Religious/Evolutionary Debate Thread

[Evil_Cope]

Though this might be in some way relavent.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4204021.stm

 

[QUALTHWAR]

If you want to know about that stuff, look up John Bowlby and Attachment Theory.

To say that we only want to be comforted is quite Freudian; he basically supposed that our motives were entirely selfish. Theory has advanced a lot since then. Infants use their mother as a secure base from which to explore, increasing their range as they grow.

IMO, the meagre mental and physical capacities we possess as children make us dependent upon adults. Our desire for growth and development pushes us toward independence, our desire for love pushes that back to an equitable situation of interdependence. Dominance/submission behaviour often pushes that back into dependence.

My own take on the womb thing is that evil takes and is equated with darkness, whereas good gives and is equated with light and love. We can never go back to the womb (Though consumerism seems to aspire to a state of total paralysis, where all of our capacities and skills have been outsourced to purchasable objects), and as an adult with the capacity to care for ourselves, there are few things more unsatisfying and humiliating for a person than to be entirely cared for and supported by others when they don't need to be.

This goes along with what you’re saying and I posted about this before, but the standardized view of heaven and hell seem suspicious. Many people seem to think of heaven as being “up there” somewhere, and hell as being “down there.” Heaven has nice stuff, maybe even fluffy clouds, while hell has fire.

The clear, blue skies were just that; clear and blue. On the other hand, the earth is dirt and mud and lava and who knows what all is way down deep?

How convenient for people to associate heaven with the sky and beyond and hell with burning lava and evil, fiery things.

 

[QUALTHWAR]

Though this might be in some way relavent.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4204021.stm

Right. Now if we can just place Rosie O'Donald on the evolutionary chain somewhere, we'd have something.

 

[Evil_Cope]

woah there, Q. that's crazy talk.

Rosie o donnel didn't *evolve*, they grew her.

 

[ViSion]

It doesn't impose anything on you accept offer discovered evidence to explain certain things about nature. Many..MANY years ago, before we knew about atoms and the sub-atomic level, your "logic" would try to say the same thing.

Why should a factual statement be considered criticism? Is it because there is a perception that I subscribe to a certain viewpoint? I did not just make up the law of thermodynamics. What is missing is a source and the pursuit of an answer should be with a motive of obtaining a truth. Though, pure science, should not have built in preconceived biases. Unfortunately it would be hard to deny that evolutionist and paleontologists for the most part view present day existence to be devoid of or built on any premise of Intelligent Design. This premise omits a factor, it is fair to say from this stand point alone it is not pure science which is in play here. As a scientist, to discount intelligence in a form which cannot be perceived according to present knowledge is counter intuitive. Since most scientific principles or laws began as a hypothesis to begin with. Which should mean there should be plenty of room to make adjustments within the scope of the hypothesis as points are either confirmed, deemed inconclusive, or erroneous. If this process is truly followed there would not be so much mistrust between oppositionists. An abundance of evidence is deliberately presented in a legalese fashion instead of just coming to the point.

As far as the theory of evolution not imposing anything this is an erroneous statement. It is a pervasive theory taught in schools as a truth which teaches by mere content there is no GOD. Now evolutionists may not view this as a problem. But there are whole other groups who do not subscribe to this doctrine. For most of them the problem is not that it taught the problem lies in it being taught as a truth. Is there one account where a hardened criminal heard the theory of evolution and changed his life? Now there are countless testimonials on how on hearing the word and the love of GOD numerous men have changed their lives for the better.

I'm willing to accept a religious viewpoint on this matter, but you are going about it the wrong way.

I am not sure if you read all my posts but why should I offer you something I do not subscribe to? I have offered proof from biblical teachings, but as you state below you want physical stuff. Turn metaphysical into physical? That is interesting let me ask you can you prove you love someone in physical terms?

Instead of dictating stuff the bible says...go for more physical stuff. Anyone can read stuff out of the bible, that doesn't make it anything more than a collection of stories and parables. Present something real. That's what the evolutionists like Qualthwar are doing. That's what you do in a debate, support your claims.

Like Q said, you seem more interested with putting more cited content into your posts than a convincing point of view.

True, but I think Qualthwar knows damn well that not all religions follow the bible. But the Christian religions tend to fall back on the bible alot when all else fails, you are an example of that.

I did, it has been ignored. If you are suggesting that I keep repeating myself? OK, no problem. I actually have been proclaiming in black and white what the Bible states. The reason being is, what I am addressing has been taken out of context to which I am replying to. I also offered secular historic evidence. The best that could be done with it in a way of a response was some coarse rhetoric. I backed up a statement that I made with the quotes of eminent evolutionists and by a miracle of someone else's post they mysteriously converted to creationists. Your suggestions on conducting my arguments are appreciated, but slightly one sided. Not only are the questions arising from a particular perspective, but am I now to understand that my answers are not admissible, relevant, or correct unless they take on a physical form?

What is the point of having a debate if one side is allowed to make claims against a particular reference and the other side is refrained or precluded from using the same reference from which the original claim in sued; whether said claim was true or false, to address said claim? Why should one continue and argue a point, if the basis of that point was incorrect in the first place? In an open forum an individual should be able to build the foundation on which their arguments will ultimately stand or fall on.

So you want physical, no problem:

Now this analogy may be overly simplistic but it should get the point across. Say an individual has been given the task to traverse the streets of mid-town Manhattan in NY on foot and likewise Dallas TX. Manhattan is designed on a grid and streets are sequentially numbered North and South and numbered Avenues likewise East and West. While Dallas has named streets which loop, and they themselves are encircle by other loops and travel in every abstract direction possible and change names nearly every other block. An individual may be situated on the corner of any given street. Hand them an address in Manhattan that is three miles from their current location. They should be able to reach their destination within an hour to an hour and a half with no further assistance just the address. Apply the same scenario to Dallas, and it is a genuine possibility that it may take days to arrive at their destination. Why because one was logically designed and it is built on principles to which laws can be applied (in other words it represents order). While the other was situated in a hap hazard manner which you cannot apply laws to (in other words Chaos). They are both built from the same materials. What is significant is the process by which they came to exist in their current state and what can be derived from that state. One could easily come to the conclusion that one city was built with forethought, while the other was just strewn together as an after thought.

Let us take a look at a modern computer for a moment granted it is not an organic organism but for comparative purposes it should work. Should all the elements necessary to assemble and produce a computer be compressed into a mass then exploded. Would it be logical to presume in a few billion years computer life would have evolved or to presume an intelligent designer would be able to create processes in which a computer could be manifested?

Also, take a minute to look at the word natural as it relates to life as we know it. Natural is used to show a perceived constant that is merely taken for granted. Take breathing for instance, we breathe oxygen, our atmosphere is made up of oxygen so we live, no problem. Well actually there is a problem there is a balancing act going on here plants produce oxygen but consume carbon dioxide, Humans consume oxygen and produce carbon dioxide as a by product. So to say it is natural does not paint the whole picture it is actually based on cause and effect and mutual dependence to some degree at times. Then you need subsystems to deliver the carbon dioxide and oxygen to the cells which will utilize them, which creates another dependency. Back to the computer analogy no one who has an understanding of how a computer works would say it is natural for a computer to perform calculations on the probability of life occurring spontaneously. A program would have to be written specifically to account for all the possible variables.

