quote:NAIROBI (AFP) - Four-million-year-old remains in Ethiopia have provided the first hard proof of a link between two key stages of human evolution by bridging the gap between pre-human species, paleontologists said.

"For the first time, we found fossils that allow us to connect the first phase of human evolution and the second phase," Dr Berhane Asfaw, anthropologist and co-research director of the project that found the remains, told a news conference Wednesday in Addis Ababa.

"The fossils represent unambiguous evidence for human evolution," he said.

The rest can be read here:

http://tinyurl.com/qj3sg

Don't worry, I'm sure some creationists will call this find "obviously human" and others will call it "obviously ape" with contradicting opinions and no evidence just like they have done with every other hominid fossil. Their followers wont question them.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

I fail to see how any christian with a properly functioning brain can be a creationist.

Maybe they're really homo erectus men dressed up as modern humans?

Take that religion! Once again, I love you science.

quote:Originally Posted by rabbitweed:

Maybe they're really homo erectus men dressed up as modern humans?

I wouldn't give them that much credit.

Didn't you know, God put fossils of evolution, dinosaurs and other bible-contradicting things on earth to test man's faith and to allow Good to prevail for eternity.

No no no, it's just a completely seperate species. It's only coincidence that it happens to fit the link between two other completely seperate species.

Have you noticed the bible thumpers avoid these sorts of things? Not one has said how gods love something something something yet.

Digital_Savior once said something about how debate is healthy for your beliefs.

But when their beliefs are questioned they go hide under a rock...



Once again proving them to be hypocrites and liars.

In the I give up thread she responded to 3 huge posts that ripped apart the lies surrounding christianity with calling me self centered.

Thats like someone saying E=MC2 then someone else saying, well your ugly, so you can't be right.

My only hope is some people can see through the lies of mass stupidity.

Evolution does not disprove creationism.

You can find all the fossils you want and it's never going to get you anywhere, because it doesn't really effect the concept of creationism.

Cheers,

Lost

You're absolutely correct. It does however , directly contradict Young Earth Creation.

PRAISE DARWIN, it’s a miracle! (And by miracle I mean one more piece physical evidence we can laugh and point at while spiting in creationists faces.)

No creationists have responded to claim to know more then scientists yet. Huh.

If it hasn't occured to you yet, there is no amount of evidence that would convince them, and they admit that. It's pointless to scientifically argue. They say you must have faith. We are just disbelievers. Huh.

You're the ones who are disbelieving what's right before your eyes. You don't believe the science?

Ye of little faith.

Don't worry. Pretty soon AIG will come up with an article saying that it's not really a transitional fossil and DS and Hyro will be flooding the forum.

To be quite honest though, I wish to reserve my opinion on the fossil's being transitional until there has been more peer review. I have no reason to doubt the find. I just don't want to jump the gun.

And they will amazing drop the thread as soon as AIG is shredded.

I agree. The find is cool but I don't trust the media reporting scientific finds. The public is often skewed against science and new "discoveries" because of the general news media and their poor reporting and willingness to jump on any find or study as the ultimate say (even if the scientists put "warning not final results" all over the actual paper).

Well, they can say anything is gods will so it doesn't matter what logic dictates.

God could make people evolve and still have created their souls and not their body.

There, now science is not a factor once again, so it won't enrage the sheep.

No point spamming bullshit at us now right? http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

Why is this in the "my god can beat the sh** out of your god" section? Are you really willing to do this? I mean make a stance of science vs. God? Do you really think that science will be the god slayer of our times?

Anyway....

I thought the "missing link" was the evidence showing the evolution of man from another species...at least that is what they were teaching when I was in school.

This just shows another hominid relative to the homosapian. How does this change anything at all on the debate? or how does this prove that the hominid "evolved" from anything other then another hominid.

Maybe someone needs to define "evolved" for me once more since it seems current science has even redefined it. (if there is anything constant about science it would be change.)



Even if there are millions of years of seperation between the newly found fosil and current man it still shows a hominid like creature with similiar attributes of man.

I'm still waiting to see the evidence showing the transition from the "original cell of life", to the fish and man eventualy shedding his gills for lungs. If mankind and all it's relatives didn't just show up on planet fun, then where is the evidence prior to a hairy backed, knuckle dragging monkey man?

