it is the religious bigots, who are so closed minded they cannot rationalize even the most basic of opposing ideas, who are luring those away from knowledge. You would have screamed the world was flat during the time of Galileo. You would have thrown stones during the inquisition. You would burn books, books of which you do not fully understand, and because of this burn them out of fear. You are a disgrace.

all I know is that when the time comes for the coming of Christ, I will be ascending to the kingodm of GOD!!! while the rest of you are forced to toil here, begging to be let into eternal paradise.

Ther are many among you who cluck there tongues and claim to be True Believers but God knows the truth and he will judge you appropriaetly

1.I'm more worried about the judgment day of Islam, or Hinduism, or Wiccan.

2.Alot of this Christian Progaganda is merely trying to scare people into believing in an impossible god.

3. When your judgment day comes around, or if I'm sent into the fires of hell, I'll meditate, and achieve enlightenment. And if I'm not in the mood, I'll debate Jesus, and even his only dad, Joseph, about the exsistence of god.

Mr. Christian Fundamentalist, I don't have to BELIEVE in anything, I KNOW the truth.

Plus, as I've said before, I refuse to follow any religion that says that Ghandi and the Dalai Lama were/are doomed to hell.
-Tom

I'm no expert but if you think about it - when the Earth was a big ball of burning fire and gas, the vast amounts of heat, energy and materials, which cannot YET be replicated by scientists, was most likely the right conditions to create granite with "polonium locked inside". Therefore, granite (and every other element) found is really as old as the earth is.

... but when i imagine a big ball of burning fire and gas... I imagine it taking awhile to cool down. I would think that it would take at least a full day for the molten ball that becomes Earth to cool down. Yet, by that time, all of the polonium would have decayed into something else. Besides, halos are only left in solid rock... not molten rock. So unless the firey ball was suddenly extinguished...

Granite is usually found on or near the surface of the Earth; therefore, when the earth was being formed I suppose the vast amounts of heat coupled with unfathomable pressure was the right environment for this creation. Now, here is a question for you, a firm believer in the bible; A few jehovas witnesses visited a friend of mine and said that unless she converted she would be sent to hell - same with all the others who aren't witnesses. Does that mean you are going to hell - and how come the bible says the Earth is only a few thousand years old when in fact it is millions of years old....? Just some random qs for you.

"A few Jehovah's Witnesses visited a friend of mine and said that unless she converted, she would be sent to hell - same with all the others who aren't witnesses."

Well that is true and false at the same time. Yes, if your friend isn't "converted" she will go to hell. However, she doesn't neccessarily have to be a Jehovah's Witness. I hope not to receive any attacks for my opinion, but I consider Jehovah's Witnesses to be only partially correct. They add verses to and reword verses in the Bible, making it fit what they believe. But i'm digressing. In the Bible it says that there is only one way to salvation-- a personal relationship with Christ. Nowhere does it say that you have to be a particular denomination. So if you do receive salvation through Christ, you're not going to hell... no matter what denomination you are.

"...and how come the bible says the Earth is only a few thousand years old when in fact it is millions of years old....?"

This question could just as easily be turned around by me saying, "...and how come you say the Earth is millions of years old, when in fact it is only a few thousand years old." Actually... the most common theory right now is that the Earth is billions of years old and mankind is millions of years old, but believe what you like. The biggest belief of this is behind scientists and radiocarbon dating. (Carbon-14 dating) Carbon-14 is made when cosmic rays knock neutrons out of the nuclei of atoms in the upper atmosphere. These neutrons move very fast and slam into an atom of Nitrogen at a lower altitude, converting it into Carbon-14. Carbon-14, like Polonium 218, is unstable and slowly decays back into the original Nitrogen. Just like ordinary Carbon, though, Carbon-14 joins up with Oxygen atoms and forms Carbon Dioxide, the odorless and colorless gas that we exhale and plants inhale. At any given time, there is a common generic ratio of Carbon-14 Carbon Dioxide molecules to normal Carbon Dioxide molecules. Living creatures are continuously inhaling and exhaling this mixture. Non-living things such as rock, do not "inhale" this mixture and aren't able to be identified with Carbon-14 dating. Once a living creature dies, no more Carbon-14 is "inhaled" and the Carbon-14 begins decaying. Thus starts the clock. However, Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5,730 years. In 11,460 years, only a quarter of it would be left. Anything over 50,000 years old, should have no detectable trace of Carbon-14. So it's impossible to say that something is millions of years old if it has any trace of Carbon-14 in it. There are also a plethora of factors that influence Carbon-14 dating. For example, the ratio hasn't always been the same in the atmosphere. In the industrial times of our nation, a lot of fossil fuels were burned, sending a massive amount of normal Carbon Dioxide into the air, making anything dying around that time seem older that what it really is. But thats just one factor.

So your friend... what was her opinion of the Jehovah's Witnesses?

I apologize for posting as anonymous, but I have not formed an ID because I have only today discovered this site and thread. For now I will post as an anonymous user, unless I find it worthwhile to create a permanant ID. For now, I may be adressed as Tulkas.

I found this thread today and read the whole thing and am quite frankly amazed at what an uproar such a simple post has caused. The people on this message board are very adamant in thier beliefs and what they claim to "know" about science and religion. I personally admire the fact that so many of you have not backed down and stand by your beliefs regardless of the degradation you recieve from others.

I personally am a Christain and believe that God created the world, however I also believe in natural selection (which I would like to point out was Darwin's theory, evolution was not). It is completely possible and likely that natural selection would occur. An community of organisms that suddenly found itself in predation would obviously cause natural selection, because the ones with natural abilites to avoid capture would live long enough to to pass on thier genetic make up causing thier offspring to be less likely to fall victim to the predators. The same can also be said for the predators, those more adept at hunting will live to have offspring that is better at hunting posing a bigger threat to the prey. Queen of Hearts Theory, you must run as fast as you can in order to stay in the same place.

Having stated that I am a Christian and believe in the Bible, I would like to respond to some of the things that have been posted.
First, on the arguement on the age of the Earth, some argue that the Bible states that everything was created in 6 days, six 24 hour periods created the universe. The other two opinions are that the "days" could be billions of years or that the Bible is just plain wrong. I personally take none of these stances perferring rather to look at the way the words are written rather than just the words themselves. In reading the creation story from Genesis 1:1-2:4 there are several things to be aware of. One of them is that the story is written in a semi-poetic form. It is harder to see in the English version of the bible, but it is still evident. It is not a typical Hebrew poem, but it has aspects that can even be seen in English. The repetition of the of the phrases "....and God saw how good it was." and "Evening came, and morning followed...." can be seen as a poetical form. The second thing I would like to point out occurs in Genesis 2:5-15, the second story of creation. It differs from the first in the fact that it is more straitforward, has no stipulations of time, and that man, Adam, was created first and then the plants and animals were created for him to have dominion over. The signifigance of this being that the Bible is not contradicting itself, merely offering another story that focuses more on the creation of man (which I believe is the real matter of this forum) than time or the creation of earth. In Genesis 2:7 it states that God created man from the earth and blew the "breath of life into his nostrils." It is interesting to note that the Hebrew word for man is "adam" and the Hebrew word for earth is "adama", both being closly related. It is here that it can be taken that God did one of two things, he either created man from the earth instantaneously or he may have used the earth to mold man from itself in a process of evolution, not giving him self awareness and knowledge until the process was finished. Again this gives us no answer to our question of how old the earth is, but if the Bible is to be believed, leaves no doubt that, regardless of the means or time, God created man. In my personal opinion, the age of the earth is irrevelant in the greater scheme of things, being as inconsequential as the moment India colided with Asia to form the Himalayian Mountains, only knowing now that they exist.

On the sexuality of God (I realize this is from an earlier post, perhaps months past, but I find it important to discuss) some have question why we should call God "Father" and use only masculine references. I tend to agree with daydreamtime in that it was just easier for ancient people to consider God as a man, a protector, and ruler. It is interesting to note that no definative sex can be determined from any of the scripture when considering a collective God, or Trinity. It is seen in the very first line of the Bible when in Hebrew it uses the word "Elohim" (I believe it is also used in Samuel's response to God). "Elohim" is the plural form of god, whereas god would simply be "Eloha". Taken as a collective group, no sex can be assigned to God when no single being can be atributed to be God, but rather a collective or Trinity which takes on no human sex.

Here I have relayed to you what I believe and what I have learned through my studies. I have more to say, but find no time to do so in my current condition. I leave you with only one thought, we cannot define "infinite", our minds can only comprehend finite times distances or spaces. In saying we believe in a God that is infinite or that the universe extends to infinity, we are merely saying that it is so powerful or so large that we are unable to even fathom its scope.

-Tulkas

This has to be, quite possibly, the stupidest person on the Internet.

Just a minor correction, I have with me The Origin of Species right now, and I would like to make it known that Natural Selection was only ONE of Darwin's theories. While it remains a large part of the publication, on the whole, the book was about evolution, (caused by a combination of Natural Selection, Random Mutation, and Genetic Drift.)

If anyone wants me to look something up in the book, send me a shout.

What I really want to bring up is a very interesting article I found. It proves that the Christian God is impossible.

[link]

Christians, due to the general dogma and close-mindedness of your religion, I expect that most of you will not read the article, what with your Intentional Ignorance and such...

Im glad warcraft characters can take the time to post comments on FOO. HEe Tulkas! TO WAR!

When these fucking Christians tell me that I am going to hell, I want to tell them to fuck off. Fuck them. Fuck them up their asses. If I live a good life then I am going to go to a heaven if there is one. If your fucking god thinks that being a good person is not good enough, fine fuck him too. Hell or nothing is better than that bullshit.

"Granite is hard, strong, and solid..." WOW? You usually never see that combination in the same substance! Furthermore...a rock!

...Sorry, I couldn't help it.
The Polonium Halo argument was probably the most difficult Creation "evidence" to disprove. Why? Because it was so simple to disprove.

Those Polonium Halo's that Rober Gentry found...were not made by Polonium. In fact, they were made by other "Radioactive-Decay-Prone-Elements". To put it bluntly, any radioactive isotope is fully capable of being the cause. Just another example of Creationists distorting the facts...

Here is two articles 'droping da bomb!' on the Polonium Halo argument.

[link]


Toodles!....Oh yeah, tell God I say hi

....nevermind.

I read it.

There was a lot of circular, which could be turned back on the author of the article. It didn't prove God doesn't exist.

The author also left out everything and anything that could possibly contradict him. This is typical of anyone writing an editorial where he is not being held accountable and has no one to answer to. Again he proved nothing.

It was rather funny reading it and knowing the answers to the "questions" posed to produce doubt. I sat there chuckling to myself at his ignorance. He must be full of bliss.

Maybe he's in his own personal heaven.

It is sad, a created being trying to understand a being far surpassing him, or worse, trying to argue as to why these things simply cannot be. He is basically saying these things can't be because my intellect and consciousness can't fathom it.

I recently went to a debate about the exsistance of a 'God'. It was very interesting, although it was very 'unfair', the whole theater was packed with theists. Have any of you guys every seen such a debate?

I personally believe in evolution, and I see no reason to believe otherwise. I have looked through the 'evidence' for both sides and I find only reason to believe in evolution, not even God.

I personally have chosen long ago not to jump to any conslusions and instead merely understand what I can where I can. This does not mean I think ignorance is bliss. I greatly enjoy expanding my knowledge and experience of things, but as said, I don't (or at least try not to) jump to conclusions until information about any subject makes sense to me. I will wait and see what happens as that's the only way I really can be sure. If I also find out why, then great. If not, so be it then.

I choose to respect people who have beliefs and also respect their beliefs by not telling them that I think they're wrong. But if someone tries to force their beliefs on me, telling me I'll go to hell and suffer if I don't do this and that which is written in some book, that is when I get set off. Believe what you want to believe or believe what you let someone else make you believe, but do not force it onto me or anyone I care about or I will take a giant shit on you. I have made up my own mind, so you can choose to respect it or get out of my sight.

Actually his main point was that nothing as contradictory as God can possibly exsist. Read the article instead of laughing in distress next time.