Defining evolution or rather the competing theories might be a good idea at this point

1. Organic Evolution: the theory that all living things have arisen by a materialistic, naturalistic evolutionary process from a single source which itself arose from a dead inanimate world.

The Smithsonian Institute in Washington D.C. has defined evolution in this manner:

Evolution is the concept that species change through time. Over millions of years small changes accumulate to become large differences, new species, arise others die out. Rates of change very greatly, and directions of change are unpredictable.

The competing theory is defined as:

2. Creationism: the theory that all basic animal and plant types were brought into existence by acts of a creator using special processes which are not operative today.

The Cambrian stratum provides us with the largest cache of fossils found at any layer. But it only records distinct species there are no visible morphologies. Like wise from the Vendian Period to Cambrian there are no morphologies. Yet these two periods represent the greatest transition in the evolutionary chain despite a massive extinction at the end of the Vendian Period. Considering the bounce back life had to make and the relatively short period of time it had to do so, every major grouping of life has been found in the Cambrian layer including vertebrates. Spores attributed to terrestrial plants have been found in Precambrian and Cambrian rocks in the Baltic.



So where or what happened to the transitional species from the Precambrian to Cambrian strata? These were the first two layers they should be here considering this is where it all started. Before the Cambrian period, almost all life was microscopic except for some enigmatic soft bodied organisms. At the start of Cambrian, life came into being at a rate never since equaled.

Now onto the next fascinating thing that happens. Reportedly in the: Vendian Period, Cambrian Period, Devonian Period, Permian Period there are mass extinctions. In the Permian Period alone it is said ended with largest mass extinction. Trilobites go extinct, as do 50% of all animal families, 95% of all marine species, and many trees.

Here's the part that really leaves me with a quandary with no less than four mass extinctions preceding it and a minor extinction in it (Triassic period ends with a minor extinction 35% of all animal families die out, including labyrinthodont amphibians, conodonts, and all marine reptiles except ichthyosaurs) the Triassic period then gives birth to the largest land creatures known to man.

So where or what happened to the transitional species from the Permian period to the Triassic period and Jurassic period? If we were charting this out on a graph lows = extinctions, spikes = life forms, there would be an almost imperceptible spike, then the highest recorded spike followed by relatively nominal upward spikes in between four major lows a minor low then the large spike in history (in terms of size of species) followed by two minor lows in the same period in the Cretaceous Period we have another minor low and a major low from which point it seems more so periods of spontaneous-evolution are taking place in contrast to what is being touted. Completely new series of species are appearing, and replacing extinct species as opposed to a continued evolution.

Next large mammals and primitive primates, Mammals abound. Rodents appear. Oligocene starts with a minor low. Many new mammals (pigs, deer, cats, rhinos, tapirs appear). Grasses common, more mammals, including the horses, dogs and bears. Modern birds; South American monkeys, apes in southern Europe, Ramapithecus, First hominids (australopithecines) and Modern forms of whales. Megalodon swam the seas the first humans (Homo sapiens) evolve, mammoths, mastodons, saber-toothed cats, giant ground sloths, and other Pleistocene megafauna. A major extinction of large mammals and many birds is claimed to have happened about 10,000 years ago.

Evolution implies a progressive changing succession of interspecies but the history of earth alone denies that to be a truth. What I mean here is with so many extinctions it should be easier to qualify the history of evolution not harder. For only a mere percentage of existing life should have moved onto new strata allowing for clearer distinctions between old and new life and transitional life. Most of that new life should be in the upper portions of the new strata considering the proposed length of time needed for life to evolve. Consequently there should be no problem in identifying transitional species.

What definitive test is there for deducing a specimen is a transitional species as opposed to being a distinct extinct species? Why have extinct species not re-evolved? There should have been more genetic information for what already was, instead of producing, yet another unknown with no transitions.

Consider the dinosaurs for some odd inexplicable reason there is massive explosion in size and type of life in the evolutionary timeline right after one of the worst mass extinctions, why? Just what did they evolve from? Conversely would a weaker or weakened mutation spawn a stronger species and what has been the catalyst for so many mutations?

Interdependencies and symbiosis present an interesting conundrum, even if somehow within the span of time that has existed overlooking the figures given on the probability for even a simple protein to produce itself (not with standing what is known of ribosomes). That is just the beginning of the problems evolution faces not the solution. On the one hand you have an environment that has spawn a myriad of life forms. If someone were asked, to reflect on and review the history of earth and to deduce its purpose, what would their answer would be? And on the other hand it is supposed to be some aberration of nature.

No it isn't. Not at all. The bible WAS used to confuse and control alot of the civilized world's population for quite some time. And it still is. Is it so hard to believe that it was written to do just that in the first place? I mean, using your OWN arguement, sometimes the most basic answer is correct.

Science doesn't do that. Toss up of theory is what it is all about, and that alone gives me greater "faith" in science than something that is so allergic to change. Science doesn't exclude, remove, enslave, or murder to support its theories. Religion does.

I mostly agree here. People are responsible for their own actions. But the bible WAS used by bad men to control and terrify primitive people who didn't know any better. It was an alternative tool in carving some of the darker parts of Human history but a tool nonetheless.

As to the Bible being a moral guide or document is not in question here. It is the art of confusion and subterfuge and propaganda, perpetuated by the acts of man that is. If you use a hammer to pound a nail it is being used for the purpose in which it was created for. If you kill someone with a hammer no one blames the hammer. It is user who facilitated the act of murder. I do not know what period of time you are referring to but I am sure if you actually research the issue you would find that various religions have used their doctrines and dogma to control and confuse people. They may have done so under the auspicious of it being Biblically based but that does not make it so. A classic example of this would be the Holy Roman Catholic Church, the Dark Ages, and the Reformation.


Another major biblical misconception is people have been quick to point out that GOD condoned the killing of people as though it was by some arbitrary selection or lottery. These people were sacrificing people including infants and boiling them in their mother’s milk and eating them. Even by today’s morality this is unacceptable behavior and would be condemned and sanctioned. Yet these examples are used to show that the Bible supported violence.

So when you say “Religion does.” Let us clarify religion by defining it:

religion
• noun 1 the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. 2 a particular system of faith and worship. 3 a pursuit or interest followed with devotion.

It can be easily said many a person follows the theory of evolution with interest and after reading most of this thread quite a few people here are devoted to its principles. Naturalism and Atheism are nothing new Darwin just decided to quantify them under pseudo scientific observation. There is no science lab where you can prove that in 600 million years man can evolve from nothing.

It is easy to say all scientists who do not agree to the theory of evolution are quacks but it is quite another thing to prove it.

