PDA

View Full Version : Fossil discovery...



Pages : [1] 2

Keith Farmer
06-17-2009, 05:43 PM
Paleontoligists are all giddy about the discovery of a fossil they believe is a link to bolster evolution. However, the evidence is so weak for macro-evolution even some of its leading proponents are stumped on the tough questions. Here is the fossil story and two stories that detail the evolution debate from a position of creationism and sound science...not cultish like faith speculation:

Fossil story:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20090617/sc_livescience/fossilsolvesmysteryofdinosaurfingerevolution


Case against evolution part1:

http://www.icr.org/article/457/286/

Case against evolution part2:

http://www.icr.org/article/456/286/

It would behoove one to read the information presented in the link here if truth is sought regarding origin:

http://www.icr.org/evidence/



.

Cody Covey
06-17-2009, 06:15 PM
no offense Keith but I'm sure you have better reactions from most on this board if you posted from a site that doesn't have an agenda.

cotts135
06-17-2009, 07:46 PM
Paleontoligists are all giddy about the discovery of a fossil they believe is a link to bolster evolution. However, the evidence is so weak for macro-evolution even some of its leading proponents are stumped on the tough questions. Here is the fossil story and two stories that detail the evolution debate from a position of creationism and sound science...not cultish like faith speculation:

Fossil story:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20090617/sc_livescience/fossilsolvesmysteryofdinosaurfingerevolution


Case against evolution part1:

http://www.icr.org/article/457/286/

Case against evolution part2:

http://www.icr.org/article/456/286/

It would behoove one to read the information presented in the link here if truth is sought regarding origin:

http://www.icr.org/evidence/



.

The basic problem I find with most Creationists arguments is not so much that they argue and present facts to support their point of view, it is they are critical of the science and techniques that say we as humans have evolved. For instance,they point to the fact that there is no evolutionary evidence connecting birds with dinosaurs. Well science is making discoveries every day and just because it hasn't been found does not mean it does not exist. The volume of provable data such as how old the earth is as solid as the ground you stand on today. Equally important thought is science has not found anything that would prove evolution has not occurred. Someday this might happen, but for today, evidence and fact strongly support evolution.

Franco
06-17-2009, 07:58 PM
The basic problem I find with most Creationists arguments is not so much that they argue and present facts to support their point of view, it is they are critical of the science and techniques that say we as humans have evolved. For instance,they point to the fact that there is no evolutionary evidence connecting birds with dinosaurs. Well science is making discoveries every day and just because it hasn't been found does not mean it does not exist. The volume of provable data such as how old the earth is as solid as the ground you stand on today. Equally important thought is science has not something that would prove evolution has not occurred. Someday this might happen, but for today, evidence and fact strongly support evolution.

Yes, what most free minds beleive.

History International had a piece on last week where they believe the "missing link' was found in Germany. Give me Science over Superstition any day! Superstition has an agenda, science doesn't.

Sabireley
06-17-2009, 08:06 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Museum#Displays_and_exhibits

There is a creation museum in Kentucky with some interesting exhibits...

Keith Farmer
06-17-2009, 08:41 PM
Obviously the responses are off the cuff and the evidence I gave in the links has not been reviewed.


Dr Morris goes to great lengths to establish trustworthy scientific data rather than the religiously held views of the evolutionists...their arguments simply do not hold water where as creation arguments are scientifically sound...read the information objectively then come back with a response!

For example (from this article http://www.icr.org/article/457/286/):







With respect to the origin of life, a leading researcher in this field, Leslie Orgel, has said after noting that neither proteins nor nucleic acids could have arisen without the other, concludes
And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.5 Being committed to total evolution as he is, Dr. Orgel cannot accept any such conclusion as that. Therefore, he speculates that RNA may have come first, but then he still has to admit that:
The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear. . . . investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best.6

To see how evolutionists slant research data in their favor read this article about the RNA Dr. Orgel mentions above:

http://www.icr.org/article/4759/




no offense Keith but I'm sure you have better reactions from most on this board if you posted from a site that doesn't have an agenda.


No offense taken by me...the offense of evolution is to the Creator. The agenda is what...that the truth be told? If so I back that agenda over evolutionary lies any day.

.

kjrice
06-17-2009, 08:42 PM
http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r186/kjrice/larry-king-picture-2.jpg

Fossil found!

subroc
06-17-2009, 09:16 PM
I believe in the possibility of the big bang.
I believe in the possibility of lots of little big bangs.
I believe in much of evolutionary theory. (Whether this is a big discovery or not, remains to be seen).
Darwin is one of a handful of the most important people in human history.
I believe in god.
I occasionally pray in my own way.
Belief in god and evolution are not in opposition.
I don’t believe in the church.

Keith Farmer
06-17-2009, 09:31 PM
I believe in the possibility of the big bang.
I believe in the possibility of lots of little big bangs.
I believe in much of evolutionary theory. (Whether this is a big discovery or not, remains to be seen).
Darwin is one of a handful of the most important people in human history.
I believe in god.
I occasionally pray in my own way.
Belief in god and evolution are not in opposition.
I don’t believe in the church.



Sounds like Todd Sneider..."I believe in everything".

On what foundation are those beliefs based Subroc. In other words, what major evidence in each of those areas has convinced you to believe as you do?


.

subroc
06-17-2009, 10:05 PM
Sounds like Todd Sneider..."I believe in everything".

On what foundation are those beliefs based Subroc. In other words, what major evidence in each of those areas has convinced you to believe as you do?


.



What’s a Todd Sneider? BTW, like I said, I don't believe in organized religion (church)
I don’t really have to explain my belief system to you at all.
I expect Darwin figured it out.
In the grand scheme of things I expect god guides all things.
Churches while responsible for much of the good in the world, they have far too much blood on their hands for me to ever follow an organized religion again. The stain of pedophile priests without sanction for so long and in many cases acceptance by catholic leadership is a crime without the possibility of redemption. Look at the perversion of Islam. I choose to believe in god in my own way. I believe in a deity just not anyone else’s interpretation of that. I have my own ideas of right and wrong, although I expect the basis for much of it is my catholic upbringing, but not longer adhere to it and choose to pray in my own way. I don’t care what anyone thinks and I respect their stricter adherence to a religion. Feel free to condemn me to hell fire.
BTW, I believe the big bang was originally discovered by catholic monsignor Georges Lemaître.

K.Bullock
06-17-2009, 10:20 PM
“The Bishop of Durham distinguishes between the science of Darwin and the philosophy of Darwinists. Believing that one can be both a theist and an evolutionist, Tom Wright exposes the real agenda of those who argue that religion and science are necessarily in opposition.”


Good stuff from N.T. Wright the Bishop of Durham



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFTmZ9PFMx8

Scott Greenwood
06-17-2009, 11:28 PM
What’s a Todd Sneider? BTW, like I said, I don't believe in organized religion (church)
I don’t really have to explain my belief system to you at all.
I expect Darwin figured it out.
In the grand scheme of things I expect god guides all things.
Churches while responsible for much of the good in the world, they have far too much blood on their hands for me to ever follow an organized religion again. The stain of pedophile priests without sanction for so long and in many cases acceptance by catholic leadership is a crime without the possibility of redemption. Look at the perversion of Islam. I choose to believe in god in my own way. I believe in a deity just not anyone else’s interpretation of that. I have my own ideas of right and wrong, although I expect the basis for much of it is my catholic upbringing, but not longer adhere to it and choose to pray in my own way. I don’t care what anyone thinks and I respect their stricter adherence to a religion. Feel free to condemn me to hell fire.
BTW, I believe the big bang was originally discovered by catholic monsignor Georges Lemaître.

[B]I believe this is how I feel. Just glad you put into writing.

I have a hard time believing what someone is saying about thousands of years ago with no factual evidence. I do believe there is a God, but is he in the grand scheme of things, highly doubtful. By the way, when you have actually winked at the after life and saw nothing, you have a base to go off of. I have been declared physically dead twice in my life, no brain waves, no heart beat.

Cody Covey
06-18-2009, 03:11 AM
wtb scripture about luke warm Christians.

cotts135
06-18-2009, 06:38 AM
Obviously the responses are off the cuff and the evidence I gave in the links has not been reviewed.


Not true. I read your links but again I will stand by what I said in a previous post. These are criticisms of scientific procedure in just a few narrowly defined experiments. Are we to throw away all the other provable data supporting Evolution? I will grant you that these questions are important,and if answered in the future could define the debate, but to say this the end all to be all that refutes the basic tenets of Evolution is taking the argument to a level not deserved.
Again I ask, Where is your concrete proof that we were created? One of the first things I read on the sites your referenced was this.

" While absolute proof of the existence of God cannot be realized by any human being, the great weight of evidence, when rationally evaluated, clearly balances the scales heavily in favor of God. We can demonstrate "beyond a reasonable doubt" that "He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him"
This is a faith based believe , not a fact one. Lets not confuse them.

Matt McKenzie
06-18-2009, 06:47 AM
The moment you try to "prove" faith, you have lost. Faith and proof are opposites.

dnf777
06-18-2009, 09:52 AM
What’s a Todd Sneider? BTW, like I said, I don't believe in organized religion (church)
I don’t really have to explain my belief system to you at all.
I expect Darwin figured it out.
In the grand scheme of things I expect god guides all things.
Churches while responsible for much of the good in the world, they have far too much blood on their hands for me to ever follow an organized religion again. The stain of pedophile priests without sanction for so long and in many cases acceptance by catholic leadership is a crime without the possibility of redemption. Look at the perversion of Islam. I choose to believe in god in my own way. I believe in a deity just not anyone else’s interpretation of that. I have my own ideas of right and wrong, although I expect the basis for much of it is my catholic upbringing, but not longer adhere to it and choose to pray in my own way. I don’t care what anyone thinks and I respect their stricter adherence to a religion. Feel free to condemn me to hell fire.
BTW, I believe the big bang was originally discovered by catholic monsignor Georges Lemaître.

AMEN!

I never saw a mutually exclusive relationship between creation and evolution. Creationism is the way the writers of the Bible explained evolution to people who could not understand the biology. Or, maybe the other way around. We see evolution EVERY DAY, and some fail to recognize it. For example, antibiotic resistance in common germs. If God created E. coli that was susesceptable to Penicillin, why are 85% of E. coli infections now resistant? They evolved. Why do pesticides lose effectiveness after years of use? Same answer. Selective forces applied to a species will select those genetically able to survive and reproduce, thus effecting a change in the gene pool. That's all there is to evolution. those are simple examples in species with rapid reproduction cycles so we can see evolution in a relatively short time, but over much longer periods of time, much more dramatic shifts have occured.

By stating the examples above, I don't see how that offends any religion or refutes the existence of God??? BTW, wasn't Gregor Mendel a monk?

road kill
06-18-2009, 09:57 AM
Maybe both happened?
Anyone ever think of that?

Seriously, did you??

dnf777
06-18-2009, 10:30 AM
Maybe both happened?
Anyone ever think of that?

Seriously, did you??

I did, and do believe. If you take evolution back as far as you can explain, you get into some really philosophic questions...beginning of universe, big bang, etc...but they all had to start somewhere. Even as scientists explain in detail the big bang theory of creation of the universe, SOMEBODY had to light the fuse, right? That's were only God can take credit. Science runs out of theories. If you read Stephen Hawkin's "A Brief History of Time" he alludes to just that. But just because we can't explain EVERYTHING in scientific terms, doesn't mean I"m willing to chuck it all aside and go back to the earth being the center of the universe, the world is flat, and sickness results from offending the powers that be... I don't know how 3000 songs fit in my ipod, but I don't rely on Pope Ratz to tell me spirits inhabit my little black box.

As our knowledge expands, more explanations of natural phenomena are moved from the realm of religion into the realm of science. Flat earth>>global positioning system.....Noah's ark>>>Darwin's finches.....Mystical heavenly bodies>>>Neil Armstrong's footprints

But none of the science explains the very simple root questions of where/when did the univers begin...what happens to our souls after death??? I don't think organized religion does much to answer these questions. As was pointed out on this forum, as well in recent news events, organized religion does indeed have blood on it's hands. Although they're entirely different religions, bullets finding doctors heads in church and 767s finding skyscrapers were all motivated by a firm belief that their God would not only forgive, but approve of these very "unholy" acts. I'm very scared of systems of belief than enable its followers to commit such acts in the name of goodness.

Keith Farmer
06-18-2009, 10:39 AM
Are we to throw away all the other provable data supporting Evolution?


I would ask that you post any links or information you have showing conclusively that macro-evolution is or has ever occured...not just theories.



The moment you try to "prove" faith, you have lost. Faith and proof are opposites.


For me I am certainly not trying to "prove faith"...that would be a pejorative task with regards to faith...faith is what it is.

Oh, Todd Snider:

http://www.toddsnider.net/?mpf=frame&


.

K.Bullock
06-18-2009, 10:43 AM
Maybe both happened?
Anyone ever think of that?

Seriously, did you??

Follow the link I posted, you will surprised to find that science and theology have not been at odds up until recently. St. Augustine wrote a piece on Genesis that Fundamentalist Creationists would call him a heretic over. He also believed that science is the fingerprints of God as do many in the church.

The young earth creationists as they are known insist that the earth is only ten thousand years old based on a western understanding of what day and a week mean. Yom is the Hebrew word for day which can mean a lot of things ...in Genesis it is correctly understood as a period of time not necessarily a literal 24 hour day.


Some believe that if it isn't a literal 24 hour day then the bible is not true. So they try to present evidence that the world could only be ten thousand years old because that is the way they interpret the time periods in the bible.

It is a relatively small but unfortunately loud minority of people that believe this. Why they feel the need to attack others beliefs ...I don't know maybe they misinterpreted some other stuff in the bible as well.



That is ridiculous. I hope God is not that small.

YardleyLabs
06-18-2009, 11:06 AM
First of all, there is no scientific difference between microevolution, which is apparent throughout science (including our own activities in developing specialized breeds of dogs) and macroevolution other than that macroevolution occurs over very extended periods of time (thousands of years). Creationists began focusing on macroevolution only when forced to accept the overwhelming evidence of evolution over shorter periods of time.

It always amazes me that creationists focus on using pseudoscience in an effort to throw doubt on the existence of evolution while accepting second and third hand accounts of "historic" events as true despite their fantastical nature and the absence of concrete proof. For example, when was the last time you saw a person arise after being dead for three days?

All discussions of original cause lead to infinite circles. On one had, if you accept the notion of the Big Bang, how do you explain the masses that had to be there for it to happen? On the other, if you accept the notion of God the Creator, what created God? When you follow the evidence back as far as you can, you will inevitably be left with new questions. That is simply reality, not evidence, and not proof of anything.

Personally, I think it's all "miraculous" and amazing whether there is a God or not. In fact, I think the question of whether there is a God or not to be the most irrelevant question since it gives us the illusion of an answer without actually explaining anything. If there is in fact a God capable of creating the subtle and miraculous universe in which we live, I simply cannot believe that such an entitiy would be driven by the petty jealous motivations of which he is accused by so many religions, or that he would want us to adopt such a static notion of reality that we would fail to explore all the miracles around us.

dnf777
06-18-2009, 11:11 AM
I would ask that you post any links or information you have showing conclusively that macro-evolution is or has ever occured...not just theories.


.

KF,

If that's a rhetorical question/request, I can't help but would offer that macroevolution does not lend itself to expirements carried out in labs. It has occured over millions of years, and nobody was interested in documenting as we went along. I don't mean to be sarcastic, but it's just not possible to have nice, packaged results in all realms of science. Let me be a little more sarcastic to prove a point if I may....I cannot link you to a randomized, double-blinded study that proves getting kicked in the groin hurts....but we all know it does!

If your request is a quest for understanding, I highly recommend going to the source....Charles Darwin's "Origin of Species". It is very eloquently written, and although somewhat long-winded, explains itself very methodically. If not that, check any Biology 101 textbook from any accredited university biology course.

Dave

Goose
06-18-2009, 11:15 AM
Here's how it really happened...

In the beginning there was this primordial goo washing up on the shore. It evolved into land plants which became the food source for dinosaurs.

After the dinosaurs came all the monkeys and after them we got the democrats (the missing link)

From the democrats we got smarter monkeys...the chimps. Then the java man came followed by lucy.

After lucy came the neanderthal man and finally homo sapien.

...so if you see a democrat with a banana in his hand you know he's about to evolve into the next higher form of life...the chimp.

dnf777
06-18-2009, 11:30 AM
Personally, I think it's all "miraculous" and amazing whether there is a God or not. In fact, I think the question of whether there is a God or not to be the most irrelevant question since it gives us the illusion of an answer without actually explaining anything. If there is in fact a God capable of creating the subtle and miraculous universe in which we live, I simply cannot believe that such an entitiy would be driven by the petty jealous motivations of which he is accused by so many religions, or that he would want us to adopt such a static notion of reality that we would fail to explore all the miracles around us.

That may be the most succinct summary of such a huge issue I've ever heard! Beautifully stated!

I've always wondered why creationists feel threatened and attack evolution, as where evolutionists are very non-threatened, and in fact often embrace some form of religious component to the whole thing? Long ago, I've learned to accept both, being a believer in God and a Creator, yet not willing to discard observations of the natural world we all enjoy.

Franco
06-18-2009, 12:04 PM
Personally, I think it's all "miraculous" and amazing whether there is a God or not. In fact, I think the question of whether there is a God or not to be the most irrelevant question since it gives us the illusion of an answer without actually explaining anything. If there is in fact a God capable of creating the subtle and miraculous universe in which we live, I simply cannot believe that such an entitiy would be driven by the petty jealous motivations of which he is accused by so many religions, or that he would want us to adopt such a static notion of reality that we would fail to explore all the miracles around us.



An educated free mind is a beautiful thang!

Keith Farmer
06-18-2009, 12:12 PM
First of all, there is no scientific difference between microevolution, and macroevolution other than that macroevolution


Creationists, myself included, do not argue about micro-evolution and adaptation. To say there is no difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution is simply not the truth.

What I want, Jeff, is for you, Darwin, or any evolutionist to point to one case whereby macro-evolution, that is where one species or substance has evolved to a higher atomically different species or substance, has occured.

There is no proof...only blind speculation. Most of the leading evolutionists admit that fact. That is why there is so much effort in trying to discover the missing link. However, there is no missing link because evolution is a farse and sadly a majority have bought into the lie.

I know you guys love Darwin so I will depart with this (I have to go do water work...my labs are simply not evolving in to trained dogs...I must actually train them:cool:) :



“You will be greatly disappointed (by the forthcoming book); it will be grievously too hypothetical. It will very likely be of no other service than collocating some facts; though I myself think I see my way approximately on the origin of the species. But, alas, how frequent, how almost universal it is in an author to persuade himself of the truth of his own dogmas.” | Charles Darwin, 1858, in a letter to a colleague regarding the concluding chapters of his Origin of Species. As quoted in 'John Lofton's Journal', The Washington Times, 8 February 1984.




“For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this is here impossible.” | Charles Darwin, 1859, Introduction to Origin of Species, p. 2. Also quoted in 'John Lofton's Journal', The Washington Times, 8 February 1984




“Long before having arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to my reader. Some of them are so grave that to this day I can never reflect on them without being staggered...” | Charles Darwin, (ed. J. W. Burrow), The Origin of Species (Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books, 1974.), p. 205.




“When we descend to details we can prove that no one species has changed (i.e., we cannot prove that a single species has changed): nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have changed and others have not. The latter case seems to me hardly more difficult to understand precisely and in detail than the former case of supposed change.” | Charles Darwin, 1863.




“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.” | Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, 1st Ed., p. 186.




“A man who has no assured and ever-present belief in the existence of a personal God, or of a future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones.” | Charles Darwin, The Morality of Evolution, Autobiography, Norton, p. 94, 1958


and this link:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_doubts_did_Darwin_have_about_publishing_'On_t he_Origin_of_Species'

Here is what the prophet Jeremiah said:

Saying to a stock, Thou art my father; and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth: for they have turned their back unto me, and not their face: but in the time of their trouble they will say, Arise, and save us. (Jeremiah 2:27 KJV)

and the writer of Hebrews:

3Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. (Hebrews 11:3 KJV)



.

Marty Lee
06-18-2009, 12:30 PM
An educated free mind is a beautiful thang!

and yet so blind !!!!!
fallin in th ditch regards

dnf777
06-18-2009, 12:48 PM
What I want, Jeff, is for you, Darwin, or any evolutionist to point to one case whereby macro-evolution, that is where one species or substance has evolved to a higher atomically different species or substance, has occured.


1)the webbed feet of our labs
2)long necks of giraffes
3)water storing and metabolism of camels

There's three. But it misses the point. Your're holding scientists to a MUCH higher standard than yourselves. Show me one non-photoshopped photograph of Noah's Ark with black, yellow, and chocolate labs with webbed feet on it. Oh, they didn't have cameras then?? Well, there's weren't taxonomists then either. Do you really think Noah could have kept 6 labs on board without jumping overboard that whole time?

I've had this discussion many times with friends. I ask:

1) do you believe that parents tend to pass traits on to thier children: hair color, size, looks, habitus, etc...?

2) do you believe that these traits are variable to some degree? ie, we're not clones of our parents?

3) could some of these traits give some a survival advantage ove others of his same species? ie can run faster, see better, reach fruit easier?

4) return to question #1, and repeat many, many times over many generations

There, none of those assumptions are contradictory to God's will, in fact they exemplify the miracle of birth. When put together and carried on through time, that's all evolution is. Why is that so threatening?? Could some anti-evolutionist please tell me which of the above statements is unbelievable?

Ken Newcomb
06-18-2009, 01:56 PM
Almost everyone agrees that species change over time. The part of the evolution theory that is argued is that there really is no evidence that a dinosaur evolved into a whale or that an ameoba turned into a human over time. Evolution with species, yes. Evolving from one species to another, no.

Just because two things have like characteristics does not mean they were once the same animal.

dnf777
06-18-2009, 02:19 PM
"The part of the evolution theory that is argued is that there really is no evidence that a dinosaur evolved into a whale or that an ameoba turned into a human over time. Evolution with species, yes."

A partial convert? You're essentially saying you believe in short term evolution, but not long term. They're exactly the same, just a different time scale. I would politely disagree with your assumption that only speciation is argued. I've heard many argue that what came off Noah's boat, is what we got today. No exceptions.

I'm wondering, did you find any of the four statements unbelievable or improbable?

YardleyLabs
06-18-2009, 02:27 PM
As one article notes, micro-evolution + 3.8 billion years = macro-evolution.

Fossil records make it pretty clear that species appeared over an extended period of time. Of course, that's about when the creationists start telling us that the world is only a few thousand years old and that the fossil evidence is meaningless.

Evolution is seen routinely in viruses, but even there decades and even centuries are needed for the emergence of a new species. However, HIV-1 evolved from Simian Immunodeficiency Virus (SIV) over the last century. Most pandemics are attributed to the evolution of new virus species. That, of course, is when creationists throw in words such as "a higher atomically different species or substance" as Keith does in his comments. Viruses, they argue, are not a "higher" form and therefore don't count.

As a consequence, the only tests available are those that use fossil records to span the millenia involved in the evolution of "higher" species. But that, of course, brings us back to the rejection of such studies out of hand.

Genomic studies evidence a degree of commonality in genomes across species that makes it clear that common ancestors are involved. Creationists reject this as simply another piece of evidence of the elegance of God's creations.

Ultimately, one is left understanding that there is no purpose in arguing "science" with those whose ideas of truth are defined by their notions of revelation. In The Merchant of Venice, Shakespeare has Antonio say "The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose. An evil soul producing holy witness Is like a villain with a smiling cheek." The same might be said of Creationists claiming to quote "science."

road kill
06-18-2009, 02:34 PM
As one article notes, micro-evolution + 3.8 billion years = macro-evolution.

Fossil records make it pretty clear that species appeared over an extended period of time. Of course, that's about when the creationists start telling us that the world is only a few thousand years old and that the fossil evidence is meaningless.

Evolution is seen routinely in viruses, but even there decades and even centuries are needed for the emergence of a new species. However, HIV-1 evolved from Simian Immunodeficiency Virus (SIV) over the last century. Most pandemics are attributed to the evolution of new virus species. That, of course, is when creationists throw in words such as "a higher atomically different species or substance" as Keith does in his comments. Viruses, they argue, are not a "higher" form and therefore don't count.

As a consequence, the only tests available are those that use fossil records to span the millenia involved in the evolution of "higher" species. But that, of course, brings us back to the rejection of such studies out of hand.

Genomic studies evidence a degree of commonality in genomes across species that makes it clear that common ancestors are involved. Creationists reject this as simply another piece of evidence of the elegance of God's creations.

Ultimately, one is left understanding that there is no purpose in arguing "science" with those whose ideas of truth are defined by their notions of revelation. In The Merchant of Venice, Shakespeare has Antonio say "The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose. An evil soul producing holy witness Is like a villain with a smiling cheek." The same might be said of Creationists claiming to quote "science."
Or vice versa!!

achiro
06-18-2009, 03:57 PM
Superstition has an agenda, science doesn't.
HAHAHA! If you believe that to be true, well you know the rest. (and I'm talking about all "science" not just regarding evolution)

Now back to regularly scheduled bickering...

Pete
06-18-2009, 05:15 PM
I guess that means since people haven't found God doesn't mean God doesn't exist either.. Much of science now a days are religions anyway including the global warming god.

I don't believe such perfect order,,,,,, the math and physics,,,,, which hold our universe together can arrive out of chaos.

I have an incredible study on creation that would blow someone who believed away. The men of old could not know some of the things written without revalation or inspiration. Science is just figuring out things now that have been written since biblical times. Only science seems to want to take all the glory. As usual.
Pete

Keith Farmer
06-18-2009, 06:15 PM
As one article notes, micro-evolution + 3.8 billion years = macro-evolution.


Still no evidence Jeff. All that time does is fool people like yourself who don't want to see the truth. By saying that over billions of years macro-evolution happens somehow makes it palatable to some folks. However, the truth is that the Earth is only several thousand years old, as is noted in scripture, and the fossil records scientifically dictate that.

If you truly have an open mind then read all of the material in the links posted below...should help you see some light.



Fossil records make it pretty clear that species appeared over an extended period of time.


That is not true. Fossil records show clearly a rapid and catastrophic burial: (see the links below)

http://www.icr.org/articles/view/1071/265/

&

http://www.icr.org/fossilization/

&

http://www.icr.org/invertebrates/

&

http://www.icr.org/living-fossils/

About millions or billions of years:

http://www.icr.org/articles/view/1182/267/

About carbon dating:

http://www.icr.org/articles/view/117/267/

Evidence for a young Earth:

http://www.icr.org/article/1842/

I could continue but that should be enough info for now. You really should spend a long time looking at the true data rather than the made up tales evolutionists proffer.


