middle east again...

"That is now largely ignored, the bible is taken as "interpretation" and the Christian/Theology scholars fight to try and fit religion into what we know of the world"

Once the liberals started compromising their religion and their belief in the bible all they had left was this wishy-washy everythings-a-myth version of christianity which is of no benefit to anyone, christians or evolutionists.

I'm trusting you that the Pope did in fact concede on evolution and I can further tell you that various other denominations such as the Unitarians, "Christian Scientists" (a cult which is neither christian nor scientific) also pretty much would agree to this view. However most other protestant churches do not agree whatsoever with this. If the Bible is not true, than there is no basis for faith. By the way, would anyone like to try to find any internal contradictions in the Bible?

By the way, the seven "days" of creation can also be translated "ages". This is not changing the Bible to fit facts, but a a correct translation of the Hebrew manuscripts.

Finally, Clyde, you said that soon scientists would understand conciousness. Do you know of any experiments to this effect, especially anywhere I could look on the web?

>>about the telescopic time travel

... You been at the wacky tobaccy again seditee? ;) Its not time travel. Its merely that the light takes time to reach your eye. The more distance it has to travel, obviously the longer it takes. 1 light year is the distance light can travel in 1 years time. This is a very large distance. 5.88 x 1012 miles i believe. Thus, if you're looking at something 5.88 x 1012 miles away from you it took the light one year to reach your eye. That means that you're seeing the object as it was 1 year previous.

>>you said that soon scientists would understand conciousness

I dont have specific links but research in neurology has been steadily advancing. Do a search on that topic.


>>By the way, the seven "days" of creation can also be translated "ages".

We're not debating God/No-God (this time) ;). We're mainly talking about the evolution of organisms; A subject that has many more facts to back it up.

"so, if the theory was correct...about the telescopic time travel: these images of people are the ghosts of another dimension?"

Uh.... no, no, no and err NO.

"However most other protestant churches do not agree whatsoever with this. If the Bible is not true, than there is no basis for faith."

The bible being literally true, is contrary to everything we have discovered about the universe, there are stars so far away that the light takes millions of years to reach us, yet the bible says the universe is 6,000 years old.... WOOPS.

And i think you'll find that the bible says that men have one less rib than women....... when actualy they er... don't.

Oh and Noah's flood:

http://riceinfo.rice.edu/armadillo/S...gins/flood.htm

and this one is a classic, it gives a brilliant example of precisely why the bible CANNOT possibly be literally true:

http://www.angelfire.com/mb/304654home/ark.html

"By the way, would anyone like to try to find any internal contradictions in the Bible? "

LOL sure:

"The first chapter of Genesis describes a six-day creation: on the first day, God created light. On the second day, God created Heaven by making a division between the waters which apparently engulfed the universe. On the third day, God created dry land by gathering together the waters beneath Heaven, then created the seas, grass, herbs, and fruit trees. On the fourth day, God put the sun, the moon, and the stars in Heaven, beneath the upper layer of the waters which he had divided on the second day. On the fifth day, God created sea creatures and birds. On the sixth day, God first created land creatures, and then He created man.

Of course, we know that there are no waters above the stars, and that fruit trees did not exist before the first aquatic creatures, and that the earth (much less grass, herbs, and fruit trees) did not exist before the sun or the stars. But lets put aside all of these problems with a literal Genesis 1, for the moment, and focus on how Genesis 1 compares with the next creation story in the Book of Genesis.

The second chapter of Genesis states that God first created man, then created trees, then made the animals, and finally created woman. All of this happened in one day -- the same day that God created the heavens and the earth, as described in Genesis 2:4. Not only is the sequence of creation different, but the time span is different as well.[1]

At most, only one of the two stories can be literally correct. Creationists use all sorts of rhetorical and interpretive ploys to try to deny the contradiction between the first two chapters of Genesis, thereby violating their own precept that the Bible must be read literally. Modern biblical scholars agree that Genesis 1 and 2 do conflict. The two accounts were, after all, written centuries apart, and in very different cultural contexts. To believe in a completely literal rendition of the Book of Genesis is thus to claim that God inspired a self-contradictory set of writings. Apparently the creationists, as much as they claim to worship God, actually believe Him to be exceedingly stupid.

When the two creation stories in the Book of Genesis are appreciated for what they truly are -- allegories inspired by God, or myths designed by the ancient Hebrews -- only then does the Book of Genesis no contradict itself or the discoveries of science."

Hows that for a wopping internal contradiction

There are also a couple on this site:

http://riceinfo.rice.edu/armadillo/S...gins/flood.htm

"Finally, Clyde, you said that soon scientists would understand conciousness. Do you know of any experiments to this effect, especially anywhere I could look on the web?"

There have been dozens of experiements that show that the brain "creates" conciousness, your best bet is to do a search for neurology as lightatdawn said.

You are correct, Clyde. Gould was talking about punk eek, an attempt of his to resurrect the "hopeful monster" of Goldschmidt. The movement, I believe, was discredited by Richard Dawkins in the "The Blind Watchmaker" and is not very popular among biologists. Although it is strange to note that even Dawkins admitted the necessity of some sort of lesser systemic macromutation (what used to be called saltation) Darwin asserted, however, that

Quote:

---

Natural selection can act only by the preservation and accumulation of infinitesmally small inherited modifications, each profitable to the preserved being...

---

In the words of Gould's partner Steve Stanley, describing the famous Bighorn Basin where species thought to have morphed into others overlap in time with their supposed descendants

Quote:

---

If an average chronospecies lasts nearly a million years, or even longer, and we have at our disposal only ten million years, then we have only ten or fifteen chronospecies to align, end-to-end, to form a continuous lineage connecting our primitive little mammal with a bat or a whale. Chronospecies, by definition, grade into each other, and each one encompasses very little change. A chain of ten or fifteen of these might move us from one small rodentlike form to a slightly different one, perhaps representing a new genus, but not to a bat or a whale!"

---

I believe Stanley attempted to rectify this by relying upon changes in regulatory genes.

Also from Stanley

Quote:

---

the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another

---

Richard Dawkins, referring to the species suddenly appearing in the Cambrian explosion

Quote:

---

It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history

---

Gould again after a conference on mass extinctions:

Quote:

---

We can tell tales of improvements for some groups, but in honest moments we must admit that the history of complex life is more a story of multifarious variation about a set of basic designs than a saga of accumulating evidence

---

Niles Eldredge, cofounder of punctuated equilibrium:

Quote:

---

We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports
that intepretation (referring to gradual adaptive change), all the while knowing that it does not

---

W.E Swinton

Quote:

---

The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved

---

Colin Patterson, curator of the British Natural Museum of History, responding to a challenge

Quote:

---

You say I should at least 'show a photo of the fossil from which each type or organism was derived.' I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another.... But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.

---

I just thought I'd post these quotes. Don't worry Clyde, none of them are fabricated.

Sorry. I forgot to register

"Natural selection can act only by the preservation and accumulation of infinitesmally small inherited modifications, each profitable to the preserved being... "

True, and not contradictory to punctuated equilibrium, which has not been descredited per say, some evolutionary biologists think its more significant than others.

"If an average chronospecies lasts nearly a million years, or even longer, and we have at our disposal only ten million years, then we have only ten or fifteen chronospecies to align, end-to-end, to form a continuous lineage connecting our primitive little mammal with a bat or a whale. Chronospecies, by definition, grade into each other, and each one encompasses very little change. A chain of ten or fifteen of these might move us from one small rodentlike form to a slightly different one, perhaps representing a new genus, but not to a bat or a whale!" "

What is a chronospecies?

"the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another "

haven't i already provided this site?:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/

Among the many many points it raises that show up your argument there is this on gould:

"Many evolution deniers quote Stephen Jay Gould and other punctuated equilibria proponents as saying that transitional forms are very rare. Most non-specialists get ideas of "missing links" between higher taxa of animals when they hear about transitional forms. Gould has been very clear that these are common and yet he has been quoted many times that transitional forms are rare. What is going on here? In the context of punctuated equilibria, a transitional form is between immediately related species (say two species of squirrels, species of similar Devonian trilobites, etc.), and is not referring to a transition between human and non-human, whales and primitive land mammals, etc. Indeed the transitions Gould and other punctuated equilibria proponents are arguing about would be generally be dismissed as "microevolution" by many evolution deniers. Thus antievolutionists arguing against the existence of transitions between larger taxa are very likely guilty of misquotation if they quote Gould's writings on punctuated equilibria. For more details on this see Gould's10 classic essay "Evolution as Fact and Theory" where he explains his position on the fossil record as well as demonstrates young-earth creationist misrepresentations of his views."

and this in conclusion:

"When students read or hear the out-of-context quotes from such a book [That Their Words May be Used Against Them from the Institute for Creation Research], they quite often think that evolution must be a theory in crisis within the scientific community. If creationist students suddenly quote respected evolutionary scientists and expect science instructors to respond instantly (without even knowing the context of the quotes) we recommend the following two actions: (1) instructors should explain to the students that they are cognizant of the scientists being quoted (if they are) and that the evidence compels these scientists to conclude that evolution is an accurate scientific theory, and (2) instructors request that the students bring in the original sources of the quotes of the quotes so that they can read in context. Having the original source (not the quote book) will allow instructors to illustrate to students that there is an entire book or article surrounding the one quote and that the publication is not challenging the occurrence of evolution. The goal of this exercise is not for students to find evolution compelling simply because experts find the data compelling; they should examine the evidence and come to their own conclusions. However, when students quote these experts, they need to understand clearly the positions of the people they quoting and the contextual meaning of the quotes [footnote omitted]. "

I suggest you read the entire page though, since it is all relevant material.

"It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history "

As THOUGH, the cambrian explosion is well documented explained, the most popular explanation at present is that during the previous era the conditions were not suitable for fossilisation, or that if there were fossils they were destroyed.

ALL of your quotes are out of context, Richard Dawkins would be having a heart attack if he knew his quotes were being taken out of context as arguments against evolution.


"We can tell tales of improvements for some groups, but in honest moments we must admit that the history of complex life is more a story of multifarious variation about a set of basic designs than a saga of accumulating evidence "

What is this quote about? What is the context? Instead of giving single lines without a reference, provide links to whole articles, in doing so you will defeat your own points, because each one of these scientists will go to EXPLAIN what they meant.

"We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports
that intepretation (referring to gradual adaptive change), all the while knowing that it does not "

Out of context again, if he really believed what you make him out to believe he clearly would not believe in evolution. He is probably again referring to the Cambrian era.

"The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved "

....... yes there are gaps in the fossil record (dinos-birds have the least number of fossils, but there still several bird-dino hybrid fossils), as is expected and?

"You say I should at least 'show a photo of the fossil from which each type or organism was derived.' I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another.... But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test"

One fossil by definition cannot possibly show gradual change. There ARE transitional fossils, i've given the links before and I will give them again below.

That post was one of the worst offenders of taking quotes out of context i have ever read, none of the people you quote actually believe what you are making out they do. In each case they will go on to explain what they mean, but of course your quotes end before they do.


Did you miss this link:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

and this one:

http://www.freethought-web.org/ctrl/...leviathan.html

They both cover the fossil record.

Taking individual phrases you can make people out to say anything you want them to say, which is why creationist use the "quote out of context" argument.

Without context individual phrases are useless:

When Richard Dawkins was interviewed by some Autralian creationists they asked him a series of questions on Camera, when they produced a tape they had edited it to make it look like Dawkins could not answer several of their questions and that evolution was shaky, he sued them and they withdrew the tape. What you are doing is no different, deliberately misrepresenting people's views by quoting them out of context.

You tell 'em, Clyde! One valid point for evolutionists, if you want to call them that, is that they use a scientific approach. That is, they don't claim to know every detail about every event and process. They construct a theory (in the scientific sense, not a synonym for "guess") that best fits the known facts. If new facts are discovered, the theory is either altered or replaced with one that fits the facts better.
Creationists are unable to do this. Since they already "know" the answer, facts must be made to fit or are discarded, denied and/or ignored.

Quote:

---

What is a chronospecies?

---

Your biology education is most impressive. Even more so is your ability to educate yourself. Apparently you do not have the initiative to look the term up in any one of the myriad resources you might expect would contain it?

Quote:

---

As THOUGH, the cambrian explosion is well documented explained, the most popular explanation at present is that during the previous era the conditions were not suitable for fossilisation, or that if there were fossils they were destroyed.

---

Bingo. An explanation. I'll touch on this later.