So science is not allergic to change, well I have seen plenty of blind faith going on here with ample resistance to change. Even elementary math teaches 0+0=0.

Obeying six out of ten of the moral laws will keep you from breaking mans law or getting killed for acquiring something which does not belong to you. Typically it is only the first four that oppositionists have a problem with. For that matter GOD himself is reported to only have written three things himself and if a life adhered to just those it would be in harmony with its existence.

A pagan or paganism derives its negative connotation because it is readily identified with idolatry and Satanism. Though, a pagan is simply defined as a person holding religious beliefs other than those of the main world religions. Christianities main rival for the number one spot is Satanism. But how does focusing on one word in a post, deny that those evolutionists were representing their ideology in philosophical and religious terms instead of scientific revelation?

Faith is not fact either. Does your faith have a fossil record? Does is have physical evidence that is at least trying to get to an explanation without just giving up and saying "it has to be an Invisible man in the clouds. Its obvious!"

What scientists do have is a vast catalog of discovered remains and fossils that very well support the theories propose by evolution. We have covered this whole "both sides lack real proof" thing but the fact remains that, in terms of evidence that supports possible REALITY based hypothesis, Evolution is owning Religion.

Can it be proven faith is not a fact? As for the fossil evidence I have covered some of that already. But we can take another look at it. I have a question for you though.

If I understand this correctly under the Theory of Evolution proposes life evolved from simple to complex forms over the geological ages depends on the geological ages of the specific rocks in which these fossils are found.

The rocks are assigned geological ages based on the fossil assemblages which they contain.

The fossils, in turn are arranged on the basis of their assumed evolutionary relationships.

Thus, the main evidence for evolution is based on the assumption of evolution.

In other words, the reason the rocks are old is because of the fossils in them are old. The reason the fossils are old is because of the rocks they are contained in are old.

So my question is how is this not circular reasoning?

A pristine geological column is found only one place on earth and that place would be in a science text book. The complete geological column lithologies; can only be found in 1% of the total land mass of the Earth, and of that 1% only finding less than 8-16% of the expected mass of the column. There is no scientific basis or president for any hypothesis based on so little evidence to be used as a reference; it remains just that a hypothesis as it has.

Also as you stated scientist possess plenty of evidence, so logically with so much evidence there should be no problem in presenting a concrete case with proof for their assumptions of evolution, but they have not.

I just have one last question. Have you ever contemplated the world around you and all the evil that is going on and observed that something is just not right? These things should just not be happening; it just does not make sense. I know, I have and unfortunately the Bible says an enemy has done this, truer words I am yet to hear. Looking back in time it is almost too easy to say these events seemed to have been orchestrated.

All I can add to this is that the Bible states this enemy has lost. And by simply accepting redemption you can look forward to a world without sin. This hope, you can either accept or reject, it is up to you. Evolution, just chalks it up to chance, well there is a chance evolution is wrong. If it is a decision between chance and the love of a Supreme Being, after all how powerful is just man? What can be conceived in his mind that he can not do? I will side with love, if mans mind is so powerful how much more so the mind of GOD?

There ARE other people supporting Evolution besides Qualthwar. You could try NOT to ignore our statements and go with the target you can attempt to discredit the easiest without offering a a better solution.

MY original post was pretty much an open and general post #592. I did make a reference to Qualthwar but my intent was not to single him out, I meant what I said. From this post Zarkazm offered nothing more than a sarcastic remark in respect to my grammatical usage. FrostBlood and Qualthwar posted replies all of which I responded to in kind. As now I am also responding to your post.

Here is an alternative solution:
http://www.aish.com/societywork/sciencenature/Age_of_the_Universe.asp

 

[QUALTHWAR]

....still waiting for my question to be answered....

 

[Cat Fuzz]

....still waiting for my question to be answered....

You just wanted post #666.

 

[GoAt]

....still waiting for my question to be answered....

wich one? rofl

 

[Mister_Prophet]

Man I hate being dragged back into threads that have been inactive for weeks. I can't even remember where most of my comments that you quoted were directed to, but I'll respond anyway. I appreciate you answering me, even though it was way after I cared. But ok, I'll reply

Since most scientific principles or laws began as a hypothesis to begin with. Which should mean there should be plenty of room to make adjustments within the scope of the hypothesis as points are either confirmed, deemed inconclusive, or erroneous. If this process is truly followed there would not be so much mistrust between oppositionists. An abundance of evidence is deliberately presented in a legalese fashion instead of just coming to the point.

Science is readily adjusted, that's what I meant earlier. In my experience with both, it's always been the science side which has been accepting of criticism.

As far as the theory of evolution not imposing anything this is an erroneous statement. It is a pervasive theory taught in schools as a truth which teaches by mere content there is no GOD. Now evolutionists may not view this as a problem. But there are whole other groups who do not subscribe to this doctrine. For most of them the problem is not that it taught the problem lies in it being taught as a truth. Is there one account where a hardened criminal heard the theory of evolution and changed his life? Now there are countless testimonials on how on hearing the word and the love of GOD numerous men have changed their lives for the better.

What is erronous is when you make it seem like evolution as taught in schools is an attempt to stamp out the God theory. The reason the whole V.s. Arguement gets in the way is because both ideas contradict one another. But when I was taught about the theories of evolution in highschool (and in college) it was always presented as just that. A theory. It was never taught to me as FACT, like religion was. Perhaps you've had evolution imposed on you...but I doubt it. Not in this country anyway. Evolution has always been offered to me as "an alternative explaination that also has it's share of holes, but you don't have to buy into it...it's just something to think about, m'kay?"

And as for people saying GOD has changed their lives for the better, yeah I'm not doubting that. But I don't think it's actually GOD making them change, it's the idea they are clinging to that gets them along. That is clearly a human dependance on something that can support them and hold them up when nothing else works. At least, this is how it looks to me. But these people you say have had their lives changed...alot of them are a$$holes. In fact, almost every single born again christian I have ever met in real life is a pretentious bigot. They can seem all nice until you tell them you're gay....and geez, those Jesus rants they force me into are boring as hell. Also, alot of people just proclaim their lives changed to get out of trouble. Funny you mention that whole criminal finding GOD thing...cus I read an article a few years ago about this child molester who was in jail for guess what, and when his parole hearing came up he gave this heart warming speech about how GOD changed his life. He said he had seen the error of his ways and with the help of faith he was going to turn his life around and all that good stuff.

He was released. Then he raped and murdered some little boy. I wish I had saved that article.

My point is, that whole arguement is not only futile to this "debate", but it has nothing to do with creationism vs evolutionism. And the reason you don't hear anyone saying evolution changed their lives is because (assuming you live in the States like I do) this is a religious society where saying you have faith can get you out of trouble, out of jail, and even make you President of the United States.

I am not sure if you read all my posts but why should I offer you something I do not subscribe to? I have offered proof from biblical teachings, but as you state below you want physical stuff. Turn metaphysical into physical? That is interesting let me ask you can you prove you love someone in physical terms?

