100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: CREATION VERSUS EVOLUTION MADE CLEAR !!! | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Thu 02/12/09 12:22 PM
|
|
One can certainly consider all the possibilities - but that doesn't mean a good number of them just won't be simply rejected. How many people do you think are on these threads who reject the bible without ever reading it? Think on that and we'll revisit "objectivity" and "open mindedness".
I have spent the last 8 months reading the bible at the request of religious zealots on these forums (you were one) and I have completed the OT and read about a third of the new although the new is very disappointing. Every time I voice a new contradiction or concern or error or depiction of misogynistic tyranny, I am told to read the bible...its circular. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So Eijay what you are saying is that we didn't evolve from a chimpanzee, monkey type animal at all. That there is no chance that we came from anykind of monkey type or other animal at all. That perhaps you agree we were humans all along, but maybe just didn't stand up straight, or had more hair. What is your conclusion and belief on how we as a human evolved millions of years ago? Actually - that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that there is no "scientific" evidence to support Evolution as even a scientific theory. It is a philosophical one at best, and at it's root, makes even less sense than the argument for a Creator. I like to quote Ken Miller on this one. "It's not science if it's not testable". So - what remains is - what are the acceptable tests? Evolution tells me that way-back-when, non-living material "evolved" into living material. How much money do you think has been invested in verifying this as a fact to support the scientific theory? We know the results of this. The lack of it being plastered across every magazine in existance tells us this is unconfirmed. There would be Nobel Prizes and every scientific award known to man given on that test being successful. So, I can't get past the first premise of evolution as being anything scientific. Not to be facicious - but how can you? What are you telling yourself to convince you that you're not building castles on sand? As to the origins of life - I'm only aware of three theories. Creation - Macro-Evolution - and UFO's. God bless Jeannie - I love her, and she's got some pretty credible theories, but I'm not sold on Aliens dumping us here. Can't get past the idea's expressed in evolution - because there are just too many unexplainable phenomina that evolution has no answers for. I've asked all the evolutionists to explain how we get vanilla using natural selection - and that's a bafflemet. Ever see the evolutionary explination for a butterly? Neither have I. Doubt you'll get an explination on that one that makes sense. So while I'm not foolish enough to claim that there are any facts for a 6 day creation by an onmiscient, omnipresent, omnipowereful being - I've yet to be convinced otherwise by sound logic. Now I don't claim to know all that there is about science - but I have a degree in logic. And on the comparison's of the logic for creationism vs. evolution - to me - creationism wins. As a side note. I've done extemsive reasearch on dating systems for fossils and earth formations - and I find no credibility in a billion year old earth as anytihng but a philosophical premise to give credence to Macro-evolution. And I'm well aware of the principles of chemistry to know what I'm reading about it. No "facts" there either. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Thu 02/12/09 12:46 PM
|
|
Evolution says NOTHING about non-living matter changing into living matter, this further highlights your lack of comprehension of the theory.
tisk tisk Eljay, 
The premise of your refutation is wrong so everything past it is also wrong. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One can certainly consider all the possibilities - but that doesn't mean a good number of them just won't be simply rejected. How many people do you think are on these threads who reject the bible without ever reading it? Think on that and we'll revisit "objectivity" and "open mindedness".
I have spent the last 8 months reading the bible at the request of religious zealots on these forums (you were one) and I have completed the OT and read about a third of the new although the new is very disappointing. Every time I voice a new contradiction or concern or error or depiction of misogynistic tyranny, I am told to read the bible...its circular.
I'm quite happy to hear this. I realize that you are going to have questions, and you have a well grounded world view of evolution behind you - so it makes reading the bible even more difficult, but at least you will be familiar enough with it, even if through just a casual reading, to recognise false conjectures for yourself, rather than rely on someone's pretextual demonstrations. It will certainly make you better equiped to support your posts on christainity, be they positive or negative. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Thu 02/12/09 12:45 PM
|
|
Actually - that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that there is no "scientific" evidence to support Evolution as even a scientific theory.
That’s not true at all. If you are incapable of AT LEAST demonstrating proof of Creationism on the same level that scientists have been showing in support of biological evolution, then there is no reason to accept your claims. Period |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One can certainly consider all the possibilities - but that doesn't mean a good number of them just won't be simply rejected. How many people do you think are on these threads who reject the bible without ever reading it? Think on that and we'll revisit "objectivity" and "open mindedness".
