hundinman Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 Well, I take the bible literraly because i Believe every last word of it. Hundinman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akrid Posted January 1, 2004 Author Share Posted January 1, 2004 That's it, don't make me call you child, I'll do it! Well, you said that fossils go back millions of years before the bible? IMPOSSIBLE If you read the first 2 verses of the Bible you will notice that it talks about God creating the heavens and the earth, no fossil could possibly exist before an earth was created now could it? I said billions, and yes they do. The bible wasn't written when the earth was made, it wasn't even written when greek mythology was the norm. The bible like any other religion came to be in the time of man, around the time man began to make up things and idea's like art for exsample. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hayabusa Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 another notice: the Bible wasn`t written by scientist for scientist. Anyway when it was written such things like fact that the Earth is 4,6 bln years old was something unbelievable. Romans presumed that Earth may be 10,000 years old, at most. BUt it`s quite accurate if you treat days as periods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akrid Posted January 1, 2004 Author Share Posted January 1, 2004 Everything is subject to science, the search of fact and reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hayabusa Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 yes. But, so to say, science cannot explain everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pikeman85 Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 First off, a scientific theory is a scientific explanation. It does not just mean a guess, or even a hypothesis. I covered this before. Don't make me cover it again. A scientific theory has gone through tests for decades if not centuries in most cases! By the brightest minds in the field, over and over generally. a theory predicts certain things and uses evidence to predict these things. The theory of evolution, that the change of alleles in a population changes over time, IS a theory. It is also a fact. It explains what we see. There is no essential difference between macro and microevolution and the majority of the time in biology courses that I've been in, no differentiation is made.. because there is no real differentiation. The only thing macro means is that they've changed so much they can't breed anymore. Period. There are certain types of dogs that can't breed with each other. If it wasn't for the dogs between them, through which the genetic material could flow, the dogs would be considered two different species. Thus, it's right there in front of us, just in the last millenia, with dog differntiation. The same with various types of flies, etc. I posted a link on observed speciation events. So why keep lying and saying that speciation does not occur? I POSTED A LINK! A SOURCE! on it with various other sources. If you'd like more, I'll try to find them. As for this red displacement and rotation thing, with the universe rotating, sounds like something Hovind came up with. First off, you'd have to provide evidence the universe IS rotating. You can't just say something COULD be so and that is a good enough reason for science. You must have EVIDENCE to clear it as scientific evidence. If you want to believe the universe rotates, good for you! However if you want science to accept it, you must provide evidence. Oh, and I didn't mention before, but science NEVER proves itself. It cannot be proven that the Earth is round. You may be 99.99999999999% sure that is, but one piece of evidence MIGHT in the future disprove it. Hence why. sure it's a simplistic example, and goes against all logic, but it shows the point I am trying to make. Trying to remember everything else people were arguing for. One thing is the Bible. Leave it out of this conversation. It has no place. This is a science discussion. Not religion. They have no purpose getting in the other's argument, unless the one calls for the other, and this is not needed. The same with the Koran or any other holy book. Oh and I hate that term cosmic evolution. Makes it sound like it's part of the theory of evolution, when it only means change. I also hate the term evolutionist. Feels derogatory. Nonetheless, evolution occurs. If you have any problems grasping any of my concepts, or disagree with me, or can disprove me, please do so! I'm not precisely sure on that red displacement information, again, I'm not a physicist :( Talk to you all later, and if there's something I forgot, I'll cover it! EDIT: Added topics Again, I'm just reminding, I showed evidence of observed speciation (macroevolution) So no, definitely don't pat yourself on the back that it hasn't been witnessed and seen, because again, it has. If you want more resources, I'll find em :) As for every city in the Bible being found.. good for it.. but A) We aren't discussing the Bible. Period. I don't want a reference to the infalliablity of the Bible in a science post again... it just detracts from your argument and makes you sound less logical. We're not dealing religion here. We're dealing science. B) So what? They knew where they were. Big deal. I could write a story with purple talking unicorns and set it in Detroit, and talk about meeting up with the Giant Purple Unicorn and The Great Cosmic Chicken, Zolakar, while in Lansing. Does that make my story true? No. People say Santa lives at the North Pole. The North Pole is a real place. Does that make Santa real? Based on a real person perhaps, but real with the miracle