PDA

View Full Version : Why do Americans reject Evolution so much?



JustAlex
05-13-2012, 08:09 PM
So, this is one of the most disturbing graphs I have ever seen.

The U.S is near DEAD LAST in developed countries when it comes to accepting Evolution as true.

More than 99% of scientist say that Evolution is true and yet it seems we can't get over to the right side of facts.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/images/060810-evolution_big.jpg

^The Graph speaks for itself, only about 40% of Americans say Evolution is true while the other 60% is either not sure or say it's FALSE.

History will not look kindly to Americans for this....we might as well believe in a geocentric universe as well :rolleyes:

AUTaxMan
05-13-2012, 08:20 PM
Define "evolution" and then tell me where you got the 99% number.

JustAlex
05-13-2012, 08:33 PM
Define "evolution" and then tell me where you got the 99% number.

No problem:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html

^Only about 5% of AMERICAN Scientist and Engineers reject Evolution, leaving the other 95% to accept it.

"Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. "

In other words, 99% of scientist accept Evolution!

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_proof.htm

^"However, sufficient evidence exists in support of evolution to convince 99.85% of America's earth and life scientists that the theory is valid. Evolution is the key unifying theory that unifies many different branches of science, from cosmology to biology."


Evolution: is any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations.


EVOLUTION DOES NOT EXPLAIN HOW LIFE WAS CREATED, RATHER IT EXPLAINS HOW LIFE DIVERSIFIED

theonedru
05-13-2012, 09:54 PM
Because Americans are Americans. The same bunch that say its wrong to eat dogs and cats while consuming various amounts of other animals. The same people say it wrong to commit atrocities to other countries but its perfect acceptable for the USA to do them to others. Think about it, we are a very narrow minded society who think America will stand forever although every other great empire has collapsed and we are too ignorant to heed warnings... In a nutshell of course...........

JustAlex
05-13-2012, 10:11 PM
Because Americans are Americans. The same bunch that say its wrong to eat dogs and cats while consuming various amounts of other animals. The same people say it wrong to commit atrocities to other countries but its perfect acceptable for the USA to do them to others. Think about it, we are a very narrow minded society who think America will stand forever although every other great empire has collapsed and we are too ignorant to heed warnings... In a nutshell of course...........

Well, you are definitely right about the narrow mindedness of this country's citizens.

But I refuse to believe we are an "empire", and if we are, we must be the most pathetic one in all of history.

what exactly was our "reign"....(1946 - 2001)....that seems about right.


Now, back to evolution.....if anyone here wants to claim that they believe in God, that's fine, however evolution is still backed up by mountains of evidence.

stlcardinalsfan
05-13-2012, 10:33 PM
because most christains teach evolution = monkeys turned into man

where as i can see that evolution is mearly just adapting to the surrounding/fitest survive. ect.

Bottom9th
05-13-2012, 10:36 PM
First of all, I am not claiming to believe in God. I do believe in God. I'm not going to get into any debate but here's an interesting website you might want to look at.
Enjoy

https://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/hasnt-evolution-been-proven

JustAlex
05-13-2012, 11:18 PM
First of all, I am not claiming to believe in God. I do believe in God. I'm not going to get into any debate but here's an interesting website you might want to look at.
Enjoy

https://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/hasnt-evolution-been-proven

Answers in genesis....Yes, I know that site very well.

and just by seeing your link I can see many erroneous statements:

"Stellar evolution
Chemical evolution"

^THIS IS NOT Evolution...evolution says NOTHING about the universe or the big bang or the how life started.

Now let me give you a BETTER website that isn't so BIASED the way Answers in Genesis is:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

^The differences between both sites is very simple:

Answers in Genesis: uses the Bible to try to explain natural claims....they also think they are "100% correct", since it's the bible.

Talk Origins: uses FACTS and EVIDENCE with many references to try to answer any and all natural claims.....they don't claim to be 100% correct because they understand that science is "ever changing" and new evidence is always being presented.

boba
05-13-2012, 11:33 PM
Answers in genesis....Yes, I know that site very well.

and just by seeing your link I can see many erroneous statements:

"Stellar evolution
Chemical evolution"

^THIS IS NOT Evolution...evolution says NOTHING about the universe or the big bang or the how life started.

Now let me give you a BETTER website that isn't so BIASED the way Answers in Genesis is:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

^The differences between both sites is very simple:

Answers in Genesis: uses the Bible to try to explain natural claims....they also think they are "100% correct", since it's the bible.

Talk Origins: uses FACTS and EVIDENCE with many references to try to answer any and all natural claims.....they don't claim to be 100% correct because they understand that science is "ever changing" and new evidence is always being presented.

Actually this isn't true. AIG does not think they are 100% correct. All they do is show how many natural things can fit into a Biblical view on history. They state theories on what could have happened which evolutionists claim there is no other answer to. AIG also uses FACTS and EVIDENCE with many references to try to answer how things could of happened alongside the Bible.

The only thing they claim to be 100% correct on is that God created the earth ( they understand science is changing and constantly adapt to new evidence. And talkorigins claims to be 100% correct that God didn't create the earth.

ensbergcollector
05-13-2012, 11:33 PM
most people accept and support single species evolving. science, despite the fact that apparently 99% believe in it, has yet to prove any type of inter-species evolution. It is only a theory. why should have be forced to believe in something that is only a theory?

JustAlex
05-13-2012, 11:49 PM
The only thing they claim to be 100% correct on is that God created the earth ( they understand science is changing and constantly adapt to new evidence. And talkorigins claims to be 100% correct that God didn't create the earth.

NO....Talk Origins does NOT claim that they are 100% correct that god didn't create the earth, that's nonsense.

Only Christians deal in "absolutes".


most people accept and support single species evolving. science, despite the fact that apparently 99% believe in it, has yet to prove any type of inter-species evolution. It is only a theory. why should have be forced to believe in something that is only a theory?

OK, this is so easy to respond to:

#1: "inter species evolution".....I guess you are referring to a species turning into another species.

We do have evidence for that, TONS of evidence....it's called transitional fossils.

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

#2: Only a Theory?

YES, just like Gravity is ONLY a theory, just like germ theory and atom theory...

No one is "Forcing" you to "Believe" in theories....but this is the best we have....if you refuse to believe in the Theory of gravity....then by all means don't believe.

Saying "God did it" is NOT a theory, it's NOT scientific, and it has no place in public schools.

boba
05-13-2012, 11:58 PM
NO....Talk Origins does NOT claim that they are 100% correct that god didn't create the earth, that's nonsense.

Only Christians deal in "absolutes".



OK, this is so easy to respond to:

#1: "inter species evolution".....I guess you are referring to a species turning into another species.

We do have evidence for that, TONS of evidence....it's called transitional fossils.

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

#2: Only a Theory?

YES, just like Gravity is ONLY a theory, just like germ theory and atom theory...

No one is "Forcing" you to "Believe" in theories....but this is the best we have....if you refuse to believe in the Theory of gravity....then by all means don't believe.

Saying "God did it" is NOT a theory, it's NOT scientific, and it has no place in public schools.

Show me an article that says anything that would even consider a creator.

Do know the difference between operational science vs. historical science?

JustAlex
05-14-2012, 12:09 AM
Show me an article that says anything that would even consider a creator.

Do know the difference between operational science vs. historical science?

I don't know what you are talking about.


There are NO scientific articles that mention a "creator", science doesn't dwell in the "supernatural world".

It only deals with the observable Natural world.

Operational Science, Historical science????

Oh, you mean...this:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Operational_science
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Historical_science

Operational Science: "The term is not considered valid scientific terminology, and widely appears solely in arguments presented by creationists about whether ideas such as abiogenesis, evolution and the Big Bang Theory are really scientific."

Historical Science: "The term is often misued by creationists for any science that "interpret[s] evidence from the past and includes the models of evolution and special creation.""

duane1969
05-14-2012, 10:28 AM
I am not going to read through all of those sites. I have one reason and one reason alone, evolution fails to prove itself. Evolution says that things evolve due to habitat changes then shows us alligators and crocodiles and tells us that they have remained the same for millions of years even though we know their habitat has changed dramatically. This is the same theory tells us that humans evolved from apes, but fails to explain why some apes evolved into humans that build cars and skyscrapers, develop the iPod and achieve space travel while others remained dimwits trying to figure out how to peel a banana and eat it before another ape can steal it.

What most people like to call evolution is actually adaptation. What most scientist like to use as proof of evolution is adaptation. If I move to a cold climate and grow a thick beard to deal with it, did I evolve or adapt? I adapted. And since I adapted does that provide proof of evolution? No. Thus adaptation is not proof of evolution.

It is called the "Theory of Evolution" for a reason. It is a theory. Because 99% of the world believes it does not make it fact, it makes 99% of the world believing something that is unproven and makes it no better than religion.

habsheaven
05-14-2012, 10:48 AM
I am not going to read through all of those sites. I have one reason and one reason alone, evolution fails to prove itself. Evolution says that things evolve due to habitat changes then shows us alligators and crocodiles and tells us that they have remained the same for millions of years even though we know their habitat has changed dramatically. This is the same theory tells us that humans evolved from apes, but fails to explain why some apes evolved into humans that build cars and skyscrapers, develop the iPod and achieve space travel while others remained dimwits trying to figure out how to peel a banana and eat it before another ape can steal it.

What most people like to call evolution is actually adaptation. What most scientist like to use as proof of evolution is adaptation. If I move to a cold climate and grow a thick beard to deal with it, did I evolve or adapt? I adapted. And since I adapted does that provide proof of evolution? No. Thus adaptation is not proof of evolution.

It is called the "Theory of Evolution" for a reason. It is a theory. Because 99% of the world believes it does not make it fact, it makes 99% of the world believing something that is unproven and makes it no better than religion.

Their habitat has changed dramatically over the past how many years? Evolution takes millions of years. Thinking that you are going to see crocodiles evolve in the span of even 10,000 years is offbase. You are confusing adaptation with evolution.

People constantly make this claim that humans evolved from apes to discount evolution. That is false, humans and apes evolved differently from a common ancestor over millions of years.

Finally, religion is based on absolutely NOTHING. Evolution (not adaptation) is based on volumes of scientific data. To claim they are both equally unreliable is outrageous.

Edit: As I am typing this I am levitating. It only works when no one is around. But it's true, just like religion is true. Afterall, you can't disprove either claim.

boba
05-14-2012, 11:24 AM
I don't know what you are talking about.


There are NO scientific articles that mention a "creator", science doesn't dwell in the "supernatural world".

It only deals with the observable Natural world.

Operational Science, Historical science????

Oh, you mean...this:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Operational_science
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Historical_science

Operational Science: "The term is not considered valid scientific terminology, and widely appears solely in arguments presented by creationists about whether ideas such as abiogenesis, evolution and the Big Bang Theory are really scientific."

Historical Science: "The term is often misued by creationists for any science that "interpret[s] evidence from the past and includes the models of evolution and special creation.""

Haha, their definition is garbage. No one is claiming the words are scientific, all they are are terms used to group different types of science together.You seem to be a master of semantics.

Operational science is science that you can test, observe, etc.

Historical science is " interpreting evidence from past events based on a presupposed philosophical point of view. "
The past is not testable, observable etc.
If the theory of evolution had never been popularized, and some other explanation was popular, then all the " scientists " would look through their shaded glasses and say all evidence from the past supports that theory, when it's just not true.

You look at the past with evolutionist shades on, I look at it with Biblical shades on. You have no more " proof " of evolution then I have " proof " of a creator.

AUTaxMan
05-14-2012, 11:30 AM
Americans seem to be generally confused over the definition of evolution since it has become such a politicized issue in the U.S. I think that when most Americans think of evolution, they generally think of man evolving from monkey which evolved out of primordial soup, and they reject it in large part. However, if the question is do you believe animals evolve over periods of time, then most people would answer yes. I personally believe that man and certain animals were created by God and that their traits have evolved over time.

boba
05-14-2012, 11:37 AM
Americans seem to be generally confused over the definition of evolution since it has become such a politicized issue in the U.S. I think that when most Americans think of evolution, they generally think of man evolving from monkey which evolved out of primordial soup, and they reject it in large part. However, if the question is do you believe animals evolve over periods of time, then most people would answer yes. I personally believe that man and certain animals were created by God and that their traits have evolved over time.

Yeah, I think a lot of Christians who haven't studied evolution get defensive whenever evolution is mentioned. In reality it is obvious that micro evolution is happing around us. Macro evolution is what I have a beef with.

duane1969
05-14-2012, 11:54 AM
Their habitat has changed dramatically over the past how many years? Evolution takes millions of years. Thinking that you are going to see crocodiles evolve in the span of even 10,000 years is offbase. You are confusing adaptation with evolution.

I assume that over the last few million years or so the Earth in general has changed dramatically. Or so that is what scientist tell us. Are they wrong?