I have spent the last 8 months reading the bible at the request of religious zealots on these forums (you were one) and I have completed the OT and read about a third of the new although the new is very disappointing. Every time I voice a new contradiction or concern or error or depiction of misogynistic tyranny, I am told to read the bible...its circular.
I'm quite happy to hear this. I realize that you are going to have questions, and you have a well grounded world view of evolution behind you - so it makes reading the bible even more difficult, but at least you will be familiar enough with it, even if through just a casual reading, to recognise false conjectures for yourself, rather than rely on someone's pretextual demonstrations. It will certainly make you better equiped to support your posts on christainity, be they positive or negative. Well yes, that’s seems to be what has been taking place. You essentially gave me an entire arsenal of ammunition. Before the bible was just annoying. Now I can prove it to be irresponsible and contradictory. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ever see the evolutionary explination for a butterly?
Yep I have in fact. It’s linked to a process called "reinforcement". What this does is prevents closely related species from interbreeding thus driving them further apart genetically and promoting speciation. Is that what you are asking as far as how butterflies adapted and evolved?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Know any chimps that can type on a keyboard ? Or talk? Or dress themselves? Or write? Or cook a grand dinner for two? Or reason? Or think? Know any? Even one? Just maybe..one? 
Once upon a time I knew next to nothing about how evolution actually works. Get educated, this link has tons of info, both highly educational websites including universities, popular videos, as well as class room lectures. http://mingle2.com/topic/show/202703 Once you understand how evolution works it becomes clear there is no mechanism to prevent morphological changes that would alter a species enough to keep it from breeding back with its ancestor species. Once that happens then small changes add up due to the fact the genetic material can no longer be passed between these population, and thus the changes add up, the difference becomes greater and greater. Micro and macro evolution are the same thing, only on different time scales. Dear Billy ....
Microevolution is KNOWN and Understood, and there is even PROOF that microevolution took place(this is Evolution WITHIN a species ONLY... and usually took place as a species had to ADAPT to its environment) . Now Macroevolution ..which Evolutionists are just SAYING that also took place ( evolution that transcends the boundaries of a single species.... and becomes a WHOLE OTHER species), is NOT true....it NEVER EVER HAPPENED...and there is NO PROOF whatsoever. NADA!!! MACRO EVOLUTION IS Just THEORY....NOT FACT, BILLY!!!
But I don't mind you all sharing...please do...you can even call me ignorant if you want..  ....
But I will also share with you the TRUTH of what God's Word says.... which is again.... "ALL things reproduce after its own KIND".... Now....God's Word Does NOT change....... therefore, God saying that "all things reproduce after its own kind" , does not change either........ and will never cahnge.... or else God would be ONE who does NOT keep His Word.... and therefore would be Nothing more than a big fat Liar. AND IF God is a Liar...and Hs WORD IS a Lie.... then the WHOLE of creation is in CHAOS ..and we are all DOOMED!!! BUT BILLY.... since Jesus thru His Holy Spirit , came to live in my heart, I KNOW God is NOT a Liar..and I KNOW God's WORD is TRUE !!!! 
meaning.... what God said in His Word IS TRUE!!!! Meaning.... "All things reproduce after its own Kind" is ALSO TRUE......
But Billy, I ALSO Understand, that until man is born again, man will NOT see or understand what God's Word says....or even believe it.... I do understand..
