page 6 of 9 « Previous 1... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next » 196 total items
Persocom01, could you try to even refute half of my post instead of picking out bits and pieces that you think you *might* be able to refute.
As Plunkies stated, your metaphor makes no sense (see his post) and could you not call me Mr. alexjohnc3. My last name isn't my username last time I checked and it makes you seem really weird when you do that...
I'd make a longer response, but I've got to study for my finals right now.
Quote by PlunkiesI think it's best to first define fact before answering this.
Fact - "Confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent."
There's no such thing as an "absolute certainty" or a "perpetual truth" in the scientific world.
Having said that, evolution is a fact. This is not my opinion. This is the opinion of the extreme majority of the scientific community. There are no other alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand any kind of critical examination. What still needs clarification and more study are the MECHANISMS that bring about evolution.
"All living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history."
I say it one more time, EVOLUTION IS A FACT. It is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no getting around it. All the faith in the world can't change the evidence.
Then I will state again, that the evolutionary history of life is not fact.
I know that microevolution is true and is supported by a great due of scientific evidence today. But does:
microevolution = true mean that
macroevolution = true?
It does not. This is because microevolution does not require mutation to occur.
We know that the offspring of a male and female couple has a combination of genes that is different from either parent. Natural slection eleminates inferior combinations and allows the better gene combination to survive. This is observable and will result in variations within a species, as studied in micoevolution.
However, natural selection can only eleminate inferior combinations of the original genes. In order to actually produce a new creature, we cannot rely on natural selection and the original genes themselves.
This is the point where I state is not fact:
That new creatures can be produced by mutation alone. We know that the chance of a benificial mutation is abysmally small, yet it is claimed that mutations alone created all forms of life on this planet. Of course, evolutionists also claim that this happened over millions of years.
However, fossil evidence does not support this. In the Cambrian explosion, the lineages of nearly all animals alive today are observed. Moreover, no undisputed transitional fossils of reptile -> bird, mammal -> whale, ape-like ancestor -> human have ever been found. The contradictary evidence is so great that evolutionists even come up with theories like "punctuated equilibrium" to try to explain the discreprencies. Note also that this theory has been rejected by most evolutionists today.
Modern research:
1. No progress on abiogenesis. More scientific evidence has been found on the incredible difficulties of creating life
from non-life.
2. Even after more than 150 years, scientists have still not observed the evolutionary basic of a single-cell organism
evolving into a multicelluar organism, nor can they come up with a plausable theory on how it happened.
In the light of current science, I will state that the evolutionary history of life is not fact.
Quote by PlunkiesThe problem is I have disproven any possibility of noah's ark ever happening and you still believe it. How? Why?
The reason I don't answer all you questions is really because I would rather be doing something else, and not because I find it impossible.
For the benefit of others who would like to know I would deal with 3 more questions about Noah's ark.
1. Why weren't Noah and his famility eaten by the animals after they left the ark?
"And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth [upon] the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered." - Genesis 9:2
Because animals fear humans.
2. Inbreeding of animals.
As I said, in the Biblical world view, all creatures were created perfect. Inbreeding was not a problem during Noah's time. This can be seen in the Bible when Abraham marries his half-sister and is blessed by God. (some time after the flood)
3. Ice core dating.
The way ice core dating gets it's apparent age is, from my understanding:
number of layers of ice / number of layers of ice per year = age of ice core.
The problem is that the part of the equation "number of layers of ice per year" is a number derived from current amounts of snowfall.
Assuming that a global flood occured, the amount of global evaporation immediately after would have been greater than what is observed today. Nearly all creation scientists agree that is would lead to a ice age, whereby the ice caps formed at rates far faster than they would have in today's climate.
To alexjohnc3:
I shall respect your wishes of not being called Mr.
The reason I do not refute the rest of your post is because it all boils down to to the same thing: That different people have different standards of justfication, and having no evidence is not proof that someone is illogical.
Quote by alexjohnc3Wow. Just, that's pathetic. "My standards" are logical, and I've already shown why they are. By your "standards" things that have no evidence for existing automatically exist based solely on your belief in them.
"Since Mr.alexjohnc3 has trouble comprehending my position I will give another illustration.