.

YardleyLabs
06-18-2009, 07:21 PM
I've read all your cited sources and find them to be uniformly ridiculous in their pseudoscientific approach. His assertions are not backed up by any scientific research. He himself is an engineer with little relevant scientific background. John Morris' statements on dating fossils are at variance with the overwhelming bulk of all scientific analysis. His comments about the "lack of transitional" forms is at best an idiotic misunderstanding but more probably a manipulative play on words. Every form is complete unto itself by defintion. Any fossil based assessment is by definition interpretive based on characteristics found in related areas and geologic strata. Those routinely evidence an evolutionary development across multiple species (e.g. starfish). The closest thing Morris gets to a supporting citation are his quotes from the Bible which he considers to be evidentiary. In 1994, your hero John Morris said "From the neck down, certain clues suggested to Johanson that Lucy walked a little more erect than today's chimps. This conclusion, based on his interpretation of the partial hip bone and a knee bone, has been hotly contested by many paleoanthropologists." The "partial hip bone and knee bone" he references is actually a complete pelvis and leg (less the foot). The reference to "hotly contested by many paleoanthropologists" is unsupported by any references to that effect. In fact, the only issues of dispute have been whether or not Lucy was also arboreal. Of course, Morris may be best known for his claims that the craters on the moon are the result of battles between Satan and God -- another example of his fine scientific mind and research.

You ask for conclusive proof of something that can only be demonstrated -- by its inherent nature -- through a massive weight of circumstantial evidence since it occurs over a period of time that extends into prehistorical eras. And yet, you routinely cite translations of second and third and fourth hand documents written hundreds and even thousands of years after the events they describe and expect others to accept those citations as "evidence" and "proof".

Personally, I value the Bible and other religious texts because they wrestle with the moral issues that have faced humans since our earliest evolution into social beings. When the Bible tells me that male slaves must be freed within eight years but that female slaves need not be freed, I take that as reflective of the historical context and mores of the time.

When I read the stories of creation in the Bible and in other older and newer religious texts, I view them as efforts to explain a world about which little was known, as was also the case with those who believed the earth was flat. When believers use those historic texts to freeze knowledge, I can understand some of the reasons that might explain their behavior, but am no more willing to accept such restrictions than was Galileo.

Pete
06-18-2009, 07:40 PM
Thats a good point Keith

Most fossils occured because of some type of catastropy here on earth,,,,earth quakes,volcanoes,ice ages,,,,, the bible follows the same patterns concerning these matters. Splitting of the continents and such.extremely interesting stuff . Oh by the way God invented the true sciences.
And none of them contradict his word. Pretty amazin

Also I still believe "everything after its kind",,,meaning a dog will always be a dog,,,nothin you or time can do about it.


No one disputes evolution with in there own species. God stuck alot of genetic diversity in stuff. We have black people,chinese, anglo,,, they are still all human and will alway be,,,,climate and geography choose the genes best suited for those environments. Original man had olive skin,,,,so its easy to see how one could get lights and darks especially since birds of a feather flock together.

God design is in about everthing ,,,as a matter of fact it says that some where

It boils down to weather you believe or not.. simple,,,,most dont but they develope other other forms of worship. Like carbon footprints or evolution.

Pete

Pete
06-18-2009, 07:57 PM
Still no evidence Jeff. All that time does is fool people like yourself who don't want to see the truth. By saying that over billions of years macro-evolution happens somehow makes it palatable to some folks. However, the truth is that the Earth is only several thousand years old, as is noted in scripture, and the fossil records scientifically dictate that

Kieth
If you trace back all the begets and begats listed in the word ,,there are time frames listed with every section,,,some not evident but most are right there in Black and white.
it traces a little over 6000 years from the fall of man,,,it doesn't say how long it took God from genesis 1:1 to genesis 2:7 or so where he made formed and created man. There could be some time besides the 5 or 6 days God took to put things back in order. There is some figureatively speaking type stuff in there. There could possibly be millions and billions of years between genesis 1:1 and genesis 1:2 because there is no word "Was" in the old hebrew,,,its the word "became" and a record in Isaiaha will back up that study.
.

Anyway there could be room for it,,,,

Pete

dnf777
06-18-2009, 08:51 PM
" Only science seems to want to take all the glory. As usual.
Pete"

Sorry, but that makes no sense whatsoever. Science is a method. It does not, and cannot have "wants".

I'm reading a book about Renee Descartes, and hearing of the arguments that "anyone trying to advance our understanding of our beings or natural world must be an athiest, as all science undermines God" from the early 1600s, made me think we've come along way. But some of the arguments here are exactly the same. The Earth is thousands of years old??? Does anyone REALLY believe that?? If it's only thousands of years old...does anyone still believe it's flat...and that if you sail west, you'll fall off the earth??

Most scientists are believers. Most scientists admit there is much we don't know. Just because we can't explain everything, doesn't mean there's NOT an explanation. I don't know how my tv works, but I don't believe there are little actors and actresses in there that change costumes each time I change the channel. I can accept that there are real-world explanations that I'm just now aware of. I also believe there's a God. Who is much to busy to worry about sabotaging scientists with bogus fossils and geologic evidence. And why would we have the hunger and ability to study the world and find answers if He just wanted us to follow the words of men in white robes without question?

dnf777
06-18-2009, 08:59 PM
Thats a good point Keith



It boils down to weather you believe or not.. simple,,,,
Pete

Pete,
So all scientists are by your definition athiests? For that matter, anyone who believes in evolution? Where do you draw the line. If I think the earth is round, and revolves around the sun, does that make me an athiest? That's what people said not long ago. What changed? What convinced you that the earth is round...after all, those satellite images are probably bogus images put out by rocket scientists trying to take all the glory again.

I apologize if I am being too sarcastic, but I REALLY don't understand the unwillingness to look at facts with an open mind. I consider myself scientific, but remain very open to religion since it can't be proven or disproven.

Cody Covey
06-18-2009, 09:14 PM
neither can a TON of science

Pete
06-19-2009, 12:10 AM
Dude ,you need to learn to read.


Oh by the way God invented the true sciences


So all scientists are by your definition athiests? For that matter, anyone who believes in evolution? Where do you draw the line. If I think the earth is round, and revolves around the sun, does that make me an athiest? That's what people said not long ago. What changed? What convinced you that the earth is round...after all, those satellite images are probably bogus images put out by rocket scientists trying to take all the glory again.


I'm trying to figure out how yiou are interpreting what I have said.

Actually I feel like I'm talking to a mental patient.

your not liberal are you:p

Anyway I think you missed all my points.

Also in biblical times they new the earth was roundish and it hangeth upon nothing,,,it wasn't until after the first century that much common knowledge was lost. Kind of like the dark ages. Those dudes back then new a hell of alot more than we do now. we are just more technical now,,,although they had methods of measuring and cutting that surpass even the fanciest high dollar machine made today.


Anyway we are much more of a stupid people than 2000 to 6000 years ago. You can also find a map of noth america made BC,,, pretty dam good for sailor with a triangle in his back pocket



Pete

Keith Farmer
06-19-2009, 08:18 AM
I apologize if I am being too sarcastic, but I REALLY don't understand the unwillingness to look at facts with an open mind.


What facts? Give me some facts. Even Darwin said none of evolution could be proven...are you guys ignoring even your own guru?

I have posted links to data containing scientific facts. Jeff is just wrong and I do not believe he searched any of the data posted...no way since it would take hours and hours and his response is just so typical.

Pete (not trying to argue here), that is called the "gap" theory brought about by perhaps Thomas Chalmers (Scottish theologian). The problem with the gap theory is that it totally undermines the entirety of God's order of things in terms of the Gospel. Death did not come about for any living creature until the fall of man after Adam and Eve sinned against God. Until then death was not a reality. So, for a Christian to believe in the gap theory says that God's Word is unreliable and not factual...I cannot buy that.

Creation science is factual science backed up by geological data, natural data, historical data, spiritual data, secular data, et-all. Evolutionists just totally ignore the facts and keep believing the lie.

In terms of Christians embracing partial-evolution and partial-creation (somehow God used evolution in His creative process) that is also not compatible with the bible. Evolution is by and large naturalism that excludes any possibility of intervention (ie GOD)...and true evolutionists will not even consider intelligent design (which renders God a cosmic force of somekind).

Evolution must stand on its own merits...which it has not been able to since its origins.



.

subroc
06-19-2009, 08:29 AM
http://www.bartleby.com/11/

road kill
06-19-2009, 08:41 AM
Thats a good point Keith

Most fossils occured because of some type of catastropy here on earth,,,,MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING!!,,,,, the bible follows the same patterns concerning these matters. Splitting of the continents and such.extremely interesting stuff .

Pete


Fixed!!!!!

cotts135
06-19-2009, 09:10 AM
[QUOTE=Pete;460416]Kieth
If you trace back all the begets and begats listed in the word ,,there are time frames listed with every section,,,some not evident but most are right there in Black and white.
it traces a little over 6000 years from the fall of man,,,it doesn't say how long it took God from genesis 1:1 to genesis 2:7 or so where he made formed and created man. There could be some time besides the 5 or 6 days God took to put things back in order. There is some figureatively speaking type stuff in there. There could possibly be millions and billions of years between genesis 1:1 and genesis 1:2 because there is no word "Was" in the old hebrew,,,its the word "became" and a record in Isaiaha will back up that study.
.

Anyway there could be room for it,,,, [/QUOTE ]

Pete, are you a believer in Genesis? Since you are so insistent that others take a look at your documents, please take a look at this link. Would like to hear your comments on this.

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/genesis.html

Martin
06-19-2009, 09:17 AM
Fixed!!!!!

Well spoken! now let's go fishing or shoot something!

Pete
06-19-2009, 09:32 AM
Pete, are you a believer in Genesis? Since you are so insistent that others take a look at your documents, please take a look at this link. Would like to hear your comments on this.



if you start out with a false premise you will always have a false conclusion. I guess the reason I can freely speak about this stuff is because I put most of my energy in most of my life studying this stuff,,, when I say study I don't mean some religious garb spued about.

I'm refereing to the vast amount of research materials out there that anyone can get.and putting the pieces together.

The bible doesn't go down like most religions teach it. Thats all I can tell you.



Whats your story? How come you are so opinionated about this subject. Have you also spent most of you life researching the word. Tell me about it. This sounds interesting

Pete

Pete
06-19-2009, 09:41 AM
The early universe was not "dark". We know from quantum mechanics that the earliest universe was a sea of quarks, followed shortly after by a sea of free nucleons and photons. Until the era of "decoupling", about 300,000 years after the formation of the universe, the entire universe was as bright throughout as the surface of the sun is today.

That can certainly fit since God is light and in him is no darkness. Lucifer was the anle of light.
So it is possible there was no darkness pre genesis 1:2

never thought about that one


This verse has the formation of light occuring only AFTER the "waters" and the earth already existed. As noted above, this is simply wrong. The entire universe was brightly lit for its first 300,000 years of existence, billions of years before the earth came into being


This is why a little biblical research is in order,,,,
the link has great questions and all answeres are elementary
Thanks for posting that.

I can't sit here all day gotta go.

Pete

dnf777
06-19-2009, 12:56 PM
Pete,
I'll take all that as good-natured ribbing, I guess I had that coming.

Anyway, I do read a lot. You don't get board-certified in Surgery by NOT knowing how to read a lot, and sort good science from junk science progagated by those with agendas or profits to massage. (that's rampant in medicine)

I would hope that if you ever need medical treatment, you seek a scientific physician who bases treatment on modern scientific method, and not a Benny-Hin type faith healer who makes billions (with a 'b') with the same reasoning that leads to 6000 year old planet earth conclusions.

I do agree with you on the part of us being dumber than many peoples from by-gone eras. Brilliant minds such as Newton, Franklin, Darwin, Descartes, Locke, Voltaire, Copernicus, Galileo, Plato...all advanced out understanding of natural world we live in. Most were persecuted by the religious fundamentalists of their times...some even executed. How dare someone propose lightening is an electrical phenomenon, and not just God hurling lightening bolts at the non-believers!! Or that crazy heretic notion that the earth revolves around the sun!

No, I'm not liberal, nor a mental patient. Just a simple guy who enjoys dogs in my time away from work.

Cheers, and lets all have a great weekend,
Dave

Steve Amrein
06-19-2009, 01:20 PM
Here is science at its best

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpMjakNhZTc

Keith Farmer
06-19-2009, 03:48 PM
The quote below from a former university teacher/evolutionist pretty much sums up how evolutionists are trapped in that world. His short bio is here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/g_parker.asp

The quote is taken from this article: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch1-beginning.asp (which is the first chapter of his book: Creation: Facts of Life)




For me, “evolution” was much more than just a scientific theory. It was a total world-and-life view, an alternate religion, a substitute for God. It gave me a feeling of my place in the universe, and a sense of my relationship to others, to society, and to the world of nature that had ultimately given me life. I knew who the “good guys” were, and where I was going. (emphasis added)


Here is the home page for Answers in Genesis: http://www.answersingenesis.org/


Have a good weekend folks...



.

Franco
06-19-2009, 03:59 PM
The quote below from a former university teacher/evolutionist pretty much sums up how evolutionists are trapped in that world. His short bio is here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/g_parker.asp

The quote is taken from this article: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch1-beginning.asp (which is the first chapter of his book: Creation: Facts of Life)




Here is the home page for Answers in Genesis: http://www.answersingenesis.org/


Have a good weekend folks...



.

Answers magazine is the Bible-affirming, creation-based magazine from Answers in Genesis.

The above says it all, a publication with an agenda.

dnf777
06-19-2009, 04:14 PM
The quote below from a former university teacher/evolutionist pretty much sums up how evolutionists are trapped in that world. His short bio is here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/g_parker.asp

The quote is taken from this article: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch1-beginning.asp (which is the first chapter of his book: Creation: Facts of Life)




Here is the home page for Answers in Genesis: http://www.answersingenesis.org/


Have a good weekend folks...



.

I admit I didn't read the entire article, but your posted quote of his illustrates a big disconnect in my way of seeing this, and many others. I DON'T view creation and evolution as mutually exclusive. I would never use a scientific explanation as a substitute for God. As we gain more understanding of our natural world, some things will move from the mystical/religious explanation to the scientific realm. This has been a gradual accumulation of knowledge since man has been around, yet some always resist new knowledge. Eventually they admit that Helios doesn't drive a chariot across the sky everyday, and Poseidon doesn't summon forth storms to spite ships, the world is round....and so on.

We are at a point where the fields of population biology, comparative anatomy, genetics, molecular biology are unravelling the mystery of how we got here. (at least since earth was formed)

It may seem to some that I'm substituting science for God, but quite the contrary. Even when the day comes (if we survive long enough) to understand EVERYTHING all the way back to the big bang, it still begs the question, "who touched off the powder"?

The answer to that will always be GOD. So nobody should feel threatened that science is out to prove there is no God. Most scientists are believers, and have no interest in proving there is no God. Just that maybe there are answers to questions that can help humankind.

I'm on trauma call starting a 72 hour shift....so be careful out there! I don't wanna have to work this w/e!!

thats my way of saying, Have a great, safe, weekend....and happy Father's Day to all you Dads! (including me, x7)

Franco
06-19-2009, 04:30 PM
it still begs the question, "who touched off the powder"?



I don't think there is any question that there is a bigger power than man or earth.

That bigger power is probably more energy than spiritual.

Pete
06-19-2009, 07:20 PM
No, I'm not liberal, nor a mental patient. Just a simple guy who enjoys dogs in my time away from work.




Thanks for taking it as ribbing
Just havin a little light hearted moment. I too have problems with many religions and their conclusions. So just as I am not a republican but a concervative I am also a bible bender but I don't have a religious bone in my body.
Religion and God have very little in common all though many religious people are Godly. Now there is a riddle for ya.
There is never a need to condem people but on the other hand people do need to be held accountable for their words actions.


Pete

YardleyLabs
06-19-2009, 09:19 PM
...

I have posted links to data containing scientific facts. Jeff is just wrong and I do not believe he searched any of the data posted...no way since it would take hours and hours and his response is just so typical.

...

Creation science is factual science backed up by geological data, natural data, historical data, spiritual data, secular data, et-all. Evolutionists just totally ignore the facts and keep believing the lie.

In terms of Christians embracing partial-evolution and partial-creation (somehow God used evolution in His creative process) that is also not compatible with the bible. Evolution is by and large naturalism that excludes any possibility of intervention (ie GOD)...and true evolutionists will not even consider intelligent design (which renders God a cosmic force of somekind).

Evolution must stand on its own merits...which it has not been able to since its origins.



.

With all respect Keith, I spent about two hours going through the links you posted and exploring the mindless meanderings of the Morris charlatans, father and son. I spent another hour looking further into their backgrounds and reading additional materials from among their long but not even vaguely illustrious list of publications. My only regret is that I can never get that time back.

There is no science to creationism; it is a matter of faith. There is no reason why there should be a science to matters of faith. There is nothing wrong with simply stating that you believe in creationism as a matter of faith. However, creationists seem obsessed with trying to prove that science as we know it is basically a matter of self delusion. That seems a little too 15th century for my taste. I'm still waiting to see what discoveries are made by creationist "scientists" that in any way advance knowledge in a manner that withstands rigorous peer review. Until then, I will choose not to waste more time on the Morris myths. The "theories" of evolution, by the way, have withstood scientific assessments over more than a century and have proven to be very robust is helping to explain the way the world works. Those theories will continue to be refined and gaps will continue to be fleshed out for decades to come. That is the nature of science. Creationism, by contrast, has sought to survive by turning Descartes on his head and simply asserting "I believe, therefore it is."

cotts135
06-19-2009, 09:44 PM
I have read the references that Keith and Pete have posted and I still see the same problems that I wrote about in my first post on this issue.
Like I said previously the Creationist argument against Evolution is to selectively attack the hypothesis of some of the more controversial and of yet unproven positions scientists have taken and to make it sound because of these Evolution is impossible. They conveniently and studiously ignore all the data that supports Evolution.
The other problem I see is that the sites supporting Creationism all have an agenda and have no connection to the scientific community. There are no articles that at least I can find that are in a scientific magazine, and which by the way would need to show some empirical data or experiments that support there position. What they do have is rhetoric that heavily based on faith.
This is just one of many passages from this site that is based on faith and not fact


God’s Word speaks to us on historical events just as authoritatively as it speaks to us on how we should behave and think about God. Thus, a problem arises if we first allow arguments saying the world is old and then try to make the Word of God fit.

Each of us must choose which we will vest with ultimate authority: God’s Word or incomplete human knowledge.http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/06/16/why-recent-creation

Pete
06-20-2009, 12:04 AM
I have read the references that Keith and Pete have posted and I still see the same problems that I wrote about in my first post on this issue.
Like I said previously the Creationist argument against Evolution is to selectively attack the hypothesis of some of the more controversial and of yet unproven positions scientists have taken and to make it sound because of these Evolution is impossible. They conveniently and studiously ignore all the data that supports Evolution.
The other problem I see is that the sites supporting Creationism all have an agenda and have no connection to the scientific community. There are no articles that at least I can find that are in a scientific magazine, and which by the way would need to show some empirical data or experiments that support there position. What they do have is rhetoric that heavily based on faith.
This is just one of many passages from this site that is based on faith and not fact




Oh well you cant please everyone all the time .. Sorry about my theories

I'll go back to believing I got pooped out of some ameba's ass and grew ears and eyes.

Yep that makes sence to me

Pete

YardleyLabs
06-20-2009, 07:06 AM
Oh well you cant please everyone all the time .. Sorry about my theories

I'll go back to believing I got pooped out of some ameba's ass and grew ears and eyes.

Yep that makes sence to me

Pete
:):)

Ah Pete, even the best trainer doesn't simply take your young dog, wave a wand, and give you back a champion the next day. The training process takes a lot of innate talent molded through thousands of birds of training where each iteration helps to strengthen the final result. Who is to say God's approach isn't similar? Working from the smallest bits of matter, shaping them into the simplest lifeforms and building new life forms from those bits. The subtlety, genius and perfection lies in how it all goes together and the inherent economy with which the building blocks of one species are so clearly linked to the building blocks for another. The timing, as you noted in your own comments, may simply be a matter of perspective, or of poetry. Is a Genesis day measured by Earth time or God time? We already know that the length of a day varies from planet to planet with larger planets having longer days. Whose "planet" is bigger than God's?

Besides, no one came from an amoeba's ass, or even a monkey's. However, I am certain that some among us continue to emerge from the rear ends of horses.....:p:p

You know, of course, that I am not a theist. However, I have never seen any inherent contradiction between scientific views on how the universe and life developed and religious views of creation. The problems only arise when literalists assume that they can extrapolate from their own understanding of the written word to an understanding of the true miracles of God's ways. In my mind, those who follow rigorous approaches to understand the origins of matter and life are simply trying to read all the pages of the "books" that God gave us. Those who try to impose their own agendas on that exploration are effectively trying to censor God.

dnf777
06-20-2009, 07:21 AM
Oh well you cant please everyone all the time .. Sorry about my theories

I'll go back to believing I got pooped out of some ameba's ass and grew ears and eyes.

Yep that makes sence to me

Pete

Now just figure out how to use those eyes and ears, and you'll see what you've been missing! :-D

Just kiddin'!! But I second everything YardleyLabs so nicely put in his post. Maybe the Bible is the 'brief explanation' for those who want the quick answer, and science is the 'fine print' for those who want to study the world around them...page by page.

Hey, there's still astrophysicists arguing the theory of gravity. With more modern measurement tools, we've discovered that both planets and some manmade space probes are NOT behaving as our current theories predict. The formulas we all leaned in physics 101 may only be very accurate approximations of the real math or theories behind why we stick to the ground.

Just keepin' it real,
Dave

road kill
06-20-2009, 08:30 AM
I don't think there is any question that there is a bigger power than man or earth.

That bigger power is probably more energy than spiritual.

BINGO!!

The big disconnect is when people think God was created in man's image.
God is spiritual, a kinetic energy that defies description & definition.
Man struggles to put God in terms he can grasp.

Have faith, there is something bigger than man.

You see it every day in the sunrise & sunset, a childs smile, a wagging tale, a tear, the wind, a flower etc.

Pete
06-20-2009, 09:18 AM
Just kiddin'!! But I second everything YardleyLabs so nicely put in his post. Maybe the Bible is the 'brief explanation' for those who want the quick answer, and science is the 'fine print' for those who want to study the world around them...page by page


Hold your horses. What do you mean quick answere. The research of genesis using scientific methods has already taken well over 125 years and is still in progress.

I think psudo sciences have taken the quick answere to serve their agenda. How do you like those apples:D

See we can go back and forth all day long.
Those who can post Links do ,,,and those who can post scripture do,,, I choose to place my bet in the creater of the heavans and earth,,,not those who are trying to figure things out eons of time later.
That has always been mans problem by the way.
They put their faith in their own knowledge,,which quite frankly is often skewed,,,
How do you think this world got into such a big mess. It was originally perfect and because the wims and lusts of us humans, we are sitting at the edge of catastrophy.

And God has the perfect answeres to fix this mess ,,but man is so in to himself he wants to do it his way.

Most people now a days think sitting in a pue once a week is serving God,,, Man no wonder we are in the mess we are in.

remember that carnal man cannot serve God. Which means they have no connection with him. So keep posting the links they are interesting to read,,,but mean pretty much nothing,,,,just usually some other knot heads opinion or spin to decieve.

Oh well so is life. To each their own,, it doesn't matter who is right or wrong anyway. someday we will al be dead and none of it would have mattered anyway,,,,mmmmmm or would it.
Is it the belief in the links posted that will save my ass in the end

I doubt it.

Pete

Pete
06-20-2009, 09:30 AM
The bid disconnect is when people think God was created in man's image.
God is spiritual, a kinetic energy that defies description & definition.
Man struggles to put God in terms he can grasp


Now your thinkin Road kill


What is the image of God? John 4 :24 says he is spirit. So the part that God created in man was spirit,,,,which was lost when Adam and Eve took a nose dive. It says that this day thou shall surely die ,,,yet they lived another 900 years or so.
What died that day. ,,,,Spirit did,,,,thier connection with God,,,,thats why we needed a redeemer.

Isahiah 43:7 says I have FORMED thee,,, I have MADE thee ,,I have CREATED thee for my glory. You cant glorify God without spirit.

God created mans spirit,,,he formed man out of the dust of the ground ( a body with no life) and he blew into his nostrils the breath of life and man BECAME a living soul.( a body with personality and life )

Thessolonians says may your whole body, soul and spirit be preserved.

Great statement roadkill

This stuff fits with the accuracy of math or logic.

Pete

Pete
06-20-2009, 09:47 AM
Who is to say God's approach isn't similar? Working from the smallest bits of matter, shaping them into the simplest lifeforms and building new life forms from those bits. The subtlety, genius and perfection lies in how it all goes together and the inherent economy with which the building blocks of one species are so clearly linked to the building blocks f

Ah but Jeff:D
God states in Genesis "everthing after its kind" the word "kind"
is the word genos ,,,which is why if you cross a horse with a donkey you get a sterile jack. But a fertile girl donkey( jennie?)

so you have to breed back to a horse or a donkey. Both animals are different species but the same genos.
Its the male that carries soul life in an anmal. I guess thats why through eons of time man has always considered the sire important ( doesnt have to do with genes because we know both parents contribute equally.

Within ever life form there is great genetic diversity,,, God knew he would have to split man up and seperate them and some would end up in the cold and some in the heat. Same with all animals of the same species.
They may look different on the surface but genetically they are almost the same.

Cyyote, wolf ,dingo, wild dog of Africa.
Same genos and species just the genes which worked for their environment took over. Hey but they are still dogs and there was absolutely no evolution,,only a rearrangement of genes.

You can see this in people and all living creatures,,, they will always remain the same except certain genes will be expressed.
A far cry from evolution.

Mutants die off so its impossible for the genes to survive.
Pretty cool how God protected his words I would say.:p

Pete

zeus3925
06-20-2009, 10:26 AM
Let me throw this in for argument's sake. If one believes in a Supreme Being and that Being is the author of all things in the universe, then one must look at the earth as a book of scripture--a direct creation of the hand of the Creator himself. While the scribes and priests may ponder the meaning of the written scriptures, scholars and scientists probe the story that the earth's record tells us about creation. The interpretations differ as to the process of creation took place.

The question is: which do you believe? The evidence in the "Book of the Earth" or the story in the Book of Genesis.

If we accept there is a Supreme Author of the universe, then we accept the earth as his direct creation. But, what of the authorship of Biblical scripture? It is a less direct inspiration of the Divine. It is composed of writings the scribes thought were divine inspiration speaking to them. Who says they got it right? After all, how do you explain cosmology to shepherds?