When you die you get reincarnated, thats what I believe, but really-everyone has different beliefs about that, depending on their religion.

I've been trying to find that out too. I don't even have a freakin avatar to start with!

That is one of the most quoted quotes of all quote history. I have the book, he does say that-but then he goes on in the next 4 chapters to state how it could have and likely did happen. Why do Creationists you always twist the words of intelligent men?

There is also a museum in NY or something, I forget...but it's a creationist display. Basically they have a T-Rex Skeleton and say that it MAY BE MORE THAN 5000 YEARS OLD. lol. Dating back to the 6th day of creation perhaps? lol. Crazy Idiot Poopers.

In the same way you demand (general you not a personal you) proof of God's existance, I still have not seen proof that evolution is true.

Modern day humans can't be linked with anything else. Similarities perhaps, but that thing called a missing link is there for a reason. There isn't a link ;)

Evolution involves change from one species into another. I believe people are applying the wrong term when they in fact mean adaptation.

For example, we have monkeys, and we have humans. We don't have any links showing that we evolved from these very same monkeys which are in fact around today.

We didn't evolve from worms, or fish, or birdshit, or anything. We are and have always been human ;)

"evolution has enough scientific evidence to be labled as a scientific fact." is technically incorrect. There are theories and stretches of the "evidence" to fit what some folks are trying to throrize but there has never been any solid proof. The missing link is missing for a reason.

That article you mention also utilizes much circular logic which can also be directly applied back to itself. Circular logic proves nothing either way.

I would start throwing a lot of other things out there for you to digest but I'm almost off work and it isn't worth the time to change your mind when you aren't open enough to accept what others say. I could show you hard evidence in hand that God exists and you would tryt o argue against it because you can't come to terms with it. It's ok, God isn't for everyone I guess.

He still loves you though ;)

Joseph wasn't his Dad. A guardian perhaps when he was young, but he didn't donate any DNA.

Did you know Darwin died a Christian? A lot of folks overlook that fact.

Darwin did not die a Christian, and he did not recant his theory. Thats something that the Protestants continue to spread, even though its a well known lie. I could find the link if you want.

But that is according to who? The gospels? When someone commits a crime, are you going to trust the account given by their very best friend in the whole wide world?

What are you talking about, there is evidence of evolution. It's called the fossile record, transferable genetic traits, and so on. We've document almost all of the fossil record the horse. Have you even read a childrens book? There is those very examples in there.

this is awesome i see the world diferently

Sure thing Eric!

A witness is a witness.

If there aren't any to say otherwise, you have to go with who was there.

Innocent until proven guilty in this society.

There were no contradictions.

Everything he said could be turned back on him.

He failed to convince. Simple as that.

[link]
[link]
[link]

A few tidbits to get you going. Of course you will just come up with some excuse to discount the writings but hey, it's your perogative to remain ignorant.

How could one POSSIBLY hope to find an objective analysis if it's coming from sites like the "Christian Study Center"

Fair and balanced like Fox News I bet, right Rev?

Well then you didn't read the article.

Well then you didn't read the article.

Exactly! Actually there is a Christian site that admits that Darwin did not recant his theories and that he did not die a Christian...let me see...where could it bee...

evolution is a provin theory. didn't you know that the newist generations of people don't get wisdom teeth because we have no use for them and natural selection is getting rid of them for us

its simple. carbon dating. the 2 most common types of carbon are carbon12 ad carbon14. there are 10 carbon14s for every million carbon12s. when you are alive you take in bothe types of carbon and there is always a balance of the 2 kinds in you. when you die your bones have a perfect 10-1000000 balance of the two, but as your bones become fossles and sit under the ground they lose a certain amount of carbon14. for example 20 carbon14s every 5300 years per gram of fossle bone. by measuring the amount of carbon14 left in the bone you can make a rough estimate give or take 200 years(not very much considering the billions the earth has been around) on how old the bones are. this procedure of carbon dating has proovin that the earth is that old and that dinosaurs did exist and they are not a trick placed befor us by God. some of these dinosaurs ,like the archeopterix(sorry for spelling) evloved in to things like birds and others into corcodiles and even sharks and that is proovin by bones. also havent you learnt about early mammals that have evolved into things like horses or elelphants. they have bones to proove that too, and by using carbon dating to year the bones, they can tell what stage of evolution the animals where at according to a year B.C.E. of course.

so there ho!

read my comments above i even used proof+1

too slow

its called proof but i should have put proof+1

EXACTLY! Were on the verge of proving you guilty....just wait.,

I’m (Alex) new in this discussion. I used to be something of an atheist/evolutionist, now I'm a Christian/catastrophist. I conclude that a belief in divine creation is more reasonable in light of the growing evidence.

For this entry, I'll stick to a few highlights that convinced me that evolution was not true:

1) Evolutionists’ claim that living matter evolved from dead matter contradicts everything that is proven about information (particularly in the form of DNA) that couldn’t have come from plain matter. Also, more sophisticated DNA could not have come from less sophisticated DNA. That required a creative act. A book by Missler and Meyer called “In the beginning was information” on information theory is a good place to start.

2) On a related subject, the 2nd law of thermodynamics (otherwise called the law of entropy) makes evolution impossible. Things don’t get more organized. They gradually run down, as is verified in every single experiment on the subject. Evolution requires just the opposite but has failed in every experiment.

3) Mathematicians (hired by evolutionists) determined embarrassingly that species-to-species evolution could not have happened via mutations by chance. Of course, natural selection certainly happens but it only leads to intra-species variation, not to new species. Dogs are a great example. “What is creation science?” by Morris in thorough on the topic.

4) All genetic mutations happen in accordance with the 2nd law of thermodynamics; that is, they all represent a breakdown. Occasionally, a mutation will result in something practical in the short run, as in the case of the mosquitoes references earlier [link] But, in cases like these, the mutation simply occurs in a way that enables creatures to do MORE of something they already did (by suspending other activities: again, a loss). There are no new genes created.

5) The fossil record does not support species-to-species evolution. Time and time again, the very first fossils of all species “appear as fully formed” (in evolutionists words). Evolutionists have not discovered the transitional fossils (from one species to the next) they had predicted they would. Even the evolutionists now admit that many of the “pre-man” fossils were hoaxes and that the remaining samples do not represent credible “missing links.” Duane’s “The fossils still say no” is compelling on this subject.

Evolutionists' claims contradict Math, thermodynamics, genetics, and others and has never been credibly supported by the fossil record. Evolutionary theorists are standing alone on a shirking island with no evidence. So, if evolution is right, then just about everything else we think we know from verifiable experiments and observations in nature in every other field is wrong.

That's sad, you left reason and logic because you were too lazy to find the answers?

1. Abiogenesis...do a search on Google.

2. Entropy actually supports evolution. It states that no new energy is created, but that is expands out, 'breaks up' into 'branches' and becomes more diverse! This supports evolution.

3. I admit, evolution is rare, you don't see it every day. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't happen, or that it can't happen. It just means that it is rare. With time, all possible things can happen. And yes, it is possible.

4. (Your #4 contradicts your #2.) Yup, there is new genes created. Mutations happen all the time, we see it everywhere, this is also pushed along by natural selection, give it a couple million years, and you have a new gene pool.

5. The fossil record does support species-to-species evolution. Ever see the fossil record of the horse? It clearly evolves through about at least 9 species' until it becomes a horse. A separate species is defined when it can't reproduce with a former variant.

Creationists' claims contradict logic, reason, and intelligence. To say that God made the universe doesn't solve anything, it just makes more questions. How could something that doesn't exsist createt the universe?

i saw him in the closet

i am a christain and a cothlic because there is a difference. christains model there lives around Jesus and catholics just pray. i do both. but i can see the faults in the bible just as any other person can. you certainly are a feaky little jesus kid who obviousely cant accept that the bible was written in times where people were looking for explanations. the bible gave explanations and taught us lessons. i should know, i have read it. not just parts but pretty much the whole thing. i do go to a cotholic school and take ethics classes you know and even the teachers at my school admit just as everyone should that the bible isn't 100% true factually but 110% true in its lessons. i believe in evolutionism because is real and the bible's stories are just that, stories. i am not saying that all of it is false but the majority of things written in the old testiment are just lessons. including how the earth was created.

good job 'titious i was gonna point out some of those things but you got to it befor me

As far as being illogical, I (Alex again) realize that I must sound strange to somebody who has an opposite worldview. Like I said, I used to believe that evolution was true and so I understand where you’re coming from. I am being as logical as I can be though when faced with the concrete evidence against evolution that other scientific disciplines have offer. I abandoned evolution because the other sciences did not support it.

1. Abiogenisis: the theory of spontaneous life from non-living matter (e.g, the belief that dead fruit gave birth to fruit flies), has been proven false for centuries through experiments by Pasteur [link] and many other noteworthy scientists. If you could point me to a particular resource that shows that life comes from dead matter, I would be willing to read it with an open mind.

2. The second law of thermodynamics and its central tenet of entropy do not support gradual improvement, which evolution requires. It is inherently a concept of “disorganization.” Evolutionists have a unique interpretation of the theory but again, their assumptions fail in experiments. Experiments always lead to entropy, not improvement—even when the experimenters are seeking that result. If there are any concrete studies, experiments or anything else scientific to support how gradual “improvement” happens in systems, I’d be interested in reading it. “Diversity” does not even SUGGEST improvement or evolution. I’ll address natural selection below.

3. If evolution were to occur, an endless amount of time would NOT be all that is necessary. Let’s use science, not unproven assumptions. The organism would need the specific blueprint (information) to grow new USEFUL body parts. For example, how can a creature that has no DNA to grow a head (with a complex brain, eyes, etc.) spontaneously grow a head? Even if you gave it 4 billion years? The creature’s cells lack the DNA. So, as the DNA tells the different cells what to become, the cells can’t get the message to form into the relevant tissues required to form a head. So, where did creature with less sophisticated DNA acquire the more sophisticated DNA necessary to “evolve?” And again, mathematicians (hired by evolutionists) have concluded that the simultaneous mutations (assuming that beneficial mutations could happen) that developing more sophisticated are mathematically impossible to occur by chance—no matter how much time they allowed in their calculations.

4. Given a couple of million years, you’d have FEWER genes than when you started (assuming mutations and natural selection). Your gene pool would be smaller, not bigger. If the scientists who study DNA are right, DNA does not work the way you are suggesting it does. That is, your animals might look a bit different because of natural selection and the preproduction of particular genes and the gradual elimination of some genes. Those animals wouldn’t have “new” genes, though. And again, mutation do happen all of the time, but they have almost always resulted in the loss of DNA. In other words, the mutation caused the creature to stop doing something that it used to do. In the rare cases that the creatures have “gained” DNA, all they have done is “gain” a function that previous generation have “lost.” That is, the DNA was still there but dormant and surfaced again. No research (reputable) that I have ever even heard about has ever demonstrated the accumulation of new DNA, which species-to-species evolution requires. If you are aware of some concrete data I’d be happy to look at it.

5. Yes, I’ve seen it and many evolutionists claim it is their most convincing example. To sum it up, they started as little horses with various dominant traits and “worked their way up” to big horses with various dominant traits. They’re all still horse, though. Nothing more nothing less. In fact, they still breed little horse for various carnivals and stuff like that. Is that evolution? It’s sort of like vast variety of dogs we have. Some evolutionists have suggested that horses even went from 3 toed to single toed in linear fashion over many generations. They arrange their pictures in a way that suggests a chronology, which has never been supported by the placement of fossils. They just assumed that one came before the other because we don’t see many multi-toed horses anymore.

However, at more recent fossil digs, there have been many 3 toed horse fossils found alongside 2 and 1 toed horse fossils that were buried simultaneously. They co-existed in the same generation. They didn’t gradually move from one to the next. Over time, through natural selection, the three and two toed horse were naturally selected out of the picture. Again, that is a loss of DNA, not an “improvement.” In fact, once in a while a horse will be born with more than one toe. Evolutionists claim that this is a reversion to a previous generation. That’s quite right! But does it suggest evolution? No way. This is one of those rare examples mentioned earlier where sometimes a creature will “gain” back a trait that it appeared to have lost. If you add the evidence of our knowledge of the way DNA works to the new fossils of those horses buried side-by-side in the same level of rock, I’m afraid that one of the evolutionists’ favorite examples seems to no longer support their claim of “gradual improvement.” The little horses and big horses were only as different from our little dogs and our big dogs. They are “variations” within species. And, evidence demonstrates that they co-existed and interbred. So, where’s the gradual improvement? Evolutionists assume (as did Darwin) that given enough time, intra-species natural selection would lead to a new species.

