What are YOUR views on Darwins theory of evolution. Since i know that this section of totse is full of intellectuals. Im hoping for some good answers

Well, I think that it's so simple it couldn't really go wrong. Let's say you take fifteen random people and put them on an island. And let's say that there's a pack of wild boars. Maybe the tall people can run and get up into the trees and not be gored. Or maybe there is a bunch of bears. Let's say there's a small cave mouth somewhere, the small people who can scurry in there before the bear tears them to shreads will survive. It's a pretty simple principle, you can't fuck if you're dead.

Survival of the fitest.

It makes sense to me. In response to the coming flood of people saying that there aren't transistory fossils and that things were dated incorrectly, let me just say this. If a person died last year and was crushed, their bones would be powdered and would thus become part of the rock. This happens hundreds of times a year to newly alive people, not counting the several thousand times it happens to things already dead. In billions of years, you'd imagine something would occur to crush a fossil or two. And who knows? Maybe we've found some and mislabeled them. The dating issue can be solved with this simple statement: Carbon-14 dating is only used on things we know are old because the rate of degenration is two slow for the first 10,000 years or so. For everything beyond an estimated 50,000 years, it is also unstable as a dating method. That's why scientists use a method dealing with electrons and ions and things of that nature, which is much more accurate although a bit more confusing.

The rest of the methods used to debunk evolution or skat as well, such as the universe being in perfect alignment to create life on Earth. With the estimated trillions of planets, don't you think one would get it right? There's a pretty damn good chance of it with that kind of number of planets.

quote:Originally posted by HappyUglyBoy:

What are YOUR views on Darwins theory of evolution. Since i know that this section of totse is full of intellectuals. Im hoping for some good answers

Darwin renounced his own theories on his deathbed.

Kind of interesting.

quote:Originally posted by Phrensied Rabbits:

Well, I think that it's so simple it couldn't really go wrong. Let's say you take fifteen random people and put them on an island. And let's say that there's a pack of wild boars. Maybe the tall people can run and get up into the trees and not be gored. Or maybe there is a bunch of bears. Let's say there's a small cave mouth somewhere, the small people who can scurry in there before the bear tears them to shreads will survive. It's a pretty simple principle, you can't fuck if you're dead.

There were a whole lot of maybe's in your paragraph, just as there were in Darwin's theory.

And it is so simple that it couldn't possible have happened that way.

Everything that we are, and do, and think, and react, and maintain is not possible by way of sheer accident.

Molecules and atoms and energy and gravity don't just "get it right"....even after a few mistakes.

Chaos does not allow for any form of continuity. Not then, and certainly not now.

The law of entropy prevents the provability of carbon dating, which is the only proof Darwinist's have against creationism.

I can expound on this a bit more if you'd like...

quote:Originally posted by Kryolotor:

It makes sense to me. In response to the coming flood of people saying that there aren't transistory fossils and that things were dated incorrectly, let me just say this. If a person died last year and was crushed, their bones would be powdered and would thus become part of the rock. This happens hundreds of times a year to newly alive people, not counting the several thousand times it happens to things already dead. In billions of years, you'd imagine something would occur to crush a fossil or two. And who knows? Maybe we've found some and mislabeled them. The dating issue can be solved with this simple statement: Carbon-14 dating is only used on things we know are old because the rate of degenration is two slow for the first 10,000 years or so. For everything beyond an estimated 50,000 years, it is also unstable as a dating method. That's why scientists use a method dealing with electrons and ions and things of that nature, which is much more accurate although a bit more confusing.

The rest of the methods used to debunk evolution or skat as well, such as the universe being in perfect alignment to create life on Earth. With the estimated trillions of planets, don't you think one would get it right? There's a pretty damn good chance of it with that kind of number of planets.

So, when fresh lava was recently tested, and was shown to be millions of years old, should it have been considered valid data ?

Science is guesswork. How can you base an educated opinion about your soul, and where it will lie for eternity, on such a flawed system of testing ?

If you believe in Darwin's theory, you cannot believe in God, and therefor your belief prevents you from having eternal life.

I hope you have made ABSOLUTELY sure that you have all the facts when it comes to the provability of Darwin's theory.

Your soul's eternal state is a heavy price to pay, if you are wrong.

As I said already, entropy disproves carbon dating beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Rocks cannot be dated, because they are not living matter. Everything else would have decayed long before they could have been tested, whether preserved in ice, or no.

Too much would have changed in such a great amount of time...it's virtually impossible to believe.

I don't think that a simple thing like evolution prevents a person from believing in God. You seem pretty narrow minded, I'd have to say.

One thing, just a quick question to the person worried about his soul.

Do you believe that the Messiah Jesus (Peace be upon him) is the son of God?

I'd say that's grounds enough for you not to worry about anybody else's soul, because maybe yours is in more trouble than you think if you believe that God created himself a partner for you to worship beside him, eh?

That's something I find hard to understand about Christians. The concept of worshipping the Messiah Jesus (Peace be upon him) comes in direct conflict with the idea of the one true God.

But that's for another discussion, I'm sorrying for interrupting this one to bring it up.

[This message has been edited by Phrensied Rabbits (edited 06-18-2004).]

you're retarded, digital savior. entropy does not disprove carbon dating, in fact, it directly impacts it. carbon dating IS the measurement of entropic forces on a given atom's radiation exponent.

i'm pretty sure you don't even understand what entropy or carbon dating is.

fact: all 'life' on earth is composed of self-replicating genetic material.

fact: statistical probability predicts random mutation in the replication process after many instances.

fact: mutations occur all the time, and are usually detrimental, or even life-prohibiting.

fact: the prior fact does not exclude the possibility that every few million mutations may produce a beneficial mutation.

fact: a single successful inheritance of a positive mutation is not only likely to occur (that's why we call it positive), but also likely to spread.

fact: low population number in any given species over time produces lower gene pool diversity.

fact: mutations are more likely to occur in precisely this condition.

logical conclusion: though many (actually most) species in earth's history have gone extinct because the rate of mutation is so low, those that manage a chance favorable mutation when population numbers are down, or a population is isolated, effectively EVOLVE. the old gene pool is replaced by the new mutation (now termed an adaptation).

all chemical, physical and mathematical evidence is in general concurrence, pointing to a universe, solar system, and planet billions of years old. that being the case, how is evolution so unlikely?

please enlighten us as to what evidence you may have that reveals the planet is only a few thousand years old, and that life was sculpted out of clay by some giant pair of hands.

[This message has been edited by Eil (edited 06-18-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

So, when fresh lava was recently tested, and was shown to be millions of years old, should it have been considered valid data ?

Science is guesswork. How can you base an educated opinion about your soul, and where it will lie for eternity, on such a flawed system of testing ?

If you believe in Darwin's theory, you cannot believe in God, and therefor your belief prevents you from having eternal life.

I hope you have made ABSOLUTELY sure that you have all the facts when it comes to the provability of Darwin's theory.

Your soul's eternal state is a heavy price to pay, if you are wrong.

As I said already, entropy disproves carbon dating beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Rocks cannot be dated, because they are not living matter. Everything else would have decayed long before they could have been tested, whether preserved in ice, or no.

Too much would have changed in such a great amount of time...it's virtually impossible to believe.

The radio-dating method used to date the solidification of rocks from a molten form(such as that used to date lava flows) is potassium-argon dating. It is effective up to billions of years because the decay rate of the potassium 40 is so low. However this means that while it makes it possible to date the earth which is billions of years old it means it is completely ineffective at dating lava flows that are fairly recent. The dating of the lava flows you refer to was actually dating of smaller rocks within the flow that don't actually melt at the temperature of the flow and thus are potentially dateable by potassium-argon dating.

I don't understand how you figure entropy disproves carbon dating. That makes no sense at all. Please elaborate as to what entropy has to do with it.

Carbond dating is effective up to about 56,000 years so there have been animals, plants, and other organisms alive between now and 56,000 years ago.

To adress the soul issue:

Since when did saying that Absolute Creationism is wrong inhibit spritual growth? I myself am an example of how you are wrong their. I live a good life, I strive for spiritual enlightenment, but I don't let spirituality cloud good sense. If I see something that is measurable but my faith goes against, my faith can change that aspect of itself. You live a static life and for that, I pity you. Your soul might as well be dead if it cannot change.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Darwin renounced his own theories on his deathbed.

Kind of interesting.

THAT, is total and utter bullshit.

Of course, Christians have no problem with lieing, as long as its "saving souls".

http://www2.lucidcafe.com/lucidcafe/library/96feb/darwin.html

It has been supposed that Darwin renounced evolution on his deathbed. Shortly after his death, temperance campaigner and evangelist Lady Elizabeth Hope claimed she visited Darwin at his deathbed, and witnessed the renunciation. Her story was printed in a Boston newspaper and subsequently spread. Lady Hope's story was refuted by Darwin's daughter Henrietta who stated, "I was present at his deathbed ... He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier."

Digital_Savior science is about reproducible results. An experiment is not considered valid till other scientists can reproduce those same results. How is this a flawed system of testing? And why are people trying to discount scienctific evidence based on something written by people who had less education than a 2nd grader?

quote:Originally posted by Kryolotor:

It makes sense to me. In response to the coming flood of people saying that there aren't transistory fossils and that things were dated incorrectly

We dont need no stinkin fosils!

There are live animals. Some boas and pythons have small legs.

quote:Originally posted by Jesus:

http://www2.lucidcafe.com/lucidcafe/library/96feb/darwin.html

It has been supposed that Darwin renounced evolution on his deathbed. Shortly after his death, temperance campaigner and evangelist Lady Elizabeth Hope claimed she visited Darwin at his deathbed, and witnessed the renunciation. Her story was printed in a Boston newspaper and subsequently spread. Lady Hope's story was refuted by Darwin's daughter Henrietta who stated, "I was present at his deathbed ... He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier."



See Digital_Savior? even Jesus is undermining your flawed argument!

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Darwin renounced his own theories on his deathbed.

Kind of interesting.

A rumor that even the Christian fundamentalist creation website AnswersInGenesis has listed as the #1 argument not to use. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp)

quote:Originally posted by Phrensied Rabbits:

I don't think that a simple thing like evolution prevents a person from believing in God. You seem pretty narrow minded, I'd have to say.

One thing, just a quick question to the person worried about his soul.

Do you believe that the Messiah Jesus (Peace be upon him) is the son of God?

I'd say that's grounds enough for you not to worry about anybody else's soul, because maybe yours is in more trouble than you think if you believe that God created himself a partner for you to worship beside him, eh?

That's something I find hard to understand about Christians. The concept of worshipping the Messiah Jesus (Peace be upon him) comes in direct conflict with the idea of the one true God.

But that's for another discussion, I'm sorrying for interrupting this one to bring it up.

[This message has been edited by Phrensied Rabbits (edited 06-18-2004).]

Firstly, I don't worship Jesus, I worship God. I give Jesus what is Jesus'...He died for my sins, and for that I offer Agape.

And if you truly believe in evolution, you cannot possibly believe in the Christian God, because evolution, in it's simplicity, does not allow for creation, only mutation.

quote:Originally posted by Eil:

you're retarded, digital savior. entropy does not disprove carbon dating, in fact, it directly impacts it. carbon dating IS the measurement of entropic forces on a given atom's radiation exponent.

i'm pretty sure you don't even understand what entropy or carbon dating is.

fact: all 'life' on earth is composed of self-replicating genetic material.

fact: statistical probability predicts random mutation in the replication process after many instances.

fact: mutations occur all the time, and are usually detrimental, or even life-prohibiting.

fact: the prior fact does not exclude the possibility that every few million mutations may produce a beneficial mutation.

fact: a single successful inheritance of a positive mutation is not only likely to occur (that's why we call it positive), but also likely to spread.

fact: low population number in any given species over time produces lower gene pool diversity.

fact: mutations are more likely to occur in precisely this condition.

logical conclusion: though many (actually most) species in earth's history have gone extinct because the rate of mutation is so low, those that manage a chance favorable mutation when population numbers are down, or a population is isolated, effectively EVOLVE. the old gene pool is replaced by the new mutation (now termed an adaptation).

all chemical, physical and mathematical evidence is in general concurrence, pointing to a universe, solar system, and planet billions of years old. that being the case, how is evolution so unlikely?

please enlighten us as to what evidence you may have that reveals the planet is only a few thousand years old, and that life was sculpted out of clay by some giant pair of hands.