Scientist say that adaptations to the changing environment are evidence of evolution, yet these same scientist say that adaptations to their environment have allowed the crocs and gators to remain unchanged for 200 million years. So are adaptations evidence of evolution or preventors of evolution?


People constantly make this claim that humans evolved from apes to discount evolution. That is false, humans and apes evolved differently from a common ancestor over millions of years.

So we didn't evolve from apes? What was this "common ancestor" then?

Homo sapiens is classified as a hominid (great ape) while modern monkeys and gorillas are classified as lesser apes. If you look at a "family tree" you see that scientist say that a split occurred at Homininae, humans evolved from one side of the split, gorillas from the other. That is a pretty clear indication to me that science says that humans and gorillas share a quite common ancestor and that one side of the family became highly evolved while the other evolved none at all.

The "evolution of man" involves leaps and bounds with no common link between them. Evolution jumps from Australopithecus to Home Erectus to Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis to Homo Sapiens Sapiens with no common link inbetween. We find no evidence of a being that was Australopithecus evolving into Home Erectus with clear signs of evolving. There is just these big leaps in change from one to the next with nothing to fill the gaps inbetween but speculation and theories.

Finally, religion is based on absolutely NOTHING. Evolution (not adaptation) is based on volumes of scientific data. To claim they are both equally unreliable is outrageous.

Evolution is a theory. Thus, it is unproven. To claim that one unproven aspect is believable while another is not is a self-fulfilling fallacy.

To say that Fords are better than Chevy's because I believe Fords are better and there is no proof that Chevy's are better is not proof that Fords are better. Strawman arguments don't carry much weight with me.

And lighting farts is not levitating...



Responses in bold

habsheaven
05-14-2012, 12:49 PM
Responses in bold

If strawman arguments do not carry much weight with you, why do you continue to use them?

boba
05-14-2012, 12:56 PM
If strawman arguments do not carry much weight with you, why do you continue to use them?


This really annoys me. If you have a problem with his arguments then state them. You continually pick out small portions of other peoples posts and play with semantics.

habsheaven
05-14-2012, 01:00 PM
This really annoys me. If you have a problem with his arguments then state them. You continually pick out small portions of other peoples posts and play with semantics.

You know what annoys me. You continually commenting on MY posts and then running to hide when I call you on it. I didn't pick out a "small portion" of Duane's post. I commented on the whole thing. He basically ended it by accusing me of using a strawman argument and that is all his rebuttal was.

If you have something to add to the discussion, add it.

pghin08
05-14-2012, 01:07 PM
Tone it back a little, guys. This is a decent thread, so let's keep it on topic.

Star_Cards
05-14-2012, 01:58 PM
I think the main reason why a lot of Americans reject the theory of evolution is because it goes against what they are taught when it comes to religion. Evolution theory has questions and isn't provable 100% but anyone that claims these theories aren't possible but believes a creator is much more plausible is biased to their religious beliefs and teachings for the most part. I'll listen to the holes in evolution and the scientific theories of how the earth was created, but a creator snapping his fingers and making it so is much more preposterous of an idea than evolution from my point of view.

habsheaven
05-14-2012, 02:17 PM
I like to look at all theories (evolution included) like this. Picture a 1,000 piece puzzle with 300 random pieces missing. Are you going to know every detail? Can you still tell what the picture is? Now envision what that puzzle looks like for Creationism. Can you see anything? Can you see the slightest clues of what the picture looks like? Or can you only imagine it based on the description that the guy next to you is whispering in your ear?

boba
05-14-2012, 02:19 PM
You know what annoys me. You continually commenting on MY posts and then running to hide when I call you on it. I didn't pick out a "small portion" of Duane's post. I commented on the whole thing. He basically ended it by accusing me of using a strawman argument and that is all his rebuttal was.

If you have something to add to the discussion, add it.


What do you think of his rebuttals though? Do you agree with them?
I've been adding to this thread since it started, I don't respond to you sometimes because you call me a troll, but you haven't called me out on anything in this thread.

All I'm saying is that he explained why he thought your arguments were strawman, you have yet to do so. If you think his arguments are strawman I would love to know why.

boba
05-14-2012, 02:32 PM
I like to look at all theories (evolution included) like this. Picture a 1,000 piece puzzle with 300 random pieces missing. Are you going to know every detail? Can you still tell what the picture is? Now envision what that puzzle looks like for Creationism. Can you see anything? Can you see the slightest clues of what the picture looks like? Or can you only imagine it based on the description that the guy next to you is whispering in your ear?

With evolution your missing more then 300 pieces, according to Alex who started this thread, there is no absolute truths in evolution. Everything in evolution is a theory, evolutionists use certain stances when it benefits them, then change to something else when talking about a different matter.

With creationism, can you not see 100% of the picture? You know who created the earth and everything else. You can see things in the Bible that would explain things that we find in the world around us ( the flood explains fossil layers etc. )

duane1969
05-14-2012, 02:43 PM
If strawman arguments do not carry much weight with you, why do you continue to use them?

Where did I?

habsheaven
05-14-2012, 03:02 PM
For Boba:

Their habitat has changed dramatically over the past how many years? Evolution takes millions of years. Thinking that you are going to see crocodiles evolve in the span of even 10,000 years is offbase. You are confusing adaptation with evolution.

I assume that over the last few million years or so the Earth in general has changed dramatically. Or so that is what scientist tell us. Are they wrong?

Scientist say that adaptations to the changing environment are evidence of evolution, yet these same scientist say that adaptations to their environment have allowed the crocs and gators to remain unchanged for 200 million years. So are adaptations evidence of evolution or preventors of evolution?


There are thousands of animals that show clear signs of evolution. The fact that alligators, crocks and sharks show few visible signs of evolution means they haven’t needed to evolve.

People constantly make this claim that humans evolved from apes to discount evolution. That is false, humans and apes evolved differently from a common ancestor over millions of years.

So we didn't evolve from apes? What was this "common ancestor" then?

Homo sapiens is classified as a hominid (great ape) while modern monkeys and gorillas are classified as lesser apes. If you look at a "family tree" you see that scientist say that a split occurred at Homininae, humans evolved from one side of the split, gorillas from the other. That is a pretty clear indication to me that science says that humans and gorillas share a quite common ancestor and that one side of the family became highly evolved while the other evolved none at all.

The "evolution of man" involves leaps and bounds with no common link between them. Evolution jumps from Australopithecus to Home Erectus to Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis to Homo Sapiens Sapiens with no common link inbetween. We find no evidence of a being that was Australopithecus evolving into Home Erectus with clear signs of evolving. There is just these big leaps in change from one to the next with nothing to fill the gaps inbetween but speculation and theories.


No, we did not evolve from the apes of today which was your implication. You clearly know the theory on it as displayed above. Just because it has “holes” does not make your “snap your fingers God Almighty” theory as credible. And there are many examples of that “other side” evolving quite well. The intelligence of Bonobos is closer to that of their human cousins than it is to the rest of the animal kingdom.

Finally, religion is based on absolutely NOTHING. Evolution (not adaptation) is based on volumes of scientific data. To claim they are both equally unreliable is outrageous.

Evolution is a theory. Thus, it is unproven. To claim that one unproven aspect is believable while another is not is a self-fulfilling fallacy.

To say that Fords are better than Chevy's because I believe Fords are better and there is no proof that Chevy's are better is not proof that Fords are better. Strawman arguments don't carry much weight with me.

And lighting farts is not levitating...

Again, equating evolution to Creationism is the fallacy. One is based on common sense and speculation, the other is based on imagination.

Responses in red.

duane1969
05-14-2012, 03:06 PM
I like to look at all theories (evolution included) like this. Picture a 1,000 piece puzzle with 300 random pieces missing. Are you going to know every detail? Can you still tell what the picture is? Now envision what that puzzle looks like for Creationism. Can you see anything? Can you see the slightest clues of what the picture looks like? Or can you only imagine it based on the description that the guy next to you is whispering in your ear?

The problem is that your 1000 piece puzzle of evolution only has about 10 or 15 peices.

To believe in evolution you have to accept that dramatic changes occurred almost instantly, not over an extended period of time. We are to just accept this jump from Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis to Homo Sapiens Sapiens with absolutely no connection between them. There is no proof that the two are linked.

We went from this...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e0/Homo_sapiens_neanderthalensis.jpg/220px-Homo_sapiens_neanderthalensis.jpg

to this...
http://www.oocities.org/~asustal/skull.jpg

with nothing inbetween them.

We went from large wide-set eyes, a forward jutting brow, a small cranium, a broad nose with a large opening, a forward jutting upper lip and a wide, thick lower jaw to smaller narrower eyes, a less prominent brow, a large cranium, a small nose, a recessed upper lip and smaller lower jaw...and all of this happened at once? It must have because NO evidence exist of any "evolution" from one to the other. Not a single figment of evidence exist that shows Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis gradually evolving into Homo Sapiens Sapiens. None.

If evolution is true then there should be evidence showing a gradual change from one version of humans to another. Instead we have these sudden jumps. The strongest argument that evolution has to prove itself is the strongest argument against it being believable. We are to believe that gradual changes occurred, yet science can provide no evidence of these gradual changes.

habsheaven
05-14-2012, 03:08 PM
With evolution your missing more then 300 pieces, according to Alex who started this thread, there is no absolute truths in evolution. Everything in evolution is a theory, evolutionists use certain stances when it benefits them, then change to something else when talking about a different matter.

With creationism, can you not see 100% of the picture? You know who created the earth and everything else. You can see things in the Bible that would explain things that we find in the world around us ( the flood explains fossil layers etc. )

I am sitting in front of your Creationism puzzle. Can you point out a piece of the puzzle that I can see, because I can't see anything? I DO NOT know who created everything. How can I? As I said earlier, I can IMAGINE the picture, if someone like yourself whispers in my ear. But I cannot see it.

And the Flood does not explain fossils.

habsheaven
05-14-2012, 03:20 PM
The problem is that your 1000 piece puzzle of evolution only has about 10 or 15 peices.

To believe in evolution you have to accept that dramatic changes occurred almost instantly, not over an extended period of time. We are to just accept this jump from Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis to Homo Sapiens Sapiens with absolutely no connection between them. There is no proof that the two are linked.

We went from this...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e0/Homo_sapiens_neanderthalensis.jpg/220px-Homo_sapiens_neanderthalensis.jpg

to this...
http://www.oocities.org/~asustal/skull.jpg

with nothing inbetween them.

We went from large wide-set eyes, a forward jutting brow, a small cranium, a broad nose with a large opening, a forward jutting upper lip and a wide, thick lower jaw to smaller narrower eyes, a less prominent brow, a large cranium, a small nose, a recessed upper lip and smaller lower jaw...and all of this happened at once? It must have because NO evidence exist of any "evolution" from one to the other. Not a single figment of evidence exist that shows Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis gradually evolving into Homo Sapiens Sapiens. None.

If evolution is true then there should be evidence showing a gradual change from one version of humans to another. Instead we have these sudden jumps. The strongest argument that evolution has to prove itself is the strongest argument against it being believable. We are to believe that gradual changes occurred, yet science can provide no evidence of these gradual changes.

If you think there are only 10-15 pieces of the evolution puzzle THAT is your problem. Nothing I say can change that. But based on that evaluation I am curious how many of the Creationism puzzle pieces you can count?

As for missing evidence in a chain. The "common sense" solution to the "missing skulls" is that none have been found yet. It certainly isn't that they simply went from one skull to the next. That is another example of a strawman argument; you are telling me what I have to assume and discrediting that assumption. It simply is not true.

Star_Cards
05-14-2012, 03:27 PM
The problem is that your 1000 piece puzzle of evolution only has about 10 or 15 peices.

To believe in evolution you have to accept that dramatic changes occurred almost instantly, not over an extended period of time. We are to just accept this jump from Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis to Homo Sapiens Sapiens with absolutely no connection between them. There is no proof that the two are linked.

We went from this...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e0/Homo_sapiens_neanderthalensis.jpg/220px-Homo_sapiens_neanderthalensis.jpg

to this...
http://www.oocities.org/~asustal/skull.jpg

with nothing inbetween them.

We went from large wide-set eyes, a forward jutting brow, a small cranium, a broad nose with a large opening, a forward jutting upper lip and a wide, thick lower jaw to smaller narrower eyes, a less prominent brow, a large cranium, a small nose, a recessed upper lip and smaller lower jaw...and all of this happened at once? It must have because NO evidence exist of any "evolution" from one to the other. Not a single figment of evidence exist that shows Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis gradually evolving into Homo Sapiens Sapiens. None.

If evolution is true then there should be evidence showing a gradual change from one version of humans to another. Instead we have these sudden jumps. The strongest argument that evolution has to prove itself is the strongest argument against it being believable. We are to believe that gradual changes occurred, yet science can provide no evidence of these gradual changes.