You play coin toss with a stranger. You bet heads and he bets tails. However after 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999 tosses the coin came up tails every single time.
The result is clear, the coin came up tails each of the 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999 times. If I were in this situation, I would believe that it was not by chance alone that this happened. To me, it is logical to believe so. And I choose to believe that it did not occur due to pure luck even though I have no evidence to prove it.
Mr.alexjohnc3 says that because I do not have evidence, my belief is illogical, and that Mr.Natrax who does not have "evidence" for the existance of god is also illogical." - Mr.Persocom01
"In the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of God's existence." - Sir Isaac Newton
I had no evidence, and I can only believe that it did not occur by chance. Yet I am not illogical, neither is fellow Mter Mr.Natrax illogical, nor is Sir Isaac Newton illogical.
Join us at http://christian-fellowship.minitokyo.net/
Wow man it's all just falling apart for you isn't it? The more you post the less coherent you seem to become....
Quote by Persocom01
Then I will state again, that the evolutionary history of life is not fact.I know that microevolution is true and is supported by a great due of scientific evidence today. But does:
microevolution = true mean that
macroevolution = true?It does not. This is because microevolution does not require mutation to occur.
For the last time, macroevolution has been observed. Jesus christ....How many times do I have to go through this with you? The fossil evidence clearly shows animals evolving. It doesn't matter if you've never seen a monkey transform into a human infront of your very eyes.
For anyone other than you, here's a crapload of evidence supporting macroevolution. I'd paste it for you but it would take a long time and far too much room and you'd just ignore it like you ignore all evidence anyway.
Quote: We know that the offspring of a male and female couple has a combination of genes that is different from either parent. Natural slection eleminates inferior combinations and allows the better gene combination to survive. This is observable and will result in variations within a species, as studied in micoevolution.
You know there are documented cases of people being born with tails right? Is this just a joke that god plays on us every once in a while? Where is the tail coming from?!?! Where does this tail fit in in your reality?
Quote: However, natural selection can only eleminate inferior combinations of the original genes. In order to actually produce a new creature, we cannot rely on natural selection and the original genes themselves.
On the rare-ness of mutations....
" Very large mutations are rare, but mutations are ubiquitous. There is roughly 0.1 to 1 mutation per genome replication in viruses and 0.003 mutations per genome per replication in microbes. Mutation rates for higher organisms vary quite a bit between organisms, but excluding the parts of the genome in which most mutations are neutral (the junk DNA), the mutation rates are also roughly 0.003 per effective genome per cell replication. Since sexual reproduction involves many cell replications, humans have about 1.6 mutations per generation. This is likely an underestimate, because mutations with very small effect are easy to miss in the studies. Including neutral mutations, each human zygote has about 64 new mutations (Drake et al. 1998). Another estimate concludes 175 mutations per generation, including at least 3 deleterious mutations (Nachman and Crowell 2000)."
Quote: This is the point where I state is not fact:
That new creatures can be produced by mutation alone. We know that the chance of a benificial mutation is abysmally small, yet it is claimed that mutations alone created all forms of life on this planet. Of course, evolutionists also claim that this happened over millions of years.
Regarding most mutations being negative....
1. Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but a significant fraction are beneficial. The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.
2. Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:
* Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
* Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
* Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease
(Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
* A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
* Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
* In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a
ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).
3. Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on environment. A mutation that helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another. When the environment changes, variations that once were counteradaptive suddenly become favored. Since environments are constantly changing, variation helps populations survive, even if some of those variations do not do as well as others. When beneficial mutations occur in a changed environment, they generally sweep through the population rapidly (Elena et al. 1996).
4. High mutation rates are advantageous in some environments. Hypermutable strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa are found more commonly in the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients, where antibiotics and other stresses increase selection pressure and variability, than in patients without cystic fibrosis (Oliver et al. 2000).
5. Note that the existence of any beneficial mutations is a falsification of the young-earth creationism model (Morris 1985, 13).
Quote: However, fossil evidence does not support this. In the Cambrian explosion, the lineages of nearly all animals alive today are observed. Moreover, no undisputed transitional fossils of reptile -> bird, mammal -> whale, ape-like ancestor -> human have ever been found. The contradictary evidence is so great that evolutionists even come up with theories like "punctuated equilibrium" to try to explain the discreprencies. Note also that this theory has been rejected by most evolutionists today.