However, based upon my reading on the subject, I don’t even know if current evolutionists themselves even claim anymore than natural selection leads to new species. From what I’ve read, they’ve virtually abandoned natural selection as an explanatory mechanism and are searching for a new mechanism that could explain how evolution happened. They key, though, is they already assume its true (without evidence). They’re just looking for some way to explain their unverified assumptions. I’m afraid the other sciences (Math, biology, genetics, thermodynamics, etc.) haven’t been very helpful.

By the way, it’s a common misconception that Christians don’t believe in natural selection. That’s not true, we do. Natural selection occurs within species, but it has never been demonstrated that it leads to “new” species. It leads to interspecies variety (“diversity”), which is supported by the second law of thermodynamics, but the net result is still a loss of information, not a gain. When species lose too much DNA, true they can sometimes no longer interbreed. This has always led to less healthy species, however, and is not an improvement at all, let alone a “new” species. Just look at the countless maladies that purebred dogs suffer from. The planned natural selection of dogs is clear observable evidence that natural selection and its resulting distinct diversity of dogs (loss of DNA) has caused purebred dogs obvious harm to their health.

What we’ve got here is competing assumptions and evidence in different sciences. We’ve got Genetics, Math, and Thermodynamics all supported by experiments and observation on the one side and evolution on the other side, which is supported by highly questionable claims about “little to big” horse with different amounts of toes on the other side, and not one single instance of evolution involving improvement or a gain in information. Evolutionists have tried to twist those other sciences to fit their own interpretations but their new twists have failed in observations and experiments. Honestly, all religion aside, continuing to believe in bad science in spite of good science is not logical.

Hey guys (Leptictitious and Harrisonface) don’t leave me (Alex) hanging. Feel free to respond to my previous post later but I wanted to get your reaction on something else. Here we go!

The theory of evolution rests upon a of foundation specific assumptions: there is no God, given enough time (millions/billions of years) and the right conditions, random process will eventually lead to spontaneous life that will gradually go from simple life (a single cell organism) to increasingly complex life (the accumulation of increasingly sophisticated information).

An alternative to evolutionists’ assumptions are the creationists’: An intelligent designer that created a perfect world (in the first place) that quickly began to deteriorate because of people’s bad choices (“the fall”), a comparatively shorter time frame (a radical 6,000 – 10,000 years), catastrophic change, and increased entropy (the gradual loss of information).

The evidence out there, however, does not speak for itself.

Let’s consider a few pieces of evidence to determine which worldview the evidence seems to be consistent with and whether or not we have to get “creative” and re-interpret to make them fit our preferred worldview. Let’s leave discussion of “proving” or “disproving” aside. I’m picking DINOSAURS here because it’s such a fun topic to discuss. :-) A warning: some of the following sites are of course “Christian.” For the sake of a fruitful discussion, I hope that you look at them.

1. Dinosaur bones (unfossilized) found by evolutionists in Montana with what appear to be red blood cells (in the scientists' own words). [link] [link]

2. Dinosaur figurines made by people in Mexico dated at just a few thousand years old. Some of them even depict people and dinosaurs interacting. [link]

3. Dinosaur art by American Indians [link] and other art in Peru [link]

4. Fossilized dinosaur and human remains found in the same layers of rock. [link]

5. This last one is not really evidence per se, but I thought it was worth listing simply because it is so novel. Some evolutionists and creationists alike believe that it is possible that living dinosaurs may still exist today in the Congo of Africa. [link] Feel free to check it out but I personally want something more concrete from this one before I take it too seriously.

I am not claiming that these “prove” or “disprove” anything. I’m only asking the questions, What set of assumptions do these pieces of evidence seem to support? Does this evidence fit a short time frame (6,000 to 10,000 years) or a long time frame (70 million years)? How creative do we have to get with our interpretation to make it fit our preconceived assumptions?

Wow, all your links are to Christian websites, thats good considering we wouldn't accept a bias for an argument...wait a sec....

1. Your link states that ‘some parts deep inside the long bone of the leg had not completely fossilized.’ So? Even moderate fossilisation (like the type found in the article) requires more than 10 000 years! And what about all of the fossils that date back to more than 65 Million years? These Doctors have PHd's, I think they know how to use a Potassium Argon Dating Machine better than your pastor does.

2. Those Dinosour figurines are actually picture of monsters! Oh-Ah! This has been proven time and time again, all cultures have monster stories. Perhaps these monsters were started by some giant fossilized bones found by those cave men? Is this possible? Because thats exactly what happened in China.

3. Refer to above.

4. Some types of rock have been known to give and provide inaccurate fossile placement in the rock layers. It all depends on the types of rock...the cool thing is that you will find that the more consistent readings show the earth to much older than 10 000 years. The readings and any dating tests that show otherwise are inconistent and thus, unprovable.

Evolution fits a very long time frame, 200 Million years. Jeeze man, its logic...

I (Alex) know life is busy and you obviously think quickly on your feet but let’s take a minute to pause because I think that you are assuming things that deserve discussion.

First: - “Even moderate fossilisation (like the type found in the article) requires more than 10,000 years!” Respectfully, this is not true.

So, if I could show you fossils that clearly took a lot shorter, would you still insist that fossilization requires a long time frame? I hope not. Well, here are some modern samples that clearly didn’t take more than a FEW HUNDRED YEARS. [link] Are you saying that this cowboy hat and boot are over 10,000 years old? (there are more of course)Where did you learn that fossilization took as long as you say it does?

Here’s another article (with pictures of other quick fossils) that explains how these processes often happen in just a few years. And, while the author is a Christian, the sources he cites are by “real” researchers. [link]

If I could show you a non-christian scientist who says that this process requires only a few hundred years, would you still insist on a long time frame? Here’s a NON-Christian site that confirms that petrifaction/fossilization only requires a few hundred years. [link] The fact that fossilization CAN AND DOES happen quickly is not even in dispute among scientists. What is in dispute is how we interpret the fossils that we find based upon our assumptions. So, again, are all modern fossilized artifacts millions of years old? Or, are you open to the fact that your assumptions may not be “rock” solid?

After seeing this evidence (about rapid fossilization), I can’t see how you could logically continue to assert that these processes require millions of years (or even 10,000+ ). How can you?

On a related note, I often use the Christian sites because they have consolidated a lot of the existing research. The authors and research they cite, however, are often not Creationists as you will see from their reference lists. Also, based upon my previous post just above on DNA, thermodynamics, and mathematics, etc. it’s not really fair to suggest that I’m only drawing on “Christian” research.

But, since you prefer non-Christian writers (I guess I would too from your point of view), I do have LOTS of information from evolutionists too like this quotation from Darwin and from Patterson about the lack of transitional forms (this goes back to our discussion a post or two ago but it is germane to our discussion of sources).

About transitional forms, Darwin himself said: “Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory (Origin of Species, p. 413)

A century later, C. Patterson comments on the continued absence of transitional forms between species in his book: “I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them . . . I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument (April 10, 1979, in a Letter to Luther D. Sunderland)

Sure, they argue elsewhere that they still believe in evolution but they don’t offer “watertight” evidence from the standpoint of fossils (or DNA, or Math, etc.) In fact, they have not articulated the mechanism by which evolution occurs at all. Unless, of course, you consider “millions and millions of years” to be a sufficient answer. Their incomplete answer begs the question, “millions and millions of years” of what? What happened during those millions and millions of years?

Second, - “Those Dinosaur figurines are actually picture of monsters!”

I am beside myself that you could be so hasty with the scores of pictures of the dinosaur figurines. A child could point to most of those and tell you what kind of dinosaur it is based upon textbook drawings. I hope you took the time to look at those for more than a second because I find it hard to believe that you can dismiss all those as being “monsters” and just get on with life. Your haste does not even acknowledge the ongoing controversy around these pieces of art. This discovery has been serious business in the world of archeology. The figurines show dinosaurs interacting with humans for goodness sake. Here’s the link again, just to make it convenient to take a good look. [link]

Third, “Evolution fits a very long time frame, 200 Million years. Jeeze man, its logic...”

Yes, the theory of evolution requires millions of years. And, if you assume going into the discussion that certain processes (fossilization) MUST take 200 million years or whatever, then I can understand why you’d be interpreting evidence the way you do. But, if these processes do not take millions of years (as experimental evidence and observations demonstrate), how can you logically continue to assert a long time frame for fossils?

By the way, do you still believe that Abiogeninsis (spontaneous life from non-living matter) still occurs even though science has disproven it centuries ago? This is a serious question.

"The fact that some materials can fossilize rapidly under certain circumstances is well known by experts in the field and is not really a scientific issue."

This doesn't prove anything, the speed of fossilization varies depending on the surroundings, and what is being fossilized, and in what type of rock. So the fact the something is fossilized is not good grounds for either argument. Rather what we should use scientific means to test the sample. How about we date it? Using Potassium Argon or C14 dating methods we can without a doubt prove that rocks, fossils, and other such things are MUCH older than 10, 000 years. We can have trust in these methods because they are extremely consistent, Creationsists have come nowhere near the consistence of Evolutionary science.

[link]

Abiogenesis has not been proven false, in fact it was tested in a lab in the 50's and it was proven true. In the Miller/Urey experiment they took various elements that were proven to have made up the earths atmosphere at the time life began, 200 Million years ago. He set them in a completely sterile contraption, and before this they were tested for their sterility, much care was taken with the experiment. For the next week or so they ran an electric currents through the contraption to simulate the common electrical storms of that specific era. At the end of the week Miller found that 10 - 15% of the Carbon was in organic compounds. 2% of the Carbon had become amino acids which are used to make protein.

“Miller's experiment showed that organic compounds such as amino acids, which are essential to cellular life, could be made easily under the conditions that scientists believed to be present on the early earth. This enormous finding inspired a multitude of further experiments.”

“In 1961, Juan Oro found that amino acids could be made from hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and ammonia in an aqueous solution. He also found that his experiment produced an amazing amount of the nucleotide base, adenine. Adenine is of tremendous biological significance as an organic compound because it is one of the four bases in RNA and DNA.”
[link]

Here is another link....

[link]

Science may have proved it wrong hundreds of years ago, but we proved it right with in the last few decades. Please, this is supposed to be an intelligent discussion, so try and present some Creation evidence that doesn’t heavily rely on faulty tests or cowboy legs.

As for your Darwin quote, I have the book unabridged and on pg.413 it says no such thing...perhaps your reference is flawed? Then I checked 431 in case you were in error, again; no such quote. I will however give you the benefit of a doubt and assume the quote is true. How then does this affect the theory? Sure it is an objection to the theory, but the geological time scale has come closer to completion since Darwin lived, and with our modern understanding all clues point to evolution being correct.

This is not the first time that a Darwin quote was taken out of context, on another occasion...

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.” [Origin of Species, pg.217]

This quote was taken out of context because in the next whole chapter after this statement, Darwin gave examples of how it could have and probably did happen. To this day we are again proving him right. The fossil record is getting the gaps filled in. We are even finding species in the transitional stage, archaeopteryx for example. You probably think that the archaeopteryx fossils were fakes or something, but no they’re real. A while ago there was one fake, but there is at least 7 or 8 that are real.

[link]


For a good example of a fake, check out that ‘bone box’ that was supposed to be the first physical evidence of Jesus. The inscription was faked.

I await your reply, just keep in mind that quotes are not evidence, especially when they are used out of context to distort their meaning.

I’m glad we’re revisiting Abiogensis. I appreciate that you listing some links and I did take the time to look at them (to save screen space, I’m entering this as a new post even though I’m continuing our discussion, which I am enjoying by the way).