I did, it has been ignored. If you are suggesting that I keep repeating myself? OK, no problem. I actually have been proclaiming in black and white what the Bible states. The reason being is, what I am addressing has been taken out of context to which I am replying to. I also offered secular historic evidence. The best that could be done with it in a way of a response was some coarse rhetoric. I backed up a statement that I made with the quotes of eminent evolutionists and by a miracle of someone else's post they mysteriously converted to creationists. Your suggestions on conducting my arguments are appreciated, but slightly one sided. Not only are the questions arising from a particular perspective, but am I now to understand that my answers are not admissible, relevant, or correct unless they take on a physical form?

What is the point of having a debate if one side is allowed to make claims against a particular reference and the other side is refrained or precluded from using the same reference from which the original claim in sued; whether said claim was true or false, to address said claim? Why should one continue and argue a point, if the basis of that point was incorrect in the first place? In an open forum an individual should be able to build the foundation on which their arguments will ultimately stand or fall on.

So you want physical, no problem:

Now this analogy may be overly simplistic but it should get the point across. Say an individual has been given the task to traverse the streets of mid-town Manhattan in NY on foot and likewise Dallas TX. Manhattan is designed on a grid and streets are sequentially numbered North and South and numbered Avenues likewise East and West. While Dallas has named streets which loop, and they themselves are encircle by other loops and travel in every abstract direction possible and change names nearly every other block. An individual may be situated on the corner of any given street. Hand them an address in Manhattan that is three miles from their current location. They should be able to reach their destination within an hour to an hour and a half with no further assistance just the address. Apply the same scenario to Dallas, and it is a genuine possibility that it may take days to arrive at their destination. Why because one was logically designed and it is built on principles to which laws can be applied (in other words it represents order). While the other was situated in a hap hazard manner which you cannot apply laws to (in other words Chaos). They are both built from the same materials. What is significant is the process by which they came to exist in their current state and what can be derived from that state. One could easily come to the conclusion that one city was built with forethought, while the other was just strewn together as an after thought.

Let us take a look at a modern computer for a moment granted it is not an organic organism but for comparative purposes it should work. Should all the elements necessary to assemble and produce a computer be compressed into a mass then exploded. Would it be logical to presume in a few billion years computer life would have evolved or to presume an intelligent designer would be able to create processes in which a computer could be manifested?

Also, take a minute to look at the word natural as it relates to life as we know it. Natural is used to show a perceived constant that is merely taken for granted. Take breathing for instance, we breathe oxygen, our atmosphere is made up of oxygen so we live, no problem. Well actually there is a problem there is a balancing act going on here plants produce oxygen but consume carbon dioxide, Humans consume oxygen and produce carbon dioxide as a by product. So to say it is natural does not paint the whole picture it is actually based on cause and effect and mutual dependence to some degree at times. Then you need subsystems to deliver the carbon dioxide and oxygen to the cells which will utilize them, which creates another dependency. Back to the computer analogy no one who has an understanding of how a computer works would say it is natural for a computer to perform calculations on the probability of life occurring spontaneously. A program would have to be written specifically to account for all the possible variables.

Defining evolution or rather the competing theories might be a good idea at this point

1. Organic Evolution: the theory that all living things have arisen by a materialistic, naturalistic evolutionary process from a single source which itself arose from a dead inanimate world.

The Smithsonian Institute in Washington D.C. has defined evolution in this manner:

Evolution is the concept that species change through time. Over millions of years small changes accumulate to become large differences, new species, arise others die out. Rates of change very greatly, and directions of change are unpredictable.

The competing theory is defined as:

2. Creationism: the theory that all basic animal and plant types were brought into existence by acts of a creator using special processes which are not operative today.

Ok you do realize you post alot of stuff just to make a small point. It really is alot to scroll through.

Look I am not trying to make this a one sided arguement. Like I said earlier, I consider myself a middle man who is taking into consideration both points. I have about equal knowledge of both sides, otherwise it would be stupid for me to even bother posting. But you keep saying you have proof. That you are giving me proof. And I'm saying your "proof" lacks anything that really disputes any of the claims made by the evolutionist posters. You talk alot about science (you have alot to say) but reading your posts you don't even really seem like you support creationism at all. You sound like you should be in the middle with me.

Look it is late where I am and I honestly lost most of my interest in this thread...so I may have missed something when I read your thread. But I don't see where you are going with the above quoted stuff. You are saying stuff, but you weren't really saying stuff.

So where or what happened to the transitional species from the Precambrian to Cambrian strata? These were the first two layers they should be here considering this is where it all started. Before the Cambrian period, almost all life was microscopic except for some enigmatic soft bodied organisms. At the start of Cambrian, life came into being at a rate never since equaled.

Ok this is the first part of your post that really constitutes as a Creationism vs Evolution arguement. Basically you're calling into the question the whole transitional period thing. And I tend to agree that there are alot of holes in these eras. I also think that there are some things alive today that do appear as if they could be the missing link, as long as you know the facts and are willing to consider it.

Someone asked earlier somewhere about "what happened to the transitional ape men?" Well look, we have found remains of prehistoric man when he wasn't quite man and not quite ape. Someone mentioned Lucy, and one of you guys were quick to dismiss it. But uh, sorry...the Lucy thing is very real. The bones found are different than both man and ape skeletal structure. Qualthwar elaborated this really well in an earlier thread piece that you guys haven't commented on yet. You can shake your head at the differences as "small things" but those little things are actually pretty important. The ability to stand upright, to see farther, better leg and arm balance, larger cranial mass (not neccessarily in the Lucy skeleton). They have preserved bodies of human beings in almost total exactness of the present day people, but even those bodies show the smallest of possible evolutionary changes.

Look at the apendix. An organ that early man used to need to break down crude foods, like mud or sand. Over time we lost the need for it. We know what it was used for and we know that over a long period of time we changed and no longer required the organ as we once did. Ever have your apendix burst as a kid? They would take it out and you would live the rest of your life normally. This is such a basic example of what COULD very well be evolution in effect RIGHT NOW.

The apendix alone is more physical evidence of (possibly) evolution than anything any creationist has said in this thread. Even with all your good informative chat (and don't think it isn't appreciated) can you think of one equally physical thing for the creationists side?

But back to missing links in the fossil record...Even if you don't buy the Lucy thing and the Apendix thing, there are other examples. They exist. They are more evolutionist ideas occuring in the present day than in any fossil. Take two alike pairs of animals and put them on opposite parts of the globe. In a short hand span of years they will...(assuming both survive and breed)...will have very noticeable physical differents. One might have white feathers for a artic environment while the other brown. Even longer period of time goes past and you may consider them different species.

Look at the Llama and Camel. Two closely related organisms that some scientists say may have both evolved from the same predecessor. Is it really far fetched? Is this really a lack of proof in comparison to creationism?