Omg...What the hell is it with creationists actually thinking the cambrian explosion supports their crazy pseudo-science garbage. The Cambrian explosion has been covered in this thread several pages ago but I'll go over it one more time.
1. The Cambrian explosion was the seemingly sudden appearance of a variety of complex animals about 540 million years ago (Mya), but it was not the origin of complex life. Evidence of multicellular life from about 590 and 560 Mya appears in the Doushantuo Formation in China (Chen et al. 2000, 2004), and diverse fossil forms occurred before 555 Mya (Martin et al. 2000). (The Cambrian began 543 Mya., and the Cambrian explosion is considered by many to start with the first trilobites, about 530 Mya.) Testate amoebae are known from about 750 Mya (Porter and Knoll 2000). There are tracelike fossils more than 1,200 Mya in the Stirling Range Formation of Australia (Rasmussen et al. 2002). Eukaryotes (which have relatively complex cells) may have arisen 2,700 Mya, according to fossil chemical evidence (Brocks et al. 1999). Fossil microorganisms have been found from 3,465 Mya (Schopf 1993). There is isotopic evidence of sulfur-reducing bacteria from 3,470 Mya (Shen et al. 2001) and possible evidence of microbial etching of volcanic glass from 3,480 Mya (Furnes et al. 2004).
2. There are transitional fossils within the Cambrian explosion fossils. For example, there are lobopods (basically worms with legs) which are intermediate between arthropods and worms (Conway Morris 1998).
3. Only some phyla appear in the Cambrian explosion. In particular, all plants postdate the Cambrian, and flowering plants, by far the dominant form of land life today, only appeared about 140 Mya (Brown 1999).
Even among animals, not all types appear in the Cambrian. Cnidarians, sponges, and probably other phyla appeared before the Cambrian. Molecular evidence shows that at least six animal phyla are Precambrian (Wang et al. 1999). Bryozoans appear first in the Ordovician. Many other soft-bodied phyla do not appear in the fossil record until much later. Although many new animal forms appeared during the Cambrian, not all did. According to one reference (Collins 1994), eleven of thirty-two metazoan phyla appear during the Cambrian, one appears Precambrian, eight after the Cambrian, and twelve have no fossil record.
And that just considers phyla. Almost none of the animal groups that people think of as groups, such as mammals, reptiles, birds, insects, and spiders, appeared in the Cambrian. The fish that appeared in the Cambrian was unlike any fish alive today.
4. The length of the Cambrian explosion is ambiguous and uncertain, but five to ten million years is a reasonable estimate; some say the explosion spans forty million years or more, starting about 553 million years ago. Even the shortest estimate of five million years is hardly sudden.
5. There are some plausible explanations for why diversification may have been relatively sudden:
* The evolution of active predators in the late Precambrian likely spurred the coevolution of hard parts on other animals. These hard parts fossilize much more easily than the previous soft-bodied animals, leading to many more fossils but not necessarily more animals.
* Early complex animals may have been nearly microscopic. Apparent fossil animals smaller than 0.2 mm have been found in the Doushantuo Formation, China, forty to fifty-five million years before the Cambrian (Chen et al. 2004). Much of the early evolution could have simply been too small to see.
* The earth was just coming out of a global ice age at the beginning of the Cambrian (Hoffman 1998; Kerr 2000). A "snowball earth" before the Cambrian explosion may have hindered development of complexity or kept populations down so that fossils would be too rare to expect to find today. The more favorable environment after the snowball earth would have opened new niches for life to evolve into.
* Hox genes, which control much of an animal's basic body plan, were likely first evolving around that time. Development of these genes might have just then allowed the raw materials for body plans to diversify (Carroll 1997).
* Atmospheric oxygen may have increased at the start of the Cambrian (Canfield and Teske 1996; Logan et al. 1995; Thomas 1997).
* Planktonic grazers began producing fecal pellets that fell to the bottom of the ocean rapidly, profoundly changing the ocean state, especially its oxygenation (Logan et al. 1995).