I just want to point out that this new find doesn't change anything besides showing another cousin of man.

Don't let your bias give you a false hope. Sooner or later the truth will be told.

Forever skeptical~

That was great, almost exactly what people predicted.

Good work.

You do realize that no one here is suggesting God vs science but Creationism vs real science. If creationism is your God then I would be worried.

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

That was great, almost exactly what people predicted.

Good work.

You do realize that no one here is suggesting God vs science but Creationism vs real science. If creationism is your God then I would be worried.

I don't believe you are being intellecutal honest with the debate.

I don't subscribe to either creationism or evolution. So we can answer that question right away.

However, if science contradicts what God said then something is false wouldn't you agree? I mean there can't be two truths despite your effort to recruit bible believing Christians to the evolution doctrines.

If you continue to claim that this is not about Science vs Christianity or science vs. God then I can only ask you for some intellectual honesty on the matter and just come out and say god doesn't exist and this is why. I mean why else is it placed in this section of spiritual contention. Creationist do not believe it was God who created things..they just believe an intelligent being or beings created things. This is still a temporal issue and would still have no reason to be here in this section. So, the obvious reason to put this here is to bait Christians into a debate of science vs God. What else is there?

At least be honest on that point and show your true hand. This will at least help me understand your persepective. Answer if you can:

Do you believe that God created the universe and science is only man's study of what God created?

or

Do you think God doesn't exist and science has proved it?

Or

God exists but He has no power over this world nor dominion over man?

or

God just doesn't exist?

I'm not sure what other view there could be besides that but, I'm sure you'll be creative enough to let me know there is.



[This message has been edited by Interest (edited 04-16-2006).]

The god slayer of our times? You are an interesting one, Interest.

Funny though, I was simply pointing this article out because it relates to creationism, it does not prove or disprove god but it does disprove old myths about Adam and Eve etc, which is related to god, unless they changed the bible.

quote:Originally posted by Interest:

(if there is anything constant about science it would be change.)

This is true, science changes as new evidence is presented, because if he hung on to ancient traditions and don't explore, you would have a computer to post on right now.

quote:Originally posted by Interest:

However, if science contradicts what God said then something is false wouldn't you agree?

Exactly, unfortunately you fail to realize which one is false, because you choose to believe something without proof.

quote:Originally posted by Interest:

I mean there can't be two truths despite your effort to recruit bible believing Christians to the evolution doctrines

No one from science is recruiting anyone, they don't need to because they actually research things in reproducible experiments, unlike Christianity which needs missionary and threats of hell to recruit people. If you crucify yourself then visit my house three days later saying it was god who did this, I would be more likely to believe you, unfortunately you can't recreate the event. This is comparable to jack and the bean-stalk. Do you believe in giants and the goose that lays golden eggs?

quote:Originally posted by Interest:

Creationism do not believe it was God who created things..they just believe an intelligent being or beings created things.

So what intelligent being are you suggesting if not god? Aliens? Spirits? The devil? Please clarify.

quote:Originally posted by Interest:

This is still a temporal issue and would still have no reason to be here in this section.

Wrong it deals with creationism which is a religious subject.

I suggest moving your post to paranoid delusions, since this is obviously a conspiracy theory.

quote:Originally posted by Interest:

At least be honest on that point and show your true hand. This will at least help me understand your perspective.

I did this to show proof of evolution to creationism. Not to debate god.

quote:Originally posted by Interest:

Answer if you can:

Do you believe that God created the universe and science is only man's study of what God created?

or

Do you think God doesn't exist and science has proved it?

Or

God exists but He has no power over this world nor dominion over man?

or

God just doesn't exist?

I'm not sure what other view there could be besides that but, I'm sure you'll be creative enough to let me know there is.

I suggest making a new thread since these things are unrelated to the current one.

Please take that elsewhere, this thread is about evolution and scientific evidence supporting it against creationism.

Interest,the motives for one's posting in this forum are irrelevant to the discussion. The name of this forum is My God Can Beat The Shit Out Of Your God. Obviously , everyone does not believe in the same deity. Not all scientists are Atheist. The motive of every poster here is to successfully defend their points of view. It's not just between science and Creation. Even those believeing in Creation hold different views. Some believe in a literal 6 day Creation, and some believe in Creation over billions of years. Some Creationts accept evolution as the process used for Creation. Obviously, everyone cannot be correct in their beliefs.

