Watching a program last night about the possibilities of intelligent life on other planets and they reasoned that since it was such a "lucky" set of circumstances that led to the development of intelligent life on earth,it was unlikely to happen again elsewhere.

That got me thinking again about evolution,creation and all the things in between. It's a tough question for me because I just don't really have the tools to really tackle the question. I don't have the education or background needed to be able to look at all the evidence and be able to say "this is how it happened". The best I can do is look at the evidence,listen to people who do have the education and understanding of these things and try to decide. Problem is there is so much bias on both sides of the argument it's hard to get a good debate going that doesn't dissolve into a mud-slinging contest.

I'm often surprised by the amount of knowledge possesed by the collective board here so I'd like to toss the question up here again-what is your opinion on the matter? I'm not really talking about the beginning of life here,as science hasn't even really triedto explain that one,far as I know. I'm more concerned with how we got from the beginning of life to where we are now.

What determines your stance on the issue? Do you look strictly at the science? Does the fossil record convince you? How much of what you believe is influenced by your religion and what you where taught as a child? I'll be perfectly honest and say that where it not for my religuos upbringing I'd probably lean pretty heavily to the evolution side of the debate.As it is I believe we can say that evolution did and does take place, but if it is responsible for the diversity of species we have today is another matter. From what I've seen,there are enough holes in the fossil record and in the whole evolutionary chain to cast serious doubt on the matter.
Ringman sent me a series if CD's on the subject that where very well done and presented excellent evidence for creation. I've also listened to the othere side of the debate and their evidence is also very good and convincing. Seperately,each side presents a good and well thought out argument. That makes it difficult for a laymen like myself to really know what to believe.
I'd like to hear from the folks here as to what you believe and why you believe it. Not trying to get into any arguments,just would like to hear as much good evidence as possible,from either side.

Let me start the fight.Evolution is just one more faith based belief system.I know they have their evidence but so did chicken little.After all it did hit him in the head.

The evidence for evolution is so overwhelming as to be undeniable by any person fundamentally knowledgeable about biology, zoology, comparative anatomy, genetics, and/or the fossil record.

As for intelligent life, I tend to agree that it is likely very rare. Just consider that life has existed on our planet for about four billion years. For approximately the first three billion years of life on earth it consisted exclusively of single cell organisms. What we'd call intelligent life didn't appear until just about 50,000 years ago (depending on how you recon intelligent life), i.e., just a tiny dot at the end of the long time line of life on the planet.

PS I don't see this in any way as contradicting Genesis, since Genesis doesn't say that any living thing appeared instantly upon command from God, but only that they appeared in abeyance to God's commands and that He saw that they were good (God, as proposed by Christians, can see all eternity from beginning to end, and doesn't exist within what we call time). It says nothing about when any living thing appeared. Also, it doesn't state that God created any living thing instantly from nothing, but rather that he commanded the seas and the earth to bring them forth, and they did, and that he saw they were good (see explanation in previous parenthetical).

"free will" will be used as evidence.

I just happen to have this barely used bridge that I would let go really cheap.

You look at the skeleton of a whale, they have bones that serve no purpose, and they look like hind limb bones. So I guess they either had hind limbs once, or are growing them. My money would be on the former.

I think some evolution has occurred, and continues today. It is likely more complex then Darwin suggested. And I am not necessarily convinced it did not have help.

We are talking monkeys that think entirely too highly of ourselves that enjoy attaching far too great importance on our individual and collective being.

I think for purpose of debate I'll have to call myself a "Creative Evolutionist"..I don't dismiss the overwhelming science but also feel a higher power was envolved.

Steven Hawkings just announced recently that God wasn't necessary for the "Big Bang" to have happened and the creation of the universe could have occured with just gravity...my question to him,"where did gravity come from"...definitely plan to read his new book to find out!!

This is a very ticklish subject which pits a lot of science against religious upbringing....I guess for me I'll take the best of both worlds and say that God set everything in motion!!!....FLEM

Gathering information is great.So much to understand and just look at.Its the jumping to conclusions that you gotta laugh at.Global warming is science,isnt it.Global cooling was science 25 years ago,wasnt it.Man is not as smart as some would think.To think that we understand the universe and how it happened is just out of touch with reality.All these theories are fine.Just remember the world is flat theory.Dont think you sound any differnt now.

I believe in The Creation that Evolved over time to its present state.

I sure as hell hope there is something going on someplace else in the universe. I'd hate to imagine that we are the best that could be done, but then again that certainly gives more credibility to the accident theory.

Agreed--

I always felt it was a little ignorant to believe that we were the only ones in the past, now and future. Had a College Professor who taught that the mistakes made before us still resided in the universe and that we were simply next on trial and the next possible mistake, which if totally failed a new beginning would occur and we would move in with the rest. He said that's where possible second chances came from.

"Society does not consist of individuals, but expresses the sum of interrelations, the relations within which these individuals stand."

� Karl Marx,

I think it's all for naught as the world continues to spin. lots of happenstance that seems to scare the hell out of folks. For some reason they seem to have the need to believe that there is something 'better' afterward or some grand plan for them to help them sleep.


Fishing all day catching bull dolphins, returning to a shower, rum drinks and a 20 something year old, I can't image anything better after death.

Yet another reason why old Karl can blow me.

My mistake, for a second there I thought you were plagiarizing

Methinks people should get over themselves, but they won't.

Hope and change, hope and change

I firmly believe the planet Earth is but one grain of sand on the stellar beach...how can anyone look at the vastness of the cosmos and conclude that we are it?..not me !!!!!

The biggest thing going against the idea of intelligent life elsewhere is that they haven't borrowed money from the good ole USA.

Evolution is a theory. If it were a scientific fact, it would be called The Law of Evolution.

Darwin could not comprehend the living molecule, let alone DNA. Anyone considering the origin of life must ask; where did life begin? Fish only come from fish. Humans only come from humans.

It's all just a guess. God is a guess, the Bible is a guess, it's all guessing.

Can't disagree with that. Hoping that at some point I can gather enough info to take it past the WAG stage to edjucated guess stage.

You know what they call and educated guess? A guess

+1

The scientific sense of the word theory is not the common sense, which is more like conjecture. Evolution is what all of scientific observation unambiguously points to. It is equal in status to the theory that the earth orbits the sun. It is only called a scientific theory because it is amenable to being disproved were it an incorrect explanation of observable facts.

An example of a conjecture which is not a scientific theory, because non-disprovable (i.e., no set of facts could possibly be observed which could contradict it), would be that all the evidence which points to evolution was planted here on earth by God in order to entrap humans into believing in evolution so that only those with a simple faith in the ex nihilo creation of all things would hold the right belief and thus be saved. Since this is non-disprovable, it cannot be a scientific theory. A scientific theory is an explanation of a set of observed facts which, were it false, would be subject to the possibility of being disproved by another set of observed facts in a particular context. That's why evolution is called a theory by scientists, not because it's a mere conjecture no better or worse than any other.

It all comes down to which guess, if any, you would like to believe. Or you can come up with your own theories and part ways with dogma. Don't really matter as one guess is just as likely as the other or not.

Only problem I have is the guessers that say their guess is right and the only way. They too can blow me.

See, just like that we have proof that we haven't evolved, nor will we.

Dance, Monkeys, Dance

Sycamore

[bleep], that is PERFECT. Pretty much sums up 99.9% of people

You start your argument by stating that no reasonable , intelligent , person can disagree with you .

The debate over ,Al ?

You are trying to have the best of both arguments and don't realize how incoherent your bastardized argument is .

You introduce a Creator who stands beyond time but then have Him operating from within time to do His creation .

Evolutionists offer a variety of scenarios on how evolution could have worked but want to restrict the creationist to the account in Genesis.

Being stuck with the Genesis account , however , is not nearly as large a hurdle as explaining a creation without a Creator.

You are truly a lightweight in this arena,Hawkeye . Don't bring kindergarten arguments into an adult conversation .

Talking monkeys, don't say I didn't warn you.

And we have much farther to go, or hit a wall... stalling out with apex of intelligent sounding words clarifying nothing...

just had to quote him huh... I could have went without reading that blather...

Kent

Instead of the Beatles, they should have shown a picture of The Monkeys:

Fortunately he is the kind of monkey that other monkeys point to and say 'Wow, what a [bleep] retarded monkey'

I only wish he was across from me so I could actually sling real feces at him.

You may have confused the mere proposition of non-contradiction with an argument. You may also be confusing undeniability (considering the current state of scientific knowledge) with non-disprovability.

No, he confused you with having more than one gene.

Let's meet up, Steelhead. I think we live fairly near each other, based on your avatar. We might become friends.

Lemme guess, you'll be the one in diapers? I'd rather meet up a rat.

I'd say you have a 50-50 shot.

Bob?

I have a degree in Pastoral Ministry. I graduated Summa Cum Laude, from a very rigorously academic College. You can imagine that I was forced to study the Bible backwards, forwards,upside down, and inside out. It does not mean that I am religious or even intelligent for that matter, but I do try to live for my Creator (though I fail) That, and a couple of bucks might get you a cup of coffee. It does mean, however, that I have spent a LOT of time, most of 40 years, studying the Bible. I began this quest to prove it wrong. I married a preacher's daughter, and was hoping to shoot her Christianity down in flames. Look at the facts. What other work, written and compiled over centuries, by so many authors of different backgrounds and cultures, could have predicted, without one failure, to prophecy with laser-like accuracy world events past ,present, and yet to be. Jesus Himself, fulfilled every single prophecy that was foretold about Him many years prior to His arrival. We are just now beginning to see the unfolding of the end times. Do I believe that The Creator could also implement a system whereby He could employ aspects of evolution as well? Yes,I do. Million upon million of American Bison were left to rot on the prairies of this nation. Where are their bones now? Mostly scattered by scavengers, and returned to the earth through decay. And yet, there have been unearthed vast deposits of dinosaur bones and remains, in mass deposits that remain intact. Among the greatest scientists,all concur, that only a flood of epic proportions could have caused this anomaly. In fact, the encapsulation of these animals within the settling sediment so sealed some of the remains from oxygen, I recently discovered that some of the meat remaining on the bones was so preserved that it could be safely eaten. Mastodon steaks anyone? Wasn't there a flood mentioned in the Bible? I could go on and on, but to what purpose/ I have had my Damascus Road experience. I pray that most of you fine folks here (you too Issac and Steve O) will too, one of these days. Hopefully, before it is too late, as time draws short. In my mind, a man would be an utter fool to believe in nothing more than evolution. YMMV.

Flame away.

No that's ok. You are one of the talking monkeys that feels the need to tell others that they are wrong in their beliefs. So you will be one of the talking monkeys sucking cock in hell. Enjoy it, you won't be alone.

I believe as you but be aware that there was a huge market for bison bones as fertilizer in the late eighties-eary nineties .Most were hauled to the RR and shipped .

That's what I figured.

What is what you figured [bleep]? Have you met Sam? Hell he's damn near across the street from you, I'm 700 miles away.

Should the day come that I run out of idiots and feel the need to meet one more I'll make the journey.

Sam and I were talking about getting together. I suggested sushi. He never got back to me.

That only took you what, like 8 years.

No, this was many years ago.

===============

Ahhh man...and just when I was on the verge of stepping over,too!!!

Hard to say no to that invite ain't it........

Evolution....

Works for most, but not for everyone...

That's mean.

I wonder if Vegas is giving odds?

That's one I couldn't lose,Mike!!

That's mean.
================

To a agnostic,they're attempts at humor only!

My faith teaches me that God is the creater. If I dont have faith in that then I have nothing. Those who beleive in evolution have faith in evolution. The reason things apear old is because God created it to be. How could an animal survive if the plant it ate didn't already have fruit or leafs. I also think it took seven days just as Genesis says. If I don't believe this , how can I believe anything else the Bible says

But the Bible doesn't say that. You interpret the words that way because that interpretation fits perfectly the stories of creation you've been told since early childhood. For example, the Bible explains that children are conceived by a man and woman laying together, and this is perfectly true, but doesn't tell the whole story. Should you, therefore, ignore scientific observation that it's more involved than merely a man and woman laying together? Should you close your mind to all explanations other than the simple one that children are conceived by a man and woman laying together? Of course not. That would be ridiculous. Likewise, more was involved in the creation of living creatures than God flashing them into existence in their present forms. In fact, the Bible doesn't even say He did that. It says he commanded the sea and the land to bring forth all living things. It doesn't state that they were even formed on the day he commanded this, just that the command was issued on a particular day, and that he saw that it was good. Christians believe that God can see all eternity from beginning to end as if it were a tapestry laid out before him. He doesn't experience the slow unfolding of time the same way mere creatures do.

Hey it's the John Moses clan again----gus included!

I really don't understand why you'd have to throw out your whole faith just because you don't buy the 7 day creation thing. Like Longranger280 said,the bible is comprised of many books written by many different authors,not by God himself.
I don't pretend to understand nearly all the science behind evolution, so the holes I see may or may not exist. By the same token, I don't know how God works either.Evolution as I understand it doesn't quite make sense and doesn't quite add up for me. The 7 day creation as outlined in the Bible also doesn't make sense and doesn't add up for me. Maybe it doesn't make a difference in the grand scheme of things,but my curiosity keeps me searching.

Speaking of which,where is John?? The big man has been noticeably quiet the last few days. I hope all is well. He's fun to have around!

Sorry old mate....I for one do not find the two mutually exclusive.

I do have a problem about trying to interpret or classify God though....I am happy to accept that there is higher control to some degree, and am also happy to allow others to call that control "God", I simply do not feel the need to limit via classification that which I do not fully understand.

And nothing pisses me off more that some clown in a dress telling me that he has the sole path to knowledge and righteousness.

I love that pic. WTF is that on the far right? I'm sure there's got to be pretty interesting story about this picture.

There but for the grace of God, go I.......and I would not wish that affliction upon anyone.

WTF is that on the far right?
============

Spittin' image of mommy,ain't it??

Thats John moses on the far right....

Ingwe

pinhead http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zip_the_Pinhead

Bob...Heres JMs SEnior Picture...with his Prom Date...





Ingwe

I saw a documentary on that syndrome once, but cannot remember what it's called.

And here he is all growed up...