* Unusual amounts of phosphate were deposited in shallow seas at the start of the Cambrian (Cook and Shergold 1986; Lipps and Signor 1992).
6. Cambrian life was still unlike almost everything alive today. Using number of cell types as a measure of complexity, we see that complexity has been increasing more or less constantly since the beginning of the Cambrian (Valentine et al. 1994).
7. Major radiations of life forms have occurred at other times, too. One of the most extensive diversifications of life occurred in the Ordovician, for example (Miller 1997).
Quote: Modern research:
1. No progress on abiogenesis. More scientific evidence has been found on the incredible difficulties of creating life from non-life.
That's just a lie. Amino acids have been created. Just because we haven't done it yet doesn't mean it isn't possible. You're just the guy screaming at Columbus about how his boat is going to fall off the edge of the earth.
Quote: 2. Even after more than 150 years, scientists have still not observed the evolutionary basic of a single-cell organism evolving into a multicelluar organism, nor can they come up with a plausable theory on how it happened.
Another lie...You're really bad at defending what you so adamantly believe. Is this what it's come to? Lying and deception in order to prove your ridiculous faith in an ancient, obsolete, arbitrary book?
Quote: In the light of current science, I will state that the evolutionary history of life is not fact.
And you would be wrong. Oh what a surprise, the christian fundie is wrong about science? Who could have guessed?
Quote:
Quote by PlunkiesThe problem is I have disproven any possibility of noah's ark ever happening and you still believe it. How? Why?
The reason I don't answer all you questions is really because I would rather be doing something else, and not because I find it impossible.
Ok. And your reason for answering them poorly is what exactly?
Quote: For the benefit of others who would like to know I would deal with 3 more questions about Noah's ark.
Uh oh here we go...
Quote: 1. Why weren't Noah and his famility eaten by the animals after they left the ark?
"And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth [upon] the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered." - Genesis 9:2
First of all I never stated anything like that. Why would you choose something I haven't even brought up? Better yet, why would you choose something on your own when you're still forced to answer it with a "goddidit" response? If you're going to stoop so low then why not answer everything with goddidit and just admit that you're crazy?
Quote: Because animals fear humans.
Eh. I fear people breaking into my house but that wouldn't keep me from shooting them in the face.
Fantastic news story, Darwin at work.
Stephen Colbert: A man lowered himself into a lion pit exclaiming "if god exists he will keep me safe from the lions!"...He was promptly mauled to death.
Quote: 2. Inbreeding of animals.
As I said, in the Biblical world view, all creatures were created perfect. Inbreeding was not a problem during Noah's time. This can be seen in the Bible when Abraham marries his half-sister and is blessed by God. (some time after the flood)
Yay more goddidit. How bout some evidence FOR your flood rather than coming up with unprovable excuses for all the real evidence against it. You still seem to have problems with this whole "science" thing, not to mention "evidence" and "proof".
Quote: 3. Ice core dating.
The way ice core dating gets it's apparent age is, from my understanding:
number of layers of ice / number of layers of ice per year = age of ice core.
The problem is that the part of the equation "number of layers of ice per year" is a number derived from current amounts of snowfall.
Assuming that a global flood occured, the amount of global evaporation immediately after would have been greater than what is observed today. Nearly all creation scientists agree that is would lead to a ice age, whereby the ice caps formed at rates far faster than they would have in today's climate.
It doesn't work like that. I've already explained THIS stupid crap too. Jeez. Have I told you that I hate you lately persocom?
I'm not even going to go into how ice core layers are counted or how they're supported by radiometric dating as well.
If your freakin flood happened in the first place the ice cores WOULD NOT EXIST. THEY WOULD HAVE FLOATED AWAY AND BROKEN APART. It's impossible for the ice cores to grow back under modern conditions so they can't possibly exist while noah's ark happened. They DO exist. Therefore noah's ark did not happen. You sabe?
Quote: To alexjohnc3:
I shall respect your wishes of not being called Mr.
The reason I do not refute the rest of your post is because it all boils down to to the same thing: That different people have different standards of justfication, and having no evidence is not proof that someone is illogical.
Nah, that's illogical. What's even more illogical is you continue to believe mythology not just from lack of evidence, but despite all the evidence against it.