Science cannot, nor does it attempt to, prove the non-existance of God.Science does not deal with metaphysics. only the natural world. If science refutes certain aspects of religion, so be it.

quote:However, if science contradicts what God said then something is false wouldn't you agree?

Yep but I think it is quite short sighted to believe the literal God of the bible is the only version of God that can be true. There are many religions that claim they know God and he/she/it says different things in all of them.

Just the abrahamic God alone has three distinct religions about him and in each religion are multiple factions (called denominations in christianity) that argue (and sometimes kill each other) over exactly what God said.

quote:I mean there can't be two truths despite your effort to recruit bible believing Christians to the evolution doctrines.

The scientific theory of evolution is no more a "doctrine" than gravity, germ theory or cell theory.

quote:If you continue to claim that this is not about Science vs Christianity or science vs. God then I can only ask you for some intellectual honesty on the matter and just come out and say god doesn't exist and this is why.

False dichotomy. As said before there are more than two total religious beliefs. Many have no problem with God and Science living together.

quote:I mean why else is it placed in this section of spiritual contention. Creationist do not believe it was God who created things..they just believe an intelligent being or beings created things.

You are confusing two theories. Intelligent Designists believe it could be just some intelligent being. The majority of Creationists on the other hand most definately believe it was the christian God who created the universe. Don't believe me? Take a look for yourself, the beliefs of a Young Earth Creationist group (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp)

quote:Do you believe that God created the universe and science is only man's study of what God created?

I don't but it's possible. Many christian scientists (not to be confused with creation scientists) believe that. If the bible is true then this view is more valid than creationism.

quote:Do you think God doesn't exist and science has proved it?

Nope. Science will never prove or disprove the existence of God.

quote:God exists but He has no power over this world nor dominion over man?

Nope but it's possible.

quote:God just doesn't exist?

Maybe, it's possible.



Now I would suggest doing more research on a topic before you start claiming everyone else is not being intellecutal honest just because you don't understand what you are talking about.

Now kids, this is why we don't teach intelligent design in schools!

I'm interested to see how, that is if, the other finatics will debate this thread. As we've seen from Interest, the arguements used are rather outlandish and are not founded on fact but on oppinion. That proves nothing.

There really isn't much to debate about because nothing was presented but an article that neither confirms nor denies much of anything.

Just another piece of the evidence for hominid evolution. Which, IMO, is the most effective way to challenge the creationist dogma. I believe you are the constantly complaining about gaps in the fossil record, well this one fills a large gap regarding the evolution of man.

Really though, if you didnt believe in evolution before this fossil you wouldnt believe in it afterwards. The evidence supporting evolution was already substantial, this find just allows the scientists to actually formulate more sophisticated models on hominid evolution.

Here, let me clarify. This source gives us nothing to go by. If I were to believe everything Yahoo says, I'd hastily believe in a number of alleged 'missing links' that just ended embarrasing legitimate secular scientists. In other words, I'd like to see some photos and I'd like to read the actual dissertation and not just take Yahoo's esteemed opinion on the matter. So, if any of you can track that down that would be great.

It's not yahoo making the claims, it's Asfaw http://tinyurl.com/kwrul . What makes you think you are qualified to analyze fossils or the work of a leader in the field of anthropology?

Found it. You can pay for it on Nature.com if you want...

quote:Asa Issie, Aramis and the origin of Australopithecus p883

Tim D. White, Giday WoldeGabriel, Berhane Asfaw, Stan Ambrose, Yonas Beyene, Raymond L. Bernor, Jean-Renaud Boisserie, Brian Currie, Henry Gilbert, Yohannes Haile-Selassie, William K. Hart, Leslea J. Hlusko, F. Clark Howell, Reiko T. Kono, Thomas Lehmann, Antoine Louchart, C. Owen Lovejoy, Paul R. Renne, Haruo Saegusa, Elisabeth S. Vrba, Hank Wesselman and Gen Suwa