As for myself, I'll go with the "hard evidence" in the Book of the Earth.

In the end does the method of creation matter? We just know He did it.

Pete
06-20-2009, 10:57 AM
In the end does the method of creation matter? We just know He did it.

I doubt the method of creation matters so I'll just take Gods version. While it has no bearing on being saved it sure helps streghten ones belief when they see it so beautifully laid out,,,,,,in fine print and in the stars.

The topic of creation is weaved throughout the entire book, not just genesis but all the way through revalation. Its a web which cant be broken by even the smartest of men

Science has given us alot to chew on,,,some of it good and some of it poison.

Pete

dnf777
06-20-2009, 11:52 AM
The Angel Moroni appeared to me in the woods and told me evolution is the right answer. There, that should settle all arguments. Not bad, I'm not even Mormon!! :o

Keith Farmer
06-20-2009, 12:09 PM
This will be quick...I am headed to our girls B-day party.




They put their faith in their own knowledge,,which quite frankly is often skewed


How true Pete. However, God says that His people perish for their lack of knowledge. One must not let truth die in the streets for the sake of a blind faith. God gave us his Word which harmoniously jives with Earth sciences as is being proved daily. His Word is truth since He is the very essence of truth. We can rely on His Word first then depend on science to support His word...not look to science first then see if God's Word matches up...that is the true order of faith.

Evolution at its root is the bastard child of atheism. Evolutionists require their students to embrace the religion of evolution on faith with no supporting scientific evidence. While Creationism and evolution both require faith on the part of the believer scientific data strongly supports creationism and denounces evolution...as was noted by the former evolutionist I quoted earlier.

Here is a great Q & A session with Dr Ravi Zacharias. His grasp of the philosophical world is tight and his words are strong in the culture we now live in:

http://www.rzim.org/USA/USFV/tabid/436/ArticleID/10206/CBModuleId/881/Default.aspx





.

subroc
06-20-2009, 12:35 PM
Is it a common belief of those that believe in creation that the earth is only 6000 years or so old? Or, is there a school of thought even amongst the most ardent creationist’s belief that the earth is considerably older than that?

Pete
06-20-2009, 12:56 PM
How true Pete. However, God says that His people perish for their lack of knowledge. One must not let truth die in the streets for the sake of a blind faith. God gave us his Word which harmoniously jives with Earth sciences as is being proved daily. His Word is truth since He is the very essence of truth. We can rely on His Word first then depend on science to support His word...not look to science first then see if God's Word matches up...that is the true order of faith.

Evolution at its root is the bastard child of atheism. Evolutionists require their students to embrace the religion of evolution on faith with no supporting scientific evidence. While Creationism and evolution both require faith on the part of the believer scientific data strongly supports creationism and denounces evolution...as was noted by the former evolutionist I quoted earlier.

Here is a great Q & A session with Dr Ravi Zacharias. His grasp of the philosophical world is tight and his words are strong in the culture we now live in:



Amen brother:D




Is it a common belief of those that believe in creation that the earth is only 6000 years or so old? Or, is there a school of thought even amongst the most ardent creationist’s belief that the earth is considerably older than that?

Subrock According to what I have worked and studied biblically I think the world was around much longer than mankind.

Because God had angels and it took awhile for Lucifer to get kicked out of the heavenlies and there you have the time span between genesis 1:1 and Gen. 1 :2 where through everything I can assertain reads... The earth Became without form and void. The word WAS doesn't exist in that language. Isaia backs that up. So if it became that way it must have been something else originally.

But and So,,,,, I don't really know I wasn't there:p but I have taken an honest approach to working this stuff and thats where the chips fall.


The study of the word is also a form of science,,,,cant have contradictions,,,used are a ton of cross referencing and if the numbers don't add up it time to start over again and figure out what truely the numbers are.

Pete

But I'm nothing more than a laymen so

zeus3925
06-20-2009, 01:27 PM
Evolution at its root is the bastard child of atheism. Evolutionists require their students to embrace the religion of evolution on faith with no supporting scientific evidence. While Creationism and evolution both require faith on the part of the believer scientific data strongly supports creationism and denounces evolution...as was noted by the former evolutionist I quoted earlier.


There is none to indicate it is the bastard child of atheism. There is overwhelming scientific evidence to support evolution. It is Creationism that twists things to fit. Many Christian faiths accept evolution as operate principle. I am not going to argue with God about how he created the world but the evidence strongly indicates evolution was the way.

dnf777
06-20-2009, 01:41 PM
This will be quick...I am headed to our girls B-day party.





Evolution at its root is the bastard child of atheism.


.

No NO NO!!!

I believe in God, and I believe he made the earth and us through evolution, and explained it through his inspired scribes in terms of creation.

Do you really believe what you said? It is in effect saying that anyone who doesn't believe in God *in the same way you do* doesn't really believe!! Most scientists aren't atheists, Muslims aren't atheist, Jews aren't atheist, Mormons and Hindus aren't atheist....but none of them believe the exact same things you or I do.

Such exclusionary statements make it hard to agree to disagree...which is what usually ends up anyway in these type discussions. You think our facts are skewed and we think you choose to ignore them in lieu of even less sound information, when in fact, by your own proclamation, you don't even NEED facts, because its all faith based.

Maybe the Native Americans had it right, afterall...

Dave

Keith Farmer
06-20-2009, 05:08 PM
Do you really believe what you said?


Yes.

The problem is you did not fully understand what I wrote. The foundation of macro-evolution is derived from atheism...that should not be a shocker!

All of the heavy hitters as it were in the evolution religion today are naturalists (also stated earlier), ie athiests, and will not even accept intelligent design since it hints at a possible link to God. God cannot be in the picture for the athiest or naturalist...period.


It is in effect saying that anyone who doesn't believe in God *in the same way you do* doesn't really believe!!

Dave, please understand this one thing if you don't get anything else...it isn't about me and "the way I believe". God's Word is plain, simple, and illuminated for is followers. My beliefs are simply what is easily read and understood from studying His Word. I reject ANY teaching that circumvents, adds to, twists, alters, takes away from, or in any way changes what God's Word declares...that includes Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shamanism, Atheism, Evolutionism and any other ISM out there (with the exception in this case of creationism)!

That should be the battle cry for every Christian. Rather, all I hear is let's find some common ground and reconcile our differences. I must be as Jude directed and fight for the faith that was ONCE AND FOR ALL handed down to the saints...I would hope anyone who "believes" would do the same.


You think our facts are skewed

Dave, I have asked repeatedly for facts regarding macro-evolution. There are no facts...just theories (Why don't you order the book that the fromer evolutionist wrote...who by the way has a PHD in Geology). That is, afterall, how this thread started; the paleontolgists that discovered the fossil are excited since they think they have a "link" that has been missing which will finally give them some facts. However, it is not a link but simply another one of God's creatures that until now was not known. So when (which will never happen) someone posts evidence supporting macro-evolution that is sound then we can discuss facts. For now all the known scientific data (when it is fully researched) unequivocally supports creationism.


by your own proclamation, you don't even NEED facts, because its all faith based.


Tell me exactly where I said that. To the contrary...I said that God said His people perish due to their lack of knowledge. I do not believe nor do I understand scripture to teach (as I stated) that men should operate on "blind faith". However, faith in terms of origin would still be required even for the very first creature since that creature, like any of us, would not have been there when creation happened...everyone has to accept origin on faith then look to science for supporting data...which supports creationism in every aspect. In that respect origin is more of a historical subject than a biological subject. In that case, history also supports creationism.



.

dnf777
06-20-2009, 06:09 PM
Yes.


There are no facts...just theories
.

The theory of gravity is just that...a theory. Am I to believe it doesn't exist, and that we can all fly. Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

I won't waste the time in linking the overwhelming mounds of evidence, facts if you will, in support of evolution, because they can and will be merely dismissed as fallacy, and like Yardleylabs, I'll regret not being able to recover the time wasted. There is NOTHING that will change your mind, and I will not try.

I just wonder what eventually convinced people that the earth was round. (there still is a flat-earth society, believe it or not!)

I think I'm going to politely bow out of this discussion, as I think it's been beaten pretty well by now.....with everyone firmly entreanched.

Happy Father's Day to all,

Dave

ps...here is a link to evidence the earth is flat: http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

Pete
06-20-2009, 06:48 PM
How true Pete. However, God says that His people perish for their lack of knowledge. One must not let truth die in the streets for the sake of a blind faith. God gave us his Word which harmoniously


I would like to go even deeper than that.

Since God magnified his word above his name and we see that many nations fell because of the lack of applied word of God in their culture. it can only stand to reason that God must be talking about lack of knowlede about Gods word.

It can't mean lackof knowledge about frogs or politics or race cars,,,but the whole subject of the word talks about Godly stuff so it must be lack of Godly knowledge which seems to me to be just about right.:D

Pete

Cody Covey
06-20-2009, 07:10 PM
The theory of gravity is just that...a theory. Am I to believe it doesn't exist, and that we can all fly. Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

I won't waste the time in linking the overwhelming mounds of evidence, facts if you will, in support of evolution, because they can and will be merely dismissed as fallacy, and like Yardleylabs, I'll regret not being able to recover the time wasted. There is NOTHING that will change your mind, and I will not try.

I just wonder what eventually convinced people that the earth was round. (there still is a flat-earth society, believe it or not!)

I think I'm going to politely bow out of this discussion, as I think it's been beaten pretty well by now.....with everyone firmly entreanched.

Happy Father's Day to all,

Dave

ps...here is a link to evidence the earth is flat: http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htmPlease go ahead and post just a couple?

YardleyLabs
06-20-2009, 07:18 PM
I am happier than ever to live in a country with a Constitution that prohibits the government from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion." I also hope our school boards have the sense to keep religion and philosophy in classes apart from science.

Cody Covey
06-20-2009, 07:44 PM
But Jeff there is the problem who decides whats science and what is just a bunch of hocus pocus. As you said many thought the world was flat not to long ago in history.

YardleyLabs
06-20-2009, 07:48 PM
Please go ahead and post just a couple?

Two species combining to form a new, third species: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/0727_050727_evolution.html

Evolution of the horse: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0317_050317_horseevolution_2.html

Fundamentally, the entire notion of macro vs micro evolution is meaningless to anyone not trying to prove a narrow interpretation of the Bible. Adaptation to environmental changes combined with separation of species sub-populations results in the creation of new species over time. This is fact that has been demonstrated both through fossils and through observations in plants, insects, viruses, etc. The creationist "explanation" has been to assert that either these are not in fact different species (a tautological argument that basically says that if you can prove common ancestors than they must be the same even if they look different and can no longer interbreed.) or that they all existed at the same time and asserted differences in the ages of the fossils is false. By extension, of course, all techniques used to estimate the ages of fossils are rejected out of hand.

Keith Farmer
06-20-2009, 07:50 PM
I am happier than ever to live in a country with a Constitution that prohibits the government from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion."


Oh but government has allowed an established religion to thrive and prosper in that of evolution. Just look at Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, or Stephen Jay Gould...they are surely not objective scientists are they? I believe they are athiests with an agenda!

The problem with liberalism is its total intolerance for the truth. Jeff, you have supported homosexuality (going so far as supporting teaching it to your kids in "church"), government benefits for unwed "couples", evolution, improper interpretations of science, twisted historical data with regard to our national heritage (as perverted by the revisionists) and all you have spoken against that I can remember is biblical doctrine, truth, and Christianity!

To me, as the recipient of your opposition, that is bogotry and intolerance at its highest. Sounds like the Arabs who banned (or had banned) Christians from handing out literature here in the U.S....[quote]DETROIT, MI - A federal judge has denied an evangelical group's request for permission to hand out Christian literature on sidewalks at an Arab festival in Dearborn, Michigan. [http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=573340 /QUOTE]

Congress shall not prohibit the free excercise of religion!

Well, U.S. District Judge Nancy Edmunds appears to have done just that (I know it is not Congress but it is a rep from the Fed. Gov is it not?) But it is more than probable that you will side with the Arabs on this.

After you tell me how the Arabs and the judge are correct in persecuting Christians tell me how Islamists were correct with their indoctrination (although they did not call it that...just teaching the kids about Islam is what they say) of our school children in California.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/000412.php


&

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36118



Finally, (just for kicks) read the bio of Anthony Flew. What a mess he was in huh? All of atheism and evolution left him so twisted that he did not know who he was and could really never make up his mind about who God was although he "converted" to some extent:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Flew


.

Keith Farmer
06-20-2009, 08:01 PM
I would like to go even deeper than that.

Since God magnified his word above his name and we see that many nations fell because of the lack of applied word of God in their culture. it can only stand to reason that God must be talking about lack of knowlede about Gods word.

It can't mean lackof knowledge about frogs or politics or race cars,,,but the whole subject of the word talks about Godly stuff so it must be lack of Godly knowledge which seems to me to be just about right.:grin:

Pete

Right Pete.

That is what I mean by consuming/believing God's Word first then looking outside of God's Word for further evidence. Ravi Zacharias addressed this specifically in the article I posted the link to...you should print it out and read it.


.

YardleyLabs
06-20-2009, 08:52 PM
Oh but government has allowed an established religion to thrive and prosper in that of evolution...where is your outrage there?

The problem with liberalism is its total intolerance for the truth. Jeff, you have supported homosexuality (going so far as supporting teaching it to your kids in "church"), government benefits for unwed "couples", evolution, improper interpretations of science, twisted historical data with regard to our national heritage (as perverted by the revisionists) and all you have spoken against that I can remember is biblical doctrine, truth, and Christianity!

To me, as the recipient of your opposition, that is bogotry and intolerance at its highest. Sounds like the Arabs who banned (or had banned) Christians from handing out literature here in the U.S....DETROIT, MI - A federal judge has denied an evangelical group's request for permission to hand out Christian literature on sidewalks at an Arab festival in Dearborn, Michigan. [http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=573340 /QUOTE]

Congress shall not prohibit the free excercise of religion!

Well, U.S. District Judge Nancy Edmunds appears to have done just that (I know it is not Congress but it is a rep from the Fed. Gov is it not?) But it is more than probable that you will side with the Arabs on this.

Finally, read the bio of Anthony Flew. What a mess he was in huh? All of atheism and evolution left him so twisted that he did not know who he was and could really never make up his mind about who God was although he "converted" to some extent:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Flew


.I actually have problems with all prior restraint in First Amendment cases although I suspect that 90 people having free access to all parts of an Islamic street festival -- as demanded by the group after refusing an offer that would have provided them access in specific ares (equivalent to setting up a booth) -- might be as disruptive as having 90 or so Muslims wandering freely through an evangelical revival meeting being held in a public location. I assume that you would support both activities with equal fervor.

With respect to the rest of your comments, I reply as follows:

- I don't actually care if your religious beliefs are "The Truth" or not. They have no more standing from a legal perspective than the beliefs of Druids. Personally, I don't agree with either you or the Druids. I am intolerant of those who are so convinced of the truth of their beliefs that they expect differential and deferential treatment not afforded those with other beliefs. Tolerance is generally good, but should not go so far as to allow those who are intolerant to restrict the activities of others.

- You are correct that I have supported (and do support) "homosexuality (going so far as supporting teaching (ABOUT) it to your kids in "church"), government benefits for unwed "couples", evolution."

- I do not support "improper interpretations of science." I believe that our schools should teach scientific method as a discipline including the logic of formulating and testing hypotheses, of understanding the limits of "proof", and of understanding the essentiality of maintaining an objective perspective and the fact that scientific exploration will change our understanding of the truth over time. I believe schools should also discuss the limits of science and provide accurate basic information about the state of current scientific understanding with respect to physics, biology, chemistry and math without respect of whether or not parents or students or teachers agree with all of that information. Areas of disagreement should be used to help illustrate scientific method and approaches that might be used to test scientific assertions.

- I am intolerant of any belief structure that suggests that our understanding of truth is fixed and immutable since I believe that leads to stagnation and intellectual and spiritual death. For that reason, you are correct in assuming that I am biased against dogma (religious or political) and the notion of absolute truth. I am not biased against Christianity, but I am not a Christian. I will absolutely react negatively to any who suggest, as you seem to do often, that being a non-Christian makes me less of an American than you and I believe that our historic heritage supports my position. If you consider my disagreement with your beliefs (including your rejection of having them called "beliefs" instead of "the truth") and my insistence that my beliefs are as American as yours to be "bigotry", I plead guilty. I will also react negatively to anyone suggesting that I and my children are evil or immoral, or that I am condemning myself and my children to an eternity of hell, as you have done. See my comments on being intolerant of intolerance above.

- I read the biography of Anthony Flew. Never heard of him before. Not interested now.

Keith Farmer
06-20-2009, 09:08 PM
I will also react negatively to anyone suggesting that I and my children are evil or immoral


Never said you were evil or immoral. I have no idea what your children are like...probably nice folks as I am sure you are in person! However, I do disagree with a lot of what you promote.

I appreciate your input. I just dislike the appearance that you oppose every notion of Christian principles at nearly every turn. Tolerance being the buzz word for liberals I would expect a warmer welcome for ideas other than yours.

Anyway, have a good evening. Enjoyed the discussion. Hope there are no hard feelings...I really mean that.

KF

YardleyLabs
06-20-2009, 09:22 PM
Keith,

If I didn't enjoy the discussions, I wouldn't participate. Happy Father's Day.

Pete
06-20-2009, 09:52 PM
Adaptation to environmental changes combined with separation of species sub-populations results in the creation of new species over time. This is fact that has been demonstrated both through fossils and through observations in plants, insects, viruses, etc. The creationist

But Jeff
sub speicies happen everywhere, with people birds you name it ,,,no where at anytime has a species evolved out of genos and was able to breed. not ever
its called genetic diversity.

evolution is a giant hoax,cant even come close to being proved and I dont have to use the bible to prove it.

I know the platapus or pangola right.:D

Pete

tpaschal30
06-20-2009, 10:45 PM
Paleontoligists are all giddy about the discovery of a fossil they believe is a link to bolster evolution. However, the evidence is so weak for macro-evolution even some of its leading proponents are stumped on the tough questions. Here is the fossil story and two stories that detail the evolution debate from a position of creationism and sound science...not cultish like faith speculation:

Fossil story:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20090617/sc_livescience/fossilsolvesmysteryofdinosaurfingerevolution


Case against evolution part1:

http://www.icr.org/article/457/286/

Case against evolution part2:

http://www.icr.org/article/456/286/

It would behoove one to read the information presented in the link here if truth is sought regarding origin:

http://www.icr.org/evidence/



.

My God. when has faith become such a bad word. Don't you have faith in science. God works in mysterious ways!

dnf777
06-20-2009, 10:47 PM
the discussion on this forum, as well as the national discussion, has shifted to "macro-evolution".

Is this a concession that "micro-evolution" exists? I pointed out bacterial resistance in species that did not exist at the time Noah set sail, and didn't get any push-back...just a shift to requests for irrefutable proof of "macro evolution".

Also, I never heard anyone contest the basic tenants of evolution. They're all common sense assumptions that we see every day. With out 80 year life-spans, no one person can see speciation, other than in species with very high and rapid reproductive capacity. And so when we DO get to see it, it's given a different name and ignored by creationists.

I know, I said I was going to bow out, but this discussion is like a bad car crash....you can't help but to keep looking!

Dave

dnf777
06-20-2009, 10:52 PM
Please go ahead and post just a couple?
In sympatric speciation, species diverge while inhabiting the same place. Often cited examples of sympatric speciation are found in insects which become dependent on different host plants in the same area. However, the existence of sympatric speciation as a mechanism of speciation is still hotly contested. People have argued that the evidences of sympatric speciation are in fact examples of micro-allopatric, or heteropatric speciation. The most widely accepted example of sympatric speciation is that of the cichlids of Lake Nabugabo in East Africa, which is thought to be due to sexual selection. Sympatric speciation refers to the formation of two or more descendant species from a single ancestral species all occupying the same geographic location.
Until recently, there has a been a dearth of hard evidence that supports this form of speciation, with a general feeling that interbreeding would soon eliminate any genetic differences that might appear. But there has been at least one recent study that suggests that sympatric speciation has occurred in Tennessee cave salamanders.[7]
The three-spined sticklebacks, freshwater fishes, that have been studied by Dolph Schluter (who received his Ph.D. for his work on Darwin's finches with Peter Grant) and his current colleagues in British Columbia, provide an intriguing example that is best explained by sympatric speciation. They have found:
Two different species of three-spined sticklebacks in each of five different lakes.
a large benthic species with a large mouth that feeds on large prey in the littoral zone
a smaller limnetic species — with a smaller mouth — that feeds on the small plankton in open water.
DNA analysis indicates that each lake was colonized independently, presumably by a marine ancestor, after the last ice age.
DNA analysis also shows that the two species in each lake are more closely related to each other than they are to any of the species in the other lakes.
Nevertheless, the two species in each lake are reproductively isolated; neither mates with the other.
However, aquarium tests showed that
the benthic species from one lake will spawn with the benthic species from the other lakes and
likewise the limnetic species from the different lakes will spawn with each other.
These benthic and limnetic species even display their mating preferences when presented with sticklebacks from Japanese lakes; that is, a Canadian benthic prefers a Japanese benthic over its close limnetic cousin from its own lake.
Their conclusion: in each lake, what began as a single population faced such competition for limited resources that
disruptive selection — competition favoring fishes at either extreme of body size and mouth size over those nearer the mean — coupled with
assortative mating — each size preferred mates like it - favored a divergence into two subpopulations exploiting different food in different parts of the lake.
The fact that this pattern of speciation occurred the same way on three separate occasions suggests strongly that ecological factors in a sympatric population can cause speciation.
Sympatric speciation driven by ecological factors may also account for the extraordinary diversity of crustaceans living in the depths of Siberia's Lake Baikal.

Cody Covey
06-20-2009, 11:08 PM
So species adapt no one is denying that. Hell I'll even concede that species can change appearance and mannerisms. The biggest evidence of that is humans. people werent always white. wasn't until they adapted to a gloomier climate that they became white (or so goes the theory).

To be quite honest i haven't done enough research to specifically say one way or another whether it is real or not i just have a hard time believing that we all came from monkies (yes i know we didn't but unless you take college biology you don't lol) This is all great insight into this and good reading but i haven't made a decision. My girlfriend thinks that evolution is a mechanism for god to keep animals and plants around. Also says that it never says how long a "day" is to god so maybe it could be billions of years that is really being spoke of in genesis. again i don't know but some food for thought.

Pete
06-20-2009, 11:40 PM
duf777

So what are these fish going to turn into---monkeys:p:p

we see this in all life
Its called genetic diversity:)
My bet is these fish will remain fish

Pete

YardleyLabs
06-21-2009, 07:04 AM
But Jeff
sub speicies happen everywhere, with people birds you name it ,,,no where at anytime has a species evolved out of genos and was able to breed. not ever
its called genetic diversity.

evolution is a giant hoax,cant even come close to being proved and I dont have to use the bible to prove it.

I know the platapus or pangola right.:D

Pete

The general definition of a species is based on the ability of members of the species to interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Your own example of this were the horse and the donkey, yet there is no question that both species share common ancestors. Similarly, the examples I noted describe instances where two species have combined into a third species unable to reproduce with members of either parent species but able to reproduce with each other. Both are cases of "macro-evolution".

dnf777
06-21-2009, 07:58 AM
duf777

So what are these fish going to turn into---monkeys:p:p

we see this in all life
Its called genetic diversity:)
My bet is these fish will remain fish

Pete

Just like I predicted... It did no good to produce evidence.
No, those fish won't evolve into anything by next Tuesday...or next time Halley's comet flies by....but if anyone is around in a couple hundred thousand or million years, it just might.

I'm glad we all can agree on the existence of genetic diversity. Gregor Mendel was ridiculed for suggesting a genetic component to life at all by the church. Its a small step.

cheers,
Dave

Pete
06-21-2009, 08:14 AM
"macro-evolution".
__________________


Jeff
What is macro evolution. Is it the evolution of 1 celled animals ?
Not up to date

Pete

YardleyLabs
06-21-2009, 08:59 AM
Jeff
What is macro evolution. Is it the evolution of 1 celled animals ?
Not up to date

Pete

Macroevolution is a term first coined in the 1920's to to distinguish major evolutionary developments (e.g. the emergence of feathers) from more minor ones. Among evolutionary biologists the term has fallen into disuse since its effects are seen basically as ones of time and scale: that is, minor changes from generation to generation ultimately become major changes. Now, the term is used almost exclusively by creationists to describe the process of evolution of new species as distinct from the adaptation within a species. In rejecting "evidence" of "macroevolution", creationists usually begin by challenging the notion that geologic strata may be used to date the age of fossils. Where biologists use dating to show the emergence of new species over time, creationists argue that all the species existed at the same time and that some have simply disappeared through extinction. This is the argument used by John Morris (referenced in Keith's original links) as a basis for arguing that everything that exists was created in the order indicated in Genesis. Your own approach is somewhat more flexible since you are willing to consider variabilities in time measurement.

By contrast, evolutionary biologists view evolution as a continuum with small changes that are useful leading to more small changes until a stage is reached where the offspring are no longer recognizable as relatives of their distant progenitors. Thus, horses and zebras and donkeys evolved from a common ancestor that was a dramatically smaller herbivore. However, horses, zebras and donkeys are different species and cannot interbreed to produce fertile offspring. Genomic studies are adding an interesting dimension to evolutionary studies by allowing more detailed analyses of commonalities and differences in gene structure within species and between related and less related species.

Pete
06-21-2009, 11:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=461464#post461464)
duf777

So what are these fish going to turn into---monkeys

we see this in all life
Its called genetic diversity:smile:
My bet is these fish will remain fish

Pete

Just like I predicted... It did no good to produce evidence


Your evidence is genetic diversity not evolution:p wasn't all that hard to debunk.

How things were originally created is more or less a mystery,,that they were created is not.
If you look at all animals we have somethings in common ,scales , feathers,, hair,,
Some will say its evolution others will say ,,,well God is a pretty diverse and so God made us different. God cannot break his own rules,,,laws,,


D you think the African dog came from the wolf or vise versa or how bout the labrador is that evolution ,,,,,,,they look nothing like their almost genetically equals,,,, are they evolving,,,,you know,,,,pugs have short snouts and grey hounds have long snouts,,, one is more efficient at eating small kibble ,,the other large,,,:D

God I can't help myself.

Anyway looking at old bones and deturmining life and evolution is silly and its only real value is for the universities to aquire more money because they say they are hot on the trail to figuring out our human existance

By the way I studied antropology and palientology in college and if you were to go to the denver museum you might just find one of the skulls I found in Dougals wyoming,,,,, It will be credited of course to the teacher in charge. It was an armored dino and a pretty well preseved on at that.