Quote:

---

Out of context again, if he really believed what you make him out to believe he clearly would not believe in evolution. He is probably again referring to the Cambrian era.

---

Incorrect. Here is the rest of the quote.

Quote:

---

Each new generation, it seems, produces a few young paleontologists eager to document examples of evolutionary change in their fossils. The changes they have always looked for have, of course, been of the gradual, progressive sort. More often than not, their efforts have gone unrewarded and their fossils, rather than exhibiting the expected pattern, just seem to persist virtually unchanged. This extraordinary conservatism looked, to the paleontologist keen on finding evolutionary change, as if no evolution had occurred. Thus, studies documenting conservative persistence rather than gradual evolutionary change were considered failures, and more often than not, were not even published

---

I believe this does seem to contradict your statements about the immense amounts of fossil records available as proof for the fact of evolution

BTW, I just read Gould's essay Evolution as Fact and Theory again. It is a ridiculous piece. He relies upon three proofs.
#1.

Quote:

---

First, we have abundant, direct, observational evidence of evolution in action, from both the field and laboratory. This evidence ranges from countless experiments on change in nearly everything about fruit flies subjected to artificial selection in the laboratory to the famous populations of British moths that became black when industrial soot darkened the trees upon which the moths rest.

---

I accept that, no reservations. However, it has no validity as a proof of darwinism because Gould is assuming that microevolution implies macroevolution! Since when do rules that govern activity at one level govern activity at all levels? If I want to know how tiny mammals evolved into humans Gould's first proof is irrelevant.

#2

Quote:

---

The second argument—that the imperfection of nature reveals evolution—strikes many people as ironic, for they feel that evolution should be most elegantly displayed in the nearly perfect adaptation expressed by some organisms—the camber of a gull's wing, or butterflies that cannot be seen in ground litter because they mimic leaves so precisely. But perfection could be imposed by a wise creator or evolved by natural selection. Perfection covers the tracks of past history. And past history—the evidence of descent—is the mark of evolution.

Evolution lies exposed in the imperfections that record a history of descent. Why should a rat run, a bat fly, a porpoise swim, and I type this essay with structures built of the same bones unless we all inherited them from a common ancestor? An engineer, starting from scratch, could design better limbs in each case. Why should all the large native mammals of Australia be marsupials, unless they descended from a common ancestor isolated on this island continent? Marsupials are not "better," or ideally suited for Australia; many have been wiped out by placental mammals imported by man from other continents. This principle of imperfection extends to all historical sciences. When we recognize the etymology of September, October, November, and December (seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth), we know that the year once started in March, or that two additional months must have been added to an original calendar of ten months.

---

Basically Gould is saying here that if all life was created by God and its route was dictated by God, then He would, of course, have made all organisms "perfect." This does nothing to confirm the natural processes by which we evolved from a common ancestor, and it is not a substitute for evidence. Since when do philosophical/theological inquiries constitute proof? The same opinion is held by many biologists, most notably Doug Futuyama and his "tidy-minded engineer."

Gould third "proof" is rather more direct.

Quote:

---

The third argument is more direct: transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common—and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. The lower jaw of reptiles contains several bones, that of mammals only one. The non-mammalian jawbones are reduced, step by step, in mammalian ancestors until they become tiny nubbins located at the back of the jaw. The "hammer" and "anvil" bones of the mammalian ear are descendants of these nubbins. How could such a transition be accomplished? the creationists ask. Surely a bone is either entirely in the jaw or in the ear. Yet paleontologists have discovered two transitional lineages of therapsids (the so-called mammal-like reptiles) with a double jaw joint—one composed of the old quadrate and articular bones (soon to become the hammer and anvil), the other of the squamosal and dentary bones (as in modern mammals).

---

This is a favorite of Gould, Futuyama, and many others. Therapsida, a large order that contains lots of fossil species that have skeletal features that look like they are intermediate between the features of reptiles and mammals. Reptiles and mammals are very difficult to tell apart at the boundary; normally, if the lowerjaw has several bones, and one of these, the articular, I believe, is joined to the quadrate bone (part of the skull). If the lower jaw is constituted merely by one dentary bone that connects to the squamosal bone (also part of the skull) it is a mammal. Back to Gould, his narrow point is valid, but that does not effectively establish the reptile-mammal relation. There are many more "important" differences, notably, the reproductive system. There are myriads of "transitionals", in fact, there are so many that it is impossible to discern which are the actual ancestors(according to evolutionists). Reference Futuyama. However, lots of candidates is positive only if they can be placed in a single line of descent that could conceivably lead from reptile species to one mammal species. There are many similar fossils that are outside any possible line of descent. One cannot say "mammals in general descended from reptiles in general." That is not Darwinism. Another interesting point is that any chain of therapsids is not attached to something specific at either end (reptiles and mammals). Vital structural differences between early mammals caused some paleontologists to think that mammals had actually evolved several times, that is, that mammals are a "polyphyletic" group. That is kind of messy, considering the Darwinian argument that mammalian homologies are a "leftover" from common ancestry.

So in conclusion, Gould's three "proofs" are looking rather weak. We have an implied equivocation of laws applying to different scales, a philosophical/theological argument that no "tidy-minded engineer" would create an "imperfect" organism, and a specific example of one scenario that does not imply the truth of the more general proposition.

By saying that Darwinism can account for an event or set of events, one is saying nothing. The essence of science is asking the question "how can I prove or disprove my theory?"

>>The changes they have always looked for have, of course, been of the gradual, progressive sort.

I'm not seeing the problem in this. Who has been claiming that this process was a rapidly occuring one?

>>I believe this does seem to contradict your statements

Really? It doesnt seem to...


>>First, we have abundant, direct, observational evidence of evolution in action, from both the field and laboratory.

>>Gould is assuming that microevolution implies macroevolution!

I dont believe thats what is being assumed at all. "both the field and laboratory". Here, i believe, he would be refering to the documented number of cases in which a species has 'split' into two new and distinct species. This has been mentioned earlier on.


>>So in conclusion, Gould's three "proofs" are looking rather weak.

Only the second one looks in any way questionable as proof in this instance. The other two seem fairly sound.

Quote:

---

I dont believe thats what is being assumed at all. "both the field and laboratory". Here, i believe, he would be refering to the documented number of cases in which a species has 'split' into two new and distinct species. This has been mentioned earlier on.

---

The problem is that speciation is incredibly rare. This is surprising, even allowing for the length of time associated with speciation. In all the experiments done on Drosophila, I think that there MAY have been one or two(Dobzhonsky, I believe). And remember that this is the result of artificial breeding, ie, applying the experimenters own brand of natural selection. For plants, most documented cases have been polyploidy or hybridization. And also, remember that not everyone uses the BSD definition of species.

How does Gould's third proof sound "sound" to you?

If God is all ominipresent and all powerful then he can do anything? Therefore God could in theory choose not to know the
future of everything. For example we usually bet on dice without lop siding the dice. Not because we couldn't but because that would make the game extremly boring.

"I also found out some rather interesting things about Darwin, he went to Medical school for two years then dropped out, he had no degree in science at all. And he delt heavily in witchcraft"

And? Faraday was a book-binder, Newton was thought to be a sadist, your point?

My point was that Darwin was not highly educated(this sentance was made null by your above statement), nor did he totally discredit the supernatural. For a man of science to delve in witchcraft, before he came up with the evolution theory, made me wonder about the credit of his words.

I apolagise for the misquote, I will try to research my sources more thoroughly. If I make a mistake again I'm sure you will point it out.

< >> I also found out some rather interesting things about Darwin

Like, for instance, that he was a Christian? >

I believe that they have never discoverd whether this was true or not. There was a woman who supposably visited Darwin on his deathbed and some things she said about what he was wearing and what his room was like, made people believe that what she said could be true. However, there are a few other things about what she stated that were probably not true as there is no supportive evidence. The issue is a mystery.....

"there is no evidence partaking to the theory that life originated on earth due to the climet change brought about by an explosion in space"

<I just re-read this........ are you saying "there is no evidence that life originated on Earth due to a climate change brought about by an explosion in space(the big bang!???!?!?)"

Errr.... right..... and.....? That has what to do with evolution?>

Everything, or so I had thought. Has the theory of the big bang been disproved recently?

<That and the word 'explosion' has destructive conotations where as the big bang was not so much an explosion as a sudden expansion.>

I relise this, I rephrased the term "big bang" to "explosion" because It was getting redundant. Pardon my bringing the topic up.

The link http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Has not been updated since 1997. Much has been discoverd since then.

<Dr Steve Jones (geneticist) replied, "Here's my example; it's come up in the last ten years. Two species of salmon in American lakes. And in the last twenty years
they've split into two forms, one big, one small, one goes to the sea, one
stays at home. That's the origin of species seen in our own lifetime." >

Here is some of that debate I found between Dr Steve Jones, Ken Ham, and three other scientists, revealing more than what most people would have thought

<Very few creation vs. evolution debates have been held in recent years compared to the 1970s and 1980s, when hundreds were conducted. Because evolutionary scientists have not fared well in these debates (and even their evolutionary colleagues admit this), if a debate is being considered, evolutionists are more agreeable to participate if the odds can be improved: especially if it's 3 evolutionists against 1 creationist! DISCOVER how many of the founders of modern science were creationists!
Men of Science, Men of God!
Dr. Henry M. Morris


That ratio was in play on March 17 when Ken Ham appeared live on Great Britain's "Newsnight" program on BBC-TV. Billed as a panel discussion, it turned out to be three evolutionary scientists debating Ken. Even with the improved "odds," the three prominent evolutionists fared quite poorly. In fact, a non-Christian, non-creationist viewer told Ken Ham on the day after the debate that he once had great respect for two of the evolutionists he knew, but that their poor showing and "arrogance" prompted him to reevaluate his opinion of them.

During the debate, the most abrasive evolutionist, Prof. Steve Jones, a geneticist at the University College of London, declared that there are a lot of "stupid people" in America who do not believe in evolution, and then quickly added that this applied to Australians as well, a clear dig at Australian guest Ken Ham! So much for British civility! He also declared that he despised people--meaning creationists--who tell "lies to children."

This same evolutionist, when asked by Ken for specific evidence for evolution, replied: "salmon speciation" in America. Ken quickly pointed out that the salmon ten years later are still salmon, and continue to produce just more salmon, and that creationists believe in speciation anyway because no new genetic information was added to the new salmon species, it would remain a salmon! So much for Prof. Jones's academic brilliance!>

Goes to show that things arn't always what they seem.

>>So much for British civility!

Indeed. Theres no good excuse for incivility. (Although we all have our moments i suppose.)


>>I relise this, I rephrased the term "big bang" to "explosion" because It was getting redundant. Pardon my bringing the topic up.

I apologise then. It appeared (when i read it) that you were greatly misinformed about the theory.


>>because no new genetic information was added to the new salmon species, it would remain a salmon!

True, but a cougar is a cat just like the one that lies on my head to get me up in the morning so i'll feed her. I'd say theres a bit of a difference (and i'm rather glad ;) ).


This thread has covered so many topics that i'm having trouble recalling what points were trying to be made currently (regarding evolution that is; The middle east topic has been long dead :) ). Seems we're all over the place right now...

I think that we have gone over so many points one could not count them all.

We have two choices, end this on a cival note, and discuss the original topic, (middle east right?) or we could go on talking about Evolution V. Creatism if the people who wanted to talk about the middle east don't mind? I don't want people to feel as if our talking has gotten annoying.

As the starter of this thread, I hereby grant thee my permission to keep up the good work... yadi, yadi, yada... and talk about whatever ye please...

Guess the middle east topic is long dead, so... :D

You sure? I feel a little bad about shoving you out in the rain on your topic.

:(

Thing is I don't know much about the middle east, a little about the muslim religion;) but that would probably make us wind back around to our discussion about God.

Hey, no prob... reminds me of that one time I switched the topic as the first response to a post by DA... :( Good ol' DA... :)

"Your biology education is most impressive. Even more so is your ability to educate yourself. Apparently you do not have the initiative to look the term up in any one of the myriad resources you might expect would contain it? "

And how exactly are the other posters meant to understand what it is?

"Incorrect. Here is the rest of the quote. "

Heh, and all the other of your out of context quotes? Hmm..? I guess we should just quietly forget those... :)

That quote is by whom? So you've managed to quote a paleontologist who it "appears" does not believe in evolution, excellent, and which university did he go to? The university of creation science? =) Funny how 99.99999% of paleontologists believe in evolution, funny that.