1) I’ll start with the rapid fossilization. I brought up the experiments and observations of rapid fossilization (300 years or less in many cases) because you claimed an evolutionists’ assumption as a fact that “Even moderate fossilisation (like the type found in the article) requires more than 10,000 years!” I hope we can agree at this point that fossilization “requires” only a few hundred years.

So, we can’t just assume that things that are fossilized are old. And, in light of that, the dinosaur bones found in Montana with red blood cells in them could be actually quite young, particularly because the bones were only moderately fossilized. I don’t know how old these bones actually are and if the scientists know the bone’s age, they aren’t saying. They haven’t dated the bone as far as I know and they’re being very protective of the fossil sample as well as access to the dig site (it’s on private land and all that). Further, if the bones were truly 65 million years old, or whatever, why were they only “moderately fossilized” if the conditions were clearly conducive to fossiliation (these weren't frozen or anything), and most importantly how they heck could red blood cells endure for 65 million years? These are real questions.

I think the discussion of dating methods you mentioned is important and I will prepare a post on it soon because it deserves more space (and requires more time than I have right now :-). I will only say for now that in the overwhelming majority of cases, evolutionists date fossils based upon their preexisting schemas for rock layers based upon a few dated markers. They rarely test all samples. Either way, we need to talk about it more in-depth soon to give it a fair treatment because you raise an important point.

2) Turning to Abiogenisis:
About the Miller and Urey experiments, you said this:
- . . . in fact it [the theory] was tested in a lab in the 50's and it [abiogenesis: life from non-life] was proven true. In the Miller/Urey experiment they took various elements that were proven to have made up the earths atmosphere at the time life began . . .”

I would just like to note the use of the word “proven” and point out that the article itself does not make the claims (non-life to life) that you stated it does. The article you pointed me toward was informative in some ways but the experiments, however, did NOT “create life from non-life.” At best, the researchers accomplished the formation of elements that were “essential to life.” No “life” was created. Also, even if we had all of the essential elements for life, for example, in a bug that you just smashed, the bug is not just going to by “chance” come back to life. “Chance” has no power, no design, no purpose. A smashed bug, would be an ideal “primordial soup,” though :-)

Additionally, later in the same article, the author had this to say about the questionable value and “wave of skepticism” of those same experiments:

“These discoveries created a stir within the science community. Scientists became very optimistic that the questions about the origin of life would be solved within a few decades. This has not been the case, however. Instead, the investigation into life's origins seems only to have just begun.”

“There has been a recent wave of skepticism concerning Miller's experiment because it is now believed that the early earth's atmosphere did not contain predominantly reductant molecules. Another objection is that this experiment required a tremendous amount of energy. While it is believed lightning storms were extremely common on the primitive Earth, they were not continuous as the Miller/Urey experiment portrayed. Thus it has been argued that while amino acids and other organic compounds may have been formed, they would not have been formed in the amounts which this experiment produced.”

In light of this, the claim that these experiments “prove” anything about life probably ought to be softened a bit to something like “the experiments demonstrate about how the ‘building blocks’ or organic compounds necessary for life may have been formed,” or something like it. It’s a long way to go from the “building blocks” of life to “life,” as any quashed bug will tell you.

And, the link [link] on abiogenisis you provided offered a more refined model on the theoretical steps how life-from-non-life would hypothetically occur as well as some mathematical probabilities. The article was helpful in that regard but didn’t discuss any experiments or any “evidence.” So, while the “theory” of abiogenesis has changed, the evidence for it has remained the same since the first experiments. Hence, still no “life from non-life” even though they’ve been trying for centuries.

However, the article does indicate a few assumptions that are relevant when we interpret data. That is, if the assumptions of the second law of thermodynamics (entropy and disorganization) are true (and has been demonstrated in ALL experiments to date), then how can anything gradually improve or “slowly climb” to “organism-hood” as the quotation from the article below suggests?

“Each step is associated with a small increase in organisation and complexity, and the chemicals slowly climb towards organism-hood, rather than making one big leap.”

Putting the unnamed mechanism by which something “climbs” aside for a moment, I selected this chunk because it was the clearest articulation of the assumptions that permeate the theory of evolution generally. Virtually every single assumption, however, has not been supported (let alone “proven”) in any experiment to date. Even so, the model requires that non-life must turn into life at some point. By any measure, that is a big leap that has never been accomplished in any experiment or in any observation in the history of science.

We’ve got to be willing to critically examine our assumptions, however, if we hope to arrive at something that can defend as true. If the theory of evolution’s assumptions do not hold up in experiments or observations, why should we favor those assumptions in light of the assumptions of other theories (thermodynamics: entropy, disorganization) that are verified in experiments and observations? Your thoughts?

3) On the issue of transitional forms and the “out of context” quotations from Darwin, I was only quoting him to emphasize the point that he acknowledged the lack of transitional fossils and the trouble that causes for the theory (as most evolutionists still readily admit). I didn’t use the quotation irresponsibly. For instance, I was not claiming that he therefore no longer believed in evolution. More context for the quotation wouldn’t change the enduring acknowledged lack of transitional forms. And, honestly, the acknowledged persistent lack of transitional forms alone and fact that all fossils appear for the very first time “abruptly” and “fully formed” ought to give you reason for reflection. Any thoughts?

On a related note, you stated: -“You probably think that the archaeopteryx fossils were fakes or something, but no they’re real. A while ago there was one fake, but there is at least 7 or 8 that are real.” On this I have three brief points: 1) Respectfully, I never mentioned anything about that, 2) More to the point, while archaeopteryx fossils exist, evolutionists do not agree that it is a transitional form, and 3) Most importantly, why are evolutionists faking ANY evidence? I don't expect you to defend them or anything but the fact that they only fake SOME fossils does not reassure me. If the theor and its assumptions are worth anything, we shouldn't have to fake evidence. Since you mentioned faked fossils, however, I will prepare a future post on fake fossils, changing interpretations, and transitional forms.

Quickly: As far as the "James son of Joseph, 'brother of Jesus'" bone box goes, after reading into it a few months ago myself, I agree it sounds like a fake to me and I regret that some over excited Christians made such bold claims before scruitinizing the box. But, Christianity was not certainly not hinging on a bone box. And, the guy who faked it may have carved in Jesus' name for religious purposes or to make some quick money. It doesn't indicate an intentional hoax to deceive us in 2002. Plus, there is lots of evidence that Jesus existed. This may be just a tangent at the moment, though. At some point, however, if you'd like to go into proof for Jesus' existence and all that, let me know. Evolution, on the other hand, does hinge on transitional forms--some of which were intentionally faked and have been acknowledged as hoaxes.

Not that it matters but as I mentioned, I am enjoying our discussion/debate. Based upon the time you have put into this site, your readings, and your analysis/reasoning, I consider you a person who is both serious about the topic and who is a logical thinker (I’m being genuine).

I wasn't saying that evolutionists were faking anything, I just said that one was faked, please don't try to twist my words. The scientists aren't agreed that archeaoptrix is a transitional species, so? Doesn't mean it can't be, and more agree than disagree. But, using your logic, there is some Christians who question Creation, therefore-its must be false.

Yes, I would love to discuss the evidence that Jesus exsisted.

Fair enough. You didn't say that evolutionists are faking fossils. You only said that one was a fake. I did say it though. And again, while I don't expect you to defend their character or anything, I will prepare a post about fossil hoaxes and changing interpretations soon because I think it is relevant to the discussion because the fossil record is so important to the whole theory. I'll save further discussion of the dino/bird for that post too.

As far as the evidence for the existence of Jesus, I'll prepare something on that too. I'm looking at a few books on my shelf at the moment that'll help but I need a few days to distill the info. for this forum. Plus, my lawn looks like crap and I've got to spend some time on it :-)

In the meanwhile, I'm still willing to discuss the other points in the previous post (dinosaur blood/quick fossilization, abiogenisis) if you interesting in responding to those.

I'll be back in a few days.

This posting is a general response to a general invitation/inquiry to discuss evidence that demonstrates Jesus’ existence (as an actual person). So, anybody new to the discussion shouldn’t read into this response or assume that this is a specific response to particular objections.

So, first, I’ll (Alex) be bold and say that there is lots of evidence that supports the historical existence of Jesus. Before I was a Christian, I wasn’t really that well read on the subject and neither believed nor disbelieved his actual existence. It surprised me how much evidence there was once I looked into it. So, I suspect that many people still question Jesus’ existence either because they innocently haven’t had the time to look into it or they would rather not look into for various reasons.

In any case, there are many non-Christian sources OUTSIDE the New Testament that discuss Jesus either directly or indirectly. Here are some quick references:

A) Roman/Classical sources: “Tacitus,” who “is generally considered the greatest Roman historian” lived in the first century. In chapter 44 of the his “Annals 15” he writes this about the fires in Rome at the time. “Nero substituted as culprits and punished in the most unusual ways those hated for their shameful acts, whom the crowd called “Chrestians.” The founder of this name, Christ, had been executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate.”

Other Roman or “Classical” historians or writers at the time also mention him. For example, “Thallos” discusses the potential explanation of the darkening of the sky during Jesus’ cruxifiction. “Celsus” discusses “Christ the ‘magician’” unsympathetically, etc.

B) Jewish writings: Josephus a Jewish born Roman citizen is considered one of the most important historians for the first century. He mentions Jesus in “Ant. 20.9.1 line 200 while discussing the execution of James (Jesus’ brother): “He (Ananus the high priest) assembled the sanhedrin of the judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus called Christ, whose name was James, and some others. When he had accused them as lawbreakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.” Josephus also mentions Jesus in a number of other places and usually does so while discussing historical events surrounding Jesus but is not writing in biographical style about him. There are other Jewish writers that discuss Jesus such as in the book “Sefer Toledot Yeshu” (Book of the life of Jesus), which is a book that attempts to discredit Jesus as the genuine Messiah that the Jews had been anticipating. The book never questions his existence, however.

It is important to note that both Roman and Jewish historians/writers were not Christians and many of the writers were unsympathetic or neutral to the troubles of Christians at the time. So, they gained nothing by acknowledging his existence. By the way, all of these writings are consistent with what the New Testament writers recorded. In fact, you could basically sketch out the “Gospel” message by citing what the authors wrote in these writings (i.e., his life, death, resurrection, his followers lives and troubles, etc.)

C) Since the New Testament was “bound,” other writings have been subsequently discovered that were likely written by Christians. For example, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary, etc. These are considered Gnostic gospels, and, while they do discuss Jesus, are not generally referred to as “inspired,” like the New Testament. So, theologians disagree on their value as “scripture.” The fact that they discuss Jesus as a real historical figure, though, is not in question.

The New Testament:
D) While non-Christians may not be persuaded by the New Testament, it is still the most extensive source that discusses Jesus. So, for those who aren’t put off by the Bible, in the book of Luke, for instance, the writer states this: “In as much as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eye-account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed” (Luke 1:1-3). The “New King James Version” is a little clumsy but basically the author is claiming to be pulling together eye witness testimony about the events of Jesus’ life. Other places indicate the “first-hand” nature of the accounts as well.

However one feels about the Bible’s “inspired” status, there have been many studies examining the credibility and reliability of the New Testament accounts from a historical point of view. And from a historical perspective, they are unrivaled insofar as the number of early manuscripts, the consistency among the early copies, the details of the text that are corroborated by archeological evidence, etc. I realize that the New Testament is not convincing on its own to non-Christians but what we have in the New Testament is consistent with writings outside it.

Also (briefly) aside from the writings of Roman, Jews, and Christians about Christ directly, many events of the day indicate that “somebody” named Jesus (Christ) existed in the first century. Just a quick example: all of the “Apostles” (the 11 people that were with Jesus from the beginning of his teachings plus Paul) died at various times and places having written and preached about Jesus (as the Savior). Actually, all but “John” were tortured or killed because they wouldn’t deny that Jesus had actually risen from the dead. So, putting aside Jesus’ status as God for a moment, these 12 guys certainly believed that Jesus existed.

This posting is clearly not all-inclusive and many scholars have a life-time’s worth of study on this subject. These are just quick highlights. In any case, I realize that there are people who will never be convinced that Jesus existed no matter what the evidence (the Internet is filled with them). I think that most people who took the time to look into it, though, would be convinced rather quickly. Most book stores have lots of stuff on it.