It didn't look like anybody I know

Pete


Thanks Jeff
I appreciate the very well rounded interpretation


By contrast, evolutionary biologists view evolution as a continuum with small changes that are useful leading to more small changes until a stage is reached where the offspring are no longer recognizable as relatives of their distant progenitors. Thus, horses and zebras and donkeys evolved from a common ancestor that was a dramatically smaller herbivore. However, horses, zebras and donkeys are different species and cannot interbreed to produce fertile offspring. Genomic studies are adding an interesting dimension to evolutionary studies by allowing more detailed analyses of commonalities and differences in gene structure within species and between related and less related species.

Jeff although the creatures may not be recognizable as being the same species they are indeed the same species and can breed. Chiwawa /mastiff you name it.

Animals related outside genos is nothing more than God trying to have a little diversity and those things which are different still portry Gods,humor and his ability to communicate to people his existance. Yes there are some verses about this.
Things that we see and examine are evidence that their is a God. and he has great diversity.
Just my humble yet adimitt opinion:p
Pete

dnf777
06-21-2009, 11:43 AM
D you think the African dog came from the wolf or vise versa or how bout the labrador is that evolution ,,,,,,,they look nothing like their almost genetically equals,,,, are they evolving,,,,you know,,,,pugs have short snouts and grey hounds have long snouts,,, one is more efficient at eating small kibble ,,the other large,,,:D

Pete

First things first. We need to all understand basic definitions and concepts. Your eloquent, and I believe intentionally humorous comment above, while I did get the humor, missed the real mark due to confusion between simple genetic drift, selective breeding to enhance traits, and speciation. The same basic mechanism is at play, but I think the disconnect that creationists have is the inability (or unwillingness) to see things over a span of time. That requieres abstract thinking, which the Bible does not lend itself to.

The examples of horses that Yardleylabs gave, as well as the Galapagos finces are sound examples.

Since most creationists understand and accept "microevolution", its just a few more steps to understand the exact same process on a grander scale. We're making progress! Again, the purpose of science is to understand our world, not to disprove any form of deity. That seems to be a real hang-up. It's like when Christian-Scientists refuse life saving treatment and vaccinations for their children, then wonder, "why did God take my child?"

Reminds me of the joke of the stranded shipwreck survivor who in the end questions why God did not rescue him despite daily prayer and sacrafice. God told him, "You idiot, I came in a boat, a plane, and a helicopter, and each time you turned me away!!!!"

on that note, I'm back to work...

dave

dnf777
06-21-2009, 11:50 AM
Jeff although the creatures may not be recognizable as being the same species they are indeed the same species and can breed. Chiwawa /mastiff you name it.Pete

Again, basic definitions and concepts are missed here. Almost any individual (some with mental derangements) can "breed" with anything....the key, and part of the definition, is "produce fertile offspring".

Selective breeding, genetic drift, SPECIATION....are all on a continuum, but are distinct events, occuring over greatly different time courses.

dave

Cody Covey
06-21-2009, 01:15 PM
First things first. We need to all understand basic definitions and concepts. Your eloquent, and I believe intentionally humorous comment above, while I did get the humor, missed the real mark due to confusion between simple genetic drift, selective breeding to enhance traits, and speciation. The same basic mechanism is at play, but I think the disconnect that creationists have is the inability (or unwillingness) to see things over a span of time. That requieres abstract thinking, which the Bible does not lend itself to.

The examples of horses that Yardleylabs gave, as well as the Galapagos finces are sound examples.

Since most creationists understand and accept "microevolution", its just a few more steps to understand the exact same process on a grander scale. We're making progress! Again, the purpose of science is to understand our world, not to disprove any form of deity. That seems to be a real hang-up. It's like when Christian-Scientists refuse life saving treatment and vaccinations for their children, then wonder, "why did God take my child?"

Reminds me of the joke of the stranded shipwreck survivor who in the end questions why God did not rescue him despite daily prayer and sacrafice. God told him, "You idiot, I came in a boat, a plane, and a helicopter, and each time you turned me away!!!!"

on that note, I'm back to work...

dave
I was selling security systems door to door last year in TN and one lady told me she didn't need a security system because she had Jesus. As much as i tried to tell her that She needed to take precautions because bad things do happen she ddin't want to hear it just kept saying that She was a Christian and had Jesus so didn't need anything else.

Off topic but when i saw your post reminded me of her haha

dnf777
06-21-2009, 02:19 PM
I was selling security systems door to door last year in TN and one lady told me she didn't need a security system because she had Jesus. As much as i tried to tell her that She needed to take precautions because bad things do happen she ddin't want to hear it just kept saying that She was a Christian and had Jesus so didn't need anything else.

Off topic but when i saw your post reminded me of her haha

Yeah, I want to be careful not to sound like I'm poking fun at people's beliefs...we all have them of one sort or another.

It is frustrating though after surgeries to hear family member saying, "jesus did wonderfully" or thank "jesus"...never the surgeon. But when one little thing goes wrong.....I've never heard anyone sue Jesus! Then its all on the surgeons lap! (as it should be, but it would be nice to get the credit when things go right in the majority of cases)

I remember a line from the show "HOuse". A family was praising God after their son's successful cancer operation. House sarcastically said, "you should thank ME....God gave your son the tumor!" I'm sure they took a ratings dip after that one!


To all who batted this thread around....I've really enjoyed it, and hope there's no hard feelings anywhere. I think we all kept it civil, with a few good-natured jabs!

Enjoy what's left of the W/E...

dave

Pete
06-21-2009, 04:07 PM
It is frustrating though after surgeries to hear family member saying, "jesus did wonderfully" or thank "jesus"...never the surgeon. But when one little thing goes wrong

On the other end of the spectrum

When my boy was a toddler he had to be hospitalized for some type of viral infection in his knee. There were some othere children in the same ward with the same thing and had to be put on an IV for weeks,,,,just before we decided to do the same ,,,,my wife and I prayed together and decided to wait a few more hours before the go ahead of the IV
The doctor peeked his head through the door ,,said hello and aurtherized 1 fricken drop of tylenol,,,a short time later he was better and so we prepared to take him home.
The whole arrogant staff praised their docter and when they turned to us I told them he didn't do a dam thing ,,,,just 150 bucks for saying hello and a 75 dollar over the counter drop of tylanao.
I looked all of them in the eye and told them what we thought .You talk about someone wanting all the glory and deserving none.

Sometimes these people think there God ,,But many give credit to where credit is due.And some doctors truely do the working miracles. My guess is if you see who gets the glory is weather god had anything to do it.

Pete

dnf777
06-21-2009, 06:27 PM
On the other end of the spectrum

When my boy was a toddler he had to be hospitalized for some type of viral infection in his knee. There were some othere children in the same ward with the same thing and had to be put on an IV for weeks,,,,just before we decided to do the same ,,,,my wife and I prayed together and decided to wait a few more hours before the go ahead of the IV
The doctor peeked his head through the door ,,said hello and aurtherized 1 fricken drop of tylenol,,,a short time later he was better and so we prepared to take him home.
The whole arrogant staff praised their docter and when they turned to us I told them he didn't do a dam thing ,,,,just 150 bucks for saying hello and a 75 dollar over the counter drop of tylanao.
I looked all of them in the eye and told them what we thought .You talk about someone wanting all the glory and deserving none.

Sometimes these people think there God ,,But many give credit to where credit is due.And some doctors truely do the working miracles. My guess is if you see who gets the glory is weather god had anything to do it.

Pete

First of all, I'm so happy things turned out well for your boy. That is the most important thing of all, to anyone who has kids.

Not knowing any details, I wouldn't dare comment, but it sure sounds like that doc did the right thing by NOT starting potentially dangerous treatments.

I'm sure a family just this w/e is cursing me for the same thing. After several other doctors wanted to start TPN, (did, and sent her PO4 levels to >12) I stopped by after spending 45 minutes reviewing her charts and diagnosis and deciding to stop her TPN, feeling it was posing much more risk and deriving little, if any benefit.

I heard the family (after explaining to them ad nauseam) ask the nurse if I was going to do anything. She did absolutely fine, was discharged home, and saved $1000 per day in unneeded treatment.

Sometimes, the carefully weighed decision to do nothing is harder and more daring to make, but better for the patient. It's a thankless decision quite frequently, as Americans have been conditioned to "take a pill" for everything. As general policy, I do not give sleeping pills, nicotine patches, and "happy pills". If more docs would do the same, we could trim billions off our health costs, and people would realize that they don't need 90% of the pills they pop. (maybe slightly exaggerated for effect)

Pete
06-21-2009, 09:05 PM
Bottom line I guess is whats your angle.

I can 1 thing for sure and that is the ways of the world are to desensitize people from God. Everbody has a doctrine weather based on trueth or facts or there own imaginations.
Just the word "God" nowadays has people thinking your a fruit cake,,,,,wasn't like that 100 years ago.

Now its How smart are we.
Just a thought,,,,

duf777
I'm not sayin medicine is not a good thing but it can be like any other buisness where they try to sell you a bill of goods.

People reason differently
Some use only science ,,,some use only bible stuff and some use both. And some just make stuff up in their head. I am the bible/science catagory and I am always astounded when science finnaly deturmines something which has been written for ages in a skinny little book. In the end what I know as trueth will lead to my final decision..

Yes thats my finally answere

I've locked in:D


happy fathers day

Pete

Cody Covey
06-21-2009, 09:12 PM
First of all, I'm so happy things turned out well for your boy. That is the most important thing of all, to anyone who has kids.

Not knowing any details, I wouldn't dare comment, but it sure sounds like that doc did the right thing by NOT starting potentially dangerous treatments.

I'm sure a family just this w/e is cursing me for the same thing. After several other doctors wanted to start TPN, (did, and sent her PO4 levels to >12) I stopped by after spending 45 minutes reviewing her charts and diagnosis and deciding to stop her TPN, feeling it was posing much more risk and deriving little, if any benefit.

I heard the family (after explaining to them ad nauseam) ask the nurse if I was going to do anything. She did absolutely fine, was discharged home, and saved $1000 per day in unneeded treatment.

Sometimes, the carefully weighed decision to do nothing is harder and more daring to make, but better for the patient. It's a thankless decision quite frequently, as Americans have been conditioned to "take a pill" for everything. As general policy, I do not give sleeping pills, nicotine patches, and "happy pills". If more docs would do the same, we could trim billions off our health costs, and people would realize that they don't need 90% of the pills they pop. (maybe slightly exaggerated for effect)Was talking to a guy at a warehouse I work IT at and he was talking about how in Mexico its nice because you can get almost any prescription drug from the grocery store. Antibiotics in gumballs for children. What he doesn't realize is that bacteria that antibiotics are supposed to fight adapt to the new drug and become stronger. Even all together resistant. Not good if your on your last gumball of penecillin.

cotts135
06-29-2009, 02:48 PM
Came across this article and immediately it struck me as strange that the Catholic Church would valicate the carbon dating process when it suited their purpose but on the other hand would be critical of that same process when it didn't fit with their believe on how man was created.
It certainly seems to me you can't have it both ways but maybe their is a good explanation that I am not aware of.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/science/29vatican.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

YardleyLabs
06-29-2009, 03:03 PM
Came across this article and immediately it struck me as strange that the Catholic Church would valicate the carbon dating process when it suited their purpose but on the other hand would be critical of that same process when it didn't fit with their believe on how man was created.
It certainly seems to me you can't have it both ways but maybe their is a good explanation that I am not aware of.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/science/29vatican.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
I believe the Catholic Church has accepted carbon dating for some time, and even founded a project in the 1980's to try to date the shroud of Turin without using too much of the original shroud. The Church has also accepted that evolution is not inconsistent with its belief that God created humans. The modern church has not been literal in its interpretations of the Bible and has accepted scientific advances without viewing them as threats over the last century or so, just as scientists have continued their work while retaining their fundamental religious faiths.

cotts135
06-29-2009, 03:44 PM
I believe the Catholic Church has accepted carbon dating for some time, and even founded a project in the 1980's to try to date the shroud of Turin without using too much of the original shroud. The Church has also accepted that evolution is not inconsistent with its belief that God created humans. The modern church has not been literal in its interpretations of the Bible and has accepted scientific advances without viewing them as threats over the last century or so, just as scientists have continued their work while retaining their fundamental religious faiths.

That's the foolishness of using broad generalizations. My bad.

Keith Farmer
06-29-2009, 09:12 PM
http://www.trueorigin.org/dating.asp#Why%20methods%20in%20general%20are%20in accurate

Here is the low down about radiometric dating which includes sections about carbon dating... read the report.

Further, from this report: http://www.rae.org/ch04tud.html


Dr. Libby, the discoverer of the C14 method, which won for him a Nobel prize, expressed his shock that human artifacts extended back only 5000 years, a finding totally in conflict with any evolutionary concept. Older dates were found to be very unreliable (CRSQ , 1972, 9:3, p.157).emphasis mine


and (from the same report cited above)



Whether we are talking about the astonishingly rapid decay of the earth's magnetic field or about radiometric dating that focuses on various decay rates, there is no reason to believe that the earth is an old one. (emphasis mine)




The Church has also accepted that evolution is not inconsistent with its belief that God created humans.


Let's be clear, the Roman church may have asserted that heritical fallacy but the true Church, the unified body of Christ, does not and has never embraced evolution (molecules to humans) of any type .




.

Franco
06-29-2009, 09:51 PM
Let's be clear, the Roman church may have asserted that heritical fallacy but the true Church, the unified body of Christ, does not and has never embraced evolution (molecules to humans) of any type .




.

And, you just happen to be a member of that true church. How lucky can a person be!

Earth has been around for 4.5 billion years. Man has been here for 35,000 years. That's reality!

kimsmith
06-29-2009, 11:00 PM
I'm an uneducated man and I can't type the fancy words some of you have posted but I would say the ones that believe in evolution have more faith than I do. It's a lot easier believing in God and Creation than believing we used to swing from trees. Maybe if Christians had the faith y'all do we would do a better job witnessing to the unbelievers.



It is frustrating though after surgeries to hear family member saying, "Jesus did wonderfully" or thank "jesus"...never the surgeon.


I think you are truly misrepresenting Christians with this comment, and I mean true Christians because I'm sure they would be thinking the surgeon also and they wouldn't be suing the surgeon if something went wrong.

Here are some thoughts to think about. The big bang theory believe everything started spinning from one spot. How can something spin in one direction then start spinning in another direction. If you fall off a ride that is spinning you will spin in that direction. How is it that some planets are spinning in one direction and others are spinning in another direction?

Doesn't Evolution mean we are evolving into something better? Man look around things are getting worse not better. Like I said before we need to look to you to build our faith because your faith is certainly stronger.

Lush Lumbago
06-29-2009, 11:16 PM
Let's be clear, the Roman church may have asserted that heritical fallacy but the true Church, the unified body of Christ, does not and has never embraced evolution (molecules to humans) of any type .

.

Easy there, Kieth. You may not adhere to the Roman Church but it does not necessarily follow that any one denomination is any more heretical than another. The freedom of religion has given rise a great diversity of religious thought in this country. But, it has not given rise to a "unified body of Christ"--just the opposite.

Gun_Dog2002
06-30-2009, 02:11 AM
Awake 9/22/81
WANTED: A REPLACEMENT FOR DARWIN
THE SCRAMBLE IS ON FOR NEW ANSWERS
EVOLUTION “is undergoing its broadest and deepest revolution in nearly 50 years.” So said a report on a meeting held in Chicago last October. Some 150 specialists in evolution held a four-day conference on the subject “Macroevolution.”
Science, the official journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, reported the mood: “Clashes of personality and academic sniping created palpable tension . . . the proceedings were at times unruly and even acrimonious.” Many frustrated scientists complained that “a large proportion of the contributions were characterized more by description and assertion than by the presentation of data.” However, has not assertion instead of data long been the tactic of evolutionists?
Darwin had said that life evolved very slowly by small changes from a single-celled organism into all life on earth, including man. The fossil record should show these transitions, but he admitted it doesn’t. One hundred and twenty years ago, he said the record was incomplete, but he felt that more fossils would be discovered in time to fill in the gaps.
“The pattern that we were told to find for the last 120 years does not exist,” declared Niles Eldridge, paleontologist from the American Museum of Natural History in New York. He believes new species arise, not from gradual changes, but in sudden bursts of evolution. The many transitional forms needed for Darwinian evolution never existed—no fossils will ever bridge the gaps.
Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard agrees with Eldridge. At the Chicago meeting he declared: “Certainly the record is poor, but the jerkiness you see is not the result of gaps, it is the consequence of the jerky mode of evolutionary change.” Everett Olson, UCLA paleontologist, said: “I take a dim view of the fossil record as a source of data.” Francisco Ayala, a former major advocate of Darwin’s slow changes, added this comment: “I am now convinced from what the paleontologists say that small changes do not accumulate.”
Science summed up the controversy: “The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution [small changes within the species] can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution [big jumps across species boundaries]. . . . the answer can be given as a clear, No.”
This revised view of evolution is called “punctuated equilibrium,” meaning one species remains for millions of years in the fossil record, suddenly disappears and a new species just as suddenly appears in the record. This, however, is not really a new proposal. Richard Goldschmidt advanced it in the 1930’s, called it the “hopeful monsters” hypothesis, and was much maligned for it then. “Punctuated equilibrium” is a much more impressive designation.
This theory is somewhat of a boon to evolutionists, for it does away with the need to come up with transitional forms. It makes changes happen too fast, the evolutionists contend, for fossils to record the events—but not fast enough for us to see them happening. However, it is also a liability. When creationists pointed to the intricate designs in nature that required a designer, evolutionists enthroned natural selection as the designer. Now the role of natural selection has been eroded, and chance is ensconced in its place—creationists have long held that evolutionists must depend on chance.
Gould recognizes that natural selection has lost ground to chance: “Substantial amounts of genetic change may not be subject to natural selection and may spread through populations at random.”
David Raup, curator of geology, writes in the Chicago Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin for January 1979, on “Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology.” Raup says the fossil record shows change, but not “as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection. . . . it goes on in nature although good examples are surprisingly rare. . . . A currently important alternative to natural selection has to do with the effects of pure chance. . . . We are thus talking about the survival of the lucky as well as the survival of the fittest.” He thinks perhaps that “the mammals were not better than the dinosaurs but just luckier,” and concludes his article by saying of Darwin: “The part he missed was the simple element of chance!”
With chance in the dominant role guiding evolution, the thorny question of design returns: How can chance accomplish the intricate and amazing designs that are everywhere? The eye, Darwin said, made him shudder. Moreover, it is not just once that such miracles of design by chance have to occur, but they must happen again and again in unrelated species.
For example, the octopus is no relative of ours, but his eye is amazingly “human.” Unrelated fish and eels have electrical shocking equipment. Unrelated insects, worms, bacteria and fishes have luminous organs giving off cold light. Unrelated lampreys, mosquitoes and leeches have anticoagulants to keep their victims’ blood from clotting. Unrelated porcupines, echidnas and hedgehogs are said to have independently evolved quills. Unrelated dolphins and bats have sonar systems. Unrelated fish and insects have bifocal eyes for vision in air and under water. In many unrelated animals—crustaceans, fishes, eels, insects, birds, mammals—there are amazing abilities for migration.
Even more than all of this, evolutionists would have us believe that three different times warm-blooded animals developed from cold-blooded reptiles; three times color vision developed independently; five times wings and flight developed in unrelated fish, insects, pterodactyls, birds and mammals.
Could chance repeat these feats over and over again? The mathematics of probability shouts, No! Evolution’s revolution may have helped it live with the gappy fossil record, but it has handed chance a role to play that is far beyond its powers to perform.

Gun_Dog2002
06-30-2009, 02:13 AM
http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/wick_hoyle.html

Interesting read from Mr. Hoyle, who you may recall actually coined the phrase "big bang" although he didn't believe in it, regarding the probability needed for true evolution to occur. Bottom line is, mathematically evolution is impossible.

/Paul

cotts135
06-30-2009, 07:00 AM
Posted by Gundog 2002


“The pattern that we were told to find for the last 120 years does not exist,” declared Niles Eldridge, paleontologist from the American Museum of Natural History in New York. He believes new species arise, not from gradual changes, but in sudden bursts of evolution. [I]The many transitional forms needed for Darwinian evolution never existed—no fossils will ever bridge the gaps.

This meeting that you quote I believe took place in 1981. Obviously since then there have been many discoveries and findings that still support Evolution. With regards to the above quote I think that if you Google Archaeopteryx it will seriously undermine the main premise of that statement.

YardleyLabs
06-30-2009, 07:25 AM
http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/wick_hoyle.html

Interesting read from Mr. Hoyle, who you may recall actually coined the phrase "big bang" although he didn't believe in it, regarding the probability needed for true evolution to occur. Bottom line is, mathematically evolution is impossible.

/Paul
For what it's worth, mathematically the odds against the birth of any one of us are so great that our existence is impossible. That's why nature sends out millions of sperm to latch on to a single egg. Nature succeeds if any one of them manages to fertilize the egg. The fact that the egg became you, against all odds, is literally the luck of the draw. Evolution works much the same way. It doesn't aim for a target, it simply seeks to survive. The accumulated weight of those survivals dictates the path of evolution.

Keith Farmer
06-30-2009, 09:59 AM
Evolution works much the same way. It doesn't aim for a target, it simply seeks to survive. The accumulated weight of those survivals dictates the path of evolution.

Again, I ask you to show anyone via genetic evidence (or any kind of evidence whatsoever) that mutations add any new information, increase the viability of the subject, and/or any single shred of evolutionary evidence where molecules have become matter and species have changed from one kind to another...simply and catagoragly not true!

Information is so complex that scientists cannot even begin to figure it out (DNA coded information that is). This is a mathematical language that exists in the cell whereby proteins are encoded by the gene to perform specific and sometimes multiple tasks. Information exists...God created it and placed it there...not some slime that crept out of a primordial ooze!

Further, tell me why "evolution" suddenly chose sex as its means of furthering the species. Sex actually degrades the genetic structure by selecting only half of the dna from each partner. If evolution were so sharp (how abosutely silly to even say such) then why sex? Being as science has no answer am I to expect a rational answer from anyone here?

Evolution is a lie. It replaces God as Creator. It comes directly from the pit of hell itself. In fact, the wonderful Darwin you guys like to go back to was a raving racist who saw the Australian natives as the missing link. Some were actually killed, brought back to England, and scientific studies were done to determine on what evolutionary level they were. Darwin's book you folks refer to is actually titled On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life...some great mentor for the evolutionary world huh?

I'll end my contributions to the absolute nonsense of evolutionary dialogue by asserting once more the following:



18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. (NIV)emphasis mine

Men know the truth. Men suppress the truth with lie upon lie. The reason is that men are by nature unrighteous creatures in need of salvation. The unregenerate man sees the things of God as foolishness. Therefore, more facts, more evidence, more dialogue is useless with anyone who denies the existence and creative power of God.


.

zeus3925
06-30-2009, 10:32 AM
Further, tell me why "evolution" suddenly chose sex as its means of furthering the species. Sex actually degrades the genetic structure by selecting only half of the dna from each partner. If evolution were so sharp (how abosutely silly to even say such) then why sex? Being as science has no answer am I to expect a rational answer from anyone here?




Evolution needs isolation to proceed rapidly. Mate with your sisters and first cousins to the exclusion of others and you soon evolve some great banjo players.

Cody Covey
06-30-2009, 12:02 PM
lots of animal produce asexually if need be.

we don't all need sex regards?!

dnf777
06-30-2009, 01:39 PM
Again, I ask you to show anyone via genetic evidence (or any kind of evidence whatsoever) that mutations add any new information, increase the viability of the subject, and/or any single shred of evolutionary evidence where molecules have become matter and species have changed from one kind to another...simply and catagoragly not true!

Information is so complex that scientists cannot even begin to figure it out (DNA coded information that is). This is a mathematical language that exists in the cell whereby proteins are encoded by the gene to perform specific and sometimes multiple tasks. Information exists...God created it and placed it there...not some slime that crept out of a primordial ooze!

Further, tell me why "evolution" suddenly chose sex as its means of furthering the species. Sex actually degrades the genetic structure by selecting only half of the dna from each partner. If evolution were so sharp (how abosutely silly to even say such) then why sex? Being as science has no answer am I to expect a rational answer from anyone here?

Evolution is a lie. It replaces God as Creator. It comes directly from the pit of hell itself. In fact, the wonderful Darwin you guys like to go back to was a raving racist who saw the Australian natives as the missing link. Some were actually killed, brought back to England, and scientific studies were done to determine on what evolutionary level they were. Darwin's book you folks refer to is actually titled On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life...some great mentor for the evolutionary world huh?

I'll end my contributions to the absolute nonsense of evolutionary dialogue by asserting once more the following:



Men know the truth. Men suppress the truth with lie upon lie. The reason is that men are by nature unrighteous creatures in need of salvation. The unregenerate man sees the things of God as foolishness. Therefore, more facts, more evidence, more dialogue is useless with anyone who denies the existence and creative power of God.


.

KF,
In that post you showed two things beyond dispute:

1) you have no concept of the science behind evolution whatsoever, and--

2) you have no intention or desire to every try to expand your understanding of our natural world

Both of which are you rights, which I fought for, so enjoy, and I will never try to convince you otherwise.

I gotta stop and turn around now, before I drive off the edge of the earth! :razz:

Franco
06-30-2009, 02:08 PM
KF,
In that post you showed two things beyond dispute:

1) you have no concept of the science behind evolution whatsoever, and--

2) you have no intention or desire to every try to expand your understanding of our natural world

Both of which are you rights, which I fought for, so enjoy, and I will never try to convince you otherwise.

I gotta stop and turn around now, before I drive off the edge of the earth! :razz:

It is too hard walking someone out of the woods when they have thier eyes closed.

Thanks Doc, you are on target with your observation.

kimsmith
06-30-2009, 02:21 PM
DNF777 you haven't posted anything that would change anyones mind on evolution. Your faith in science must be strong to believe a worm could change into a elephant over a period of time. I don't have a problem with adaptation but evolution is way out there. A dog will always be a dog, A bird will always be a bird and A human will always be a human(until we are called up in the clouds).

Here is something to think about if you are a gambling man. We have a 100% chance of being right because if you are right then we just go back to the ground and it's over so I'm still not losing. You only have a 50% change of being right because if you are wrong then you'll know all the answers if we are right when that time comes.

brian breuer
06-30-2009, 02:30 PM
DNF777 you haven't posted anything that would change anyones mind on evolution. Your faith in science must be strong to believe a worm could change into a elephant over a period of time. I don't have a problem with adaptation but evolution is way out there. A dog will always be a dog, A bird will always be a bird and A human will always be a human(until we are called up in the clouds).