Hey Morningsong, Just a thought. Your god, according to your book, is omnipotent and omniscient, COULDN'T HIS WORD EVOLVE!!! Isn't that conceivable??? Just a hint, 99,997% of all christians accept that god's word evolves, and accept evolution micro, macro and all!!! Well - those 99.997 % who accept that God's word evolves never read the text. It explicitly states that not one "jot or tittle" would change, and anyone wo adds or detracts from it brings eternal damnation on themselves. I think that if christains believe the word is evolving - hey need to check themselves on whether or not their a christian. For if they don't know Jesus - I doubt he knows them. Obviously some do not know the history of the bible and how it came to be what we have today if they believe it has not been edited and converted to fit certain agendas. Look it up or here I will help. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_(King_James) Old Testament Genesis | Exodus | Leviticus | Numbers | Deuteronomy | Joshua | Judges | Ruth | 1 Samuel 2 Samuel | 1 Kings | 2 Kings | 1 Chronicles | 2 Chronicles | Ezra | Nehemiah | Esther | Job Psalms | Proverbs | Ecclesiastes | Song of Solomon | Isaiah | Jeremiah | Lamentations | Ezekiel Daniel | Hosea | Joel | Amos | Obadiah | Jonah | Micah | Nahum | Habakkuk | Zephaniah | Haggai Zechariah | Malachi [edit] New Testament Matthew | Mark | Luke | John | Acts | Romans | 1 Corinthians | 2 Corinthians | Galatians | Ephesians | Philippians | Colossians 1 Thessalonians | 2 Thessalonians | 1 Timothy | 2 Timothy | Titus | Philemon | Hebrews | James | 1 Peter | 2 Peter | 1 John | 2 John | 3 John Jude | Revelation [edit] Deuterocanonical books The deuterocanonical books (meaning "second canon") are not recognized as part of the canon of the Bible in Protestantism, but are recognized as canonical by the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. They are also known as the Apocrypha. These books came from the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament used by early Christians and Jews. They were included in the first editions of the King James Bible, but were removed from some editions by reformers during the 16th century. By the mid-19th century, the deuterocanonical books were generally rejected by Protestant Christians. Judaism used the Septuagint until about the second century AD, but doesn't recognize either the deuterocanonical or New Testament books as part of their own canon, which is known as the Tanakh. Additions to Daniel Judith 1 Esdras 2 Esdras Additions to Esther Susanna 1 Maccabees 2 Maccabees Prayer of Manassheh Sirach Wisdom of Solomon Baruch (including the Epistle of Jeremiah) Tobit Bel [edit] Copyright The King James Version is also known as the Authorized Version. Note that in the United Kingdom, this work is still copyrighted and is subject to a eternal copyright term. Thou shalt obtain permissions to publish in England and Wales by following the guidance in A Brief Guide to Liturgical Copyright, third edition (RTF file). If thou wishest to publish in Scotland, thou shalt contact the Scottish Bible Board for permissions. This work is in the public domain outside the United Kingdom because the author has been deceased at least 100 years. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- However, this work is under an eternal copyright in the United Kingdom. Oh - I see, a game of semantics. This argument only holds true if I accept your premise that anyone who follows the text of the cannonized bible and whatever they wish to add t it, is a christain. But I seriously doubt that we agree on the premise of who is a chrstian and who isn't, so this discussion can't get past the main premise. Just list me in the percentage of christains that says that the bible does not evolve, and we'll leave it at that.
Congratulations 'Eljay', You are the proud member a highly select group, mainly found in the US, and comprising 0,00262% of the world christian community. You and your fellow member, futher distinguish yourselves by 'fundamentally protesting' the faith and beliefs of just about every other christians, comprising 99,997% of the lot, and covering the vast majotiry of catholics, anglicans, orthodox and protestants other than the Fundamentalist-Evangelicalists. Amicably 'eljay', you have to admit, that that's a tall 'PROTESTING' order. I personally don't care that 99.what-ever think that the bible "evolves". I can't demonstrate from scripture that it does. Now - if you are refering to the 66 books of the bible, and "all the others" (for lack of a better term) such as the Gnostic scriptures, or the Apocrapha - I have the same feeling about them as well. They say what they say, and are not going to "evolve" into something else. I have not read the "other books" in totality, so I can't comment on their accuracy, or "inspiration" - but my test would simly be to see where they fit into the whole in terms of context. To date - I only have the opinions of others wh have interpreted the text, and well - you now where I stand on people interpeting scripture for me... I'm curious where you get your per centage though - because I know I'm not amoungst a small elite group who thinks the bible is not evolving. Are you twisting words on purpose, for fun or out of habit. How am I suppose to make sense of your reply to me 'Eljay', with your comment '... because I know I'm not amongst a small elite group who thinks the bible is not evolving...' I know the first part '... amongst a small elite group...' is coherent with my previous post to which you are replying, but where does the '... who think THE BIBLE IS EVOLVING???...' come from??? A small elite group founding their faith in a '... bible inerrancy belief...' MUTATES into '...you believing the bible is evolving...'