Arguing from quotation is completely invalid anyway, because anyone can find any quotation to suit their given argument. Once again read this:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/

The bottom-line here is that an overwhelming majority of palentologists view the fossil record as evidence for evolution, so do the vast majority of geneticists, biochemists, immunologists, cellular biologists, etc. etc. you keep saying there is no gradual change, and I keep pointing you to sites DOCUMENTING transitional species, are you reading the links i give you or just ignoring them?

"BTW, I just read Gould's essay Evolution as Fact and Theory again. It is a ridiculous piece. He relies upon three proofs."

This should be good...

"I accept that, no reservations. However, it has no validity as a proof of darwinism because Gould is assuming that microevolution implies macroevolution! Since when do rules that govern activity at one level govern activity at all levels? If I want to know how tiny mammals evolved into humans Gould's first proof is irrelevant. "

Well, 1) Microevolution does indeed pretty much imply macroevolution, did you read my explanation of how evolution worked?

2) When people say "evolution" they can be reffering to both micro and macro (because they are exactly the same thing), in this case he is clearly reffering to micro.

3) We can SEE macro-evolution happening, if you had read my posts you would know this, but i'll repeat it again:


"Ken Ham: ... what's something that you think is absolutely convincing that evolution (reffering to macro)is true?"

Dr Jones replied: "Here's my example; it's come up in the last ten years. Two species of salmon in American lakes. And in the last twenty years
they've split into two forms, one big, one small, one goes to the sea, one stays at home. That's the origin of species seen in our own lifetime"

"Basically Gould is saying here that if all life was created by God and its route was dictated by God, then He would, of course, have made all organisms "perfect." This does nothing to confirm the natural processes by which we evolved from a common ancestor, and it is not a substitute for evidence"

Evolution predicts exactly the kind of "imperfections" we observe in organisms, hence it would seem reasonable to conclude that those imperfections can be seen as evidence for evolution (thought they also are evidence against creation).

"This is a favorite of Gould, Futuyama, and many others. Therapsida, a large order that contains lots of fossil species that have skeletal features that look like they are intermediate between the features of reptiles and mammals. Reptiles and mammals are very difficult to tell apart at the boundary; normally, if the lowerjaw has several bones, and one of these, the articular, I believe, is joined to the quadrate bone (part of the skull). If the lower jaw is constituted merely by one dentary bone that connects to the squamosal bone (also part of the skull) it is a mammal. "

LOL, the boundary!? And what exactly is "the boundary" to a creationist?? The very reason WHY you say it is "hard to tell them apart" is because at the "boundary" they have structures from both mammals and reptiles, JEEZ i wonder why that could be??

A classic example of what creationists do when they find a hybrid, they arbitrarely place it in one catagory, hell, all the biologists and paleontologists say it has structures from both species hence saying it one or the other is meaningless, but the creationists take one such structure in your case the reproductory system, and arbitrarely decide that, that particular structure is more important than all the others hence using it to justify their placement. Whats so amusing is that different creationists choose different structures!!

For a conclusive debunking of creationist nonsense regarding Therapsid and the reptile-mammal transition go here (it also explains very clearly what the fossil record shows):

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaver...7/therapsd.htm


"So in conclusion, Gould's three "proofs" are looking rather weak"

Hehe, i think not.

Now i keep answering your questions how about you answer some of mine?

If the bible is the literal word of God how can it be that the descriptions in genesis 1 and genesis 2 contradict each other?

If creation is true, then why are their animals with redundant features: Men have nipples, there are fish at the bottom of the sea with eyes that do not work, most of our DNA is "junk" DNA.

If creation is true, then why is it that millions of species were made extinct before man ever arrived on Earth?

If the bible is the literal word of God how exactly do you account for the fact that the amount of water listed in the bible, is not enough to cover the world's mountains yet, in the bible it says all the mountains were covered? :

http://www.angelfire.com/mb/304654home/ark.html

"not. There was a woman who supposably visited Darwin on his deathbed and some things she said about what he was wearing and what his room was like, made people believe that what she said could be true. However, there are a few other things about what she stated that were probably not true as there is no supportive evidence. The issue is a mystery..... "

Darwin was a Christian, there is no debate on this point (there is no debate about any of this, by people with an education, only people who have not studied evolution in any depth debate it, the rest of the world looks on in wonder in much the same way they do the flat Earthers).

"Everything, or so I had thought. Has the theory of the big bang been disproved recently? "

No..... but the big bang has nothing to do with evolution. (and the way I read your posts it seems as if you think, the Earth was sitting there then the big bang came along, causing an environmental change which resulted in life.......... eerrrrrm....)

"Has not been updated since 1997. Much has been discoverd since then. "

LOL, yea, like even MORE transitional fossils, the ones that have been discovered have not been undiscovered!

"During the debate, the most abrasive evolutionist, Prof. Steve Jones, a geneticist at the University College of London, declared that there are a lot of "stupid people" in America who do not believe in evolution, and then quickly added that this applied to Australians as well, a clear dig at Australian guest Ken Ham! So much for British civility! He also declared that he despised people--meaning creationists--who tell "lies to children." "

Yes, he doesn't like creationists telling lies, to children, and he cannot believe the ignorance displayed by people coming from a 1st world country, that "should" have had a decent education, I too find it astonishing that clearly many of the people in this very thread were not taught or did not understand event the most basic of biological principles.

"This same evolutionist, when asked by Ken for specific evidence for evolution, replied: "salmon speciation" in America. Ken quickly pointed out that the salmon ten years later are still salmon"

Which completely missed the point, he asked for instance of species evolution and he was provided with one, what exactly is he expecting? A species of salmon's phenotypic properties completely changing in 20 years!? HELLO evolution takes time.

"and that creationists believe in speciation anyway because no new genetic information was added to the new salmon species, it would remain a salmon! So much for Prof. Jones's academic brilliance!> "

I think what you mean to say is OMG how ignorant Ken Ham, "no genetic information was added to the salmon species" er..... WRONG (see links at the bottom of the post) What is a salmon, is it a species? Do you know? Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Salmon does NOT refer to a species, it is a higher taxa, the SPECIES changed, of COURSE the two new species are still in the same Taxa! They were the SAME species only 20 years ago! (see links at the bottom of post)

IF you want a break down of Hams IDIOCY, go here:

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/ham_evidence.htm

and here:

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/h...s_of_years.htm

and here:

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/h..._practical.htm

and here:

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/ham_bible.htm


and i notice you do not respond to any of the points i made in my post to you.... go figure.

"Therefore God could in theory choose not to know the
future of everything. "

Whether he chooses or not is mute, fact is, if free-will exists HE CAN'T know the future.

@dawn, the operative word was telescopic. no mention of physical time travel.

& about the future: if one can see into the past, it only stands to reason the future involves a similar process.



:rolleyes:

"& about the future: if one can see into the past, it only stands to reason the future involves a similar process. "

Uh.... no, it does not.

You are looking at the "past" right now, you see the monitor in front of you as it was a few fempto-seconds ago. You cannot look at light coming from objects in the future because that light does not exist in the present, you can look at light that has come from "objects in the past" (though thinking of it this way, is somewhat misleading) because that light DOES exist in the present.

you cannot say that with 1oo% certaintly. none of it. nothing is impossible...& there are no absolutes. what happens when the image of a distant object intersects with the image of another distant object during it's travel across space&time? listen bro, don't take this seriously...i just ramble on sometimes about things i haven't much more than imagination for reference on...it's all just talk...science fiction.

Ooh look what I found:

Fyodor states this quote:

"You say I should at least 'show a photo of the fossil from which each type or organism was derived.' I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another.... But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. "

By Colin Patterson, well........... :

"Another prominent biologist who has been the victim of creationist misquotes and dishonesty is Dr Colin Patterson of the British Museum of Natural History. In a private letter to creationist Luther Sunderland, who had asked Patterson why no transitional fossils were illustrated in his book, Patterson responded: "I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. . .I will lay it on the line, There is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument." (Creation Science Foundation, Revised Quote Book, 1990). Since then, creationists in both the US and Australia have widely circulated this quote, contending that Patterson is "admitting that there aren’t any transitional fossils".

This is absurd on the face of it, since Patterson’s book contains several descriptions of different transitional fossils: "In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes." (Patterson, 1978, p. 130)

However, when one researcher wrote to Patterson to ask about the much-repeated quote, Patterson responded with yet another example of creationist selective editing: "The specific quote you mention, from a letter to Sunderland dated 10th April 1979, is accurate as far as it goes. The passage quoted continues ‘... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question.’ " (Lionel Theunissen, "Patterson Misquoted: A Tale of Two 'Cites', 1997) Thus, it becomes apparent from the full context that Patterson was referring to the impossibility of establishing direct lines of descent from fossils, a position fully in keeping with his cladistic outlook. Patterson was not saying there were no fossil transitions, and Sunderland’s attempt to claim otherwise can only be viewed as an effort at deception. "

Now i'm going to clarify and address what you will doubt jump on: "Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question"

It's true we don't know, but that doesn't matter AT ALL!

The reason you cannot prove that Archaeopteryx is the ancestor of birds is that Archaeopteryx could have had a "cousin" that was in-fact be the ancestor instead. That doesn't detract from the point, that Archaeopteryx IS a transitional fossil showing quite clearly structures from both reptile and bird, showing evolution in action.

The only way to definitevely prove that Archeopteryx was the ancester for all birds would be to have a fossil of EVERY species between Archaeopteryx and modern birds! Given that only a tiny fraction of animals become fossilised and how far back we are going here, that is highly unlikely.

What matters is that evolutionary theory predicts common ancestry, thus we would conclude that there would be links between the various taxonmic groups, and what do we find in the fossil record? Answer: Links between the various taxonmic groups (of course given the number of fossils compared to the number of species that have ever lived, we would NOT expect to find a great deal of them, and as expected we don't, though that said we DO see quite a few: Archaeopteryx,, the Therapsids, Triadobatrachus, Icthyostega, , Ambulocetus, etc.).

"you cannot say that with 1oo% certaintly"

If you are reffering to the Decartian argument of supreme doubt, then it is true that the ONLY thing you can be 100% certain of is that "thinking is" (the some what updated version of cogito ergo sum) but in reality we face the question do we believe our sensory imput is based on the real world, or is it "faked", most people by verge of the immense improbability of living in a faked world (ala Matrix) believe that our sense's are in-fact based on the real world, given that single conclusion the following is true:

"nothing is impossible...& there are no absolutes"

Plenty of things are impossible, i've already given an example: It is impossible for me to flap my arms so fast I take off.

And of course there are absolutes! The universe has fixed properties, if i drop a ball it accelerates towards the ground at 9.81 ms^-2 that is an absolute, it doesn't change depending on who observes it.

"what happens when the image of a distant object intersects with the image of another distant object during it's travel across space&time"

........ intersects? Nothing whatsoever happens, unless the light from the two images interfere in which case, you get a classic interference pattern. Doesn't help you look into the future though.

"i haven't much more than imagination for reference on...it's all just talk...science fiction"

Fair enough, science fiction is cool, it has given us some cool ideas too, (like satelites), but not everything in science fiction is plausable in reality, not because of technological problems, but because laws of physics get in the way.

you don't actually believe the laws of physics apply to all dimensions, do you? & when one crosses over another...is there an effect in the real world? these are not just images...hurling through space...they are time...time itself...traveling through space...that is my insane theory and i'm sticking to it.

"you don't actually believe the laws of physics apply to all dimensions, do you? "

My dear seditee do you have any idea what a "dimension" actually is? Or are you in-fact talking about other universe's? (which incidently still won't help you look into the future)

"when one crosses over another...is there an effect in the real world"

Crosses over what? A "dimension"!?

"these are not just images...hurling through space...they are time...time itself...traveling through space...that is my insane theory and i'm sticking to it"

....... But you see they are most certainly NOT "time itself", they are just photons.

Quote:

---

And how exactly are the other posters meant to understand what it is?

---

Well, Clyde, my guess would be that they could use an encyclopedia, a dictionary, or the magic "search engine" to understand it [chronospecies]-the same way I would expect any normal, inquisitive person to.

Quote:

---

Heh, and all the other of your out of context quotes? Hmm..? I guess we should just quietly forget those...

That quote is by whom? So you've managed to quote a paleontologist who it "appears" does not believe in evolution, excellent, and which university did he go to? The university of creation science? =)

---

I apologize if any of the quotes are truly out of context. I took them from what appeared to be a reliable source, as it discussed pros and cons of both sides without giving any sort of conclusion.
That said, you are supposed to look at the quotes objectively. For the record, the paleontologist(he does believe in evolution, just admits that there is not the supposed abundance of fossil evidence) is NILES ELDREDGE, as I said before. I'm pretty sure that he did not graduate from the university of creation science, but you might want to check up on that, just to make sure. He might have.