[This message has been edited by Eil (edited 06-18-2004).]

If you truly understand the law of entropy, then you could reasonably conclude that NOTHING living (expired matter or otherwise) could last long enough to be tested as millions of years in age.

Entropy would eliminate such evidence, long before such a ridiculous time frame could be achieved. Use your head...

What purpose does it serve to make personal stabs ? Do you honestly believe I care what you think of my intellect, or my ability to convey it here ?

It is obviously not for you that I write, since you are too obtuse and close-minded to allow others their opinion.

I do not condemn those that see things differently than I do...I merely hope to offer both sides of the coin to those that may not understand either of them.

Why are you so angry ? ;-)

quote:Originally posted by Jesus:

http://www2.lucidcafe.com/lucidcafe/library/96feb/darwin.html

It has been supposed that Darwin renounced evolution on his deathbed. Shortly after his death, temperance campaigner and evangelist Lady Elizabeth Hope claimed she visited Darwin at his deathbed, and witnessed the renunciation. Her story was printed in a Boston newspaper and subsequently spread. Lady Hope's story was refuted by Darwin's daughter Henrietta who stated, "I was present at his deathbed ... He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier."

Digital_Savior science is about reproducible results. An experiment is not considered valid till other scientists can reproduce those same results. How is this a flawed system of testing? And why are people trying to discount scienctific evidence based on something written by people who had less education than a 2nd grader?

Take, for example, vitamin C.

Recent studies have proven that in large quantities, it can cause cancer in a lab environment.

And all this time we've been told it is GOOD for you.

In moderation, sure...but how do we know, now that there is conclusive evidence proving otherwise ?

How do we know what is too much, and what is too little ?

Science, which you claim to be exact, is anything but.

It is wuite common for "science" that has been "fact" for decades to suddenyl be changed or misproven.

As for Darwin, I will try and find some documentation on it. I am not one to try and throw falsifications out for the sake of winning an argument...that's just not me.

Give me some time.

quote:Originally posted by dearestnight_falcon:

See Digital_Savior? even Jesus is undermining your flawed argument!

And how is his explanation of Lady Hope any more provable than what I said ?

You choose what you want to believe, regardless of facts.

Where is the census that proved she even existed ?

And if Miss Henrietta held true to Darwin's theory, why then would she allow someone else to discredit his life's work ?

That's just ridiculous.

You cannot prove what Jesus said, any more than you can what I said.

But your hard heart, and blind mental state dictate what you receive to be truth.

Pretty sad...try and make educated decisions. At least then you can feel secure that you have made the right choice for the eternal state of your soul.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 06-18-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

We dont need no stinkin fosils!

There are live animals. Some boas and pythons have small legs.

I never said mutation wasn't possible.

We're talking about a difference between Macro and Micro evolution here. I believe in one, most definitely...but not the other.

See my point ?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Science, which you claim to be exact, is anything but.

Science is just best guess. A permanent work-in-progress.

That does not, however, devalue any of it's methods, findings, achievements, or accomplishments in the slightest.

quote:Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:

Science is just best guess. A permanent work-in-progress.

That does not, however, devalue any of it's methods, findings, achievements, or accomplishments in the slightest.



Not at all, and I totally agree, but we are talking about the difference between provable belief, and best guess belief.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 06-18-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I never said mutation wasn't possible.

We're talking about a difference between Macro and Micro evolution here. I believe in one, most definitely...but not the other.

See my point ?

How can you believe in microevolution, but not macroevolution?

That's like believing 1+1+1+1 can go up to 70, 80 even all the way to 99 (changes in allele frequency over time), but there is some kind of "magic barrier" that stops the number from ever reaching 100 (speciation).

quote:Originally posted by a123x:

The radio-dating method used to date the solidification of rocks from a molten form(such as that used to date lava flows) is potassium-argon dating. It is effective up to billions of years because the decay rate of the potassium 40 is so low. However this means that while it makes it possible to date the earth which is billions of years old it means it is completely ineffective at dating lava flows that are fairly recent. The dating of the lava flows you refer to was actually dating of smaller rocks within the flow that don't actually melt at the temperature of the flow and thus are potentially dateable by potassium-argon dating.

I don't understand how you figure entropy disproves carbon dating. That makes no sense at all. Please elaborate as to what entropy has to do with it.

Carbond dating is effective up to about 56,000 years so there have been animals, plants, and other organisms alive between now and 56,000 years ago.

Scientists have proposed numerous age estimation methods. Most systems promoted by Evolutionists involve radioactivity. Various radioactive elements are involved, including Carbon-14, Uranium-238, Thorium-232, and Potassium-40. By the way, it is important to understand that most rock strata "dates" were actually assigned long before the first use of radioactive age estimating methods in 1911.2

The Carbon-14 age estimating method is, at best, only useful for estimating the age of things that are thousands of years old, not millions or billions. And it does not work on rocks or thoroughly mineralized fossils; it is only useful for relatively well-preserved organic materials such as cloth, wood, and other non-fossilized materials. Other methods must be used to estimate the age of rocks and minerals. Two of the most widely-known systems are the potassium-argon method and the uranium-lead method.

A radioactive form of potassium is found in minute quantities in some rocks. It disintegrates at a measured rate into calcium and argon. Similarly, the radioactive element uranium decomposes into lead and some other elements.

How are these processes used to estimate the age of rocks? The principle is similar to that used with Carbon-14. The speed of the disintegration process is measured. A portion of the material is ground up and a measurement is made of the ratio of radioactive "parent" atoms to the decomposition products.

Age estimates which are obviously wrong or contradictory are sometimes produced.3 For example, new rock in the form of hardened lava flows produced estimated ages as great as 3 billion to 10.5 billion years, when they were actually less than 200 years old.4

A popular and supposedly foolproof method was used on two lava flows in the Grand Canyon that should be ideal for radioactive age estimation. The results were similarly bad. Young basalt rock at the Canyon's top produced an age estimate 270 million years older than ancient basalt rock at the Canyon's bottom. The problem seems to arise from basic wrong assumptions in the method (rubidium-strontium isochron). If such a sophisticated method is so flawed, geologist Dr. Steven Austin rightly wonders, "Has anyone successfully dated a Grand Canyon rock?"

Arriving at a "date" depends upon a chain of assumptions,6 each link in the chain being an assumption. The validity of the calculated date can be no stronger than the weakest link (weakest assumption) used in the calculation. What are some of the assumptions made by most Evolutionists in using these systems?



ASSUMPTION: Evolutionists generally assume the material being measured had no original "daughter" element(s) in it, or they assume the amount can be accurately estimated. For example, they may assume that all of the lead in a rock was produced by the decay of its uranium.

PROBLEM: One can almost never know with absolute certainty how much radioactive or daughter substance was present at the start.



ASSUMPTION: Evolutionists have also tended to assume that the material being measured has been in a closed system. It has often been wrongly assumed that no outside factors altered the normal ratios in the material, adding or subtracting any of the elements involved.

PROBLEM: The age estimate can be thrown off considerably, if the radioactive element or the daughter element is leached in or leached out of the sample. There are evidences that this could be a significant problem.7 Simple things such as groundwater movement can carry radioactive material or the daughter element into or out of rock. Rocks must be carefully tested to determine what outside factors might have changed their content.



ASSUMPTION: They assume that the rate of decomposition has always remained constant - absolutely constant.8

PROBLEM: How can one be certain that decay rates have been constant over billions of years? Scientific measurements of decay rates have only been conducted since the time of the Curies in the early 1900s. Yet Evolutionists are boldly making huge extrapolations back over 4.5 billion years and more. There is some evidence that the rate of radioactive decay can change.9 If the decay rates have ever been higher in the past, then relatively young rocks would wrongly "date" as being old rocks.



Evolutionist William Stansfield, Ph.D., California Polytech State, has stated:

"It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological 'clock'."10

Evolutionist Frederick B. Jueneman candidly summarizes the situation:

"The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radio-decay rates of uranium and thorium. Such 'confirmation' may be shortlived, as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radio-decay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago, but rather, within the age and memory of man."

References:

EVOLUTIONARY AGE OF THE EARTH. The current age estimate accepted by most Evolutionists for the Earth and our solar system is 4.54 billion years, plus or minus 0.02 billions years. What is this based on? This estimate was deduced from the ratios of different lead isotopes found in meteorites, Moon rocks, and Earth rocks. By other means, the oldest age estimate, to date, for an Earth rock is 3.96 billion years (Slave Province, Canada). The oldest age estimate for a meteorite is 4.6 billion years.

"The best value for the age of the earth is based on the time required for the isotopic composition of lead in the oldest (2.6-3.5 b.y.) terrestrial ores, of which there are currently only four [235U to 207Pb to 238U to 206Pb], to evolve from the primordial composition, recorded in meteoritic troilite, to the composition at the time (measured independently) the ores separated from their parent rocks in earth's mantle. These calculations result in ages for the earth of 4.42 to 4.56 b.y. with a best value of 4.54 b.y."

[List of methods used to arrive at old-age estimates]



EVOLUTIONARY AGE OF THE UNIVERSE:

1 - "The age of the universe has been estimated by astronomers from the velocity and distance of other galaxies as they recede from earth's perspective in the expanding universe. These estimates range from 7 to 20 b.y., depending on whether the expansion is considered to be constant or slowing due to gravitational attractions of galaxies to each other."

[G. Brent Dalrymple, "So How Old Is the Earth, Anyway?," NCSE Reports, Volume 11, No. 4 (Winter 1991), pp. 17., also see: G. Brent Dalrymple, The Age of the Earth (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1991).]

2 - These pre-1911 "dates" were based on Evolutionary, uniformitarian presuppositions. Evolutionists have since attempted to lend increased credibility to these assumptions by use of radiometric dating (which, of course, is also based on uniformitarian presuppositions - as shall be shown).

3 - The uranium-lead dating method has produced so many anomalous readings that it has fallen into disrepute, even among Evolutionists.

"It should be noted that dates (absolute dates) obtained by different methods [radioactive dating methods] commonly show some discrepancies... As the Committee on the Measurement of Geological Time said in 1950, 'These figures (i.e. dates) are, as railway timetables say, subject to change without notice.'" (p. 378)

[D.G.A. Whitten and J.R.V. Brooks, The Penguin Dictionary of Geology (Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1972), 520 pp. (emphasis added).]



Robert H. Brown, "Graveyard Clocks: Do They Really Tell Time?", Signs of the Times (June 1982), pp. 8-9.

John Woodmorappe, "Radiometric Geochronology Reappraised," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 16 (September 1979), pp. 102-129.

Randy L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (Midland, Michigan: Inquiry Press, 1976), pp. 154-156.

4 - John G. Funkhouser, et al., "The Problems of Dating Volcanic Rocks by the Potassium-Argon Methods," Bulletin Volcanologique, Vol. 29 (1966), p. 709.

John G. Funkhouser and John J. Naughton, "Radiogenic Helium and Argon in Ultramafic Inclusions from Hawaii," Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 73, No. 14 (July 15, 1968), pp. 4601-4607 (especially p. 4606) (volcanic eruption of 1800 on Hualalai Island, Hawaii, produced rocks which falsely "dated" 160 million to 3 billion years).

C. Noble and John J. Naughton, "Deep-Ocean Basalts: Inert Gas Content and Uncertainties in Age Dating," Science, Vol. 162 (October 11, 1968), p. 265.