Again, I did this posting in response to somewhat of an invitation/inquiry and not response to any specific people’s opinions posted here in the past.

Some helpful sources are:

Van Voorst (2000) “Jesus outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the ancient Evidence.” Eerdmans.

Strobel, Lee (1998). “The case for Christ: A journalist’s personal investigation of the evidence for Jesus” Harper-Collins.

McDowell, Josh (1999). “The new evidence that demands a verdict” Thomas Nelson Publishers. (this guy became a Christian after attempting to disprove the claims of Jesus)

In the last year of Darwins life, he said that he was wrong and converted to Christainity. So even Darwin himself said he was wrong. Hmmmm.......makes you think don't it.

As a Christian, I (Alex) would just like to point out that Darwin did NOT recant his theory or anything of the sort before he died (as far as anybody knows). This is an unsubstantiated rumor and is not true. Plus, we've covered this ground and debunked the rumor already earlier in the discussion. I hate to sound critical of a fellow Christian but we've got to do better than rumors (untrue or not).

Also, there are many strong arguments against evolution (the jump from non-life to life that includes complex strands of DNA [information], the persistent lack of transitional fossils, the fact that all fossils appear in the record "abruptly and fully formed," absence of benefitial mutations that add information, etc.). So, we don't need to use rumors when we (evolutionists and creationists alike) have such substantial issues to work though on both sides of the discussion.

I was personally convinced that evolution was not a reasonable theory to hold on to by the unresolved weaknesses of evolutionary research that have been demonstrated by other sciences and research.

While it is a Christian website, the organization Answers in Genisis www.answersingenisis.org has lots of up to date information that discusses the issues. Evolutionists may not find this as "unbiased" as they'd like but I'll nevertheless encourage anybody who is interested to visit the site.

I (Alex) don’t want to assume that the evidence for the existence of Jesus has been unanimously accepted by others who have been dropping in here but I’m ready to get back to the evolution/creation discussion.

In this posting, I will simply present a set of assumptions from the creationists’ point of view. My hope is that the host of this site or another evolutionist will in turn lay out the evolutionary assumptions. I think this is important groundwork to do if we hope to move the discussion forward.

Here are a few assumptions that I would like to address regarding creation and diversity within animal kinds (people being one “kind” of mammal).

Creationist assumption 1: Special creation of animal “kinds”
God created specific animal “kinds” (e.g., the dog) that were distinct from other kinds of animals (e.g., cats) with lots of genetic information. In fact, the first generation was the most pure and contained the highest potential for exhibiting diverse traits. Because it was the first generation, the original animal and people contained no genetic mutations (or DNA copying errors—which never add new information and are almost always harmful).

Creationist assumption 2: Natural Selection
Through natural selection (genetic sorting of existing genetic information, or DNA), animals and people diversified into “varieties” within the same “kind.” For example, lots of different types of cats, lots of different types of dogs, and lots of different types of people (or “races”). So, it’s no surprise that we see long-haired dogs in the colder climates and short-haired dogs in the warmer climates. The animals that inherited long hair from their parents were better suited for survival in those colder climates and survived the natural selection process. Shorter haired animals either avoided inhospitable climates or died out once winter hit. Soon, only the long-haired dogs existed in that region. This selection of dominant and recessive genes may also be a consequence of breeding/matting patterns and may have little to do with environment but more with social groupings. With most dogs and of course food today, the selection is intentional. Remember the pea experiments from science class? Wrinkled peas crosses with other wrinkled peas only made wrinkled peas but smooth peas crosses with wrinkled peas sometimes results in wrinkled and sometimes in smooth? And so on. Evolutionists obviously don’t doubt many aspects of this. The difference is that evolutionists believe that this natural selection leads to new species with new genetic information.

Creationist assumption 3: Loss of information
In contrast, creationists believe that all of this natural selection and sorting of dominant and recessive traits results the steady loss of genetic information. For instance, the comparatively small-eared Indian elephant has lost the genetic information to produce larger ears like its sibling the large-eared African elephant. And, of course the reverse is true. The big-eared African Elephant doesn’t seem to be able to have small ears anymore. People discuss this a lot regarding eye color among humans. You can only have certain eye colors based upon your parents and grand parents eye colors. In fact, if a child came out too different, you might suspect some infidelity because of the way the sorting of genes and natural selection works. Once you’ve lost the information, it’s unlikely to come back (unless it is simply dormant as is sometimes the case). Returning to the peas, wrinkled peas did not produce smooth peas again (unless somewhere back in the peas’ history there is a dormant smooth gene). However, natural selection never results in a “new” species that has more genetic information than it’s ancestors.

Creationist assumption 4: Genetic mutations are almost always harmful.
When genes multiply, they do so by splitting down the middle and each side produces a copy of itself by organizing existing cellular material and somehow turning that material in a copy of the gene. So, the double helix splits and makes a copy of itself to complete the double helix again. When it copies itself, it sometimes makes copying errors (like the way photocopies aren’t perfect). Those copying errors are then passed down to future cells as mutations when the cells multiply again. For example, we know that if heart disease “runs in our family” (as a result of a genetic imperfection or mistake) then we may be more likely to suffer from it later in life. Sometimes we’re fortunate and we inherit the healthier genes from a given parents and those healthy genes mask the mistakes of the mutations. Obviously, we get half of our genes from our mothers and half from our fathers. If the same mutation runs on both sides of the family, then our chances of inheriting it are greater (we might luck out, though and inherit a gene that was dormant in our parents but becomes dominant for us.).

In sum:
Over the long run, though, like a grandfather clock, our steady loss of information through mutations and natural selection or familial patterns have brought us from a purer, more mutation -free state to a gradual and increasingly run down genetic state of existence. Granted, we sometimes make apparent temporary “gains” through diet, exercise, or technology. We cannot, however, naturally acquire purer genetic stock through mutations or natural selection. I suppose inter-racial marriages would hypothetically add more variety and mask more genetic losses in the short-run, but we’d eventually run down just the same. Creationists reject, then, that we have or can evolve (i.e., “particles-to-people,” which obviously requires new information at each step).

The four points I just described can best be pictured through an analogy of an orchard of trees. Each tree is separate from other trees but develops branches within the tree itself. Each branch is thinner than the trunk and represents genetic sorting and the loss of information (to the point where some varieties can no longer breed together because they don’t have enough DNA in common anymore). These branches, however, do not result in “new” species insofar as “new information” is concerned the varieties on branches are weaker than the more genetically pure truck or original animal.

These assumptions clearly contrast with evolutionary assumptions, which require the steady gain of information. The evolutionary model is of one big tree. It’s trunk started with a single cell organism and each branch represents the gain of information as molecules worked their way of to men. Each branch some how gradually gets stronger than the trunk. Neither natural selection nor mutations, however, have ever been observed to result in new information. This remains one of the most difficult challenges to evolutionary theory. Further, the branches that hypothetically connect animal kinds in the evolutionary model lack the necessary fossils to establish a transition from one animal kind to another.

The creationist assumptions 2, 3, 4 above are clearly supported through observation and experiments. That is, we are gradually losing information through these processes. And, if we are in fact losing information, then creationists infer assumption 1, that we were once more perfect then we are today. While I know it’s not regarded well by evolutionists, the Bible claims directly that we were once more perfect and we have deteriorated since then (when we turn to issues such as the “meaning of life,” that’s were Jesus comes in :-).

So, I’ll put these honest questions to the evolutionists:
- What are your assumptions (e.g., random change, etc.)?
- Where does the additional information required by evolution come from?

Again, my hope is that an evolutionist will lay out the assumptions on the other side of the discussion so we can get a clear handle of those and move forward from there.

On a somewhat unrelated note, the following books were written by non-Christian scientists in the past decade who explain the insurmountable holes in evolutionary theory. I hope the links will get you to Amazon.com so you can take a better look.

“Darwin on trial” by Phillip E. Johnson in 1993
[link]

“Darwin’s black box: The biochemical challenge to evolution” by Michael Behe in 1998
[link]*

“Evolution: A theory in crisis” by Michael Denton in 1996
[link]

“Not by chance: Shattering the modern theory of evolution” by Lee Spetner in 1998
[link]

Well Said...if God was really all he's cracked up to be, he'd judge by Action...not by Faith.

I (Alex) posted the previous comment over a month ago, but I'm hoping for more discussion.

Would an evolutionist out there be willing to lay out some of the evolutionary assumptions so we can view both sets of assumptions and proceed from there?

"Admire me, admire my home
Admire my song, here's my clone
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah
This land is mine, this land is free
I'll do what I want but i do irresponsibly
It's evolution, baby"

The Cave Paintings are a Hoax...so are the Dinosaur Footprints...and so is Creationism...there is no point in trying to have an Intelligent discussion with someone who has accepted such an unintelligent idea....

I'm content assuming that you are all wrong and that we will eventually just give up trying to justify our existence as human beings, and move on to more important things like, can Michael Jackson remove his nose whenever he wants, I'm assuming that by now it's a prosthetic. Hmm, sparks a lot of questions

It is hard to believe that nobody out there is prepared to actually make a case for evolution.

So, I'll (Alex) ask a bite-sized question (that I've asked before) that nobody in this discussion has yet to even attempt to answer:

If evolution (molecules-to-man) is true, where does the new genetic information come from that allows it to happen?

I know it's tempting to write some funny comment, but the question is truly an important one.

If evolution (molecules-to-man) is true [which it is], where does the new genetic information come from that allows it to happen?

Ha, Alex it saddens me to see that you know VERY little about evolution...if you knew anything about evolution you wouldn't be asking such silly questions...

There are three things that lead to new genetic information.

Natural Selection [IE: Things getting wiped out by changing conditions...if you can't adapt, your screwed.]

Sexual Selection [IE: Preferable genes getting passed down...IE: Genetically Stronger Animals (including people) are more inclined to pass on their genes...it's instictive to pick an attractive mate...that 'attractiveness' includes intelligence aswell...the 'attractiveness' is a corelation between visible features and genes...

The Last: Genetic Mutation: Random features in genetics that pop out of no where, but are induced by changing conditions and so on. If a Random Mutation is desireable to the species: IE: Thicker Fur for a Winter Based Species..then it is very likely that that mutated specimen, will spread it's more desirable genes...and this will become more common in the species.

Most evolutionists have heard of or read Genesis...I have even read Genesis. I have read your book, now you should read ours. NO CREATIONIST should try to argue without first reading 'The Origin of Species.' from Cover to Cover...I'm sick and tired of Creationists asking the most stupid questions, OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

First of all, thank you (Lep) for responding. These are the critical issues when it comes to evolution. You responded to the important question, Where does the new information come from?

The three answers you provided are common of evolutionists. Thankfully, all three explanations are testable in experiments and observation. And, none of the three below have ever resulted in “new information.”

The first answer is that “Natural Selection [IE: Things getting wiped out by changing conditions...if you can't adapt, your screwed.]”

Observational science and experiments have shown that natural selection simply sorts existing information. The process is properly named as “selection” in that wiping out unfit or unsuited varieties of species surely occurs. If you think about it though (as is demonstrated through experiments and observation), that “selection” is only selecting from EXISTING genetic information. No NEW genetic information is created by “wiping out” unfit varieties. For example, let’s say that there’s a virus that spreads through a community of 100 dogs. Only 5 of the dogs survive (i.e., are selected) because they have existing genetic traits that help them resist the virus. So, yes, their future off-spring will likely also be resistant. But, where’s the new information? The dogs are still just dogs with the same genetic information that their parents passed down to them. In fact, natural selection results in the steady loss of information because now you don’t have the other genetic information from all of the different dogs you’ve lost. Further, those apparently “superior” dogs are no more likely to survive the next sickness than the generations that already died off.

On the second answer “Sexual Selection [IE: Preferable genes getting passed down...IE: Genetically Stronger Animals (including people) are more inclined to pass on their genes...it's instinctive to pick an attractive mate...that 'attractiveness' includes intelligence as well...the 'attractiveness' is a correlation between visible features and genes...