!!! That's like faith mutating into 'bible inerrancy', mutating into creationism, mutating into Intelligent Design, and getting gruesomely declared 'unscientific', 'unsconstitutional' and a simple matter of faith and belief!!! Back to square one. I this thread, on this topic, you are invited to address how FAITH mutates into FACT, because you keep making that claim, and yet you never demonstrate how that formidable and incomprehensible feat is achieved. That is where the debate is at. None of the creationist, fundamentalist, or other apologetist of the 'expert' kind, have succeeded yet in addressing this FAITH mutating into FACT mystery in the public arena where FACTS, judicial or scientific get to be debated and judged. So for now, from the scientific and judicial perspectives, the premise you promote as FACT, is but a MYSTERY in reality, or if you wish to make it yours, legitimate material for anyone's personal FAITH!!! I would appreciate, if you could fond in you to respect and debate the topic of this thread. With a bit of rigour and mental discipline, it could be a respectful and interesting debate. Okey. Let's bring this down to basiscs. Give me the evidence for the theory of Evolution mutating into fact. We're not discussing the Biblical theory mutating into fact - that is a topic you wish to refute - I have nothing to add to it, as there is no emperical evidence for the "Fact" of creation. Just as there is no emperical evidence for the "fact" of Macro evolution. It is a "FAITH" based theory. 'eljay', The theory of evolution doesn't have to MUTATE into fact, it already is nothing other than an overwhelming mountain of facts, and nothing other than facts. I.D., the mutated form of creationism, has no fact, and all faith. Theory of Evolution's mountain of facts need not wait for your approval before drawing factual conclusions about its moutain of 'evolution' proof. You and your creationist friends have ludicrously attempted to pass 'evolution' as faith!!! That is plain and simple desperation. And it has failed miserably where it matters: review the Dover case, and nearly a hundred othe such cases, including one Supreme Court judgement. 'Macro' evolution is a disingeneous fabrication of the creationist camp. It has long been demonstrated that there is only evolution, regardless of size or stage. How can you STILL sit there and keep claiming that one, when your own camp has given up on it. The simple REAL question to the creationist camp that killed this disingeneous deceitful claim, was simple enough: '... CAN YOU DEMONSTRATE CLEARLY WHERE IN THE GENOME, MICRO EVOLUTION OCCURS, AND THE SPECIFIC STAGE WHERE IT BECOMES 'MACRO', AND STOPS OCCURING??? ...' The creationists would need to finally start making sense, enter a lab, start testing scientifically, in order to come back with tangible testable findings. How can you keep saying the other guys factual demonstration is wrong, without ever explaining and demonstrating your claim??? No answer. No counter argument. No comeback. Nothing to substantiate your claim. That what becomes a deceitful pursuit!!! The 'Micro' and 'micro' noise, is nothing other than a negative argument, and a most deceitful pursuit. It stands on nothing. It cannot be argued scientifically, and it has the pretention of attacking real evidence, facts, and proof in science, without ever justifying its attacks. YOU AGREE WITH YOUR MICRO-EVOLUTION FABRICATION, YOU AGREE WITH EVOLUTION PERIOD. Sorry that you keep insisting that the Human part must agree with the verbatim of your Adam and Eve book, but neither FICTION nor FAITH will ever be compatible with facts. Okay - so I read this with a little more comprehension. What I would like you to do is demonstrate that there is anything in this mountain of evidence for evolution that can be demonstrated to prove Creationism false. Explain to me how evolution's evidence is not creationism's evidence. The Dover case. Voile - please tell me that you are not expecting me to question my world view over the decision of some guy with a Law degree? Judge Jones may know more about the Law than I do - but I'd like to sit with him for a while and see if his study of chemistry, logic, and christianity is up to par with mine - and for that matter, how much investigation he's done on evolution to discern whether he's being led around like a bull on a ring by those with specific world views. The Dover trial means nothing to me. Neither does the Scopes trial. You speak of factual demonstration. I'll return to this argument. Where is the testible evidence to support the initial premise that live evolved from non-living matter. Who's got the nobel prize for that by the way? Explain to me how you - a well educated individual - familiar with both sides of this issue, are getting past that one? How is macro evolution a "scientific theory"? And what is the support for equating macro-evolution with micro-evoltion? Please stop dicussing Creationism as "fact" in your posts to me. I'm tired of having to defend this false presumption you attribute to me. I have never one, in all of the posts I've made stated that Creationism is fact, or anything but faith based. I will say though - that Macro-evolution is nothing more than a faith based religion, and that there is absolutely nothing to demonstrate it as otherwise. There is nothing scientific about Macro-evolution. There is not one premise to all of Macro-evolution that is verifyable scientifically. I defy you to find one. And if and when you do - they'll be giving the Nobel prize to you. So - I'll end with this: Sorry that you keep insisting that the Human part must agree with the verbatim of your "Origin of the Species" book, but neither FICTION nor FAITH will ever be compatible with facts. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For Creationist's who have a hard time believing in Evolution I suggest one book to get a better understanding of what evolutionist have discovered concerning proof of macroevolution or microevolution.