William Laughlin, "Excess Radiogenic Argon in Pegmatite Minerals," Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 74, No. 27 (December 15, 1969), p. 6684.

Sidney P. Clementson, "A Critical Examination of Radioactive Dating of Rocks," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 7, No. 3 (December 1970), pp. 137-141.

5 - The two lava flows are the western Grand Canyon lava flows (basalt, 1.34 0.04 billion years) and the Precambrian Cardenas Basalt (1.07 0.07 billion years).

[Steven A. Austin, "Excessively Old 'Ages' for Grand Canyon Lava Flows," Impact, No. 224 (Santee, California: Institute for Creation Research, February 1992), 4 pp.; "Grand Canyon Lava Flows: A Survey of Isotope Dating Methods," Impact, No. 178 (Santee, California: Institute for Creation Research, April 1988), 4 pp.]

6 - Radiochronologists must make certain basic assumptions about the rocks they "date", assumptions about their total past environment, formation, and radioactive decay rates. However, Creationist Dr. Duane Gish claims:

"Radiochronologists must resort to indirect methods which involve certain basic assumptions. Not only is there no way to verify the validity of these assumptions, but inherent in these assumptions are factors that assure that the ages so derived, whether accurate or not, will always range in the millions to billions of years (excluding the carbon-14 method, which is useful for dating samples only a few thousand years old)."

[Duane T. Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Say No!, 3rd edition (Santee, California: Master Books, 1979), p. 63 (emphasis added).]



Also, see: John D. Morris, The Young Earth (Colorado Springs, Colorado: Master Books, 1994), pp. 52-62.

Physicist Donald DeYoung, Ph.D.:

"The different methods of radiometric dating, when checked against each other, often are in approximate agreement. If the results are misinterpreted as to age, as proposed here, then a common unknown factor (a measurement or an assumption which is defective) may be perturbing all the age values to a longer apparent age than actual. Another explanation in some isolated cases of dating conclusions may be a 'tracking phenomenon.' By this is meant, a tendency of reported scientific measurements to cluster about an incorrect value. Researchers are often reluctant to report findings too far different from previous results in their published findings. This clustering effect shows up in reports of nuclear half-life determinations, and it may also rule the 4.5 billion year assumed history of the earth and moon."

[John C. Whitcomb and Donald B. DeYoung, The Moon: Its Creation, Form and Significance (Winona Lake, Indiana: BMH Books, 1978), p. 102 (emphasis added).]

7 - U.S. Geological Survey:

"...As much as 90 percent of the total radioactive elements of some granites could be removed by leaching the granulated rock with weak acid...as much as 40 percent of the uranium in most fresh-appearing igneous rocks is readily leachable."

[M.R. Klepper and D.G. Wyant, Notes on the Geology of Uranium, U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin No. 1046-F (1957), p. 93 (emphasis added).]



John C. Whitcomb, Jr. and Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Flood (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1961), pp. 335-340.

8 - This most basic assumption is evidenced in the statement of Evolutionists Dott and Batten:

"Neither heating nor cooling, changes in pressure, nor changes in chemical state can affect in any detectable way the average rate of spontaneous decay. Because the rate cannot be artificially changed in the laboratory, it is assumed that it always has been uniform for a given isotope."

[R.H. Dott and R.L. Batten, Evolution of the Earth (New York: McGraw Hill, 1971), p. 99 (emphasis added).]



Geologist Andrew Snelling:

"It is special pleading on the part of geochronologists and physicists to say that the radioactive decay rates have been carefully measured in laboratories for the past 80 or 90 years and that no significant variation of these rates has been measured. The 'bottom line' is really that 80 or 90 years of measurements are being extrapolated backwards in time to the origin of the earth, believed by evolutionists to be 4.5 billion years ago. That is an enormous extrapolation. In any other field of scientific research, if scientists or mathematicians were to extrapolate results over that many orders of magnitude, thereby assuming continuity of results over such enormous spans of unobserved time, they would be literally 'laughed out of court' by fellow scientists and mathematicians. Yet geochronologists are allowed to do this with impunity, primarily because it gives the desired millions and billions of years that evolutionists require, and because it makes these radioactive 'clocks' work!"

[Andrew A. Snelling, "Radioactive Dating Method 'Under Fire'!, " Creation: Ex Nihilo, Vol. 14, No. 2 (Answers in Genesis, March-May 1992), p. 44 (emphasis added).]

9 - Theodore W. Rybka, "Consequences of Time Dependent Nuclear Decay Indices on Half Lives," Acts & Facts, ICR Impact Series, No. 106, (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, April 1982).

Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Vol. 35 (1971), pp. 261-288, and Vol. 36 (1972), p. 1167. (Includes data indicating that different radioactive dating methods used on volcanic rock on Reunion Island in the Indian Ocean gave results varying from 100 thousand to 4.4 billion years. Results from different methods were contradictory.)

Donald B. DeYoung, "A Variable Constant," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 2 (September 1979), p. 142, and "The Precision of Nuclear Decay Rates", Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 12, No. 2 (March 1976), pp. 38-41. (The latter lists half-life decay variation in 20 radioactive isotopes, including Carbon-14, and variations up to 5%).

K.P. Dostal, M. Nagel, and D. Pabst, "Variations in Nuclear Decay Rates," Zeitschrift fur Naturforschung, Vol. 32a (April 1977), pp. 345-361.

P.A. Catacosinos, "Do Decay Rates Vary?", Geotimes, Vol. 20, No. 4 (1975), p. 11.

J. Anderson and G. Spangler, "Radiometric Dating: Is the 'Decay Constant' Constant?", Pensee, Vol. 4 (Fall 1974), p. 34.

Harold L. Armstrong, "Decay Constant: Really Constant?", Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 11, No. 1 (June 1974).

W.K. Hensley, W.A. Basset, and J.R. Huizenga, "Pressure Dependence on the Radioactive Decay Constant of Beryllium-7," Science, Vol. 181 (September 21, 1973). (Documents that the radioactive decay rate of Beryllium-7 varies with pressure).

J.L. Anderson, "Non-Poisson Distributions Observed During Counting of Certain Carbon-14 Labeled (Sub) Monolayers," Journal of Physical Chemistry, Vol. 76, No. 4 (1972). (Shows that the decay rate of Carbon-14 is influenced by the local atomic environment.)

G.T. Emery, "Perturbation of Nuclear Decay Rates," Annual Review of Nuclear Science, Vol. 22 (1972), pp. 165-202 (Shows that many radioactive elements, including Carbon-14 and Uranium-235, have had their decay rates altered in the laboratory.)

J.L. Anderson, Abstracts of Papers for the 161st National Meeting, Los Angeles (American Chemical Society, 1971).

SOME FEEL THIS PRECLUDES THE POSSIBILITY OF ACCURATE RADIOMETRIC DATING: See: A.F. Kovarik, "Calculating the Age of Minerals from Radioactivity Data and Principles," Bulletin #80 of the National Research Council (June 1931), p. 107.

A unique study in regard to evidence of changing radioactive decay rates is being made by Robert Gentry (formerly associated with Oak Ridge National Laboratories, Atomic Energy Commission). Dr. Gentry believes the measurements of ancient radiohalos provide possible evidence of past rate variation. These halos are permanently etched into certain crystallized minerals and were caused by the energy released by the disintegration of the radioactive atom at their center. Dr. Gentry measured and compared the radiohalos in various rocks and discovered what appear to be significant variations in the measured ring diameters. This may indicate that radioactive decay rates have changed. However, measurement uncertainty in the tiny radiohalo diameters may preclude any definitive statement on this matter.

See:

John D. Morris, The Young Earth (Colorado Springs, Colorado: Master Books, 1994), pp. 62-64

Robert H. Brown, "Radiohalo Evidence Regarding Change in Natural Process Rates," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 3 (December 1990), pp. 100-102

Robert V. Gentry, "Critique of 'Radiohalo Evidence Regarding Change in Natural Process Rates'," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 3 (December 1990), pp. 103-105

Robert H. Brown, Harold G. Coffin, L. James Gibson, Ariel A. Roth, and Clyde L. Webster, "Examining Radiohalos," Origins, Vol. 15, No. 1 (Loma Linda, California: Geoscience Research Institute, Loma Linda University, 1988), pp. 32-38 (Creationists suggest problems with some aspects of Gentry's interpretations)

Dennis Crews, "Mystery in the Rocks," The Inside Report (October/November 1987), pp. 3-6, (January 1988), pp. 3-6, (March/April 1988), pp. 3-10 (Provides an interesting account of Gentry's research - described in layman's language)

Robert V. Gentry, Creation's Tiny Mystery, 2nd edition (Knoxville, Tennessee, 37912-0067: Earth Science Associates, 1988), 347 pp.

Paul D. Ackerman, It's a Young World After All (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1986), pp. 101-110 (easy layman-type explanation)

Jim Melnick, "The Case of the Polonium Radiohalos," Origins Research, Vol. 5, No. 1 (1982), pp. 4-5.

General Problems with Radioactive Dating Methods

John D. Morris, The Young Earth (Colorado Springs, Colorado: Master Books, 1994).

Henry M. Morris and John D. Morris, Science, Scripture, and the Young Earth (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, 1989), pp. 39-52.

Russel Arndts and William Overn, Isochron Dating and the Mixing Model (Minneapolis: Bible-Science Association, 1983), 36 pp.

Randal L.N. Mandock, Scale Time Versus Geologic Time in Radioisotope Age Determination, Master of Science Thesis (Santee, California: Institute for Creation Research Graduate School, August 1982), 160 pp.

Henry M. Morris, editor, Scientific Creationism, General Edition (Santee, California: Master Books, 1974), pp. 131-149.

Sidney P. Clementson, "A Critical Examination of Radioactive Dating of Rocks," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 7 (December 1970), pp. 137-141.

Melvin A. Cook, Prehistory and Earth Models (London: Max Parrish and Co., 1966), pp. 23-72 (includes suggestion that most of the "radiogenic" lead in Earth's crust could have been produced by capture of free neutrons in the vicinity).

10 - William D. Stansfield, The Science of Evolution (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1977), p. 84.

William D. Stansfield: Evolutionist / Ph.D. / Biology Department, California Polytechnic State University

11 - Frederic B. Jueneman, "Secular Catastrophism," Industrial Research and Development, Vol. 24 (June 1982), p. 21.

quote:Originally posted by Phrensied Rabbits:

I don't think that a simple thing like evolution prevents a person from believing in God. You seem pretty narrow minded, I'd have to say.

One thing, just a quick question to the person worried about his soul.

Do you believe that the Messiah Jesus (Peace be upon him) is the son of God?

I'd say that's grounds enough for you not to worry about anybody else's soul, because maybe yours is in more trouble than you think if you believe that God created himself a partner for you to worship beside him, eh?

That's something I find hard to understand about Christians. The concept of worshipping the Messiah Jesus (Peace be upon him) comes in direct conflict with the idea of the one true God.

But that's for another discussion, I'm sorrying for interrupting this one to bring it up.

[This message has been edited by Phrensied Rabbits (edited 06-18-2004).]



It's the same as worshipping Mary...doesn't get you anywhere. If a Christian has told you that they worship Jesus, they are mistaken in regards to the origin of their faith.

We honor Jesus, and love him for what he did for us, though he did not have to.

The death on the cross was the ultimate sacrifice...we recognize that, just as anyone would for another person that gave their life for them.

The difference with Jesus is that by his death our sins have been washed clean, because he wasn't just a man, but an extensive of God, essentially.

quote:Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:

How can you believe in microevolution, but not macroevolution?

That's like believing 1+1+1+1 can go up to 70, 80 even all the way to 99 (changes in allele frequency over time), but there is some kind of "magic barrier" that stops the number from ever reaching 100 (speciation).



mi·cro·ev·o·lu·tion - Evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies.

mac·ro·ev·o·lu·tion - Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups.