Ingwe

From that smile, it looks like buying the corsage paid off!

TFF!!!

I'll just leave you alone with your thoughts on this one...



Ingwe

microcephalic. pinhead

Forget evolution. What you have right there is indisputable evidence of de-evolution.

Now off to prep some more wild boar roast for tomorrow.

Yeah, I'm familiar with pinheads, but I thought this was a case of a certain rare form of dwarfism.

Get a load of his canines.

Yeah, I'm familiar with pinheads
============

Let it go,Bob.

You're being hypersensitive, Bob. Not every reference to pinheads is directed at you.

Either aliens HAVE landed, or maybe....

The sheep were all taken one night..

Are you sure about that?

Just sayin'

For evolution to take place:

Many organisms must be born over many generations.

Within that group of organisms there must be small variations among individuals.

There must be environmental changes that favor certain individuals over others.

In a valley there is a birch forest.

Gypsy moth caterpillars hatch into either brown or white moths.

In that forest, all of the gypsy moths you see are white.

Evolution would suggest that white gypsy moths hid better from birds in the white birch forest. They did a greater share of the breeding and more of their progeny survived to breed themselves. Eventually all the gypsy moths were white.


Coal burning factories are built in the valley. They produce so much soot that all the birches in the valley are stained a dark brown.

As the pollution gets worse, all the gypsy moths disappear. They're gone. Not really, look closer! On the sooty birches there are still gypsy moths, only now they are all brown.

That's an actual story I was taught in college to illustrate how to teach evolution to kids.

Today, you can't say things like we have the exact sodium content in our blood as sea water or we share 99% of our DNA with [bleep] and have the same blood types.

Yeah? So what's the scientific explanation for JM?

Present company excluded.

To believe in evolution, you must believe that chemical systems organize themselves. Further you must believe they started by organizing themselves billions of times in a row until they developed reproductive capability. I can't believe that.

I further can not believe that anything, including the rules of the universe can call themselves into existence. Man can not create something from nothing - shoot, he can not even truly destroy anything to nothing. I will concede that the current administration is about to make a breakthrough here.

I challenge anyone interested the quality of argumentation presented by the pro macroevolution crowd here to look up the meaning of the logical fallacies, ad hominem, ad populum, and ad verecundiam, just to mention a few of the most egregious ones, and go through the last few pages.

I thought you just had to put one of those fish with the word Darwinism inside of it on your car bumper.

Sorry,-- assuming rational discourse. Good point. Actually, you only need to chant the mantra (good at Google helps).

Sorry to be late to the party....

Evolution and much but not all of today's astro-physics seems to be an attempt to explain the natural world without reference to God and to explain away the Creator

As Rob P stated, this the moth thing is taught as evolution and of course it not. That is simply a change within a species and the DNA does not change. We can start with a coyote and with selective breeding end up with a Yorkshire terrier. That is not evolution. The whole fossil record "horse" thing that is popular in school book is not evolution. You could duplicate the entire record with selective breeding. If the fossil record showed a Yorkshrfe terrier and then a beagle and then a great dane....would that be "evolution?" What a load of crap.

We have an education system populated with morons who are more concerned with being anti-God and care only to align themselves with their leaders to promote their own interests. Sad state of affairs. Little scientific discipline and honor these days.

Evolution is giong from a dog to a giraffe so-to-speak. Going from one species..... a frog to a salamander to a lizard and so on until you have a monkey then a man. Totally unproven and total THEORY. Cannot duplicate it in a lab and the fossil record ... in my opinion and I am a degreed geologist.... the record does not support the evolutionary theory.

It requires more "faith" to believe that nonsense than to believe in a Creator.

Switch to the latest Stephen Hawking flap. This bozo actually expects us to believe that "everything" came from "nothing."

"Everything" we see is PROOF of the Creator. It really is that simple.

Slim

I find it philosophically sad that Hawking does not even recognize the force of gravity as "something".

You're confusing an origin of life issue with that of evolution. They are not the same.

OT...

Yup, scientificiallty lazy.... sad that he seems to be just out for headlines and calling attention to himself. Very sad.

Slim

oldtrapper, you'll make the monkeys dance

Never, ever, found it necessary to combine logic/reason with emotion. The Lord lives in my desire and the scientific process in my reasoning.

Never had a problem with the two co-existing, so long as they reside in different towns.

But I is strange<grin>.

They are not related because that position (origin of life) is not even any longer defensible. If you want to hear a real laugher, some say it happened elsewhere, as if the laws of the universe do not apply there.

Since when isn't it one of the fundamental macroevolutionary ideas that organisms (chemical systems) are getting more organized?

It is telling that the "straw man" the evolutionists argue against is the Genesis account of creation . True scientists would consider the Egyption , Greek , and Norse mythologies concerning creation as well as the Christian version .

Actually , Creation of Nature - since it by definition would not be something which could be replicated - is not a fit candidate for scientific study .

The same argument could be made against Evolution as the origin of the species being suitable for scientific study .

So evolution is a religion just as much as Christianity is a religion .

The Christian claim is ;" God thought "it" and "it" was ".

Evolution has to seek its' explanations within that " it " .

Which is logically the superior religion ?

Just for fun, if death came into the world through sin (Romans5:12) how can evolution, which is claimed by some to be God's chosen method, be possible? Evolution is based on selection by death.

You raise an interesting question. Could it be that the death you speak of is spiritual death, i.e., being in a state of original sin? After all, when the New Testament refers to entering into life, it's referring to spiritual life, i.e., a state of grace.

In the alternative, since grace, by means of Christ on the cross, was imputed to those who in faith died before the crucifixion, so too death may have come into the world as a result of Adam's fall from grace even for those creatures that lived prior to it.

Curdog....

Interesting.... let me think but for now:

Hmmm, yep, I agree that evolution is a "religion" given the common idea of what "religion" is.

Yep, you may be right in that the study of of the act of creation is not worthy of pursuit. Yet, the study of that which exists or created is certainly worthy of study. Therefore, the scientific pursuit of the theory of evolution would be appropriate. Same for the big bang type of study. Creation of course is different from evolution.

Evolution is a theory of what happened after the "creation."

More later.... gonna hit the sack...

Slim

Why would a scientist argue AGAINST any account of creation?

A scientist gathers facts and then formulates a theory to best fit those facts, said theory is subject to change and additions as new facts are gathered.

It is up to the peers to review the theory and decide for their selves if it holds water.

Most scientists are no more concerned over one myth than another.

The wages of sin is --what?

Pretty sure it's your ordinary kind of death.

Actually, scientists are just people and very capable of having their own agendas.

It is a very human agenda to want to be at the top of the "god" food chain.

The theory of evolution puts man there.

Eat of this fruit (evolutionary theory) and you too shall be as God. Sounds kinda familiar doesn't it?

I think the idea of an all powerful Creator beats the idea of evolution without resorting to the Bible which , after all , is for believers .

An all powerful Being who is self existent and is beyond time would be expected to be incomprehensible to our finite minds .

Honest seekers can accept that much as logic , not faith .

Evolution offers a salve to the ego to avoid confronting that hard fact . It is incompatible with Christianity and those professing to hold both views are soothing their intellect at the expense of their spiritual nature .

The Bible IN ANY OF ITS" VERSIONS makes that Being a tad more comprehensible by using language which is inexact in places but understandable by us .

"Eat of the fruit of this tree and ye shall surely die." They were surprised when they didn't physically die. That's because their death was spiritual, i.e., a separation from God. The wages of their sin was spiritual death.

I never did get how reproduction fits into the evolution theory. At what point did women start popping out babies in the evolution process? How did we reproduce before then?

My mistake . I used the term "evolutionists" in my first sentence , then used "scientist" in the second sentence when in fact I had the same person in mind all along .That person being a layman who believes in evolution to the extent that he argues from it.

It was a clumsy attempt to point out that most layperson evolutionists seem to think they must choose between it and Genesis , when in fact there is no shortage of other explanations for our origin .

The same way. Eve, however, was apparently a clone of Adam, since the Bible says God made her from his rib.

So do you believe that the first human evolved from sludge, apes, etc.. and then God made a clone with boobies, and they had the first baby?

I haven't seen em around lately.

Don't be fillin' in all them blanks for him , Calvin ,. Make him think up his own answers . They'll be nuttier than that !

What evolved first? The penis or the vagina?

I think they died.

You were quoting God.

I was quoting satan.

Big difference.

That would be Steelhead's area of study . I'll go to bed and see what his answer is in the AM .

Wow, and to think, I was taught that for twenty years that "fruit" was akin to the mark of the beast, and that mark was Sunday Worship.

Not saying I believe a lot of what I was taught, but I was taught you could be akin to God if you could cause people to abandon the Sabbath and begin to worship on an unholy day.

Either theory makes about as much sense to me.

for the continuance of life, without it, there would be certain death.

Steelhead:"We are talking monkeys that think entirely too highly of ourselves that enjoy attaching far too great importance on our individual and collective being."

+1

We are all just naked apes...still God's creations.

Biblically, we do not have much basis, in and of ourselves, to boast of anything we are or have accomplished.

Money. Science ceased to be science long long ago. Science is driven by grants. Grant givers have agendas. Can't do your "research" without the money.

Consider "Global Warming" or as they like to call it now, "Climate Change".

Grant holders destroy the scientific method. They approach "scientist" (who need to feed their families) with the question "Can you find any evidence that supports this theory?" So, scientist look for specific evidence that "could" support the GIVEN hypothesis.

It's backwards from the scientific method.

I trust science about as much as I trust a 90 year old mans fart. It's probably more than a fart.

That's my educated guess. Adam evolved from an animal homo sapien, i.e., physically a human being, but without a soul or the creative spark. Then God breathed a soul into him, and cloned Eve from his rib (perhaps 50,000 years ago). That would seem to be the only way to square the current understanding of biology with the Bible account.

You are saying that Adam lived for millions (Billions?) of years, without dying through the whole evolution process, before he was able to reproduce when Eve was cloned?

Lucy was no lady.

Don't know if she could dance.

No sir. I'm saying that life began on earth some four billion years ago, having been brought forth by the waters and the earth under command of God. God commanded these elements to bring forth all living creatures, and they did so. Science has labeled the process by which the waters and the earth did this "evolution." It took the waters and the earth approximately four billion years to bring forth physical man. God elevated one of these physical men to human status by breathing into him a soul, and from him he took a rib and made Eve (assuming one accepts what the Bible says as true), who was a female version of Adam, genetically identical except for her sex.

So the non souled humans were able to reproduce? At what point did they start screwing in the evolution process to continue the species? How did the species continue before they screw'd?

BTW, HOLY CRAP do you need to make some stuff up to hold your beliefs.

"What we are today comes from our thoughts of yesterday,
and our present thoughts build our life of tommorow:
Our life is the creation of our mind."

~ Buddha

~ 0mm-m-m-m-m-m-m-m-m-m-m-m-m-m-m-m-m-m-m-m- ...

Calvin , TRH is gonna set Christianity back a thousand years if you continue prompting him .

You want that on your concience ?

I won't criticise anyones opinion on this subject because as I read each post it becomes very clear of personal convictions/religious upbringing and educational influence.

As I said earlier I classify myself as a Creative Evolutionist...I totally belief in sound science but also I believe that a higher power set everything in motion.You can flame me on this approach if you want which is OK but just keep it civil.

I would like to throw out a hypothetical for discussion which will take us down a somewhat different path.
"What would it do to everyones beliefs/convictions if an Alien race would make itself know and would say that they had something to do with the appearance of man on this planet?"

I have always felt that our perception of the creator and our very existence in the grand order of things is infantile.We perceive US to be all knowing and spiritual...a fairly vain approach at best!! Flame away....FLEM

"

A lot of christians would claim the aliens were manifestations of Satan , the great deciever .Some would point to the comment Jesus made about having other sheep " not of this fold ".

The Creator God communicates with created man through man's emotions , not thru man's intellect . If you want a well trained working dog you do the same thing . You want him to want your approval and to get that , he must do as you wish . It's what's known as bidability on the part of the dog . The chasm between man and God is much wider than that between man and dog , but God's powers are superior to those of the dog's trainer so He makes it work .

Man recieves a message from God thru his emotional seat such as when viewing his newborn child or a beautiful starry night and he immediately starts trying to translate it to himself using his reasoning powers , or intellect .God is saying ;" Look what I made for you ".

Man replies ;" How ? Why?"

God can't answer that to the man's satisfaction anymore than a man could answer his dog's question .

So man starts trying to figure it out for himself .

OK.....here's evolution: Magically....er, scientifically speaking, there was this primordial soup that arose from a big bang where "something came from nothing"......and only on one planet in the known universe this special soup was struck by lightning and amino acids became linked......those molecules then evolved into micro-organisms then fish then monkeys and then (drum roll) humans!

Do you evolutionists really believe your own nonsense?

Here's the ultimate question for you evolutionists: How do you get something from nothing? Let me make that even clearer for you: How does matter arise where none existed before? And since you laugh at the idea of eternity, when was matter formed......or has that always existed? Oh, the "singularity".....I forgot.

God created evolution.

The earth is a big rock.

Rocks don't produce life,...and single cell animals don't morph into beings that can take pieces of that rock and convert them into machines which can carry those beings to the moon,.......unless it's all by design.

I believe in evolution,...but I don't believe it was spontaneous and I don't believe it was an accident.

Origin of Sex theory is almost as interesting as the Origin of Life theories.

The alternate reproductive scheme of sexual reproduction (co-mingling of genetic material) is asexual reproduction. Perhaps the answer to your query is: reproduction, before sex, occurred somewhat like the budding of yeast.

With the exception of the biblical account of the origin of Eve, mammals are not normally capable of asexual reproduction.

Funny, I see it the opposite way......and I'm a scientist of sorts......just happen to use a scalpel.

Who created God?? We have the fossils,dude! We win!!

Are you going to hit me with the "he just exists" talking point? Speak of believing your own nonsense.

Paranoid,frightened and superstitious men created God!

In regards to Jesus and his comments about "Sheep of a different fold"....I don't think it says anywhere that he said these sheep were of the devil..if so enlighten me.