Basically, the response is the same on this one: this is simply selection from or sorting of existing information. We all get half of our DNA from our mothers and half from out fathers. There’s no “new information” here. Think about it: How does mating make “new” DNA? Plus, mating selectively can be very harmful to species. Specifically, every generation passes on DNA copying errors to future generations. So, even if you deliberately tried to breed stronger and more beautiful species, the species would be running down in other ways. Pure bread dogs are a perfect example. They look nice and some breeds are strong but often very sickly in other ways because they pass on the same genetic mistakes within a given breed. Actually mixing breeds would result in an overall healthier animal (including humans) because often one parent’s genetic strengths will mask the other parent’s genetic weaknesses. Bottom line: mating patterns don’t create NEW information, it’s just sorting out existing information.

The third point: A) “The Last: Genetic Mutation: Random features in genetics that pop out of no where, but are induced by changing conditions and so on.”

Random features in genetics do no “pop out of nowhere” (that’s not science!). They are the result of DNA copying errors. “Pop out of nowhere” can’t be the answer that we’re hanging our beliefs on if we believe in evolution. New information pops out of nowhere? Come on. If evolutionists believe that, I can't see why they couldn't beleive that God created everything. Unless of course, they rule out God not matter what.

And, you can’t “induce” new genetic information. Scientists have tried for decades to do so but have failed every time.

Here’s how mutations occur: As I’ve mentioned, copying errors occur when the double helix splits down the middle to copy itself so cells can divide and still have the needed DNA. When they copy themselves, copying errors sometimes occur. These certainly are mutations but they are “errors” to be sure. Congenital diseases, blindness, deformities, and other sicknesses from birth are the result. The body isn’t doing something it is supposed to be doing because the mutated DNA is no longer capable of sending the right messages to the cells/tissues. Mutations that do occur are almost always harmful or deadly (sometimes they seem to make little difference).

Mutations have NEVER resulted in new information.

B) “If a Random Mutation is desirable to the species: IE: Thicker Fur for a Winter Based Species. Then it is very likely that that mutated specimen, will spread it's more desirable genes...and this will become more common in the species.”

This is just more natural selection and so is simply the sorting of existing genetic information. If new information is not created, there’s nothing new to sort.

Often, of course, you see different dominant and recessive genes expressed in species. But, they have those genes to begin with. Example, dogs have a whole host of genes that help to grow hair and other genes that control the length of hair (otherwise it would just grow forever like the hair on human’s heads). So, a long-haired dog hasn’t “evolved” to fit a climate. Long-haired dogs existed (with all their DNA already in place) and they simply survived the climate. I’ll do a quick entry below about the difference between animal “kinds” (e.g., the “dog” kind) and varieties of kinds (or different breeds of those animals).

In sum, all three of the evolutionary responses above clearly assume that genetic information existed FIRST. Further, the processes above result in a steady loss of information, not a gain of new information (in experiments and in observation). However, molecules-to-man evolution requires that "new information" is created at every single step in the evolutionary ladder.

I don't have the time to prove you wrong, as with most Christians...your not going accept the truth...unless it's been sugar-coated to support your religion...here is a web-site with all of the answers you need... [link]

Have fun as your religion is analyzed and destroyed due to prevailing logic...

Amen, I don't know why people so hell bent on keeping their same beliefs try lecture others over and over again thinking that if we hear the same arugement enough times we'll automatically be saved. HEY!!!! Christian people, we too are entitled to come to our own conclusions based on the information gathered by ourselves and others. Questioning God, man, and how we all came to be doesn't make us ignorant, or unholy, it makes us human, GET OVER IT!!!

Lep,

Sounds like you're done. I can respect that. I'll be done too. I wanted to thank you for posting this story to begin with. I love a good debate and it seems like you do too. Plus, these are the most important questions we can wrestle with.

We're all just looking for answers, right?

So, I won't bore you with my position on evolution anymore but I will take this opportunity to make myself vulnerable for all to see.

Here's my story. I grew up sort of catholic but thought it was bull. Later in life, about 7 years ago, my life fell apart (nervous breakdown type stuff brought on by multiple problems I refused to address) while I was in graduate school. So I started reading the Bible and praying the best way I knew how. I didn't tell anybody because I had publicly made fun of Christians to my very smart graduate school friends. I actually believed in evolution and that there really was no God at that point but reading about Jesus brought me more comfort than the therapy I was in. My life slowly got better so I stopped reading the Bible because I didn't need it anymore.

A couple of years later, I was invited to church by this super-cute girl. I knew I had to go at least once to make a good impression. I had no immediate problems in my life like I had in the past but I was still troubled and emotionally damaged pretty bad. Anyway, the service was cool but I was more intrigued by the fact that these Christians actually seemed to believe that Jesus really was God and that he died for their sins and all that. They seemed weird but they seemed genuinely happy. The girl and I split up. I spent the next few months reading everything I could on it from a critical/academic standpoint. I found "holes," "contradictions," and other things that troubled me. Not everybody had good answers but I eventually found enough good answers to gradually believe that the Bible was reliable (I still don't claim to understand all of it's mysteries or have all the answers but I feel confident in what I do know).

So, alone in my room feeling very foolish, I "gave my life to God." I felt no immediate change but anticipated that if God really were real, he would meet me halfway and demonstrate something in my life. Over the next year, everything in my life changed. I experienced forgiveness for very hurtful things that I did in the past. I also was able to forgive a bunch of people in my heart for various offenses in my past (betrayal, abuse, violence, etc.). My family relationships, particularly with my dad, improved dramatically. I still have a few nagging struggles and I'll never be a "model" of a "good" person, but I continue to ask God for his strength, and he keeps helping me overcome myself. I have great peace and hope in my heart everyday and I feel like God has a wonderful plan for my life. Before that, I felt like it was up to me to fight my way through the world and that I was on my own. If you knew me like my friends did, you'd know that I was the last person that anybody thought would become a "Christian" (I'm still not comfortable with that label because I always think of many questionable loud mouth politicians on TV--but I guess God loves them too).

Anyway, that's my story. I had a life changing experience. Too many things came together for it to be coincidence and I critiqued like crazy before I made the decision. And, in a strange turn of events, I ended up marrying that girl that invited me to church a few years later after breaking up for over a 1-1/2 soon after my first church visit. I'll be G-rated but she's the most wonderful person I know and super, super good looking. Now, you can all feel free to make fun of me out there. I don't care. Let me have it.

And for anybody reading this, if you don't believe in God or Jesus at this point, that's cool. If you have any interest at all, I suggest that you get somewhere alone and turn to the Gospel of John in the New Testament. Read a chapter a day (should take 4 minutes) for one week. Ask this question before you read: "God, I don't even believe you exist. But, if you are real, would you please reveal yourself to me somehow." Then start reading. Pray this everyday and just read one chapter of the Gospel of John. You don't even have to tell anybody. No magic or manipulation. You'll be in control of the situation the whole time. If God isn't real, no harm done, right? Move on with your life.

Thanks again, Lep. God Bless and good fortune,

Alex

"He [God] has anointed Me [Jesus] to preach the gospel to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to the captives
And recover sight to the blind,
To set at liberty those who are oppressed."
-- Luke 4:18

Wow, your story is very inspirational...I thank you for taking so much time to speak your point-of-view. I apologize, I haven't been acting to gratious so I would like to make it up. Perhaps we could keep in contact through email...and continue our discussion. I have just been so buisy with Finals and such, so I apologize again if I have come off as arogant.

Email Me at this Adress if you would like to Continue our Discussion...I hope you do: nanobox@msn.com

Thanks Lep. You're a big man to speak so humbly. I'll email you.

And, no worries on being arrogant or anything like that. I didn't think you were arrogant. You seem to be a passionate person. That can be a wonderful thing. In fact, I'll admit that I was not always at my best here and can tend to get harsh at times. So, I'm guessing that I may have pushed your buttons and set you off at times. So, I apologize if I was harsh or arrogant myself.

Later.

Having made your argument (as vague as possible) that god and science compliment each other, you set yourself up for a more important conclusion. If science can prove that evolution occured and christianity defys that, you must admit that if there is a omnipresence that christianity has no concept of it's will or process.

You have in essence disproved christianity....By your own rational of course...Bravo!

If there is evelution and man evolved from apes why are men not evolving snymore? you people are so tupid to believe in things laike that god will lay his wrath an you and you and all the evalutionists will go be slaves for satan in hell. and i will be looking down on you forever from heaven were i will be with my lord my god and my savior.

the creationist

ok, who are you calling tupid?!

It may be worth noting that while Creationists are quick to demand 'the ultimate proof' of evolution, despite that the process takes thousands of years at the level they want to see, they aren't so quick to provide any proof of creationism - beyond repeating what's been written in a book or leaning on bad science and grotesque misunderstandings of scientific principles... much like the obviously uneducated pollscrewer.

Actually, as I've understood it, the Bible claims that Adam and Eve were the first people, from whom the rest of the race of Man arose. We're talking some serious inbreeding here. I believe the smallest population required to avoid it, short of some serious bloodline records and directed breeding programs, is around 1200.

The Bible claims a lot of these 'first people' lived for hundreds of years. It also claims that Adam was made from clay, and Eve from one of his ribs - "which is why men have one less rib than women" - a misconception long since refuted. It places Earth at the center of the universe. All these things are illogical to the modern mind - why should we continue to just accept and modify all that we learn according to a book that was gathered over the years by a number of different people who had their own purposes to support in writing it? We don't believe in the events of the Odyssey with this kind of rabid devotion, but it makes about as much sense, though with the disadvantage of being more entertaining.

"If we evolve from more primitive people, then it means we were more like little children once compared to what we are now, so God would use simple terms to explain what he wanted from them. "
I think there's some kind of misunderstanding here about the meaning of 'primitive.' Primitive doesn't mean that those people were less intelligent - their culture, technology and society just hadn't advanced to a level we acknowledge as civilized. Primitive people were quite able to perform sophisticated turns of reasoning, but were more likely to accept whatever they were told by their elders as the truth - civilization inherently requiring the questioning and improvement upon these 'truths.' I think a parallel to Christianity can be drawn here.

If God wanted Jesus to lead the people, he could have had him born into a class from which he could easily have led them. It was much simpler to lead from above back then.

The Bible states that seeking knowledge is a sin, as knowledge is reserved for God - in fact, it's why Adam and Eve were tossed out of the Garden of Eden. Again, an example of a basic tenet in the Bible trying to guard against the questioning of its law. The Dark Ages came about when, after the collapse of the Roman Empire, Christianity spread and denounced their knowledge, and held everyone in ignorance for centuries. Good work, God.

God sends all who don't worship him to Hell, and demands our praise and the lives of our children if he wants them. Even if there is a God, why do you feel so compelled to follow him?

There's this concept of sin. Original sin: what did we ever do, personally? Nakedness: How is it sinful to be seen in the body God supposedly gave us? Is it also sinful to look at animals? Why not? What about chimps, since they've been proved intelligent? Will they go to hell too?

Creationists tend to return to the argument, "The world is just too complex to have just happened this way." Look at it another way, then: if it HAD happened any other way, we'd consider that just as miraculous and complex, wouldn't we? Then THAT would be the only possible way things could be, amen hallelujah, because obviously "it's how things are." Since things are the way they've become and we don't have the lifespan to see the process, we assume there must be some great intelligence putting everything to work. This is more indicative of the limitations of an outdated mode of thinking than it is the mark of an intelligent, reasoning being.

The world seems complex to us because we're still evolving - it's just that the requirements of our evolution have gone from survival to intelligence. Hopefully we'll someday attain the level of intelligence necessary to be free of superstitious garbage.

Because they lack their own supply of intelligence to quote from.

Actually, Buddhism, Taoism and the other Oriental beliefs aren't religions - they're philosophies. They tell you how to acheive inner peace, rather than how if you do what god X wants in this life, you'll be rewarded in the next one.

I suggest you read A Brief History of Time, by Stephen Hawking. He should clear up your ignorance nicely.

It's interesting that you know what words were used in The Old Testament, since even experts are unsure of it - the language being long dead.