Quote: "Since Mr.alexjohnc3 has trouble comprehending my position I will give another illustration.
You play coin toss with a stranger. You bet heads and he bets tails. However after 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999 tosses the coin came up tails every single time.
The result is clear, the coin came up tails each of the 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999 times. If I were in this situation, I would believe that it was not by chance alone that this happened. To me, it is logical to believe so. And I choose to believe that it did not occur due to pure luck even though I have no evidence to prove it.
ARGHHH! AGAIN! WHAT THE HELL IS THE CONTEXT?!?! WHAT DOES YOUR METAPHOR REPRESENT?!
Oh! You need to work on your reading comprehension skills too, we've gone over this whole metaphor thing three times now and you still fail to understand.
Quote: Mr.alexjohnc3 says that because I do not have evidence, my belief is illogical, and that Mr.Natrax who does not have "evidence" for the existance of god is also illogical." - Mr.Persocom01
"In the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of God's existence." - Sir Isaac Newton
I had no evidence, and I can only believe that it did not occur by chance. Yet I am not illogical, neither is fellow Mter Mr.Natrax illogical, nor is Sir Isaac Newton illogical.
"In the absence of any other disproof, persocom's existence alone would convince me of god's
non-existence" - Me
Quote by Persocom01"In the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of God's existence." - Sir Isaac Newton
I had no evidence, and I can only believe that it did not occur by chance. Yet I am not illogical, neither is fellow Mter Mr.Natrax illogical, nor is Sir Isaac Newton illogical.
I always seem to get on when I'm in a hurry; I have to leave for school in three minutes, so I'll quickly
respond to this.
It's an illogical fallacy known as "appeal to authority." I could care less if Newton thought he could create flying monkeys using magic, it doesn't make it any more or less true.
more or less the fault lies in the believer, they just view the other side as the absolute opposite...
I confess that I am afraid.
Quote by alexjohnc3That still doesn't make adults any more intelligent on average. Most idiots I've encountered online are religious adults. Maybe they're just more arrogant, but have relatively the same intellect as many unintelligent children.
BTW, when I say intelligent, I'm referring to their ability to reason objectively.
"Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts," - 2 Peter 3:3
Quote by alexjohnc3GEE, why would that only leave God always existing as the only possibility? Why can't matter just have always existed?
"And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:" - 2 Peter 3:4-5
Quote by PlunkiesThe problem is I have disproven any possibility of noah's ark ever happening and you still believe it. How? Why?
"Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:" - 2 Peter 3:6
"Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:" - 2 Peter 3:3-6
This prophecy was made close to 2 Millennia ago.
I have not felt so afraid in a long time. I am seized by fear such that the hairs on my arm stand on end, and the hair on the back of my neck prickles. I feel that the eye of God is upon me, and I fear.
Join us at http://christian-fellowship.minitokyo.net/
Finally you've given up attempting to prove your beliefs in reality and just babble on in bible quotes. You sir have moved into Crazy Town, enjoy your stay and try not to yell at the cars too much.
Quote by Persocom01I have not felt so afraid in a long time. I am seized by fear such that the hairs on my arm stand on end, and the hair on the back of my neck prickles. I feel that the eye of God is upon me, and I fear.
Actually that's the eye of Sauron. Mordor is advancing through your backyard and soon you'll be brutally beaten by a troll. If you think you're scared now, wait till they throw you into the warg pit....
He probably thinks he's less insane because there are other people as equally insane as he is.
Quote by Persocom01I confess that I am afraid.
I don't understand why you put this sarcasm in, I'm not trying to turn you off to your own personal belief, I
just want see if there's any truth in the Christian religion. If there's not I don't want people to think
their religion is any more than a personal belief because that would cause meaningless harm to others, e.g., http://www.godhatesfags.com/
Quote by Persocom01
Quote by alexjohnc3That still doesn't make adults any more intelligent on average. Most idiots I've encountered online are religious adults. Maybe they're just more arrogant, but have relatively the same intellect as many unintelligent children.
BTW, when I say intelligent, I'm referring to their ability to reason objectively.
"Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts," - 2 Peter 3:3
What does this have to do with anything? I said that on the guestbook of my group when I was trying to show that just
because adults can take care of themselves they aren't necessarily more or less intelligent than children if you
refer to intelligence by one's ability to reason objectively.
Stop posting things that have nothing to do with what we're talking about. What you should have done is try to refute the fact that you were using an illogical fallacy by trying to prove your God using Isaac Newton's quote.
Quote by Persocom01
Quote by alexjohnc3GEE, why would that only leave God always existing as the only possibility? Why can't matter just have always existed?
"And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:" - 2 Peter 3:4-5
I don't understand what this does to explain why matter could have always existed without a Creator.
Edit: You barely replied to any of the arguments made against you. Maybe if you ignore them God will edit our posts so you feel self-righteous about your religion. If you can't back up your own beliefs maybe you should re-think why you believe again. Most likely because you were raised to believe it...
Unfortunately, the Vedas scriptures in Hindu sacred texts (older than the Bible) do not say anything about a global flood. In view that Hinduism is the oldest living religion, does that make the claim of Noah's Ark untrue? After all, if there was a flood wiping out all life other than those aboard the ark, that would make other religions extinct except Noah's.
The Babylonian Gilgamesh epos tells about a great flood. A flood started by angry gods to punish humans. The main difference I saw was the duration and instead of a dove, a crow is released in the end. The similarities are so great its scary.
There was a great flood around the same time written in the bible creating the Black Sea. It is believed that on a
certain moment the Bosporus broke and water from the Mediterranian flooded the lower land behind.
Quite propable when you take into acount the rising sealevel at the end of the last iceage and the discovery of villages
on the bottom of the Black Sea.
they dont really contradict each other, religion expains what happened, but science tells us how it happened. thats the way i see it... it all depends on how we look at it. :)
Quote by GEEThe Babylonian Gilgamesh epos tells about a great flood. A flood started by angry gods to punish humans. The main difference I saw was the duration and instead of a dove, a crow is released in the end. The similarities are so great its scary.
There was a great flood around the same time written in the bible creating the Black Sea. It is believed that on a certain moment the Bosporus broke and water from the Mediterranian flooded the lower land behind.
Quite propable when you take into acount the rising sealevel at the end of the last iceage and the discovery of villages on the bottom of the Black Sea.
Uh yeah. The bible pretty much stole those fables and recasted the characters. Hell christianity stole everything. They stole Jesus, damn near every holiday you can think of, probably half the bible is plagiarism in one form or another.
Anyway, even perso's christian propaganda site rejects the black sea flood as being the biblical flood.
Wzwejtes
Atog's got the idea. :D
But replace god in the title thread with Loki for me.
Also, thread wins for Phelps. Woooo, I live near that guy! :nya:
A fish should swim thrice: in water, in sauce, and in wine.
LoL, who says they don't go together? Being a science major I was once faced with this issue. Although saying that everything was prepared and is managed by God would be a simple answer, there are things that science has been able to prove and manipulate, including mapping and the altering of DNA.
However, on the other hand, there are many things that science has not been able to prove, the major one being HOW did everything begin? Although we may begin by saying Electrons->Atoms->Molecules->Macromolecules, etc... one has to wonder, well, who started it all?
I believe that God leads us, he does not have a set route for any of us, however, he does multiple routes for us to lead our livess, much like those old Goosebumps books, man those were cool, but thats not the point ^^ Science is the understanding of God's creations, much like English/Forgein Language Studies is the understanding of other langauges.
Those who are strictly religious, I believe(no offense), and deny science are afraid that their beliefs may crumble if they accept science into their lives. However, what they fail to realize is that simple electricity is the product of this whole "preposterous" science thing.
On the other hand, those hardcore scientist out there, I feel, believe that God "is a product of the human mind to in an attempt to satisfy our instinctual need for reassurance and understanding of our environment," in other words: we fear what we do not understand, therefore, we use God in order to calm our selves. Sound familiar to many of you scientist guys out there? Haha, this is what I used to believe, however, through the years I realized I could not excuse all my fortunes to be simple "coincidence."
Never tell them everything!
It can. As long as the one is willing to resepect and appreciate the value of the other, it certainly can. This can
become an extremely long debate, but my bottom line remains, it can.