I get all of the questions and gaps in the main idea of how humans came about. What I find baffling is that people who believe in creationism accept religious texts as valid proof with little to no question, but yet question most things about evolutionary theory. Take those two skull pictures for example... Why is it so impossible that those two species could be somehow linked and yet it's so plausible that a creator simply placed us here. Even with all of the differences in the two skulls and the gap of specimens showing the progression of the evolution, both skulls have a lot of similarities. It's not like we are looking at a human skull and a hippo skull and saying it's possible we are linked to hippos.

JustAlex
05-14-2012, 04:10 PM
You look at the past with evolutionist shades on, I look at it with Biblical shades on. You have no more " proof " of evolution then I have " proof " of a creator.

HILARIOUS!

Evolution has MOUNTAINS of evidence where is ONE.....just ONE shred of evidence for your "creator"?

@Duane:

Seriously bro, you put two skulls and say there is "nothing in between"?

Let me tell you on one thing, we (People who accept evolution and science) have facts and evidence on our side....you have faith....blind faith on a book written by man.

This is my response:

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

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e7/SelamAustralopithecus.jpg/170px-SelamAustralopithecus.jpg
Australopithecus afarensis

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/Australopithecus_africanus.jpg/179px-Australopithecus_africanus.jpg
Australopithecus africanus

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/45/Homo_habilis-KNM_ER_1813.jpg/183px-Homo_habilis-KNM_ER_1813.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/95/Homo_rudolfensis.jpg/173px-Homo_rudolfensis.jpg
Homo Habilis

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a5/Dmanisi_cranium_D2700_%28B%29.jpg/251px-Dmanisi_cranium_D2700_%28B%29.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/Homo_ergaster.jpg/200px-Homo_ergaster.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bf/Daka_homo_erectus_calvaria.jpg/308px-Daka_homo_erectus_calvaria.jpg
Homo Erectus

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/Turkana_Boy.jpg/210px-Turkana_Boy.jpg
Homo Erectus skeleton

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/Homo_heidelbergensis-Cranium_-5.jpg/248px-Homo_heidelbergensis-Cranium_-5.jpg
Homo Heidelbergensis

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/Rhodesian_Man.jpg/320px-Rhodesian_Man.jpg
Homo rhodesiensis


Please do NOT say there is "Nothing in between"....the simple fact is that there are so many that scientist no longer believe in the "missing link"!

JustAlex
05-14-2012, 04:25 PM
11s9ZIGYdvo

^Here is an EXCELLENT Documentary by the History channel which chronicles the evolution of Humans.

At the very least Christians should give it a chance and see just how much evidence scientists have discovered.

boba
05-14-2012, 05:13 PM
I am sitting in front of your Creationism puzzle. Can you point out a piece of the puzzle that I can see, because I can't see anything? I DO NOT know who created everything. How can I? As I said earlier, I can IMAGINE the picture, if someone like yourself whispers in my ear. But I cannot see it.

And the Flood does not explain fossils.

I can't see any piece of the evolution puzzle, like I said, this is semantics.

Actually, the flood can explain the fossil layers.

boba
05-14-2012, 05:18 PM
HILARIOUS!

Evolution has MOUNTAINS of evidence where is ONE.....just ONE shred of evidence for your "creator"?



Evolution has no hard evidence and creationism has no hard evidence. All there is are pieces of evidence in the world of our history that evolutionists can look at with their shades on and creationists can look at with their shades on.

Sorry to break it to you, but there are people who don't believe the same as you do, and just because of that they are not stupid.

theonedru
05-14-2012, 06:13 PM
Evolution has no hard evidence and creationism has no hard evidence. All there is are pieces of evidence in the world of our history that evolutionists can look at with their shades on and creationists can look at with their shades on.

Sorry to break it to you, but there are people who don't believe the same as you do, and just because of that they are not stupid.

Which God created the world, and which story of creation is the correct one? Christian, North American Native, Zoroastrian, Hindu......

AUTaxMan
05-14-2012, 06:16 PM
Which God created the world, and which story of creation is the correct one? Christian, North American Native, Zoroastrian, Hindu......

Not this again.

habsheaven
05-14-2012, 06:16 PM
I can't see any piece of the evolution puzzle, like I said, this is semantics.

Actually, the flood can explain the fossil layers.

Take a look at the two posts before yours. They are what one would call puzzle pieces. Please explain how the flood explains fossils. I can't wait to hear it.

theonedru
05-14-2012, 06:24 PM
Not this again.

its a logical argument when arguing for the religious side, you cannot automatically assume Christianity is the dominate and thus correct one..

boba
05-14-2012, 06:53 PM
Take a look at the two posts before yours. They are what one would call puzzle pieces. Please explain how the flood explains fossils. I can't wait to hear it.

I'm sure you have already read this, but if you haven't.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v5/n1/order-fossil-record


There are many other specific articles on the site if you want to get into the specifics.

habsheaven
05-14-2012, 07:49 PM
I'm sure you have already read this, but if you haven't.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v5/n1/order-fossil-record


There are many other specific articles on the site if you want to get into the specifics.

I have read it before but thanks for the link. You should google Dr. Andrew Snelling. You will be quite surprised by some of his earlier literature on geology. No one, absolutely NO ONE, takes him seriously in the scientific community.

boba
05-14-2012, 08:10 PM
I have read it before but thanks for the link. You should google Dr. Andrew Snelling. You will be quite surprised by some of his earlier literature on geology. No one, absolutely NO ONE, takes him seriously in the scientific community.

Not true.

You cant be talking about the no answers in genesis article can you? You should look up the author of that article...

habsheaven
05-14-2012, 08:18 PM
Not true.

You cant be talking about the no answers in genesis article can you? You should look up the author of that article...

I don't know what article you are talking about. I was referring to articles he has written with no religious context at all. Articles in which he talks about the Earth being millions of years old.

boba
05-14-2012, 08:33 PM
I don't know what article you are talking about. I was referring to articles he has written with no religious context at all. Articles in which he talks about the Earth being millions of years old.


I'm assuming you got your info from this article, as it's the only one about the topic.

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/realsnelling.htm


Just found this.
http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_as_01.asp



What does that have to do with the validity of his articles anyway?

habsheaven
05-14-2012, 10:44 PM
I'm assuming you got your info from this article, as it's the only one about the topic.

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/realsnelling.htm


Just found this.
http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_as_01.asp



What does that have to do with the validity of his articles anyway?

It has everything to do with the validity of his articles. He completely contradicts himself. No "scientist" puts their name on a report that they are getting paid for if they do not believe what they write. His attempt to explain it that way is pathetic.

Regardless of all that. The FACT that his assertion that ALL the fossils were deposited during one geological event in time is preposterous. It defies ALL logic. I wonder how he explains the creation of coal or oil or diamonds for that matter?

It is a shame that all the Creationist believers keep touting him as their SCIENTIST on the subject. Can't really blame them though, it's not like they have any alternative other than him.

JustAlex
05-15-2012, 12:33 AM
Which God created the world, and which story of creation is the correct one? Christian, North American Native, Zoroastrian, Hindu......

Excellent point!

And I would argue that the most fascinating creation story I have ever heard is the ancient Greek one.....I suppose that should be taught along side with evolution.

"In the begining there was only chaos. Then out of the void appeared Erebus, the unknowable place where death dwells, and Night. All else was empty, silent, endless, darkness. Then somehow Love was born bringing a start of order. From Love came Light and Day. Once there was Light and Day, Gaea, the earth appeared."

^This is EXCELLENT and much more poetic than Genesis 1:1....our Children SHOULD decide, maybe this is the way Creation started....Why not?


Now....unto "the Flood"....there are so many articles and videos debunking that myth, and since I know how much people love seeing videos, here is a great debunking the flood video:

_sD_7rxYoZY

JustAlex
05-15-2012, 01:16 AM
Here is MORE Evidence against "the flood":

http://www.prehistoricplanet.com/images/features/earth/geologictime/geologictime1.jpg

The Fossil rock layers

Answer me this creationists.....if God created Dinosaurs and humans together and there was no evolution, why have we NEVER found a human skeleton alongside dinosaur bones?

If the flood really occurred, shouldn't we see all types of animals jumbled up together.....and yet that's NOT what the evidence presents.

There's a reason why 99% of scientists accept evolution.....because the evidence is too great.

Scientist can't go against facts and evidence....and there's a reason why Christians don't like science.

It debunks their beliefs!

shrewsbury
05-15-2012, 10:23 AM
using wikipedia as a source reference? highschools and middleschools have even banned wiki

and depending who you ask, there has been not only bones but footsteps of man and dino side by side

and where does the bible say dinosaurs and humans were created together? or are we back to the 6000 year old earth?

Star_Cards
05-15-2012, 10:34 AM
using wikipedia as a source reference? highschools and middleschools have even banned wiki

and depending who you ask, there has been not only bones but footsteps of man and dino side by side

and where does the bible say dinosaurs and humans were created together? or are we back to the 6000 year old earth?

I'm curious, does the bible state how old the earth is?

I think the connection of dinosaurs and humans being created during the same time is because the it's said that God created everything in 6 days and rested on the seventh. I'm not sure if that's something that is meant to be literally translated into seven actual days as we know days, but there are a lot of people who believe that god literally created everything in 6 days.

JustAlex
05-15-2012, 10:48 AM
using wikipedia as a source reference? highschools and middleschools have even banned wiki

Yes, I used Wikipedia as a source.

I ALSO used TalkOrigins, religioustolerance, and rational wiki.

Wikipedia remains as one of the BEST reference sites in all the internet.

If you want you can see ALL the citations that they used in the "Transitional Fossils" link I posted, almost 50 references in the footnote!

Wikipedia is a great source regardless what you say.


and depending who you ask, there has been not only bones but footsteps of man and dino side by side

This claim has been proven false many times:

http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2008/08/05/fred-flintstone-waded-here-hoaxsters-ready-to-teach-creationism-to-texas-kids/

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html

"....the "man track" claims have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and in recent years have been abandoned even by most creationists."

FACT: NEVER have scientists found a Modern human skeleton or bones which dates millions of years.

FACT: NEVER have scientists found ANY modern human bones next to any dinosaur....in the ENTIRE PLANET!


and where does the bible say dinosaurs and humans were created together? or are we back to the 6000 year old earth?

God creates ALL land animals on "day 6" and then he creates man on THE SAME DAY!

Incredibly enough all scientific evidence shows this is nonsense!


As for the age of the earth....I have NO IDEA what number creationists want to put on it, but scientists say it's about 4.5 Billion years old.

duane1969
05-15-2012, 10:58 AM
I'm curious, does the bible state how old the earth is?

I think the connection of dinosaurs and humans being created during the same time is because the it's said that God created everything in 6 days and rested on the seventh. I'm not sure if that's something that is meant to be literally translated into seven actual days as we know days, but there are a lot of people who believe that god literally created everything in 6 days.

2 Peter 3:8 says that a 1000 years with God is as a day to man, but that is referencing after the rapture/death of man. If we use that as point of reference, on the 5th day he created mammals and birds and on the 6th day created man, so that would be a 1000 year gap.

However, it is generally accepted by science that modern animals came to be after the prehistoric period and even religious theologians agree that dinosaurs are not mentioned in the Bible because they existed before the era of man. So the argument can be made that Day 3 or 4 was the period of dinosaurs, so using the 1000 year aspect we have a 2000-3000 year period between dinosaurs and man.

Here is the x-factor. More recent interpretation of the creation period in the Bible interprets it as 7 ages, not 7 days. So the question becomes, "What does the word "ages" mean to God?" If we interpret an age to mean the same to God as man's version then an age can be tens of thousands or even millions of years making the 2-3 "ages" between dinosaurs and man to be anywhere betwen 20-30,000 years to as much as 2-3 million years.

JustAlex
05-15-2012, 11:05 AM
So the argument can be made that Day 3 or 4 was the period of dinosaurs, so using the 1000 year aspect we have a 2000-3000 year period between dinosaurs and man.

Umm....NO!

JUST NO!

Apparently you haven't read the bible:

http://www.nigerianmuse.com/projects/Christianity/cs-1-6creation.jpg

Dinosaurs AND Man were "created" on the SAME DAY!

habsheaven
05-15-2012, 11:22 AM
2 Peter 3:8 says that a 1000 years with God is as a day to man, but that is referencing after the rapture/death of man. If we use that as point of reference, on the 5th day he created mammals and birds and on the 6th day created man, so that would be a 1000 year gap.

However, it is generally accepted by science that modern animals came to be after the prehistoric period and even religious theologians agree that dinosaurs are not mentioned in the Bible because they existed before the era of man. So the argument can be made that Day 3 or 4 was the period of dinosaurs, so using the 1000 year aspect we have a 2000-3000 year period between dinosaurs and man.