This sort of reminds me of the question of whether a man will see heaven if he hasn't been exposed to god or Christianity?...FLEM

Nah, we'll just say that matter just exists, right smart guy? Matter is either eternal or it arose, right? Can something(matter) come from nothing? Or does matter have no beginning?

I'm not frightened, just scientific......and you can't or won't answer that question.

Isaac says..."matter just exists".

Bob....that was a "click and save".....

Ingwe

Again,who created your God? You're a far cry from being scientific, thus far.

Typical, answer with a question......you must be laughing at yourself now for having never looked at it the way I presented it.

Isn't evoking 'a Creator' the intellectual equivalent of the origin of life happening elsewhere?

I'm laughing at you,frustrated one. You're the one accsing folks of being non-sensical when it's suggested "something came from nothing" So, what is the something that made your God,aside from man??

You confusing matter with energy is where you may wish to enlarge your education.

Except you still leave out the crux of the issue: What did the first particle of matter EVOLVE from? Or is it eternal? You folks falter at the same point every time.

My church is a duck blind.....

As smart as you are , your mind can't really comprehend an infinite universe that is still expanding .[expanding into "what" , if it is infinite ?]

It can't comprehend billions of universes existing at the same "time" .

It can't comprehend a self existent Being not bound by space or time and able to Create "all there is" from nothing .

But you can comprehend evolution , you think . So your intellectual pride is satisfied but you still don't have an answer as to "why" .


If I accept the idea of a self existent Being - even knowing I can't comprehend Him - I don't have to disagree with the first two proposals .

Becoming convinced of God's existence doesn't close a man's mind ; it opens it .

You see like a blind duck,though!

Was Christ a Vampire?

Life has been virtually wiped out several times on our planet. Each time, it fights back.

I believe in evolution.

Read my post again . I didn't link them .

Hey doofus......energy is still particle-based unless you can tell us all otherwise. The point is not for you to keep asking me where God came from....you know my answer to that one. I'm interested in knowing where your first particle came from. I hope you're not a trial lawyer because you can't argue jack.

It's funny how the mention of a supreme being causes some people to devote so much time and energy on "hate"ful denunciations.

It's like it was by design.

I've never understood the difficulty in believing both.


Isn't it quite possible that we evolved from apes and the creation of man was the introduction of a soul into a soulless creature

Steelhead.....you're just a cut and paste douche......go back to bed.

Not hateful, seems it's pretty much the 'believers' that are willing to kill another and themselves. Believers flew into the Trade Center, blow themselves up, take heads for not converting. It ain't Joe the baker for not eating white bread.

Guessing you hear that a whole bunch at home

I'm actually surprized at seeing a lot of well thought-out responses from both camps in this thread...
But Im still compelled to start popping corn and crack open a cold one, even though its early....

Steelie...where do you get this stuff....?...


Ingwe

It'll do until hateful comes along,...and it's not the first time.

Your rants against any and all things biblical have been a campfire mainstay for as long as I've been here and longer.

==================================

How do you know your God exists? Can you identify the origin of any of his particles? You haven't the skill set to be calling folks a doofus,chump change!!

Think of energy slowing to where it can be recognized. Einstein's theories could help you out there should you need more help.

My fav

================
Your attempt to call anyone out on rants is beyond laughable!

Another " click and save"..

Ingwe

As I've stated, reproduction carried on in the normal way from day one. The first species on the planet reproduced only by division. Multi-celled organisms, which first appeared about one billion years ago, were the first to reproduce sexually. Could you explain your objection to the idea of normal reproduction prior to Adam?Not every detail of everything is contained in the Bible. Most of human knowledge was acquired by means other than reading the Bible. Inferential efforts to square that knowledge with what it says in the Bible is not the same as "making stuff up."

Just for example, the Bible tells us that when a man and woman "know" one another (a euphemism for sex), a baby is conceived, yet there is a great deal more scientific goings on than that. There's the interaction of sperm and egg, gene mixing, cell division, attachment of the zygote to the uterine wall, etc., none of which is explained in the Bible, but we can infer that whenever the Bible states that a man and woman "knew" one another and had a child that all these things also took place. This inference is achieved by combining a modern knowledge of basic biology with what we read in the Bible. Or are you suggesting that we ought to reject all knowledge not acquired directly from reading the Bible when we're reading it, and just assume that some sort of magical process results in babies when a man and woman "know" one another?

Not exactly. Evolution is based on reproductive success. Death sometimes plays a part. But, strictly speaking, it is not necessary.


Just for fun.

Your horns and tail are showing.

Put on a hat.

Ask Him .He is alive and well .

I talked to Him this morning .

Thinking you can't follow that it's the messengers and not the message. Too many 'Christians' that have been such POS [bleep]. Blaine was my first example on this site when I was asking some questions many years ago.

That you can't follow that I'm not this way concerning Christ and the Bible with EVERYONE on this site surprises me none.

It's the dickhead messengers, not the message.

That's what TRH proposed earlier on this thread .

You want to copper that bet ?

I forgot I was debating a lawyer.....answer a question with a question. My skill set laughs at yours......intellectually and physically. You keep on believing in nothing.

Next time you get that incredible, internal joy just watching ducks fly by in the twilight before LST remind yourself......those emotions evolved from muddy soup after an electrical charge hit it.

Can't prove it either way, hence faith/belief. It's apparently ok if one's belief follows with the sheep, not so much if it goes another path.

Well, no,..I don't see it as a chatisement of the "messengers" when you post the following.



If you have contempt for religion, it's definitely your right and your business. But don't try to deny it after putting on yet another one of your displays.

I didn't think you had a answer. But, no worries, I already knew you didn't. Those ducks that provide us so much joy sure have changed their appearance over the past million years,haven't they??

Again, you're confusing evolution with the question of life's origin. Evolution has nothing at all to say on the question of life's origin. An atheist would speculate about the things you discuss above, while a Christian would believe what it says in Genesis, i.e., that God commanded the physical universe into existence, divided things up on earth such as to make water and land, then commanded the water and land to bring forth all manner of life (which of course would include Adam's physical existence), then breathed a soul into Adam, and from his rib created Eve. No more explanation than that is provided in the Bible, so we are left with drawing inferences, based on extra-Biblical knowledge, as to the details.

You evolutionists are hopeless and apparently you can't read or answer objective questions....so I'll leave it at this:

Is your "faith" in a particle/matter that has no beginning or end any different than believing in God?

Yep, but when so many on hear tell others they will pray for them and hope the see the light before it's too late and spend an eternity in hell is a NICE thing.

Those that know me know it's not directed at them, those that don't have a clue and take it anyway they wish.

Nope and that was my point very early on. I don't care what people believe and it's all just a GUESS. If you don't believe in evolution I'm not about to claim that you will spend an eternity in hell for it. There is the difference.

Simply put, and I agree.

Oh it's real!
When looking for a mate...GO TO THE NEXT VALLEY!
If you've seen her at the family reunion...GO FARTHER!

Most of us on here believe that 2 + 2 = 4 but we are not called sheep just because we all agree on it .

For that matter you can't prove that 2 + 2 will never equal something other than 4 ------------ but you "take it on faith" that it won't .

Fair enough....it's a debate that cannot be "won".

Isaac is arguing with himself in a closet right now......and everything he says to himself is in the form of a question.

God is God because he's uncreated.

That explains it all...

Ingwe

then pray to the Flyin' Spaghetti Monster and hope HE touches you with His Noodley appendages

Then when we all croak we can sit on clouds and strum harps, look back and laugh!

It all makes perfect sense

Well then everything is faith. No one can prove anything and everything might be something else. It's all a guess then and one is as likely to guess correctly as incorrectly.

Jesus was merely speaking of those who were of the elect but had not yet heard of him or accepted him as Lord.

The reason I asked this was I assumed this was what you believe...sorry for my assumption....I think the idea of extraterrestial life is very hard for many to agree on and it goes against religious theology to a certain degree.

I don't know why its so hard to accept..my theory I will call "The Tunnel Vision of Man" is where one is not willing to step outside the bounds of traditional teachings and think for themselves.

As I said before it's an incomprehensable universe out there and to suggest that we are the crowning achievement is a rather narrow minded approach...IMO..!!.....FLEM

Christians who accept evolutionary science believe that God created all matter with a mere act of will.

The scalpel you are cutting with is a dulled by faulty intellect. Try Occam's Razor. Your victims will thank you for it.

Let me be the first to say that I don't have the answers, but then again none of you do either.

I'm ALL good for anyone believing anything they wish. If it brings one comfort and helps them through the day, rock on.


What I won't put up with is those of one belief, be it Octopus Man, Christ or Santa Claus, that tell others of different beliefs that they are WRONG.


We can argue to no end about who will win the Superbowl 45, but till the game is played and the final score shown it is all just a guess. One can argue on the technical aspects of the field, player stats etc just as one can go against the overwhelming statistical odds of one team and pick another based on pure faith.

All I know is unlike the aforementioned football game, we will not be able to discuss religious beliefs/truths/guesses after the final whistle of life has been blown.

We Christians claim that faith is required ONLY at the beginning of our "journey" .

I must have posted THIS a dozen times on this forum ;

A god that is not capable of convincing me of His existence is of no use to me and certainly not very powerful . But - as with any experiment - I must allow Him to reveal Himself as He is , not as I would have Him be .

i like the idea of an intelligent designer. but then, maybe not?

it makes sense that extraterrestrials have "messed" with our DNA over the ages...but why?

and of course, if we descended from space aliens, that's a step further removed from "God."

our binary DNA code limits our ability to understand, i would think.

But He has reveled Himself to me and it's different than some others on this thread believe. So who is right and who is wrong? No one.

And everyone

Your God made me a free thinking,agnostic. So, it's probably best you not question his wisdom.

On that note I'm out of this thread and only wish that everyone has a happy life and not worry about another persons belief or feel the need to defend/define their belief.

If you like chicken and not pork, then by all means spend a lifetime eating fowl. It's all a guess

SH...I think you are wrong about that....

There is only One Truth...



Ingwe

Flem , I'm blessed with a conception of God that answered my questions about E.T. and "what of those who never hear of Christ " etc . in this manner :

" What is that to you - follow thou me !"

Iow , when He doesn't provide an answer , He takes away the question and my mind is freed to enjoy what's right in front of me .

Besides, the Mayan's might just be right and this will be all for naught come 2013.....

Did Bob predict we are all going to die in 2012??

If so...I feel so much better now...

And will continue to contribute to my 401K..

Ingwe

Why would that be a step further away from God if he is the creator of all things??

Not so much. Ten million, somewhat, but still not by much. Birds first appeared about 150 million years ago. Waterfowl about 110 million years ago. The early ancestors of ducks were of this type, and looked remarkably like modern ducks. Interestingly, all modern birds are thought to have evolved from those waterfowl, while all other bird types existing 110 million years ago became extinct.

I don't have enough faith to believe in the theory of evolution.

If I see a wrist watch, I know it is a complex mechanism that had a maker and designer.

Likewise, when I consider DNA Transcription, Protein Assembly and messenger RNA, I know it had a maker and designer. It is a complex system that must work perfectly or it will fail. Not one part can of the system can be missing nor fail to function it purpose. It could not have evolved by happenstance.



Colossians 1:16 (New International Version)

"For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him."

Ever wonder who Cain lived with after he killed Abel? Perhaps the soulless animal-men from which Adam sprang.

I don't have enough faith to believe in the theory of evolution.
=====================

You simply haven't evolved,Plinker!

Or it mighta been the Wicked Witch in the Gingerbread house that tried to cook up Hansel and Gretel...


Ingwe

i dunno why. my thinking was that given a God, then if the space aliens flowed flowed from him, and then we were affected/developed by the aliens, we're a step further from God than the Original Aliens. of course, it could be suggested we're an advanced model of the Original?
just musing, that's all.

i know some folks argue that God sits in a hand-hewn Throne made of Red Oak. Personally i think he sits on a Throne of hand hewn White Oak.

others deny his Throne is made of wood at all.

Seems like all that can be said was said in the very first post.

Steve

A Christian would say that it was your free-will-empowered rebellion against God that made you that way, not God.

You know, when you sober up, you're an OK guy.

Fortunately one can sober up, but retard is just too much of a hurdle for you.

TRH - To be a christian one must believe that a man lived , was killed ,and rose from that death to live again forever .

If a man can accept that as truth then all the other cute little Q and A deals you come up with are kindergarten stuff .

Plinker..who would think a beautiful sparkling diamond could have come from a primal sedimentary bog under tremendous pressure for millions of years? ...The creator just didn't plant ready to go diamonds all over the planet!!! Just thought I'd throw this one at you.....FLEM

I highly recommend that you read Dawkins' The Greatest Show On Earth. Of course I disagree with his assumption that evolution disproves God's hand in creation, as he assumes that there are only three possible approaches, 1) fundamentalist Christian "Creationism," 2) intelligent design, or 3) atheist evolutionist. He misses the possibility of simply believing what Genesis describes, i.e., that God created all matter, then commanded that matter to bring forth all living creatures, i.e., God didn't micromanage the process, but brought about his will regarding the development of living things (including man) providentially, and the science of evolutionary biology fills in the details of that process as best it can.

the Physicist Frijoph Capra has written along the lines that you offer. his The Web of Life book is revealing.

and Dr. James Lovelock goes further afield with his Gaia theory, allowing a conscious Earth (matter).

xxclaro,

If you take just a few fundamental facts, evolution is simply unavoidable.

Those things are heritability (which everyone agrees happens).

Variation in heritibility caused by mutations (which everyone agrees happens).

differential fitness as a result of one's genes (which everyone agrees happens).

With those three things, genetic change (i.e., evolution) cannot HELP but happen.

Given our understanding of genetics and mathematics (neither of which are controversial), it is not an issue to prove that evolution happens, the true challenge is to prove that it cannot - and that no one has managed to do.

Brent
PS. anyone that says evolution is just one more faith-based religion is effectively claiming that 2+2=4 is an act of faith. Intelligent conversation is not always possible.

....... and the beat goes on ...

Good one. Ouch.

Agreed. God is limitless in power, but since he didn't say that he snapped his fingers and thus instantly brought all species into existence in their present form, we can assume that they came into existence (in accordance with his will) in the manner that all of science seems to indicate that they did, i.e., we are not required to close our minds to scientific discovery in order to be Christians.