\Mu*ta"tion\, n.

1. (Biol.) Gradual definitely tending variation, such as may be observed in a group of organisms in the fossils of successive geological levels.

2. (Biol.) (a) As now employed (first by de Vries), a sudden variation (the offspring differing from its parents in some well-marked character or characters) as distinguished from a gradual variations in which the new characters become fully developed only in the course of many generations. The occurrence of mutations, and the hereditary transmission, under some conditions, of the characters so appearing, are well-established facts. (b) The result of the above process; a suddenly produced variation.

In short, a mutation is a genetic change that happens suddenly, rather than gradually. While mutations do include deformities, they just as often prove beneficial. An example of both mutation and evolution would be the birch moths of London: when cars began to drive the streets and coal was burned regularly, the birch trees were stained a darker color. The white moths, previously so well-hidden, were easy pickings for the birds. However, within a few years, the moths became black themselves, replacing the white breed. Survival of the fittest is, on a large scale, dependent on variation - that is, an ability to mutate to a more beneficial form.

Another example of beneficial mutation would be the common potato. During the Great Potato Blight that wiped out a large percentage of the population of Ireland, among other places, it was found that the potatoes were suffering from a form of fungus. Within a few years, a mutation among the potatoes produced a breed that was immune to the fungus.

This is, by the way, the reason that it's unwise to put antibiotics in animal fodder when the animals aren't sick - all it does is provide the strains of bacteria with a basis to form an immunity - and then when the animals DO get sick, the antibiotics are worthless.

An atom isn't a thing, per se - it's energy held bound in a single state by various other forces, with which we get into quark theory. Again, Stephen Hawking's book should prove interesting to you on that score. Now explain how "he just said it, and it happened" is a more reasonable explanation to you than scientific inquiry.

The cells stop dividing, the chemical electricity stops firing, our brain stops working, and we rot.

Which is why people want religion. It's the security blanket of childish reasoning.

So when you make your arguments but find they've been refuted because you can't be bothered to do enough research to know what you're talking about, you pick up your ball and go home?

Christ, there ought to be an age limit on here. "I saw DNA under a microscope." I grieve for the future.

...Are you suggesting God has DNA? So he's a physical being floating around out there?

My name is Kevin.

To all evolutionists:- Is there a reason why God cannot exist?

To all creationalists:- Is it possible for us to have a discussion without referring to The Bible?


Religion was originally created by the rich to keep the poor tightly oppressed, and also as an attempt to answer some of the bigger questions of life.

I cannot prove that anything happened millions of years ago, let alone yesterday. However, neither can you disprove anything from the past unless with a comment from The Bible such as 'the world was created in six days'. If you can have a Bible to refer to past events, then cannot I have a library of information, incomplete as it may be?

I doubt that any creationalist would take this seriously, but nonetheless. Could you imagine back 2000 years ago when The Bible was written. Imagine 10 poor people in a market. Suddenly a rich person comes along. The poor people are astounding by these riches. They ask themselves, 'why can we only buy a few pieces of fruit whilst this guy can buy the whole market?' They ask this to the rich guy. The only thing he can say is 'that's just the way it is'. The poor people thing, 'surely there must be someone who's in control of all this, but if there is someone in control, where is he? Since we haven't seen him yet, he must be somewhere we can't reach... the sky. What does he look like? Surely he must look like us, mankind.' The rich guy says, 'there's no such thing, forget about it'. The poor people speak aloud, 'why can't we just rob this rich guy, we know it would be wrong, but what's stopping us?' The rich guy becomes afraid and takes his chance, 'well....um.... you know that guy in the sky you were talking about.... well, he only likes people who do the right thing, and stealing is wrong. Also, he's everywhere, so he knows everything so he can punish you if you steal from me.' The poor people say, 'what's he gonna do? Strike me dead with thunder?' The rich guy says, 'no.... he will... umm.... well.. when you die, he won't let you join him in the sky.'

This was in a time when people had no idea the world was not flat, or that there was anything beyond the sky, or that there are other planets etc. It was a time when science was simply the four elements of wind, heat, water and Earth. Soon, these thoughts became word, and soon after, some guy believed that he had all the answers and wrote them down in a book which we call The Bible. Over time, stories were made up and changed etc........

What? It couldn't have happened that way? Well, how do you know? Where's your evidence? Were you there? If I claimed that this happened and wrote a book which became word in 2000 years' time, then I would be correct as no-one in the future could possibly disprove something which happened 2000 years ago.

I think it is better to believe in God because it gives you hope. I also think that if you really want the truth, then do not believe what people say, but examine the evidence for yourself. Whatever you believe in the end is what you believe and I will not contend with it. As there is no foolproof evidence for God or quantum physics (which is what I believe), then no absolute truth or fact can come out of the debate. This is why this issue has continued for hundreds of years.

Why cannot a creationalist believe a GCSE Biology textbook, yet put their complete trust in a book written 2000 years ago?

Many scientists have doubted the existence of the neutrino, much like the graviton nowadays. We can prove what happens in the present but not in the past. However, what's the difference between a fossilized record, and a book. The difference is that The Bible is secondhand knowledge passed down from generation to generation until written as a book, and fossil records are first-hand, direct evidence.

I do not doubt God, yet do I believe. I believe in quantum physics and have yet yo doubt. Maybe I will in the future, maybe I won't. I just don't see God in my future.

Also, 50 years ago, somebody conducted an experiment only using the elements in the air, and made amino acids, which are the base to DNA, which is the basis of bacteria, which is the basis to evolution. Aminos are simply nitrogen and a few other elements. Add a little lightning and a few million years, and you have life. Add a few more billion years, and you get humans. Who knows what's to come in the next few million/billion (/hundred) years?

Respond. I'm open to all criticism and arguments. However, I do not appreciate anger from anyone, whether creationalist or evolutionalist. In my opinion, both views stand. I just happen to believe one instead of the other. In short, ask me anything, but be nice. :)

You sound like you know your stuff - why not sign up as a member of foo? :)

Being the crazy right-wing religion guy I am, I figured I'd drop in my two cents and share what I believe about the subject.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (that's the Mormons) takes no official stance on the matter. The closest it has come to an official statement was in the early 1900's when it basically said "it doesn't matter".

My opinion is the same.

This was the subject of lengthy discussion in my Biology 100 class at Brigham Young University (one of the most right-wing universities in America), and the professors did the following:

1) Declared that evolution through random mutations is a REALITY. This is easily and readily seen in any virus over a period of days or even hours. There are countless tests to prove this, and it happens. Random mutations, though not terribly efficient, do work.

2) That animals no doubt have evolved.

3) The subject of human evolution was not touched upon, but the professor left the impression clear that it may or may not have happened, and that either way it was important.

A careful reading of Genesis 1:20 seems to POSSIBLY even support evolution. Then again, Jewish cosmology was different from our own.

Does it MATTER if it happened or not? In my opinion, not at all. It does not shake my faith in God to know that he used a more "normal" means to create man. It simply means that many of the first chapters in Genesis are more symbolic than I had previously thought.

The problem here is created by fundamentalists who attempt to limit God and his powers and means to what their interpretation of the bible is. God does not have a limit to his powers, and his means are wiser than we can understand, even with our present "knowledge".

I hope this is somewhat useful.

I must say you have some valid points. But, I ask you this: how did everything start (when I say everything I mean the Earth, Humans, animal, etc etc)? Let's consider Newtons First Law of Physics:
An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.

What caused everything to come into being?

Well, it would apear that you never read some of the article and non of the comments. It's been stated above time and time again, 'Big Bang' > Universe > Abiogenesis > Evolution > People...

Your 1st law of Physics is actually the 1st law of MOTION, and it has no bearing to contrast evolution at all, evolution was set in motion by abiogenesis. Abiogenesis being the 'prime mover' as aristotle says, from then it all evolved outwards to become what we have today. And if your going to try to bring up the 2nd law of Thermo Dynamics (or 2nd Law of Hotness, as you might call it,) Please note that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics actually supports the theory of evolution, not destroys it. Since when was our biome isolated at all? We're constantly recieving energy from many sources which keeps evolution going. That's the main effect of life after all, the convertion and harvistation of energy so to speak.

FUCK FUCK FUCK! FUCK MY PUSSY! OW yeah!
OH!OH!OH! ( @ )( @ )


( ; )
HENTAI ROXX

I personally believe that evolution is wrong, it makes no sense to me that a piece of nothing mated with another piece of nothing and created earth and all of its inhabitants. Use a spoon as an example, does it make more sense that you (human beings) created that spoon, or that out of nowhere that spoon created you? I also feel that people choose, yes it is a choice that you make, not to follow religion because they do not wish to follow a life dictated by rules and laws. But of course this is only my opinion, when it is our time to die in this world we will all see then who was right.

The truth is you are wrong. Everything you claim to be proof of evolution is, in fact, proof of adaptation. We adapt to our environment. Would we still "evolve" if there was nothing to adapt to? No, my friend, we would not. God will judge you, and I will prey for you to see the light. In the meantime, chew on this. Do you honestly believe a world this perfect could have came about by accident?
Do you believe you have no purpose? You must if you believe in evolution over creationism. If you do believe you have no purpose, then why not leave your opinions to yourself and die a miserable life. There would be no point to convince others to believe the way you do unless you are a worker sent by Satan himself. Your explanations are weak and incorrect. The ark was filled with animals in groups of seven, not two. Read more into it before making false protest.

In God's name
Preston Searcy
PS- feel free to email me at prestonsearcy@yahoo.com

Ok my friend, now you are obviously showing us that you believe in creationism and God, and I'm with you on that, but God does not say to curse people to have a miserable and horrible life and death, when say that you are just being a hypocrite, because God said to love one another no matter what and to let him judge humans, now of course the world is not perfect and no one can love everyone but God him/herself. So make sure that you are not just contradicting yourself before you speak.

Amazingly stupid !
get an education you stupid twat!

this site is awsome!!

he is totally strong and his strength so coolalistic I really want to meet him!
:love:

Your full of shit shut the fuck up

i can do kung foo as well i am realy good

Your full of shit shut the fuck up

actually... the animals in seven pairs were the animals deemed clean at the time, or able to be eaten. the unclean animals were still brought in as only one pair... which was the majority of animals. who should do more reading?

who really cares about the christian god...its all made up crap to make little kids be good...besides if u look at christianity closely youll see thats its actually more like a cult. they worship the 'leader', they all gather to praise the 'leader'. i say screw christianity, anti-chist all the way!

it is not always good to say "your wrong + will go to hell" try looking up some science to prove that god did create the everything. i sugest that you look up (i'm not sure if correct) dinoland.com. it's a strong cristian man who really knows what he is talking about. he is dr. kent hovind (not sure if spelled right) remember we want everyone to go to heaven " love your neighbor as yourself". well i hope to see you in heaven

god bless you
charlie

There is substantial, overt evidence disproving evolution such as the concept of irreducible complexity. Charles Darwin actually wrote in On the Origin of Species:
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive light modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
Since Darwin's time, we have found numerous examples of this irreducible complexity. One of these examples is the flagellum in bacterium in the complex, elaborate microscopic world. This flagellum consists of 40 protein parts; none of which could exist and perform its intended function alone. This is like a mouse trap. As simple as a mouse trap is, if any of its parts would be missing, it could never perform its intended function. This proves that a mouse trap could not have evolved. Evolution of the flagellum of bacterium is simply improbable. Darwin, himself, disproved his own theory. However, I'm sure if Darwin was alive today, he'd realize that his own theory was crap.

despite the spelling problems, AMEN!

Hey,

I thought you brought up a good point, so I researched it only to find that your claim is flawed and that there is Scientific Theories about the evolution of the Flagellum. [link]

Please stop putting forward such poor arguments, tell all you creationist friends the same. The 'Theory' of Creationism does not fit the criteria of a scientific theory. A scientific theory has actual facts and proof behind it. Creationism has none, it is a fairy tale.

Alright, who is showing that they believe in God and Creationism...

As for your claims that God doesn't condemn people to a horrible life and death, that's completely untrue. I can get the exact bible quotations for you tomorrow. There is MANY of them. The Bible is sexist, homo-phobic, contradictory, and way too meticulous to follow. Do you dispute this?