of flying around giving presents? Dracula drinking blood in Transylvania? No, no. None of them are true, despite having real places. As for evolving many times, yes, we did that, technically we're still /doing/ that. Evolution is only the change in alleles in a population over time. I.e. natural sexual reproduction is evolution. Next I'm fairly certain we didn't evolve from neanderthals, they and us were just split off groups. One died out, the other didn't. And their correct name now is Homo Sapien Neanderthalis, whereas ours is Homo Sapien Sapien (I am fairly certain that is correct) and no, we are not "perfect" creatures if by not perfect you mean we have many skeletal, physiological, and other defects. But evolution doesn't work with perfection. It works with survival. Evolution is survival of the fit enough to breed ;) As for evolving into better creatures... define better? Smarter? Stronger? Faster? Bigger? Well I'd have to say because there are no particular survival pressures as the majority of people nowadays survive, no matter what traits they have (there are exceptions of course, but the majority do survive no matter what, it's the reason we have so many population problems) Next, you say people have asked for proof of evolution (Evolution, nor anything else in science, like the Earth is round, cannot be proven, only disproven, so these people were incorrect in asking science for this in the first place) and /someone/ a single person, tried to give it but it wasn't convincing enough. Well plenty of people have asked, and as any good scientist should say, there is no proof, but there is evidence, and it is a fact :) However you say as if this only happened once. And you also say it was not convincing enough. What was not convincing enough? What is not convincing about the frequency of alleles in a population changes over time? It happens. Natural selection, mutation, etc, are mechanisms for it. Convincing is quite subjective. I was convinced evolution occurs. Darwin did not admit he was wrong. I wish this lie would end. Lady Hope said in Massachusetts that Darwin recanted from his theory. He didn't. His daughter and wife (neither were big fans of the theory) said that he never did any such thing on his death bed, and also said he never met Lady Hope. As for the fossil record, he said there were holes. Big deal. Yea, there are holes. You aren't going to find the fossil of EVERY SINGLE CREATURE THAT EVER LIVED. If even ONE fossil is missing, you have an incomplete fossil record. That means there are holes. The conditions for fossilization are rather hard to come by. VERY hard to come by. So it's almost a wonder anything gets fossilized in the first place. The large holes and gaps that Darwin talked about though... are mostly gone. Stop using Darwin for your arguments. He's OUTDATED. Don't you think science has improved in a century and a half? There are still gaps, certainly, I don't think a scientist lives that would tell you otherwise. But the large gaps, the missing links that existed in Darwin's time... don't exist anymore. There is no more missing link. QUOTE: Therefore, I still believe that God created the heavens and the earth in six days and rested on the seventh. I believe that the days he created them in were 24 hour days: 12 hours of day, 12 hours of night. Every evolutionist, athiest, and every thing else that does not supprt creationism will see that you are wrong in the end. this is not my opinion but my belief. God bless and happy new year! Your conclusion is illogical. Even if evolution is untrue it doesn't suggest that a deity created the world in 144 hours. And what in the Bible suggests they were 24 hour days? The Hebrew word is yon, correct, which means days, or periods, but there is no specification there that it is a 24 hour day. You'd have to back that up with outside sources. Next, you say anyone who will not support your ideas is wrong in the end, despite your views being entirely subjective. Are you now the judge of the world? Even the book you claim to support fully tells you not to act that way. Take the plank out of your eye, I believe it says, before you take the splinter out of mine ;) But nonetheless, evolution doesn't have anything to do with religion, and my main point has been showing evidence that it occurs /now/ not in history, even though I accept that it did then as well. EDIT II: EDIT II: You talk about the probability of a RANDOM happening. Life developing was not random! It happened by chemical reactions, which /are not random/. The origin of life is not random. It just is not. But I would also say it's not likely intelligent either. I've seen no evidence in our universe for a consciousness that would create life. Do I discount it completely? No. But I see naturalistic laws as being perfectly valid. And I said that micro and macro evolution were essentially the same. They are not completely the same. I am fairly certain I covered the differences in my first post in this thread. They do however make use of the same mechanisms. Macro is basically just a lot of micro changes. Eventually one organism cannot breed with another, and macroevolution is considered to have happened. But what I should have said, or made more clear, is that the MECHANISMS of micro and macro evolution are the same. This is what I mean by saying they are the same. Once the zygotes cannot combine and create viable offspring, macroevolution has occured. That's the only difference. Macroevolution isn't a kitten jumping out of a frog ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hundinman Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 Well I agree with the Roman Catholic belief about the earth being no more than 