PS In light of your belief system, how do you handle the verses in Genesis which clearly state that God commanded the waters and the earth to bring forth all manner of living things? Just curious. Seems to contradict your apparent belief in an ex nihilo creation of all species in their present form.

Where men stumble is trying to intellectualize matters of the spirit.

It don't fit.

Science can only prove or disprove things of the physical realm. Discernments of spiritual matters are internal, not external. The human mind is unable to wrap around it. Steelie's right, it's all guesswork.... and posturing.

+1 Good post.

reminds me of the discussions about lies, damned lies, and statistics.

i do believe that the advancements in the quantum physics are turning things on it's head, almost as much as when it was "discovered" that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and not vice-versa.

and yes, lot's of posturing going on.

We've got a lot to learn, Gus

Brent ; my comment about two plus two was intended to show the limitations of science .

Since a negative can't be proven , science must allow for the possibility that at some point down the road we may discover that two plus two equals something else .That doesn't keep a scientist from using math .

If one starts from the assumption that the universe and everything in it ALWAYS has obeyed physical laws then one effectively rules out the possibility of miracles .It still doesn't explain how the physical laws came to be without " Something" establishing/creating "something" . That doesn't keep scientists from learning a lot of stuff about the universe .

How we got here is not a question science can be expected to answer .

It is a religious/philosophical question and evolution is just one of many religious/philosophical answers .

most surely. probably that's an important reason why we're here?

Assuming we're still evolving. That is debatable...

TRH - I have no curiosity about Genesis or any other part of the bible .

-1 Bad post.

Plant life only come from plants. Mammals only come from mammals. Insects only come from insects.

If you believe evolution, answer me this: Which evolved first, the bee or plants?

Awaiting an answer..

I can't evolve. I'm still stuck on lever rifles and single action pistols.

cur,
if you said something about addition - I missed it. I didn't read the whole thread or even most of it.

In any event, the fact that evolution happens has really nothing to do with the existence of a supernatural power like god. I don't know any evolutionists that proclaim otherwise. Many modern evolutionary biologist are quite religious and see no conflict between religion and their work.

Regardless, evolution happens. And science is working on all the various ways in which the process goes on. In that way, we unroll the past to understand how we have what we have now. So, yes, evolution is the process by which we and everything else "got" here from some earlier point in time.

If you want to talk about the origins of the universe - well that you can leave to your god or some physicist. But if you want to talk about where the diversity of life comes from, how it changes, and why - that is evolution, pure and simple. It cannot help but happen, and it ain't gonna stop.

Brent

there probably are limits to our DNA's ability to adapt.

I just want to know at what point did sexual reproduction start? How did we reproduce prior to evolving to the point of sexual reproduction?

That's pretty much how I feel.

I'm very open to hear anyone's thoughts/opinions on any subject, what pisses me off is when some people are so closed minded that they think they're opinion is the only opinion. People that do not believe in evolution so often get down right pissed off if you suggest otherwise.

How much time would it take to learn everything there is to learn about the physical realm? It would take an eternity, or so I believe...

What if the body of man were the only part to suffer physical death? And the mind and spirit lived on, eternally?

What if all the mind and spirit of man did was step out of time? Is eternal life an infinite amount of time, or existence where there is no time?

I guess the only way to figure it is to theorize and intelectualize and conceptualize..... as best we can.... and posture

Great minds think alike , huh ,Brent .

The physical laws are God's creation, therefore he may briefly suspend (or even utterly abrogate) them at any time he wishes..

Sexual reproduction has evolved many many times. And some organisms do both sexual an asexual reproduction at the same time. You are probably looking as some of those organisms right now. And it continues to come and go. The organisms you commonly think about all have sexual reproduction so it seems like there is no variation in this, but that is not and has not always been the case.

The first occurrence of sexual reproduction is way way back there in time. I can't even imagine how far back - a billion years in some bacterium-like thing? I don't know. But OLD!

A Dachshund and a German Shepherd are both dogs and members of the same species but different mutations. They did not evolve into separate lines. You have mutation and evolution confused. Mutation is seen every day. Nothing is evolving.

But at what point did a dude take his penis and use it to impregnate a woman, in the evolution process, and create a baby? They woke up one day and said, "hey, this asexual reproduction isn't fun anymore, lets try this?"

"Time" the evolutionists "magic wand."

No, I don't have them confused at all. Not even kind of.

Prove that nothing is evolving - what is preventing it from happening?

I think that if an impartial observer were to review just this thread , he would find the close-minded comments being made by the supporters of evolution .

" The debate is over " . Sound familiar ?

They co-evolved, which is evidenced by their symbiotic relationship.

If one believes in geology as a science and that we have an expanding universe [which was set into motion by a devine power] then why is it so inconceivable that man wasn't allowed to evolve from a more primitive form??
Primitive man is a proven fact from fossilized records but many turn a blind eye and say this wasn't really "man" because they weren't spiritual beings...how is this a proven assumption?
Why is it that we try to set the perameters for God to work in...rather silly way of thinking if you ask me!!

Yes, of course it is over. I don't know why it is so hard to wrap your mind around that. The earth is also round, not flat, and the earth goes around the sun, not vice versa. These are all debates that are over. You need to catch up.

Brent

Simple cell division, just the way single cell organisms still do it today. Sexual reproduction only first appeared about one billion years ago, which was long before man entered the scene. We're relative Johnny Come Latelies.

They co-evolved, which is evidenced by their symbiotic relationship. [/quote]

The plant - not a controversial answer at all.

I agree with your last sentence but on the other hand why would we demand of God that He operate within the framework He created ? ...rather silly way of thinking if you ask me !!

It's rather humorous that people learn something in a textbook and immediately think they were more intelligent than people back in the day, completely forgetting that they didn't figure out chit, they just read about it in a textbook.

I don't demand anything of any god. That silly.

So in the process of human evolution, at what point were we "evolved enough" to sexually reproduce? Did we suddenly appear with all working parts, so we could reproduce before our evolved species died off?

Wouldn't it be rather humorous if we COULDN'T learn from a textbook. If we didn't, all those "people back ion the day" would have been wasting their time.

You guys have fun. Out to the shop.

Not really sex as we generally think but bacterium do something like it with a pilus. Does that count?

So since you are saying that life forms appeared on earth in a relatively brief time, everything sorta "co-evolved, which is evidenced by their symbiotic relationship."

Do you understand how that sounds?

You sound as arrogant as ol'Al . Why did you enter this debate ? Just so you could render your verdict ?

Even you supporters of evolution don't agree on how it works but you declare the debate over .

Tell TRH , he claims the bee and the flower arrived together .

They would need a lot more time in isolation from one another in order to divide into different species, on the order of millions of years. Those two breeds have only been partially separated in their gene mixing for a few hundred years, at best. After doing so for a few million years, they'd reach the point of division like we observe between the donkey and the horse, i.e., they'd still (were they to, by chance, mate) be able to produce offspring, but most of their offspring would be infertile. Gradually, they'd lose even that ability and become truly two distinct species of the same genus, and on and on, as they traveled their own separate evolutionary paths, becoming more distinct from one another.

Carbon.. Think Penis and Vagina. When did that start? If evolution took so much TIME, how did our species not die off while it was going through the final phases of evolution to get ready for the Penis/Vagina deal? Wouldn't the evolution needed to transition from asexual to sexual have taken millions and millions of years? How did the species survive if it couldn't reproduce? Or did evolution miraculously speed up (like happen in a few years) to fit your theory?

Glad to see you finally worked jackasses into the conversation .Now you can participate on a more even basis having inside information so to speak .

The transition from asexual to sexual reproduction was gradual, and there were no dudes or gals in existence at the time.

Hawk,

If it was gradual, then how did they reproduce in the transition?

+1

I was referring to what I assumed he meant, i.e., those plants which have a symbiotic relationship with bees. Naturally, plants appeared first, starting with primitive algae, which didn't require bees for reproduction.

+ 1000

Gradually.

Seriously, though, in the transition they were likely able to reproduce by either method, but gradually transitioned into the exclusive use of sexual rather than asexual reproduction due to the many benefits to survival (more variability) associated with doing so.

Evolution? Take your stand on that and die with what soothes your spirit. Intelligent life elsewhere? Statistical probability says it's likely so and hopefully "they" are brighter than us. Humankind isn't all that special in my opinion, but if it could get past ignorance, superstition and dogma it might have potential. Just an optimistic guess on my part.

I gotta get ready to cook fish for the kids .I ain't telling 'em we are eating their kinfolk .

For this, you will need to think outside of the KJ Genesis 1:1 box. "Our species" did not exist until it did, so it could not "die off" waiting for sexual reproduction to come along to keep it going.

Yep. Practically kissing cousins compared to us and spiders, for example. All vertebrates are very closely related to one another. Fish were the first of those. You can tell we're closely related just by the family resemblance. We both have two eyes with similar eye anatomy. They are both in about the same place on our faces. We both have jaws and teeth that pretty much are of the same design pattern. Our skulls hook up to our spines the same general way. Two nostrils in about the same place. Their gills have become our larynx, and their air bladders have become our lungs. Their fins became our arms and legs, etc., but what we have in common is many times greater than what's different about us.

You really need to pull some serious stuff out of your ass to believe in evolution, don't you?

If find it much easier to just accept the fact that God created everything, in 7 days. When did it happen? I dunno.. But I won't start pulling things out of my ass to try to make some theory "work".

So our species just "appeared"? I thought evolution took millions and millions of years?

Expand your horizons and consider the alternative theories of Atheists.
==================

Why I am an atheist

God is a conjecture; but I desire that your conjectures should not reach beyond your creative will. Could you create a god? Then do not speak to me of any gods. But you could well create the overman. --Nietzsche

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

Whenever I tell people I'm a staunch atheist, they automatically assume it's because of my scientific background; that I don't believe in a god because there's no proof of its existence. But that is a straw man and far from the truth, which is that I believe in many things for which there is no proof. I clearly acknowledge my belief in the nonexistence of a god is just that: a belief--nothing more, nothing less. In fact, there was indeed a time when I believed in a god, until the age of seven. It was at that age when I decided to the question my beliefs, which ultimately led me to the conclusions below after years of refinement.

However, I do have reasons for not believing in a god, and, more strongly, I believe there is strong argument to not believe in the relevance of god's existence (even if god itself existed). In other words, I have chosen to deny the existence of a god, which is the definition of atheism, since I find god to be irrelevant.

Below I outline the objections I have against the concept of a god (a concept I believe that was created by man, as theorised by Nietzsche and others). I'm loosely defining the notion of a god to be an extremely powerful being who may or may not be responsible for the creation of the universe and who supposedly has the power and the ability to judge sentient beings such as humans. I also assume god is external from its creations (though this is not necessary except for cogency). In all these objection arguments, I begin by assuming that a god does exist, but I explain why I don't acknowledge its power, and consequently my belief in the irrelevance of its existence.

The power corrupts objection

There's an old adage: power corrupts. It follows that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Of course, a god's power might not be absolute, but nonetheless how do we know a god is not a despot? In fact, almost every religion portrays god as despotic: "Do this, and you will face god's wrath." "Pledge your allegiance, plead forgiveness, and you will be saved." It's strange to me that a powerful being would want and need such statements from its creations and even resort to threats to make its creations comply. It is a sign that all the power has gone to its head and that we, god's creations, are no better than slaves. God is on a massive power trip because it has created a universe where the creatures have flaws in them, and then god delights in "punishing" these creatures for falling prey to these flaws and not begging for forgiveness.

Omnipotent or not, any god that chooses to "rule" over entities it has created reeks of despotism. I view such a god as no better than Hitler. I would never believe that such a despot is necessary or even worthwhile for my existence.

Some of the concepts here are illustrated in the song Oppression: the thought police are coming by my band TWISTED HELICES.

The morality objection

Following on through with the power corrupts objection, what gives god the authority (except for physical strength) to judge what is right and wrong for its creations? Who is god to say actions a, b, and c are wrong and should be punished and actions x, y, and z are good and should be rewarded?

Being a firm believer in relative ethics, I believe I know best for myself what is right or wrong, as long as I am consistent. My general philosophy is the conjunction of these two axioms: don't do anything to others you'd not want done to you, and do only things to others you want done to you. As long as I adhere to this philosophy I think I am the ultimate arbiter of my actions (I often say I am my own god). Even though a stronger force could "punish" me for doing something it doesn't like, there is no moral, ethical, or logical grounds for doing so.

So at this point, not only do I reject the idea of a god who is more powerful than me and therefore demands my obedience, but I also think that such a power (including my creation) does not guarantee it any superiority over me on a ethical level.

Some of the concepts here are illustrated in the song Morals are Arbitrary.

The conformity objection

This follows from the morality objection. Believing that someone other than you can tell what is right or wrong for you encourages conformity and lack of responsibility for your own actions. Consider the concept of "forgiveness for one's sins", wherein every wrong is wiped out and you start with a clean slate the moment you accept/believe in some arbitrary god. How can this encourage personal responsibility for one's actions? How can this encourage thinking for oneself, figuring out the hard way whether something is right or wrong, instead of just doing what is spoon-fed?

This is why when Nietzsche said "god is dead", he wasn't leaping with joy but rather lamenting the fact. In other words, there was a time when the concept of a god might have been good to keep humanity in line, but today, since most people follow a double standard, it's easier to discard responsibility by using god as an excuse.

Some of the concepts here are illustrated in the song Let us Blame God.

The cruelty/apathy objection

Let's assume that god is indeed not despotic. If this were the case, such a god would at the very least be apathetic, allowing all the atrocities in the world to occur while not doing a thing to stop it (unless god gets a perverse pleasure from watching humans suffer, in which case such a god would be cruel). This in and of itself isn't a bad thing, but it would illustrate that the relevance of a god's existence to our lives is close to zero and there's no reason to believe in it.

The quantum mechanics objection

This is similar to the morality objection but it works at a fundamental level, at the very fabric of what we call reality. This is the most generous explanation for the existence of a god that I can provide. In this explanation, god is neither apathetic nor despotic, but has created a universe which it has chosen to not control ("the divine watchmaker" idea embraced by people like Aristole, Newton, Einstein, Jefferson).