Even if you don't buy it, these changes exist and denying them is like saying the Holocaust didn't happen and the world is flat. Even if it isn't quite evolution, it's still science...and creationism is still coming up with squat.

Here's the part that really leaves me with a quandary with no less than four mass extinctions preceding it and a minor extinction in it (Triassic period ends with a minor extinction 35% of all animal families die out, including labyrinthodont amphibians, conodonts, and all ma rine reptiles except ichthyosaurs) the Triassic period then gives birth to the largest land creatures known to man.

So where or what happened to the transitional species from the Permian period to the Triassic period and Jurassic period? If we were charting this out on a graph lows = extinctions, spikes = life forms, there would be an almost imperceptible spike, then the highest recorded spike followed by relatively nominal upward spikes in between four major lows a minor low then the large spike in history (in terms of size of species) followed by two minor lows in the same period in the Cretaceous Period we have another minor low and a major low from which point it seems more so periods of spontaneous-evolution are taking place in contrast to what is being touted. Completely new series of species are appearing, and replacing extinct species as opposed to a continued evolution.

Maybe we have found them. Smaller lizards became larger lizards. Maybe we haven't found them yet. It is no secret that some things are missing, but what is known is that some things have.

Something everyone on both sides overlook in the whole crocodile thing. We have found the remains of crocodiles as far back as the Triassic period, or maybe the Jurassic. That means they were there when dinosuars were there. Or at least larger specimens were, they've gotten smaller. We have alot of other reptillian organisms alive on the planet today. How about the bird thing? It isn't as bleak a theory as you make it appear.

I'm not saying it's perfect, but there is so much crap we don't know about our own planet yet...how do you make the leap from a system that does make sense of it and... despite alot of holes...does have some evidence supporting it, to a system that puts a an invisible man in the clouds and bases it on an arguement that doesn't have a single shred of physical weight?

I just have one last question. Have you ever contemplated the world around you and all the evil that is going on and observed that something is just not right? These things should just not be happening; it just does not make sense. I know, I have and unfortunately the Bible says an enemy has done this, truer words I am yet to hear. Looking back in time it is almost too easy to say these events seemed to have been orchestrated.

Here is where you loose and go totally off topic. So I will go off topic as well. This is a big problem I think is going on in the world..when we should be acting smarter about these things. It's easy to be confused in dark times, but giving up and saying "it's because of evil" is totally bad and very dangerous. I don't believe in evil. I believe in the human abilty to do terrible things. When you forget, even for an instant, that we're all human...you fail. You can give me the most treacherous person in human history and I will defend to the death the arguement that he is not evil. He is probably a sick son of a bit<h, but he is not evil. When you look at the world in terms of good and evil, you are looking at it in black and white. And all the bad things that have happened in human history happened because of people who suffer from this blindness. And I'm not referring to just religion, thought it's part of it.

But Orchestrated? Look, this isn't the Matrix. Yes, there is an enemy. But the bible is fingering the wrong one. When you start blaming an evil man who lives in a lake of fire for all the world's problems...then the real bad guys win.

 

[oosyxxx]

Even if you don't buy it, these changes exist and denying them is like saying the Holocaust didn't happen and the world is flat.

r u telling me u got da stonez to say you disagree with MEL GIBSUNZ DAD?

btw THE PASHUN warms my heart and then my pants when i pee in it

 

[QUALTHWAR]

This question:

My beliefs are based in logic. I will give you an example: Let’s say you have a tube that you’re supposed to drop a marble into and it’s supposed to come out at the bottom of an apparatus and ring a bell. That’s the goal. This apparatus is Plexiglas and you can look inside and see a labyrinth of tubes going in all sorts of directions. The tube the marble drops into connects ambiguously to these other tubes, and these tubes connect ambiguously to other tubes and so on. There are 100 tubes coming out the bottom of this thing and you are supposed to pick the tube the marble will come out of and adjust the bell so it sits in front of the correct tube so the marble rings the bell as it exits.

You have 50 scientists who have run repeated experiments with this apparatus and they tell you the marble will come out of tube number 22. For argument sake, let's say none of these scientists believe in a god. They tell you they have repeated the experiment 112,327 times so far and each time the marble has come out of tube 22, without exception. These scientists show you their results that they’ve kept track of.

Now you have 50,000 Christians with one leader. Let’s call this leader Jim Jones, or Bob for all I care. Now Jim has carefully looked over this apparatus and carefully followed the tubing paths and concluded that the marble will exit from tube number 78. He convinces everybody by showing them why he has come to his conclusion. One-by-one, he takes his Christian friends over to the device, walks them through his reasoning, and they all become convinced that he is correct.

Your job is to decide who to believe. You have 50,000 people who are adamant that the marble will exit tube 78, even though they base their findings on blind faith. Then you have 50 scientists who have repeated the experiment 112,327 times and they showed you their results and tell you they’ve concluded the ball will exit tube 22. You want to talk about hypothesis? I don’t see a problem with accepting an educated guess compared to just a guess.

What are you going to do? Are you going to place the bell in front of tube 22, or tube 78?

 

[GoAt]

Q, you should know better that presenting an argument in scientific format for a christian or anyone of faith will get not get a logical response

 

[QUALTHWAR]

It's a simple question. There is no trick to it. It's one marble dropping into a device and it comes out somewhere on the other end; much like a child's toy would do.

If these people cannot honestly answer the question, what does that say about their ability to be open and honest with themselves and others?

 

[GoAt]

the answer is the same. faith.

they have faith that if they lead a good life they will go to heaven.

faith can be compared to gambling. gamblers have faith that they will win. (and yes. the lottery is gambling)

 

[ViSion]

I apologize for the length of time I it took to respond but I have a full calendar. However thank you for replying. I will try to keep this short.

What is erronous is when you make it seem like evolution as taught in schools is an attempt to stamp out the God theory.

That is not what I stated; there was nothing erroneous about my statement, you are drawing that conclusion. It is not my fault if what you stated is a reality.

But when I was taught about the theories of evolution in highschool (and in college) it was always presented as just that. A theory. It was never taught to me as FACT, like religion was.

Well maybe things are different where you grew up, as for me I received a hefty dose of evolution starting with Elementary School. Not that I find that to be a problem I am capable of doing my own research and I have taught my own children to do the same. All I am saying for some it is and like it or not they are entitled to their opinion. If you are saying it is not being taught as fact cool, but watch, just about any PBS documentary or program on the subject and see if they do not present it as being factual.

Currently, how about the science textbooks in Georgia? Their books did not address evolution as a theory.
This was taken from the associated press. “The school district just north of Atlanta approved the stickers after more than 2,000 parents complained the textbooks presented evolution as fact, without mentioning rival ideas about the beginnings of life.”

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/13/evolution.textbooks.ruling/

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=411519

Just for the record and so this does not become an issue I am in agreement to the separation of church and state.