Quote:

---

Funny how 99.99999% of paleontologists believe in evolution, funny that.

---

And in the middle ages 99.99999 of scientists believed that the sun revolved around the earth, (considering there were 100 million scientists, and that there are 100 million paleontologists)

Quote:

---

The passage quoted continues ‘... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question.’

---

So Patterson thinks that "statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record?" That's interesting considering that such statements are made all the time. Is Patterson another one of those telling lies to children?

Quote:

---

Well, 1) Microevolution does indeed pretty much imply macroevolution, did you read my explanation of how evolution worked?

---

Yes I did read it. Basically you say that there are errors copying genetic information (simplification), which results in small changes in characteristics, which sometimes (but not most of the time) result in "improved" "performance" in the organism's habitat, which results in the passing of the characteristics to the rest of the population. Over long periods of time, the sum of these changes results in "new" organisms."
And this explanation is supposed to explain to me how mammals, that give birth to living creatures, evolved from reptiles?
You are going to have to explain more clearly.

Quote:

---

Dr Jones replied: "Here's my example; it's come up in the last ten years. Two species of salmon in American lakes. And in the last twenty years
they've split into two forms, one big, one small, one goes to the sea, one stays at home. That's the origin of species seen in our own lifetime"

---

I assume Jones is referring to this

Quote:

---

The salmon study took place in Lake Washington, Washington State.

The fish were first placed there in 1937. Since then, they have split into two separate populations which prefer not to breed with each other.

One group adapted to breeding in a river environment. The others laid their eggs on the lake's beaches. As a result, the two populations have developed slightly different physical features.

---

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci...000/979950.stm
They prefer not to breed with each other. According to BSC, that is not speciation. They have to be proved incapable of reproduction to be considered separate species (simplification).

Quote:

---

Evolution predicts exactly the kind of "imperfections" we observe in organisms, hence it would seem reasonable to conclude that those imperfections can be seen as evidence for evolution (thought they also are evidence against creation).

---

Of course it does! The imperfections are so vague and difficult to intepret that a lot of theories could do that. For the imperfections to qualify as evidence for the occurence of evolution, it has to be shown that no other theory can account for said imperfections. As is, they are merely evidence for the possibility of evolution. And how can they be seen as evidence against evolution?

Quote:

---

For a conclusive debunking of creationist nonsense regarding Therapsid and the reptile-mammal transition go here (it also explains very clearly what the fossil record shows):

---

The site explains very clearly what the fossil record shows indeed. Convergence in the structural aspect does not prove direct descent!

Quote:

---

Now i keep answering your questions how about you answer some of mine?

---

You appear to believe that I am a creationist, when I stated no such thing. Your habit of assumption doesn't say much for the suitability of your mind for science. I stated very clearly that I believe in a guided evolution. In fact, I believe that evolution, guided or not, is a very reasonable theory concerning the history of life on Earth. However, I do not think that it merits the status of fact.

And I love your accusations of standard "creationist tactics." The evolutionsits of course partake in no such behaviour? When Goldschmidt came out with his idea, he was reviled and ridiculed in a fashion that would make Josef Goebbels envious. When Dembski published papers on Intelligent Design Theory (a far cry from special creation) he got the same treatment.

BTW, here is an interesting paper by a scientist in the field of molecular and cell biology
http://www.trueorigin.org/homology.asp

>>In fact, I believe that evolution, guided or not, is a very reasonable theory concerning the history of life on Earth.

Then it would appear that we're arguing two sides of the same point. The only thing i have claimed as fact, is that organisms will [and do] evolve to survive in their changing enviroments. This evolution can be miniscule or in some cases, quite extreme. The rest can be reasonably projected from what facts exist.

how do we really know? & i suppose i meant universes rather than dimensions...i'm not sure; give me time to think about this...i have to be in the mood; it's getting cloudy...it's so dark...they're calling me back now...i have to go...




:cool:



alright, i'm back now - i would have to say neither. just a film clip stored in a package of light...with mystical qualitiessss...simply explained...but...freaky none the less.

I want to make a point about the bull trout, but am having trouble finding anything that isn't about fishing or just about salmon. You points will have to remain unanswered and undebated until I have more time.

<Darwin was a Christian, there is no debate on this point (there is no debate about any of this, by people with an education, only people who have not studied evolution in any depth debate it, the rest of the world looks on in wonder in much the same way they do the flat Earthers).>

If it is so, and I would research things more before being totally convinced, then it is but a gain.

<LOL, yea, like even MORE transitional fossils, the ones that have been discovered have not been undiscovered!>

http://www.rae.org/FAQ01.html Check out this site, it has some interesting things about Gould and transitional fossils.

<LOL, the boundary!? And what exactly is "the boundary" to a creationist?? The very reason WHY you say it is "hard to tell them apart" is because at the "boundary" they have structures from both mammals and reptiles, JEEZ i wonder why that could be??>

Platapus lay eggs, but does that mean they are evolving into chickens? Pigeons can give milk, but are they evolving into cows? There are certainly some odd things that go on in the relm of the natural world. The way animals are, how they work, is fascinating. There are odd things, fossils that are found, like fish with both lungs and gills, fish with lizard like feet, small dinasaurs that are featherd. But is this so odd? Is it so new? We all agree that lizards and birds cannot mate. why would'nt a bird evolve into a lizard? Why isn't it the other way around? (These are rhetorical questions). I pose the theory, what if these creatures were always this way? A featherd lizard, fish with feet, etc. What we know and debate has only scratched the surface.

The bounderys of how the world begin are layed out in the bible, we don't believe God created evolution, as some Christians(?) mistakenly try to say. Things don't just happen, this world did not come about by accident, it happend for a reason, everything happens for a reason. We are not mistakes. How much farther can people go? People are not evolving into something better, we are what we are and we will always be the same, until the end of time.



Genesis chapter one and two that contradict, or is it Genisis and Exodus?



I can only make so many points and answer so many questions, researching things takes a rather long time. I answer the ones that I find answers to, the topics are often quite complex and go off on so many dizzy, undecided, tangents, that have nothing to do with the question, that I run out of research time.

Quote:

---

Then it would appear that we're arguing two sides of the same point. The only thing i have claimed as fact, is that organisms will [and do] evolve to survive in their changing enviroments. This evolution can be miniscule or in some cases, quite extreme. The rest can be reasonably projected from what facts exist.

---

A theory can be reasonably projected to some extent, but it should be treated as a hypothesis, not a fact beyond any doubt, as it is seen by almost all biologists/paleontologists.

>>Platapus lay eggs, but does that mean they are evolving into chickens?
They are more like snake eggs (leathery) and the only other Monotreme, the Echidna also lays eggs. It is an adaptation to the conditions here. Kangaroos can delay the fertilized ovums transition to the womb for up to two years waiting for better (non drought) conditions.

>>why would'nt a bird evolve into a lizard?
Look at the complexity of their hearts to see evolutuion in action, specifically the number of chambers. Look at up to 2 week old embryos. To me they a good proof all life came from similar beginings, not the omnipotent immagination of a god.

You are looking at it from the wrong side.
It shows that they have COME from the other families, still retaining vestiges of them.

>>Things don't just happen, this world did not come about by accident, it happend for a reason, everything happens for a reason.

Your only proof of that is your faith in god and some book. You are falling into 'Heisenberg's Uncertanty' (closer you get to something harder it is to measure).

PS Human evolution has not stopped. Look at surveys of Japannese height or heart disease. The influences have changed where we are going and at what speed but we are moving.

>>RB
But if anyone here would take the time study the life and actions of the the prophet Mohammed they would find him (1) a murderer, (2) a torturer, (3) a child rapist, (4) a robber, (5) a consummate Bedouin Arab, and more.<<
>>RB
It's about Jesus vs. Muhammad and which prophet really lived up to the preachings of his respective Word. Jesus never sent an army to kill and conquer an unsuspecting enemy. Jesus never persecuted those who disagreed with him. Jesus never stole. He never took on 14 wives and countless other concubines. He never urged anyone to kill and steal in God's name. Jesus never did any of those things; Muhammad did every one. And more.<<

So Christianity is better than Islam because JC is better than M?

My point was that no matter what these people said it is how their followers INTERPRET it here and now. You want Muslims to be accountable because Mohammad was flawed. But complain that I want Christianity to be accountable because your priests rape children, you kill indiscriminately in revenge and ignore the small evil they do, in the name of, 'the greater good'.

Least Muslims are following the Koran (which tells them to extract revenge) unlike Christians who selectively ignore Jesus' teachings (should be turning the other cheek).

"It is easier for a camel to pass thru the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven"
>>RB
The Christians who resided in Damascus, Alexandria, Aleppo, Jersusalem and elsewhere did nothing to provoke their Islamic conquerors, and those Christians had every right to defend and try to take back their land just the same as Palestinians claim to be doing to day.

So the native American Indians (or Indigenous Australian Aborigines) have a right to take back their land that we conquered? And we should send tanks against them if they do?

I know this sounds flaky, and a bit odd, but I won't be back here on this board until Augest. I have a summer job(salmon fishing in Alaska) that will keep me from any available internet capabilities. Maybe in Augest, though. The semester starts up then and the first part is rather hairy.

I know that I have only been a member here for *cough* four days *cough* but I have enjoyed the time immensely.

I have learned so much about evolution, fossils, mutation, Darwin, creatism, etc. in the past four days. My goal is to get a biology degree and study animals around the world. Knowledge is power, and with power man can do many, many things.

You all have been a joy to talk with, witty, intelligent people are a wonderful find. Clyde, don't stop asking questions, you stumped me with quite a few of your own and I was actually forced to find the answers to them on my own free will. I was never very interested in research, but doing this had opened my eyes to show me how much fun study can really be.

I still believe that God is there, he created the earth and all the animals. The proof to the supernatural world is just too overwhelming for me to turn my back on God. There are things in this world science cannot explain, after all, evolution was a man made thought. Man has never been very smart, much as we like to think so.

Let me poise this question as a parting thought for the night, you may or may not have heard it before.

If you died tomorrow, where would you go?

Simple enough question, but it is one some people (and even I struggled with in the past) have carried with them all their lives.

Happy C and C++ing guys!!! :cool:

"I apologize if any of the quotes are truly out of context"

Any? ANY? Try ALL.

"That said, you are supposed to look at the quotes objectively. For the record, the paleontologist(he does believe in evolution, just admits that there is not the supposed abundance of fossil evidence) is NILES ELDREDGE, as I said before. I'm pretty sure that he did not graduate from the university of creation science, but you might want to check up on that, just to make sure. He might have. "

IF he believes that there is no evidence then why exactly does he PROCLAIM the huge amouts of evidence in his book: "The Triumph of Evolution, and the Failure of Creationism"??

I'll tell you why, because either that quote is fabricated (which publication does it come from?) Or it like all your other quotes is completely of context, it may well be then when he talks about gradual, what he means is not the gradual phenotypic change that we see in THOUSANDS of fossils, but instead he means the sudden emergence of new species ala the Cambrian era.

"And in the middle ages 99.99999 of scientists believed that the sun revolved around the earth, (considering there were 100 million scientists, and that there are 100 million paleontologists) "

LOL, thats the best counter-argument you can come up with?

1) The Middle Ages were a time where science was dominated by religion, totally screwing it up.

2) The argument that: science has been wrong in the past where man-kind knew little about the world therefore we shouldn't listen to scientists in the present is so comical it barely deserves a counter; scientists say that (close to the surface of the Earth) mass accelerates towards the Earth at 9.81 ms^-2 but hey! They've been wrong before! LOL.

The question is WHY do you think that 99.9999% of paleontologists and scientists believe in evolution, IF as you say the fossil record does not show evolution (which is blatently does as I keep pointing out) why exactly do all of the paleontologists believe in evolution? Hmmm?

"So Patterson thinks that "statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record?" That's interesting considering that such statements are made all the time. Is Patterson another one of those telling lies to children? "

Did ya read my post cause I did cover this, we cannot prove a direct lineage from Archaeopteryx to birds because doing so would mean a fossil of every species in between Archaeopteryx to modern birds, however evolutionary theory says that there will be comon ancestry, hence links between the higher taxa, and we find exactly that. It is fairly obvious that birds did in-fact evolve from reptilies, but we cannot isolate the EXACT lineage, because there just aren't enough fossils around. Comprendez?