Even though our knowledge is incredibly miniscule and what we don't know is infinite, science has shown something conclusive: at the quantum level, the universe is non-deterministic/random. This is a conclusion that arises not from quantum theory, but from quantum fact, i.e., what we observe regarding the behaviour of quantum particles. In other words, even if a god exists, that god has created a universe where it has no deterministic control over. Einstein was one of the people who objected to this idea of a nondeterministic universe, claiming god does not play dice, even though he was one of the people who was responsible for a lot of the ideas that lead to this conclusion. But in the end, Einstein was wrong and god does play dice.

One objection to the above argument is that rules that apply to us don't apply to god, and/or that there could be an underlying deterministic reality that we do not have access to. For example, it could be argued that the universe is a great (computer) simulation where god is supplying the randomness to us from a predetermined random sequence (determined, say, by some natural source of randomness in god's environment and stored on some fixed device). Even if this were the case, it still would indicate that god has no control over the numbers that show up. God would just know what the next number is, but not be able to influence the behaviour of a particle which is the function of the random number. If god did influence the behaviour by changing the random sequence to reflect its desired will, humans would not perceive it as random. Therefore, even if there's a underlying determininistic reality beneath the quantum world, determinism at the quantum level is not possible, even for god. Such a god is no superior or inferior to a human who has an ant farm (a variety of science fiction stories have been written about this).

The free will objection

The quantum mechanics objection also could be stated as the free will objection, in that if you assume we have free will, then god has created a universe where it cannot control the behaviour of humans (keep in mind we don't need to assume quantum particles are non-deterministic in behaviour). Regardless of how one looks at it, the inescapable conclusion is that there's no reason to believe in the existence or relevance of such a "hands-off" god. It doesn't matter either way.

The resolution objection

Many a time, when these types of objections are raised, believers in a god will say our minds are not capable of comprehending of an omnipotent or powerful god's actions; in other words, we're like ants trying to comprehend human actions. In this event, I'd argue that to a god, we're just like how ants are to a human. When ants come into our house, they could be praying to me all day, but the Orkin man still smites them randomly without caring about whether ants are good or bad. Which would explain why humans get "smited" all the time without rhyme or reason.

The anthropocentric or human hubris/insecurity objection

Assuming a god existed, it really is very anthropocentric and a show of hubris to think that an all powerful god created man so man could worship and praise god. In fact, this really points to a human insecurity. Humanity's existence may well be pointless and random, with bacteria being god's chosen organisms of interest, but most humans wouldn't be comfortable with that. Even more bluntly, the concept of a god wouldn't exist if humans didn't exist, so god is an anthropocentric creation of humans (conveniently made in our image).

To put it another way, humanity is a cosmic blip representing a tiny fraction of what we observe of the current universe in terms of the numbers of objects, the numbers of living beings ("all god's creatures"), and even existence, depending on what you believe to be the age of the universe. That a putative architect of this universe would be cognisant of our particular situations and desire to listen to our woes, is ego indeed.

The god insecurity/boredom objection

The above point, turned around, leads to the question in general: if there is an all powerful god, why would such a god need to create anything else? Amusement? Boredom? Insecurity? This would reflect a strange psyche on the part of god.

Religion

Finally, even though this is loosely connected to the notion of the existence of a god, I am also against religion in general, particularly organised religion. In many ways, science is as much a religion to me as any other, but the one fundamental difference is that I constantly question my beliefs and I try extremely hard to prove myself wrong (or ask others to do it for me) in a true Popperian spirit. Few religions permit this, and fewer would permit speaking against it and overturning it on its head.

Another reason I don't think much of religion and god is because some of the greatest atrocities in humanity's history have been committed in the name of religion and god. Religion has the same sort of problems I outline above: it encourages despotism, conformity, acts of barbaric cruelty, laziness, and lack of personal responsibility. Sure, religion and a belief in god serves some positive purpose at times (such as giving hope amidst utter despair), but overall I think the negative weighs in more than the positive. I believe each person has their own god and religion within themselves and it would behoove us all to find it through some serious introspection.

On a more epistemological level, I think all existence is random and inherently meaningless and purposeless (so even if god existed, god has created our universe to be this and is probably just as surprised as us that something like humans sprung up). I think humans tend to lend purpose to their lives by imbibing it with some artificial meaning: in terms of asking and answering questions (science and philosphy) and creative end5Aeavours (arts), through love and relationships, and through god and religion. This in and of itself isn't bad, but given the objections I've stated above as to what a belief in god and following a religion can cause and has caused, I see reasons against being a theist and thus I've chosen to be an atheist.

I don't see it that way, Calvin. My way is much easier because I'm not required to close my eyes in order to believe since I don't see the contradictions between the Bible and modern science that you see.

There is no contradiction between 1) our evolution taking millions of years (billions, actually, depending on where you start counting the years), and 2) our species appearing relatively recently in life's time line. Where are you seeing a contradiction between those two concepts? Explain.

Sure there is...his Bible defines a day so you don't get to make the Darrow Monkey trial argument.

Evolution is an on-going process. Does not take "millions and millions" of years. Takes a little longer to see the diversity that arises from it though. So "our species" did not just "appear".

Moreover, "species" is just a definition that modern humans invented so that we can put some order to the mass of stuff that we encounter. Still all a guess.

Humans first appeared long after sexual reproduction was already pretty well down pat.

call em humans, primates, sludge.. whatever. The transition from assexual to sexual question still hasn't been answered for me. When did sludge start screwing?

The species from which Adam sprang evolved from a more "primitive" species, which in turn evolved from a more "primitive" species, etc., etc., going back to the first vertebrates, the fish. The ancestors of fish, like fish, reproduced sexually, going back to the dawn of sexual reproduction. All species which evolved from fish (all vertebrates), therefore, reproduced sexually, including the species from which Adam sprang. Therefore it should come as no surprise that Adam came equipped for sexual reproduction.

Oops.. Just saw Jay Z on TV. We have found the missing link!

And you really "believe" that?

Can you define what you mean by "screwing"? Not in the porno sense but the stuff that you must have covered in biology class. You seem confused to me.

Yes, but I didn't say that all species have symbiotic relationships. We were discussing bees and those plants which require their assistance in their reproductive process.

The only thing "evolving" is science. The person who put forward the theory of evolution the way it is defended today, was an amateur English naturalist, Charles Robert Darwin. Darwin had never undergone a formal education in biology. He took only an amateur interest in the subject of nature and living things.



Evolution's father was an uneducated racist. And those that believe in the "magic wand" of great epochs of time being need to create complex microscopic mechanisms & DNA have a lot of faith in him.

This is REALLY starting to get good....


Ingwe

The species of flower which depends on particular bees to carry out their reproduction did arrive together with that species of bee in the sense that they co-evolved for this symbiotic relationship.

Evolution's father was an uneducated racist
===================

So are many Christians, so what??

Screwing meaning: Two different beings, with function parts, with both required to procreate.

The way I see it..

If evolution was even remotely true.. A male must have evolved with all the right parts. A female must have evolved with all the right parts.. All at the same perfect time, all while still reproducing asexually? Then at some point, they'd have to start "screwing" to reproduce. Those odds just don't sit well with me.

Didn't you ever hear of fv(king sludge?

"Evolution's father was an uneducated racist. And those that believe in the "magic wand" of great epochs of time being need to create complex microscopic mechanisms & DNA have a lot of faith in him."

Seems more like tossing out the baby with the bathwater to preserve one's faith.

With out evolution .....nothing would change!

Evolutionists have a pretty good thing going. They can claim "science", while pulling wild theories out of their asses. Then, when their they are proven wrong by another scientist, they can just claim science and keep pulling wild theories out of their asses. Worked well with Al Gore.

It doesn't define a day, and it doesn't state that it only took one day for each of his commands to come to fruition. If you read that a general issued three orders to his troops over three hours (one per hour): 1) mess tent erected here, 2) latrine erected here, 3) barracks erected over there, would you assume that each order only required one hour to be fully obeyed? Unlike a general, however, the God proposed for belief by Christians is not limited to seeing only that which exists in a particular point in time, so he is able to instantly know if the outcome is good or bad, thus when God issued his orders he immediately saw that the result was good, regardless of what point in time they came to fruition. God doesn't live in time any more than a potter lives in his pot. Time is something he created.

if we all started as bacteria or amoeba, then why are their still bacteria and amoebas? they must be pissed at us!

Bingo! Lots of example of heterogamy. Sorry for the C&P but it saves me from a lot of typing to say the same thing.

lternation between sexual and asexual reproduction

Some species alternate between the sexual and asexual strategies, an ability known as heterogamy, depending on conditions. For example, the freshwater crustacean Daphnia reproduces by parthenogenesis in the spring to rapidly populate ponds, then switches to sexual reproduction as the intensity of competition and predation increases. Many protists and fungi alternate between sexual and asexual reproduction.

For example, the slime mold Dictyostelium undergoes binary fission (mitosis) as single-celled amoebae under favorable conditions. However, when conditions turn unfavorable, the cells aggregate and follow one of two different developmental pathways, depending on conditions. In the social pathway, they form a multicellular slug which then forms a fruiting body with asexually generated spores. In the sexual pathway, two cells fuse to form a giant cell that develops into a large cyst. When this macrocyst germinates, it releases hundreds of amoebic cells that are the product of meiotic recombination between the original two cells.[4]

The hyphae of the common mold (Rhizopus) are capable of producing both mitotic as well as meiotic spores. Many algae similarly switch between sexual and asexual reproduction.[5] A number of plants use both sexual and asexual means to produce new plants, some species alter there primary mode of reproduction from sexual to asexual under varying environmental conditions.[6]
[edit] Examples in animals

A number of invertebrates and some less advanced vertebrates are known to alternate between sexual and asexual reproduction, or be exclusively asexual. Alternation is observed in a few types of insects, such as aphids (which will, under favourable conditions, produce eggs that have not gone through meiosis, essentially cloning themselves) and the cape bee Apis mellifera capensis (which can reproduce asexually through a process called thelytoky). A few species of amphibians and reptiles have the same ability (see parthenogenesis for concrete examples). A very unusual case among more advanced vertebrates is the female turkey's ability to produce fertile eggs in the absence of a male. The eggs result in often sickly, and nearly always male turkeys. This behaviour can interfere with the incubation of eggs in turkey farming.[7]

There are examples of parthenogenesis in the hammerhead shark [8] and the blacktip shark. [9] In both cases, the sharks had reached sexual maturity in captivity in the absence of males, and in both cases the offspring were shown to be genetically identical to the mothers.

Bdelloid rotifers reproduce exclusively asexually, and all individuals in the class Bdelloidea are females. Asexuality evolved in these animals millions of years ago and has persisted since. There is evidence to suggest that asexual reproduction has allowed the animals to evolve new proteins through the Meselson effect that have allowed them to survive better in periods of dehydration.[10]

Of course, the examples are of modern organisms. There is a 'primative' precursor that humans share lineage.

cutting a pasting off the 'net? Come on.. We can all do that.

It doesn't define a day, and it doesn't state that it only took one day for each of his commands to come to fruition.
============

Try to be a bit more thorough in your reading,dude.Unless, of course, you have one of those other books folks also call a Bible. There's what?? about 13 of them by now??

Yep..we passed them by, and made them eat our primordial dust!

Ingwe

Anti-evolutionist do essentially the same. So what's your point? SH said it before. Choose your best guess. Change it if it stops making sense. The process is called 'learning'. Try it sometime.

Except in this case, the fact that heterogamy exists as you questioned in your previous post, messed with your head.

Try and stay on topic.

Approximately one billion years ago, complex colonies of interdependent single cell organisms (which colonies operated very much like primitive multi cellular organisms in that different cells served different specialized functions within the colonies) added something like sexual reproduction to its reproductive repertoire. Said colony type could then reproduce in two ways, asexually (on an individual cellular level) and sexually (two colonies sharing genetic material and producing tiny preformed colonies sharing characteristics of both "parent" colonies). Gradually, the advantage going to sexual reproduction, the descendants of this colony type became more and more like multi cellular organisms, and more and more exclusively used sexual reproduction, until it ultimately could be called a true multi cellular organism. It went something like that.

Evidence of our very distant ancestors being mere colonies of single cell organisms exists within us even today. Inside each of our cells are what are called mitochondria. These are descended from single cell organisms which once lived independently, then became dependent on living in colonies, serving only one function within that colony. As our distant ancestors transitioned from colonies of single celled organisms into multi cellular organisms, these little fellows came along for the ride. They served a function in the colony, and now they serve essentially that function in us. Plants have something similar, i.e., chloroplasts.

There you go, bringing Democrats into this.

Lets have a cut and paste war.. haha! Run to google. Ready, set, go!

Don't get frustrated because you're getting nowhere. Neat thing about agnostics and atheists, they're simply comfortable with the commandment "thou shall not be a ahole"

Oh yeah.. And Carbon. Were you there for those studies? Have you conducted your own studies on heterogamy? Do you know the fella that wrote those words? Or are you accepting that what you are reading on blind faith? Oops.. Can't do that!

Well, I learned something new. If I toss a shark in a tank, it'll reproduce asexually, and I'll have two sharks.

Naaah. If you cannot stay on topic, I am going fishing.

Certainly.

Really? I'm just trying to figure out when things started to screw. Nobody seems to know. You have anything to contribute, or is it business as usual?

Me too. Rivers came down and cohos are in. Good luck.

Sooo,
There's a magic giant man in the sky?
Who made us in HIS image.
(coloreds too?)

And He can send us to bad place if we don't behave.
But HE Loves us ..
Ok thats clear

A lot of sexual reproduction that still goes on today is very primitive. Bed bugs, for example. The male's "penis" is essentially a modified stinger that breaks through the exoskeleton of the female and simply injects sperm (as it were) into her torn flesh, i.e., she doesn't even have any "equipment" for receiving it, yet this is sexual reproduction. Fish don't really "do the nasty" either, the way you're thinking of it, yet it's still sexual reproduction because two individuals are mixing genetic material to produce offspring that share characteristics of both "parents." That's all that's necessary for it to be sexual reproduction.

PS Didn't they teach basic biology when you were in school?