But these people you say have had their lives changed...alot of them are a$$holes. In fact, almost every single born again christian I have ever met in real life is a pretentious bigot. They can seem all nice until you tell them you're gay....and geez, those Jesus rants they force me into are boring as hell. Also, alot of people just proclaim their lives changed to get out of trouble. Funny you mention that whole criminal finding GOD thing...cus I read an article a few years ago about this child molester who was in jail for guess what, and when his parole hearing came up he gave this heart warming speech about how GOD changed his life. He said he had seen the error of his ways and with the help of faith he was going to turn his life around and all that good stuff.

He was released. Then he raped and murdered some little boy. I wish I had saved that article.

I could not agree with you more. These people are living a lie but I doubt very much Christians have the market cornered in this respect. My point is simply this, just because some one proclaims to be something does not make it so, if they are not acting in accordance with its prescribed principles. That is not what they are, plain and simple. An individual should not be considered a murderer if he never murdered anyone, that would be an unjust classification. Likewise someone who is considered a Saint should not be considered as such if they do murder someone.

My point is, that whole arguement is not only futile to this "debate", but it has nothing to do with creationism vs evolutionism.

It was not meant to; it was in response to your statement on evolution not imposing anything on anyone. Any studies out there on how little Johnny is socially affected by believing his great ancestors were apes. Who in turn were derived from nothing? The evolutionary theory is not wholly and purely science as I have stated and shown. Maybe this bears repeating evolution is far from being a new concept it has at its root naturalism and atheism.

And the reason you don't hear anyone saying evolution changed their lives is because (assuming you live in the States like I do) this is a religious society where saying you have faith can get you out of trouble, out of jail, and even make you President of the United States.

This is just indicative of how feeble the field for the presidency can be. Not wanting to turn this into a political debate, but can you really blame anyone for not wanting to vote for a guy who changed his position every time you looked around?

You talk alot about science (you have alot to say) but reading your posts you don't even really seem like you support creationism at all. You sound like you should be in the middle with me.

What I am advocating is a position of truth, not truth as one presumes or based on biases.

Look it is late where I am and I honestly lost most of my interest in this thread...so I may have missed something when I read your thread. But I don't see where you are going with the above quoted stuff. You are saying stuff, but you weren't really saying stuff.

My point is really simple the universe and world we live in is built on certain constants to which laws and principles can be applied to. Showing that they are regulated and there are boundaries in which they cannot cross. What we have before us in every field of science is order in a magnitude to assume no logic was used in its construction is an absurdity.

My second point is you can have an intellectual debate without bringing two tons of unnecessary baggage with it. Example; after reading most of the posts here it was apparent or at least it seemed to me this thread was more about proving there was no GOD as opposed to a creation vs. evolution thread. That is why I phrased my first post the way I did.

My third point is you have some individuals who have posted posts which only have shown how childish they can appear to be, and how mentally deprived it seems they are of having one cognizant thought of their own, let alone a reasonable argument. But I am yet to view a post which asks these none contributors. To either put up or shut up.

The fourth point I would like to make clear is the reason it took me so long to present an argument relating to this thread is because: 1. this thread has gone off in multiple directions not directly related to the thread topic. 2. A considerable amount of the information that has been posted here either by deliberate means or just a sincere lack of knowledge has been misrepresented. 3. Well I have already covered biases, conjectures, and supposition, no need to revisit.

Ok this is the first part of your post that really constitutes as a Creationism vs Evolution arguement. Basically you're calling into the question the whole transitional period thing. And I tend to agree that there are alot of holes in these eras. I also think that there are some things alive today that do appear as if they could be the missing link, as long as you know the facts and are willing to consider it.

Holes this is the premise on which Darwinism is built let me reiterate. Before the Cambrian period, almost all life was microscopic except for some enigmatic soft bodied organisms. At the start of Cambrian, life came into being at a rate never since equaled. These were distinct species that came into being. There were no transitions, period. And that is a scientific fact. This is not a hole; the foundation of Darwinism is built on an erroneous premise. So much so, ergo the need for Neo Darwinism arose.

The apendix alone is more physical evidence of (possibly) evolution than anything any creationist has said in this thread. Even with all your good informative chat (and don't think it isn't appreciated) can you think of one equally physical thing for the creationists side?

The latest I have report I read concerning the appendix was showing it to be tied to the immune system. Following is a link it is not the original report I am citing unfortunately it was something I read in passing while searching for other information. But it may prove informative.

http://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/immune/immune1.htm

Further more as I understand it natural selection is built on the premise that the strong survive and the weak die off in simple terms. In other words those which survive are genetically superior to that which has died off. This should translate to there being less genetic disorders in any given species. Well here is one of those amusing tidbits; the Bible presents man as declining physiologically from a perfect state. What does modern science have to say about this discrepancy?

Since 1966 mutations (human type) have been cataloged under the medical term, genetic disorders. The catalogs, Mendelian Inheritance In Man, in the 1960’s gathered what was known from the periodical and monograph literature. Subsequent catalogs reported new genetic disorders as they appeared in the medical journals. The process required continual revisions and these were reported with the newly emerging disorders. For example, for January 2002 the report was “83 New Entries, 680 Changed.” The New Entries are the new genetic disorders and the Changed are the revisions. The analyses in this report were made on the New Entries, the new genetic disorders, the new human mutations.

The actual data shows that genetic disorders doubled every 13 years through the sixties, seventies and eighties. In the nineties, genetic disorders doubled in about half the time, every seven years. That is a remarkable acceleration in the appearance of new genetic disorders. Beyond any doubt, the trend is devolution and extinction, the exact opposite of the evolutionist claim that the dominant life form will perfect itself forever like a biological perpetual motion machine.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=OMIM

But uh, sorry...the Lucy thing is very real. The bones found are different than both man and ape skeletal structure. Qualthwar elaborated this really well in an earlier thread piece that you guys haven't commented on yet. You can shake your head at the differences as "small things" but those little things are actually pretty important. The ability to stand upright, to see farther, better leg and arm balance, larger cranial mass (not neccessarily in the Lucy skeleton). They have preserved bodies of human beings in almost total exactness of the present day people, but even those bodies show the smallest of possible evolutionary changes.

I never stated he did not have a point when he stated as presented here “The ability to stand upright, to see farther, better leg and arm balance, larger cranial mass (not necessarily in the Lucy skeleton).” but these characteristics as they stand are all and well fine; though they do not prove genetically this species was an ancestor to man. The case as it stands now is just another of many extinct species. Add to this going back to Lucy not withstanding what you have stated. I offered references which disputed Lucy I did not just dismiss her. I just made a remark based on what I knew of her. Then again; how can a 100% conclusion be derived at when 60% of the skeletal evidence is missing?

But back to missing links in the fossil record...Even if you don't buy the Lucy thing and the Apendix thing, there are other examples. They exist. They are more evolutionist ideas occuring in the present day than in any fossil. Take two alike pairs of animals and put them on opposite parts of the globe. In a short hand span of years they will...(assuming both survive and breed)...will have very noticeable physical differents. One might have white feathers for a artic environment while the other brown. Even longer period of time goes past and you may consider them different species.