Here is the x-factor. More recent interpretation of the creation period in the Bible interprets it as 7 ages, not 7 days. So the question becomes, "What does the word "ages" mean to God?" If we interpret an age to mean the same to God as man's version then an age can be tens of thousands or even millions of years making the 2-3 "ages" between dinosaurs and man to be anywhere betwen 20-30,000 years to as much as 2-3 million years.


There always seems to be a "new interpretation" of the Bible to counter advances in human knowledge. When do you think believers are going to get a "new outlook" on the validity of the bible and accept that it was written by men who had very limited knowledge of the world around them?

Star_Cards
05-15-2012, 11:32 AM
Thanks duane, for the information. I still lean towards scientific methods of dating the earth and it's inhabitants over the various biblical interpretations. It just seems more realistic to me.

ensbergcollector
05-15-2012, 02:59 PM
There always seems to be a "new interpretation" of the Bible to counter advances in human knowledge. When do you think believers are going to get a "new outlook" on the validity of the bible and accept that it was written by men who had very limited knowledge of the world around them?

this i find funny since there always seems to be new "theories" of science. science changes their story on just about everything constantly.

the hebrew word that has been translated as day can also mean "a period of time." It isn't anything new. the hebrew word found in genesis has always meant either

duane1969
05-15-2012, 03:38 PM
Umm....NO!

JUST NO!

Apparently you haven't read the bible:


Dinosaurs AND Man were "created" on the SAME DAY!

Apparently you haven't read the Bible. Dinosaurs are not mentioned in the Bible.


There always seems to be a "new interpretation" of the Bible to counter advances in human knowledge. When do you think believers are going to get a "new outlook" on the validity of the bible and accept that it was written by men who had very limited knowledge of the world around them?

I don't see it as a new interpretation to counter advances in human knowledge as much as a change in perspective in light of new knowledge.

Additionally, there has long been a theological discussion about the meaning of several words in the Bible. Part of the issue arises because the meaning of words has changed over time. Sort of like the word "bad" meant something negative when our parents were young then when we were young it meant cool or good.


Thanks duane, for the information. I still lean towards scientific methods of dating the earth and it's inhabitants over the various biblical interpretations. It just seems more realistic to me.

I do too. I just see flaws in some of the scientific data and do not whole-heartedly jump into the Kool-Aid bowl like some people do.

habsheaven
05-15-2012, 03:49 PM
this i find funny since there always seems to be new "theories" of science. science changes their story on just about everything constantly.

the hebrew word that has been translated as day can also mean "a period of time." It isn't anything new. the hebrew word found in genesis has always meant either

It may not be anything "new", but it certainly hasn't been open to interpretation for 2,000 years. Science is always improving. It is not throwing out new theories everyday.

So what is it now? Is the earth 6,000 - 10,000 years old or is it 4.5 billion years old? What is your interpretation of Genesis? What is the religious concensus?

I find it funny that for something that is so important to so many people, none of them can agree on any of the details. Maybe that is the strategy; keep the explanations so convoluted that a straight answer is impossible to give.

ensbergcollector
05-15-2012, 04:01 PM
It may not be anything "new", but it certainly hasn't been open to interpretation for 2,000 years. Science is always improving. It is not throwing out new theories everyday.

So what is it now? Is the earth 6,000 - 10,000 years old or is it 4.5 billion years old? What is your interpretation of Genesis? What is the religious concensus?

I find it funny that for something that is so important to so many people, none of them can agree on any of the details. Maybe that is the strategy; keep the explanations so convoluted that a straight answer is impossible to give.

i know this probably doesn't make sense to someone with as much venom toward religion as you do, but at the end of the day, i could care less how old the earth is. my faith in God and not based on my interpretation of genesis 1. religion might be important to many people, but the things that seem to matter to non-christians, aren't usually the same things that are important to christians. Most christians, while curious as to how genesis 1 should be interpreted, are not hung up on it.

Star_Cards
05-15-2012, 04:05 PM
this i find funny since there always seems to be new "theories" of science. science changes their story on just about everything constantly.

the hebrew word that has been translated as day can also mean "a period of time." It isn't anything new. the hebrew word found in genesis has always meant either

science doesn't change their story on just about everything. There are many scientific explanations that are pretty much right. However, if new evidence arose on a specific matter things would be altered based on that new evidence. In my opinion, that is how things should be. Never changing one's stance even with new evidence is hardly an ideal model to follow.

habsheaven
05-15-2012, 04:13 PM
i know this probably doesn't make sense to someone with as much venom toward religion as you do, but at the end of the day, i could care less how old the earth is. my faith in God and not based on my interpretation of genesis 1. religion might be important to many people, but the things that seem to matter to non-christians, aren't usually the same things that are important to christians. Most christians, while curious as to how genesis 1 should be interpreted, are not hung up on it.

It makes perfect sense actually. It is a cop out. I have seen it 1,000 times. It is right out of the christian playbook. Defend, deflect, re-interpret, when that fails and you are faced with no other option other than to feign blind indifference. I know for a fact you care how old the Earth is (in general terms), you fear the truth.

At least my venom is directed at the institution and not directed at the people brave enough to ask questions.

Star_Cards
05-15-2012, 04:17 PM
I do too. I just see flaws in some of the scientific data and do not whole-heartedly jump into the Kool-Aid bowl like some people do.

Well, calling it a Kool-aid bowl seems way more appropriate for use in describing the creation arguments, in my opinion. Creationism basically allows for absolutely everything to be suggested since the text that it's based off of can always be said it's that it's left to interpretation. The day definition is an example. It allows for any argument against creationism to be shot down by a person who believes in that because creationism is based on supernatural forces which can't be concretely grasped.

Most people who look at scientific data know that new things can be found in the future, but still some things stay as constant. The fact that new scientific data pops up from time to time doesn't mean evolutionists are all kool-aid drinkers. I personally do not have an investment in evolution like most have in creationism. If evolution was completely disproven tomorrow with concrete evidence of our existence, I'd have no problem accepting it based on tangible facts. It's more logical and tested than claiming supernatural creation.

ensbergcollector
05-15-2012, 04:37 PM
It makes perfect sense actually. It is a cop out. I have seen it 1,000 times. It is right out of the christian playbook. Defend, deflect, re-interpret, when that fails and you are faced with no other option other than to feign blind indifference. I know for a fact you care how old the Earth is (in general terms), you fear the truth.

At least my venom is directed at the institution and not directed at the people brave enough to ask questions.

when religion first got talked about around here you were one of the few non-christians who was level headed and respectful in your posts. you have only gotten more and more hateful as time has gone by. your venom isn't directed at institutions, your venom is directed at anyone brave enough to actually say they believe in christianity.
i find it funny that all the non-christians around here who use hate filled speech all have the same fall back. the "i know what you are really thinking even though you haven't said it" argument. you know for a fact i care how old the earth is and that I fear the truth? really? want to tell me what I am having for dinner or maybe how I should deal with that difficult decision at work? i mean, non-christians seem to know christians so well, maybe you can help me out.

boba
05-15-2012, 04:47 PM
when religion first got talked about around here you were one of the few non-christians who was level headed and respectful in your posts. you have only gotten more and more hateful as time has gone by. your venom isn't directed at institutions, your venom is directed at anyone brave enough to actually say they believe in christianity.
i find it funny that all the non-christians around here who use hate filled speech all have the same fall back. the "i know what you are really thinking even though you haven't said it" argument. you know for a fact i care how old the earth is and that I fear the truth? really? want to tell me what I am having for dinner or maybe how I should deal with that difficult decision at work? i mean, non-christians seem to know christians so well, maybe you can help me out.
+1


Your a troll!

:winking0071:

SLNoble13
05-15-2012, 05:08 PM
"Wikipedia is a great source regardless what you say."

Not saying one side is right or wrong. I will keep my opinions to myself. But you can create an account on Wikipedia, log on and edit the information within. How is that a great source when someone can alter the information within? Just curious b/c when that happens it taints the information within.

habsheaven
05-15-2012, 05:59 PM
when religion first got talked about around here you were one of the few non-christians who was level headed and respectful in your posts. you have only gotten more and more hateful as time has gone by. your venom isn't directed at institutions, your venom is directed at anyone brave enough to actually say they believe in christianity.
i find it funny that all the non-christians around here who use hate filled speech all have the same fall back. the "i know what you are really thinking even though you haven't said it" argument. you know for a fact i care how old the earth is and that I fear the truth? really? want to tell me what I am having for dinner or maybe how I should deal with that difficult decision at work? i mean, non-christians seem to know christians so well, maybe you can help me out.

The only hate-filled speech I see is yours.

If my ability as a fortune teller is so wrong enlighten me then. Regardless of whether or not you CARE how old the Earth is, tell me how old you THINK it is. And before you answer with, "I believe it is as old as the Bible says it is.", put an approximate NUMBER on it because, as we have just learned, the Bible is open to interpretation. What is your interpretation?

boba
05-15-2012, 06:24 PM
The only hate-filled speech I see is yours.

If my ability as a fortune teller is so wrong enlighten me then. Regardless of whether or not you CARE how old the Earth is, tell me how old you THINK it is. And before you answer with, "I believe it is as old as the Bible says it is.", put an approximate NUMBER on it because, as we have just learned, the Bible is open to interpretation. What is your interpretation?

Why do you want to know about someone elses life so badly? Just wondering:confused0024:

ensbergcollector
05-15-2012, 06:47 PM
The only hate-filled speech I see is yours.

If my ability as a fortune teller is so wrong enlighten me then. Regardless of whether or not you CARE how old the Earth is, tell me how old you THINK it is. And before you answer with, "I believe it is as old as the Bible says it is.", put an approximate NUMBER on it because, as we have just learned, the Bible is open to interpretation. What is your interpretation?

care to show me any hate filled speech from me?

you treat every believer in god like an idiot and a lesser person for being dumb and gullible enough to believe in something that can't be proved.

AUTaxMan
05-15-2012, 07:20 PM
care to show me any hate filled speech from me?

you treat every believer in god like an idiot and a lesser person for being dumb and gullible enough to believe in something that can't be proved.

It's hateful to disagree with him and to have any religious faith, apparently.

habsheaven
05-15-2012, 07:46 PM
Why do you want to know about someone elses life so badly? Just wondering:confused0024:

I do not want to know about his life. I asked him for his opinion on a topic on a messageboard. I kinda thought that was what this messageboard was for, you know, sharing opinions and getting people's take on issues. Rarely do I see anyone asking about another poster's life.

BTW, he ignored the direct question again.

habsheaven
05-15-2012, 07:55 PM
care to show me any hate filled speech from me?

you treat every believer in god like an idiot and a lesser person for being dumb and gullible enough to believe in something that can't be proved.

From this thread alone, this could be considered hateful:

"probably doesn't make sense to someone with as much venom toward religion as you do"

"you have only gotten more and more hateful as time has gone by"


Your turn, where is my hateful speech?

For the record, I do not treat anyone who believes in a God disrespectfully. I occasionally get condescending with people who believe in the Bible and who engage in discussions but refuse to answer simple questions about their religion.

And btw, you still haven't answered the question. My earlier comment about deflecting is beginning to ring true. :winking0071:

habsheaven
05-15-2012, 07:57 PM
It's hateful to disagree with him and to have any religious faith, apparently.

Since you want in on the conversation, care to share your opinion of how old the Earth is?

AUTaxMan
05-15-2012, 07:59 PM
Since you want in on the conversation, care to share your opinion of how old the Earth is?

I don't really care how old it is. The fundamentals of my faith are not dependent upon the age of the Earth.

MadMan1978
05-15-2012, 07:59 PM
i know this probably doesn't make sense to someone with as much venom toward religion as you do, but at the end of the day, i could care less how old the earth is. my faith in God and not based on my interpretation of genesis 1. religion might be important to many people, but the things that seem to matter to non-christians, aren't usually the same things that are important to christians. Most christians, while curious as to how genesis 1 should be interpreted, are not hung up on it.

You are correct Genesis is a great story...

MadMan1978
05-15-2012, 08:00 PM
+1


Your a troll!

:winking0071:


No he isnt!

He is NEVER at the meetings!

habsheaven
05-15-2012, 08:20 PM
I don't really care how old it is. The fundamentals of my faith are not dependent upon the age of the Earth.