The difference being that one allows for the creation an entirely new species, while the other only allows for mutations within the same species...a.k.a adaptation.

Adaptation is far more provable than formation of new species.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

And if you truly believe in evolution, you cannot possibly believe in the Christian God, because evolution, in it's simplicity, does not allow for creation, only mutation.

I can't possibly understand that you can think that. Are you one of those people who believe that God put fossils in the ground to ammuse us? Can you just stop arguing so stupidly now?

quote:Originally posted by Phrensied Rabbits:

I can't possibly understand that you can think that. Are you one of those people who believe that God put fossils in the ground to ammuse us? Can you just stop arguing so stupidly now?

When you can stop being a jerk for no apparent reason, then I will entertain a reply.

(and no, I don't believe God put fossils in the ground to amuse us. That's ridiculous)

The atheistic formula for evolution is:

Evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods.

In the theistic evolutionary view, God is added:



Theistic evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods + God.

In the theistic evolutionary system, God is not the omnipotent Lord of all things, whose Word has to be taken seriously by all men, but He is integrated into the evolutionary philosophy. This leads to 10 dangers for Christians.1



Danger NO. 1 ... Misrepresentation of the Nature of God

The Bible reveals God to us as our Father in Heaven, who is absolutely perfect (Matthew 5:48), holy (Isaiah 6:3), and omnipotent (Jeremiah 32:17). The Apostle John tells us that "God is love", "light", and "life" (1 John 4:16; 1:5; 1:1-2). When this God creates something, His work is described as "very good" (Genesis 1:31) and "perfect" (Deuteronomy 32:4).

Theistic evolution gives a false representation of the nature of God because death and ghastliness are ascribed to the Creator as principles of creation. (Progressive creationism, likewise, allows for millions of years of death and horror before sin.)



Danger NO. 2 ... God becomes a God of the Gaps

The Bible states that God is the Prime Cause of all things. "But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things ... and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him" (1 Corinthians 8:6).

However, in theistic evolution the only workspace allotted to God is that part of nature which evolution cannot "explain" with the means presently at its disposal. In this way He is reduced to being a "god of the gaps" for those phenomena about which there are doubts. This leads to the view that "God is therefore not absolute, but He Himself has evolved - He is evolution".2



Danger NO. 3 ... Denial of Central Biblical Teachings

The entire Bible bears witness that we are dealing with a source of truth authored by God (2 Timothy 3:16), with the Old Testament as the indispensable "ramp" leading to the New Testament, like an access road leads to a motor freeway (John 5:39). The biblical creation account should not be regarded as a myth, a parable, or an Allegory, but as a historical report, because:

Biological, astronomical and anthropological facts are given in didactic [teaching] form.

In the Ten Commandments God bases the six working days and one day of rest on the same time-span as that described in the creation account (Exodus 20:8-11).

In the New Testament Jesus referred to facts of the creation (e.g. Matthew 19:4-5).

Nowhere in the Bible are there any indications that the creation account should be understood in any other way than as a factual report.

The doctrine of theistic evolution undermines this basic way of reading the Bible, as vouched for by Jesus, the prophets and the Apostles. Events reported in the Bible are reduced to mythical imagery, and an understanding of the message of the Bible as being true in word and meaning is lost.

Danger NO. 4 ... Loss of the Way for Finding God

The Bible describes man as being completely ensnared by sin after Adam's fall (Romans 7:18-19). Only those persons who realize that they are sinful and lost will seek the Saviour who "came to save that which was lost" (Luke 19:10).

However, evolution knows no sin in the biblical sense of missing one's purpose (in relation to God). Sin is made meaningless, and that is exactly the opposite of what the Holy Spirit does - He declares sin to be sinful. If sin is seen as a harmless evolutionary factor, then one has lost the key for finding God, which is not resolved by adding "God" to the evolutionary scenario.



Danger NO. 5 ... The Doctrine of God's Incarnation is Undermined

The incarnation of God through His Son Jesus Christ is one of the basic teachings of the Bible. The Bible states that "The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:14), "Christ Jesus ... was made in the likeness of men" (Philippians 2:5-7).

The idea of evolution undermines this foundation of our salvation. Evolutionist Hoimar von Ditfurth discusses the incompatibility of Jesus' incarnation and evolutionary thought: "Consideration of evolution inevitably forces us to a critical review ... of Christian formulations. This clearly holds for the central Christian concept of the 'incarnation' of God ... ".3

Danger NO. 6 ... The Biblical Basis of Jesus' Work of Redemption Is Mythologized

The Bible teaches that the first man's fall into sin was a real event and that this was the direct cause of sin in the world: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Romans 5:12).

Theistic evolution does not acknowledge Adam as the first man, nor that he was created directly from "the dust of the ground" by God (Genesis 2:17). Most theistic evolutionists regard the creation account as being merely a mythical tale, albeit with some spiritual significance. However, the sinner Adam and the Saviour Jesus are linked together in the Bible - Romans 5:16-18. Thus any view which mythologizes Adam undermines the biblical basis of Jesus' work of redemption.



Danger NO. 7 ... Loss of Biblical Chronology

The Bible provides us with a time-scale for history and this underlies a proper understanding of the Bible. This time-scale includes:

The time-scale cannot be extended indefinitely into the past, nor into the future. There is a well-defined beginning in Genesis 1:1, as well as a moment when physical time will end (Matthew 24:14).

The total duration of creation was six days (Exodus 20:11).

The age of the universe may be estimated in terms of the genealogies recorded in the Bible (but note that it can not be calculated exactly). It is of the order of several thousand years, not billions.

Galatians 4:4 points out the most outstanding event in the world's history: "But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son." This happened nearly 2,000 years ago.

The return of Christ in power and glory is the greatest expected future event.

Supporters of theistic evolution (and progressive creation) disregard the biblically given measures of time in favour of evolutionist time-scales involving billions of years both past and future (for which there are no convincing physical grounds). This can lead to two errors:

Not all statements of the Bible are to be taken seriously.

Vigilance concerning the second coming of Jesus may be lost.

Danger NO. 8 ... Loss of Creation Concepts

Certain essential creation concepts are taught in the Bible. These include:

God created matter without using any available material.

God created the earth first, and on the fourth day He added the moon, the solar system, our local galaxy, and all other star systems. This sequence conflicts with all ideas of "cosmic evolution", such as the "big bang" cosmology.



Theistic evolution ignores all such biblical creation principles and replaces them with evolutionary notions, thereby contradicting and opposing God's omnipotent acts of creation.

Danger NO. 9 ... Misrepresentation of Reality

The Bible carries the seal of truth, and all its pronouncements are authoritative - whether they deal with questions of faith and salvation, daily living, or matters of scientific importance.

Evolutionists brush all this aside, e.g. Richard Dawkins says, "Nearly all peoples have developed their own creation myth, and the Genesis story is just the one that happened to have been adopted by one particular tribe of Middle Eastern herders. It has no more special status than the belief of a particular West African tribe that the world was created from the excrement of ants".4

If evolution is false, then numerous sciences have embraced false testimony. Whenever these sciences conform with evolutionary views, they misrepresent reality. How much more then a theology which departs from what the Bible says and embraces evolution!

Danger NO. 10 ... Missing the Purpose

In no other historical book do we find so many and such valuable statements of purpose for man as in the Bible. For example:

Man is God's purpose in creation (Genesis 1:27-28).

Man is the purpose of God's plan of redemption (Isaiah 53:5).

Man is the purpose of the mission of God's Son (1 John 4:9).

We are the purpose of God's inheritance (Titus 3:7).

Heaven is our destination (1 Peter 1:4).

However, the very thought of purposefulness is anathema to evolutionists. "Evolutionary adaptations never follow a purposeful program, they thus can not be regarded as teleonomical."5 Thus a belief system such as theistic evolution that marries purposefulness with non-purposefulness is a contradiction in terms.

CONCLUSION

The doctrines of creation and evolution are so strongly divergent that reconciliation is totally impossible. The theistic evolutionists attempt to integrate the two doctrines; however such syncretism reduces the message of the Bible to insignificance. The conclusion is inevitable: There is no support for theistic evolution in the Bible.

REFERENCES

This article has been adapted from chapter 8, "The Consequences of Theistic Evolution", from Dr. Werner Gitt's book, Did God use Evolution?, Christliche Literatur-Verbreitung e.V., Postfach 11 01 35 . 33661, Bielefeld, Germany.

E. Jantsch, Die Selbstorganisation des Universums, Munchen, 1979, p. 412.

Hoimar von Ditfurth, Wir sind nicht nur von dieser Welt, Munchen, 1984, pp. 21-22.

Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, Penguin Books, London, 1986, p. 316.

H. Penzlin, Das Teleologie-Problem in der Biologie, Biologische Rundschau, 25 (1987), S.7-26, p. 19.



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



WHAT DOES THEISTIC EVOLUTION INVOLVE?*

* This section is adapted from Werner Gitt's, Did God Use Evolution?, pp. 13-16, 24.

The following evolutionary assumptions are generally applicable to theistic evolution:



The basic principle, evolution, is taken for granted.

It is believed that evolution is a universal principle.

As far as scientific laws are concerned, there is no difference between the origin of the earth and all life and its subsequent development (the principle of uniformity).

Evolution relies on processes that allow increases in organization from the simple to the complex, from non-life to life, and from lower to higher forms of life.

The driving forces of evolution are mutation, selection, isolation, and mixing. Chance and necessity, long time epochs, ecological changes, and death are additional indispensable factors.

The time line is so prolonged that anyone can have as much time as he/she likes for the process of evolution.

The present is the key to the past.

There was a smooth transition from non-life to life.

Evolution will persist into the distant future.

In addition to these evolutionary assumptions, three additional beliefs apply to theistic evolution:

God used evolution as a means of creating.

The Bible contains no usable or relevant ideas which can be applied in present-day origins science.

Evolutionistic pronouncements have priority over biblical statements. The Bible must be reinterpreted when and wherever it contradicts the present evolutionary world view.



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

PROFESSOR WERNER GITT

received his doctorate summa cum laude, together with the prestigious Borchers Medal, from the Technical University of Aachen, Germany, in 1970. He is now Director and Professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt). He has written numerous scientific papers in the field of information science, numerical mathematics, and control engineering, as well as several popular books, some of which have been translated into Bulgarian, Czech, English, Finnish, French, Hungarian, Italian, Polish and Russian.

Jeeze, are you friggin always here?

Unfortunately, you my friend are the one being a complete douchebag. No matter how many times people prove an argument of yours wrong, you just pretend it didn't happen.

And please, stop quoting people when you post RIGHT AFTER they do, stop using a separate post for every quote, and stop calling other people argumentative for no reason, when you're the one who came in suddenly during a perfectly good humoured discussion and tried to force us all to convert to your beliefs!

Nobody cares what you think, it's just for friggin entertainment of our minds. Keep your friggin Christianity to yourself if you're not going to accept that people don't have to believe you.

EDIT: Always leaving out words and letters and such http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)

[This message has been edited by Phrensied Rabbits (edited 06-18-2004).]

This topic is one of my favorite in science, we have evidence that it is true, and yet still some believe its false.Ide advise everyone interested in this topic to try and get a copy of the book "Origin Of Species".

Digital_Savior, would you mind editing your posts and just giving us links. It would greatly improve this thread. Thank you.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

The atheistic formula for evolution is:

Evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods.

In the theistic evolutionary view, God is added:



Theistic evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods + God.