Here is something to think about if you are a gambling man. We have a 100% chance of being right because if you are right then we just go back to the ground and it's over so I'm still not losing. You only have a 50% change of being right because if you are wrong then you'll know all the answers if we are right when that time comes.

I've enjoyed this thread. I've learned a little on both sides.

Kim, could you spell this out more clearly? I don't know what you are trying to say.

dnf777
06-30-2009, 02:48 PM
DNF777 you haven't posted anything that would change anyones mind on evolution. Your faith in science must be strong to believe a worm could change into a elephant over a period of time. I don't have a problem with adaptation but evolution is way out there. A dog will always be a dog, A bird will always be a bird and A human will always be a human(until we are called up in the clouds).

Here is something to think about if you are a gambling man. We have a 100% chance of being right because if you are right then we just go back to the ground and it's over so I'm still not losing. You only have a 50% change of being right because if you are wrong then you'll know all the answers if we are right when that time comes.

Again, and no offense intended, but those comments show a preconceived misperception of what evolution is. My faith in God is strong also, and I believe he gave me (us) inquiring minds and the intellect to seek answers and try to make this a better world. Some choose not to use it, and accept Biblical explanations, so long as they're convenient, and not disprovable. (flat earth, geocentric universe, etc...)

I am not a gambling man. I work too hard, for too little. Besides, you completely lost me on that last paragraph! What I believe happens to us after death has nothing to do with science, as far as I know.

YardleyLabs
06-30-2009, 02:58 PM
DNF777 you haven't posted anything that would change anyones mind on evolution. Your faith in science must be strong to believe a worm could change into a elephant over a period of time. I don't have a problem with adaptation but evolution is way out there. A dog will always be a dog, A bird will always be a bird and A human will always be a human(until we are called up in the clouds).

Here is something to think about if you are a gambling man. We have a 100% chance of being right because if you are right then we just go back to the ground and it's over so I'm still not losing. You only have a 50% change of being right because if you are wrong then you'll know all the answers if we are right when that time comes.
You appear to be using what I think of as the insurance policy answer to questions of God's existence. Believe in God because if he exists and you don't believe, you go to hell, but if he does not exist you lose nothing either way. I hate to even contemplate the theological nature of a religion that would support such a lame argument. Fortunately, I don't think any do.

Gun_Dog2002
06-30-2009, 04:04 PM
For what it's worth, mathematically the odds against the birth of any one of us are so great that our existence is impossible. That's why nature sends out millions of sperm to latch on to a single egg. Nature succeeds if any one of them manages to fertilize the egg. The fact that the egg became you, against all odds, is literally the luck of the draw. Evolution works much the same way. It doesn't aim for a target, it simply seeks to survive. The accumulated weight of those survivals dictates the path of evolution.


Apples to Oranges. God created the reproductive system, apparently you call god "nature." The odds of reproduction are actually quite good. Without birth control every single person, short of those who are injured would reproduce with regular sexual intercourse. Millions of sperm and all it takes is one getting to the egg. The odds of pregnancy are pretty good.

/Paul

Gun_Dog2002
06-30-2009, 04:05 PM
Posted by Gundog 2002



This meeting that you quote I believe took place in 1981. Obviously since then there have been many discoveries and findings that still support Evolution. With regards to the above quote I think that if you Google Archaeopteryx it will seriously undermine the main premise of that statement.

And yet you can't find one example that proves evolution. Supporting a theory is not proof.

/Paul

kimsmith
06-30-2009, 04:16 PM
No insurance policy but if we believe in Evolution then our faith in God and faith in Creation is useless. God said he created the earth in 7 days, he created the earth in 7 days. When he said every creature after his own kind, he meant every creature after his own kind. I can't understand why this is so hard to believe. Just like you can't understand why we don't believe in Evolution. It takes more faith to believe your way than our way. Sorry, if I confused you on the gambling thing but I'm not going to gamble with my faith and it seems the evolution belief is a big gamble.

YardleyLabs
06-30-2009, 04:31 PM
Apples to Oranges. God created the reproductive system, apparently you call god "nature." The odds of reproduction are actually quite good. Without birth control every single person, short of those who are injured would reproduce with regular sexual intercourse. Millions of sperm and all it takes is one getting to the egg. The odds of pregnancy are pretty good.

/Paul

I didn't say the odds of reproduction, I said the odds of creating any specific individual -- that is, what are the odds of creating a being with exactly your genetic makeup? As small as they are, it happened. So did evolution. You are looking at a specific result and saying that it is mathematically impossible. Evolution didn't care about the specific result, only survival. That we, as a species and as individuals are the product, is simply a matter of chance. Is there a deity that had a hand in shaping that chance? I personally do not believe so, but I also don't care. The existence of a deity doesn't increase or decrease my wonder at the miracle of life, nor change my view of morality. I do not believe in a deity that cares whether or not it is worshiped. Does an artist ask the painting to give prayers of thanks?

dnf777
06-30-2009, 04:43 PM
No insurance policy but if we believe in Evolution then our faith in God and faith in Creation is useless.

I beg to differ. Maybe some just have a deeper understanding of how God worked his miracles and choose to seek that out....while others believe the "easier faith" of how man passed down the stories for thousands of years.

I believe evolution occurs because it is all around us, just in a time scale that many people can't comprehend. THAT, I believe is the true miracles of God. And to say MY faith in God is useless is kind of insulting, don't you think?

When did you give up the flat earth notion? The church hanged people for arguing the earth was round. What happened that made devout religious types accept that little tid-bit of scientific discovery? It plays out each time science unravels another mystery. Science is not some evil being, that is anti-God. It is a process of trying to understand the ways in which God works, if you will. That's my take. There are roughly 599,999,999,999 other opinions, and I'm not sure any of them have the right to say the others are "useless".

cotts135
06-30-2009, 04:56 PM
And yet you can't find one example that proves evolution. Supporting a theory is not proof.

/Paul

What was quoted in your previous post was that there were no transitional fossils and that there never will be. . I then provided an example that I believe disproves that statement.
Technically you are right when you say "supporting a theory is not proof "however I think you have a misunderstanding of what a theory is when taken in a scientific text. Maybe this will help .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

One other thing, where is your proof? Criticizing the methods of scientists does not prove your belief.

kimsmith
06-30-2009, 05:15 PM
I didn't say your faith is useless, I said my faith would be useless if everything wasn't created the way the bible describes. If we didn't believe the bible to be the word of God then how could we have the faith we have. We have faith that whats written in the bible is written by God through men. I don't know how old the earth is and it doesn't matter, but I do know when man and animals started they didn't change from one form to another form. They have found bones that suggest that people and animals were larger many years ago. If evolution was true then we should be evolving into something better, not worse.

Why would anyone that doesn't want to believe in God and what the bible states, bring up wars that were caused by religion. Does this make you feel better inside to know you don't want to be part of a Religion that has fought for what they believed in. I guess we in America were wrong flighting the last 4 or 5 wars because we were flighting for freedom.

YardleyLabs
06-30-2009, 05:36 PM
The whole concept of a transition fossil is interesting. What is the transition between the chihuahua and the mastiff?. The answer, of course, is that there isn't one and yet they are both dogs, and descendants of the gray wolf of 15000 or more years ago. The wolf, in turn, appears to have evolved more than 50 million years ago from the miacid which bears more of a resemblance to rodents than to wolves. At any stage in evolution, a being is what it is. It is not a transition from one thing to another. It is itself. And their children are themselves, but genetically a little different, and their children, and their children......

Cody Covey
06-30-2009, 05:55 PM
I didn't say your faith is useless, I said my faith would be useless if everything wasn't created the way the bible describes. If we didn't believe the bible to be the word of God then how could we have the faith we have. We have faith that whats written in the bible is written by God through men. I don't know how old the earth is and it doesn't matter, but I do know when man and animals started they didn't change from one form to another form. They have found bones that suggest that people and animals were larger many years ago. If evolution was true then we should be evolving into something better, not worse.

Why would anyone that doesn't want to believe in God and what the bible states, bring up wars that were caused by religion. Does this make you feel better inside to know you don't want to be part of a Religion that has fought for what they believed in. I guess we in America were wrong flighting the last 4 or 5 wars because we were flighting for freedom.Not really true. Evolution doesn't state things must change for the better just that they change. The things that make us worse usually die out which is why most people think that evolution is only to make something better. It isn't, just different. Also people were never larger to my knowledge. neanderthals were but we are not related to them only a common anscetor as far as evolution goes. Although then again they are saying we may have interbred and someone produce viable offspring which i don't really understand but its a new thoery and i haven't looked into it much

Franco
06-30-2009, 07:23 PM
neanderthals were but we are not related to them only a common anscetor as far as evolution goes. Although then again they are saying we may have interbred and someone produce viable offspring which i don't really understand but its a new thoery and i haven't looked into it much

One of my favorite TV shows is, The Naked Archeoligist. In one episode he met with another archeoligist that had discovered remains of half-neanderthals and half-homosapien in the mideast.

dnf777
06-30-2009, 08:44 PM
Why would anyone that doesn't want to believe in God and what the bible states, bring up wars that were caused by religion. Does this make you feel better inside to know you don't want to be part of a Religion that has fought for what they believed in. I guess we in America were wrong flighting the last 4 or 5 wars because we were flighting for freedom.

I can just hear Osama bin Laden making that same plea to moderate muslims that wanted peace, and not to fly airplanes into buildings. That is religious extremism. My God doesn't tell me to start wars, shoot doctors in the head in church, or to ignore scientific progress.

As for being wrong for fighting for our freedom, that is different from fighting for religious ideals, and has nothing to do with this topic. And I haven't heard anyone argue against fighting for freedom.

I've lost count of the number of times its been mentioned that if you believe evolution that you mustn't believe in God. I've been told more things about myself and my beliefs that I never knew! Everybody seems to have their own religion, and anyone else who doesn't believe that SAME doctrines, is an athiest?? I guess that's why there's over 100 protestant religions in America alone, not to mention the other major religions.

Nobody answered the question of what finally convinced them that the earth is round. The Bible certainly doesn't state that, and religious men (inspired by God and Infallible) used to say the Earth is flat. What changed them? Not those athiest scientists who plant phony satellite images??

I know I'm not going to educate anyone of the principles of evolution or science, but I am truly curious as to why any scientific progress is held as athiest, and what finally brings about acceptance.

mjh345
06-30-2009, 09:11 PM
Some of the people making posts on this thread must have fossilized brains!!

Cody Covey
06-30-2009, 10:24 PM
Some of the people making posts on this thread must have fossilized brains!!

please elaborate?!

JDogger
06-30-2009, 10:37 PM
You know...that was my thought as well.

cryptic comment regards,

JD

kimsmith
06-30-2009, 11:44 PM
DNF Bin Laden probably feels he is fighting for his freedom, he just pick the wrong country to mess with. Why is it when a war is fought it is because of religion. Christ taught to turn away from flighting and pray for your enemy.

I know I can never change your mind about evolution and you can't change my mind about creation. In the end we will understand how everything was created. Our minds are not capable of understanding how God created everything. He has always been and will always be. It's an interesting subject to me because I can't understand how people can believe that we started out as micro organisms. What about Christian Scientist who agree with Biblical principles and they use science to prove that evolution is false.




As for being wrong for fighting for our freedom, that is different from fighting for religious ideals, and has nothing to do with this topic. And I haven't heard anyone argue against fighting for freedom.



There have been many post that stated wars were fought because of religion. Just because we in America fight because of freedom doesn't mean that everyone else is flighting because of religion. Why did we fight to start this country?


Nobody answered the question of what finally convinced them that the earth is round.

Could you give me the scientist name who come up with the earth being round. Are you sure it was a religious person who figured it out after watching ships travel to sea and they disappeared.



I've lost count of the number of times its been mentioned that if you believe evolution that you mustn't believe in God.


The problem with believing in God and evolution is everything in Genesis is false and if it's false then the rest of the bible has to be false also. Didn't you or someone else mention above that the bible was just story's handed down from generation to generation. If the bible isn't the word of God then everything we believe is false.



I am truly curious as to why any scientific progress is held as atheist, and what finally brings about acceptance.


Because evolution is the only thing taught in schools today. Creation is never mentioned or will ever be mentioned again in our schools. We don't let our kids decided today what they want to believe, evolution is the only way. Look at the everything that has happened since evolution is the only thing taught in schools. Values are a thing of the past. Another thing I can't understand is why the Ten Commandments are so bad.

kimsmith
06-30-2009, 11:47 PM
Another thing why is it when 1 bad so called Christian does a bad thing every Christians gets the blame. We have idiots in every religion and we have idiots that are not religious at all.

Cody Covey
07-01-2009, 12:06 AM
Genesis doesn't have to be false if you believe in science...te literal translation yes but a lot of the bible is metaphor why not that part?

Pete
07-01-2009, 01:22 AM
(flat earth, geocentric universe, etc...)


Can you give me chapter and verse on that. If not I will know your pulling stuff out of your head and making things up as you go along.

Its really easy to take a word out of the bible and build a religion around it. Just as you have built religion on evolution. Show me biblically how you come up with your views on what the bible says about evolution or creation and maby I will take you more seriously.:D

To me you sound like the dog trainer that has read all the books but hasn't finished training his first dog. You throw alot of "the bible says this or that "but have yet given any chapter or verse,,or origin ,,customs, hebrew idiums .orientalisms,,scripture build up,, or anything related to researching the origin of man and his world using biblical interpretation.

You haven't even given us one casel study o the subject of evolution to verify how wrong the bible is.



Pete

dnf777
07-01-2009, 05:57 AM
Can you give me chapter and verse on that. If not I will know your pulling stuff out of your head and making things up as you go along.

Its really easy to take a word out of the bible and build a religion around it. Just as you have built religion on evolution. Show me biblically how you come up with your views on what the bible says about evolution or creation and maby I will take you more seriously.:D

To me you sound like the dog trainer that has read all the books but hasn't finished training his first dog. You throw alot of "the bible says this or that "but have yet given any chapter or verse,,or origin ,,customs, hebrew idiums .orientalisms,,scripture build up,, or anything related to researching the origin of man and his world using biblical interpretation.

You haven't even given us one casel study o the subject of evolution to verify how wrong the bible is.



Pete

Pete,
First, I'm not a biblical scholar. I'm going on common knowledge of history. Second, I'm not trying to convert anyone to modern thinking. People may believe as they may...that's what's great about this country.

Kim,
They don't teach creation in schools, and they don't teach evolution in church. At least not the one I go to. Way it should be. Parents and kids can make up their own mind. I suspect many religious fanatics home school anyway to shield their kids from modern thinking, so that shouldn't be an issue.

I still don't understand our disagreement on fighting wars for freedom. If you think you're getting an argument from me (or anyone else for that matter) you're wrong. I pointed out that many wars HAVE been fought for religious purposes. If you want (need) examples, I don't have time to spoon-feed chapter and text from any history book.

It was astronomers who argued for a round earth. It was Copernicus who argued for the earth revolving around sun. All were ridiculed or worse by the current reigning church. I still wonder when the church and it's literal followers caved in and admitted the earth was round? Why to this day do they just not dismiss satellite images as hoaxes or bogus science, like the fossil record and geostrata and carbon dating?

kimsmith
07-01-2009, 06:34 AM
Pete,
First, I'm not a biblical scholar.


Anyone can understand the bible, that's what great about Gods word. If you are not a biblical scholar how can you argue against Creation. You say we are Flatt earthers because science was the only way that people understood that the earth was round, but you only know enough about the bible to confuse everything with hate and war.



Pete,
First, I'm not a biblical scholar. I'm going on common knowledge of history


You know that's funny because History is something handed down from generation to generation. There is nothing in the history books that were written by Gods hand, but you don't have any problems believing everything in history books.



Kim,
They don't teach creation in schools, and they don't teach evolution in church.


Majority of our kids go to public schools and learn that we evolved from Micro organisms. You like history, check out what happened when we took God out of Schools. Don't get me wrong Man has always been sinfully and will always be. What was wrong with Thou shalt not Kill, Thou Shalt not steal, Honour thy father and mother, etc.



Second, I'm not trying to convert anyone to modern thinking.


So if we believe in Creation we are not modern but Flatt earthers. Why are you labeling us as Christians that don't believe in Evolution non modern thinkers. I would say the bible is the oldest history book of all and it was written by the creator.

dnf777
07-01-2009, 06:47 AM
Anyone can understand the bible, that's what great about Gods word. If you are not a biblical scholar how can you argue against Creation. You say we are Flatt earthers because science was the only way that people understood that the earth was round, but you only know enough about the bible to confuse everything with hate and war.



You know that's funny because History is something handed down from generation to generation. There is nothing in the history books that were written by Gods hand, but you don't have any problems believing everything in history books.



Majority of our kids go to public schools and learn that we evolved from Micro organisms. You like history, check out what happened when we took God out of Schools. Don't get me wrong Man has always been sinfully and will always be. What was wrong with Thou shalt not Kill, Thou Shalt not steal, Honour thy father and mother, etc.



So if we believe in Creation we are not modern but Flatt earthers. Why are you labeling us as Christians that don't believe in Evolution non modern thinkers. I would say the bible is the oldest history book of all and it was written by the creator.

I can't argue with that. I can't argue with "God said so". One final question though....why are there so many different versions of the Bible if it was inspired by God as the ONE TRUE word? Why were so many testaments chosen to be left out of the Bible by the church? Was the decision to omit all books that gave women some modicum of equality made by church elders voting in council, or was that God's divine will also? I'll bow out now, as this discussion has no logical conclusion, othe than we agree to disagree. I'll keep checking to see if any answers to my last question appear. (what convinced the church to accept round earth....then or now)

Hew
07-01-2009, 07:30 AM
I'll keep checking to see if any answers to my last question appear. (what convinced the church to accept round earth....then or now)
You're going to be waiting a long time, as the premise of your question is bogus and based upon a myth: the commonly parrotted myth that organized religion knuckler draggers were fighting tooth and nail against the scientific world as the heroic scientists risked their lives to bring enlightenment to the world about a round Earth. Not so much. There's even a wiki link to the myth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_mythology

Pete
07-01-2009, 07:35 AM
can't argue with that. I can't argue with "God said so". One final question though....why are there so many different versions of the Bible if it was inspired by God as the ONE TRUE word? Why were so many testaments chosen to be left out of the Bible by the church? Was the decision to omit all books that gave women some modicum of equality made by church elders voting in council, or was that God's divine will also? I'll bow out now, as this discussion has no logical conclusion, othe than we agree to disagree. I'll keep checking to see if any answers to my last question appear. (what convinced the church to accept round earth....then or now) Today 10:34 AM

Thats a good and honest question,,, this might help


II Pete 2
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

I would believe that no one has the right to give their interpretation.
So either the word interprets itself
or there is no interpretation and God is a nillie willie.

When someone writes a will do they write it so it can be interpreted by every tom dick and harry.
No they are specific right?


I think some people do the best they can when trying to understand the bible and there are those that have purposely distorted the trueth,, kind of like what our polititians do:)

That why there is a great need for researching out stuff.
It also gives depth to what your doing.

Pete

dnf777
07-01-2009, 08:51 AM
To all who entered this fracus...I have enjoyed the bantering, heated at moments, but hopefully no hard feelings anywhere.

I want to stick to the dog training threads, but this is like a bad wreck you pass on the road....can't help but keep looking!

Cheers to all, and if we meet on the trial field, let's keep it for the dogs!

And I do hope to meet all...

dave

Pete
07-01-2009, 08:56 AM
To all who entered this fracus...I have enjoyed the bantering, heated at moments, but hopefully no hard feelings anywhere.

I want to stick to the dog training threads, but this is like a bad wreck you pass on the road....can't help but keep looking!



Your not gonna be a party pooper are ya?

Franco
07-01-2009, 09:57 AM
So if we believe in Creation we are not modern but Flatt earthers. Why are you labeling us as Christians that don't believe in Evolution non modern thinkers. I would say the bible is the oldest history book of all and it was written by the creator.

The biggest obsticle Conservative Politics has to overcome are statements like this. If anyone has ever wondered why the Liberals have been winning, why southerners are consider dumb and we have Obama as our President, here it is folks.

Gun_Dog2002
07-01-2009, 10:38 AM
Pete,
First, I'm not a biblical scholar. I'm going on common knowledge of history. Second, I'm not trying to convert anyone to modern thinking. People may believe as they may...that's what's great about this country.

Kim,
They don't teach creation in schools, and they don't teach evolution in church. At least not the one I go to. Way it should be. Parents and kids can make up their own mind. I suspect many religious fanatics home school anyway to shield their kids from modern thinking, so that shouldn't be an issue.

I still don't understand our disagreement on fighting wars for freedom. If you think you're getting an argument from me (or anyone else for that matter) you're wrong. I pointed out that many wars HAVE been fought for religious purposes. If you want (need) examples, I don't have time to spoon-feed chapter and text from any history book.

It was astronomers who argued for a round earth. It was Copernicus who argued for the earth revolving around sun. All were ridiculed or worse by the current reigning church. I still wonder when the church and it's literal followers caved in and admitted the earth was round? Why to this day do they just not dismiss satellite images as hoaxes or bogus science, like the fossil record and geostrata and carbon dating?

Before you discount the biblical record you should perhaps research it....


Is it proper to use Isaiah 40:22 to prove that the Bible teaches that the earth is round, Isaiah’s words being written at a time when men thought the earth was flat? Some have expressed the thought that the word "circle" could refer to something circular but flat.—J. L., Denmark.


Isaiah 40:22 reads: "There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth." When this text says that God sits above the circle of the earth, this harmonizes with the fact that the earth is circular, viewed from all directions, but that also makes it globular in form. The Hebrew word hhug here is defined in A Concordance of the Hebrew and Chaldee Scriptures by B. Davidson as "circle, sphere."

This same Hebrew word for circle is found in Job 22:14, where the New World Translation says of God: "On the vault of heaven he walks about." Now, we know that the vault of heaven as seen from the earth is hemispherical, or like a half globe. The other half of the hemispherical vault of heaven extends below the earth upon which we stand and hence cannot be seen directly by us. In harmony with this fact, when Isaiah 40:22 says that God sits above the circle of the earth, then the word "circle" here is in the same Hebrew sense as that found in Job 22:14.
Thus it follows that the word "circle" in Isaiah 40:22 must mean something that is rotund, just as the appearance of the sky viewed from the earth is rotund and like a vault.



/Paul

kimsmith
07-01-2009, 10:39 AM
DNF I don't see anyone getting upset about this discussion and I hope no one does. We all believe the way we believe and I have faith in what I believe is right.

Franco, I'm not liberal and I'm not the president so you must be calling me the dumb southerner. Thanks and if believing in Creation is consider dumb then I'm the dumbest of all. I've made a lot of money with Gods blessing being dumb and with Gods blessing I hope to enjoy the rest of the time I have left here on this earth. We are not promised another day so enjoy today and thank God for the day you have. If I misspelled some words or the language isn't to your level sorry I couldn't hear as a child and I didn't pick up some of the sounds needed. I've got a small handicap but it's never stopped me in life.



The biggest obsticle Conservative Politics has to overcome are statements like this


Please explain..........

zeus3925
07-01-2009, 11:20 AM
I would say the bible is the oldest history book of all and it was written by the creator.

What source indicates the Bible was written by the Creator?

If the Earth is created by the creator, is it not a direct work of the creator? If the earth is a direct creation of the creator, is it not equal or superior in status to scripture, which went through a scribe as an intermediary in the process?

If the Creator left a fossil record in the process of the creation, is it not akin to a sculptor leaving tool marks behind in his creation? If scientist as honest and learned men read the evidence in the fossil record and then see the process of creation as evolutionary, there is nothing destructive to religion in that finding. It does not in itself deny the existence of a creator.

When all is said and done, there, most likely, have been more scientists that have read scripture than priests, scribes and Baptist ministers may have scrutinized the fossil record.

Franco
07-01-2009, 11:26 AM
Please explain..........




Over the last 30 years, religion was worked its way into Conservative politics. Traditional Conservative politics does not consider religion in politics but rather religion as a private matter.

In much of the states with higher educational levels, they understand the short-comings of southern Christian dogmas of the numerous sects. They put more faith in what is real as opposed to what ancient man thought to be reality.

Homosapien has been around for 35,000 years. They only learned to write over the last 3,000 years which is when most religions have their origins. Most of the pagan gods were tied in with the earth i.e. sun god, god of fire, god of the ocean etc. They saw a more direct relationship between their world and a greater power. Then, when they began to write their thoughts, it became religion. People bought into their writings and began to ignore the realities of the world.

I think we have come full-circle and realizing that what man thought two and three thousand years ago is not accurate in regards to our origins. And, as we learn more of our universe, we will learn more of our being.

I was born and educated in the south. But, I also realize that southern religions have stood in the way of our progress. This is a topic I could go on and on about but, I have some other work to do today. I’ll be back later.

Franco
07-01-2009, 11:34 AM
If the Earth is created by the creator, is it not a direct work of the creator? If the earth is a direct creation of the creator, is it not equal or superior in status to scripture, which went through an scribe as an intermediary in the process?

.

And, those scribes wrote what they thought and what fit thier aganda. That is why there is little reality in those writitngs because man's grasp of his origins was very limited.

kimsmith
07-01-2009, 11:50 AM
Franco I'm one of those conservatives that you are talking about. Would be want us to switch to the other side. I'm sorry we vote using our religious background. Should we vote for someone that is against everything we are for. If that was the case then I guess I should have voted for Obama.

I'm sorry you feel the bible was written for their own agenda. What agenda would that be, please be good because if you're not you will go to the bad place. I wished it was that easy to help people be good, but it just doesn't work that way.



Homosapien has been around for 35,000 years



What were Homospiens before that, can you prove 100% that homosapien started 35,000 years ago. What if another scientist come up and said we started 6000 to 10,000 years ago. Is the reason some believe this is because we are taught at a young age in school that evolution is the only way.

kimsmith
07-01-2009, 11:51 AM
What source indicates the Bible was written by the Creator


The bible.......

Gun_Dog2002
07-01-2009, 11:56 AM
And, those scribes wrote what they thought and what fit their agenda. That is why there is little reality in those writings because man's grasp of his origins was very limited.

Really? Then riddle me this one batman? How can a book written over a thousand year time period by 40 different writers consistently carry the same theme from beginning to end if it met some mans agenda? As well, you find that in historical writings that the leaders had their failures covered up in writing, while the bible openly has them recorded? There is only one way this could happen....

(2 Timothy 3:16) All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness,


/paul

K.Bullock
07-01-2009, 12:18 PM
Over the last 30 years, religion was worked its way into Conservative politics. Traditional Conservative politics does not consider religion in politics but rather religion as a private matter.