That response must be written down in the handbook they pass out. Regardless of whether or not you CARE, you still must have an opinion on the subject.

ensbergcollector
05-15-2012, 08:48 PM
That response must be written down in the handbook they pass out. Regardless of whether or not you CARE, you still must have an opinion on the subject.

just curious, why MUST he have an opinion on the subject. and for that matter why MUST I? you want to tell me that you know I care about the subject when in actuality I don't. I have always felt that the days of creation referred to an amount of time and not a 24 hour day. i don't really care if those amounts of time are millions or billions of years. I wasn't avoiding the question, you just seem to want me to care about something I really don't care about.

also, me saying you have hate and venom is not exactly hate filled speech on my part. sorry.


you are openly condescending of anyone who believes in the bible. you ask christians, who openly say they can't prove God exists, to prove God exists and then you get your chuckles when they can't. You repeatedly talk down to anyone who might possibly believe in all that supernatural nonsense.


you say you get condescending with people who refuse to answer questions about their religion. everyone here is very open with answering questions. you however, want to ask questions that you know do not have an answer and then attack us when we don't answer it.

asking someone to prove God exists is not an unbiased question. asking someone to prove creation is not an unbiased question. all of your questions which lead to your condescending attitude are not actual questions.

habsheaven
05-15-2012, 09:19 PM
just curious, why MUST he have an opinion on the subject. and for that matter why MUST I? you want to tell me that you know I care about the subject when in actuality I don't. I have always felt that the days of creation referred to an amount of time and not a 24 hour day. i don't really care if those amounts of time are millions or billions of years. I wasn't avoiding the question, you just seem to want me to care about something I really don't care about.

Really? Why MUST you and he have an opinion on something written in the book that you both base your lives on? I don't know, because it makes sense. And yes, you were avoiding the question.

also, me saying you have hate and venom is not exactly hate filled speech on my part. sorry.

It's at least as hateful as anything I have said. Of course you wouldn't think so.

you are openly condescending of anyone who believes in the bible. you ask christians, who openly say they can't prove God exists, to prove God exists and then you get your chuckles when they can't. You repeatedly talk down to anyone who might possibly believe in all that supernatural nonsense.

Yes, occasionally I am condescending to people that believe EVERYTHING in the Bible. I have yet to be condescending to anyone that expresses a belief in God. And I haven't asked anyone to prove his existence.

you say you get condescending with people who refuse to answer questions about their religion. everyone here is very open with answering questions. you however, want to ask questions that you know do not have an answer and then attack us when we don't answer it.

Which questions have I asked that do not have an answer?

asking someone to prove God exists is not an unbiased question. asking someone to prove creation is not an unbiased question. all of your questions which lead to your condescending attitude are not actual questions.

I haven't asked anyone to prove either of those things.




Responses in bold.

AUTaxMan
05-15-2012, 10:21 PM
That response must be written down in the handbook they pass out. Regardless of whether or not you CARE, you still must have an opinion on the subject.

What is wrong with that response?

JustAlex
05-15-2012, 10:38 PM
Apparently you haven't read the Bible. Dinosaurs are not mentioned in the Bible.

LOL, so Christians don't believe god created dinosaurs?

I'm guessing the devil placed all those fossils then.


i know this probably doesn't make sense to someone with as much venom toward religion as you do, but at the end of the day, i could care less how old the earth is. my faith in God and not based on my interpretation of genesis 1. religion might be important to many people, but the things that seem to matter to non-christians, aren't usually the same things that are important to christians. Most christians, while curious as to how genesis 1 should be interpreted, are not hung up on it.

OK, then I can see that you don't care if the bible is true or not!

At the end of the day, if Genesis is false then that brings serious implications about the REST of the bible.


I don't really care how old it is. The fundamentals of my faith are not dependent upon the age of the Earth.

Well, when Science destroys the creation myth of Genesis of course you don't care how old the earth is.

Most creationists believe it's between 6,000 - 10,000.

While most Scientist believe it's 4.5 Billion years old.....and they have EVIDENCE to back that up.

Creationists have a book written by MEN 2,000 years ago.

shrewsbury
05-16-2012, 11:16 AM
you seem to think that the old testament is the works we should all be worried about, but as a christian it doesn't mean much.

so if you want to disprove christianity you will have to do more than bring up the dinosaur issue or how long it took for the earth to be created.

we can argue about it all day, and 4 billions years or so would seem to be a reasonable answer.

and how old the earth is is far less important on how it got here and we got here, so lets pull out the science books and see what we got.

and i am sure you could care less about me thinking wiki is not a reliable source, you could care less on just about everything or everyone

duane1969
05-16-2012, 11:16 AM
LOL, so Christians don't believe god created dinosaurs?


Yup, that is what I said. :rolleyes:

JustAlex
05-16-2012, 11:41 AM
you seem to think that the old testament is the works we should all be worried about, but as a christian it doesn't mean much.

Sorry....you CAN'T do that.

Let me explain why:

The ENTIRE premise of Christianity is that Jesus came to earth to save humanity.

What is he saving humanity from?

HELL.

And why do humans go to Hell?

Because they are "sinners" and God doesn't allow "sin" into Heaven?

And last but not least.....how did "Sin" come into the world?

By the forbidden fruit that Eve and Adam ate....AKA "Original Sin"

So, SORRY, you can't say "The OT doesn't mean much", if the OT is wrong then so is the rest of the bible.

This is the ultimate FLAW and therefore the biggest reason why I personally am no longer a Christian.

ANYONE can see that Genesis is not literal.

Therefore, if Genesis is just Allegorical then "Original Sin" is also Allegorical and the dominoes start falling one by one!

shrewsbury
05-16-2012, 11:55 AM
you are so far off it is crazy

you have no idea what christianity means or stands for

and comparing the OT to the NT is so far off it is not even funny

as a christian the OT means nothing

the chance to have a relationship with god is not about trying to get out of burning in hell, paul would be the perfect example of this.

you must have been influenced by some crazy christians to think what you think

JustAlex
05-16-2012, 12:00 PM
the chance to have a relationship with god is not about trying to get out of burning in hell, paul would be the perfect example of this.

OK....please explain to me what OTHER reason would I have to believe in Jesus and God, then not wanting to burn in hell?

John 3:16 sums up ALL of Christianity:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."


Translation - Believe in Jesus if you don't want to burn!


BTW....what part of my interpretation was wrong...please correct me!

habsheaven
05-16-2012, 12:15 PM
Why do they teach stories of the old Testament in Sunday school if it is of no importance to Christianity?

shrewsbury
05-16-2012, 02:25 PM
the same reason we learn about jack and the beanstock, good lessons to learn learned.

it's not about believing it is about discovering, discovering where you come from, discovering your relationship to nature, people, and your god

believing in things that are right, that promote goodness, the issue is we have all messed this up, not god

does god tell anyone to teach the OT is bible school? does god say hey don't let gays marry? does god say science is wrong?

nope, just people doing that

habsheaven
05-16-2012, 04:36 PM
the same reason we learn about jack and the beanstock, good lessons to learn learned.

it's not about believing it is about discovering, discovering where you come from, discovering your relationship to nature, people, and your god

believing in things that are right, that promote goodness, the issue is we have all messed this up, not god

does god tell anyone to teach the OT is bible school? does god say hey don't let gays marry? does god say science is wrong?

nope, just people doing that

That's all well and good, but it begs the question; Why do kids eventually come to realize that Jack and the Beanstalk is a "story" yet grow up thinking Adam and Eve is factual?

AUTaxMan
05-16-2012, 05:31 PM
Why do they teach stories of the old Testament in Sunday school if it is of no importance to Christianity?

Because the OT is, in fact, relevant, both historically and spiritually. I have to disagree with shrewsbury on this one.

AUTaxMan
05-16-2012, 05:50 PM
Well, when Science destroys the creation myth of Genesis of course you don't care how old the earth is.

Most creationists believe it's between 6,000 - 10,000.

While most Scientist believe it's 4.5 Billion years old.....and they have EVIDENCE to back that up.

Creationists have a book written by MEN 2,000 years ago.

I think Genesis and the genealogies of the Bible would put MAN at 6,000 to 10,000 years old, but that doesn't mean the EARTH would necessarily be that old, unless you are taking a literal interpretation of the word "day," which, as we have established, could also have meant "age."

Based on Genesis, I believe the following about the creation:

1. God created everything out of nothing
2. God created the Earth devoid of sin
3. God created Adam from dirt and Eve from Adam
4. Original sin came from Adam and Eve
5. The Earth is really old, but man is very young
6. I believe in dinosaurs

habsheaven
05-16-2012, 06:09 PM
I think Genesis and the genealogies of the Bible would put MAN at 6,000 to 10,000 years old, but that doesn't mean the EARTH would necessarily be that old, unless you are taking a literal interpretation of the word "day," which, as we have established, could also have meant "age."

Based on Genesis, I believe the following about the creation:

1. God created everything out of nothing
2. God created the Earth devoid of sin
3. God created Adam from dirt and Eve from Adam
4. Original sin came from Adam and Eve
5. The Earth is really old, but man is very young
6. I believe in dinosaurs

I am undecided on #1. I can't find any reason to believe #2, #3 & #4. I am with you on #'s 5 & 6.

AUTaxMan
05-16-2012, 06:20 PM
I am undecided on #1. I can't find any reason to believe #2, #3 & #4. I am with you on #'s 5 & 6.

They are matters of faith. It's what Genesis says. You either believe all of them, or you don't believe any of them.

habsheaven
05-16-2012, 06:26 PM
They are matters of faith. It's what Genesis says. You either believe all of them, or you don't believe any of them.

I assume you are talking about 2, 3, & 4, because 1, 5 & 6 do not require any faith at all.

AUTaxMan
05-16-2012, 06:36 PM
I assume you are talking about 2, 3, & 4, because 1, 5 & 6 do not require any faith at all.

Right. 2-4.

JustAlex
05-18-2012, 02:24 AM
Do you know what I find funny about Creationists?

They are willing to accept many THEORIES that science has come up with:

Gravity
Atoms
Germs
Heliocentrism
and several others...

However, once we get to Evolution....it's ONLY a theory, it should NOT be accepted....but why?

Gravity, atoms, germs, etc is not mentioned in the bible....why do Creationists accept these theories and not evolution?

Very simple....Evolution goes against Genesis, that is the ONLY reason why!

Despite the fact that 99.9% of scientists all agree that evolution is true....creationists refuse to accept it because it's in direct contradiction to "god" creating all animals and man in their present form.


The other amazing thing about Evolution is the fact that accepting it doesn't mean that God is not real (Although, like I said, it does go against Genesis).

In other words, YOU CAN BELIEVE IN GOD AND EVOLUTION!

Zimbow
05-18-2012, 05:54 AM
I do have faith in God and do somewhat believe in Evolution.

The word Theory has I think 4 or 5 definitions. Ahh, here they are:

a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.

a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.

Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.

the branch of a science or art (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/art) that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.

a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles: conflicting theories of how children best learn to read.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory?s=t


My apologies for a long reply, I'm at work until 0600hrs EST and it gets boring.



I think that the word Theory is commonly used as fictitious. Scientists use Theory for scientific uses.

shrewsbury
05-18-2012, 09:54 AM
[QUOTE]Gravity
Atoms
Germs
Heliocentrism[QUOTE]

does it say that these are false?

ensbergcollector
05-18-2012, 11:13 AM
justalex - the quick answer is that christians have no problem believing science that is true and proven. if scientists want to hide behind the fact that "we aren't saying evolution is 100% true, we are just calling it a theory" then they have to be open to people not believing it. I believe gravity because i'm not floating right now. science has yet to prove the full scale evolution that people want us to believe.

Star_Cards
05-18-2012, 11:19 AM
I think Genesis and the genealogies of the Bible would put MAN at 6,000 to 10,000 years old, but that doesn't mean the EARTH would necessarily be that old, unless you are taking a literal interpretation of the word "day," which, as we have established, could also have meant "age."

Based on Genesis, I believe the following about the creation:

1. God created everything out of nothing
2. God created the Earth devoid of sin
3. God created Adam from dirt and Eve from Adam
4. Original sin came from Adam and Eve
5. The Earth is really old, but man is very young
6. I believe in dinosaurs

I find it odd that people can't think that it may be possible that we evolved from apes or from single celled organisms millions of years ago but can believe that god created man from dirt.

Star_Cards
05-18-2012, 11:23 AM
Do you know what I find funny about Creationists?

They are willing to accept many THEORIES that science has come up with:

Gravity
Atoms
Germs
Heliocentrism
and several others...

However, once we get to Evolution....it's ONLY a theory, it should NOT be accepted....but why?

Gravity, atoms, germs, etc is not mentioned in the bible....why do Creationists accept these theories and not evolution?

Very simple....Evolution goes against Genesis, that is the ONLY reason why!

Despite the fact that 99.9% of scientists all agree that evolution is true....creationists refuse to accept it because it's in direct contradiction to "god" creating all animals and man in their present form.


The other amazing thing about Evolution is the fact that accepting it doesn't mean that God is not real (Although, like I said, it does go against Genesis).

In other words, YOU CAN BELIEVE IN GOD AND EVOLUTION!

I agree. It is curious. I think most of it has to do with the investment that those people have made into a religion. If it goes against one of their main core systems of belief and what they've been taught most of their life it's hard to be all that objective when it comes to this sort of thing.