doi:10.1038/nature04629

Abstract | Full Text | PDF (670K) | Supplementary information

See also: Editor's summary

Abstract

quote:The origin of Australopithecus, the genus widely interpreted as ancestral to Homo, is a central problem in human evolutionary studies. Australopithecus species differ markedly from extant African apes and candidate ancestral hominids such as Ardipithecus, Orrorin and Sahelanthropus. The earliest described Australopithecus species is Au. anamensis, the probable chronospecies ancestor of Au. afarensis. Here we describe newly discovered fossils from the Middle Awash study area that extend the known Au. anamensis range into northeastern Ethiopia. The new fossils are from chronometrically controlled stratigraphic sequences and date to about 4.1–4.2 million years ago. They include diagnostic craniodental remains, the largest hominid canine yet recovered, and the earliest Australopithecus femur. These new fossils are sampled from a woodland context. Temporal and anatomical intermediacy between Ar. ramidus and Au. afarensis suggest a relatively rapid shift from Ardipithecus to Australopithecus in this region of Africa, involving either replacement or accelerated phyletic evolution.

Edito's summary

quote:Editor's Summary

13 April 2006

Australopithecus before Lucy

Humanity is widely believed to have descended from the genus Australopithecus, but the beginnings of that genus are shrouded in mystery. Newly discovered fossils from a previously unsampled time slice in the Middle Awash study area of Ethiopia add important information on the subject. They represent the earliest known member of the genus, Australopithecus anamensis, the first to be found outside the Turkana basin in Kenya. The finds are from a woodland context and show how Australopithecus may have evolved from the more primitive Ardipithecus, and may have been ancestral to Australopithecus afarensis, popularly known as 'Lucy'.

[This message has been edited by Real.PUA (edited 04-17-2006).]

Thanks. This is a good starting point.

Evolution happened. I say this because not once piece of evidence refutes evolution. Prove me wrong and provide one experiment or observation that refutes evolutionary theory. Don't try to argue from ignorance either.. that's not evidence.

If you can't provide any evidence refuting evolution, what does that say about your beliefs?

EDIT: I just googled "evidence against evolution" and "scientific evidence against evolution" I had a good laugh.

[This message has been edited by Real.PUA (edited 04-21-2006).]

Flawed.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

There really isn't much to debate about because nothing was presented but an article that neither confirms nor denies much of anything.

Well show me the light.

Tell me exactly who created us, what created us, where it created us, how it created us, and why whatever did so created us. I think you should show us some solid proof. It's only fair.

quote:Originally posted by Interest:

Do you really think that science will be the god slayer of our times?



god has already been 'slayed'.

he was created 2000 years ago, to provide a set of morals and a set of 'laws' for people to follow. it was also used to conquer enemies, for it was easier to convert them than to conquer them. and if they didnt convert, they would just go to war.

within the last centuary when people have proved they can live in perfect harmony with a good set of morals without the use of religion or faith. this has then renderd god obsolete, so one could argue he has already (at least partially) been 'slayed'



-please excuse the grammer, im in a hurry

quote:Originally posted by Mellow_Fellow:

Didn't you know, God put fossils of evolution, dinosaurs and other bible-contradicting things on earth to test man's faith and to allow Good to prevail for eternity.

Hehehe, Bill Hicks?

"So dude, what about dinosaurs?"

"Oh god put those here to test our faith in him!"

"Shit dude, I think God put you here to test MY faith."

quote:Originally posted by head__hunter:

god has already been 'slayed'.

he was created 2000 years ago, to provide a set of morals and a set of 'laws' for people to follow. it was also used to conquer enemies, for it was easier to convert them than to conquer them. and if they didnt convert, they would just go to war.

within the last centuary when people have proved they can live in perfect harmony with a good set of morals without the use of religion or faith. this has then renderd god obsolete, so one could argue he has already (at least partially) been 'slayed'



-please excuse the grammer, im in a hurry

You need to reread The Gay Science and Thus Spoke Zarathustra. You're not getting it quite right.

quote:Originally posted by Gorloche:

You need to reread The Gay Science and Thus Spoke Zarathustra. You're not getting it quite right.

Ah, Nietzsche. My favourite philosopher. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Aft3r ImaGe:

Have you noticed the bible thumpers avoid these sorts of things? Not one has said how gods love something something something yet.

Digital_Savior once said something about how debate is healthy for your beliefs.

But when their beliefs are questioned they go hide under a rock...



Once again proving them to be hypocrites and liars.

In the I give up thread she responded to 3 huge posts that ripped apart the lies surrounding christianity with calling me self centered.