"Yes I did read it. Basically you say that there are errors copying genetic information (simplification), which results in small changes in characteristics, which sometimes (but not most of the time) result in "improved" "performance" in the organism's habitat, which results in the passing of the characteristics to the rest of the population. Over long periods of time, the sum of these changes results in "new" organisms."
And this explanation is supposed to explain to me how mammals, that give birth to living creatures, evolved from reptiles?
You are going to have to explain more clearly. "

You have all the information there, but if you want me to put it together you.....ok:

Mammals evolved from reptiles, a group of reptiles were geographically seperated, from then they adapted to whatever environment they were in gradually altering: at the point where they are no longer compatable with the group they split from they are a new species, that does not stop them changing though, as long as their is selective pressure they will continue to adapt, so in their case their skull gradually changed into a more mammalian skull, their teeth gradually changed to more mammalian teeth, they began to regulate their own temperature, etc. etc. And a few million years later we have modern mammals.

Incidently the Therapsid series of fossils chart the lizard-mammlaian linkage in great detail:

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaver...7/therapsd.htm

Given the properties of DNA: A self replicating system capable of mutation, evolution is logically INEVITABLE. Speciation is INEVITABLE from microevolution, because all you need for speciation to occur, is for the two groups of organisms to be unable to interbreed, all that requires is a loss of genetic similarity.

"I assume Jones is referring to this "

Probably, and notice what they say at the top of that link of yours:

"New animal species can emerge much quicker than previously thought"

It says they prefer not to interbreed, evidently they can interbreed, BUT since both Dr. Jones and the article claim this is a new species, evidently whilst they can interbreed their young are not fertile.

"Of course it does! The imperfections are so vague and difficult to intepret that a lot of theories could do that. For the imperfections to qualify as evidence for the occurence of evolution, it has to be shown that no other theory can account for said imperfections. As is, they are merely evidence for the possibility of evolution. And how can they be seen as evidence against evolution? "

Errm name one theory other than evolution that does account for the imperfections, you can't because there isn't one. And they are hardly vague, you see redundant phenotypic features, in organisms because the environment changes a lot faster than evolution.

"The site explains very clearly what the fossil record shows indeed. Convergence in the structural aspect does not prove direct descent! "

And? I keep you telling you that the fossils cannot directly prove direct descent, because in order to do so you would need a fossil of every species between the ancestor and the species at hard. What the fossil do prove is that evolution happens. That species adapt slowly forming new species, via the evolutionary process, furthermore, because we have linking fossils tha show linkages between the higher taxa, we can tell the general line that speciation occured in, we can know for example that birds came from lizards we cannot know however for certain that birds came from Archaeopteryx.

"You appear to believe that I am a creationist, when I stated no such thing. Your habit of assumption doesn't say much for the suitability of your mind for science"

If you do not believe in creationism then it doesn't matter whether or not there are problems with evolution (which there aren't as i keep pointing out) it would still be the best theory available. Since from style of your posts it seemed you did not believe evolution occured the only rational conclusion would be that you believed in an alternative, the only alternative to evolution that has been cited so far is creationism.

Oh and hehe, i like the little side-swipe you got in there about my "suitability for science", you have no idea about my academic ability.

"I stated very clearly that I believe in a guided evolution. In fact, I believe that evolution, guided or not, is a very reasonable theory concerning the history of life on Earth. However, I do not think that it merits the status of fact."

I see, well then the fact that i keep answering your points should convince you, afterall your not adhereing to any irrational beliefs now are you? So when i pointed out why your objections to the eye (and why your problem with Dawkins program was invalid), the wing, why your quotes did not mean what you thought they did, showed links to numerous sites debunking every argument you have provided and also showing some of the vast fossil evidence, etc. etc. So, have you changed your mind? Or are you still sticking to your opinion because you feel like it, or perhaps you will say "I'm not convinced" (because, maybe, you don't want to be, or perhaps it's pride, you don't want to be seen to "lose" the debate) or some other-such nonsense. Hmm?

"And I love your accusations of standard "creationist tactics." The evolutionsits of course partake in no such behaviour? When Goldschmidt came out with his idea, he was reviled and ridiculed in a fashion that would make Josef Goebbels envious. When Dembski published papers on Intelligent Design Theory (a far cry from special creation) he got the same treatment."

Of course he was rediculed! It was nonsense, there was no evidence whatsoever supporting his theory, furthermore it was clear his motivation was a religious one! Scientists do not misquote people, creationists do, scientists do not prey on the ignorance of thir audience, creationists do, scientists offer palpable theory backed up with evidence, creationists offer "faith", creationism is a sham.

Oh and your paper......

" Wells is a Senior Fellow in the Center for Renewal of Science and Culture, and has said that he has committed his life to "destroying Darwinism", and this was his motivation for getting his second Ph.D. (His first Ph.D. was in theology, from Yale University, and his undergraduate training was in theology from Rev. Moon of the Unification church.) Thus, when Wells states in the preface that he first realised that textbooks were not being honest about presenting evidence for evolution, one has to consider that this is after he has spent many years determined to fight and destroy evolution. Perhaps he might not have been as objective as it sounds in the preface, when he states "During my years as a physical science undergraduate and biology graduate student at the University of California, Berkeley, I believed almost everything I read in my textbooks"

and

"A cynic might suggest that the REAL purpose of the book is not to actually provide scientific documentation, but instead to instill a "reasonable doubt" amongst those in the general population who are ignorant of the subject area; if this were his goal, then I think he is likely to be successful. Needless to say, this book is selling quite well amongst the fundamentalist Creationist circles in the U.S. "

Hmm...

For a full debunking of him go here:

http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/dave/IconsReview.html

"http://www.rae.org/FAQ01.html Check out this site, it has some interesting things about Gould and transitional fossils. "

That site contains the SAME misquote of Colin Patterson they have also got another misquote of Gould, (I have coverered misquotes of gould previously)that i have already covered in this thread! It is another creationist site that lies about the fossil evidence and misquotes scientists.

They misquote gould and then they draw invalid conclusions from their own misquote like this:

""The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." (Gould)

Within scientific circles Gould drove home the point that transition fossils are lacking (as demonstrated in the Patterson quote above). Yet in speeches to the public in the last few years he has directly contradicted himself, boldly claiming that transition fossils are one of the three best arguments for evolution!"


Well i urge you to re-read this:

"Many evolution deniers quote Stephen Jay Gould and other punctuated equilibria proponents as saying that transitional forms are very rare. Most non-specialists get ideas of "missing links" between higher taxa of animals when they hear about transitional forms. Gould has been very clear that these are common and yet he has been quoted many times that transitional forms are rare. What is going on here? In the context of punctuated equilibria, a transitional form is between immediately related species (say two species of squirrels, species of similar Devonian trilobites, etc.), and is not referring to a transition between human and non-human, whales and primitive land mammals, etc. Indeed the transitions Gould and other punctuated equilibria proponents are arguing about would be generally be dismissed as "microevolution" by many evolution deniers. Thus antievolutionists arguing against the existence of transitions between larger taxa are very likely guilty of misquotation if they quote Gould's writings on punctuated equilibria. For more details on this see Gould's10 classic essay "Evolution as Fact and Theory" where he explains his position on the fossil record as well as demonstrates young-earth creationist misrepresentations of his views"

The site is the uses all the usual creationist mistruths, etc. etc. Fairly meaningless stuff.

"Platapus lay eggs, but does that mean they are evolving into chickens?"

No it means they have common ancestry to chickens.

"There are odd things, fossils that are found, like fish with both lungs and gills, fish with lizard like feet, small dinasaurs that are featherd. But is this so odd? Is it so new? We all agree that lizards and birds cannot mate. "

Those odd things are exactly what evolution predicts: links between the taxa.

"why would'nt a bird evolve into a lizard"

Why would it? You can NEVER EVER get a species evolving into an already existing species, or a higher taxa evolving into an already existing higher taxa. Chickens are farmed, meaning we select for and against specific traits hence overiding any evolutionary process. If you stuck chickens in the wild, then they would evolve, into what? You cannot predict evolution (well, not accurately anyway), so you'd just have to wait a few hundred thousand years and see :)

IF we didn't know anything about the fossil record then we could have thought that perhaps lizards did evolve from birds........ but it turns out to be the other way round, lizards were around first.

"The bounderys of how the world begin are layed out in the bible, we don't believe God created evolution, as some Christians(?) mistakenly try to say. Things don't just happen, this world did not come about by accident, it happend for a reason, everything happens for a reason. We are not mistakes. How much farther can people go? People are not evolving into something better, we are what we are and we will always be the same, until the end of time"

Christians say that God created evolution because that is the only way they can take into account the facts of the world.

What basis do you have for claiming that "everything happens for a reason" your basis perhaps is that it would be "nice" if that were the case? People ARE still evolving, and all current theory predicts there will be no "end of time".

"Genesis chapter one and two that contradict, or is it Genisis and Exodus?"

There is a DIRECT contradiction between genesis 1 and genesis 2, the order in which God makes the man and aniamls, is reversed.

"I can only make so many points and answer so many questions, researching things takes a rather long time."

Thing is, every point you make I (and others) show to be invalid.

"I still believe that God is there, he created the earth and all the animals."

Chances are you will always believe in God, like I said before if there was a "conclusive" experiment you would ignore it if it showed God did not exist, you brain has been well and truly captured by the powers of indocrination.

However there is no reason that you cannot realise evolution is fact, most Christians realise it so your belief in God is not a holding point.

" The proof to the supernatural world is just too overwhelming for me to turn my back on God"

Lol, what "proof"!?

"There are things in this world science cannot explain, after all, "

Well indeed, and when science could not explain the weather, people said "its God!", and when science could not explain meteors, peopel said "its God!", and now whenever science cannot explain something (which is getting rarer) people say "its God!"

"Man has never been very smart, much as we like to think so. "

Smart compared to what? Smart enough to work out relativity, quantum mechanics, to build cars, planes, computers, all that when we started off living in caves (actually I think the cave thing is a myth).

"Let me poise this question as a parting thought for the night, you may or may not have heard it before.

If you died tomorrow, where would you go?

Simple enough question, but it is one some people (and even I struggled with in the past) have carried with them all their lives. "

I wouldn't "go" anywhere, I would cease, stop, end, caput, just because something is not "nice" does not make it not true.

Ooh lookie lookie:

Fyodor writes:

""the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another"

- Steve Stanley.

Well...........:

"R(creationist)) The Big Horn Basin in Wyoming contains a continuous local record of fossil deposits for about five million years, during an early period in the age of mammals. Because this record is so complete, paleontologists assumed that certain populations of the basin could be linked together to illustrate continuous evolution. On the contrary, species that were once thought to have turned into others turned out to overlap in time with their alleged descendants, and according to Steven Stanley: "the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another."

"MB) Here's another famous contextual misquote. When speciation occurs, the old species do not suddenly "vanish" as the new ones arise. That old buzzard is another Gishism. For speciation to occur, a series of changes must occur and accumulate within an existing population. Sometimes, these changes result in a new species that co-exists with its ancestor. At other times, the new species proliferates and replaces its ancestor over time. Still other times, the new species itself dies out while the ancestor lives on. Stanley is saying the obvious -- that one species does not suddenly die out while being totally and simultaneously replaced by its descendants. Therefore, overlapping species are what we should expect to find. As you have just pointed out in your argument, that is exactly what we *do* find."

Furthermore that chrono-species quote:

"If an average chronospecies lasts nearly a million years, or even longer, and we have at our disposal only ten million years, then we have only ten or fifteen chronospecies to align, end-to-end, to form a continuous lineage connecting our primitive little mammal with a bat or a whale. Chronospecies, by definition, grade into each other, and each one encompasses very little change. A chain of ten or fifteen of these might move us from one small rodentlike form to a slightly different one, perhaps representing a new genus, but not to a bat or a whale!"

Since you evidently do not know what a chrono-species (or for some reason didn't want to tell me) I found out: Chronospecies is the term used to distinguish species who have a continous lineage, if a group of organisms change environment they adapt to it via evolutionary processes, at the point they "would" no longer be compatable with their original selves they are deemed a new species, because the orginal species are not actually around anymore, sometimes the two different species are refered to as "chrono-species" because they are species separated by time.