In much of the states with higher educational levels, they understand the short-comings of southern Christian dogmas of the numerous sects. They put more faith in what is real as opposed to what ancient man thought to be reality.

Homosapien has been around for 35,000 years. They only learned to write over the last 3,000 years which is when most religions have their origins. Most of the pagan gods were tied in with the earth i.e. sun god, god of fire, god of the ocean etc. They saw a more direct relationship between their world and a greater power. Then, when they began to write their thoughts, it became religion. People bought into their writings and began to ignore the realities of the world.

I think we have come full-circle and realizing that what man thought two and three thousand years ago is not accurate in regards to our origins. And, as we learn more of our universe, we will learn more of our being.

I was born and educated in the south. But, I also realize that southern religions have stood in the way of our progress. This is a topic I could go on and on about but, I have some other work to do today. I’ll be back later.

30 years? Your talking as if you have done some thinking and research on the subject. The substance of your posts however show how very little research and thought have gone into your understanding of religion.

Exactly what southern Christian dogmas of which Christian sects are you talking about?

Please do go on and on ...it is kinda comical in a strange way. Sorry but I can only stand so much.;)

brian breuer
07-01-2009, 12:52 PM
30 years? Your talking as if you have done some thinking and research on the subject. The substance of your posts however show how very little research and thought have gone into your understanding of religion.

Exactly what southern Christian dogmas of which Christian sects are you talking about?

Please do go on and on ...it is kinda comical in a strange way. Sorry but I can only stand so much.;)

I'll put my 2 cents in as I think I am one of those that Franco is refering to.

I believe Franco is more critical of politics for letting religion factor into it rather than critical of religion. I believe I am considered a left winger by many of this board but would consider myself somewhat of a liberitarian. Just enough government to make things function and certainly not telling me how I need to live.

I don't want my politicians spouting religion. Run on the issues and your beliefs of how the country should be run. Be respectful of others beliefs even though they may be different.

I may be on a rocket sled to hades but I don't like people shoving religion down my throat and I've found many others don't either. It's a very personal thing for me and I don't care to discuss if I've found Jesus with complete strangers.

This uncomfortableness is what I believe Franco is refering to.

Franco
07-01-2009, 01:55 PM
I'll put my 2 cents in as I think I am one of those that Franco is refering to.

I believe Franco is more critical of politics for letting religion factor into it rather than critical of religion. I believe I am considered a left winger by many of this board but would consider myself somewhat of a liberitarian. Just enough government to make things function and certainly not telling me how I need to live.

I don't want my politicians spouting religion. Run on the issues and your beliefs of how the country should be run. Be respectful of others beliefs even though they may be different.

I may be on a rocket sled to hades but I don't like people shoving religion down my throat and I've found many others don't either. It's a very personal thing for me and I don't care to discuss if I've found Jesus with complete strangers.

This uncomfortableness is what I believe Franco is refering to.

That is a big part of it.

We didn't start hearing about Family Values until about 30 years ago. That is when religion really started working its way into the Republican platform and why so many have left that party, me included (after Bush43, I now consider myself an Independent).

Not that both parties didn't have some ties to various religious sects. However, the Evangelicals really got thier claws into the Republicans and the party hasn't been the same since. Though we have had as many sexual scandels in both parties, it is the Republicans that are labled hipocritics because of that relationship.

Remember, traditional Conservatism has absolutley nothing to do with religion but more how we view governments role in our society.

All one has to do is look at Iran, Saudi Arabia or a handful of other coutries to understand why it is so very important in keeping religious influences out of our government. Because it we didn't, there would be fewer advancements in medicine, aerospace and many of the sciences that have made our standard of living the highest in the world.

The fact that many still consider evolution as blasphemy is something I would expect from an Islamic Mullah and not a free and educated people.

I'll add again that I respect everyone's liberty to believe in what they do, not matter which religion. Just don't tell me that I have to believe in it too.

Pete
07-01-2009, 02:31 PM
Excelent post Paul
I just had a half hour of stuff erased



Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

Not bad for a guy without a satilite image and a couple of rolled up scrolls in his back pocket

Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

Pete

PS it was the dark ages that brough about the loss of light .

kimsmith
07-01-2009, 02:37 PM
I'll add again that I respect everyone's liberty to believe in what they do, not matter which religion. Just don't tell me that I have to believe in it too.


Isn't that a 2 way street. We are consider dumb southerners if we believe in Creation, I believe you stated above.



We didn't start hearing about Family Values until about 30 years ago.


Whats wrong with family values?



I may be on a rocket sled to hades but I don't like people shoving religion down my throat and I've found many others don't either. It's a very personal thing for me and I don't care to discuss if I've found Jesus with complete strangers.



You can't find Jesus, he has to find you and you have to be willing to received him. No one on this thread has tried to shove religion down anyones throat. Why are we so bad to believe in a higher power.



Conservative politics


Franco since you know more about politics than I, please enlighten me with what conservative politics is about.



Though we have had as many sexual scandals in both parties, it is the Republicans that are labeled hypocritical because of that relationship.



We are all humans and make mistakes even if we do call ourselves Christians. No one is without sin and no one is perfect. I always like the George Jones song, The only difference between Sinners and Saints is one is forgiving and the other one ain't.

Since y'all know so much about history, what was our country founded on? Why does our dollar have In God We Trust. Can someone tell me the document that has separation of church and state?

zeus3925
07-01-2009, 02:51 PM
The bible.......

Yep, Kimsmith, just what I expected the answer would be. The same goes for the Koran and the Book of Mormons?

brian breuer
07-01-2009, 03:10 PM
You can't find Jesus, he has to find you and you have to be willing to received him. No one on this thread has tried to shove religion down anyones throat. Why are we so bad to believe in a higher power.




We are all humans and make mistakes even if we do call ourselves Christians. No one is without sin and no one is perfect. I always like the George Jones song, The only difference between Sinners and Saints is one is forgiving and the other one ain't.



I must've run into a bunch of bad evangelicals, I've been asked that question numerous times. I never said anyone on this thread was shoving religion but when evangelicals mix with politicians the religious shoving turns into bad legislation. Nothing is wrong with believing in a higher power. I believe it is best kept out of politics.

As far as we are all sinners, yes absolutely. But it is human nature to be less tolerant to another's failure when they've been preaching at you not to do what they just did. Do as I say, not as I do never really goes over well. Conversely, the guy who never held himself up as a pillar of values and makes a mistake, the public is much more likely to accept his apology and move on.

dnf777
07-01-2009, 03:22 PM
That is a big part of it.

We didn't start hearing about Family Values until about 30 years ago. That is when religion really started working its way into the Republican platform and why so many have left that party, me included (after Bush43, I now consider myself an Independent).

Not that both parties didn't have some ties to various religious sects. However, the Evangelicals really got thier claws into the Republicans and the party hasn't been the same since. Though we have had as many sexual scandels in both parties, it is the Republicans that are labled hipocritics because of that relationship.

Remember, traditional Conservatism has absolutley nothing to do with religion but more how we view governments role in our society.

All one has to do is look at Iran, Saudi Arabia or a handful of other coutries to understand why it is so very important in keeping religious influences out of our government. Because it we didn't, there would be fewer advancements in medicine, aerospace and many of the sciences that have made our standard of living the highest in the world.

The fact that many still consider evolution as blasphemy is something I would expect from an Islamic Mullah and not a free and educated people.

I'll add again that I respect everyone's liberty to believe in what they do, not matter which religion. Just don't tell me that I have to believe in it too.

Beautifully stated.

I totally agree with the founding fathers, who carefully worded our democratic instruction manual as to not discriminate or prohibit freedom of religion, but very carefully avoided endorsing or engendering any religion. Someone mentioned to look at what happened when we took religion out of schools......we had the age of enlightenment! I say look at what happens in countries where they teach religion in schools and gov'ts rule by it....you have kids blowing themselves up, you have adults flying airplanes into buildings, you have women banned from driving, let alone showing their faces in public! Only the secular progressive populations in the middle east are making progress. See Iran lately? It's the cleric rulers that are threatening to kill protestors. I'm in no way equating Christians in this country with muslim clerics, but you will hear the same reasoning behind some of the actions. (shooting people in the head at church, blowing up clinics, bombing olympic parks) We just gotta be careful how much we let our beliefs justify our actions.

Franco
07-01-2009, 03:25 PM
Isn't that a 2 way street. We are consider dumb southerners if we believe in Creation, I believe you stated above.

I believe in your right to do so not matter how dumb or smart.

Whats wrong with family values?

It doesn't belong in government.



You can't find Jesus, he has to find you and you have to be willing to received him. No one on this thread has tried to shove religion down anyones throat. Why are we so bad to believe in a higher power.

I beleive in a higher power, never said I didn't. I think that higher power is more energy than spiritual.



Franco since you know more about politics than I, please enlighten me with what conservative politics is about.

Small government, fiscally responsibe, protect the Constitution and the citizens and provide the infastructure for commerce, PERIOD.



We are all humans and make mistakes even if we do call ourselves Christians. No one is without sin and no one is perfect. I always like the George Jones song, The only difference between Sinners and Saints is one is forgiving and the other one ain't.

I like the John Lennon verse better: Imagine no more religion.

Since y'all know so much about history, what was our country founded on? Why does our dollar have In God We Trust. Can someone tell me the document that has separation of church and state?

Our country was founded and framed by Diest. They were a part of the Enlightment or Illuminati. Basically, today they would be called Agnostic.

In God We Trust didn't appear on our currency until 1864! By then, our enlightened leaders were mostly all gone and the Damnest took over.

K.Bullock
07-01-2009, 03:47 PM
Our country was founded and framed by Diest. They were a part of the Enlightment or Illuminati. Basically, today they would be called Agnostic.

In God We Trust didn't appear on our currency until 1864! By then, our enlightened leaders were mostly all gone and the Damnest took over.
Seriously? where did your Deists attend church and what were the creeds of the churches they attended state? It is pretty well documented that most of the founding Fathers served in leadership positions in Christian churches. The church that George Washington served as a board member was one that recently broke off from the liberal ECUSA.

I have heard the deist spiel stated before by someone who probably visited the same agnostic web-site. Facts are facts even if they don't support what you think ought to be.

Cody Covey
07-01-2009, 03:48 PM
Our country was founded and framed by Diest. They were a part of the Enlightment or Illuminati. Basically, today they would be called Agnostic.

In God We Trust didn't appear on our currency until 1864! By then, our enlightened leaders were mostly all gone and the Damnest took over. Franco you know thats not true and now Keith is going to post for the next 6 pages all the quotes proving you that they did believe in god haha.

Franco
07-01-2009, 03:52 PM
Seriously? where did your Deists attend church and what were the creeds of the churches they attended state? It is pretty well documented that most of the founding Fathers served in leadership positions in Christian churches. The church that George Washington served as a board member was one that recently broke off from the liberal ECUSA.

I have heard the deist spiel stated before by someone who probably visited the same agnostic web-site. Facts are facts even if they don't support what you think ought to be.

Y'all tell me if this is an Agnostic website?;-)

http://www.sullivan-county.com/id3/jefferson_deist.htm

Franco
07-01-2009, 03:56 PM
Franco you know thats not true and now Keith is going to post for the next 6 pages all the quotes proving you that they did believe in god haha.

The devil made we do it!;-)

Flip Wilson 1960's

K.Bullock
07-01-2009, 04:08 PM
Beautifully stated.

I totally agree with the founding fathers, who carefully worded our democratic instruction manual as to not discriminate or prohibit freedom of religion, but very carefully avoided endorsing or engendering any religion. Someone mentioned to look at what happened when we took religion out of schools......we had the age of enlightenment! I say look at what happens in countries where they teach religion in schools and gov'ts rule by it....you have kids blowing themselves up, you have adults flying airplanes into buildings, you have women banned from driving, let alone showing their faces in public! Only the secular progressive populations in the middle east are making progress. See Iran lately? It's the cleric rulers that are threatening to kill protestors. I'm in no way equating Christians in this country with muslim clerics, but you will hear the same reasoning behind some of the actions. (shooting people in the head at church, blowing up clinics, bombing olympic parks) We just gotta be careful how much we let our beliefs justify our actions.

So your score is one for the wing nut anti abortionist ....how many did the good doctor kill, was he a Christian?

Funny, it would seem the kids graduating from Christian schools that I am aware of have not blown anybody up ....except for the ones serving their country with honor in the armed forces.

K.Bullock
07-01-2009, 04:13 PM
Y'all tell me if this is an Agnostic website?;-)

http://www.sullivan-county.com/id3/jefferson_deist.htm

ROFL!!! Well this is the Bio for the creator of the page you linked to:

http://www.sullivan-county.com/main.htm




Hello, my name is Lewis Loflin. I'm a 51-year-old veteran of the US Army and have been married for 23 years. I'm a small property owner, taxpayer, gun owner, and I even have a dog and several cats. I support America and our system of democracy, religious and personal freedom, science, secular government. I'm also political independent and my hobbies are electronics, history, and religion. I'm a classical Deist/Unitarian.

I put in bold and underlined the important part. ;) LOL!!!

dnf777
07-01-2009, 04:31 PM
So your score is one for the wing nut anti abortionist ....how many did the good doctor kill, was he a Christian?

Funny, it would seem the kids graduating from Christian schools that I am aware of have not blown anybody up ....except for the ones serving their country with honor in the armed forces.

I believe I explicitly stated I was not making that comparison, but you did anyway. The only comparison I made was that religious fanatics, whatever flavor, will often use God as an excuse to act in ways exactly opposite of what any peaceful God would suggest. I gave a few examples of why I think its dangerous to allow religion to justify extreme behavior.

As for whether or not the doctor was Christian, only he and God can answer that. I know that according to the laws that our democratically elected officials and duly appointed supreme court decisions, he was not a criminal, and was not offered due process of law before being deprived of his life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Nor were his wife and children. Whether or not you believe abortion is legal, ethical, or moral according to God's law, I am shocked to hear anyone condone his murder. Next we'll be murdering fossil hunters because they're heretics worthy of a headshot?

Sorry, that's a little rhetorical, but I had to tie this back into fossil hunting, afterall. :p

kimsmith
07-01-2009, 04:33 PM
Sorry but true Christians don't blow up doctors, church leaders, they are wackos. You can't lump Christianity with those idiots. Islams teaches killing anyone that doesn't have there belief. You will not find that in the new testament teachings. True Christians are suppose to love their enemy and neighbor above themselves.

Man you must have a big problem with Christians and religion.

K.Bullock
07-01-2009, 04:41 PM
I believe I explicitly stated I was not making that comparison, but you did anyway. The only comparison I made was that religious fanatics, whatever flavor, will often use God as an excuse to act in ways exactly opposite of what any peaceful God would suggest. I gave a few examples of why I think its dangerous to allow religion to justify extreme behavior.

As for whether or not the doctor was Christian, only he and God can answer that. I know that according to the laws that our democratically elected officials and duly appointed supreme court decisions, he was not a criminal, and was not offered due process of law before being deprived of his life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Nor were his wife and children. Whether or not you believe abortion is legal, ethical, or moral according to God's law, I am shocked to hear anyone condone his murder. Next we'll be murdering fossil hunters because they're heretics worthy of a headshot?

Sorry, that's a little rhetorical, but I had to tie this back into fossil hunting, afterall. :p

Yes you explicitly stated that ...and then you did. ;) read your post. For the record no, I don't believe shooting the doctor to be justified, whether it is legal or illegal. If the state said it was ok to shoot abortion doctors I would oppose it. A life is a life, I don't need a judiciary to explain that to me, that is why I don't condone killing babies or fossil hunters.

kimsmith
07-01-2009, 05:59 PM
I have few question about science. Is science about facts or is it about theory's? Is evolution fact or is it a theory? Is creation fact or is it a theory? If a scientists come up with a theory is it science or is it still a theory. If the ancient people were not smart how did the Egyptians built the pyramids and other ancient wonders? I would say they were pretty intelligent to build something without the modern technology we have today. When I was in school we had to prove our science project, but I guess we don't have to prove anything anymore to be science.......

dnf777
07-01-2009, 06:06 PM
Sorry but true Christians don't blow up doctors, church leaders, they are wackos. You can't lump Christianity with those idiots. Islams teaches killing anyone that doesn't have there belief. You will not find that in the new testament teachings. True Christians are suppose to love their enemy and neighbor above themselves.

Man you must have a big problem with Christians and religion.

I have a big problem with some of the things that ALL religions have done in the "name of God". Christians, Jews, Muslims...you name it, have all committed horrible acts of violence against other religious groups in the name of their God. I believe in God, and people's right to worship however they want...but when they band together, for political, power, and business related objectives, and start trying to impose their way of worshipping on others, you're right. I do have a problem with that, whether it's Christianity or any other religious sect.

I've heard countless numbers of muslim clerics and heads of muslim-American organizations on the news talk shows after 9-11 saying exactly what you said about Christians. Denying that any true muslim would do such a thing. And now you say Islam teaches just that. (I happen to agree with you, but there are many peaceful, law-abiding Muslims who would argue strongly and cite the Qu'oran in favor of their point.)

And even if you don't agree with what that murdered did, as I'm sure most Christians don't, there's no denying he did what he did in the name of HIS God, and what he thought was God's will. He didn't concoct that up in his mind all by himself. That was a religious-motivated killing. And that's what I have a problem with, whether its one person with different views, or entire settlements or crusades against nations. I don't think that's what God wanted, but who am I to say?

zeus3925
07-01-2009, 06:10 PM
I have few question about science. Is science about facts or is it about theory's? Is evolution fact or is it a theory? Is creation fact or is it a theory? If a scientists come up with a theory is it science or is it still a theory. If the ancient people were not smart how did the Egyptians built the pyramids and other ancient wonders? I would say they were pretty intelligent to build something without the modern technology we have today. When I was in school we had to prove our science project, but I guess we don't have to prove anything anymore to be science.......

Do a search for the scientific method.

dnf777
07-01-2009, 06:14 PM
I have few question about science. Is science about facts or is it about theory's? Is evolution fact or is it a theory? Is creation fact or is it a theory? If a scientists come up with a theory is it science or is it still a theory. If the ancient people were not smart how did the Egyptians built the pyramids and other ancient wonders? I would say they were pretty intelligent to build something without the modern technology we have today. When I was in school we had to prove our science project, but I guess we don't have to prove anything anymore to be science.......

Like several have pointed out, there is fossil evidence that supports evolution as a viable theory. Some things, that occur over millions of years cannot be proven to the same standards as a baking soda volcano at a science fair! I've never actually touched the sun, so I guess it's only a theory that its hot. Good enough for me! The endless loop we get into, is that any scientific evidence in support of evolution is arbitrarily dismissed as bogus because "God said so" or there's a Biblical quote that contradicts it. I cannot argue with that, except maybe to say that God sent the Angel Moroni, Jesus Christ, and Mohammed and they all told me this afternoon while I was down at the barn, that evolution really occurred....end of argument. Nobody can argue with God's own prophets, right? He even sent all three major players, because he wasn't sure which testament I subscribe to. So there you have it. :eek:

Gun_Dog2002
07-01-2009, 06:27 PM
Like several have pointed out, there is fossil evidence that supports evolution as a viable theory. Some things, that occur over millions of years cannot be proven to the same standards as a baking soda volcano at a science fair! I've never actually touched the sun, so I guess it's only a theory that its hot. Good enough for me! The endless loop we get into, is that any scientific evidence in support of evolution is arbitrarily dismissed as bogus because "God said so" or there's a Biblical quote that contradicts it. I cannot argue with that, except maybe to say that God sent the Angel Moroni, Jesus Christ, and Mohammed and they all told me this afternoon while I was down at the barn, that evolution really occurred....end of argument. Nobody can argue with God's own prophets, right? He even sent all three major players, because he wasn't sure which testament I subscribe to. So there you have it. :eek:

Actually the fossil record does not prove evolution. It is used to support a theory, one that cannot be proved. Lets keep it in perspective shall we...

/Paul

kimsmith
07-01-2009, 06:39 PM
So just because you said your theory is right, we should believe you. When we say our theory is right then we are dumb southerners. Wow sounds like the only possibility is what you have to say. I thought only Christians were like that. How does fossil prove anything, but they died at one time or another. They have found fossil of humans that are 14 feet tall, fossil of salamanders 8 feet long so what does that prove. I have a theory that people and animals were larger before the flood, some biblical, some scientific. People also lived longer so something had to be different about our atmosphere. Now that is a Theory but can't be proving no more than your theory that we come from worms and apes.

Cody Covey
07-01-2009, 06:41 PM
not people. Neanderthals

K.Bullock
07-01-2009, 06:48 PM
I have a big problem with some of the things that ALL religions have done in the "name of God". Christians, Jews, Muslims...you name it, have all committed horrible acts of violence against other religious groups in the name of their God. I believe in God, and people's right to worship however they want...but when they band together, for political, power, and business related objectives, and start trying to impose their way of worshipping on others, you're right. I do have a problem with that, whether it's Christianity or any other religious sect.

I've heard countless numbers of muslim clerics and heads of muslim-American organizations on the news talk shows after 9-11 saying exactly what you said about Christians. Denying that any true muslim would do such a thing. And now you say Islam teaches just that. (I happen to agree with you, but there are many peaceful, law-abiding Muslims who would argue strongly and cite the Qu'oran in favor of their point.)

And even if you don't agree with what that murdered did, as I'm sure most Christians don't, there's no denying he did what he did in the name of HIS God, and what he thought was God's will. He didn't concoct that up in his mind all by himself. That was a religious-motivated killing. And that's what I have a problem with, whether its one person with different views, or entire settlements or crusades against nations. I don't think that's what God wanted, but who am I to say?
(Yawn) Who is this "they" besides strawmen concocted by people who hold a grudge against organized religion.

dnf777
07-01-2009, 06:54 PM
So just because you said your theory is right, we should believe you. When we say our theory is right then we are dumb southerners. Wow sounds like the only possibility is what you have to say. I thought only Christians were like that. How does fossil prove anything, but they died at one time or another. They have found fossil of humans that are 14 feet tall, fossil of salamanders 8 feet long so what does that prove. I have a theory that people and animals were larger before the flood, some biblical, some scientific. People also lived longer so something had to be different about our atmosphere. Now that is a Theory but can't be proving no more than your theory that we come from worms and apes.

First of all, I grew up in Texas, and never called anyone a dumb southerner. There are dumb people everywhere. I believe in civil debate!

I am not a professor of anything, so I would refer anyone who wants an academic discourse of the theory of evolution to pick up any biology book from an accredited university, watch the Discovery Channel if you don't like reading, or pick up just about any copy of National Geographic. Nat Geo is one of my favorite reads. Covers religion, culture, geology, evolution, all in one nice, non-political forum. (may 2009 has a wonderful article on a 40,000 year old baby mammoth that is one of the best preserved specimens from that era.)

And yes, according to many arguments on this list, if God says something, then it is true. Or, if someone wrote something down, and claimed that it was inspired by God, then we must believe it, regardless of what the natural world around us reveals.

kimsmith
07-01-2009, 07:19 PM
The biggest obsticle Conservative Politics has to overcome are statements like this. If anyone has ever wondered why the Liberals have been winning, why southerners are consider dumb and we have Obama as our President, here it is folks.

Sorry that was Franco that said that. I guess the history books are wrong about Jesus also. I guess history books are wrong about the many wonders he did.

an academic discourse of the theory of evolution

We don't have to read a college biology book to get this information about the theory of evolution. It is taught to our young kids every day. Thank God for Christian parents who still teach their kids that it's a theory and we know that God Created us.
You didn't answer my question earlier, what were we before we become man, an ape, a worm or some unknown creature. I'll post a picture of my 100th great grand dad.
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/images/drfrancois.jpg
Now I'm gald you feel we come from something like this, man you might be right I've seen some pretty ugly people. Mostly every day I look in a mirror......

Hew
07-01-2009, 07:36 PM
My disjointed manifesto on this thread...

- It bugs me to see religion portrayed as the root of evil and discord when in the last one hundred of the bloodiest years on this planet the vast majority of the killing has been perpetrated by atheists and the irreligious (Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc.)

- Religion is very personal and heartfelt to the individual believers. It is as important and unexplainable as one's love for his family. Nobody would dare call someone's wife a whore and their kids stupid, but some of the anti-religion folks have no problem attacking the religious or characterizing them as dim bulbs robots who can't think for themselves. There are a lot of damn smart people who are devout followers. On the flip side, it is galling to see someone characterize their own denomination as being the right one and everyone else as being pagans on a one-way trip to hell.

- Some people's hostility and disdain for religion leads them to blindly make claims against religion that aren't true (like the Catholic Church not coming out against abortion until the 1970's or that there was some concerted effort on the part of organized religion to deny the roundness of the Earth). Hate on religion if you want, but at least know what you're talking about when you do it.

- This country is not a Christian nation in the sense that it is our official religion. But the country and its laws were certainly founded upon Judeo-Christian ethics by men who were indeed, by-and-large Christians (with some Deist exceptions, of course). Anyone who denies this has declared jihad on history.

- Neither the conservative movement nor the GOP are controlled or run by evangelical Christians. That is an element of the party, sure. But since when is it shameful to stand up for values that are good for individuals, good for the community and good for the country even when the individual messenger of those values might be imperfect? What, I shouldn't even bother to try to teach my children that they shouldn't drink to excess, lie, cheat or steal, do drugs, etc. because I've done those things myself? What kind of absurd claptrap is that? I'm not religious in the least, and I'm surely not ashamed of the evangelical community's involvement in the movement/party. And I've never been made to feel uncomfortable by them.

Franco
07-01-2009, 07:37 PM
I'll post a picture of my 100th great grand dad.
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/images/drfrancois.jpg
Now I'm gald you feel we come from something like this, man you might be right I've seen some pretty ugly people. Mostly every day I look in a mirror......

That's funny!

Now, is your uncle in that picture from your mother or father's side of the family?;-)

Learned a long time ago that no one on internet boards ever has thier mind changed. We believe what we believe and those beliefs are founded on what we want to learn in life.

For instance, over on the ESPN College Football boards, some fool actually thinks Alabama is going to win the SEC this coming season!

kimsmith
07-01-2009, 07:43 PM
I would like to say something about about the guy on ESPN, but I don't think TN going to get in their way. Your right no ones going to change their mind but we have to try and let people know the truth.

Here in TN my uncle would be on both sides of the family.

Franco
07-01-2009, 07:54 PM
Here in TN my uncle would be on both sides of the family.



Laughing, to hard to type.

Tn should be back in 2010 along with LSU. I'm thinking the SEC will be between Florida and Ole Miss.