In the theistic evolutionary system, God is not the omnipotent Lord of all things, whose Word has to be taken seriously by all men, but He is integrated into the evolutionary philosophy. This leads to 10 dangers for Christians.1



Danger NO. 1 ... Misrepresentation of the Nature of God

The Bible reveals



first you post a ton of useless 'references' half of which do not contradict a single thing previously posted, the other half of which are written by creationists, and therefore, BUNKALICIOUS...

then you 'argue' that theistic evolution is pointless because 'the bible reveals...' can you just stick with what people say, and not what people say your fake, mysterious being says or does?

the bible reveals squat, you super jackass. the bible reveals my cock. do you not see how gay you are to everyone who thinks the bible is caca? you just come across as a condescending, self-righteous prickass.

ahem,

<in as mocking a voice as possible>

you are SUCH a retard!!!! seriously, i hate, because i hate you. you ARE STUPID and i no likah da stupids.

you say i'm close-minded. HAHA. you're so close-minded you don't think anyone can see through that simple ruse. in fact, i'm so open-minded, i can choose to be close-minded! when someone i respect accuses me of being stubborn (which i'm not), my initial reaction is always to listen more carefully and examine their point of view. but when someone i don't know on a an internet forum filled with retards and lunatics, COMPLETELY ignores the meat of my assertions, claims incoherent, baseless shit, and then tries to shift the topic to MY close mindedness in order to get me to feel some sort of shame or self-doubt, i laugh and ignore them.

because i know what it is to be close-minded, i was raised christian.

...alright, that was too much. not having fun anymore. see you later, good luck with your 'beliefs'.

quote:Originally posted by Phrensied Rabbits:

Jeeze, are you friggin always here?

Unfortunately, you my friend are the one being a complete douchebag. No matter how many times people prove an argument of yours wrong, you just pretend it didn't happen.

And please, stop quoting people when you post RIGHT AFTER they do, stop using a separate post for every quote, and stop calling other people argumentative for no reason, when you're the one who came in suddenly during a perfectly good humoured discussion and tried to force us all to convert to your beliefs!

Nobody cares what you think, it's just for friggin entertainment of our minds. Keep your friggin Christianity to yourself if you're not going to accept that people don't have to believe you.

EDIT: Always leaving out words and letters and such http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)

[This message has been edited by Phrensied Rabbits (edited 06-18-2004).]

When has ANYONE proven me wrong ? *looks around*

I do accept that people don't have to believe, just as you have to accept that I do.

And if you don't like the way I post, ignore me. I didn't realize that this was YOUR forum, dedicated to the happiness and understanding and domination of only yourself.

quote:Originally posted by SublimeZen124:

Digital_Savior, would you mind editing your posts and just giving us links. It would greatly improve this thread. Thank you.

I sure would, except I doubt anyone would follow them.

What do you think ?

I like all the assumptions your friend makes about theistic evolutionists. Does that mean that Augustine and Justin Martyr were compromised backsliders cause they had different ideas about creation?

Hey, rather than spending your time telling everyone that they'll burn in hell if they disagree with you, why don't you contribute something meaningful to our understanding of this world that God created?

quote:Originally posted by Eil:

first you post a ton of useless 'references' half of which do not contradict a single thing previously posted, the other half of which are written by creationists, and therefore, BUNKALICIOUS...

then you 'argue' that theistic evolution is pointless because 'the bible reveals...' can you just stick with what people say, and not what people say your fake, mysterious being says or does?

the bible reveals squat, you super jackass. the bible reveals my cock. do you not see how gay you are to everyone who thinks the bible is caca? you just come across as a condescending, self-righteous prickass.

ahem,

<in as mocking a voice as possible>

you are SUCH a retard!!!! seriously, i hate, because i hate you. you ARE STUPID and i no likah da stupids.

you say i'm close-minded. HAHA. you're so close-minded you don't think anyone can see through that simple ruse. in fact, i'm so open-minded, i can choose to be close-minded! when someone i respect accuses me of being stubborn (which i'm not), my initial reaction is always to listen more carefully and examine their point of view. but when someone i don't know on a an internet forum filled with retards and lunatics, COMPLETELY ignores the meat of my assertions, claims incoherent, baseless shit, and then tries to shift the topic to MY close mindedness in order to get me to feel some sort of shame or self-doubt, i laugh and ignore them.

because i know what it is to be close-minded, i was raised christian.

...alright, that was too much. not having fun anymore. see you later, good luck with your 'beliefs'.



If I am just a retard with no valid opinion, why are you so angry about what I am posting, and why do you continue to attack me ?

If you didn't care, then you wouldn't bother.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

?

But your hard heart, and blind mental state dictate what you receive to be truth.

Pretty sad...try and make educated decisions. At least then you can feel secure that you have made the right choice for the eternal state of your soul.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 06-18-2004).]

Honestly, I laughed when I read that.

You might want to know, that I am NOT an atheist.

Originally, I was actually Christian.

That changed when I began getting really "into it". Accepting that Christ died for sins, sure... Thats fine...

When I was younger, some of the stories didn't totally sink in.

For isntance, the flood. All these people saying how loving God is, how he sent his only son to die for us, and then... he has previously drowned everyone on the planet for their "wickedness" apart from one family.

That isn't just adults, its little children, babies, innocents.

My father is a Geologist, and I always remember him going on and on about rocks http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)

particularly how they formed. I could never understand this creation stuff, it didn't make sense. Like how all these people got all over the world, how they were so different, and how supposedly they all came from two people.

If your get two dogs, brother and sister, and let them fuck, then let the children fuck, over and over, in a 10 generations, you have serious problems.

aww fuck it... I could go on for ages, about my whole childhood, and all the problems I had with christianity, that I just ignored. But basically, when I was 15, I started trying other religions, several that could be considered sortof occult.

But I can't really see any evidence of anything. However, I have had enough odd experiences to believe that there is SOMETHING more to life, thus, I am agnostic.

I have tried to be a Christian, again and again, but I just can't. I mean, I could think "yeah, I accept you jesus" and go to Church, and try and convince others, but it wouldn't really be true. I could make myself believe, but it would be out of fear, and ultimately, worthless. I simply can't "surrender to god".

It makes it a fuckload worse when I see all these "Christian" people, particularly in America, who are complete morons. They see nothing wrong with destroying the planet for their own personal comfort, because they believe god has authorized them to do it, and that the rapture will come, and take them all up to heaven, long before world becomes uninhabitable. Then there are the lies... which I mentioned in another thread.

Sorry if this doesn't make sense, I'm very tired. Sorry if I've been a bit hostile earlier.

quote:Originally posted by HappyUglyBoy:

What are YOUR views on Darwins theory of evolution. Since i know that this section of totse is full of intellectuals. Im hoping for some good answers

He was right, what else needs to be said? Survival of the fittest is a fair statement for animals, and used to be for humans, until we started to turn the world into the 3rd mall from the sun. Evolution, a much more accurate theory than jesus.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



If I am just a retard with no valid opinion, why are you so angry about what I am posting, and why do you continue to attack me ?

If you didn't care, then you wouldn't bother.

oh that's easy... i do care. never said i didn't. being that ignorance is the primary cause of the shitty state of the world, i find it cathartic to vent my frustrations over the colossal failure that is humanity on the despicable mental zombies responsible for it.

Dude, Eil, that was beautiful http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

I dont see why these stuck up christians cant accept evolution. I dont know if evolution is right or not it makes some sense and there is evidence against it so who knows. They talk about taking the bible literally but then in the bible it talks about stoning the homosexuals and I dont see many christians doing that. A lot of people I know say they dont know what would happen to their faith if evolution was proved definatly. But honestly for me it really doesnt matter. i personally dont place too much faith in the evolution because the Darwin rejected his own theoriess and there seems to be too much evidence against it. But if it was prove rigth then I have no real probelm. i dont see why so many people have to be so stuck up about it.

Some people are weak and just can't handle losing a part of their beliefs...or atleast being in a situation they percieve as a loss. It's basic psychology that humans, for the most part, don't like change.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Take, for example, vitamin C.

Recent studies have proven that in large quantities, it can cause cancer in a lab environment.

And all this time we've been told it is GOOD for you.

In moderation, sure...but how do we know, now that there is conclusive evidence proving otherwise ?

How do we know what is too much, and what is too little ?

Science, which you claim to be exact, is anything but.

It is wuite common for "science" that has been "fact" for decades to suddenyl be changed or misproven.

As for Darwin, I will try and find some documentation on it. I am not one to try and throw falsifications out for the sake of winning an argument...that's just not me.

Give me some time.

If it wasn't for science would you even know vitamin A was good for you? And too much of anything can kill you. Facts are not changed suddenly, it take a lot of evidence for something to become a fact. Evolution is a theory. There is a ton of evidence to support evolutionary theory. There is much less evidence to support creationism. The question you might want to ask yourself is, if there was no bible would anybody be trying to prove creationism? I seriously doubt anyone would. Are creationists trying to prove creationism because it is a sound theory for the creation of earth and life on this planet, or are they trying to prove it because the bible says it is true?

quote:Originally posted by JDOGGYDOGG:

This topic is one of my favorite in science, we have evidence that it is true, and yet still some believe its false.Ide advise everyone interested in this topic to try and get a copy of the book "Origin Of Species".

Are you refering to "The Theory of Evolution"

yeah, theory. what's your point, moron? he did not claim unequivocally that it is true beyond a shadow of a doubt, he said that there is strong evidence supporting its truth. as opposed to creationism... learn to read.

I love when people put emphasis on the word theory as if that means it's a mere suggestion. It truly shows how ignorant they are of science.

Hyopthesis: An educated guess.

Theory: A well supported explanation of an observation based on evidential facts.

Law: An observation in nature.

Currently, there is the theory of evolution...that'd be natural selection, punctuated equilibrium, and a crapload of other ideas that are supported by FACT, that all come together to explain the law (which is, in the most simple yet slightly inaccurate terms: species change over time). Understand your terminology before you try pulling that, "theory of evolution" retardation.

You don't see too many people saying that gravity is just a theory...dear sweet Jesus kill me now.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Firstly, I don't worship Jesus, I worship God. I give Jesus what is Jesus'...He died for my sins, and for that I offer Agape.



but your god is a 'trinity',...the father, SON, and holy spirit. so jesus being part of god dont you worship him,...?

dear mr. creationist

it's funny how some people use science (whose individual fields like physics or chemistry have EVOLVED over time, pun intended) to prove religion. the bible in it's present form is NOT A SOURCE TO BE USED AS SCIENTIFIC FACT or any other fact. it has been translated to many times. (like the manuals for your vcr which have been translated only once(!))

the longer i went to school (i'm an undergraduate student in electrical engineering right now), the more the world started to make sense and the bible started to loose it. it's all about paying attention to class... ;-) really, the bible is good in its basic meaning of being kind to each other, peace, and forgiveness, but don't take it literally.

science is by no means infallible. on the contrary. if you can provide enough proof, you can change scientific 'facts'. but believe me, it's not that easy.

noah's ark was mentioned above... one family left... today roughly 6 billion people... there's a word for it: INCEST. look it up.

are there only christians trying to 'proove' creationism or are there other religions making their own attempts? if that were the case, you would have to 'proove' that christianity is the only true religion as well...

by the way, evolution is even used in modern science to 'create' e.g. the control architecture for robots ("understanding inelligence", rolf pfeiffer and christian scheier, the mit press, isbn 0-262-66125-x (don't know why there's an 'x') good reading!)

before you state ANY other 'facts', answer me these (i'm especially interested in the one with the dolphin or the snake):

-why do dolphins have 'fingers'?

-how come dinosaurs and other fossils had time to become mineralized?

-why do snakes have remnants of legs?

-how come that our eye has the peak of absorption in the green region of the spectrum?

care for more? just ask...