Very true. evolution really doesn't mean that you don't believe in a god or even that god didn't create something. I'd think that they could believe that their god just placed the right circumstances on earth for humans to evolve and grow into what we are today.

TyrantsASupremeBeing
05-18-2012, 12:22 PM
using wikipedia as a source reference? highschools and middleschools have even banned wiki

and depending who you ask, there has been not only bones but footsteps of man and dino side by side

and where does the bible say dinosaurs and humans were created together? or are we back to the 6000 year old earth?


I recently seen a program where they showed a dinos footstep OVER a "mans" footstep, now whether he was a Human Man or Alien i cant say.
If it were an Alien, i dont think it would have been barefooted..
I was raised a catholic but after learning the realities of Human evolution, Alien intervention in our evolution, i no longer pray to Aliens
If there is a "GOD", where did "that being" come from & DONT say "it" was always there

tpeichel
05-18-2012, 02:21 PM
I find it odd that people can't think that it may be possible that we evolved from apes or from single celled organisms millions of years ago but can believe that god created man from dirt.

Christians believe in the Resurrection and other Biblical miracles, so why wouldn't they believe in an all-powerful being capable of things no other human could do?

To me it seems more preposterous that a single celled orgranism evolved into humans and that of all the thousands upon thousands of creatures that evolved from single celled organisms, only one, humans, are capable of evil.

Christianity has a very good explanation for why some humans take pleasure in the suffering of others, how does evolution explain that only humans have "evolved" this capability?

Monsterx
05-18-2012, 02:34 PM
Christianity has a very good explanation for why some humans take pleasure in the suffering of others, how does evolution explain that only humans have "evolved" this capability?
It's possible that humans aren't the only beings with that capabiltiy. Possibly, a societal kinda thing.

Star_Cards
05-18-2012, 02:36 PM
Christians believe in the Resurrection and other Biblical miracles, so why wouldn't they believe in an all-powerful being capable of things no other human could do?

To me it seems more preposterous that a single celled orgranism evolved into humans and that of all the thousands upon thousands of creatures that evolved from single celled organisms, only one, humans, are capable of evil.

Christianity has a very good explanation for why some humans take pleasure in the suffering of others, how does evolution explain that only humans have "evolved" this capability?

That's my point. They was to use science to say that there's no possible way we evolved from such simple beginnings and yet they will believe a supernatural being created man from dirt.

I'll take a living organism, even if single celled, evolving into human than a supernatural being creating us from dirt. That's not to say that I know or anyone knows for certain, but it just seems more plausible to me personally.


I have no clue why humans are more capable of certain feelings more so than other animals. If other animals lacked this pleasure in the suffering of others it doesn't really prove anything about creationism vs evolving.

Monsterx
05-18-2012, 02:39 PM
That's my point. They was to use science to say that there's no possible way we evolved from such simple beginnings and yet they will believe a supernatural being created man from dirt.

I'll take a living organism, even if single celled, evolving into human than a supernatural being creating us from dirt. That's not to say that I know or anyone knows for certain, but it just seems more plausible to me personally.




I'm with ya! But the issue I run into is - How was the single cell created? I'm science through and through, with all things, but this eludes me.

Star_Cards
05-18-2012, 03:06 PM
I'm with ya! But the issue I run into is - How was the single cell created? I'm science through and through, with all things, but this eludes me.

It's definitely a classic debate. I'm not all that scientifically versed so I can't really say. I'm sure there are some theories out there as to how a living cell can be started from certain elements and the right conditions. I don't know if that's what's claimed or what evidence there would be to support that. I just know I personally lean to explanations based in reality that we all experience on a daily basis over the supernatural. The supernatural just seems too easy of an explanation. To me the theory of creationism doesn't even try to figure things out. It just goes right to magical, snap of the fingers type of stuff to try to explain.

tpeichel
05-18-2012, 03:09 PM
That's my point. They was to use science to say that there's no possible way we evolved from such simple beginnings and yet they will believe a supernatural being created man from dirt.

I'll take a living organism, even if single celled, evolving into human than a supernatural being creating us from dirt. That's not to say that I know or anyone knows for certain, but it just seems more plausible to me personally.


I have no clue why humans are more capable of certain feelings more so than other animals. If other animals lacked this pleasure in the suffering of others it doesn't really prove anything about creationism vs evolving.

Fair enough. I can see people being skeptical of an all-powerful being that created everything, just as I am skeptical of The Theory of Evolution. If it's been going on all this time, what is the speed of evolution? In theory, evolution is an ongoing process, why do some species seem to have stopped evolving? And as I mentioned previously, how come no other species is evil? Humans were in identical environments as other species, why are they so different?

Star_Cards
05-18-2012, 03:12 PM
Christians believe in the Resurrection and other Biblical miracles, so why wouldn't they believe in an all-powerful being capable of things no other human could do?

To me it seems more preposterous that a single celled orgranism evolved into humans and that of all the thousands upon thousands of creatures that evolved from single celled organisms, only one, humans, are capable of evil.

Christianity has a very good explanation for why some humans take pleasure in the suffering of others, how does evolution explain that only humans have "evolved" this capability?

there are plenty of animals that are capable of evil. for one example... an adult lion will kill off other cubs and then mate with the mother of those cubs they just killed. That seems pretty evil to me. It's not like the male killed the cubs that weren't his for food. He did it for his own reasons.

I don't know if theft is considered evil, but there are lots of examples of theft in the animal world.

Star_Cards
05-18-2012, 03:17 PM
Fair enough. I can see people being skeptical of an all-powerful being that created everything, just as I am skeptical of The Theory of Evolution. If it's been going on all this time, what is the speed of evolution? In theory, evolution is an ongoing process, why do some species seem to have stopped evolving? And as I mentioned previously, how come no other species is evil? Humans were in identical environments as other species, why are they so different?

I think the speed of evolution varies, but is typically very slow. Again I'm no expert so I'm not sure about the rate as which it's proposed that humans evolved to where we are now from whatever we evolved from.

As for the some stopping, I'm not sure exactly. Maybe certain things plateau as they get adapted to things. Maybe they are still evolving but we just can't see it in a generation.

I don't follow the evil thing. Evil exists in the animal kingdom. If nothing else it's more brutal than how humans interact with each other.

Monsterx
05-18-2012, 03:21 PM
there are plenty of animals that are capable of evil. for one example... an adult lion will kill off other cubs and then mate with the mother of those cubs they just killed. That seems pretty evil to me. It's not like the male killed the cubs that weren't his for food. He did it for his own reasons.

I don't know if theft is considered evil, but there are lots of examples of theft in the animal world.

Just throwing this out there for fun, but I know the snakehead fish is regarded as the only freshwater fish that kills and does not eat, just kills to kill.

And great response to my previous question!

tpeichel
05-18-2012, 03:34 PM
Killing by itself is not evil. The killing may occur accidentally or when defending yourself or a loved one.

Now a human torturing another human or animal and taking great pleasure in watching them suffer is pure evil and you don't find it anywhere else in the animal kingdom. A lion killing it's cubs is simply eliminating mating competition. Animals fighting for scarce resources or the best mates is simply survival of the fittest. That's not evil as I see it.

Star_Cards
05-18-2012, 03:40 PM
Just throwing this out there for fun, but I know the snakehead fish is regarded as the only freshwater fish that kills and does not eat, just kills to kill.

And great response to my previous question!

I'm not aware of many fish that kill just for killing, but there have been mammals that do. Also just because a species as whole isn't that known for killing just to kill doesn't always mean that there aren't isolated incidents. There are a lot of humans that don't kill for just to kill.

habsheaven
05-18-2012, 03:43 PM
Killing by itself is not evil. The killing may occur accidentally or when defending yourself or a loved one.

Now a human torturing another human or animal and taking great pleasure in watching them suffer is pure evil and you don't find it anywhere else in the animal kingdom. A lion killing it's cubs is simply eliminating mating competition. Animals fighting for scarce resources or the best mates is simply survival of the fittest. That's not evil as I see it.

How do you know other animals do not kill and torture for the pleasure of it? Obviously they are not telling us their intentions.

Star_Cards
05-18-2012, 03:49 PM
Killing by itself is not evil. The killing may occur accidentally or when defending yourself or a loved one.

Now a human torturing another human or animal and taking great pleasure in watching them suffer is pure evil and you don't find it anywhere else in the animal kingdom. A lion killing it's cubs is simply eliminating mating competition. Animals fighting for scarce resources or the best mates is simply survival of the fittest. That's not evil as I see it.

I've seen some discovery documentaries where it looks as if some animals have just killed for the sport. Heck, house cats have been known to kill for the sport. Attacking a rodent and keeping it alive to play with like a ball of yarn.

I saw a show where they were reintroducing some tigers back into the wild and at some point they showed them both or one (can't remember) running through this creek bed where some gazelles had been, killing multiple gazelles. It's been awhile since I've seen the documentary but I think it killed something like five or six animals within a few minutes and just left them.

theonedru
05-18-2012, 04:04 PM
I have yet to see anyone bring up the whole D.N.A. thing, that kind of hard to repute.

JustAlex
05-18-2012, 04:05 PM
To me it seems more preposterous that a single celled orgranism evolved into humans and that of all the thousands upon thousands of creatures that evolved from single celled organisms, only one, humans, are capable of evil.

Really?

It's more preposterous to say that a self replicating organism evolved over MILLIONS of years rather than God made EVERYTHING out of nothing?

REALLY?!?!

It's more preposterous to say that all animals have a shared ancestor (tree of life) and everything is connected and us humans have found numerous of evidence for this including fossils and DNA itself...rather than "GOD DID EVERYTHING and we have ZERO evidence for it".


Christianity has a very good explanation for why some humans take pleasure in the suffering of others, how does evolution explain that only humans have "evolved" this capability?

Christianity DOES NOT have any good explanations toward anything!

"EVIL"?

Would you say cannibalism is evil....if so, just look at all these animals that preform it:

http://discovermagazine.com/photos/31-cannibalism-the-animal-kingdoms-dirty-little-secret

Of course to animals this isn't "Evil" it's just another form of "survival"!

tpeichel
05-18-2012, 04:09 PM
I've seen some discovery documentaries where it looks as if some animals have just killed for the sport. Heck, house cats have been known to kill for the sport. Attacking a rodent and keeping it alive to play with like a ball of yarn.

I saw a show where they were reintroducing some tigers back into the wild and at some point they showed them both or one (can't remember) running through this creek bed where some gazelles had been, killing multiple gazelles. It's been awhile since I've seen the documentary but I think it killed something like five or six animals within a few minutes and just left them.

There are two parts to it.

The torturer takes pleasure from the torture because they know their subject is suffering. In the case of the cat, the cat treats the mouse like a ball of yarn. To them it is just a toy.

Animals killing animals without eating them could be a number of things. The satisfaction of the kill. Honing their hunting skills. I don't think there are any feelings of enjoyment from the suffering of the victim though.

JustAlex
05-18-2012, 04:09 PM
I have yet to see anyone bring up the whole D.N.A. thing, that kind of hard to repute.

Indeed.

DNA is one of the biggest evidence for Evolution.

"DNA is a long strand of nucleotides which form the genes that make up chromosomes. Scientists compare DNA from living organisms to identify similarities among species. The best explanation for many of the similarities we find is evolutionary common ancestry."


If anyone wants to look further in depth of common decent and how DNA is a great evidence for it, here you go:

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


Side Note: I really LOVE how science has mountains of evidence, facts and good theories to explain many previous unknowns.

tpeichel
05-18-2012, 04:23 PM
Really?

It's more preposterous to say that a self replicating organism evolved over MILLIONS of years rather than God made EVERYTHING out of nothing?

REALLY?!?!

It's more preposterous to say that all animals have a shared ancestor (tree of life) and everything is connected and us humans have found numerous of evidence for this including fossils and DNA itself...rather than "GOD DID EVERYTHING and we have ZERO evidence for it".



Christianity DOES NOT have any good explanations toward anything!

"EVIL"?

Would you say cannibalism is evil....if so, just look at all these animals that preform it:

http://discovermagazine.com/photos/31-cannibalism-the-animal-kingdoms-dirty-little-secret

Of course to animals this isn't "Evil" it's just another form of "survival"!

I can understand your point without you YELLING.

Christianity explains evil in humans quite easily. I get that you don't agree. I'm simply questioning why no other species outside of humans has evolved the capability to enjoy the suffering of others?

habsheaven
05-18-2012, 04:24 PM
I can understand your point without you YELLING.

Christianity explains evil in humans quite easily. I get that you don't agree. I'm simply questioning why no other species outside of humans has evolved the capability to enjoy the suffering of others?

I will ask again. How do you know that?

tpeichel
05-18-2012, 04:32 PM
I will ask again. How do you know that?

The same way we understand any other animal behavior, they can't tell us about any of those either.

JustAlex
05-18-2012, 04:44 PM
Christianity explains evil in humans quite easily.