Look at the Llama and Camel. Two closely related organisms that some scientists say may have both evolved from the same predecessor. Is it really far fetched? Is this really a lack of proof in comparison to creationism?

Even if you don't buy it, these changes exist and denying them is like saying the Holocaust didn't happen and the world is flat. Even if it isn't quite evolution, it's still science...and creationism is still coming up with squat.

From your own perspective here your position on evolution is; there are some holes, along with a hefty amount of possibilities and probabilities. This does not constitute scientific fact and it is not science what you have here is speculation, not facts.

Creation has squat? 1. I have shown that man is degenerative in opposition to what evolution postulates. 2. There is no fossil evidence showing evolution from a single cell to complex organisms. 3. The Laws of Thermo Dynamics shows that the cosmos are themselves are an argument against evolution. 4. male and female reproductive organs 5. According to Charles Schuchert the rate of deposition is about one foot every 2000 years or 1.2 inches every 200 years or 0.006 of an inch per year. Not too much covering up going on here. 6. fossilized fish especially sharks. 7. Reptilian transitions to mammals.
8. Natural predators without which there would be imbalances that could annihilate other species such as: the rabbit in Australia, the mongoose in Jamaica. 9. Symbiosis:

Perhaps the best documented case of symbiosis is the one involving the anemonefishes of the genus Amphiprion (Pomacentridae) that dwell among the tentacles of tropical sea anemones. The latter animals are capable of stinging most fishes, but the anemonefishes possess a special mucous coating that somehow prevents the discharge of the anemone's stinging cells. Both partners apparently benefit from the relationship. The fish is protected from predators by the stinging cells and the anemone, in turn, is guarded against anemone-eating fishes by its highly territorial fish occupants.

The Egyptian Plover bird and the crocodile. You might think that if a bird
landed in the mouth of a crocodile, the crocodile would eat it. Well, not the
Egyptian Plover bird. Egyptian Plovers and crocodiles have a unique
symbiotic relationship. Because crocodiles can’t use dental floss, they get food stuck in their teeth. All that food rots their teeth and probably causes them some pain. When a crocodile feels the need for a good tooth cleaning it will sit with its mouth wide open. The Egyptian Plover bird recognizes this invitation, and if one is nearby it will fly into the mouth of the crocodile, eat the food stuck in its teeth, and fly away. The plover gets a meal and the crocodile gets a valuable tooth cleaning: they both benefit.

The relationship between the porter crab and its anemone is the most intimate, the anemone actually growing with the crab!

Termites cannot themselves digest the wood that they consume. Instead they rely upon symbiotic protozoans in their intestines to digest cellulose for them, absorbing the products of the protozoan symbionts for their own use. This relationship is one of the finest examples of symbiosis among animals.

The genus Yucca is one of the most remarkable groups of flowering plants native to the New World. It includes about 40 species, most of which occur in the southwestern United States and Mexico. Although they are often associated with arid desert regions, some species are native to the southeastern United States and the Caribbean islands. What truly sets this genus apart from other flowering plants is their unique method of pollination: A specific moth that is genetically programmed for stuffing a little ball of pollen into the cup-shaped stigma of each flower. Like fig wasps and acacia ants, the relationship is mutually beneficial to both partners, and is vital for the survival of both plant and insect. In fact, yuccas cultivated in the Old World, where yucca moths are absent, will not produce seeds unless they are hand pollinated.

More on fossils before coelacanths were caught, evolutionists incorrectly believed the coelacanth had lungs, a large brain, and four bottom fins about to evolve into legs. Evolutionists reasoned that the coelacanth, or a similar fish, must have crawled out of a shallow sea, filled its lungs with air, becoming the first four-legged, land animal. Millions of students have been taught that this fish was the ancestor of all amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, and mammals, including people.

Before 1938, evolutionists dated any rock containing a coelacanth fossil as at least 70,000,000 years old. It was an index fossil. Today, evolutionists frequently express amazement that coelacanth fossils look so much like captured coelacanths—despite more than 70,000,000 years of evolution. If that age is correct, billions of coelacanths would have lived and died. Some should have been fossilized in younger rock and be displayed in museums. Their absence implies that coelacanths have not lived for 70,000,000 years.

But Orchestrated? Look, this isn't the Matrix. Yes, there is an enemy. But the bible is fingering the wrong one. When you start blaming an evil man who lives in a lake of fire for all the world's problems...then the real bad guys win

Well that is not what I was alluding to, but then again when some one says they know the Bible I take them at there word. There has been no shortage here of attempting to show that the Bible is responsible for the evil actions of men, so it is not off topic, there has already been a president set. Even in your last post you hold out a murderous social miscreant as though he is a poster child for Christianity. Here is another thing I find curious when GOD was being held responsible for the evil acts of men outside of Reign and me no one seemed to have a problem with that. Now I mention the evil one and I am living in matrixville. The Bible does not point to Satan as the only source of evil just the origin, matter of fact the Bible states not to even worry about him, that is not what we have to worry about it is what is in our own hearts, that is or can be our worst enemy. My point was with all the harmony that is around us evil is not normal and evolution does very little to help anyone understand it.

 

[Evil_Cope]

Even if you didn't have the wrong end of the stick on most of the theory of evolution, you present only arguments that Evolution is flawed.

You cannot prove creationism by disproving one other theory.

 

[Mister_Prophet]

In short, what Cope said above is exactly how I feel in a nutshell.

I don't have time for a long post. But just to touch on some stuff:

1. I agree that Evolution has it's flaws, but it has something. As Q said, a well educated guess is better than a shot in the dark.

2. If I implied that I felt in any way that GOD was too blame for human evil, that wasn't my intention. I can't blame something I don't think exists. I can only blame it as an idea that is twisted by man. That goes for Satan and the other stuff. That's what I meant.

3. You are right, a 60% complete fossil is not a perfect specimen, but accurate "guesses" have been made on less. I saw this show on real life CSI labs where they had a cheek bone and a portion of a human skull from a severed head in an old murder case. The Skull was missing about 80% complete. Using delicate tools and sophisticated science reconstruction, they managed to produce a head mold of what they thought the victim might have looked like. Using that they managed to snag hold of an almost exact mirror image of the victim through old case records and missing persons (as well as contacting the family). Aside from facial hair, structurally it looked exact, even to race. And the estimated body size (height/weight) was pretty close too.

so when you really get into it scientifically with all the crap they can do nowadays, how inaccurate is 60% anyway?

 

[GoAt]

disproving somthing does not make your theory right

 

[QUALTHWAR]

...

Vision, or Reign, Kid Chaos, or whatever you want to call yourself, I stopped this debate train with you because your posts are like a big budget movie with a plot that goes nowhere.