Thats like someone saying E=MC2 then someone else saying, well your ugly, so you can't be right.

My only hope is some people can see through the lies of mass stupidity.

Um, no. I've just had this debate a million times, and honestly, I didn't see this thread until right this moment.

If you'd like to debate for 35 pages, fine. Let's go.

I would prefer to wait 5 years, so it can be clarified that this IS in fact a human, or an ape. We've all been through this before...scientists orgasming over their NEW evidence, only to find out it's a hoax, a complete misunderstanding, or an omission.

Premature circle jerks do not convince me of anything. We shall see what comes of this.

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

Don't worry. Pretty soon AIG will come up with an article saying that it's not really a transitional fossil and DS and Hyro will be flooding the forum.

Yes, God forbid we err on the side of truth. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:To be quite honest though, I wish to reserve my opinion on the fossil's being transitional until there has been more peer review. I have no reason to doubt the find. I just don't want to jump the gun.

Objectivity becomes you. You should try it more often...or is this merely caution, so you don't end up with a severe case of stick-your-foot-in-your-mouth-itis ?

Really, there is no need to attack us. I would have expected better of you. http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

The article is in Nature that means it has been reviewed.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Um, no. I've just had this debate a million times, and honestly, I didn't see this thread until right this moment.

If you'd like to debate for 35 pages, fine. Let's go.

I would prefer to wait 5 years, so it can be clarified that this IS in fact a human, or an ape. We've all been through this before...scientists orgasming over their NEW evidence, only to find out it's a hoax, a complete misunderstanding, or an omission.

Premature circle jerks do not convince me of anything. We shall see what comes of this.

quote:Originally posted by Real.PUA:

The article is in Nature that means it has been reviewed.

It's varified. The most you can do is attack me to try to disprove the article, which proves nothing, but I wouldn't surprised if you tried anyways.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Yes, God forbid we err on the side of truth.



You havn't presented any evidence to it being true or untrue, while there is increasing evidence showing it is true.

Just erring on the side of truth.

[This message has been edited by Aft3r ImaGe (edited 04-24-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Interest:



Don't let your bias give you a false hope. Sooner or later the truth will be told.



This is one of the most ironic statements I've ever heard. This furthers my theory.

See, christians seem to have this notion of them against the world. They are the right ones seeking truth, and everyone else is biased against them and hates them and tries to bring them down.

Let me remind you that Darwin, a conservative christian, discovered evolution. It took him a very long time, lest we forget. He struggled with the contradiction of creationism for a very long time, continually studying. The difference between this intelligent man, and fundamentalists, is that eventually he could no longer ignore the evidence that was before his very eyes. At some point he decided to stop deceiving himself and owe up to the truth that was being presented to him. Thank God some christians are able to do this.

We have no bias. We aren't out to get religious people. We follow the truth, wherever it leads. In this case, it leads away from religion (or at least from literalist fundamental wacko religion) and towards an exciting, enlightening, eye opening view of how the world works.

On the other hand, fundamentalists have everything at stake here. Their very belief system is threatened at root by this proven science. So you see, for you to talk of our bias is very ironic.

Your outlook on the world is quite off. You may want to reconsider peoples' motives here. Just because the truth we follow disagrees with your beliefs does not mean we are biased deceiving scum who are just trying to bring your religion down.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Objectivity becomes you. You should try it more often...or is this merely caution, so you don't end up with a severe case of stick-your-foot-in-your-mouth-itis ?

Really, there is no need to attack us. I would have expected better of you. http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

I have little fear of finding myself with my foot in my mouth. As I stated, I have no reason to doubt the find. I simply understand the importance of the peer review process.

My post was not intended as an attack against you. I simply made a prediction based on the posting habits you have established over the last two years.

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

I have little fear of finding myself with my foot in my mouth. As I stated, I have no reason to doubt the find.

I bet we won't be seeing Adrenochrome calling you arrogant.

quote:I simply understand the importance of the peer review process.

That's great ! So do Christians.

quote:[My post was not intended as an attack against you. I simply made a prediction based on the posting habits you have established over the last two years.

Claiming that we will flood the forum is hardly an accurate representation of our past behaviors.