Cougar

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

dear mr. creationist

it's funny how some people use science (whose individual fields like physics or chemistry have EVOLVED over time, pun intended) to prove religion. the bible in it's present form is NOT A SOURCE TO BE USED AS SCIENTIFIC FACT or any other fact. it has been translated to many times. (like the manuals for your vcr which have been translated only once(!))

the longer i went to school (i'm an undergraduate student in electrical engineering right now), the more the world started to make sense and the bible started to loose it. it's all about paying attention to class... ;-) really, the bible is good in its basic meaning of being kind to each other, peace, and forgiveness, but don't take it literally.

science is by no means infallible. on the contrary. if you can provide enough proof, you can change scientific 'facts'. but believe me, it's not that easy.

noah's ark was mentioned above... one family left... today roughly 6 billion people... there's a word for it: INCEST. look it up.

are there only christians trying to 'proove' creationism or are there other religions making their own attempts? if that were the case, you would have to 'proove' that christianity is the only true religion as well...

by the way, evolution is even used in modern science to 'create' e.g. the control architecture for robots ("understanding inelligence", rolf pfeiffer and christian scheier, the mit press, isbn 0-262-66125-x (don't know why there's an 'x') good reading!)

before you state ANY other 'facts', answer me these (i'm especially interested in the one with the dolphin or the snake):

-why do dolphins have 'fingers'?

-how come dinosaurs and other fossils had time to become mineralized?

-why do snakes have remnants of legs?

-how come that our eye has the peak of absorption in the green region of the spectrum?

care for more? just ask...

Cougar

You are right...the Bible is not meant to be used as a source of scientific fact...because science is hardly factual. It is a series of best guesses that arrives us at a viable conclusion.

The Bible is irrefutable physical proof (based on the perfection of it's writing) that a spiritual God exists. It is difficult to understand this, when one has not experienced this sort of spiritual connection.

While it is true that the Bible has been translated many times, your insinuation that it has lost it's potency or accuracy due to these events is contrary to the promise God has made. I will try and find the scripture when I get home from work tonight.

Here are some things to look at in the mean time.



Archeology of the Bible: http://christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a008.html

Confirmation of Biblical events: http://christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a009.html

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 06-23-2004).]

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 06-23-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

The Bible is irrefutable physical proof (based on the claims within the Bible and the people who buy it) that a spiritual God exists. It is difficult to understand this, when one has not experienced this sort of brainwashing.

how true, how true.

IHVH's promise means nothing if he doesn't even exist. And I can prove your point wrong by looking at any two VERSIONS of the bible...in which they contradict eachother on certain points, and contradict themselves internally. Hurrah for God's promise being bullshit, eh?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

You are right...the Bible is not meant to be used as a source of scientific fact...because science is hardly factual. It is a series of best guesses that arrives us at a viable conclusion.

The Bible is irrefutable physical proof (based on the perfection of it's writing) that a spiritual God exists. It is difficult to understand this, when one has not experienced this sort of spiritual connection.

Havn't we been over this already? Science is based reproducable results. You come up with a "guess" (hypothesis), then you test your hypothesis with experiments, if your experiments don't work with your hypothesis then you change your guess. Only when your reworked hypothesis based on observed evidence stands up to rigorous testing does it become a theory.

Now what is your definition of perfect? Because a perfect bible (to me) would mean it does not contradict itself, which it does. Its tale about the creation of man and earth would hold up to scientific testing. Its stories would be 100% historically true (another thing that has been proven not to be).

quote:before you state ANY other 'facts', answer me these (i'm especially interested in the one with the dolphin or the snake):

-why do dolphins have 'fingers'?

-how come dinosaurs and other fossils had time to become mineralized?

-why do snakes have remnants of legs?

-how come that our eye has the peak of absorption in the green region of the spectrum?

can you answer any of those questions?

quote:

The Bible is irrefutable physical proof (based on the perfection of it's writing)



that, gentlemen, is a fine example of logical failure. you are using the perfection of the bible to proove its irrefutability (which is just another word for perfection). it just doesn't work that way. if i argumented like that on an exam, i would fail.

i actually followed your links and had a look... they say nothing of creation but historical events of whom those have been chosen as an 'example', which can be proven.

have you looked up 'incest' yet? just curious. and what about the origin of different languages? babel vs. evolution...

p.s.

cool name Optimus. those were my heroes during childhood... ok, i admit it, i still think they rock! http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

Cougar

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

The Bible is irrefutable physical proof (based on the perfection of it's writing) that a spiritual God exists. It is difficult to understand this, when one has not experienced this sort of spiritual connection.

Wow, this is just hilarious! I'm going to write a perfect book and tell everyone it's the word of god. At least one person will believe me (Digital Savior).

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

The Bible is irrefutable physical proof (based on the claims within the Bible ...

<A HREF="http://mi.wizards.com/global/images/magic/general/circular_logic.jpg">http://mi.wizards.com/global/images/magic/general/circular_logic.jpg" width="90" height="90 (http://mi.wizards.com/global/images/magic/general/circular_logic.jpg" width="90" height="90)</A>

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

It is difficult to understand this, when one has not experienced this sort of spiritual connection.

<A HREF="http://mi.wizards.com/global/images/magic/general/true_believer.jpg">http://mi.wizards.com/global/images/magic/general/true_believer.jpg" width="90" height="90 (http://mi.wizards.com/global/images/magic/general/true_believer.jpg" width="90" height="90)</A>

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

The atheistic formula for evolution is:

Evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods.



quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

And if you truly believe in evolution, you cannot possibly believe in the Christian God, because evolution, in it's simplicity, does not allow for creation, only mutation.

Your confusing evolution with abiogenesis. They are two completely different theories. Evolution deals with the origin of species, not the origin of life.

<A HREF="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/views.gif">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/views.gif" width="90" height="90 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/views.gif" width="90" height="90)</A>

thanks Dark_Magneto, circular logic was the expression i was looking for. i only knew the german expression 'zirkelschluss'.

are those real magic cards? just right for this cause. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

hey you creationists out there: i AM waiting for those answers... another accepted form of reply would be to stick out a white flag http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

well?

Cougar

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

are those real magic cards?

Yep.



<A HREF="http://mi.wizards.com/global/images/magic/general/testament_of_faith.jpg">http://mi.wizards.com/global/images/magic/general/testament_of_faith.jpg" width="90" height="90 (http://mi.wizards.com/global/images/magic/general/testament_of_faith.jpg" width="90" height="90)</A>

quote:Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:

Yep.



i played too, but that some time ago. six years... and my deck was quite lame. but it was fun!

where do you think those guys have gone?

Cougar

Damnit!

I read through 3 pages of pasted articles and magic cards(great idea by the way) and still havent found out how entropy invalidates carbon dating.

quote:

"Thou shall commit adultery" [Exodus 20:14]

1631 King James Bible

This error was caught quickly but it shows how one word omited or added can change the whole meaning of a phrase.

It boggles my mind to think how text written thousands of years ago by many people copied by countless scribes then tranlated to a very diferent language could not be distorted. The quote above proves that errors have been made. It is logical to assume that not all of them have been corected.

Here is a long list of other errors that have been made in the past. http://www.catholicapologetics.net/0002kjv.htm#On%20the%20Lighter%20side

The root of the creationist argument is that the bible is the word of god. Even if the original text was I find it hard to belive that the bible in its current form is.



[This message has been edited by MasterPython (edited 06-25-2004).]

[This message has been edited by MasterPython (edited 06-25-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

where do you think those guys have gone?

They're still around. Wizards still releases new sets regularly, there is a professional circuit for Magic with big cash prizes for top finishers, it's played all over the world, and it's the biggest, longest lasting CCG ever.

quote:Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:

They're still around. Wizards still releases new sets regularly, there is a professional circuit for Magic with big cash prizes for top finishers, it's played all over the world, and it's the biggest, longest lasting CCG ever.



sorry, i meant the other side of the debate. does this mean they gave up? http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)

Cougar

Wait, well which side were you again?

I stopped paying attention as the topic kept changing through the pages http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Phrensied Rabbits:

Wait, well which side were you again?

I stopped paying attention as the topic kept changing through the pages http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)

pro magic (though i'm rather reserve than active duty).

contra creationist.

unmarried, no children. wait, that's for the insurance company...

Cougar

Well, no matter. http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

I hope that works out well for you.

No use trying to convince somebody of something.

Have fun http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)

i myself,being a christian, disagree with darwin's theory. if you do thats you and i respect that. but i dont belive humankind "evolved" from a ape or monkey whatever. i dont believe that we "evolved" from fish or single celled organisms or any of that other stuff eather. Once agian so i hopfully dont get some ass hole with an attitude cussing me out and ranting his bs, i believe what i believe. what u believe to be the truth is your opinion and it doesnt effect me the slightest.

That's the first time I've ever seen someone flame with a magic card, and hopeful not the last. I love you, Dark_Magneto. http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

It boggles my mind to think how text written thousands of years ago by many people copied by countless scribes then tranlated to a very diferent language could not be distorted.



Its not hard to believe that a God could and would preserve his own Book....no matter how many scribes contributed to the translation. Ive got Gods Word now...King James Bible. Dont bother posting "Mistakes" and sites contradictions...Ive already looked at 400 "Problem Texts."

How can someone look at 400 "Apperent Mistakes" in the King James Bible and still come out believing the Bible?

I dont ASSume that God is Obligated to write a Clear and Understandable Book. I think he puts those in ON PURPOSE.

quote:1cr 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

WOW!

Having faith like your's must be great.



It would be great if I was sure of the origins of the universe like you are. And if I could see the work of God in human error, that would make the world a much better place to live in.

wouldn't it be great if the judeo-christian god really does exist, but he is actually just the god of this solar system alone, and there are many other gods... also, all the other gods consider him the evil one?

quote: ... Once agian so i hopfully dont get some ass hole with an attitude cussing me out and ranting his bs, i believe what i believe. what u believe to be the truth is your opinion and it doesnt effect me the slightest.

in that case, Auron547, you refuse to even consider your own belief to be probably wrong? just consider it. that kind of attitude forbids any kind of development. but that's your problem.

Sniper Piper,

your answer again uses FAITH to 'proove' your point of view. it's like saying: 'it's correct because i believe in it.' that's just not scientific argumentation. for that you would have to bring evidence (in your case noah's ark for example), data from measurements with reference where they come from, experiments which can be verified independently etc.

it's hard work, believe me. can you bring anything like that?

(i accept the bible as proof that something happened, but it has been translated too many times (fact, otherwise everybody who would want to read it would have to learn aramaeic (spelling?)) and during translation there DO happen mistakes (evolution of language (yes, even languages change over time), misspelling, bad handwriting, overseen punctuation leading to different meanings etc. i even know an example in german (sorry...)

'Helft den hungernden Vögeln.' or 'Helft den Hungernden vögeln.' the first meaning 'help the hungry birds.' and the second one 'help the hungry (people) to fuck.' just the changing of spelling CAPITAL or not brings quite some difference.))

there are just too many possibilities of mistakes.