This 640 page book researched from 327 other books each with individual concentrated areas combine the best logical explanation of what proof has been found thus far. The book is by Richard Dawkin's - The Ancestor's Tale He will take you 4 billion years back. Once you have read this book and still have doubts then please email me to discuss further. All the best on your research. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Eljay
on
Thu 02/12/09 01:13 PM
|
|
Evolution says NOTHING about non-living matter changing into living matter, this further highlights your lack of comprehension of the theory. tisk tisk Eljay,
The premise of your refutation is wrong so everything past it is also wrong. What! Where did life come from? Does Micro-evolution have Abiogenesis or Creationism at it's source? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
just when I was beginning to understand or thought I was
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually - that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that there is no "scientific" evidence to support Evolution as even a scientific theory.
That’s not true at all. If you are incapable of AT LEAST demonstrating proof of Creationism on the same level that scientists have been showing in support of biological evolution, then there is no reason to accept your claims. Period But what of the argument that scientists are only observing that which has been created? If you can refute that - I'll become an evolutionist. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One can certainly consider all the possibilities - but that doesn't mean a good number of them just won't be simply rejected. How many people do you think are on these threads who reject the bible without ever reading it? Think on that and we'll revisit "objectivity" and "open mindedness".
I have spent the last 8 months reading the bible at the request of religious zealots on these forums (you were one) and I have completed the OT and read about a third of the new although the new is very disappointing. Every time I voice a new contradiction or concern or error or depiction of misogynistic tyranny, I am told to read the bible...its circular.
I'm quite happy to hear this. I realize that you are going to have questions, and you have a well grounded world view of evolution behind you - so it makes reading the bible even more difficult, but at least you will be familiar enough with it, even if through just a casual reading, to recognise false conjectures for yourself, rather than rely on someone's pretextual demonstrations. It will certainly make you better equiped to support your posts on christianity, be they positive or negative. Well yes, that’s seems to be what has been taking place. You essentially gave me an entire arsenal of ammunition. Before the bible was just annoying. Now I can prove it to be irresponsible and contradictory. That's because I like you. Now you can claim - "I've read the bible", and whatever opinion you formulate, will be your own. That's all I've been trying to say to you for month's now. I've done lots of the things you've suggested for me to do. Time permitting of course, as life rages on despite my desires to know all there is to know about this topic. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well let’s say for a minute that your god truly did make everything all at once...poof. That is your claim correct? He’s omniscient and he just snapped his fingers and walla. Then why would there still be the pressing need for microevolution? Was your god so inept that he couldn’t just create all of the plant life and the animals and the humans perfectly formed and adapted to their surroundings? Wait, he created their surroundings correct? Wouldn’t he know about the coming ice age and the predation pressures and food supply and shortages ahead of time? Why would microevolution be needed at tall? And you can’t have microevolution and refute macro unless you just want to argue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is there actually a know system for creation? I only remember some witch I dated who was trying to get pregnant through parthogensis; which by the way left me out in the cold.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I dont think humans are capable of that unless your ex was an earthworm. Although, according to the Inductor Theory, all human embryos are female until hormonally “induced” to become male.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Know any chimps that can type on a keyboard ? Or talk? Or dress themselves? Or write? Or cook a grand dinner for two? Or reason? Or think? Know any? Even one? Just maybe..one?
I saw a video of a chimp that knew karate. And I have seen chimps that can smoke. And chimps were trained in rudementary controls of spacecraft launched into orbit. Just saying. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Right. Chimps were also used to test the levels of radiation that a human pilot could endure in the event of a nuclear assault. They trained them to use flight simulators while blasting them with radiation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I like to quote Ken Miller on this one.
"It's not science if it's not testable". It doesn't really help your argument against Evolution when you quote a scientist who has spent a lot of time researching Evolution, and disproving I.D./Creationism. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well he cant quote Ken Hovind because hes in prison. Although I guess he's not a real Christian.
|
|
|
|
|