10,000 years old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 Off topic spam deleted. It's not funny. Well, I take the bible literraly because i Believe every last word of it. Hundinman Then honestly, you're blind and ignorant. No sane person can accept the bible as literal truth. It even contradicts itself! And that's ignoring the contradiction with what is simple, undeniable fact. The bible is wrong. At best, its stories are a metaphorical explanation. And if you're so confident in your bible's absolute truth... here's a challenge borrowed from another site:"Read Mark 16:18, in which Jesus says that when true believers "drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all". How strong is your faith? Are you willing to test his claim, by drinking deadly poison? Put your money where your mouth is. Drink a lethal cyanide solution, safe in the protection of your Lord and Saviour." Concession accepted. I am a Christian and I agree with Incanus. He stated very well that no record of every stage of evolution has been found. Almost every city mentioned in the Christian Bible have been found with proof that it is the city that they are looking for. Of course it hasn't. But of course these missing stages are all extremely old, and its not suprising that they haven't found any intact records of it. Whether by natural decay/erosion/etc or by careless human destruction, it is likely that few, if any, examples remain anywhere. And we haven't searched everywhere either. And the second part is irrelevant. Of course the cities have been found! All that proves is that the author used real places that he was familiar with. And even worse for your case, all of these cities are far more recent than the missing evidence for evolution, and therefore more likely to be found intact. Lets look at the two cases: Fossil records of evolution:1) Organism must die and be preserved in a way that it can become a fossil. Which requires a set of conditions that the overwhelming majority of dead organisms will not have.2) Fossil must somehow avoid being shattered by a careless miner, paved over with a parking lot, eroded by natural forces, etc. All for millions to billions of years.3) Fossil must be found. The evidence is tiny compared to the volume in which it could be found. We haven't made a complete search of more than a tiny % of that volume.4) The same steps must be repeated for every single partially evolved organism. Discovery of bible cities:1) Author of the bible must use real cities instead of simply inventing names. Countless fiction authors do this, does it make the rest of their stories true?2) Some recognizable part of the city must be preserved for more than 2000 years, avoiding the same damage that can happen to fossils, but for much less time.3) Traces of city must be found. Not too difficult when you're told where to look. Get the point? The two are not at all the same. Lack of some evidence does not prove the theory wrong. Well, you said that fossils go back millions of years before the bible? IMPOSSIBLEIf you read the first 2 verses of the Bible you will notice that it talks about God creating the heavens and the earth, no fossil could possibly exist before an earth was created now could it? Are you really that ignorant? The bible is wrong, because of contradictions like that. Only through complete ignorance can you believe that the earth is less than billions of years older than the bible. This is not a debatable point. If you're going to ignore all evidence that doesn't fit your "truth", then don't bother participating in a debate like this. Therefore, I still believe that God created the heavens and the earth in six days and rested on the seventh. I believe that the days he created them in were 24 hour days: 12 hours of day, 12 hours of night._______Well I agree with the Roman Catholic belief about the earth being no more than 10,000 years old. Translation: you choose to ignore every single bit of scientific evidence and accept single flawed book as literal, unarguable truth. Concession accepted. yes. But, so to say, science cannot explain everythingAnd neither can any other explanation, religion included. But that is irrelevant, since the subject we are discussing can be, and has, been explained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darnoc Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 @hundinman: the debate, if we can take the bible literaly, is very old and reaches centuries back. The best argument, of those who say that the bible is not litteraly, is that the word translated "day" in Genesis 1 isn't really day, it is the word for "period of time". So, how long is a period of time? Could be also billions of years, couldn't it? But as others said, this thread is not about the bible, it is about scientific proof and arguments. So, that you can see the arguments of the other side, visit this site: http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/home.html When you've read through these arguments, then you can compare it to the arguments given by pro-evolution-scientists and so discuss this matter properly. I will search a little more in the internet for sites about this theme and provide you with them. Then you'll have enough to discuss :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hayabusa Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 Point: Roman Catholic DON`t believe the Earth is 10,000 years old. In fact Vatican agreed with Big Bang theory ( and actually all the astronomers have discovered since that time ) in 1953 I presume ( 50 ties for sure ). Pretty much the same thing with creation of the world within 7 days, I`ve written about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.