Cougar

I think at first glance, Darwin makes some good observations that seem very logical. On paper the theory of evolution seems rational. But let's define evolution. It is the gradual mutation of genetic structure within species, thus creating sub-species that branch off into a new creature altogether. Evolution on this scale has yet to be observed. We know that animals and even plants adapt to their enviornment. Looking at canines and their different breeds shows how animals can make subspeies of the same animal. i.e. Pugs, Sheperds, Dobermins, Chihuahuas, etc. The thing to remember is that it's still a dog. It's still a canine. Never have we seen an animal mutate into a completely other specie. This is the difference between micro and macro evolution. I don't believe in macro-evolution for a number of reasons. I'll give you just one example. I've studies on a type of fly that has been experimented on for over 80 years. It's an ongoing experiment. They have breed these flies and observed any changes that might occur. Take into account that these flies have a lifespan of approximately 30 minutes to an hour. How many flies have been regenerated in over 80 years? Into the millions, maybe even trillions. Bare in mind that these creatures are very, very simple on the molecular level. Now compare the amount of fly generations to a humans. In 80 years, you probably have three human generations. The equivilent of time is substantial enough to have the flies mutate into new forms, yet they don't. If a simple creature on the molecular level like this fly cannot find a way to mutate given the number of possibilities out of a million or trillion, what makes you think a human, which is a thousand times more complex change form? How many mutations are actually beneficial? Cancer? Down-syndrome? It is unlikely that mutation of this kind is possible. Another reason is that the 2nd law of Thermodynamics states that the order of life is decresing in complexity. If it is always decreasing, then how can you get a microbial to turn into a human in even 4.54 billion years? The fact still remains that evolution on this scale has yet to be observed, even in bone structures. There are too many missing links. Furthermore, there are over 1 trillion living species today, and at least 1 million extinct species. They are so vastly far apart than they should be if we all come from the same ancestor. Where are all the m,issing links to the puzzle? It doesn't add up. Anyone have any retorts to this?



quote:Originally posted by HappyUglyBoy:

What are YOUR views on Darwins theory of evolution. Since i know that this section of totse is full of intellectuals. Im hoping for some good answers

I think at first glance, Darwin makes some good observations that seem very logical. On paper the theory of evolution seems rational. But let's define evolution. It is the gradual mutation of genetic structure within species, thus creating sub-species that branch off into a new creature altogether. Evolution on this scale has yet to be observed. We know that animals and even plants adapt to their enviornment. Looking at canines and their different breeds shows how animals can make subspeies of the same animal. i.e. Pugs, Sheperds, Dobermins, Chihuahuas, etc. The thing to remember is that it's still a dog. It's still a canine. Never have we seen an animal mutate into a completely other specie. This is the difference between micro and macro evolution. I don't believe in macro-evolution for a number of reasons. I'll give you just one example. I've studies on a type of fly that has been experimented on for over 80 years. It's an ongoing experiment. They have breed these flies and observed any changes that might occur. Take into account that these flies have a lifespan of approximately 30 minutes to an hour. How many flies have been regenerated in over 80 years? Into the millions, maybe even trillions. Bare in mind that these creatures are very, very simple on the molecular level. Now compare the amount of fly generations to a humans. In 80 years, you probably have three human generations. The equivilent of time is substantial enough to have the flies mutate into new forms, yet they don't. If a simple creature on the molecular level like this fly cannot find a way to mutate given the number of possibilities out of a million or trillion, what makes you think a human, which is a thousand times more complex change form? How many mutations are actually beneficial? Cancer? Down-syndrome? It is unlikely that mutation of this kind is possible. Another reason is that the 2nd law of Thermodynamics states that the order of life is decresing in complexity. If it is always decreasing, then how can you get a microbial to turn into a human in even 4.54 billion years? The fact still remains that evolution on this scale has yet to be observed, even in bone structures. There are too many missing links. Furthermore, there are over 1 trillion living species today, and at least 1 million extinct species. They are so vastly far apart than they should be if we all come from the same ancestor. Where are all the m,issing links to the puzzle? It doesn't add up. Anyone have any retorts to this?



quote:Originally posted by HappyUglyBoy:

What are YOUR views on Darwins theory of evolution. Since i know that this section of totse is full of intellectuals. Im hoping for some good answers

if i understood you correctly, your point is that these flies should have mutated into another form of insects? doesn't it depend on the environment aswell?

were they exposed to radiation, extreme temperatures, shortage of food?

true, nothing has been actively observed in this direction. but what about the evolution of the horse?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html#part1

i saw you're a student. what do you study? (myself: electrical engineering)

Cougar

Well, Cougar, let me be perfectly honest here. I am unemployed currently. I just got out of the Navy and moved to another state. I am starting over it seems. I am trying to get my EMT licence. That is the main goal. However, I am thinking about getting into forensics in the near future. I am anything but a serious student to my dismay. Anyway, thanks for the link to talkorigens. It makes a compelling argument. Nonetheless, it basically eluded to what I have already stated. It's still a horse and not a hippo, if you know what I mean. Consider this as well. If man originated from Chimpanzees, then why is it impossible to breed with them? We have about 97% similarity to them in DNA, yet this is impossible. Surely this would be possible if we were related. As it is, it's not possible. So it is resonable to conclude that humans are humans and primates are primates. What do you think?

Curiously awaiting reply......

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

if i understood you correctly, your point is that these flies should have mutated into another form of insects? doesn't it depend on the environment aswell?

were they exposed to radiation, extreme temperatures, shortage of food?

true, nothing has been actively observed in this direction. but what about the evolution of the horse?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html#part1

i saw you're a student. what do you study? (myself: electrical engineering)

Cougar

quote:Originally posted by Nemesis_Juggernaut:

Well, Cougar, let me be perfectly honest here. I am unemployed currently. I just got out of the Navy and moved to another state. I am starting over it seems. I am trying to get my EMT licence. That is the main goal. However, I am thinking about getting into forensics in the near future. I am anything but a serious student to my dismay. Anyway, thanks for the link to talkorigens. It makes a compelling argument. Nonetheless, it basically eluded to what I have already stated. It's still a horse and not a hippo, if you know what I mean. Consider this as well. If man originated from Chimpanzees, then why is it impossible to breed with them? We have about 97% similarity to them in DNA, yet this is impossible. Surely this would be possible if we were related. As it is, it's not possible. So it is resonable to conclude that humans are humans and primates are primates. What do you think?

Curiously awaiting reply......



i'm sure you'll find the way back to civilian life easily. what is an EMT license? (sorry, i'm not from the states, i'm swiss)

as far as i know, man did not originate from chimpanzees but they share a common ancestor. since they coevolved i think it is possible that chimpanzees have changed/mutated over the years. just enough that we can't mate with eachother (which i'm not too sad about http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif) )

same goes for gorillas i think. donkeys are also related to horses and if they mate, they produce infertile offspring. probably they are closer to eachother than we are to chimpanzees. but still not close enough. can you give a link to the flies you mentioned above?

thanks

Cougar

EMT is Emergency Medical Technician. (The guys in ambulances) As far as the flies go, I can't remember where I've seen it. Try icr.com. If that is not the official site directory, try Institute for Creation Reaserch in a search engine. It might be there. Let me know if you can't find it.

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

i'm sure you'll find the way back to civilian life easily. what is an EMT license? (sorry, i'm not from the states, i'm swiss)

as far as i know, man did not originate from chimpanzees but they share a common ancestor. since they coevolved i think it is possible that chimpanzees have changed/mutated over the years. just enough that we can't mate with eachother (which i'm not too sad about http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif) )

same goes for gorillas i think. donkeys are also related to horses and if they mate, they produce infertile offspring. probably they are closer to eachother than we are to chimpanzees. but still not close enough. can you give a link to the flies you mentioned above?

thanks

Cougar

quote:Sniper Piper,

your answer again uses FAITH to 'proove' your point of view.

Your argument that languages change and errors occur during translations etc, is Reasonable. I personally have encountered every point you mentioned, while studying Spanish. When translating you do lose meanings, and mistakes do occur...quite often. Your Logic is "Logical." However, I dont believe the Bible follows this principle for the following reasons...

1. The Bible is Supernatural Book. Arguments in favor of this can be shown with History, Prophetic examples. No other book in the world comes even close to the Bible in these respects. Dont bother with Koran arguments...I have an English Koran, its not even close.

2. Gods stated motive. God has no interest in proving anything to skeptics, and matter of fact doesnt care if you or any dishonest skeptic finds a "Mistake" in his book. God is interested in Faith and Motive.

quote:Luk 10:21 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.



Your arguments sounds more like ASSumptions to me, and as follows....

1. You ASSume that if God wrote a book it would be Clear and Understandable.

2. You ASSume that God is Interested in convincing skeptics.

3. You ASSume God doesnt have motive in placing a "Mistake" in his Word.

4. You ASSume that God cannot preserve his Word no matter how many Translators.

5. You ASSume that a Christians position is Totally by faith.

6. Your ASSume God follows your Logic.

Now lets say youre right...the Bible is full of mistakes. No big deal...you live happily ever after...I live happily ever after. No big deal.

But if Im right, when you die youre not going to take anything with you, not even the shirt on your back. The one thing youre gonna take with you is your SINS, and youre going to stand before a Holy God one day and be judged, jugded by the very book your dissing.

Now, Im done wasting time with you, if God is not interested in convincing Dishonest Skeptics...neither am I.

A Christians position is not entirely one of Faith. The Bible is not an Ordinary Book.

quote:Originally posted by Nemesis_Juggernaut:

EMT is Emergency Medical Technician. (The guys in ambulances) As far as the flies go, I can't remember where I've seen it. Try icr.com. If that is not the official site directory, try Institute for Creation Reaserch in a search engine. It might be there. Let me know if you can't find it.



sounds like a good thing to me. i wish you good luck with that license.

Sniper Piper,

i think i have to clarify something first. i have no intention whatsoever of bringing you away from your belief in god. i believe in him myself, but not as a bearded man but rather an intelligence, a being, or... i simply don't know. the bible is a good book in the core meaning peace and tolerance.

my point is that evident, measurable, and independently reproduceable proof has been found that evolution has taken place like taught in school.

quote: ... But if Im right, when you die youre not going to take anything with you, not even the shirt on your back. The one thing youre gonna take with you is your SINS, and youre going to stand before a Holy God one day and be judged, jugded by the very book your dissing...

that is not the god i have been taught by the church. only my sins? what about the good things i have done in my life? do they count nothing?

about the koran. you do know that it is not intended to be translated into any other language?

done wasting your time? giving up? naw... please.

Cougar

Cougar,

Do you think that most people believe God is a fat, bearded man in the clouds? I do believe that some people believe that and that is where the influence of paganism comes into play, allowable via the catholic church. I'll give you an example. The dipictions of Satan as a goatman with a pitchfork is an infiltration of a pagan demon. No one knows what Satan looks like or if he has an image at all. He is a spiritual being. Another example is Easter, which derives from two pagan deitites. One is either "Ishtar" or "Oester". Both are fertility goddesses. The Bible itself clealry states not to make graven images. That means, you don't know what it looks like, and to speculate is giving the word of God a black eye. It then becomes idolatry which is of course another sin entirely. Note that God is not even a "He". God is not a "She". God isn't even an "It'. When they say "He", it is a way to personify a spirit, which is what God is. God has no matter, and for that reason He is not subject to the material world, because He is the cause of the material world. You hit the nal on the head when you stated thast God is an intellectual entity, (or you said something to that effect). Please don't allow these trivial matters of human interperetation stumble your relationship with the Almighty Creator. Deists, I think, believe as they do because they have rationalized that a Creator is the only viable thought for creation, yet they believe that most Christians, or so-called Christians believe in the bearded man nonsense. The only time He was a bearded was through the manifestation of Jesus..... If you believe that. I'm just stating the Bible, which is the ONLY true source we should look at in matters like this. Once again, I'm just asserting my opinion, so if I say things like this or that is true is only because in my investigations, I've found it to be such. God is the uncaused, fundamental cause of ALL things. And in places of the Bible where people ask to be at the right or left hand of God, it is just imagery that fallible, feeble minded man can understand the providence of God. I seriously doubt that God has hands in a traditional sense, therefore, as well has no gender, because an omnipotent, sentient, omnipresent, cognitive being does not need such things. That is mortal man trying to discern the nearly undiscernable. This is my take on it. Though I've just joined Totse, I have seen quite a few posts from Sniper Piper, and I see by his fruits a genuine understanding of God. He is a source of endorsement as a vessel in through God works. Others don't know why they believe in God, and they can be dangerous because they create their own god of choice, instead of the Living God who provides living water. Anyway, I hope that clarifies my personal stance on the subject. You said you were Swiss? Your English is remarkable. I'll bet your German and french is also impressive. My father has a buisness partner from there and he's a really cool guy. So, the Swiss, vicariously through him, impress me.

Take care

Anxiously awaiting your response...... Nemesis_Juggernaut.



quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

that is not the god i have been taught by the church. only my sins? what about the good things i have done in my life? do they count nothing?

about the koran. you do know that it is not intended to be translated into any other language?

done wasting your time? giving up? naw... please.

Cougar

Sniper Piper, I have a feeling this "judging" God would judge less harshly a man who didn't know any better as opposed to someone who's accepted the word of christ and proclaimed christian but is still a [d]DICK[/b] to other people.