I was looking to see if you responded to my question in that sea of mania, but didn’t see any response. Maybe you did answer my question and I missed it. However, the word coelacanth caught my eye and you said something like: If that age is correct, billions of coelacanths would have lived and died. Some should have been fossilized in younger rock and be displayed in museums. Their absence implies that coelacanths have not lived for 70,000,000 years.

I must be missing your point. We knew about coelacanths long before we found a real one because of the fossil record. Are you saying the only coelacanth fossils that are found are in rock that’s 70 million years old? If so, are you admitting the earth is at least 70 million years old?

You know, I hear bible bangers go on about how the earth was created a little over 6000 years ago, on October 26, at 9:00 in the morning; I think they say Central time. These same people ignore science when it uses the decay of uranium 235 to date rock. I think uranium has a half life of about 735,000 years; it decays from uranium in to lead, eventually.

So, they ignore that and stick to a more basic world they can hold in their hands. But then they turn around and even ignore this basic world. We have found trees, not just one tree, but trees that have lived for over 8,000 years; 2,000 years older than archbishop Usher’s claim of a 6,000 year old world. Tree rings are something you can hold in your hand and see with the naked eye. And despite claims that a tree can grow more than one ring in a year, that just isn’t the case in most circumstances. I can see where a catastrophic event could cause more than one ring in a year, but this isn’t going to happen hundreds of times over. You aren’t going to end up with a discrepancy of 2,000 years between a date of 6,000 years and one of 8,000 years.

As far as the coelacanth goes: the lung fish is a closer ancestor to us than the canth is. Then there is another fish ranked in there as well, but I forget the name. Anyway, they show how it was possible for life to evolve in the sea and then occupy land. The coelacanth has limbs that move in a motion like humans do when they walk. You know how when you walk or run, you move one arm forward while that opposite leg moves back? That’s for balance. The coelacanth does this. Then there’s other cool stuff about the canth that I won’t go into.

But let’s think for a minute: let’s say life did evolve in the sea and then found a new resource on land that it wanted to exploit. How do you think fish could begin to exploit this resource? To begin with, the resource was probably not exclusively on land, rather, it was at the shoreline with some of the resource in the shallow water while some of it a few feet up from the water’s edge. Like crabs that migrate from shallow water to the shore as the tide waxes and wanes. Fish would work to get the crabs, and that meant some would move into water that was dangerously shallow for them. After doing this for years and years, fins would begin to take on a different shape and purpose, because fish are using their fins to push along the ocean’s bottom when it’s too shallow to swim. The fish with a more successful fin would do better and they would pass on this changed dna to their offspring.

Eventually, you get a fish that can come out of the water a little ways to exploit some of the crabs on shore, or the vegetation on shore, whatever. Life mutates all the time, and some fish would mutate lungs. Hell, not overnight, but the precursor to lungs. Other fish wouldn’t mutate the same. The favorable mutation wins out and you begin to get fish that can stay onshore for longer periods of time. They have a niche. Instead of worrying about this huge competition for food in the sea, they have practically no competition for food at the shoreline. This helps them thrive and continue their evolution.

Eventually, after a crapload of years, these fish have evolved enough where they are spending more time on land than in the sea. These become our land-based ancestors. It’s interesting to note that the opposite can happen. Fossil evidence has shown land mammals that were exploiting the shoreline moved from land into the sea. These are the whales, dolphins, etc. That’s why these mammals live in the sea and still breathe air.

You know, people get evolution wrong all the time. People ask if we evolved from apes, why do we still have apes. Or if we evolved from the coelacanth or the lung fish, why do we still have coelacanths. It all has to do with exploiting the environment. Some things exploit it, some don’t. Here’s an example: let’s say when the world began, the only rose we had was a white rose. Let’s say the rose grew in a limited climate and then the climate began changing and the white petals were becoming detrimental to the plant. Let’s say you have these mutated roses with reddish pedals and they do better in this new climate. What’s important here is these reddish roses were mutating all along; they didn’t just start mutating when the white roses started having problems. It’s just that the mutated reddish roses didn’t do well in the white rose environment and they died off and never got a foothold.

Now the climate is starting to favor the reddish rose and they don’t die off. The white roses begin to die off, but they still survive at the fringes of the climate change. All this gives rise to a new species. You still have white roses surviving on the outskirts of the climate change, while the reddish roses begin to thrive at the heart of the climatic change.

This is how a coelacanth can still be around after millions of years and could have given rise to creatures that walk on land. This is how apes can still be around, but have given rise to humans. Just because one species mutates from another doesn’t mean the original species dies off.

Now, I posted a question for you and you haven’t answered it yet. It’s not a trick question. It’s a question that anybody here can understand. Will you answer my simple question?



This question:

My beliefs are based in logic. I will give you an example: Let’s say you have a tube that you’re supposed to drop a marble into and it’s supposed to come out at the bottom of an apparatus and ring a bell. That’s the goal. This apparatus is Plexiglas and you can look inside and see a labyrinth of tubes going in all sorts of directions. The tube the marble drops into connects ambiguously to these other tubes, and these tubes connect ambiguously to other tubes and so on. There are 100 tubes coming out the bottom of this thing and you are supposed to pick the tube the marble will come out of and adjust the bell so it sits in front of the correct tube so the marble rings the bell as it exits.

You have 50 scientists who have run repeated experiments with this apparatus and they tell you the marble will come out of tube number 22. For argument sake, let's say none of these scientists believe in a god. They tell you they have repeated the experiment 112,327 times so far and each time the marble has come out of tube 22, without exception. These scientists show you their results that they’ve kept track of.

Now you have 50,000 Christians with one leader. Let’s call this leader Jim Jones, or Bob for all I care. Now Jim has carefully looked over this apparatus and carefully followed the tubing paths and concluded that the marble will exit from tube number 78. He convinces everybody by showing them why he has come to his conclusion. One-by-one, he takes his Christian friends over to the device, walks them through his reasoning, and they all become convinced that he is correct.

Your job is to decide who to believe. You have 50,000 people who are adamant that the marble will exit tube 78, even though they base their findings on blind faith. Then you have 50 scientists who have repeated the experiment 112,327 times and they showed you their results and tell you they’ve concluded the ball will exit tube 22. You want to talk about hypothesis? I don’t see a problem with accepting an educated guess compared to just a guess.

What are you going to do? Are you going to place the bell in front of tube 22, or tube 78?

 

[Reign]

Qualth, you magnificent bastage. I'm on to you..I think.

Um, Qualth? My last post in your thread was #631. Perhaps Vision is actually your own "alter" ego. If he is, I must say, nice job. I can appreciate some one pulling a stunt like that from time to time. You have indeed proven that you can argue both sides of a topic quite well. All this time, I was under the impression that your grasp of the Christian side of the discussion was weak at best but I was clearly mistaken. Your Vision persona is quite good Qualth...a little too good if you ask me. I found myself agreeing with a lot those posts. Anyway, I think it's time for you to come clean and let the topic die, fossilize and become evidence of forum evolution. The topic ceased to be of interest quite a while ago. At least for me anyway.