YOU already went on to provide the explanation!:

"I believe Stanley attempted to rectify this by relying upon changes in regulatory genes. "

This is very true, certain genes known as regulatory genes, result in a much more dramatic phenotypic change, whilst it is still gradual the SCALE is much larger when dealing with regulatory genes, for example, the physical size of an organism is largely determined by just 8 specific genes, hence the amount of time required to alter the physical size of an organism, is millions of times less than if such genes did not exist. Incidently I would imagine these genes are the reason we see both dwarfs and supremely tall people in human society.

Quote:

---

It says they prefer not to interbreed, evidently they can interbreed, BUT since both Dr. Jones and the article claim this is a new species, evidently whilst they can interbreed their young are not fertile

---

If that is true, then it would appear that there are some differing opinions.

Quote:

---

Hendry does offer a word of caution: "Despite our findings of rapid adaptation and reproductive isolation, I don't necessarily presume these two salmon populations will evolve into what would be recognized as separate species. We have simply used new populations to demonstrate the same processes that lead to new species."

---

http://www.umass.edu/newsoffice/arch...900salmon.html
Note that he does not presume that they will evolve into separate species. I should think that it would be fairly obvious that they are not now separate species? Damn, I forgot to include the "lookie lookie" part, thereby showing the conclusiveness of my argument.

Quote:

---

IF he believes that there is no evidence then why exactly does he PROCLAIM the huge amouts of evidence in his book: "The Triumph of Evolution, and the Failure of Creationism"??

I'll tell you why, because either that quote is fabricated (which publication does it come from?)...

---

I am astounded. I gave you the complete context! As to your question, how would I know why he proclaims the huge amounts of evidence? Perhaps he is what some would deem a hypocrite. Perhaps he is emotionally attached to Darwinism as a sort of "religion." BTW, I believe the quote is from "Time Frames." I'll try to find out for you, if it really matters.

Quote:

---

1) The Middle Ages were a time where science was dominated by religion, totally screwing it up.

2) The argument that: science has been wrong in the past where man-kind knew little about the world therefore we shouldn't listen to scientists in the present is so comical it barely deserves a counter; scientists say that (close to the surface of the Earth) mass accelerates towards the Earth at 9.81 ms^-2 but hey! They've been wrong before! LOL.

---

Except for the slight difference that darwinism is not an empirical fact, as is the acceleration of matter towards earth. I'm not saying that we shouldn't to listen to scientists-I am saying that because they back up a theory does not make it fact.

Quote:

---

IF as you say the fossil record does not show evolution (which is blatently does as I keep pointing out)...

---

Every single resource you have shown me uses evolution to prove evolution! I think there is a technical term for this type of logical fallacy...begging the question? They are saying that "because evolution happened, evolution happened."

Quote:

---

Mammals evolved from reptiles, a group of reptiles were geographically seperated, from then they adapted to whatever environment they were in gradually altering: at the point where they are no longer compatable with the group they split from they are a new species, that does not stop them changing though, as long as their is selective pressure they will continue to adapt, so in their case their skull gradually changed into a more mammalian skull, their teeth gradually changed to more mammalian teeth, they began to regulate their own temperature, etc. etc. And a few million years later we have modern mammals.

---

Exactly my point. I asked you to explain evolution, and you give me, basically, a description of how it happened if it did happen. Maybe we should use the same tactic in out judicial system!

Quote:

---

For a full debunking of him go here:

---

To debunk the paper mentioned, you rely upon two things: Ad hominem and a book review of a book none of us (probably) have ever read, and is thus free to take quotes out of context, fabricate, and misconstrue (i'm not saying that did happen).
So the paper is invalid because Wells does not like the idea of evolution and some review says that his book is unreliable? I have to give you full marks for that one, Clyde.

Quote:

---

Speciation is INEVITABLE from microevolution

---

You are still providing no proof and precious little evidence.

Quote:

---

If you do not believe in creationism then it doesn't matter whether or not there are problems with evolution (which there aren't as i keep pointing out) it would still be the best theory available. Since from style of your posts it seemed you did not believe evolution occured the only rational conclusion would be that you believed in an alternative, the only alternative to evolution that has been cited so far is creationism.

---

My God, Clyde. Read what I posted. It is clear that I think evolution is a reasonable theory, considering that I have stated it directly at least once.

Quote:

---

Errm name one theory other than evolution that does account for the imperfections, you can't because there isn't one.

---

Okay...here is one. God created existence and guided the evolutonary process. God created existence and provided evidence for evolution. Martians are conducting research on genetics. Invisible unicorns periodically introduce new species bred in laboratories with defects to study natural selection/microevolution. Reasonable or not, they still explain the imperfections.
Since when did you answer my objection to the Nilsson eye model? I must have missed it.

That's all for now, folks. I'll be busy cramming for AP tests this week, so I probably will not post on this thread, thus letting it fade back into blessed oblivion.

"http://www.umass.edu/newsoffice/arc...1900salmon.html
Note that he does not presume that they will evolve into separate species. I should think that it would be fairly obvious that they are not now separate species?"

Fair enough, point taken, though it should also be fairly obvious, that it is indeed the same process. But it seems you are correct, and Dr. Jones was in error.

"I am astounded. I gave you the complete context!"

Ah, but you didn't at all, you have no idea whatsoever as to what he means when he says "gradual", as has been pointed out several times in this thread, the term gradual can mean several different things depending on context, when people talk of gradual with regards to the cambrian era they mean that several species appear to have come out of no-where, this is probably what he is talking about and IF YOU DECIDED TO QUOTE WHAT HE WENT ON TO SAY, he would no doubt explain why that occured by explaining punctuated equilibrium, but of course you stop before he does that....... naturally.

" Perhaps he is what some would deem a hypocrite. Perhaps he is emotionally attached to Darwinism as a sort of "religion.""

LOL, yea right, or maybe just maybe, like all your other quotes he is not saying what you think he is saying.

"Except for the slight difference that darwinism is not an empirical fact, as is the acceleration of matter towards earth"

Wrong, there is no such thing as "empirical fact", it does not exist, look up Decarte, there is no difference. They should both be considered "fact" because they both have truly gargantuan amounts of evidence supporting them.

"I'm not saying that we shouldn't to listen to scientists-I am saying that because they back up a theory does not make it fact."

Irrelevant, the ignorant populace is better off believeing what the scientists tell them, because the scientists are in far better position to form conclusions.

"Every single resource you have shown me uses evolution to prove evolution! I think there is a technical term for this type of logical fallacy...begging the question? They are saying that "because evolution happened, evolution happened." "

What nonsense! Instead making vague, wishy-washy claims show me a LINK to a page, and a paragraph specifically showing your claims, oh wait you can't, NONE of the sites I have shown you have said "because evolution happened, evolution happened".

"Exactly my point. I asked you to explain evolution, and you give me, basically, a description of how it happened if it did happen. Maybe we should use the same tactic in out judicial system"

What are you asking for!?? I've already explained HOW and WHY the changes occur in my explanation of evolution, you said you didn't see how they could turn lizards into mammals, so I gave you a description of how the process would have occured, what more do you want?

"To debunk the paper mentioned, you rely upon two things: Ad hominem and a book review of a book none of us (probably) have ever read, and is thus free to take quotes out of context, fabricate, and misconstrue (i'm not saying that did happen).
So the paper is invalid because Wells does not like the idea of evolution and some review says that his book is unreliable? I have to give you full marks for that one, Clyde. "

No....... all the points the book raises, all the questions it asks are all answered, further-more as we can see, he is not taking an objective viewpoint, so his conclusions should be treated dubiously anyway.

"You are still providing no proof and precious little evidence. "

What part about INEVITABLE did you not understand? Go back, re-read my explanation of how evolution proceeds, to become a new species all that needs to happen is for two groups to become genetically dissimimilar enough so that they cannot interbreed, given that they WILL become genetically dissimilar as they adapt to differing environments speciation is inevitable if given enough time (assuming that they both do not find their ideal niche very shortly after splitting which is beyond improbable)

But if you want even more proof hows this:

"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved"

And i'll give you link charting many many MANY different examples of evidence for macroevolution (though i'm wondering if you do actually read these links)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

"Okay...here is one. God created existence and guided the evolutonary process. God created existence and provided evidence for evolution. Martians are conducting research on genetics. Invisible unicorns periodically introduce new species bred in laboratories with defects to study natural selection/microevolution. Reasonable or not, they still explain the imperfections. "

You just invented those theories specifically to fit the observation of imperfections. Evolution was not designed to explain the existance of redundant phenotypic features, as a byproduct of the theory the explanation becomes obvious though, so much so that we would predict their presence. We consider that acceleration towards the Earth as evidence for gravity, by your reasoning, that conclusion is invalid because we could easily invent any scenario to explain it. The key property is that one theory explains many different phenomenon.

"My God, Clyde. Read what I posted. It is clear that I think evolution is a reasonable theory, considering that I have stated it directly at least once. "

Yes indeed, yet you speak like creationist, you twist people's quotes like a creationist, you have argued strongly against evolution for quite a few pages, could suddenly claiming to believe in evolution be an attempt to gain some credability?

If as you say you are approaching this subject from a rational perspective you should already be comvinced it is fact simply by reading the various links i have given you.

"Since when did you answer my objection to the Nilsson eye model? I must have missed it. "

LOL are you reading the thread!?

Fyodor: "Take a good look at the last sentence. Basically, the experiment is set up so that harmful mutations cannot occur, but it is well known that most mutations are deleterious"

Clyde: "I suggest you read my explanation of evolution; harmfull mutations DO occur but they get REMOVED from the gene pool, because they are selected against. Hence the results of the program are NOT altered by the fact they ignore negative mutaitons, negative mutations do not get passed on. "

"That's all for now, folks. I'll be busy cramming for AP tests this week, so I probably will not post on this thread, thus letting it fade back into blessed oblivion."

Au revoir, I hope for your sake whatever those AP tests are on, they're not on biology.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by fyodor

Every single resource you have shown me uses evolution to prove evolution! I think there is a technical term for this type of logical fallacy...begging the question? They are saying that "because evolution happened, evolution happened."

---

I believe the error you describe is called a tautology. Begging the question would be more along the lines of denying the big bang because something can't come from nothing, but claiming that God just is and always was. Where did God come from is the question left hanging.

Quote:

---

Exactly my point. I asked you to explain evolution, and you give me, basically, a description of how it happened if it did happen. Maybe we should use the same tactic in out judicial system!

---

Who says we don't! Just ask John Ashcroft. Why is Abdul arrested? Because he's a terrorist. Why is he a terrorist? Because we arrest terrorists. Where's the evidence? Well, you have to take that on faith.

Good luck on your AP's, whatever those are.

"Errm name one theory other than evolution that does account for the imperfections, you can't because there isn't one. "


umm... okay genius, its called original sin. Since the beginning of religion its been held as the reason for all the imperfections not only in man but in nature.

All right guys I'm back, sorry I missed so much I've been busy all weekend working, school, etc.

"The bible being literally true, is contrary to everything we have discovered about the universe, there are stars so far away that the light takes millions of years to reach us, yet the bible says the universe is 6,000 years old.... WOOPS. "

Actually, no it does not. You have ignored the fact that the grammer does not require it to literally be days, the Hebrew word "Yom" also means age, for example, Moses also wrote "in the "Day" that the Lord made the earth..." Also, the earth "was" formless and void, is also correctly translate "became" formless and void. ie, it could have been around a long time before God created man.

"And i think you'll find that the bible says that men have one less rib than women....... when actualy they er... don't. "

Sorry, it just says that God took a rib from Adam, not from every man. Unless you'd like to quote a verse saying otherwise?

Not only is the sequence of creation different, but the time span is different as well.

You make it too easy. The first story is chronological, the second is topical. I already dealt with the translation issue above.

"Hows that for a wopping internal contradiction"

Not very good, its just two different descriptions of the same event.

About the water above, and the water below: where do you think the water for the flood came from? An orbiting canopy of water was (probably) used to diffuse the light from the sun and create an equally temperate earth.

Also, you don't seem to understand that the 6000 years is the minimum time it must have been, since that is the age derived from all the geneologies. However, it's obvious to any student of the bible that the genealogies in the bible are not completely inclusive of everyone, but just provide an overview. And the 6000 or more years are just time man has been around, not the earth.


Finally, how do we know the earth is millions of years old? Well because the universe is expanding (we know this because light is red shifted, implying velocity) Therefore, we extrapolate backwards until it was all together, and we have the beginning of the universe. However, this ignores that fact that God could just as easily created the universe close to its position today. for example, if I'm driving north through Ontario, that doesn't mean I came from Texas.

"Were pairs of every species living on Earth taken aboard the Ark? All living and extinct species?"

No, probably not.

"All 50 billion or so species that have ever lived on Earth?" Nope.