But there I go assuming. clever, clever

Nemesis_Juggernaut

i think we both more or less agree on god as a being which can not be comprehended in its entirety.

there's just this: believing in god and evolution at the same time. see, i've been born into this world with a physical body. my whole life up to now i have spent in said body and i have been given two points of view: religious and scientific. i am still young, but i have drawn some conclusions, spoken to some people, seen some evidence while on the other hand, well, i just know 'something/someone' is there. some things just contradict eachother while some just match perfectly. that's what bothers me most. taking religion to explain everything is, in my opinion, the easy way. i want to explore, to discover, to see physical proof since i was born into a physical world. i don't know what really makes the universe go round, but up to now the scientific offer has been the winner. i had physics, some chemistry, some biology, enough math to make me sick, and loads of technical topics. it all makes sense.

is everything i was taught wrong?

i do use the bible somewhat as a guideline in my life. i try to honor my parents, i do not steal, i do not kill, i consider myself being quite patient when offended (holding the other cheek) just to name some. but that's about it.

what i fear are those people who try to stop teaching evolutionary science at school but creation instead.

thanks for the nice words you found for the swiss and my english. well, i lived in the states for almost 4 years (first 4 years of my life) and a good teacher at highschool as a refresher. i think that explains it. my french actually sucks, even though i had the 'privilege' to attend classes for 8 years... my german, well, mothertongue (swissgerman though).

Cougar

I think the post I wrote in "Science of the Damned" as a new thread may be fit in here well, although maybe going in an unexpected direction.



Charles Darwin is supposed to have concluded that humans originated in Africa, based on the existence of primates such as chimpanzees and gorillas, the animals closest to humans, on that continent.

This makes sense, and so it would tend to undermine the theory that humans are much older and actually lived on a continent called Atlantis.

But why didn't he think of the primates of South-America ?

1. Their presence indicate that humans could have originated in South-America as well as in Africa.

2. OTOH, those primates are not the ancestors of present humanity. The only certain thing is that those primates and humanity had, at some point, common ancestors. These common ancestors could have evolved and resulted in humans on a continent located roughly between Africa and South-America. An atlantic civilization would have been the expected outcome.

Cougar,

I don't know if this quote is absolutley verbatim, but Albert Einstein said something to this effect... "God without science is lame... And Science without God is dead." Albert Einstein was a reluctant Deist based soley on his experiments. There is a Christian scientist with all the credentials who thinks God intended for evolution, because the two tend to conflict. I can't remember his name. Oh wait, Hugh Ross...... I think you can find him on origens.com. If not type his name in a search engine. He has some very interesting theories. Anyway, Einstein did not believe in the Christian-Judeo God of Yahweh, Jehova, or Elohim... He believed in "Spinozas God". He probably stands in the same situation you are in. You and Eanstein probably have very similar theories. I can tell you this much Cougar. To ferret out truth is a daunting task. I myslef am fairly young and have come up with a number of theories. I can say from personal experience that these sights with endless debate almost always end in conjecture, and moreover, end with disenchantment and even depression. We all want to know what the hell is going on! Just speaking from experience, lay off Totse and chatrooms every once and awihle to take a breather. You may be able to handle it, but it tends to wear me down after awihle. Still, I am drawn to these intellectual debates because it's really cool to see how people think. But, I think of Acts 17 when I feel the grip. Paul went to Athens were they went to debate endlessly on philosphies and hidden meanings. It was all vanity though. Even for Paul to be a witness. Consequently, though Paul was a learned scholar prior to his conversion, these debates were found to be futile in his attempt to witness. He later went on to Corinth in where he said, "I resolve to know NOTHING, but Jesus Christ and Him crucified!" This humbleness of spirit is what brought ears to Paul. Not brash arguments about proofs and evidences of what? Is it not all of it on faith? I only say this because, 98% of the people in here debating whether or not evolution or creation is real have only read, and few have actually done any research themselves. So based on what they've read and witnessed in their own life, they come up with a theory that basically amounts to conjecture. I am no different. So, in the end, we al possess faith in matters like these. I think faith counts for alot, whether you believe in a deity or not. Fiath is a very relevant issue in all our lives all the time. For example. I have to have faith to know if my wife loves me. She can tell me or even manifest it outwardly towards me, but how do I really know? Faith.

So Cougar, you keep the faith in whatever you decide. Investigate with openess and an open-mind being objective to other thoughts and I'm sure you'll come up with a reasonable hypothesis, if you haven't already. I see that you're a sharp guy with alot of intelligence.... But intelligence can be a mask and a veil. It can be pretentious and vulgar. The truly intelligent can discern that love and respect is the most intelligent way to get your point across. You've thus far been very courteous to my beliefs. That rare optimism means alot to me when I've met so many angry people. Consider this one thing before I send my post. Why do people get angry when they talk about God if they don't believe in it to begin with? Or why do believers get angry when scientific theory is thrown their way? It's all fear of being wrong. Fear of having to give up that faith. Anyway, I'm a nut, don't listen to me. te-he



quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

Nemesis_Juggernaut

i think we both more or less agree on god as a being which can not be comprehended in its entirety.

there's just this: believing in god and evolution at the same time. see, i've been born into this world with a physical body. my whole life up to now i have spent in said body and i have been given two points of view: religious and scientific. i am still young, but i have drawn some conclusions, spoken to some people, seen some evidence while on the other hand, well, i just know 'something/someone' is there. some things just contradict eachother while some just match perfectly. that's what bothers me most. taking religion to explain everything is, in my opinion, the easy way. i want to explore, to discover, to see physical proof since i was born into a physical world. i don't know what really makes the universe go round, but up to now the scientific offer has been the winner. i had physics, some chemistry, some biology, enough math to make me sick, and loads of technical topics. it all makes sense.

is everything i was taught wrong?

i do use the bible somewhat as a guideline in my life. i try to honor my parents, i do not steal, i do not kill, i consider myself being quite patient when offended (holding the other cheek) just to name some. but that's about it.

what i fear are those people who try to stop teaching evolutionary science at school but creation instead.

thanks for the nice words you found for the swiss and my english. well, i lived in the states for almost 4 years (first 4 years of my life) and a good teacher at highschool as a refresher. i think that explains it. my french actually sucks, even though i had the 'privilege' to attend classes for 8 years... my german, well, mothertongue (swissgerman though).

Cougar

quote:Originally posted by dearestnight_falcon:

THAT, is total and utter bullshit.

Of course, Christians have no problem with lieing, as long as its "saving souls".

Yeah..Darwin himself was conflicted over what he'd done by publishing his ideas. In the Christian society of the time, it's pretty likely that he repented on his deathbed because he was scared of his soul going to hell, not cos he realised he was wrong.

quote:Originally posted by Nemesis_Juggernaut:

Cougar,

I don't know if this quote is absolutley verbatim, but Albert Einstein said something to this effect... "God without science is lame... And Science without God is dead."

"Religion without science is lame, science without religion is blind."

Sorry to be pendantic. I may not even be right.

Why do people think it's not possible to believe in both God's way (the Bible) and in evolution? If I were a supreme being looking to create the Universe, I'd consider it a pretty damn good method. God can afford to take millions of years, shifting protein molecules in DNA to change species in a certain environment. All the six-day stuff in the Bible sounds more like how a human would do it. Which works, if you can accept that the Bible was written by humans and contains their point of view.

Nice topic, btw.

Nemesis_Juggernaut

i had to look up spinozas god first. as far as i understand, the universe itself is god. furthermore, according to this theory, god can be comprehended by the human mind through knowledge of all laws of nature. interesting point.

another good point was made by the poster after you (bexisevil): god simply had no hurry at all and took the estimated 4 billion years to create earth and he constantly changed species to adapt them to their environment, which would be perceived as evolution. that's very salomonic. both parties are right http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

spinozas god sounds like a reasonable concept to me. well, it has to. einstein was a not only intelligent but also a wise man.

true, people get angry when they debate because they have fear of having to give up your belief. but i also get angry when debating with my little sister because i fear that she could get hurt when she does what i deem to be dangerous. (walking home alone, alcohol at parties, not learning for an exam...)

i don't think you're a nut. this debate has so far been very stimulating.

Cougar

quote:

Sorry to be [B]pendantic. I may not even be right.



I tried looking up your word...I enjoy looking up new words.....this is all I got...



quote:Main Entry: pe·dan·tic

Pronunciation: pi-'dan-tik

Function: adjective

1 : of, relating to, or being a pedant

2 : narrowly, stodgily, and often ostentatiously learned

3 : UNIMAGINATIVE, PEDESTRIAN

- pe·dan·ti·cal·ly /-'dan-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb

quote:Main Entry: pen·dant

Variant(s): also pen·dent /'pen-d&nt; 3 and 4 are also 'pe-n&nt, 5 is also pän-dän/

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English pendaunt, from Middle French pendant, from present participle of pendre to hang, from (assumed) Vulgar Latin pendere, from Latin pendEre; akin to Latin pendere to weigh, estimate, pay, pondus weight

1 : something suspended: as a : an ornament (as on a necklace) allowed to hang free b : an electrical fixture suspended from the ceiling

2 : a hanging ornament of roofs or ceilings much used in the later styles of Gothic architecture

3 : a length of line usually used as a connector on a boat or ship; especially : a short rope hanging from a spar and having at its free end a block or spliced thimble

4 chiefly British : PENNANT 1a

5 a : COMPANION PIECE b : something secondary or supplementary

I guess you mean #5...it seems to fit your context.



[This message has been edited by Sniper Piper (edited 07-01-2004).]

Listening, (or rather) reading your posts led me to believe that you might most find yourself accepting the Spinozas God. But mind that Einstein has concluded that Spinozas God (SG) has a concious thought process behind it. And why not? It's staggering to try and fully comprehend the maginificence of God and/or the universe itself. I think we can all admit that we are humbled by it.

quote:Originally posted by Cougar:

Nemesis_Juggernaut

i had to look up spinozas god first. as far as i understand, the universe itself is god. furthermore, according to this theory, god can be comprehended by the human mind through knowledge of all laws of nature. interesting point.

another good point was made by the poster after you (bexisevil): god simply had no hurry at all and took the estimated 4 billion years to create earth and he constantly changed species to adapt them to their environment, which would be perceived as evolution. that's very salomonic. both parties are right http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

spinozas god sounds like a reasonable concept to me. well, it has to. einstein was a not only intelligent but also a wise man.

true, people get angry when they debate because they have fear of having to give up your belief. but i also get angry when debating with my little sister because i fear that she could get hurt when she does what i deem to be dangerous. (walking home alone, alcohol at parties, not learning for an exam...)

i don't think you're a nut. this debate has so far been very stimulating.

Cougar

quote:Originally posted by Nemesis_Juggernaut:

Listening, (or rather) reading your posts led me to believe that you might most find yourself accepting the Spinozas God. But mind that Einstein has concluded that Spinozas God (SG) has a concious thought process behind it. And why not? It's staggering to try and fully comprehend the maginificence of God and/or the universe itself. I think we can all admit that we are humbled by it.



i think i got the idea of spinozas god wrong then. well, maybe. i understood it as understanding all the natural laws of the universe and one would understand, well, everything. yes, i'm humbled by the universe. who isn't? but why go so far? nature on our own planet is almost intimidating beautiful and complex. but that's where science kicks in and explains what is the cause of things that happen and the process is going on to increase our knowledge. it has done a great job so far and gives proof for their findings. (hint hint)

by the way, are you still impressed by Sniper Piper? look at this: http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum15/HTML/002734.html

i for my part am disappointed, to say the least.

Cougar

quote:Originally posted by Sniper Piper:

I guess you mean #5...it seems to fit your context.

Pedant (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pedant). Only 1 n. Try definition #1.

And AFAIK Cougar was correct about Einstein's view of what he called God.

quote:It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

-- Albert Einstein in 'Albert Einstein: The Human Side'