So it makes more sense that some invisible, omnipotent thing made everything from nothing, and then people out of sand using magic?

Haha, some people have the lamest arguments.

Please, enter into a debate with me...right here. You've made no real argument. Evolution IS Adaptation, it's adaptation gradually over vast ammounts of time and it has made out world what it is today.

I'm still waiting for a response..

Well by your same standards...how many 'books' of genetic information do humans and chimps have in common...it still outways the differences.

Hey Rev.

How about that hard evidence that God exsists? You might as well put it out in the open now. :)

What do you have against dating methods? At least have a reason to disagree with them. Besides, they're proven.

I do. But first you have to define homophobic and sexist.

Sexist...
1 Timothy 2

11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

Homo-phobic...
Leviticus 20

13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.


It's pretty obvious. There's worse things in the Bible however, I go to a Catholic school we actually read the Bible. [It's virtually the same no matter what translation you look at, NIV, NAB, KJV etc...The above quotes are in all versions.]

It's possible to flip to any page in the Bible, and within a few pages of that, find something grossly negative, sexist, racist, etc...

And you can't say that it's only the old testament. My first quote is from Timothy which is part of the new testament.

As for what I mean by sexist and homo-phobic. I mean the definitions in the dictionary.

sex·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (skszm)
n.
Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender. [link]

ho·mo·pho·bi·a ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hm-fb-)
n.
Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
Behavior based on such a feeling. [link]

Wow. I have read your article on 'Music in todays society', and right after I read your comment to MajorTom's well-versed and thought out comment, I have come to the conclusion that you are the biggest dolt in existence, and you only post comments to receive attention. I know the words I have just typed won't reach through to you, but please, just plain stop going to kungfoo and posting comments, you goddamn moron.

We can't ALL go to heaven... if so then why are we with eachother now?

well thought out slam. I give you a 10!

Carbon dating, Einstein.

Just because you don't understand it, don't assume there's no rational explanation. That's how religions get started...

Carbon dating, Einstein.

Just because you don't understand it, don't assume there's no rational explanation. That's how religions get started...

Carbon dating, Einstein.

Just because you don't understand it, don't assume there's no rational explanation. That's how religions get started...

Awww when you go to college youll learn about polipeptides and all of the differnt types of DNA...RNA and so forth. Nothing in the body happens by "magic" we just dont understand why some of the more complex actions do as they do.

Gaaa......please read the posts alittle farther up......they explain what a theory is

Its so pointless to argue this point.......yet its so fascinating. I personlly dont think that we will ever truly solve this question.......The only way would be to solve the space-time paradox and go back to see it happening our selfs..... Yet would God let us do that? Or would he make something up......Hmmmmm its so mind boggling. Well I for one would just like to figure out the space time paradox. Ill leave the other things to yall.

Your friend, Kagonos

Sexist...

Doesn't make the bible sexist, just says that women have their place in the family and that place is under the male. Doesn't make her less than equal.

Homophobic...

Leviticus is a book of laws. Levitican laws were given only to the jews. It was jewish law. That is the old testament.

I dunno if you're still around but I encourage you to find me some racist things in the bible...


I am not homophobic nor have I ever been.

why don't you fast (go without food for seven day's) and ask Jesus to forgive you of your sins, then will see if your still tough..Warning demons will appear, because of the spiritual sensitivity , you''ll feel them grabbing you messing with you..
JESUS IS REAL ..
He just wants to see if you believe the bible or not..
I'm a living testimony, one love

Next thing you know they'll be using it for porn!

Next thing you know they'll be using it for porn!

Can't say I agree on all counts, but a brave stand as you know you're going to get a lot of flak, and you've obviously given it some thought. The fact that people are involved in the recording of the Bible could explain a lot of discrepencies. I'm sure that the one about adultery conflicts with the one about going forth and multiplying...

Look, you clearly don't understand geological radiometrics, so why do you pretend? Carbon14 dating has *never* been used for dating the age of the Earth. You are correct, that beyond 50K yrs, C14 dating is difficult. Well, stupid, that's why scientists use other methods such as Pb/Pb isochron age for estimating earth age. Since you are clearly not an archeogeology major, please don't comment on things you don't understand. Up to 50K years, the more-than-100 dating labs on the planet actually do concur... that the earth is at least 50K yrs old, not a few thousand. Another chink in your armor. sigh.

what an idiot! Learn to spell evolution before you go on speaking about it. You obviously know nothing of Einstien's theory of relativity or the conservation of energy for that matter. Look up theory in the dictionary. You don't have a clue! And as for one true thing of evolution, how do you think bacteria become resistant to antibiotics? THEY EVOLVE..................

theres ways to prove creationism without religion. for example. the law of biogenis which states that all life must come from another living thing. that goes to direct oppistion to some laws of evoultion with things evouling from mud. theres other harder concepts such as pelenuim halos (sp again) being presnts in the earths rock basment layers.

nice facts. man middle school kids sure are funny.

nice facts. man middle school kids sure are funny. if that crap is made up then tell me. is egypt a fake or isreal (sp maybe). i know the roman empire wasnt those are just some things in the bible that are still around today.

If you think evelution is such a slow process that you'll notice it then think again. Human evolution takes a ton of time.

do not take the lords name to justify hate...who do you even think you are?

i am not a christian, but i was raised as one until i could make my own choice...i must say though, a lot of people seem to forget that all the homophobic, sexist, condemnation crap went out the window when god sent his only begotten son to die for us....all sins are equal in the eyes of the lord, and we all have an equal chance of gettin in to heaven, so long as one repents for his or her sins and believes in the lord god allmighty and his son.
its a pretty sweet deal , actually, if you follow that particaular tradition the way it was meant to be followed. so enough with the hate bs, allright yall?

"GOD" used science to create man, all other species, plant and animals and the world we live in. God plants and for the rest of the my time animals were expeiriments which each were allowed to evolve to a certain point and then destroyed and created the new more superior species. ie the wooly mammoth to the elephant. the man eating plants to the plant eating man. apes to man. no direct relation just a new experiment to perfect his work. the universal language is math/numbers which man has not totally discovered or comprehend yet. when we do we'll be able to travel to the planet/solar system/universe in which god has retreated to. until man understand himself fully god will continue his work. total evolution is not practical. recreation is. earth has been destoyed about 7 times my guess the easiest way to start over with more efficent lab animals. to praise god, to fear god, is a good question. there are evil entities that try to dismantle the work of god. kind of like a kid kicking over a HO train set whith the whole village set up. evil evil. those jealous of his creation. as long as we are still on earth god is good. when he decides to start over we have a problem.

FUCK YOU!!! AND YOUR EVOLUTION SHIT!!! ITS ALL FUCKIN DUMB U FUCKER!!!

the bible says God hung the earth in the heavens. we discovered that the earth was in fact hung in the heavens [and round]..... around the time of satellites. that's a couple thousand years late. the bible makes many anecdotes for germs. we did not discover germs until we got a microscope. or atoms for that matter which ,being invisible are quite visible when you split one. the wind is also invisible but we see it work similar to God. science does in fact prove the existence of God and the truth of the bible. you just have to go read about it. did you know that evolution is a mathematical impossibility? for all the amino acids in your body to mix at just the right time at the right amount at the right temperature to keep you alive could not happen by accident. the equation is 1: so many zeros it can't be calculated. don't give me all your atheistic crap. i used to be one until i opened a book and read and learned. in order to not bore you with truth so you can continue your pathetic arguments i will be short because i could sit here and list this stuff for a while and some of you may began to believe and go find something good to do for someone that can do nothing for you.

The bible also says a raped, unengaged virgin must marry her rapist and they can never divorce. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)... do you believe that too, or are you selective with what you point out and believe?

It also says that after making the animals, God brought every living creature to the Middle East and got Adam to name them all... pretty amazing as there are several million species, many of which would have died from the climate change. Is this more believable than them evolving over millions of years?

In any case, the bible is full of stories about god approving and conducting mass-murder, infanticide, rape, slavery, child-abuse, self-castration and human/animal sacrifice, not something I'm willing to believe my creator would be into.

Not saying the Theory of Evolution doesn't have it's holes, but until something better comes along, certainly easier for me to believe than anything I've read in the bible.

In kings james version it says, and this is a direct quotation, "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold of her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days."
Which is the Old Testament, before Jesus came. These were the rules of the time before Jesus, when people had to live by only good works and sacrifices to make it into Heaven. After Jesus came one only has to ask Him, genuinely from their heart, for forgiveness and they will be born again into truth and light.
In this part of the Bible, it is telling that men should respect women, becuase if they just take a virgin and use her, they must be married. In these days, girls didn't usually even get to chose their husbands. And in this case, their virginity was taken, so they marry the person that took it. But really, think on it. Would a person that raped a girl really wait around to marry her?
I would be glad to expand, if any more clarification is needed.
I will pray for you.

Creation or evelution? if we did evolve what did we evolve from? monkeys. where did monkeys evlove from? all things if you go far enough back came from the sea, the primorial slime that oozed out of the water and onto land. humans are a mixed breed that's for sure. it's a question that can only be answered when you die, but even then maybe not. Religion is definetly a cause for a lot of the worlds problems. tho it gives people a reason not to worry, or just to be nieve. there are enough rules and regulations in this world without having to obey those ten comandments. People are so insecure these days they need religion. God cant be proved, evolution raises too many questions, so who really cares, just try and enjoy the time you've got.

"Man created god through ignorance and fear" dead prez

I am an athiest and I believe in Evolution

a response to an earlier statement by an Alex character:
When we reproduce no new dna is created we just get a 50-50 combination of our parents genes which creates a new combination of data, which hopefully is of desirable traits, which we could pass on to a child with another mate with other desirable traits we were not fortunate enough to obtain, which might create a slightly superior human, who could reproduce with another human of the same superiority creating better offspring more likely to survive
and so on

As for the argument as to why humans aren't evolving: 1:Evolution takes millions of years even to show the slightest evolutionary change 2: With all our new advances in medicine and other treatments for certain genetic diseases and syndromes keeping people with genetic diseases from dying, they are able to pass on these traits to offspring which have or carry that diease 3: with our new transportation and immigration, different races are getting together and reproducing interacial offspring, which messed with the evolutionary process, if all races were kept isolated in a few million years each race might have become it's own species

I don't know much about carbon dating(or any other dating systems) and i don't read the bible, so i can't try to disprove anything in it because i don't know what's in it.

ita all gravyl

Ha! daydreamtime's bad html on Oct 06, 2002 at 03:08 PM is still f'ing with us today.

There.

"It doesn't matter, the only way any of us are going to make a human"

Does it really matter how we got here when it appears no one knows the really important shit, like does Britney Spears know anything about wet wipes? I'm appalled and pray that such great minds resist the simpler questions and dive into the abyss AKA "the dumb ass bitch syndrome."

I need to find the thread that contained "religious wars are gay" and "burning pile of camel shit" and "prophet of doom"

I like to drink BOY HOWDY!!! beer. it makes me feel real nice. I think I know how to cure Helen Degeneras of her homosexualosity....... invite her down to the barn...show her a rubber goober....lift the lid on the feed barrel....toss the rubber goober into the bottom of the feed barrel.... she will go for that rubber goober for sure....when she bends over into the feed barrel trying to get ahold of that rubber goober..why you just put the lid down on her back and then unhitch her drawers..... while you hold the feed barrel lid down on her back you just go ahead and pour the coals to that old girl from behind..... after just a few strokes I believe you would have converted that gal. I have used that sort of approach before...just tweak the presentation to the type of

rubber goobeers?

holyjuan has a real tight cooter

stinky cooter.....with corn kernals

buttsecks?

cornbandit is a turd burgling gonad gargler.

/not juan

that is only a rumor........

I am actually quite popular in places such as Ghana, Benin, and Nigeria. I am a very wealthy and sexy man..... I get many emails confirming these facts

lol
seriously, all of you, get a life.

lesbians love rubber goobers

rubber goobers?

Yes Goober shaped rubber devices intended to stimulate lesbian clitorii. I think they like rubber cooters too.