"Or only land animals and birds that couldn't survive by swimming for several months?" Yup.

"We're still talking many millions of species." Mmm hmm. Most are tiny little bugs and stuff. The bigger animals would probably just be infants, to maximise storage space. Also, they would most likely have been put into a supernatural coma, to preserve food supplies and space.

"And while we're at it, why does my Bible state clearly and unambiguously that two of each kind of animal were taken aboard, then immediately afterwards it seems to correct itself by informing us that seven of each "clean" animal were boarded, and then immediately after THAT it insists that two of every kind
were loaded?" The two of each kind were for repopulation, the seven were for food. Where do they get these questions from? Don't they even READ the passages they're criticising?


"How did Noah know which species were clean several thousand years before God imparted those laws to Moses?" Umm... God told him.

"And if Noah knew about "clean" animals, why wasn't that knowledge passed down through the generations?" How do you know it wasn't? Just because later it was formalised by a scribe doesn't mean it wasn't already known.

Is it possible that the whole business about "clean" animals necessary for sacrifices was tacked on later by a bungling editor who forgot to check the context for obvious contradictions? No.

This website is insulting in its arrogance and ignorance. More to follow.

"Did ALL those people deserve brutal and terrifying deaths? "

"Who are you to judge God?" - Paul the Apostle

And yes they did.

Then when his thoughtful son Ham tried to help him out by covering his bare butt, Noah cursed him and his descendants forever (and God, apparently, backed up that curse [and biblical literalists have used that as a justification for slavery and segregation of blacks {whom they imagine to be "Hamites"}, among other atrocities]). Was that mean drunk the best of the human race that God could come up with?

Noah got drunk because the climate changes produced unexpected result - fermentation. Ham did not try to help him, but mocked him, and ran to show him to his brothers. His brothers, on the other hand, covered him, walking in backwards so they wouldn't even see him.

Then there's the rainbow. If you want to hear some really creative additions to Genesis, ask a young-Earther how there could be no rainbows for a couple thousand years, until after the Flood.

The rainbow is cause by diffraction of the sun from water particles in the air. This means their can never be a flood over the WHOLE EARTH again, because the water canopy is no longer there to fall down.

And yet more rainbow nonsense: God states multiple times that it will be in a cloud, He will "set [His] bow in the cloud". Rainbows aren't formed or seen "in clouds."

Here is a classic error. The Hebrew word probably means something like "water vapor" The translators translate this as "cloud" since clouds are made of water vapor. So then, we say "hey rainbows don't come from clouds they come from water vapor!" Quite childish.

One more: God states unequivocally that the rainbow is to remind Him of the no-Flood clause. If God has such a faulty memory that He needs such cosmic Post-it Notes, we're in BIG trouble.

It's a physical manifestation of a spiritual covenant.

are you by any chance a Jehova's Witness. ive never met anyone else who believed in the bible literally.
even the Pope has said the big bang and evolution are true, and that the garden of eden, noahs arc etc are just stories with a moral point. they are not to be taken seriously and literally !!!!!!

Noah's Ark
...just refuses to be found

In about 1900 an expedition (I'll get the specifics if you so desire) to mount Ararat reported finding a large ship-like structure. He took a wood sample, and brought it back down. He had it tested, it was indeed the proper wood and pitch on it. In fact, this large structure even shows up on american military satellites. Why can't it be found? Because of political instability in the area, no expeditions have been allowed since about 1940 (I think)

Size of the Earth
...has obviously expanded greatly since Noah's day, when he could, in a short period, collect pairs of all animals and birds from all over the world, without the benefit of modern air transport. Then after the Flood, the critters all had to migrate, at the double-quick, to their present habitats in Tasmania, the Galapagos, the coasts of Antarctica, Patagonia, the American Southwest, or wherever. It's clear the Earth was no more than a few hundred miles across, probably flat, and with no inconvenient oceans like, say, the Pacific.


No, they were localised in one area.

Only one pair of the elephant "kind" (are they "clean" or "unclean"?) were aboard, and immediately afterward evolved into 160 different species, 158 of which immediately became extinct.

So? We have a whole bunch of different breeds of horses from just a few.

good grief !!!

to hold all the species, the arc would have had to be about the size of a modern aircraft carrier !!!

and that was nice of our benign god to kill everyone and all animals apart from noah. how kind.
are you a JW ?? its a reasonable question.....

How did Noah`s Ark land on top of Mt. Ararat (about 9000 feet high) if the water was never that deep?

Where did the deep-ocean fish come from--those hideous monstrosities that are all mouth, teeth and luminous lure and can only live at incredible depths and pressures? Super-fast evolution again?

And how do you know it wasn't "that" deep?

David Evans wonders why Noah had to board pairs of ALL animals, when there are a few which reproduce asexually and therefore only one would be needed?

Becuase this is poetic writing not scientific arrrgh!!!

Please, some more criticism, this is way too fun!

No I am not a JW.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mike_k
No I am not a JW.

---

well u sure talk like one. totally of your trolley IMHO.

Heh, and there was me thinking the debate was over.... ok:

"Actually, no it does not. You have ignored the fact that the grammer does not require it to literally be days, the Hebrew word "Yom" also means age, for example, Moses also wrote "in the "Day" that the Lord made the earth..." Also, the earth "was" formless and void, is also correctly translate "became" formless and void. ie, it could have been around a long time before God created man. "

Yes and even if you argue the vagues possible translation, it still disagrees with everything we know about the universe.

"Sorry, it just says that God took a rib from Adam, not from every man. Unless you'd like to quote a verse saying otherwise? "

I see, well one would have thought that humanity would have inherited Adam's traits but ok, you can have that one.

"You make it too easy. The first story is chronological, the second is topical. I already dealt with the translation issue above. "

Heh this one however is a completely unsatisfactory answer; no matter which translation you choose the first book of geneisis says man is created after the animals and the second says he created before them: contradiction.

"An orbiting canopy of water was (probably) used to diffuse the light from the sun and create an equally temperate earth."

ROFL orbiting? Water orbiting the Earth? haha thats a good one.

"Also, you don't seem to understand that the 6000 years is the minimum time it must have been, since that is the age derived from all the geneologies. However, it's obvious to any student of the bible that the genealogies in the bible are not completely inclusive of everyone, but just provide an overview. And the 6000 or more years are just time man has been around, not the earth."

Not so obvious to thousands of creationists who favour the young hypothesis because they believe that a literal intpretation of the bible means the universe is 6000 years old. I guess they don't know the bible right? :) And man has been Earth for over 100,000, so errrmmmm....

"Finally, how do we know the earth is millions of years old? Well because the universe is expanding (we know this because light is red shifted, implying velocity)"

Utterly wrong, we know the Earth is BILLIONS of years old because every different type of radiometric dating independantly confirms it to be the same value: 4 billion years old. Further more there is light coming from stars so far away that it takes the light millions of years to get to us.

Now before you go runniing to your creationists nonsense sites, it is worth noting that: A: No C14 dating is not flawed because, when you use it you take into account the amount lead originally present. B: Just because there have been people in the past who have buggered up the dating does not mean anything, the fact that all radiometric dating comes up with the same value, which agrees which gives the Earth's age a value which also agrees with geological formation, with astronomical predictions, etc. etc. etc. There is no doubt over the Earth's age.

Oh and also you might digging up the old "speed of light has got slower" BS that was suggested by another creationist to get out of accepting the age of the Earth and was thoroughly rejected as lacking any evidence nor supporting evidence, and being generally a load of nonsense.

"Mmm hmm. Most are tiny little bugs and stuff. The bigger animals would probably just be infants, to maximise storage space. Also, they would most likely have been put into a supernatural coma, to preserve food supplies and space"

LOL, do you have any idea how many species of animal there are?

Incidently in almost all cases you CANNOT POSSIBLY start a population with just 2 individuals, because you get expression of damaging recessive alleles that is why imbreeding is bad, that totally screws both the Adam and Eve fairy tale and the Ark faff.

"And yes they did."

Oh my days how blinkered is your view? Yes they deserved to die kill them all! What nonsense, ANYONE who studies the bible in a NON BIASED setting, comes away saying it blindingly obviously written by man.

God starts off as a vengefull inconsiderate deity and then gradually becomes nicer.

"Noah got drunk because the climate changes produced unexpected result - fermentation"

ROFL this stuff just gets better and better.

"The Hebrew word probably means something like "water vapor" The translators translate this as "cloud" since clouds are made of water vapor. So then, we say "hey rainbows don't come from clouds they come from water vapor!" Quite childish."

Yea... probably, probably because otherwise there be contradiction, i know whenever theres a contradiction lets just say it's "probably" due to translation, excellent.

"It's a physical manifestation of a spiritual covenant"

And that answers the point how?

"No, they were localised in one area."

Haha another corker, the animals just happened to be one area, thats completely believeable yup yup, after all we all know that animals do not infact move, and that birds do not infact fly......~


"Where did the deep-ocean fish come from--those hideous monstrosities that are all mouth, teeth and luminous lure and can only live at incredible depths and pressures? Super-fast evolution again?

And how do you know it wasn't "that" deep?"

Listen to me very carefully, the ocean fist are there because the mountains FORM they are not stationary they are caused by the movements of the Earths crust, if a mountain forms from an ocean you get sea creature fossils there.

Now about this flood NONSENSE, if there had been such a huge flood there would be masses of evidence for it! There is NONE not one scap of evidence for the biblical flood, oh sure there was a flood several MILLION years ago, it certainly did not cover the Earth and it certainly did not cover the mountains.

"Becuase this is poetic writing not scientific arrrgh!!!"

Oh i see, so it's not literal, well, we knew that anyway, glad to have you onboard.

Here is one of the many reasons why the flood as described in the bible is NOT a possiblity:

http://www.angelfire.com/mb/304654home/ark.html

It's very simple and irrefuteable, oh wait I know whats coming:

The original translation "probably" said it was just below the mountains! YEA!

"Only one pair of the elephant "kind" (are they "clean" or "unclean"?) were aboard, and immediately afterward evolved into 160 different species, 158 of which immediately became extinct.

So? We have a whole bunch of different breeds of horses from just a few."

And you missed the point fantastically here, which is just how rediculous it is to suggest that one species of elephant was saved because it was "clean" which then spontaneously evolved into 160 different species 158 of which became immediately extinct!! And where the heck did those other species of elephant come from anyway ???? Surely not..... evolution....... lol.

"I see, well one would have thought that humanity would have inherited Adam's traits but ok, you can have that one. "

If your parents had surgery, would you inherit it from them?

Not so obvious to thousands of creationists who favour the young hypothesis because they believe that a literal intpretation of the bible means the universe is 6000 years old. I guess they don't know the bible right? And man has been Earth for over 100,000, so errrmmmm....

Compare the genealogies in the Gospels. You will see that they do not include everyone. Hence, by adding up the ages of the people in the Bible you cannot derive an accurate age for the earth.

"Finally, how do we know the earth is millions of years old? Well because the universe is expanding (we know this because light is red shifted, implying velocity)"

Sorry, I should have said universe, not earth. That is how we "know" the age of the universe. The age of the earth is based on flawed radiation tests and circular reasoning.

Oh my days how blinkered is your view? Yes they deserved to die kill them all!

"For all have sinned..."
"There is not one righteouss, no not one..."
"The earth was covered in wickedness..."

If you actually take time to read these bible stories you would see that God gave ample opportunity for everyone to escape who was righteouss. And about the fetuses and babys etc, how do you know there were any? These people lived for 900 years, they didn't need to reproduce constantly

LOL, do you have any idea how many species of animal there are?

I will have to check the logistics of this later, as I'm at school right now.

Incidently in almost all cases you CANNOT POSSIBLY start a population with just 2 individuals, because you get expression of damaging recessive alleles that is why imbreeding is bad, that totally screws both the Adam and Eve fairy tale and the Ark faff.

Yes. After the earth was not protected from radiation anymore.

Yea... probably, probably because otherwise there be contradiction, i know whenever theres a contradiction lets just say it's "probably" due to translation, excellent.

I say probably because I haven't studied the language in this section. BUT YOU COMPLETELY MISSED MY POINT! The difference between a cloud and the water vapor that is required to produce the diffraction for a rainbow is not significant.

"No, they were localised in one area."

Haha another corker, the animals just happened to be one area, thats completely believeable yup yup, after all we all know that animals do not infact move, and that birds do not infact fly......~

I mean there would be at least 2 of each animal within a short distance away, not every single animal ever made.