OK, Explain it to me then.

BTW, just for your information, I used to be a christian for many years and I have read the bible many times.

Also, I find it funny that if "God created everything", that must also mean that God created "evil".

tpeichel
05-18-2012, 05:50 PM
OK, Explain it to me then.

BTW, just for your information, I used to be a christian for many years and I have read the bible many times.

Also, I find it funny that if "God created everything", that must also mean that God created "evil".

If you have studied the bible, you should know that this is a fallen, imperfect world where Christians believe the Devil has significant influence. When the Devil tempted Jesus in the desert and asked Jesus to join him to rule the earth, Jesus refused, but he never said that the Devil did not have the power to make the offer.

In Christianity, evil is simply the Devil exerting influence in this world. And as they say, the Devil's greatest deception is getting so many people to believe he does not exist.

JustAlex
05-18-2012, 06:18 PM
1. Evil: - Something that is a cause or source of harm, misfortune, suffering, injury, or destruction.

2. The Christian god causes harm, misfortune, suffering, injury, and destruction. (e.g. "The Flood", "Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction", "killing of ALL Egyptian first borns", etc.)

3. However, the Christian god is compassionate, fair, just, kind, loving, and morally perfect.

Somehow, I think there's a huge problem with #3.

Here are some "Great" verses:

"The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open." - Hosea 13:16 NIV

^Is this Not Evil?


And here is one of the BIGGEST evidences of God creating evil:

I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things. - Isaiah 45:7 NIV

^Please explain this!!!!

tpeichel
05-18-2012, 10:11 PM
1. Evil: - Something that is a cause or source of harm, misfortune, suffering, injury, or destruction.

2. The Christian god causes harm, misfortune, suffering, injury, and destruction. (e.g. "The Flood", "Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction", "killing of ALL Egyptian first borns", etc.)

3. However, the Christian god is compassionate, fair, just, kind, loving, and morally perfect.

Somehow, I think there's a huge problem with #3.

Here are some "Great" verses:

"The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open." - Hosea 13:16 NIV

^Is this Not Evil?


And here is one of the BIGGEST evidences of God creating evil:

I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things. - Isaiah 45:7 NIV

^Please explain this!!!!

God certainly created a world that allows the existence of good and evil and I think I've made it clear where I believe the source of the evil comes from.

JustAlex
05-18-2012, 11:11 PM
and I think I've made it clear where I believe the source of the evil comes from.

YES, so have I:

I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things. -Isaiah 45:7 NIV

God Created Evil, it's in the Bible, "he" says it himself!

habsheaven
05-18-2012, 11:34 PM
God certainly created a world that allows the existence of good and evil and I think I've made it clear where I believe the source of the evil comes from.

Meaning what? He asked you about passages that CLEARLY show God exhibiting EVIL behaviour.

tpeichel
05-18-2012, 11:38 PM
YES, so have I:

I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things. -Isaiah 45:7 NIV

God Created Evil, it's in the Bible, "he" says it himself!

OK.

I'm not sure how your argument does anything to disprove my contention that Christianity, not evolution, has a way to explain how only the human species has the capacity to take pleasure in the suffering of others.

habsheaven
05-19-2012, 12:19 AM
OK.

I'm not sure how your argument does anything to disprove my contention that Christianity, not evolution, has a way to explain how only the human species has the capacity to take pleasure in the suffering of others.

Where does Christianity explain that other species cannot take pleasure in the suffering of others?

theonedru
05-19-2012, 12:36 PM
Where does Christianity explain that other species cannot take pleasure in the suffering of others?

Look at crows for instance, crows can mourn the death of another, they can avoid areas where they have experienced traumatic events. They can problem solve, create and use tools. If an animal can be intelligent to do this then why can't they pleasure in the suffering of others........

shrewsbury
05-19-2012, 12:38 PM
it's fine not to believe in god, but why attack those that do?

boba
05-19-2012, 01:32 PM
it's fine not to believe in god, but why attack those that do?

Seriously. In the last week or two it seems like attacking Christians is all this P R forum is. We even have people who don't even seem to care about cards come on just to bash Christianity. I'm done with this forum.

ensbergcollector
05-19-2012, 02:47 PM
it's fine not to believe in god, but why attack those that do?

i'll save them the time

"no one is bashing anyone. all anyone is doing is asking questions."


yeah, i have slowed my participation lately and have been thinking very strongly about abandoning completely. once upon a time we were able to have religious threads where people disagreed and were polite about it.

problem is, the very people who are extremely rude and condescending don't think that they are.

JustAlex
05-19-2012, 03:59 PM
Seriously. In the last week or two it seems like attacking Christians is all this P R forum is. We even have people who don't even seem to care about cards come on just to bash Christianity. I'm done with this forum.

That's it?

You're just going to run because you believe we (Non-believers) are bashing you?


i'll save them the time

"no one is bashing anyone. all anyone is doing is asking questions."


yeah, i have slowed my participation lately and have been thinking very strongly about abandoning completely. once upon a time we were able to have religious threads where people disagreed and were polite about it.

problem is, the very people who are extremely rude and condescending don't think that they are.

We present FACTS, EVIDENCE and logical Theories!

You present FAITH....that's it!

When we question your bible and the fallacies in it, you think we are "bashing" you guys?

NO.....we just don't accept things on faith, we want evidence!

THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU GUYS!

If this was a courthouse you guys would lose the case by a mile.

If I tell a judge I saw an alien I have to present evidence of my claim.

However, you guys are telling the judge to "believe and have faith" that God is real.....with absolutely NO EVIDENCE!


We tell the judge evolution is true and here is our facts and evidence to back it up.

guess who will win this case?

The person with evidence.....or the person with ZERO evidence?

If you think this is "Bashing" then you are severely WRONG!

boba
05-19-2012, 04:14 PM
Case and point ^:wave:

ensbergcollector
05-19-2012, 04:16 PM
That's it?

You're just going to run because you believe we (Non-believers) are bashing you?



We present FACTS, EVIDENCE and logical Theories!

You present FAITH....that's it!

When we question your bible and the fallacies in it, you think we are "bashing" you guys?

NO.....we just don't accept things on faith, we want evidence!

THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU GUYS!

If this was a courthouse you guys would lose the case by a mile.

If I tell a judge I saw an alien I have to present evidence of my claim.

However, you guys are telling the judge to "believe and have faith" that God is real.....with absolutely NO EVIDENCE!


We tell the judge evolution is true and here is our facts and evidence to back it up.

guess who will win this case?

The person with evidence.....or the person with ZERO evidence?

If you think this is "Bashing" then you are severely WRONG!

guess what. this isn't a court of law. you ask for proof from people who acknowledge they believe on faith then you are picking a fight.

you joined this website to basically attack christianity. that has been your entire contribution to this site.

no one here has tried to convince anyone of anything. we have answered questions and given our opinion. you and a few others have replied with:

what about this? huh? huh? what about that, and this? huh? (insert bolded sentences and exclamation points.)


of course you don't think it is bashing because you are the one doing it. and you come across as someone who thinks that whatever you think or say must be correct. so, naturally you think this has been a calm and mature conversation. guess what, it hasn't. of your 200ish posts, less than half could even be considered calm and rational conversation.

Zimbow
05-19-2012, 05:18 PM
In the words of Rodney King;

"Can't we all just get along?"

JustAlex
05-19-2012, 05:57 PM
guess what. this isn't a court of law. you ask for proof from people who acknowledge they believe on faith then you are picking a fight.

Do you understand what the purpose of a discussion is?

It's to DISCUSS!

It's NOT to agree with everyone and simply "circle jerk", it's to bring up ARGUMENTS and back them up with opinions, facts, and evidence.

I'm not picking a fight with ANYONE, if you're going to say I believe this and that, then I'm going to ask WHY, and I'm going to pressure you to bring up a GOOD reason why.


no one here has tried to convince anyone of anything. we have answered questions and given our opinion. you and a few others have replied with:

what about this? huh? huh? what about that, and this? huh? (insert bolded sentences and exclamation points.).

Yes, those are called arguments, like I said, we require EVIDENCE and FACTS.

Let's say we were discussing Albert Pujols and why he has been slumping so much.

The only way we could discuss this is by presenting the FACTS of why Pujols is struggling.

Sure we can bring up "Opinions" but I can also COUNTER those opinions with facts and say "YOU ARE WRONG!"

Would you think this is "bashing"?

Of course not!

But because some people want to say "this is my religion, leave me alone", that's not good enough and that's not the way a discussion/argument is won.

ensbergcollector
05-19-2012, 06:05 PM
Do you understand what the purpose of a discussion is?

It's to DISCUSS!

It's NOT to agree with everyone and simply "circle jerk", it's to bring up ARGUMENTS and back them up with opinions, facts, and evidence.

I'm not picking a fight with ANYONE, if you're going to say I believe this and that, then I'm going to ask WHY, and I'm going to pressure you to bring up a GOOD reason why.



Yes, those are called arguments, like I said, we require EVIDENCE and FACTS.

Let's say we were discussing Albert Pujols and why he has been slumping so much.

The only way we could discuss this is by presenting the FACTS of why Pujols is struggling.

Sure we can bring up "Opinions" but I can also COUNTER those opinions with facts and say "YOU ARE WRONG!"

Would you think this is "bashing"?

Of course not!

But because some people want to say "this is my religion, leave me alone", that's not good enough and that's not the way a discussion/argument is won.

again, you are asking for evidence and facts when it comes to religion. we are very open and saying i believe based on faith, not evidence. for you to continue to demand evidence is picking a fight.

you keep talking about what it takes to win and argument or win in a court of law. no one here is trying to win anything except you. you are trying to prove how wrong religion is and prove how smart and right you are.

again, you joined a sports web site just to call out christians on a sub-forum. i wonder very much how you stumbled upon this forum.


like you said you require evidence and facts. really? you are asking for evidence and facts where there are none. for you to keep demanding them is badgering and ridiculous. again, you joined a sports card website just to pick fights with christians.

JustAlex
05-19-2012, 06:26 PM
again, you are asking for evidence and facts when it comes to religion. we are very open and saying i believe based on faith, not evidence. for you to continue to demand evidence is picking a fight.

No, I'm not picking a fight.

Let's talk about evolution.

Many times in this thread creationists posted that Evolution is "Just a Theory"....later I said, Yes, Gravity is also "just a theory".

Later I brought up links and photos of Transitional fossils....these are evidence of evolution and yet creationists still refuse them and continue going back to the bible.

Why is it fair for you guys to use "FAITH" and say "Stop fighting with us"....but when we use actual evidence you will not accept them and continue to say that your religion is right.

Either way, you're doing the same thing you're accusing me of doing.


you keep talking about what it takes to win and argument or win in a court of law. no one here is trying to win anything except you. you are trying to prove how wrong religion is and prove how smart and right you are.

The Court of law argument was simply an analogy, and maybe I shouldn't have said "win an argument".

I fully know that trying to "win" an argument is nearly impossible.

I should NOT have said it that way, I was Wrong...


again, you joined a sports web site just to call out christians on a sub-forum. i wonder very much how you stumbled upon this forum.

I already answered this question before.

I'm a HUGE sports fan and I'm a collector....ask me anything you want on any of the major sports I'll give you my opinion on it using any and all knowledge that I have about it, and guess what, even for sports arguments, I'll still use facts and evidence to back up my position.


like you said you require evidence and facts. really? you are asking for evidence and facts where there are none. for you to keep demanding them is badgering and ridiculous. again, you joined a sports card website just to pick fights with christians.

Do you see what this particular thread is about?

It's about Evolution, once someone mentions the bible and religion I have no choice but to ask for proof for their position.

Just like someone demands proof for evolution and I'm VERY HAPPY to give them any and all evidence that science has found.

If you want to refute those findings with religion....is that fair?

Is it fair to say "You can't ask for evidence for my faith, but I can criticize your position with my religion"

How is that fair?

shrewsbury
05-19-2012, 07:00 PM
the great thing is you haven't proven anything except you claim to know about the bible and it is obvious you do not.

you want proof of god but you have little proof of anything you present

gravity?

well do you know there are different views on gravity and in fact einstien says it isn't even a real force, but it is space pushing us against earth not gravity pulling us into it.

so you can pretend to know science has all the answers but really it is full of great and not so great hypothesis, not definite answers.

you can't even agree on how we evolved, if we did, but yet evolution is fact.

you are on some quest to destroy something you cannot and your new found love of science has blinded you into seeing only one side of things.

eistien was agnostic not an atheist perhaps you could learn something from him

JustAlex
05-19-2012, 07:15 PM
the great thing is you haven't proven anything except you claim to know about the bible and it is obvious you do not.