We respond to people, and they respond back. Since you singled us out for that comment, I assumed you meant to say that only WE defend our position, as if that were some sort of insult to begin with.

quote:You havn't presented any evidence to it being true or untrue, while there is increasing evidence showing it is true.

We shall see, as I said.

These things take years.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I bet we won't be seeing Adrenochrome calling you arrogant.

I have little fear of finding myself in the position of having my foot in my mouth. I actually spend time researching different sources before running off at the mouth (or keyboard, as the case may be).In what way is this arrogant?

quote:That's great ! So do Christians.

I find this statement hard to accept as true. Case in point- Intelligent Design: Dr. Behe bases his arguments for ID on "Irreducible Complexity". He asserts that it would be impossible for organisms to evolve to their current state because certain features of the organism could not function without all parts being present from the beginning (such as Blood Clotting Cascade).Thus the necessity of a Designer.

He conducts seminars at Christian schools and churches to promote his "evidence". He has not submitted his "evidence" for peer review to anyscientific journal.

If peer review were important to Christians, there would be no ID debate.

quote: Claiming that we will flood the forum is hardly an accurate representation of our past behaviors.

We respond to people, and they respond back. Since you singled us out for that comment, I assumed you meant to say that only WE defend our position, as if that were some sort of insult to begin with.

I say again that my statement was not intended as an attack on you or hyro. I sincerely apologize if it appeared to be an insult. I do however stand by the statement I made. You do tend to base your arguments on information obtained from Creationist websites, and flood this forum with quotes from them. You tend to accept anything they assert as being the truth, while totally disregarding any evidence presented from a secular source.

quote:He conducts seminars at Christian schools and churches to promote his "evidence". He has not submitted his "evidence" for peer review to anyscientific journal.

Of interest, there was one actual ID paper that ended up in a peer review journal. It was accidentally inserted by the editor without going through proper peer review (the journal changed its system after that to prevent other slips), it was subsequently torn apart. Having read it, I would say a tornado in a junkyard could have produced a better paper. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by IanBoyd3:

This is one of the most ironic statements I've ever heard. This furthers my theory.

See, christians seem to have this notion of them against the world. They are the right ones seeking truth, and everyone else is biased against them and hates them and tries to bring them down.

Let me remind you that Darwin, a conservative christian, discovered evolution. It took him a very long time, lest we forget. He struggled with the contradiction of creationism for a very long time, continually studying. The difference between this intelligent man, and fundamentalists, is that eventually he could no longer ignore the evidence that was before his very eyes. At some point he decided to stop deceiving himself and owe up to the truth that was being presented to him. Thank God some christians are able to do this.

We have no bias. We aren't out to get religious people. We follow the truth, wherever it leads. In this case, it leads away from religion (or at least from literalist fundamental wacko religion) and towards an exciting, enlightening, eye opening view of how the world works.

On the other hand, fundamentalists have everything at stake here. Their very belief system is threatened at root by this proven science. So you see, for you to talk of our bias is very ironic.

Your outlook on the world is quite off. You may want to reconsider peoples' motives here. Just because the truth we follow disagrees with your beliefs does not mean we are biased deceiving scum who are just trying to bring your religion down.

You misunderstood me. I was trying to make a neutral statement. I can not come to the conclusion that the theories surrounding evolution are yet to be completed and because of my bias, I remain against the claims.

I can not prove or disprove God's existence and that is why the bias of the evolutionist keeps them against God's claim that He created it.

Therefore, I see the problem is time itself will eventually reveal the answer. Bias in either direction is inconsequential to this truth. If one disputes the existence of the other then there is the conflict by which time will resolve.

Even through all the perceived contradictions, the perceived fables and fantastic stories and even the course of scientific reasoning I'm still standing by faith. This isn't by logic or understanding you see, it is what He has fixed and healed in me. It is not a theory as my life is a real thing that has gone through the process of being born-again.

This is why there is not a thing a man can say that can change that and the reason why I stand in my bias. There is no logical arguement that can take that away. I believe God has set me apart from death and for this very reason. Which is to tell as many people as I can about the amazing experience I've gone through because of Him.

I hope that makes sense.

You're irrational and proud of it... It makes perfect sense.

quote:I can not prove or disprove God's existence and that is why the bias of the evolutionist keeps them against God's claim that He created it.

I keep saying this over and over, evolution is not against God as evident by the lack of statements against God in the theory and the many christian and theistic evolutionists.