Becuase this is poetic writing not scientific arrrgh!!!"

Oh i see, so it's not literal, well, we knew that anyway, glad to have you onboard.

Let me show you what I mean:

In numbers, I believe, there is a reference to a bowl which will be three times greater around than across. Aha, you say, contradiction! We all know that C=2*pi*r so the bible claims that "Pi" is 3 when we know its really 3.141592653589793...

THIS IS POETRY IT DOESN"T MATTER

BUT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SMALL ARTISTIC INTERPRETATION LIKE THIS AND FALSIFYING HISTORICAL EVENTS!!

And you missed the point fantastically here, which is just how rediculous it is to suggest that one species of elephant was saved because it was "clean"

When did I say that? I quoted it from a site YOU GAVE

which then spontaneously evolved into 160 different species 158 of which became immediately extinct!! And where the heck did those other species of elephant come from anyway ???? Surely not..... evolution....... lol.

If you define this as evolution, then there is nothing theisticly wrong with evolution. Why do we have different kinds of dogs? Well, breeding. Before we bred them, it was the environment. Now before you get all excited over this, remember what happens to all these dogs if they go back into the wild? Within a few generations, the sample group all reverts back to the same thing. They're all still dogs.

More tomorrow on the flood, Darwin, and fossils.

I think the prime reason that a lot of people don't want to know about or accept God, Jesus, and the truth that is written in Bible, is FEAR.

Quote:

---

Incidently in almost all cases you CANNOT POSSIBLY start a population with just 2 individuals, because you get expression of damaging recessive alleles that is why imbreeding is bad, that totally screws both the Adam and Eve fairy tale and the Ark faff.

Yes. After the earth was not protected from radiation anymore.

---

You dont know what hes talking about do you? I for one have no idea what you're talking about here: "After the earth was not protected from radiation anymore." ... Ummm.... what?

>>I mean there would be at least 2 of each animal within a short distance away, not every single animal ever made.

You missed the point again. You're trying to say that the penguins and the lions were all 'dropped off' at the same stop? .... Nice.

Quote:

---

LOL, do you have any idea how many species of animal there are?

I will have to check the logistics of this later, as I'm at school right now.

---

No, really; Do that. I'll try to find this reference I have somewhere. Somebody took the time to calculate the size the ark would have to be (excluding food and supplies) to just fit 2 of every animal on board. We're talking square mileage here... I'll look when i have a bit of time. I apologise as i'm a bit pressed for it today.


>>More tomorrow on the flood, Darwin, and fossils.

I'll be tuned in.

>>I think the prime reason that a lot of people don't want to know about or accept God, Jesus, and the truth that is written in Bible,
>>is FEAR.

Personally I think the prime reason people created, er, believe in, the bible, is because of FEAR. But we're not really going anywhere with that topic.

"If your parents had surgery, would you inherit it from them?"

Well quite, and I did concede the point, but IF men did in-fact have 7 ribs, you can bet your bottom dollar that creationist would use it as "evidence" for creationist nonsense. Since man at that time had no concept of genetics nor evolution, it would seem reasonable that they would presume men shared Adam's physiological properties.

"Compare the genealogies in the Gospels. You will see that they do not include everyone. Hence, by adding up the ages of the people in the Bible you cannot derive an accurate age for the earth. "

So you say, but then why do all those bible toting Creationists seem to think you can? Anyway i notice you avoid the age of man.

"Sorry, I should have said universe, not earth. That is how we "know" the age of the universe. The age of the earth is based on flawed radiation tests and circular reasoning. "

LOL you know what's really funny here, you on the one hand argue that you cannot determine the age of the Earth from the bible, yet on the other have decided that the Earth is not 4.5 billion years old, a figure which multiple differrent scientific disciplines have independantly arrived at.

Do you understand the principles radiometric dating? I presume of course that you do, because surely only an ignorant fool would dismiss a topic as "flawed" and based on "circular reasoning" without first having a firm grasp on the central theory, so since you understand the topic so well, perhaps you could explain to me how it works and what is wrong with it.

"If you actually take time to read these bible stories you would see that God gave ample opportunity for everyone to escape who was righteouss. And about the fetuses and babys etc, how do you know there were any? These people lived for 900 years, they didn't need to reproduce constantly "

Of course! OF COURSE the 900 year people I nearly forgot, LOL this stuff just gets better and better! How remarkeably different their biology must have been, as little as 6000 years ago you say? Well of course, of course after all it does say so in the bible....... lol.

"Yes. After the earth was not protected from radiation anymore"

Pardon me? Lets examine the stupidity of this particular argument shall we

A: Are you claiming that for a brief period after the Ark found land, the Earth suddenly became "protected from radiation" and then equally suddenly this protection vanished? Uh huh.

and B: It doesn't matter if you had ZERO radiation (which incidently means no light) you still couldn't start a population from 2 individuals because you would still get the exact same thing happening: Expression of damaging recessive alleles.

"I say probably because I haven't studied the language in this section. BUT YOU COMPLETELY MISSED MY POINT! The difference between a cloud and the water vapor that is required to produce the diffraction for a rainbow is not significant"

A cloud is a specific word, you have no clue what the translation is do you? You're just bending it to suit your particular argument!:

Me: I question the validity of claiming the bible is a literal interpretation of an all powerfull God.
You: Why?
Me: In the bible it says clouds cause Rainbows, that is patently false.
You: Well it's "probably" not clouds the bible "probably" says water-vapour.
Me: Why do you think that?
You: Well because we know the bible's true...

-welcome to circular reasoning 101.

EDIT: LOL my brain must be suffering otherwise i would have realised this before: water VAPOUR doesn't cause rainbows ANYWAY! Rain causes rainbows, water droplets.

"I mean there would be at least 2 of each animal within a short distance away, not every single animal ever made"

And that helps how?

It still means the animals very nicely decided to stand in pairs close to one another, how nice of them, like i said before it's a good thing that animals don't move, otherwise they might have like run around and stuff.

But HEY we had 900 year old men, water orbitting in space, supernatural comas, seemingly entirely different genetics, so whats a few paralysed animals eh? (man i should write all of this stuff down it would make a really good bed time story........ oh wait a minute!)

"THIS IS POETRY IT DOESN"T MATTER

BUT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SMALL ARTISTIC INTERPRETATION LIKE THIS AND FALSIFYING HISTORICAL EVENTS!! "

If the bible is the literal word God, then surely the "poetry" in the bible would both be more beautifull then any other poetry (which it is blatantly, blatantly not) and more importantly it would also be ACCURATE, see, you grant human beings "poetic license" because they are NOT ABLE to be both accurate and beautifull. So that leaves two possilibilities, either God was just plain ignorant, or he wasn't that great at poetry. Hmm....

"If you define this as evolution, then there is nothing theisticly wrong with evolution"

Oh I see! So you accept that through evolution speciation can occur but just as long as the species look similar? Well excellent I can see that all my explanations of evolution have not been in vain you truly have a great understand of the theory....... or...... maybe not.

"Now before you get all excited over this, remember what happens to all these dogs if they go back into the wild? Within a few generations, the sample group all reverts back to the same thing. They're all still dogs"

Oh of course, if i let my labrador out into the wild in a couple generations he'd be a wolf dontcha know. HAHA of course he would whatever you say.

"More tomorrow on the flood, Darwin, and fossils."

I'd like to see what fantastic explanation you will come up for the flood, I can guess that you will quote some idiot creationist claiming there was evidence for the flood and neglecting to mention it was from a few million years ago, and not even a 10th of the water required to cover the mountains. In fact, there is NOT enough water on the Earth to account for the biblical flood, there is no way in hell even if every polar ice cap melted that you cover everest.

Anyway i await the comedy tommorow will bring.

holy hell(pun intended), this topic is long. forgive me for not reading through it all.

the bible is loaded with discrepancies. it's a false story. it's a religion.

jesus divided up a couple fish and loaves of bread and spread it among thousands of hungry people. a miracle. can miracles happen in the literal sense of the word? no. it may seem like a miracle. but everything that happens is caused by and/or causes something else. there is nothing that cannot be explained, or reasoned out.

eg: wood is wood. it has celluose fibers. it comes from trees. trees grow from nutrients and water sucked from its roots, and uses sunlight to combine air, water, and soil to build itself.

take any part of the paragraph and it can be explained. it was caused by other stuff. scientists don't claim to know everything. even evolution is merely a theory which has been proven. it may be proved false. but to prove something false, you need proof. :)

the bible is a hopeful message to people. period.

900 year old people !!!! :D :( :D :( :D :( :D

i don't know whether to laugh or cry.....

this is either depressing, or funnier than the joke thread.....
can't make my mind up.

what is your religion Mike ??? what is it known as ?? i'd love to know......

How about Mike_K and Seditee get together? I think Mike's been crossing some of those dimensions Seditee was talking about earlier.
I especially like the one where God created a pre-aged universe, just to look older than it is and fool us humans. That's my kind of God, a practical joker.

to take the bible totally completely literally is either frightening or humourous....how many people do that ???
ive heard Jehova's Witnesses do but he says he aint one, 7th day adventists ?? i'm interested, tho largely so's i can avoid em like a biblical plague !!

"Evoulution is fact, Bowie. A lawyer might say we have an evidentiary trail. There is no scientific basis for creationism. Still, people believe in it. Why do you think that is?"
"I guess people want to believe in something. They want somebody to tell them this is how it is."
"Why not believe in science?"
"Because it keeps changing. We know one thing today and another thing tomorrow. Science is the search for answers. Religious beliefs are answers. Or what passes for answers. And they don't seem to change."

from The Snowfly, by Joseph Heywood

Quote:

---

Originally posted by stevey
to take the bible totally completely literally is either frightening or humourous....how many people do that ???
ive heard Jehova's Witnesses do but he says he aint one, 7th day adventists ?? i'm interested, tho largely so's i can avoid em like a biblical plague !!

---

Well, I guess I happened to be one of those poeple you want to avoid now, stevey! :D I take the Bible literally as well [like the Adam 'n Eve story]...

well you may grow out of it hopefully......:)

so, is it the old or new testament you believe literally ??

you can't believe both, because they are totally contradictory !!

ie eye for an eye, or turn the other cheek??

vengeful god, or benevolent god ???

if you can believe both, i think thats what i'd call a willing suspension of disbelief. ie faith

Here's another one from the Bible - the Book of Job.
God makes a bet with Satan that righteous Job will never turn from God no matter what. God then proceeds to inflict all kinds of horrors on Job, who, remember, is among the most God-fearing and righteous of men, yada yada. After almost a the whole Book of this, Job denounces God, who then gets mighty ........ed and gives Job a divine smackdown.
Now, is this the God you want to worship as all loving, the magnificent creator? And BTW, why is God making a bet with Satan? Besides, doesn't omniscient God know the outcome in advance?
To believe in the Bible literally, you have to ignore any intellect God gave you, which could be seen as disrespectful of His gift.

hey that Job thing was on Southpark last week !!! :)

(well its last week in the UK, we may be months behind you guys)

hi everyone I'm back (everyone groans)

I had a really busy week at work so this is the first I've been able to come back and respond.

Quote:

---

"so, is it the old or new testament you believe literally ??

you can't believe both, because they are totally contradictory !!

ie eye for an eye, or turn the other cheek??

vengeful god, or benevolent god ???

---

An eye for an eye was the Law. This was the Old Testament, or the Old Covenant It was just, but it was not very good. It provided a cure for sin, but not for our iniquity. That is why God sent his son to die, fulfilling the requirements of the law, and instituting a new law, grace. This is the New Covenant. Jesus taught us that he would (forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors). In other words, just as he gave his life to save us from hell, we are to follow his example and forgive those who wrong us, even though we are not required to by law.

If you want a contradition, you don't have to look between the old and new testaments. The very verse you quoted says "It is written 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth' " directly before he says to turn the other cheek. Jesus even attests to the authority of the Law: "Until heaven and earth pass away, not one stroke of the pen can be broken from the law" What he is saying is that although we have the right to extract vengeance under the law, we should not.

????????

so somebody kills my mate Kenny, i think "you bastards!!!", and i find them and kill them.....
did i have a right to do that ???
yes according to the Law, no according to "thou shalt not kill"

the bibles a contradictory mess.....obviously the old and new testaments are not one work, they totally contradict each other.


sorry, but theres more sense in the contents of my Diapers IMHO.
speaking of which, what have you got to say about Job. killing his family, bringing disease and suffering just to win a bet with the devil ???


anyway i'm off to covert my neighbours oxen, its a real beauty i'll tell ya........