Yeah, it would be easier, just like accepting that Al Gore invented the internet. I'm sure you accept and believe that too.

Some of us have to work within the realm of reason, and that's where the hard facts tell us evolution happens.

But you and Al stick your beliefs in the meantime.

"Oh yeah.. And Carbon. Were you there for those studies? Have you conducted your own studies on heterogamy? Do you know the fella that wrote those words? Or are you accepting that what you are reading on blind faith?"

Now you are just being silly.

Where you there when Genesis was written? How about when John wrote John? Do you fish with the fellows that wrote the Bible? No? Must be BLIND faith then.

As an pertinent aside, I do have bees and they are a modern iteration of heterogamous life.

If trees have small branches branching from larger branches, why do the larger branches continue growing past that point? By your reasoning, shouldn't they stop existing after a small branch sprang from it? After all, the smaller branches sprang from the larger one.

wait... Wait!
Run that whole penis stinger thing back again!

What if I switch sides and embrace the hairy butt sex?

Strictly the King James for me. Open one up and take a look.

About one billion years ago.

There's that magic wand again.

You don't get order (the universe) from chaos (the big bang) anymore than you get a fully assembled 747 from an explosion in a junk yard.

Then there's that darned second law of thermodynamics...

You're aware that when you speak from a supposed position of Scientific authority, about things that happened at any point in the past, without intelligence present to chronicle and document said occurrances... that you're "preaching a faith." You're proporting a belief system. True, partially true, or complete fabrication, it's a belief system, it's not science, nor is it scientifically honest to phrase the theories as you have above.

"... MUST HAVE added..."
"...MUST HAVE THEN BEEN ABLE TO reproduce..."
"...MUST HAVE BECOME more and more..."


Those would be intellectually honest phrases. Yours are not. Yours are "preaching."

"Must have...in order for my theory of the past to be correct." That is as close as true Science can come to the ancient past, and that is the only phraseology that can be used honestly.

I'm not saying 6 days, or 6 billion years, because I don't know. But I'm intellectually honest enough to say, flat out, that I choose to "believe" a certain series of events has occurred that led to the day after yesterday.

=========

Or you should and this time try understanding what you read. "And God called the firmament heaven, and the evening and the morning were the second day" Will you now try to corroborate the stupidity of Bryant and assert that "days" were actually millions of years?? And the sun was created when?..the 4th day?? So, 4 or so million years without sun but all kinds of plant life.eh??

Nature has laws created by God, and nature brought all living things into existence (as stated in Genesis) in accordance with God's will within the parameters of those laws. Read chapter one. You will see that the author equates 1) nature's bringing forth plants and animals with 2) God creating those plants and animals. This is so because he's the author of nature, and nature brought them forth in abeyance to his will.

Oooops...should have kept reading the posts. The trap has been set. Way too easy,by the way.

No more than I'm preaching when I instruct a student that the earth orbits the sun, and that we live in a heliocentric solar system. We all stand on the shoulders of previous generations, otherwise we couldn't understand anything we didn't personally discover on our own.

The word "nature" is not found in the book of Genesis... King James Version.

I don't see there where a day is "defined," as you said it was. Also, where does it say that living things instantly sprang into existence on the day he commanded the earth and sea to bring them forth? "And it was so" doesn't mean it was so instantly. When the Roman Senate ordered Julius Caesar to expand Rome's frontier into Britannia, it didn't instantly come into being, but we can certainly say from our perspective in time "and it was so." Only a fool would take that to mean that Rome's frontier instantly extended into Britannia.

We're not talking about Rome and Caesar, silly boy. Likie I said, read a bit more closely and let's try to help you through your profound confusion. Or, you can try to explain to me what you believe the Biblical day to be.

Hint...Roman emporors and Caesar don't factor into the answer. Analogies are just not a good fit for you. Stick to the question...if you can!

Still having trouble with analogies, Bob? A day in Genesis could very well be the same as a day today. Let's assume it is. Now continue responding to my post above.

Correct. That's my word. Instead it refers to the waters and the earth. "Nature" in my comments was shorthand for those.

It doesn't define a day, and it doesn't state that it only took one day for each of his commands to come to fruition.
===========

Earlier, you said the above. Are you now conceding that the biblical day was 24 hours? And, the bible does state each of these creations did occur within the span of a day. So, what's a biblical day defined as in your mind if 6 days doesn't equal 6 24 hour periods?

Do I have to call the ad hominem police? ;-{>

You are way smarter than me so I'm going to introduce a thought from someone who once was an athiest , C.S.Lewis :

"Of courseI could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that , then my argument against God collapsed too- for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust , not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies . Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist - in other words , that the whole of reality was senseless - I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality - namely my idea of justice - was full of sense .

Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple . If the whole universe has no meaning , we should never have found out that it has no meaning : just as , if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes , we should never kniow it was dark . Dark would be a word without meaning ."

I read your long post a page or two back and was properly impressed . At least you didn't embrace atheism " because when I was seven years old God let my little dog get run over ".

Since you say you remain open to new information , I'll offer this :

Consider reading Lewis' short essay ; " God in the Dock " and refute the arguments he makes - just to yourself . That way , if you enter into a debate with a christian equal to you in intellect and debating skills , you will be better prepared .

Or don't do it . Makes no difference to me .

Why.....please, please tell me why is this still going on? Of course we evolved....that is not even a question!!!!!

But where did the first particle of matter come from!? One simple damn question??? We evolved from it but where did it come from?????

Logic: a very simple concept.......now follow me here.....here's a question from Logic 101: CAN SOMETHING EVOLVE FROM NOTHING? (if you say yes then you're illogical and unscientific......if you say no then at some point you must logically conclude that it was CREATED)

Sorry, Dux my friend but that is still a very real question - - IMO.

Laffin'...don't froth at your bit frustrated one!! Let me make this simple for you...THERE WAS NEVER A NOTHING...in the literal sense. Consider this while you stare at teals from your blind...

Prior to the Big Bang, everything (not nothing) was centered at one point, including space and time. Singularity rapidly expanded (or, everything exploded). Time and space are constants, and neither could exist without the other. If you feel otherwise, provide evidence for it. If you have some groundbreaking research that disproves this fact, publish it. Your religious stupidity won't get you anywhere, at least not where science is concerned. If something existed prior to time, it can't be proven by science, and will not have any observable effects in the universe as we know it now. Therefore, your childish argument for your imaginary big daddy in the sky utterly fails.

'scuse me , but a Creator worthy of the name would not bind Himself into "time" as we define it . Y'all might as well argue about how many angels on a pinhead etc... .

Speaking of pinheads , isn't it remarkable that TRH usually winds up arguing with the folks on both sides of an issue ?

No, Bob, I merely stated that you misspoke when you stated that a day was "defined" in Genesis. It is not. It is merely referenced. For the sake of argument, however, let us assume that a day in Genesis is 24 modern hours. Now respond to the rest of the post in question. No, Bob. Genesis doesn't state that each command issued by God to nature (i.e., to the earth and the waters) was brought into fruition in one day. Read it more carefully.

Intellect is not a requirement nor requisite of faith. You folks need to prove things to yourself,not me. Not a one of you has refuted science,not one. You can give me books to refute and I can offer you the same. If you desire to debate with a agnostic with so called equal footing, give me a bible with corroborating pics!!

Without you providing any scientific or factual proof behind your beliefs/opinion,let's move on and I'll be more than happy to stand on equal footing with you on other comparable topics, such as Santa.

If this is addressed to me, I've already answered it. A Christian who accept the science of evolution would naturally believe Genesis, i.e., that God commanded into existence all matter, and then commanded that matter to bring forth all manner of creepy crawlies, swimming, and flying beasts, and all living things.

Calvin you are asking some tough questions these days that are causing folks to actually have to think for themselves. Except for those who can only cut and paste the words of others.

Good for you.

Like in between the lines? So tell us when a "day" became re-defined...Dig deep. You'll have to.

I've never been one to seek the comfort of traveling in herds.

I will admit that a prime mover does not necessarily have to be the God of the Bible, but fail to see how your your position, Isaac, circumvents its existence.

Kinda think time and space may be relative. Some evidence for that.

If something exists outside of time and is the prime mover, it seems reasonable to me that it can have whatever effect it wants or designs or designed.

My name's not Calvin.

===========

There you go with your back-pedaling,once again. Instead of me reading the quote I gave you above more carefully and you believe it's not the quote from Genesis, why don't you post your quote that exists in your KJV,OK?? Also, show me your quote from your KJV that corroborates your assertion that each creation wasn't within a biblical day over the span of 6 days.

=============

Didn't read the entire thread,did you??

Never made a statement one way or the other. It is a non-controversial scientific fact, however, that days are gradually getting longer.

Modified to add: Therefor the length of a day is not fixed at twenty-four modern hours. However, this side discussion has no bearing on my argument one way or the other. Merely pointing out that Isaac's assertion that a day is "defined" in Genesis is an error, as it is not defined.

That was not directed at you. That's why I said "Calvin." Quick reply confused ya.!

==============

I'll accept that perhaps if you can find anyone arguing against evolution that agrees the bible is not the inerrant word of a God.

Lastly, if a day is 24 hours or a million years you're arguing for evolutionary theory, not against it.

Since I've never asserted the latter, I'll leave it alone. As for the former, my assertion is that no language in Genesis requires that each act of creation came to fruition in one day. That would put the ball in your court to show the language that does require it.

Just a joke, my boy. Your post was a response to mine, whether you intended it or not.

When I was stationed in Ft Hood, TX several years ago,
we spent lots of time in the field and to pass the hours
on guard duty or in the tents, we talked about all kinds
of things. One day somebody brought up the evolution of
man subject and at first it was civil conversation, two
guys didnt like each others opinions and got in each others
faces ready to throw down. Finally an E-6 stormed into the
tent and put a stop to it. I have never seen anybody get so
angry and intense about a subject before in my life.

No, Bob. Genesis doesn't state that each command issued by God to nature (i.e., to the earth and the waters) was brought into fruition in one day. Read it more carefully.


Explain that above then in a way someone can understand your intent other than yourself.

Just state what you believe as to the topic at hand and quit trying to dance away from your latent confusion.

Isaac, I simply cannot follow your contingencies.

I've been very careful to explain what I believe. Reread all of my posts. It will be quite an education for you.

I'm not "your boy."

Just a joke!

So by what exponential factor have days been getting shorter?

You have a "little" faith going for ya Hawk but you had to modify it enough to teach high school science...

Understood. I'll watch that.

What's simpler than MATTER CANNOT CREATE ITSELF? Argue against logic, asshat. Now hurry up and get back on the couch, the commercials are over.

You're all over the place and you know it. First, you state your KJV doesn't define a day as I represented above. You were asked to provide your quote in the alternative. You then state the KJV doesn't state that each creation wasn't brought into fruition in the span of one day. You then accepted the 24 hour period as a day.

You're all over the place and doing your usual dodge when cornered. If you wish to continue trying to dig out of a hole, have fun by yourself,dude. Otherwise, explain your position so it's understood by someone other than yourself. What is a biblical day and in how many days was this universe created?

It's a simple question and answer for someone not immersed in confusion.

===========

It's been answered,marblehead. Quit frothing at your bit because folks don't believe in your foolishness. It's not Christian like!! And, carbon was being kind!

I have to apologize as I am the one who made the statement about life originating elsewhere. I should have appended "in the universe", which I see as being a fundamentally different and flawed argument.

You're an absolute tool, Ike. I'm laughing at you, not frothing. I crystallize....you muddle.....you can't help it, you're an attorney.

You don't enjoy the skill-set to laugh at anyone when it comes to this topic,rainman. Your just a obstinate, blathering idiot who can't get past his one talking point. It would require some thinking and I understand how difficult that is for you.

First you have to define "something" and "nothing"... not as simple a task as it sounds....

Fer instance we have "something" called a "neutron", there's kazillions of them and they are all identical. Why? Dunno, no one has ever seen one.

Hit a neutron really hard and you can knock an electron out of it, thereby ending up with a proton and an electron. Again there's kazillions of these, and they all act identical too.

Interesting thing is they can ALL be turned into "nothing", nothing but the ability to move those things which are still made of "something", we call this "energy".

Likewise, all these "somethings" attract other "somethings" with a force called gravity, this force acting across "nothing", in strings as I recall. Nobody at present can explain gravity, it just is.

Also, the faster things move, the slower time goes for those things, I dunno why.

What we DO know is that there is a whole bunch we DON'T know, and the closer we look, the more new questions arise.

So can something arise from nothing? We honestly don't know enough about either to know.


I have no problem with evolution, evidence for it permeates all the natural sciences in fact.

As for "logic", how is it logical to suggest that a "miracle", which have never been scientifically proven or observed, is responsible for life?

..and even if we do arrive at a point where we can prove spontaneous formation of life, how would that "prove" or "disprove" the existence of God?

Birdwatcher

well while you guys are trying to figure out the answer to this question I'll be Barbecuing. hopefully y'all will have figured it out by the time I'm finished

Faith..

This is not in controversy. Atomic clock keepers must actually, periodically, slow their clocks to return them to synchronicity with the earth's slowing rotation. It's been slowing for over four billion years.

PS I just now realized that I wrote shorter when I meant longer. If that was the source of your objection, you are quite right to point it out.

What is a biblical day and in how many days was this universe created?

Bobby, you're a fool, but why advertise it so blatantly?

There will never be answers... because infinity runs both ways, forward and backwards from this point. That's a concept beyond our grasp.

Means there is a dimension of timelessness... no beginning or end, and at all times we are right in the middle of it, equal distance each way... at all times.

As simple as this concept is and isn't at the same time, we can't wrap our time based logic around it... as far as a creator or God is concerned, it would be infinitely more impossible to wrap our time based vocabulary/thoughts around.

I do feel we share a bond of spirit and Jesus himself is a good enough example for me to follow. Not the church that is man based and corrupted. Too many time and physical based tenets in the bible to come from the true spirit, too much misinterpretation of that same spirit... that we all share.

The physical matter of existence goes back both ways with infinity, so there is evolution... the spiritual existence goes both ways also, so there is creation, but in a manner we will never understand in the physical.