I do know the Bible and unlike millions of Americans who claim to be christian and yet have never read the bible, I have...


you want proof of god but you have little proof of anything you present

Yeah OK....I guess all those links I posted about transitional fossils and when I discussed about DNA...that wasn't proof?


you can't even agree on how we evolved, if we did, but yet evolution is fact.

All scientists are in agreement that Evolution is true, they are all in agreement that life has diversified over millions of years and share a common ancestor.

The Evidence to back up this claim include fossils, DNA, vestigial organs, natural selection, etc.

Now....what is it that we can't agree on???


you are on some quest to destroy something you cannot and your new found love of science has blinded you into seeing only one side of things.

I don't want to destroy anything.

And Science hasn't blinded me, it has done the opposite, it has made my mind clearer by questioning everything and not accepting things on faith but rather objective evidence!

The sole purpose of Science is knowledge!


eistien was agnostic not an atheist perhaps you could learn something from him

I don't care what Einstein was....he could've been a muslim for all I care!

The only thing I take from Einstein is that his theories worked and he literally changed the physics world.

shrewsbury
05-19-2012, 07:26 PM
so then tell me how all scientist say we went from quadraped to bipedal?

considering there are multiple hypothesis for this transition the choice is up to you, but if you agree with the aquadic does that mean the rest are false? if so, why don't all "scientists" agree on it?

you want to argue general scientific principles but yet cannot supply any hard facts for their basis.

fossils? so i don't beleive in fossils or dinosaurs because i am a christian?
tell me where the life force came from that created the life needed to evolve, show me the proof of this, it is then you will finally meet god and realize he is a science geek too.

and because you read something does not mean you understand it nor posses the skills to debate it.

JustAlex
05-19-2012, 07:48 PM
so then tell me how all scientist say we went from quadraped to bipedal?

OK, so I'm not a biologist, my knowledge is limited, but I will try my best:

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

g1lHbCyZWt4

Basically it just took MILLIONS of years and natural selection for humans to go from Chordates to Tetrapods to Mammals and so on...


tell me where the life force came from that created the life needed to evolve, show me the proof of this, it is then you will finally meet god and realize he is a science geek too.

You are talking about Abiogenesis:

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

And although Abiogenesis is not as concrete as Evolution at the moment it's the best we've got.

It might take many years before we fully understand how "Life came to happen".

Right now, it's an "Unknown" but that doesn't mean we automatically say "God did it".....basically this is the "God of the gaps" fallacy.


and because you read something does not mean you understand it nor posses the skills to debate it.

Yes, I know.

That's why it takes time to study and fully understand things.

I was a Christian for many years (more than 15) and funny enough I was just like you.

Until I took time and looked at the evidence that science presents and it was OVERWHELMING, everything I thought was true was shattered.

It took YEARS for me to "De-convert" from christianity....I didn't want to accept Evolution and science.

But at the same time, I couldn't ignore the evidence and facts, that's what finally killed my belief in the bible.

JWinn
05-19-2012, 08:16 PM
Look at crows for instance, crows can mourn the death of another, they can avoid areas where they have experienced traumatic events. They can problem solve, create and use tools. If an animal can be intelligent to do this then why can't they pleasure in the suffering of others........

Just to throw this out there;

Some Bottle-nosed Dolphins are known to kill for sport, and play with the small mammals they kill, such a infant seals.

It's like watching a soccer game. They toss it back and forth, and never consume it.

It's a sign of their intelligence.

My family went swimming with Dolphins at the Hilton on the Big Island of Hawaii, and I got into a big argument with the girl who took us into the pool. I was trying to point out how smart they are, and that again, it was a sign of their intelligence, but she didn't want to hear anything that made her "pets" seem bad.


Also, I have seen crows mourn the death of companions myself. They are indeed very intelligent, and learn from experiences. When I go outside with my pellet gun, they hit the road, FAST. When I don't, they stick around & taunt me. lol

They know exactly what the pellet gun is......

shrewsbury
05-19-2012, 11:12 PM
really, you didn't answer anything and you are still using wikipedia as your source?!

the funny thing is you think you know more about science than someone who is a christian, just because they say they are a christian.

you are looking from the outside in and it looks pretty nice but come in side, get down low and take a look at the floor and corners where the dirty stuff is hidden from view.

JustAlex
05-19-2012, 11:42 PM
really, you didn't answer anything and you are still using wikipedia as your source?!

YES I'm still using wikipedia as my source!!!

BTW I'm one of the FEW people on here that actually bothers to post links, videos and sources.

Why don't you give me any sources to back up your position???

Or are they all going to be from "Answers in Genesis.org"

And I clearly said I'm NOT a biologist, the only way I can respond to your question is to post sources!

I also posted a very informative video on Human evolution....did you bother to see it??


the funny thing is you think you know more about science than someone who is a christian, just because they say they are a christian.

Did I ever say I know more science than a christian?

NO, I DIDN'T!

However, I'm inclined to believe that I DO know more science than you, for one thing YOU reject evolution when 99.9% of the Scientific community says it's true.

I am also able to understand the basic principles of Evolution, and I'm not making baseless comments about whether or not we have "hard evidence".

You don't think Transitional fossils is "hard evidence"?

When you see how much the Human skull has changed in the past 4 million years....that's HARD EVIDENCE!!!

JustAlex
05-20-2012, 12:08 AM
More informative videos on Evolution:

7w57_P9DZJ4

MCayG4IIOEQ

FnzmxeZJeho

shrewsbury
05-20-2012, 12:16 AM
evolution and human evolution are two different things. and when did i say i did not believe in it?

you still have yet to tell me why your "hard science" that agrees on so much cannot agree on the very thing that helped us evolve.

a couple of bone fragments does not equal proof of human evolution, there are so many holes, such as the hobbits of flores, science cannot explain it all and it is only people like you who think they do.

when the first dna gene sequence was ran the scientist who accomplished it said he now believes in god. but that's not hardcore science enough for you

JustAlex
05-20-2012, 12:47 AM
evolution and human evolution are two different things. and when did i say i did not believe in it?

How can you believe in evolution but not human evolution, that doesn't make much sense...


a couple of bone fragments does not equal proof of human evolution
There's A LOT more than just a "couple of bone fragments"...

Did you see the video I posted about Human evolution, that shows many evidence for it.

Seriously, if you really are interested in finding answers, watch the video it's only about 10 minutes.


when the first dna gene sequence was ran the scientist who accomplished it said he now believes in god. but that's not hardcore science enough for you

Please show me where you heard this, I would like to see it for myself.

Seeing as DNA is actually evidence for evolution and common decent....I find this hard to believe.

shrewsbury
05-20-2012, 01:41 AM
do some research, but here are a few quotes



Francis Collins, the director of the US National Human Genome Research Institute, claims there is a rational basis for a creator and that scientific discoveries bring man "closer to God".




According to Collins, "One of the great tragedies of our time is this impression that has been created that science and religion have to be at war. I dont see that as necessary at all and I think it is deeply disappointing that the shrill voices that occupy the extremes of this spectrum have dominated the stage for the past 20 years." Collins plans to share his experiences in a book, due out this summer, titled The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.

Random chance cannot account for the complex design of DNA. It is statistically and mathematically impossible. In the last 30 years, a number of prominent scientists have attempted to calculate the odds that a free-living, single-celled organism, such as a bacterium, might result by the chance combining of preexistent building blocks. Harold Morowitz calculated the odds as one chance in 10100,000,000,000 (ten to the one hundred billionth power). Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the odds that just the proteins of an amoebae arising by chance as one chance in 1040,000 (ten to the forty thousandth power). The odds calculated by Morowitz and Hoyle are staggering. Think of it this way, the chances of winning the state lottery every week of your life from the age of 18 to 99 are better than the odds of a single-celled organism being formed by random chance. The probability of spontaneous generation is about the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard could assemble a 747 from the contents therein. It is impossible. The evidence all points to the unavoidable conclusion that we not the product of chance or evolution, but the result of intelligent design.

theonedru
05-20-2012, 01:55 AM
Francis Collins, the director of the US National Human Genome Research Institute, claims there is a rational basis for a creator and that scientific discoveries bring man "closer to God".

Which God does it bring us closer to? So many to choose from..........

JustAlex
05-20-2012, 02:24 AM
OK, this is what I found about Francis Collins:

"Collins remains firm in his rejection of intelligent design, and for this reason was not asked to participate in the 2008 documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, which tries, among other things, to draw a direct link between evolution and atheism. Walt Ruloff, a producer for the film, claimed that Collins was "toeing the party line" by rejecting intelligent design, which Collins called "just ludicrous"


BTW....you seem to miss the point of Evolution...

I clearly posted in this same thread the following:

YOU CAN BELIEVE IN GOD AND EVOLUTION!

And clearly Francis Collins has chosen to accept Evolution and Believe in God.

Quite frankly, I'm perfectly fine with that!

JustAlex
05-20-2012, 02:37 AM
BTW.....there's also this about Francis Collins and Evolution.

34p3kKwKIEQ

U_0qy6U-Rtk

Zimbow
05-20-2012, 03:18 AM
Wait, so if 99.9% of scientists support evolution, where is the .1%? Just doesn't make sense to have so much evidence on something that is overwhelming and not have 100% of a group into it. Is the .1% special or just different?

JustAlex
05-20-2012, 03:28 AM
Wait, so if 99.9% of scientists support evolution, where is the .1%? Just doesn't make sense to have so much evidence on something that is overwhelming and not have 100% of a group into it. Is the .1% special or just different?

There will ALWAYS be a group of people that deny facts and evidence, for example:

There are several people around the world that deny the holocaust actually happened, one of the most notable is Ahmadinejad (President of Iran).

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

Why do they deny something which there is overwhelming facts and evidence for?


Then you have all the conspiracy theorist who believe we never went to the moon, JFK was killed by the FBI/CIA/Communists/aliens....and of course the 9/11 conspiracy people.

Zimbow
05-20-2012, 03:33 AM
I agree with you on the 3rd line down. At the same time I have faith in God, I won't throw the good book around and try to swing others beliefs. As for the conspiracy theories, I believe we did the moon and that's probably it. The others are for a later discussion, if ever.

TheNati97
05-20-2012, 09:52 AM
all these quotes of scientist calculating absurd odds of dna happening randomly means nothing, unless you believe that there is nothing outside of this solar system. i for one think that the universe as a whole is so massive it could happen randomly ten to the one hundred billion times over and we still would not know about it.

habsheaven
05-20-2012, 11:56 AM
all these quotes of scientist calculating absurd odds of dna happening randomly means nothing, unless you believe that there is nothing outside of this solar system. i for one think that the universe as a whole is so massive it could happen randomly ten to the one hundred billion times over and we still would not know about it.

Odds are a funny thing. When that "one thing" happens, the "odds" that it might happen really mean nothing.

shrewsbury
05-20-2012, 03:12 PM
Odds are a funny thing. When that "one thing" happens, the "odds" that it might happen really mean nothing.

agreed

habsheaven
05-20-2012, 07:05 PM
Just to throw this out there;

Some Bottle-nosed Dolphins are known to kill for sport, and play with the small mammals they kill, such a infant seals.

It's like watching a soccer game. They toss it back and forth, and never consume it.

It's a sign of their intelligence.

My family went swimming with Dolphins at the Hilton on the Big Island of Hawaii, and I got into a big argument with the girl who took us into the pool. I was trying to point out how smart they are, and that again, it was a sign of their intelligence, but she didn't want to hear anything that made her "pets" seem bad.


Also, I have seen crows mourn the death of companions myself. They are indeed very intelligent, and learn from experiences. When I go outside with my pellet gun, they hit the road, FAST. When I don't, they stick around & taunt me. lol

They know exactly what the pellet gun is......

Coincidentally, the "Nature of Things" on CBC is showing their program about crow's intelligence right now.

TheNati97
05-20-2012, 09:03 PM
Christians believe in the Resurrection and other Biblical miracles, so why wouldn't they believe in an all-powerful being capable of things no other human could do?

To me it seems more preposterous that a single celled orgranism evolved into humans and that of all the thousands upon thousands of creatures that evolved from single celled organisms, only one, humans, are capable of evil.

Christianity has a very good explanation for why some humans take pleasure in the suffering of others, how does evolution explain that only humans have "evolved" this capability?


or maybe we are the only ones who can express an opinion on what one considers evil. at risk of sounding like an idiot what is evil in your book? examples welcome.

1of23
05-20-2012, 09:22 PM
what is your definition of evolution?

JustAlex
05-20-2012, 09:32 PM
what is your definition of evolution?

This was the very first post to this thread, I responded with the following:

Evolution: is any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations.

JWinn
05-20-2012, 10:44 PM
Coincidentally, the "Nature of Things" on CBC is showing their program about crow's intelligence right now.

Hopefully, that will come around down here so I can watch it. I love that stuff.

Sorry to everyone to be off topic.....

sublime420
06-03-2012, 12:45 AM
This country is still pretty backwards, just depends on how you look at it.