Evolution is against your view of how God created. Unfortunately many people seem to mistake how God created for God himself and end up worshiping a book.

The hypocritical thing is they accept all the benefits these false sciences have brought them.

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

[b] I can not prove or disprove God's existence and that is why the bias of the evolutionist keeps them against God's claim that He created it.

[quote]quote:

I keep saying this over and over, eevolution is not against God as evident by the lack of statements against God in the theory and the many christian and theistic evolutionists.

There are a lot of "christians" that vote for democrats as well but never consider the issues surrounding the pro-death anti-christian viewpoints of their party. What does that mean? If you aren't for me then you must be against me? (rhetorical)

quote:

Evolution is against your view of how God created. The view I have on the matter is biblical and how it is portrayed in the bible. Since I have this view - the "theories" surrounding evolution conflict against those views. Therefore, if the bible is claimed to be the word of God handed down by prophets then the theories of evolution stand opposed to God.

Make sense?

quote:

Unfortunately many people seem to mistake how God created for God himself and end up worshiping a book.

I'm not even sure what you said here?

quote:

The hypocritical thing is they accept all the benefits these false sciences have brought them.



This is where the rubber meets the road on this issue....if God didn't create it or doesn't exist, then man must have through the invention of discovery. Either you marginalize God with science and just say He is a minor partner in it without any power to create or you say He created it all and it is all of us who benefit from His creation.

But, today you say the bible is wrong - there is no created universe and your god agrees with your science. This is the conflict and why science is against God.

How do make a judgment that God could only create things in the way that agrees with the science of man?







[This message has been edited by Interest (edited 05-02-2006).]

quote:There are a lot of "christians" that vote for democrats as well but never consider the issues surrounding the pro-death anti-christian viewpoints of their party. What does that mean? If you aren't for me then you must be against me? (rhetorical)

I hope you aren't suggesting republicans who often support the death penalty are pro-life. I also hope you aren't playing God and judging millions of christians as bad christians.

quote:Therefore, if the bible is claimed to be the word of God handed down by prophets then the theories of evolution stand opposed to God. ?Make sense?

Only slightly. You missed one very big thing there. If the bible is claimed to be the literal and exact word of God, then evolution is opposed to the word of God. However it's not God who claims the bible is literal but man. Matter of fact it's not God who makes a lot of claims but man, the bible is vague on a lot of points, which is why there are so many different factions of christianity.



quote:Me: Unfortunately many people seem to mistake how God created for God himself and end up worshiping a book.

I'm not even sure what you said here?

The bible was written by Man under supposed inspiration.

The view of a literal bible was created by Man not God.

If God created the earth, then science is the study of Gods creation.

Thus, to say "the bible is literal and I refuse to accept anything else", is not to worship God but to worship a book and Mans opinion.

quote:This is where the rubber meets the road on this issue....if God didn't create it or doesn't exist, then man must have through the invention of discovery.

Yet you dodged the implications.

Tell me, if the basis of biology, geology, astronomy, and even physics is wrong and anti-god, do you use products and services created through these wrong anti-god sciences?

Just the same, how many inventions or discoveries of creation science do you use?

quote:How do make a judgment that God could only create things in the way that agrees with the science of man?

It's pretty simple.

Science is the study of nature.

According to you. God created nature.

Thus science is the study of Gods creation.

quote:Originally posted by Interest:



This is where the rubber meets the road on this issue....if God didn't create it or doesn't exist, then man must have through the invention of discovery. Either you marginalize God with science and just say He is a minor partner in it without any power to create or you say He created it all and it is all of us who benefit from His creation.

But, today you say the bible is wrong - there is no created universe and your god agrees with your science. This is the conflict and why science is against God.

How do make a judgment that God could only create things in the way that agrees with the science of man?







See Origins and Civil Liberties Page two

quote:Originally posted by Garfunkel:

Hehehe, Bill Hicks?

"So dude, what about dinosaurs?"

"Oh god put those here to test our faith in him!"

"Shit dude, I think God put you here to test MY faith."

Oh yes!

Seriously if God does exist, he used evolution and millions of other things that science hasn't yet understood. Please, put your shitty bible down and accept reason, this is the fossil of an early human being, NOT an ape.

Those who disagree...you're evolving in the wrong direction buddies!