I do not believe the bible is God's literal words anymore, even Jesus didn't write his words down literally, he could have easily... had to be a reason why not. The bible is man's attempt to express their spirit and establish religion for the masses. Some people in religion feel the spirit strongly and do good works... other abuse their stature and control.

I don't believe God,(I still use the term though it's much more than that) is concerned with our physical existence, as it's just a blink in infinity and time based. I do believe there is a spiritual involvement since that is infinity based.

I can only go on feel, so as stated, it's a guess. Could be that last flash of light and unconscious thought we have at life's end is all the eternity we get... and so is infinite in it's own right.

Kent

I know you couldn't answer the question out of your fear of getting trapped...once again. So typical of you. Get caught in your befuddled confusion and then you run around it thinking folks weren't understanding you. You're a little tool,nothing more.

Birdwatcher, you have elevated the level of discourse here. Thanks.

I actually see the something from nothing in a bit simpler light and have no experience to support the idea of something from nothing so, basically reject it.

To me, it is a miracle to think evolution can overcome entropy and sequential statistical possibilities.

my youngest son was able to talk well enough when he was just over a yr old to carry on a conversation. he would talk about how painful it was being born.he knew who Jesus was when he saw a picture of him, he told us he knew him before he was born. that's when i lost all doubts about our creator. i never was much of a church goer and am still not. but i have absolute faith in the lord.when Ryan turn about 2 1/2 -3 yrs old he lost his memory of these things but he has grown into a very special young man. So it boils down to faith either you have it or you don't

Bravo, Birdwatcher -- a civil post that does indeed elevate this discussion.

On another matter, I don't know whether your folks paid for you to get private schooling, or paid for it along with other taxpayers, but I think they got their money's worth!

John

byc,

Isaac completely spelled out a clue for you. Try and keep up. However, you get allowances for your unfortunate genetics.

byc is a pard and good people. I just think he came in late and didn't know all the twists and turns.

7 days, but one day is as a thousand years.

Hawk you really need to take a step back from the keyboard and read what you've posted.

Back with the fallacy felons.

Well, at least we have proof that figures of speech evolve !

So I used your instead of the!! Artistic privelege. Hope it didn't throw you off your stride.

What's your point of contention, exactly?

Isn't it something like chomping at the bit and frothing at the mouth?

I just had to dog you for practicing linguistic evolultion .

Yep, you caught what's called a mixed metaphor. Other examples would be "Let me first address the 800 pound elephant in the room," and "It's all water over a bridge."

Okay Carb----just for you I'll try and do much better. Just for you.

Between this and the Mormon thread Calvin has us on our toes. Keep up.

OK, you tiresome dolt......I was told by one of your asspals to abide by Occam's razor(translated for you: keep it simple). I won't regurgitate a pile of cosmology or quantum physics when logic suffices. Go [bleep] yourself.....you're good at it.

Thanks Bob. Rookies like this one I can manage...

Carbon get your azzzz in the pool.

9-1 here in a bit.

BTW---Go Terps!!!!!!

Where do you go to thank God? I gotta go do that for creating TIVO.

Keep your day job because your understanding of basic physics must come from Saturday morning cartoons.

On second thought, do the physics thing. You'll do less harm.

With Christians like you, who needs evolutionists.

FYI - From the 'Net....

"Question: "Does Genesis chapter 1 mean literal 24-hour days?"

"Answer: A careful examination of the Hebrew word for �day� and the context in which it appears in Genesis will lead to the conclusion that �day� means a literal, 24-hour period of time. The Hebrew word yom translated into the English �day� can mean more than one thing. It can refer to the 24-hour period of time that it takes for the earth to rotate on its axis (e.g., �there are 24 hours in a day�). It can refer to the period of daylight between dawn and dusk (e.g., �it gets pretty hot during the day but it cools down a bit at night�). And it can refer to an unspecified period of time (e.g., �back in my grandfather's day...�). It is used to refer to a 24-hour period in Genesis 7:11. It is used to refer to the period of daylight between dawn and dusk in Genesis 1:16. And it is used to refer to an unspecified period of time in Genesis 2:4. So, what does it mean in Genesis 1:5-2:2 when it's used in conjunction with ordinal numbers (i.e., the first day, the second day, the third day, the fourth day, the fifth day, the sixth day, and the seventh day)? Are these 24-hour periods or something else? Could yom as it is used here mean an unspecified period of time?

We can determine how yom should be interpreted in Genesis 1:5-2:2 simply by examining the context in which we find the word and then comparing its context with how we see its usage elsewhere in Scripture. By doing this we let Scripture interpret itself. The Hebrew word yom is used 2301 times in the Old Testament. Outside of Genesis 1, yom plus a number (used 410 times) always indicates an ordinary day, i.e., a 24-hour period. The words �evening� and �morning� together (38 times) always indicate an ordinary day. Yom + �evening� or �morning� (23 times) always indicates an ordinary day. Yom + �night� (52 times) always indicates an ordinary day.

The context in which the word yom is used in Genesis 1:5-2:2, describing each day as �the evening and the morning,� makes it quite clear that the author of Genesis meant 24-hour periods. The references to �evening� and �morning� make no sense unless they refer to a literal 24-hour day. This was the standard interpretation of the days of Genesis 1:5-2:2 until the 1800s when a paradigm shift occurred within the scientific community, and the earth's sedimentary strata layers were reinterpreted. Whereas previously the rock layers were interpreted as evidence of Noah's flood, the flood was thrown out by the scientific community and the rock layers were reinterpreted as evidence for an excessively old earth. Some well-meaning but terribly mistaken Christians then sought to reconcile this new anti-flood, anti-biblical interpretation with the Genesis account by reinterpreting yom to mean vast, unspecified periods of time.

The truth is that many of the old-earth interpretations are known to rely upon faulty assumptions. But we must not let the stubborn close-mindedness of scientists influence how we read the Bible. According to Exodus 20:9-11, God used six literal days to create the world in order to serve as a model for man's workweek: work six days, rest one. Certainly God could have created everything in an instant if He wanted to. But apparently He had us in mind even before He made us (on the sixth day) and wanted to provide an example for us to follow."

OK, I think I see what you're referring to. My comment about the earth's rotation slowing was meant to illustrate that the length of a day for us is dependent on the rate of the earth's rotation, and that this is not a fixed measure (it even slows on its own). The point being that we have no way of knowing what the earth's rate of rotation was during the first moments or even "days" of creation. Perhaps none. Perhaps twice as fast as currently. This is really, however, beside the point, since, as I've stated, my argument doesn't depend on the length of a day at any given time. I even granted (for the sake our our discussion) that it was, as Isaac asserted, exactly 24 modern hours.

Keep reading you are getting there...

Since I've never asserted a length of day at creation, having stated that it's unimportant, I will simply leave the question alone at this point. If you have any comments, feel free to make them.

That is absolutely fascinating,and it actually happens more than you'd think. I'd never heard of such a thing till I heard a program a few years ago where people were discussing this very occurence.
I haven't set foot in a church in many years,might never again either, but I can't help but believe there is a God out there. I don't think ANYONE has it totally figured out, looks to me like all religions are basically shots in the dark. Maybe each one has a little chunk or the truth,around which they have built a religion. I really enjoy reading things like this, as I truly think there is much about God and the universe we don't understand. If we could admit that we'd probably be making better progress and getting along better too!

All I can say is "I'm glad I've stayed out of this debate"

Great entertainment though.

One thing that has always caused me to scratch my head is that the sun was created, and the day/night division made, on the 4th day... how could there be a literal "evening and morning" (ESV) as we know it if this is the case?

I've always just figured that God created everything the way He saw fit, recognizing that Genesis 1 was written for the Hebrews in (understatement here) pre-modern times, and then He communicated it the way He saw fit. Beyond that it seems like counting the number of angels that fit on the head of a pin, and in the process we devolve into things that make guys like Steelhead point out our hypocrisy for us.

Dr. J. Gresham Machen of (Old) Princeton Seminary, founder of Westminster Seminary in Philly, and oft-cited authority for the conservative side in the fundamentalist/modernist debates of the early 20th century, agreed that a focus upon Genesis 1 misses the most important point of the whole Bible. The historicity of Christ, His life, His work, and His identity as a member of the Trinity were, in his estimation, more important than this.

Meredith Kline is a great one to read if these discussions cause you to take pause and wonder. He does a great job of representing the Orthodox, conservative view of Inerrancy and Infallibility while also demonstrating the limitations of the Literalistic Hermaneutic when applied to this passage.

This thread has answered a long time question..."Why does humanity fight over religion!"

Answered or begged?

Maybe you should start a new thread for that question ??

It would be a good one to slip into ...but my eyes and monitor have become one...tnx anyway but think I'll have a beer and sit this one out.. but be my guest!!!

Answered or begged?
===============

Linguistic schit disturber!!

Whatever your ecstatic son says when he sees dad whack a trophy speed goat,just let it go.

efw,,sorry I didn't answer your question...partially answered as what a discussion about abortion would be.Everyones convictions run deep whether it be religious or otherwise but some choose debate and others would choose confrontation!!

Good advice, Bob, and I'll follow it.

================

You made a little progress okie...well done! Now hawkeye, consistent with the above and after Plinker's post, would you then agree that each day of creation happened within a 24 hour span?

Interesting discussion, guys.
Well... some of it



It says to every man is given the measure of faith.
Notice not a measure, but the measure, meaning it's exactly the same for all. It grows from there, or dwindles, according to the individual's will.

I'd still like to meet that young man (or boy???). Something tells me the Lord has future plans for him. No small thing, either.

Good grief....I just saw that Steelhead Mayan demotivational. I will now commence to stalking the prick.

Another loser with no location displayed......I'd bet his mother's basement isn't far off. Big talker.....

Ryan will turn 14 in Nov. he's been a A honor roll student since he started school and excels at whatever task he chooses to take on.he's always been a well mannered considerate boy without having to be told to be.he actually cares about how his actions and deeds affect others. been a true blessing

Awesome!
Pretty much exactly what I expected to hear

Exactly, the parable of the seeds sown among thistles, rocks, or good ground.

I've arrived at the conclusion that intellect is of no help in determining if God created life or if it was produced by mindless chance and directed by natural selection. Reading 1 Corinthians 1:18-31 it's apparent that God does not permit people to discover him through their own wisdom, but only by faith. There is no experiment or test anyone can do to prove or disprove the existence of God Almighty that He cannot thwart.

So what of the evidence for evolution? I believe that the purpose of evolution is to fine tune the ecosystem. Darwin's error was concluding that the process could produce new species. As we are now seeing with global warming, scientists of a given persuasion interpret evidence to support their beliefs and form alliances with other scientists to hamper those with other interpretations. That orthodoxy is so mature around evolution that there's only one career track for scientists interested in "natural history"; they either support evolution or they change careers. Thus, evidence for something other than mindless chance directed by natural selection has to come from other branches of science.

The evolutionist is bound by their science to deny that intelligence can spontaneously arise from anything other than a biological system, yet we know from quantum mechanics that the makings of phenomenally powerful computers rests within subatomic particles. Evolutionists have not proven that intelligence cannot spontaneously arise from quantum sources. Consider "M" theory; the 11 dimensional reality of perhaps infinite parallel universes. The evolutionist is bound by their science to deny that intelligence beyond our understanding exists anywhere that could decide to create or even influence our universe.

Thus, no human can claim to know God exists or doesn't exist except as a statement of faith. Those who claim to know the unknowable are either ignorant or liars.

In the wisdom of God the greatest treasure of all is hidden from the intellectually proud, but is in plain sight of the humble. As the Apostle Paul writes, "But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things--and the things that are not--to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him."

Yup.

McLorry, that is some of the more amazing nonsense. But you do have a really unbeatable defense - deny alternative ideas by virtue of simply excluding the possibility of rationality and reasoning from the outset. Good'un.

Sadly, you have a giant misunderstanding of evolution and a worse understanding of science.

Thankfully, neither evolution, nor science will be much hampered by this so carry on.

He's got a pretty good read on the status of science as it plays out today.

Evolution has as much metaphysical implication for the believer as those who do not.

I always suspect those using nasty innuendo are a bit insecure in their position. Just saying.

The absence of overpowering evidence presented in macroevolution's defense in the last forty some pages pretty much proves his point. For every rational comment there have been ten ad hominem attacks. Not a very impressive score.

Really? And how would you know how good his "read" on science is? Are you somehow involved in science?

Your psychoanalysis is as lacking as your complete understanding of evolution. It could be that what you see as ad hominem attacks are really just intelligent folks venting their frustration and disappointment with the idiocy that passes for intelligent talk on this forum and especially on this subject.

For that kind of detail, you really need to read a whole book on the subject by a real evolutionary biologist who is addressing the lay person. I recommend The Greatest Show On Earth, by Richard Dawkins.

You make my case so easy.

When you start talking about the role of redundant DNA, and things like variability potential within an organism's genome, you may find your position more compelling. Speak to the issues of entropy and the statistics of spontaneous sequential chemical changes. You get the idea.

By the way, metaphysics is philosophy. I was not free associating for you benefit.

Actually, I have read a whole bunch of books on evolution for the biologist as well as genetics and embryology.

Then how is it that you so badly understand it? Weren't you paying attention?

I actually thought about it.

This discussion just keeps better and better as goes along.

Thanx guys.

Sadly, this is going nowhere. Goodnight.

Can science prove there was a beginning, or does infinity go in both directions of time.

If there is infinity... and not a beginning, therefore an end coming, a stop somewhere out there in the distance...

then I am at the very center of it, right now, time and space... But I'm always at the center of it... and there are an infinite amount of centers, including where you stand right now.

Evolution is infinite, science can't define it in finite terms.

God also would be infinite, religion can't define him in finite terms.

Those who say they know the answer to either is fooling themselves.

It's the arguing over definitions that causes most the problems.

Kent

The distinction between macro and micro evolution is largely arbitrary, since what is called macro evolution consists merely of a long chain of successive instances of micro evolution such that human academics feel compelled to create a new category (e.g., a new species, genus, family, etc.) for a particular specimen or grouping of specimens. Often academics change their minds, in fact, whether two specimens are of like or distinct species, genus, family, etc. Is a coyote really a distinct species from the wolf, sharing only a common genus, or is it merely a smaller strain of the species wolf? Are birds merely an order contained within the taxonomic class reptile, or a completely distinct class all its own? Lots of arbitrary distinctions and classifications going on, which is precisely what you'd expect if evolution were the explanation for the origin of the various species.