K G
07-01-2009, 08:04 PM
My disjointed manifesto on this thread...

- It bugs me to see religion portrayed as the root of evil and discord when in the last one hundred of the bloodiest years on this planet the vast majority of the killing has been perpetrated by atheists and the irreligious (Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc.)

- Religion is very personal and heartfelt to the individual believers. It is as important and unexplainable as one's love for his family. Nobody would dare call someone's wife a whore and their kids stupid, but some of the anti-religion folks have no problem attacking the religious or characterizing them as dim bulbs robots who can't think for themselves. There are a lot of damn smart people who are devout followers. On the flip side, it is galling to see someone characterize their own denomination as being the right one and everyone else as being pagans on a one-way trip to hell.

- Some people's hostility and disdain for religion leads them to blindly make claims against religion that aren't true (like the Catholic Church not coming out against abortion until the 1970's or that there was some concerted effort on the part of organized religion to deny the roundness of the Earth). Hate on religion if you want, but at least know what you're talking about when you do it.

- This country is not a Christian nation in the sense that it is our official religion. But the country and its laws were certainly founded upon Judeo-Christian ethics by men who were indeed, by-and-large Christians (with some Deist exceptions, of course). Anyone who denies this has declared jihad on history.

- Neither the conservative movement nor the GOP are controlled or run by evangelical Christians. That is an element of the party, sure. But since when is it shameful to stand up for values that are good for individuals, good for the community and good for the country even when the individual messenger of those values might be imperfect? What, I shouldn't even bother to try to teach my children that they shouldn't drink to excess, lie, cheat or steal, do drugs, etc. because I've done those things myself? What kind of absurd claptrap is that? I'm not religious in the least, and I'm surely not ashamed of the evangelical community's involvement in the movement/party. And I've never been made to feel uncomfortable by them.

Hew, this is one of the best, if not THE best, posts I've ever read on this topic...here, or elsewhere.

Bravo....! :)

kg

cotts135
07-01-2009, 09:08 PM
Since it is pretty clear that Evolution is a science can we at least use the word theory as it is used when talking about science. Some posts on this thread have badly misused the word ,whether intentionally or not, this has just led to confusion and misunderstanding.

From the website:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

"The term theory has two broad sets of meanings, one used in the empirical sciences (both natural and social) and the other used in philosophy, mathematics, logic, and across other fields in the humanities. There is considerable difference and even dispute across academic disciplines as to the proper usages of the term. What follows is an attempt to describe how the term is used, not to try to say how it ought to be used.

Although the scientific meaning is by far the more commonly used in academic discourse, it is hardly the only one used, and it would be a mistake to assume from the outset that a given use of the term "theory" in academic literature or discourse is a reference to a scientific or empirically-based theory.

Even so, since the use of the term theory in scientific or empirical inquiry is the more common one, it will be discussed first. (Other usages follow in the section labeled "Theories formally and generally.")


A theory, in the scientific sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations. A scientific theory does two things:

1. it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and
2. makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.

In the scientific or empirical tradition, the term "theory" is reserved for ideas which meet baseline requirements about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains. These requirements vary across different scientific fields of knowledge, but in general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena

Theories may be expressed mathematically, symbolically, or in common language, but are generally expected to follow principles of rational thought or logic." Italics mine

So basically what it is saying is that all the evidence and data that have been found point to this conclusion. Like the theory of gravity, until things begin to float, we feel pretty strongly that this is the way things are. Over time theory's are refined as new information is uncovered Evolution is no different, but so far nothing has been found that conclusively disproves it.

K.Bullock
07-01-2009, 09:15 PM
My disjointed manifesto on this thread...

- It bugs me to see religion portrayed as the root of evil and discord when in the last one hundred of the bloodiest years on this planet the vast majority of the killing has been perpetrated by atheists and the irreligious (Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc.)

- Religion is very personal and heartfelt to the individual believers. It is as important and unexplainable as one's love for his family. Nobody would dare call someone's wife a whore and their kids stupid, but some of the anti-religion folks have no problem attacking the religious or characterizing them as dim bulbs robots who can't think for themselves. There are a lot of damn smart people who are devout followers. On the flip side, it is galling to see someone characterize their own denomination as being the right one and everyone else as being pagans on a one-way trip to hell.

- Some people's hostility and disdain for religion leads them to blindly make claims against religion that aren't true (like the Catholic Church not coming out against abortion until the 1970's or that there was some concerted effort on the part of organized religion to deny the roundness of the Earth). Hate on religion if you want, but at least know what you're talking about when you do it.

- This country is not a Christian nation in the sense that it is our official religion. But the country and its laws were certainly founded upon Judeo-Christian ethics by men who were indeed, by-and-large Christians (with some Deist exceptions, of course). Anyone who denies this has declared jihad on history.

- Neither the conservative movement nor the GOP are controlled or run by evangelical Christians. That is an element of the party, sure. But since when is it shameful to stand up for values that are good for individuals, good for the community and good for the country even when the individual messenger of those values might be imperfect? What, I shouldn't even bother to try to teach my children that they shouldn't drink to excess, lie, cheat or steal, do drugs, etc. because I've done those things myself? What kind of absurd claptrap is that? I'm not religious in the least, and I'm surely not ashamed of the evangelical community's involvement in the movement/party. And I've never been made to feel uncomfortable by them.

Thanks for sharing your "disjointed" perspective ....excellent post!

badbullgator
07-01-2009, 09:18 PM
Actually the fossil record does not prove evolution. It is used to support a theory, one that cannot be proved. Lets keep it in perspective shall we...

/Paul



Einstein once said all the experiments in time can never prove me right, but just one could prove me wrong.
I guess you just never know what is and what is not, but only what YOU believe to be

Franco
07-01-2009, 09:31 PM
-

- Neither the conservative movement nor the GOP are controlled or run by evangelical Christians. That is an element of the party, sure. But since when is it shameful to stand up for values that are good for individuals, good for the community and good for the country even when the individual messenger of those values might be imperfect?

.

Don't you ever want to see another Republican President?

The problem with the "values" part of your arguement is that the vast majority of voting Americans want the government out of their personal lives unless the government is going to take care of them. Evangelicals may not totally control the party but, the GOP is labled as the party of the Religious Right and that is a big problem if they want to win major elections.

If the Republicans ever hope to regain any power, they are going to have to be much more secular and much more liberal on social issues. If not, then we truly will be a one party country.

Over the last 9 years, the GOP has done a great job of alienating the majority of voters and not all of it was due to Iraq. I could care less if Bob is sleeping with Jim or if Suzie had an abortion. I want a government that is fically responsible, one that will protect The Constitution and its citizens and provide the infastructure for its people to succeed. Other than that, the government needs to stay out of peoples lives.

kimsmith
07-01-2009, 09:46 PM
The problem with the "values" part of your argument is that the vast majority of voting Americans want the government out of their personal lives unless the government is going to take care of them. Evangelicals may not totally control the party but, the GOP is labeled as the party of the Religious Right and that is a big problem if they want to win major elections.



You have to be kidding, the American people wanted change. Our economy was going down, Gas was going up. It had nothing to do with values or the Religious Right. You can say the same thing about the left wing liberals on the other side. Do you think the mast majority of American people are for those people? Survey after survey still show that the mast majority of people in the US believe in God. You need to go back to arguing evolution because you are way off on this one.

dnf777
07-01-2009, 09:53 PM
Don't you ever want to see another Republican President?

The problem with the "values" part of your arguement is that the vast majority of voting Americans want the government out of their personal lives unless the government is going to take care of them. Evangelicals may not totally control the party but, the GOP is labled as the party of the Religious Right and that is a big problem if they want to win major elections.

If the Republicans ever hope to regain any power, they are going to have to be much more secular and much more liberal on social issues. If not, then we truly will be a one party country.

Over the last 9 years, the GOP has done a great job of alienating the majority of voters and not all of it was due to Iraq. I could care less if Bob is sleeping with Jim or if Suzie had an abortion. I want a government that is fically responsible, one that will protect The Constitution and its citizens and provide the infastructure for its people to succeed. Other than that, the government needs to stay out of peoples lives.

Nicely put. I wish I could have articulated that well a few posts back when someone asked me what a true conservative is...something to that effect.

Hew, also nicely stated. I would add to your first bullet point however, that in recent history, the bloodiest times have been waged between a Evangelical Christian (W) and an Islamic dictator, not atheists or deists. 9-11 was waged by Islamic fundamentalists, the bloodiest attack on U.S. soil in my life time. (certainly not Christian, but religious fundamentalists of a different flavor, still Abrahamic)

Anyone who denies that organized religion has blood on its hands is really torpedoing the history books, and not taking an honest, objective look at history. That's not to say that religion has not positively touched many peoples lives at a personal level, but I think that is where it should stay...in homes, churches, and in people's hearts, and where they gather voluntarily. Not in schools, governments, or places where differing views could clash and cause real harm or unfair discrimination against citizens.

Franco
07-01-2009, 10:05 PM
You have to be kidding, the American people wanted change. Our economy was going down, Gas was going up. It had nothing to do with values or the Religious Right. You can say the same thing about the left wing liberals on the other side. Do you think the mast majority of American people are for those people? Survey after survey still show that the mast majority of people in the US believe in God. You need to go back to arguing evolution because you are way off on this one.


Had McCain carried more single white females, he would have won the election. Those females voted for Obama because they were worried about religious Draconian ideas becoming the law of the land. 5% made the difference in the last election and I assure you it was lost because the vast majority of white women do not trust the Republicans when it comes to social issues. Having the decent Mrs Palin on his ticket didn't help him either. She drove many single white females to the Democratic ticket.

Hew
07-01-2009, 10:26 PM
Bold stuff is mine...


The problem with the "values" part of your arguement is that the vast majority of voting Americans want the government out of their personal lives unless the government is going to take care of them. Evangelicals may not totally control the party but, the GOP is labled as the party of the Religious Right and that is a big problem if they want to win major elections. I don't disagree a bit with that. What's perplexing is why you seem to be doing your darndest to reinforce that label. Speaking of absurd labels...the GOP and Barrack Obama can have nearly identical positions regarding gay marriage (i.e. should be between a man and a women) and one is labeled a bigot and the other gets elected president.

If the Republicans ever hope to regain any power, they are going to have to be much more secular and much more liberal on social issues. If not, then we truly will be a one party country. When the GOP swept congress with the Contract With America many of the components of that contract were social issues...abortion, death penalty, teenage/unwed pregnancies. Has America changed that much in 15 years?

Which social issues should we become more liberal about? How about we start with the ones in your signature? "Borders - Language - Culture." Who are you to impose your narrow-minded culture and language on me? Those are just buzzwords to couch the racism that is inherent in conservatism and the GOP. You say "culture" you mean, "white folk" right? Where is language and culture mentioned in the Constitution?

Of course I'm completely exagerating for effect, but hopefully you get the point: you've got as much "social issues" skin in the game as the evangelicals, but they're just different issues.

PS...thanks for the kind words KG and KB.

Cody Covey
07-01-2009, 10:51 PM
Very nice post Hew completely agree

Franco
07-01-2009, 10:53 PM
"Of course I'm completely exagerating for effect, but hopefully you get the point: you've got as much "social issues" skin in the game as the evangelicals, but they're just different issues. "

Correct on all counts! I am most concerned with what makes us American than championing the veiws on any one religion.

kimsmith
07-01-2009, 11:27 PM
Franco we have gone in one big circle from evolution and creation, to dumb southerners and to Christians being the reason Republicans lost the election. Man you should write a book even if it's only a Theory.

Hew great post, I'm jealous.........

K.Bullock
07-02-2009, 12:39 AM
Hew great post, I'm jealous.........


You sinner! :razz: lol!

Gun_Dog2002
07-02-2009, 01:02 AM
Einstein once said all the experiments in time can never prove me right, but just one could prove me wrong.
I guess you just never know what is and what is not, but only what YOU believe to be

Einstein also couldn't make his first marriage last and so married his cousin.

/Paul

kimsmith
07-02-2009, 06:29 AM
You sinner! :razz: lol!


Your right..........

Most likely the worst one on this thread. One thing about it I know I'm a sinner and sin every day, hopefully not to the point that I cause someone else to stumble like some have mentioned. I will never think I'm better than anyone else or will I tell you your sin is worst than mine, but I will tell you God Created Heaven and Earth. We didn't evolve from micro organisms. We might have adapted to our environment but we started up as men and will end up as men. That's my Theory and I'm sticking to it.

Leddyman
07-02-2009, 11:00 AM
Since it is pretty clear that Evolution is a science can we at least use the word theory as it is used when talking about science. Some posts on this thread have badly misused the word ,whether intentionally or not, this has just led to confusion and misunderstanding.

From the website:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

"The term theory has two broad sets of meanings, one used in the empirical sciences (both natural and social) and the other used in philosophy, mathematics, logic, and across other fields in the humanities. There is considerable difference and even dispute across academic disciplines as to the proper usages of the term. What follows is an attempt to describe how the term is used, not to try to say how it ought to be used.

Although the scientific meaning is by far the more commonly used in academic discourse, it is hardly the only one used, and it would be a mistake to assume from the outset that a given use of the term "theory" in academic literature or discourse is a reference to a scientific or empirically-based theory.

Even so, since the use of the term theory in scientific or empirical inquiry is the more common one, it will be discussed first. (Other usages follow in the section labeled "Theories formally and generally.")


A theory, in the scientific sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations. A scientific theory does two things:

1. it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and
2. makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.

In the scientific or empirical tradition, the term "theory" is reserved for ideas which meet baseline requirements about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains. These requirements vary across different scientific fields of knowledge, but in general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena

Theories may be expressed mathematically, symbolically, or in common language, but are generally expected to follow principles of rational thought or logic." Italics mine

So basically what it is saying is that all the evidence and data that have been found point to this conclusion. Like the theory of gravity, until things begin to float, we feel pretty strongly that this is the way things are. Over time theory's are refined as new information is uncovered Evolution is no different, but so far nothing has been found that conclusively disproves it.


I am sorry I missed this thread. you say in your post that evolution is a science. I wonder if you would mind clearing something up for me?

You say it makes assertions about underlying reality. What are they? I assume that since you make these claims you can back them up.

Interested in a real debate on the science regards,

K G
07-02-2009, 11:16 AM
And using wikipedia definitions as a source....that is too funny....:p

kg

mjh345
07-02-2009, 12:57 PM
Einstein also couldn't make his first marriage last and so married his cousin.

/Paul

Discredit Einstein however you see fit; However, Me thinks there must have been some real tight linebreeding going on for a number of generations post Garden of Eden, and post Noahs Ark days

kimsmith
07-02-2009, 01:55 PM
Discredit Einstein however you see fit; However, Me thinks there must have been some real tight linebreeding going on for a number of generations post Garden of Eden, and post Noahs Ark days


You could line breed then because the Gene pool was perfect.....

zeus3925
07-02-2009, 02:49 PM
Hate to burst your bubble some more, but there is no evidence found where on the earth that the Great Flood ever took place.

kimsmith
07-02-2009, 03:45 PM
there is no evidence found where on the earth that the Great Flood ever took place.


Are you sure about that, haven't they found fish bones in area where there has never been water.......

Here are a few scientific finds.

The top 3,000 feet of Mt. Everest (from 26,000-29,000 feet) is made up of sedimentary rock packed with seashells and other ocean-dwelling animals.
Sedimentary rock is found all over the world. Sedimentary rock is formed in water.
Petrified clams in the closed position (found all over the world) testify to their rapid burial while they were still alive, even on top of Mount Everest.
Bent rock layers, fossil graveyards, and poly-strata fossils are best explained by a Flood.

kimsmith
07-02-2009, 03:51 PM
Here are a few good articles...

Where are the Human Fossils?

Written by: Luke Myers

This is a great question...for both creationists and evolutionists. If evolution is true and man has been slowly evolving over millions of years then we should find thousands of human fossils? This is what Darwin said we could expect if his theory were true. However, paleontologists have been looking for these transitional humanoid fossils for over a hundred years and not one has been found. This, among other things, casts doubt on the theory of evolution.
Well, if the Bible is true and there was a worldwide flood, we would expect to find evidence of its occurrence. As Ken Ham says, we should find "millions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth". And surprisingly, we find "millions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth". However, we are still left with the question - where are all the human fossils?
The answer is actually quite simple - survival of the fittest. Many Christians are under the impression that all those who were not on the ark died during the first few hours of Noah's flood. This was not the case. Imagine a worldwide flood. For forty days the water level is rising higher and higher. Obviously high ground will be the destination of any intelligent being. It would be an insult to say that you couldn't survive as long as the animals. Of course, humans would have been floating around on logs and make-shift rafts for weeks (possibly months) after all the land animals had drowned. In order to fossilize an object must be buried quickly and then compressed (usually with water). Animals which died in the early stages of the flood would have the highest probability of being fossilized. Humans that died in the latter days of the flood would not have fossilized at all! They would float, bloat and decompose or be eaten by scavengers. So, we see that a lack of human fossils is exactly what we would expect from a worldwide flood. Dr. John Morris, Ph. D., president of ICR (Institute for Creation Research) addressed this question in his article "Why Don't We Find More Human Fossils? (http://www.icr.org/article/why-dont-we-find-more-human-fossils/)".
Most are not aware of the type of fossils that we do find. An overwhelming 95% of the fossil record consists of shallow marine organisms like corral and shellfish! Of the remaining 5%, 95% are algae and plant/tree fossils. Vertebrates (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) are only a tiny part of the fossil record. 5% of 5% is not very much at all [Information gleaned from "Where are all the Human Fossils? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i1/humanfossils.asp)" By Dr. Andrew Snelling]. This seems to indicate that the "geologic timescale" is actually more of a flood timescale. Those fossils buried in the lowest layers of strata were probably buried in the early stages of Noah's flood. As water levels rose, the creatures which were most mobile fled to higher ground. This is why we find few mammals in the fossil record, and even fewer birds and humans.

K.Bullock
07-02-2009, 03:58 PM
Hate to burst your bubble some more, but there is no evidence found where on the earth that the Great Flood ever took place.
There are actually Sumerian cuneiform that record a great flood in Mesopotamia, the origin of the Hebrew culture. While not necessarily a world wide flood, the occupants of the region would have considered a huge flood to be apocalyptic.

http://books.google.com/books?id=whNxKXxEoJkC&pg=PA49&dq=Mesopotamia+great+flood+sumerian&ei=vAtNSrXJO6WgNbGyuB4

kimsmith
07-02-2009, 04:12 PM
Here is another good one.

Stasis - Yesterday Once More

Written by: Bruce Malone

Illustrated throughout this article are a few of the thousands of types of life which have remained literally unchanged while millions of years have supposedly passed. Meanwhile other forms of life were supposedly changing all the way from fish to people without leaving any transitional record. This is one of many problems with the belief in evolutionism. The pictures in this article show the fossilized or amber encapsulated organism (often assumed to be over 100 million years old) compared with the identical modern living specimen (in the smaller inset picture).
It is a fact of biology that organisms have an incredible ability to reproduce copies of themselves without mistakes. So where do new types of animals come from? Evolutionists theorize that new animals arise when a reproductive mistake happens. They believe this creature slowly turns into a completely different creature (without leaving any fossil remains of the transitional forms). Meanwhile other animals of the same type remained identical for millions of years! There is an acknowledged lack of evidence for the transitional forms between vastly different types of animals. The current textbook explanation concerning the lack of fossil evidence for evolution is called "punctuated equilibrium". According to this theory, animals stay the same for long periods of time but when they change, they change rapidly. Thus, they leave no fossil record of their transformations because it happens quickly in relatively small populations or in isolated locations.
Logic Check Time:

What does the Biological Record Show?-Stasis (Lack of Change).
Evolution explanation:

Macro-evolution is happening SO SLOW that we do not see it today. What does the fossil record show?-No intermediate forms between different animal groups.
Evolution explanation:

Macro-evolution happened SO FAST that the fossil record did not record it. Apparently I am not the only person unconvinced by evolutionist's religious adherence to such inconsistent reasoning because a November 1991 Gallop poll showed that 47% of the people in the United States still believe that God created human beings in the last 10,000 years.

Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the prestigious British Museum of Natural History, and author of the book, Evolution, made the following written comment when questioned why he did not include any illustrations of transitional forms in his book, . . . "if I knew of any, I certainly would have include them . . .". The full text of his statement is documented in Darwin's Enigma by Luther Sunderland, pp. 88-90. There are no transitional forms in the fossil record simply because creatures never turn into a completely different type of creature.

kimsmith
07-02-2009, 04:20 PM
Here is one of my favorites......

Good Morning Students

Written by: Bruce Malone

The debate over evolution vs. creation is not just a dry technical argument concerning isotopic dating methods, dinosaur bones, or whether mutations can turn pond scum into people. What we believe about where we came from determines how we view life, and ultimately, our actions. Answers to such basic questions as "Where did we come from?", "What is the purpose of life?", and " How do we determine right from wrong?" are derived directly from our belief about our origin. If we are just the result of random chance changes that turned swamp gases into people, then life has no ultimate purpose or meaning...each person must determine for themselves what is right or what is wrong...and truth really does not exist.
This is the essence of what is being taught to your children each day in public school:
"Good morning students and welcome to high school. Our first lesson today will be to teach you where you came from. Many of you have been taught that God created you. However, that is a religious concept and must therefore be reserved for Sunday mornings. You may keep that belief, if you wish, but we will now teach you more important things like science and reality."
"You see, Johnny and Suzy , you are really here as a result of cosmic accidents and random chance. Billions of years ago , "nothing" exploded and turned into gas molecules. These gas molecules bounced around until they became stars. These stars then changed into simple atoms. After lots of time passed, these larger atoms and molecules formed a big rock that we call earth. Parts of this rock dissolved into water and became alive. After billions more years, little critters in the water climbed onto land and started walking around. Over time, birth defects happened (which we call mutations) and these critters turned into different kinds of critters. More often than not these critters wiped out the previous critters. Finally apes turned into people. And here we are. We were not there to see any of this happen, and we can't really prove how it could have happened, but we are absolutely sure this is where you came from. You see now Johnny and Suzy, why science and reality can teach you so much more than religion."
One more thing Johnny. Because you are a cosmic accident, you really have no basis for judging other people. You must be tolerant. Homosexuality is just a choice. Abortion is just a choice. Sex with anyone at anytime is just a choice (but please be careful). Anything you chose to believe is OK as long as it is good for you. And you get to define what is "good"! After all, you are really just a cosmic accident, and after a few billion more years the universe will collapse back into nothingness anyway."
"That's all the time we have for biology and history today. Now it is time to go to your new class on self-esteem and good behavior where we will try to define good behavior for you. Have a good day, Suzy and Johnny, and be the best little well behaved accidents you can be."
Is it any wonder that lying and cheating are widespread in schools and government? Is it really surprising that despondent students resort to violence and suicide?
Let's return to true education where students have the freedom to view the scientific evidence for creation. Then they will once again have a factual basis for understanding that their lives have meaning and value, because they are made in the image of a personal Creator. Only then will morality have an immovable foundation because it will be the reflection of that Creator.

road kill
07-02-2009, 05:35 PM
There are actually Sumerian cuneiform that record a great flood in Mesopotamia, the origin of the Hebrew culture. While not necessarily a world wide flood, the occupants of the region would have considered a huge flood to be apocalyptic.

http://books.google.com/books?id=whNxKXxEoJkC&pg=PA49&dq=Mesopotamia+great+flood+sumerian&ei=vAtNSrXJO6WgNbGyuB4

Wouldn't a "World-Wide" flood be a matter of perspective?
How large is YOUR world??

T. Mac
07-02-2009, 05:50 PM
You could line breed then because the Gene pool was perfect.....


So we have evolved to the point where we can no longer do this? If so, doesn't that put a check mark in the evolution side of this debate?

T. Mac

K.Bullock
07-02-2009, 06:22 PM
Wouldn't a "World-Wide" flood be a matter of perspective?
How large is YOUR world??

That is what I said, to the Mesopotamians a giant flood would to them be the destruction of their world. A good recent example, relatively, is when Columbus set sail, no one had any idea the true proportions of the earth.

So to the Mesopotamians who first recounted the story of the great flood, a large flood for that region would be of biblical proportions.

There is evidence then that a flood of proportions that were way out of the ordinary did in fact happen.

Pete
07-02-2009, 06:24 PM
Genesis 10:25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.


Peleg means to cleave ,,,to divide is split ,,,Great earth quakes of incredable magnitude.

1 Chronicles 1:19 And unto Eber <`Eber> were born <yalad> two <sh@nayim> sons <ben>: the name <shem> of the one <'echad> was Peleg <Peleg>; because in his days <yowm> the earth <'erets> was divided <palag>: and his brother's <'ach> name <shem> was Joktan <Yoqtan>.

Job 38:25 Who hath divided <palag> a watercourse <t@`alah> for the overflowing of waters <sheteph>, or a way <derek> for the lightning <chaziyz> of thunder <qowl>;

Psalms 55:9 Destroy <bala`>, O Lord <'Adonay>, and divide <palag> their tongues <lashown>: for I have seen <ra'ah> violence <chamac> and strife <riyb> in the city <`iyr>.


Those are the 4 usages of that word

That is just barely scratching the surface on this topic of continental drift
When you see the reason for this it blows the mind.


personally I think continetal drift happened the way the word describes it,, I believe and have known people who do different dating techniques and they tell me they are not always acurate and can be distorted by certain events which naturally occure.

I think it was 5000 years ago,,,not 5 million

Pete

zeus3925
07-02-2009, 06:56 PM
Are you sure about that, haven't they found fish bones in area where there has never been water.......

Here are a few scientific finds.

The top 3,000 feet of Mt. Everest (from 26,000-29,000 feet) is made up of sedimentary rock packed with seashells and other ocean-dwelling animals.
Sedimentary rock is found all over the world. Sedimentary rock is formed in water.
Petrified clams in the closed position (found all over the world) testify to their rapid burial while they were still alive, even on top of Mount Everest.
Bent rock layers, fossil graveyards, and poly-strata fossils are best explained by a Flood.

Haven't you heard of plate tectonics and the processes of orogenesis? When you have colliding plates, faulting and up thrusts take place, often raising ocean bottoms up to mountainous height. Mt. Everest did not exist since creation. It is a product of the Indian sub-continent colliding with Asia. With that you will see examples of thrust faulting indicating how those fossils got there.

Bent rock layers are a tectonic artifact, not a flood induced phenomenon. While fossil bearing strata can indicate rapid burial, these processes have been going on as long as there has been an Earth. Certainly there is no universal, contemporaneous record that indicates the Great Flood ever existed. Not in the fossils, a common date in the sediments, or in the geomorphology. Nothing--zip!