The little monk , Bro. Lawrence , of the 16th century [ I think that's his time frame ] was much sought after by pilgrims .They would find him in the kitchen cleaning pots and pans as that was the duties he chose .

They all recieved the same , short answer : " So you would be seeking God ? He is within you ; Look not for Him elsewhere ."

What TRH is preaching on here - which may not be his belief at all - is more like Pantheism than christianity .

Since christianity contains an explanation for evolution [ an attempt to explain a creation with no creator so that man's intellect reigns supreme - put more simply , pride ] but evolution contains no explanation for christianity , or any other belief system for that matter ,christianity would logically be the superior argument .

" Enlightened self interest " is the evolutionist's answer as to where our knowledge of right behaviour comes from . But that can't explain the deaths of the martyrs . Those guys saw , heard , touched , and fellowshiped with the risen Lord , so their refusal to deny Him - even at the point of death - was not an act of faith but of a certain and sure knowledge .

I doubt any athiest evolutionist would be THAT certain that his beliefs are true .

From the earliest Christian fathers , it was accepted that God could only be defined in the negative ;

" This is not Thou ; Neither art Thou this " .

We can't comprehend Him , so we must apprehend Him .

I caught Him ahile back and I ain't lettin' go !

Entropy is active in the evolutionary process, but working against entropy is the constant influx of ambient chemical and/or solar energy. Yes, eventually the law of entropy means that energy will run out, and the tendency then will be from order to disorder, but not so long as energy is still available for life from such sources as the sun or volcanic activity, which living creatures can chemically transform into life energy, i.e., sugar.

I do believe of, the spirit within. God the father, Christ and the holy spirit is a fine definition for my upbringing. I don't try and define other's views though and really don't think God does either. Especially since I know I haven't defined God correctly, or can't would be a better term. I won't judge other's views, as long as they aren't trying to convert me or kill me on that basis.

Kent

Christians believe there is only one God but the way some of 'em act they must be afraid a man will find the wrong one if they don't " lead you to Him" .

Like I've said before , a God that can't convince me of His existence if I supply Him an open mind is of no use to me and certainly not all - powerful .

God is all things to all people... I read that as infinite and varied depending on the individual.

I find it interesting that all the definitions and tenets come second hand from man, claiming God's voice... Even Christ didn't write anything and we are dependent on second hand recollection of the apostles, Paul wasn't even there.

Jesus lived by example and this obviously is a huge lesson missed by organized religion.The second thought is, Christ wouldn't have to come and give the first lesson if things weren't being misinterpreted prior.

The spirit within... is your answer

Arguing evolution vs religion makes no sense to me as no one has the correct base of either.

Kent

These folks say it pretty well....

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#thermo

"Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics."

....However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too.

Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system.

If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?

"The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance."

There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.

Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go).

Some people still argue that it is wildly improbable for a given self-replicating molecule to form at a given point (although they usually don't state the "givens," but leave them implicit in their calculations). This is true, but there were oceans of molecules working on the problem, and no one knows how many possible self-replicating molecules could have served as the first one. A calculation of the odds of abiogenesis is worthless unless it recognizes the immense range of starting materials that the first replicator might have formed from, the probably innumerable different forms that the first replicator might have taken, and the fact that much of the construction of the replicating molecule would have been non-random to start with.

One should also note that the theory of evolution doesn't depend on how the first life began. The truth or falsity of any theory of abiogenesis wouldn't affect evolution in the least.

Birdwatcher

Yep.
And besides that, it doesn't matter.

Even after 24 pages...
We still don't know and it still doesn't matter.

only to those with an agenda...

I'd rather live the best life I can with my family and let the truth hit me when it's over.

Kent

I agree. Im taking an anthropology class and the teacher says we are cousins of monkeys. humans and apes are two completly different things even though we share 99% of out dna. we survived this long together because we have many of the same characteristics. and i hate when researchers say that apes can think and remember. so can birds and dogs and cats and dolphins and many other mamals.

The happy hunting ground ain't meant to be crowded.

"For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.

So Paul, standing in the middle of the Areopagus, said, "Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. For as I passed along, and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, 'To an unknown god.' What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all men life and breath and everything. And he made from one every nation of men to live on the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitation, that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after him and find him. Yet he is not far from each one of us, for 'In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your poets have said, 'For we are indeed his offspring.'"

If you want to argue that entropy is relevant to evolution, you can do so, but you better read Brooks and Wiley's book from the late 80's. It is the definitive treatise on the issue. And for those of you that can manage it, they argue that evolution, particularly speciation and diversification, is entropy in action.

Warning, the math can be a bit daunting at times.

Brent

You've made solid points throughout the thread. Good work!

I know it's a hard concept for the intellectually proud to accept, that some things are unknowable and beyond the realm of science. You say I "deny alternative ideas by virtue of simply excluding the possibility..." Yet that's exactly what evolutionists have done; they deny the possibility that a vastly superior intelligence could spontaneously arise in what many physicists now believe is an infinite number of parallel universes.

Darwin stated that the falsification of his theory rested on what's now called irreducible complexity. A brave few scientists have proposed finding such things, and in challenging the orthodoxy, ignited a storm of controversy. The only useful concept to arise from that storm is that there's no means of proving something is irreducible complex, and thus, Darwin was wrong about how his theory could be falsified. Real scientists know what that means.



That's exactly how the closed minded react when their orthodoxy is challenged. Just assume the other guy doesn't know anything. Let me ask you, what do you know of evolution from your own original research? Likely nothing. You've been told of it and read about it in books. You have accepted the testimony of others as true. Others whose careers depend on promoting the orthodoxy of evolution, who's work in support of that orthodoxy is most often accepted without question, whose careers are made by discovering significant fossils. Given human nature, the fossil record is flimsy evidence at best.



That at least is something we can agree on.

Darwin said what? Where exactly? Let's have the citation.

And what scientists started what storm - name them.

I hate to tell ya, but I am a real scientist. I don't just play one on the internet. And so, I know you are full of crap. What I know of evolution from my own research is reasonably extensive. I've been doing it for 30ish years. How about you? What exactly have you done?

In fact, everything you "know" you have gotten from a book. And only one book at that.

that's the main reason right there that i don't eat monkey meat. no tellin' what diseases might cross the barrier between us all?

If you were a real scientists you would know these things. Go ahead and make the claim that Darwin didn't describe what's now called irreducible complexity as a means of falsification of his theory and then I will post the citation to show the world just how little you know.

The storm around irreducible complexity is well known. You not knowing about it raise questions about your claims of being a real scientist.

By your own admission you are part of the orthodoxy defending you own life's work. I understand it's hard for you to accept that what you think you know can't be known, and that what you believe is fact is really a statement of faith. In that regard evolution is just like any other religion.

'Darwin's Black Box'

Charles Darwin identified the argument as a possible way to falsify a prediction of the theory of evolution at the outset. In The Origin of Species, he wrote, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case."

Now go back and look at the video I posted about molecular DNA. It could not have come into being by successive, slight, modifications for if even one component was not working perfectly, or missing, life would not exist.

I knew you had no defense. Now you ave proven it. You are a fraud.

Except with tons of objective evidence.

Which makes it quite unlike any other religion, or rather, not religion at all. It is just a natural process. Why it scares people like MacLorry and the rest is beyond me.

Heliocentrism used to frighten less sophisticated Christians too.

The only thing you have proven is that you don't dare claim that Darwin didn't describe what's now called irreducible complexity as a means of falsification of his theory. Can I prove he did or not? Go ahead punk, make my day.

Prove it kid? Ya ain't got it. But that's okay. Go back to your one book - don't go out in the real world, 'cuz evolution is happening out there right now. You might catch it....

You likely either misunderstood Darwin or the facts you're applying to his statement.

If we are products of evolution, why haven't we developed that extra hand we always seem to need?

Hey, can you give me a hand?
Hey, I need a hand with this, can you help?

Aw, it makes for lively discussions.

It's apparent you don't know as much as you think you know.

Darwin described the method for falsifying his theory of natural selection knowing that for his theory to be "scientific" it had to be falsifiable. In The Origin of Species, Darwin wrote, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case."

Irreducible complexity is just that, any complex organ or part of it that can't be formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications.

Biochemistry professor Michael Behe, the originator of the term irreducible complexity, defines an irreducibly complex system as one "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning".

Professor Michael Behe's work fueled the intelligent design storm I mentioned. The only thing of value that came out of that storm is the realization that it's impossible to prove something is irreducibly complex as it's an appeal to ignorance. Do I have to explain that to you?

The result is that Darwin was wrong about the means of falsifying his theory of natural selection. That's important because a theory that can't be falsified is not a scientific theory. That takes us back to the fossil record, but that record has been produced by scientists within the evolutionary orthodoxy to further their own careers. Little of it would withstand the rules of evidence in a court of law.

Go ahead and believe it if you want, but know that you do so as a matter of faith.

I don't put too much faith in man's ability to control or understand things.

1 out of every 50 shuttles are still lost. Just look at the inability to control our economies. Billions have been spent on cancer research and we still haven't figured that one out. We can't even make the Public school system work properly.

So to say there is no God or evidence of God, using our limited and still somewhat primitive understanding is kinda laffable.

Not too many generations ago, we believed the world was flat and that earth was the center of the universe.

So for those that believe we have reached the pinnacle of understanding and knowledge in our present state and can say there is no evidence of God or his work, your assumption is just as flawed as those who once preached that if you sailed too far in either direction, you would fall off the edge of the planet.


JM

That's because as smart as monkeys think they are they still have a long way to go to get past feces slinging.

Course there has been a WHOLE bunch that talking monkeys have accomplished, such as what I'm typing on, vaccines for diseases that killed millions and Viagra.

[quote=JM}Not too many generations ago, we believed the world was flat and that earth was the center of the universe.[/quote]

Interesting isn't it...
These 2 simple accomplishments, amazing as they may have been at one time, sure seem to be touted often, not to mention repeatedly.

And that they're fallen back on, in crutch like manner, so frequently just adds to the arrogance behind their use.... if ya stop and think of it from God's perspective. I wonder if He's laughing or shaking His head.

It's not whether evolution is a process, it's whether evolution was the ignition of the very first life. Can't be proven any more than creationism can.

'Saving' comes from both camps, but of course it's not free... from your soul to global warming...

I wouldn't care but either side has tried to convert me, control me or wants to kill me... stay off my doorbell and out of my wallet.

I don't care to 'save' you... but if you want to go fishing I'll load the boat.

Kent

Biological complexity is a false argument against evolution theory. A very bad one at that. Those that attempt to use it as such demonstrate a real lack of even a rudimentary understanding of modern science. Perhaps, the false argument would be convincing if one is stuck in a medieval mind set and led/fooled by others of similar ilk. Surprisingly, or perhaps not, some 24CF members are.

Biological systems encounter errors all the time. A good chance a couple thousand errors just happened in the neurons you just used to post on this thread. In fact, a neuron or two might have died as a result those errors. The other neurons were able to shrug it off and are synapsing away like always. Then again perhaps not. Maybe one of those neurons just lost the inhibition to cell division and if not killed, it will become a neuroblastoma. Chit happens.

When an error in DNA replication (and there are a number of different kinds as you can imagine since the process is complex and involves a large number of components each of which can fail) results in a change in a germline cell, it could be fatal, benign or beneficial. Could be all three depending on circumstances and environment. Sickle Cell Anemia comes to mind. Funny how imperfection can be perfect at times.

Voila. Evolution

That's the point of 1 Corinthians 1:18-31. By design the designer can't be found by human wisdom. The treasure of salvation is hidden from the intellectually proud, but accessible to all by faith. Why? "...so that no one may boast before him." Why? Because pride was Satan's sin and no one can come to God while being in the sin of pride. We are implored to humble ourselves and be saved by the foolishness of the message preached.

fishin? - boat !

what! - when? - where we goin? -

Yeah but - they fit right in here on the fire where fece flinging is the highest form of communication and intelligence.

MacLorry, if the designer can be found by convetional whatever and all that rot, what the hell is your heroic fraud Michael Behe doin'?

The lad is a farce. Lets face it. He doesn't know [bleep] from shinola and that is about all there is to say about him. ID is a pathetic, but monetarily lucrative, joke.

Wow. So for everyone to get to where you and doc Behe are, we would need to become intellectually diminished.

No thanks. But have at it if that is your choice to reduce yourself to vegan piss. Seems you have achieved your goal. In spades. Of course, you did not have that far to go. Prayers sent.

Addendum: Apologies to vegans if appropriate.

I've seen ya fish... sorry, can't save ya there either... just say'n

Kent

proof of evolution.....the laryngeal nerve.....the nerve for your voice box goes from your brain, down around the top of your heart and back up your neck to your larynx....this nerve started out as a branch of the vagus nerve to the rear of the gills in fish near its heart....as critters evolved from fish the area of the back of the gills is where the voice box developed in higher animals and the space between them got farther which is why in a giraffe the nerve that controls the larynx sends impulses from its brain, 8 feet down to the top of its heart and than shoots back up another 7 and a half feet to the larynx.....were there any intelligent design/creation that nerve would go from the brain and travel less than a foot to the larynx instead of the close to 16 feet it actually travels....

as for what kick started it all, "God" is as good as a reason as anything the scientists came up with..........

Now you are [almost] playing by the rules as set forth by the evolution prostitutes :

Rule one ; The only source material allowed for the creationist side is the bible . Evolutionists are allowed to make stuff up and then offer it as irrefutable evidence .

Rule two : No "scientific" document" may be used on behalf of the creationist's side .After all , if it were really scientific it would support evolution , global warming , and one world government .

The only rules infraction I see is your failure to use the KJV for your quote . Ten yard penalty .

Why don't we just all agree that Brent D has a monkey up close in his family tree and then we can all go away satisfied ?

I'd love to go fishing with you.

Just one question. Would you save me if I fell overboard?

BTW. We may not agree exactly on relgious philosophy but I really like your thoughts on everything. At least you've made reasonable personal conclusions from the questions that everyone asks themselves.