Pete
07-02-2009, 07:56 PM
Bent rock layers are a tectonic artifact, not a flood induced phenomenon. While fossil bearing strata can indicate rapid burial, these processes have been going on as long as there has been an Earth. Certainly there is no universal, contemporaneous record that indicates the Great Flood ever existed. Not in the fossils, a common date in the sediments, or in the geomorphology. Nothing


Prior to the flood it did not rain. But mist came up from the ground,,somewhere in my old paleierntology books I read that scientists believed that in pangea land(sp) one land mass ,,,,lack rain and they also believed the earth misted. But I think if you to to work the " rainbow" in all its dimentions you might find some answeres.
The rainbow was Gods promise that the earth would never be destroyed by water again.
Its starting to get deep.:D

I see the rainbows baby,,,,thats enough for me,,,but there is much more info if a person was willing to investigate. look up the 7 colors. 7 sure seems like a good number to me
7 major notes in the scale
7 days in a week
7 distinct biblical administrations
7 wweks to pick out the perfect pup:D

Anyway I would be pretty sure someone who is looking for proof that the flood took place ,,could find it if they tried.
Scientists wouldnt
admit the flood if it bit them in the ass.

There working over time to prove there is no God

Pete

zeus3925
07-02-2009, 10:29 PM
Scientists wouldnt admit the flood if it bit them in the ass. There working over time to prove there is no God

Pete

Aren't you being a little doctrinaire, Pete? Most scientists are interested in interpreting events in nature that are provable. God's existence is not provable or disprovable, but is dependent on faith. Science is not equipped to prove or disprove the existence of God. Since God's existence is an article of faith, scientists generally leave the issue to theologians.

I agree with the 7 weeks to choose a good pup. Are you running any dogs in the games, Pete? We qualified for a berth at the Master National last weekend--second year in a row.

Pete
07-03-2009, 09:25 AM
Aren't you being a little doctrinaire, Pete? Most scientists are interested in interpreting events in nature that are provable. God's existence is not provable or disprovable, but is dependent on faith. Science is not equipped to prove or disprove the existence of God. Since God's existence is an article of faith, scientists generally leave the issue to theologians

You mean like global warming



I am a scientifically minded person,,my major in college was in the sciences.
I love the sciences
However many scientists today are last years fruitcake. True science is where you gather facts and let the chips fall where they may.
Most science today gather info that supports their theory.
Thats not science,,, thats liberalism

I am fortunate to have 3 or 4 sciencentists as close friends,, they are scientists in their purest form. They gather the facts without an agenda.
I have drilled them over the years about this stuff and they totally agree with my acertation.
If I only new how to spell and put a sentence together:)

when I say they are working over time to disprove God ,,,that is a figure of speach. I enjoy using FoS but they don't often translate without facial expressions.
Pete

Franco
07-03-2009, 10:54 AM
Most science today gather info that supports their theory.
Thats not science,,, thats liberalism



You don't think that guys like Matthew, Luke, John and all the others weren't writing fiction to support thier theories/agendas?

Hundreds of credible archeoligist and scientist have proven beyond any reasonable doubt that evolution is a fact. Far too many to be labled a conspiricy!

dnf777
07-03-2009, 11:23 AM
Most science today gather info that supports their theory.
Thats not science,,, thats liberalism
Pete

ROTFLMAO!! (I assume that was the desired effect)

Or you have a political science major edit the scientific reports (unannounced) prior to press releases!

Pete
07-03-2009, 11:30 AM
You don't think that guys like Matthew, Luke, John and all the others weren't writing fiction to support thier theories/agendas?


Actually Franco if the gospels had any kind of contradiction to them I wouldn't believe a word of the bible. The gospels were written by four different guys who gave their perspective. They are witnesses of the events no different the witnesses in a court of law. Some jurers see different parts of the accident or crime but none contradict. They should build precept upon precept.
Now apparent contradictions are many,,, thats because religions have tried to make the book fit to suit their ideals. The book has been written and copied from different languages many times over.
Even from the kings english to the american language there are word changes that ment 1 thing in old english and something totally different in ours. These are easy to figure out. We have the tools today to quickly get this done. Concordances and lexicons are simple to use .


If you were to approach the book from a purely scientific approach
research,,gather facts and let them sit where they are you would be amazed at how perfect the book is.
It was written over thousands of years by many men and not only don't they contradict each other,,, they build an amazing complex back round of events which many can be explained by science in its purest forms.

Hell the bible gives you the near exact date and hour of the birth of JC.
I can use the bible or I can use information supplied by the sciences to come up with the same answere
And It can be built up and backed with hundreds of verses
Or with a very limited knowledge of astronomy which by the way is an exacty science. Science still uses it today to figure time lines because the stars are the perfect mathmatical time piece.

Hows that for wonderful and amazing.

Pete

K G
07-03-2009, 11:57 AM
Don't dare use logic and sense, Pete, much less fact that corroborates the events in the Bible....the contrarians won't know how to deal with it, except to continue to use PERSONAL OPINION and Wikipedia as proof....:D

kg

Franco
07-03-2009, 12:07 PM
Hows that for wonderful and amazing.

Pete

To each, their own!;-)
I'll pick what is known today.

Pete
07-03-2009, 12:40 PM
Don't dare use logic and sense, Pete, much less fact that corroborates the events in the Bible....the contrarians won't know how to deal with it, except to continue to use PERSONAL OPINION and Wikipedia as proof

:D Your a good man KG
I thought my first response would be what is the date time and hour of JC birth.

Giving people something like that would cause a stir wouldn;t it.
Rev. 12 is an astronomical account of what the sky looked like on that day of the birth of JC. The gospels give an earthly account of how it went down. They match perfectly.
prior to Moses Godly men would read the stars to understand Gods heart.
All the stars you can see with the naked eye in the northern hemisphere have a biblical name and a biblical account of representation.

Revelation 12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

Thats vergo right there,,:), the 12 constallations are written in Genesis

One of them is Juda we know today as Leo. represented by the lion.
Genesis 49:10
The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.
Thats what the magi saw. Along with the morning star,,, it gets heavier from here on out:D

Thats just to tantilize you guys.
And Franco
you mentioned God is energy.
Well he calls himself light and in him is no darkness. Light is energy.:D

Pete



dont confuse astrology with astronomy ,,one is a science and the othere is a black art. My how the word has become perverted over the years.

There is enough biblical and scientific info to fill a library.

Pete
07-03-2009, 02:14 PM
To each, their own!:wink:
I'll pick what is known today

Of coarse to each their own,,,but this stuff is known today,, you can find pieces of info in different types of resoarces.

I would never expect any or at the most few to consider or believe what I write.

I could be some pervert that has never trained dogs or read the bible for that matter. ;-)

But it is still fun to talk about. I think thats why we come to Potus. We like to shoot the bull:D

pete

zeus3925
07-03-2009, 03:09 PM
I am a scientifically minded person,,my major in college was in the sciences.
I love the sciences

What college, Pete. What science did you study? Did you finish?



However many scientists today are last years fruitcake. True science is where you gather facts and let the chips fall where they may.
Most science today gather info that supports their theory.
Thats not science,,, thats liberalism

Pete

Pete, if you spent any time in the scientific community, you would know about something called "peer review". No one is going to do a sloppy job only to be slammed down when the paper is presented to his peers at the next meeting of the Academy of Science. It isn't good for one's credibility. It doesn't get you published. It is no help in getting money for research. It is not helpful in keeping one's employment. And if that doesn't stick, there will be another dude that will take up research to prove you are wrong and make a make a monkey out of you.

Franco
07-03-2009, 04:11 PM
And if that doesn't stick, there will be another dude that will take up research to prove you are wrong and make a make a monkey out of you.



Sorry but, I'm not buying into that reverse evolution mumbo-jumbo!:rolleyes:

YardleyLabs
07-03-2009, 07:22 PM
My disjointed manifesto on this thread...

- It bugs me to see religion portrayed as the root of evil and discord when in the last one hundred of the bloodiest years on this planet the vast majority of the killing has been perpetrated by atheists and the irreligious (Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc.)


It's hard to make the case that Hitler is an atheist. While there are a few comments that could be construed that way, there are many more that suggest the opposite. Clearly, in his pantheon, Germany came first but Germany's Christian heritage was an integral part of the German culture as he viewed it. He was raised a Catholic, but never apears to have followed a specific faith. However, he also appeared to belief that he was saved by God for the purpose of leading his people.



- Religion is very personal and heartfelt to the individual believers. It is as important and unexplainable as one's love for his family. Nobody would dare call someone's wife a whore and their kids stupid, but some of the anti-religion folks have no problem attacking the religious or characterizing them as dim bulbs robots who can't think for themselves. There are a lot of damn smart people who are devout followers. On the flip side, it is galling to see someone characterize their own denomination as being the right one and everyone else as being pagans on a one-way trip to hell.

I agree with all of this but would also point out that some of the religious folk have no reservations about insulting non-believers and are then horrified when the favor is returned. I am not a theist. But that doesn't mean that my beliefs are less important to me than Keith's are to him. Both warrant respect.



- Some people's hostility and disdain for religion leads them to blindly make claims against religion that aren't true (like the Catholic Church not coming out against abortion until the 1970's or that there was some concerted effort on the part of organized religion to deny the roundness of the Earth). Hate on religion if you want, but at least know what you're talking about when you do it.

I agree, and would suggest that atheists and agnostics and pagans and others deserve the same.



- This country is not a Christian nation in the sense that it is our official religion. But the country and its laws were certainly founded upon Judeo-Christian ethics by men who were indeed, by-and-large Christians (with some Deist exceptions, of course). Anyone who denies this has declared jihad on history.

As a matter of historic fact, I actually agree with this but would point out that the definition of "Christian" was actually very different in the 18th century than it is in 21st century American. Specifically, Unitarians (who vied for dominance in Massachusetts) did not believe in the deity of Christ but accepted his teachings on morality and were theists. Generally, religion had a much softer hold on many of the early Americans because churches and ministers were often unavailable and ties to the European churches were weakened by distance. That made it easier for some of our most important leaders, including Jefferson, to be open in their rejection of traditional notions of religion. Jefferson was attacked as an atheist during the election campaign and simply refused to discuss the issue. He was elected any way. Only after the Civil War was there any significant move to introduce religion into our national government -- the inclusion of the "In God We Trust" slogan being just one example. That movement died down in the early 20th century and did not emerge again until the 1950's despite William Jenning Bryan's efforts to spread the word at the Scopes Trial in the 1920's. Eisenhower began making a small deal of religion in part because he viewed it as a differentiating factor in the Cold War. The fact that his opponent in both of his campaigns was a Unitarian/Agnostic may have been a factor as well.;-) However, it is only with the emergence of the religious right that religion has become a litmus test and every candidate was expected not just to be religious but to wear religion like a badge of honor on his or her sleeve.



- Neither the conservative movement nor the GOP are controlled or run by evangelical Christians. That is an element of the party, sure. But since when is it shameful to stand up for values that are good for individuals, good for the community and good for the country even when the individual messenger of those values might be imperfect? What, I shouldn't even bother to try to teach my children that they shouldn't drink to excess, lie, cheat or steal, do drugs, etc. because I've done those things myself? What kind of absurd claptrap is that? I'm not religious in the least, and I'm surely not ashamed of the evangelical community's involvement in the movement/party. And I've never been made to feel uncomfortable by them.
I believe one of the fundamental errors often made by the religious is to equate morality with religion, or at least to identify religion as the basis for morality, implying that non-believers can't be moral. At the most fundamental level, I am always struck by the extent to which the most important elements of morality are consistent across religions and between the religious and non-religious. It's in the detailed "rules" -- don't dance on Wednesday, don't each meat on Friday, don't eat pork, etc. -- that dogma takes over and the battles become fierce. Why are the battles fierce? Because there is no consensus on the validity of those rules and the believers try to use force -- personal or the force of the state -- to impose their own notions of correctness.

dnf777
07-03-2009, 08:30 PM
"Liberalism and western-style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today, these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democratic systems. Instead of democracy, the will of God will prevail over all things."

Any guess as to who said this? Hint: even though it sounds very similar to prior quotes against science and liberalism, it was NOT anyone on this list.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. That's why I'm afraid of people who justify their actions with "the will of God". Not everyone's God has the same "will"!

I'll say again, I think religion is a wonderful thing, that belongs in the minds and hearts of us believers, in our churches, in our homes......but not in our Governments, schools, or places where different beliefs meet. That's what Jefferson and Adams thought, and that's why we have separation of Church and state. And the freedom of religion.

YardleyLabs
07-03-2009, 09:04 PM
"Liberalism and western-style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today, these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democratic systems. Instead of democracy, the will of God will prevail over all things."

Any guess as to who said this? Hint: even though it sounds very similar to prior quotes against science and liberalism, it was NOT anyone on this list.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. That's why I'm afraid of people who justify their actions with "the will of God". Not everyone's God has the same "will"!

I'll say again, I think religion is a wonderful thing, that belongs in the minds and hearts of us believers, in our churches, in our homes......but not in our Governments, schools, or places where different beliefs meet. That's what Jefferson and Adams thought, and that's why we have separation of Church and state. And the freedom of religion.
I could not agree more. And I will admit that one of the happiest days of my life was when schools were prohibited from requiring prayers, having attended a public school where that power was routinely used as a weapon to promote religious orthodoxy.

Pete
07-03-2009, 09:45 PM
I too agree with both of you. There should be alot more stuff than just prayer kept out of schools. Lets start with the DARE program.

pete

K G
07-03-2009, 09:51 PM
And while we're at it, let's reinstitute corporal punishment...

kg

Pete
07-03-2009, 10:09 PM
What college, Pete. What science did you study? Did you finish?


Awww Thats a really polite way of saying whats your credentials dumbass:)

I would equate myself with a dog running senior hunt tests and has only passed a couple out of 10 or so tries.

I washed out of Casper colledge with about 40 or 50 credits.
Few requirements,,,mostly math and bio stuff. ,,a handful of graduate claases through the university. Major was wildlife on campus oopps I mean management.

I flunked english 101 5 semesters in a row (no surprise to anyone here.)
How on earth I ve managed to get around greek and hebrew I'll never know

But after college I got serious with my education and studied bible stuff and dogs. 30 years in depth reseach on Godly matters and about the same studying dogs . Does that count:-P

While I didn't gradiate college I do manage grounds for wildlife here at home. Although I seem to have killed more than Ive managed.

So OH well no credentials,, like an old washout more like a field trial wash out than a hunt test washout. I had way to much go and not enough brains But now that ive slowed down I think I can win:)

Pete

kimsmith
07-03-2009, 10:42 PM
That's what Jefferson and Adams thought, and that's why we have separation of Church and state


Could you please tell me what document this comes from?



And while we're at it, let's reinstitute corporal punishment...

kg


What is wrong with a paddle or 2 when our kids misbehave. How many of you deal with schools today? I'm in schools everyday with my job and man how things have changed. I've watched teachers, principles and others drag kids (I'm talking about Elem School kids) to the office because they wouldn't walk. I've been knocked off ladders and had things thrown at me while I was working. When I was in school if we did something like this we would have gotten a few licks at school then we would have got it at home.



There should be alot more stuff than just prayer kept out of schools


Do a little research and find out what happen to our school system after prayer and God was taken out. What was wrong with prayer, the little bible and Ten Commandments? I guess we don't care that kids are killing kids, drugs are killing kids, teen pregancy, sucide and everything else that are kids are going through today. Here are just a few facts...


A. Young People
1. For 15 years before 1963 pregnancies in girls ages 15 through 19 years had been no more than 15 per thousand After 1963 pregnancies increased 187% in the next 15 years.
2. For younger girls, ages 10 to 14 years, pregnancies since 1963 are up 553%.
3. Before 1963 sexually transmitted diseases among students were 400 per 100,000. Since 1963, they were up 226% in the next 12 years.
B. The Family
1. Before 1963 divorce rates had been declining for 15 years. After 1963 divorces increased 300% each year for the next 15 years.
2. Since 1963 unmarried people living together is up 353%
3. Since 1963 single parent families are up 140%.
4. Since 1963 single parent families with children are up 160%.
C. Education
1. The educational standard of measure has been the SAT scores. SAT scores had been steady for many years before 1963. From 1963 they rapidly declined for 18 consecutive years, even though the same test has been used since 1941.
2. In 1974-75 the rate of decline of the SAT scores decreased, even though they continued to decline. That was when there was an explosion of private religious schools. There were only 1000 Christian schools in 1965. Between 1974 to 1984 they increased to 32,000.
a. That could have an impact if the private schools had higher SAT scores. In checking with the SAT Board it was found that indeed the SAT scores for private schools were nearly 100 points higher than public schools.
b. In fact the scores were at the point where the public schools had been before their decline started in 1963 when prayer and Bible reading/ instruction was removed from the schools.
c. The scores in the public schools were still declining.
3. Of the nation's top academic scholars, three times as many come from private religious schools, which operate on one-third the funds as do the public schools.
D. The Nation
1. Since 1963 violent crime has increased 544%.
3. Illegal drugs have become an enormous & uncontrollable problem.
2. The nation has been deprived of an estimated 30 million citizens through legal abortions just since 1973.

brian breuer
07-03-2009, 10:57 PM
Could you please tell me what document this comes from?



What is wrong with a paddle or 2 when our kids misbehave. How many of you deal with schools today? I'm in schools everyday with my job and man how things have changed. I've watched teachers, principles and others drag kids (I'm talking about Elem School kids) to the office because they wouldn't walk. I've been knocked off ladders and had things thrown at me while I was working. When I was in school if we did something like this we would have gotten a few licks at school then we would have got it at home.



Do a little research and find out what happen to our school system after prayer and God was taken out. What was wrong with prayer, the little bible and Ten Commandments? I guess we don't care that kids are killing kids, drugs are killing kids, teen pregancy, sucide and everything else that are kids are going through today. Here are just a few facts...


A. Young People
1. For 15 years before 1963 pregnancies in girls ages 15 through 19 years had been no more than 15 per thousand After 1963 pregnancies increased 187% in the next 15 years.
2. For younger girls, ages 10 to 14 years, pregnancies since 1963 are up 553%.
3. Before 1963 sexually transmitted diseases among students were 400 per 100,000. Since 1963, they were up 226% in the next 12 years.
B. The Family
1. Before 1963 divorce rates had been declining for 15 years. After 1963 divorces increased 300% each year for the next 15 years.
2. Since 1963 unmarried people living together is up 353%
3. Since 1963 single parent families are up 140%.
4. Since 1963 single parent families with children are up 160%.
C. Education
1. The educational standard of measure has been the SAT scores. SAT scores had been steady for many years before 1963. From 1963 they rapidly declined for 18 consecutive years, even though the same test has been used since 1941.
2. In 1974-75 the rate of decline of the SAT scores decreased, even though they continued to decline. That was when there was an explosion of private religious schools. There were only 1000 Christian schools in 1965. Between 1974 to 1984 they increased to 32,000.
a. That could have an impact if the private schools had higher SAT scores. In checking with the SAT Board it was found that indeed the SAT scores for private schools were nearly 100 points higher than public schools.
b. In fact the scores were at the point where the public schools had been before their decline started in 1963 when prayer and Bible reading/ instruction was removed from the schools.
c. The scores in the public schools were still declining.
3. Of the nation's top academic scholars, three times as many come from private religious schools, which operate on one-third the funds as do the public schools.
D. The Nation
1. Since 1963 violent crime has increased 544%.
3. Illegal drugs have become an enormous & uncontrollable problem.
2. The nation has been deprived of an estimated 30 million citizens through legal abortions just since 1973.


I am calling BS. If in 1963 divorce was 1% it only takes you to 1968 until divorce is over 240%

Lies, damn lies and statistics regards. Mark Twain

zeus3925
07-03-2009, 11:12 PM
Well Kim what you're seeing is not less religion but less parental responsibility.

Cody Covey
07-03-2009, 11:25 PM
those damn liberals


(btw i am kidding)

zeus3925
07-03-2009, 11:26 PM
Pete:

I sent you a private message.

kimsmith
07-04-2009, 06:19 AM
Well Kim what you're seeing is not less religion but less parental responsibility


It's evolution, we start out by having 2 moral parents, then over time parents start to drift away from God and no longer hear about Gods word, no longer feel a need to stay together. Then the kids start to learn bad behavior from the parents and they grow up worse than their parents did. Then we start using Time Out to Correct our kids instead of listen to Gods word about correcting and loving our children. Then children no longer Honor there parents, they no longer have respect for life because they were taught they started as a worm and will go back to the dirt with the worms. Life has no meaning because nothing happens after death If prayer, Ten Commandments or any other religious material that could save just one of these kids from a life of destruction, it would be worth it......

dnf777
07-04-2009, 06:22 AM
And while we're at it, let's reinstitute corporal punishment...

kg

Heeling stick or e-collars?

dnf777
07-04-2009, 06:38 AM
Could you please tell me what document this comes from?



What is wrong with a paddle or 2 when our kids misbehave. How many of you deal with schools today? I'm in schools everyday with my job and man how things have changed. I've watched teachers, principles and others drag kids (I'm talking about Elem School kids) to the office because they wouldn't walk. I've been knocked off ladders and had things thrown at me while I was working. When I was in school if we did something like this we would have gotten a few licks at school then we would have got it at home.



Do a little research and find out what happen to our school system after prayer and God was taken out. What was wrong with prayer, the little bible and Ten Commandments? I guess we don't care that kids are killing kids, drugs are killing kids, teen pregancy, sucide and everything else that are kids are going through today. Here are just a few facts...


A. Young People
1. For 15 years before 1963 pregnancies in girls ages 15 through 19 years had been no more than 15 per thousand After 1963 pregnancies increased 187% in the next 15 years.
2. For younger girls, ages 10 to 14 years, pregnancies since 1963 are up 553%.
3. Before 1963 sexually transmitted diseases among students were 400 per 100,000. Since 1963, they were up 226% in the next 12 years.
B. The Family
1. Before 1963 divorce rates had been declining for 15 years. After 1963 divorces increased 300% each year for the next 15 years.
2. Since 1963 unmarried people living together is up 353%
3. Since 1963 single parent families are up 140%.
4. Since 1963 single parent families with children are up 160%.
C. Education
1. The educational standard of measure has been the SAT scores. SAT scores had been steady for many years before 1963. From 1963 they rapidly declined for 18 consecutive years, even though the same test has been used since 1941.
2. In 1974-75 the rate of decline of the SAT scores decreased, even though they continued to decline. That was when there was an explosion of private religious schools. There were only 1000 Christian schools in 1965. Between 1974 to 1984 they increased to 32,000.
a. That could have an impact if the private schools had higher SAT scores. In checking with the SAT Board it was found that indeed the SAT scores for private schools were nearly 100 points higher than public schools.
b. In fact the scores were at the point where the public schools had been before their decline started in 1963 when prayer and Bible reading/ instruction was removed from the schools.
c. The scores in the public schools were still declining.
3. Of the nation's top academic scholars, three times as many come from private religious schools, which operate on one-third the funds as do the public schools.
D. The Nation
1. Since 1963 violent crime has increased 544%.
3. Illegal drugs have become an enormous & uncontrollable problem.
2. The nation has been deprived of an estimated 30 million citizens through legal abortions just since 1973.


"American Theocracy", Federalists papers, U.S. Constitution, "Founding Brothers", "John Adams"

As for your arguments, the U.S. abortion rate was the lowest in recent history under Bill Clinton. Not saying why or how, but that's a fact, and so we need to be careful of association versus causation. I could also get into a tit-for-tat in requesting prime-source-verification, because frankly, I don't buy those numbers you put up....

As for the numbers, ANY sociologist worth his weight in kibble will tell you that society is a multifaceted beast, and to say those changes (if true) are all related to church in school is bunk!!!

In 1963, blacks couldn't ride in the front of a bus, women could only be teachers, secreteries, or nurses, and if they did happen to find a job, weren't paid anywhere NEAR their male counterparts. Sociology is a complex beast.

kimsmith
07-04-2009, 07:10 AM
"American Theocracy", Federalists papers, U.S. Constitution, "Founding Brothers", "John Adams"



Could you please show me were to find this in our Constitution, Federalists papers or from John Adams. Thanks for your help....


Sociology is a complex beast

You are correct it is a complex beast and one we created. I can't believe you wouldn't agree if people would Love their Neighbor as themselves, Honor there parents then we wouldn't have the problems with our society that we have today. When we start believing that life after death doesn't mean anything why would we care anymore. At that point we are just living for ourselves, our actions don't have any consequence's.

YardleyLabs
07-04-2009, 07:13 AM
Could you please tell me what document this comes from?

...

Thomas Jefferson:Letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in January 1, 1802:



"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."


John Adams: "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" [1787-1788]


"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.
". . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."

James Madison: Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments (1785)

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."
"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."

Ben Franklin: Autobiography

". . . Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a through Deist."

Thomas Paine: The Age of Reason

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my church. "
"Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity."


The fact is that at the time of the Revolution, church attendance was relatively uncommon. Many of the framers of the Constitution were Freemasons -- deists but unwedded to notions of Christian orthodoxy -- and that was a factor promoting their view of a secular state. There was a subset of the population that lobbied for designation of the country as a Christian nation, and that attack was actually part of the campaign against Jefferson. However, Jefferson was elected and the push to make religion more a part of the fabric of the country largely dissipated.

kimsmith
07-04-2009, 07:24 AM
Thanks Yard, the only place you will find the words separation of Church and State is in that letter that Jefferson wrote to the Baptist Association. It's been taking out of context every since. Now most think it's in our Constitutions and every other document that our founding fathers wrote. I agree the government or state shouldn't tell you how to worship or if you have to worship but it never intendant for us to take God out of our country.

YardleyLabs
07-04-2009, 07:37 AM
Thanks Yard, the only place you will find the words separation of Church and State is in that letter that Jefferson wrote to the Baptist Association. It's been taking out of context every since. Now most think it's in our Constitutions and every other document that our founding fathers wrote. I agree the government or state shouldn't tell you how to worship or if you have to worship but it never intendant for us to take God out of our country.

Let me add, from Thomas Paine's Common Sense:

"And here, without anger or resentment I bid you farewell. Sincerely wishing ... ye may always fully and uninterruptedly enjoy every civil and religious right; and be, in your turn, the means of securing it to others; but that the example which ye have unwisely set, of mingling religion with politics, may be disavowed and reprobated by every inhabitant of America." (emphasis added)

It is impossible to read the texts of our forefathers without understanding that they sought a truly secular state and believed that wedding religion to government was a certain road to the elimination of freedom of personal conscience. This commitment is expressed both by what is in and not in the Constitution. No where in the Constitution is their mention of God or Christ or religion except in an exclusionary form:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; " (First Amendment)

"no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (Article VI, US Constitution)