The same as what certain doctors believe that their skill and accomplishments are all done by the grace of God, they
thank God for all that they have done, so too will there alwys be doctors who actually develop a God-syndrome, thinking
that they themselves perform godly miracles with the gift of life.
If you come ... you will find me.
i think it does. i found out how the dinosaurs died(i think). there was no meteor. they were alive with adam and eve. after the flood they were killed off from the new weather and different living conditions. this is just my veiw-point though.
Quote by Plunkies Uh yeah. The bible pretty much stole those fables and recasted the characters. Hell christianity stole everything. They stole Jesus, damn near every holiday you can think of, probably half the bible is plagiarism in one form or another.
I wouldn't excactly say steal, It is more like they have the same origin.
When you look back in history, there were 2 major cultures: the Indo-european and the Semite.
It is nice to see that you still see the traces of those 2 cultures. Some words are the same over large parts of the
world.
Like the word for god: Aces, Azen (Scandinavian), Ahura (Iranian), Asura (sanskrit), Deva (sanskrit), Daeva (Iranian),
Deus (Latin). (Also ever thought about Eien and Aeon?)
Other similarities are the belief in multiple gods, cyclical history view, vision as most important sense, the belief in
a battle between good and evil, you have to mature your own soul.
For the Semetic culture: Monotheism, linear history view (very important, look at the bible: from the creation till the
end of time), hearing as most important sense (Hear Israel), your soul will be released by god.
The flood is a very interesting subject because it is here where the Semitic and Indo-European cultures meet.
If you take your time, you can trace all cultures back to these 2 origins, and these two to a single one. Thats why I think it is meaningless to battle between religions. Because in the end, we all have the same history, and we all believe in the same god.
Scince is based on theories, hipothes', formulas, and a bunch of other what nots. While religeon is based on faith and beliefs. I'm a christian and don't believe in somethings they teach in the science rooms. Like how we came from monkeys. Hey, amybe your ancestors are a bunch of chimps and apes, but I know mine aren't!
Quote by xxlilkrnanimefreak7Scince is based on theories, hipothes', formulas, and a bunch of other what nots. While religeon is based on faith and beliefs. I'm a christian and don't believe in somethings they teach in the science rooms. Like how we came from monkeys. Hey, amybe your ancestors are a bunch of chimps and apes, but I know mine aren't!
Science holds a certain amount of truth. Science studies creation, but does not understand all created things, and thus misinterpretation of scientific information is inevitable. (for example, they thought that 95% of DNA was junk a couple of years back... not true now apparently)
There is good reason to believe that we do not come from ape-like ancestors. Religion need not be based on faith alone.
"Hey, amybe your ancestors are a bunch of chimps and apes, but I know mine aren't!" - xxlilkrnanimefreak7
"In the multitude of words there wanteth not sin: but he that refraineth his lips [is] wise." - Proverbs 10:19
While I agree with your convictions, as a brother in Christ I have to warn you about your words that provoke sin. (I am guilty of it sometimes too) It is best to only say what is necessary.
Join us at http://christian-fellowship.minitokyo.net/
Quote by xxlilkrnanimefreak7Scince is based on theories, hipothes', formulas, and a bunch of other what nots. While religeon is based on faith and beliefs. I'm a christian and don't believe in somethings they teach in the science rooms. Like how we came from monkeys. Hey, amybe your ancestors are a bunch of chimps and apes, but I know mine aren't!
You disgust me. If Christianity causes people to have your ignorant views, then I'm sure God would be pretty damn
disappointed in you.
No ... I don't think they can ever go together... If you try staying to one side (say religion) and still believe a little in the other side (science...), many people [from the religious side] would be angry with you and not really consider you [being religious]. I think it's the same thing vice-versa, but it's still something people can't get over with or can't give up ... I'm personally on science ... :)
But I'm okay with people believing in whatever makes them happy-as long as it doesn't involve trying to convert me to ... bullsh*t. :x
Quote by Persocom01 (for example, they thought that 95% of DNA was junk a couple of years back... not true now apparently)
Ugh. I let this slide when you kept saying this a few posts ago but it's starting to annoy me now. For future reference...just because someone hasn't yet called you out on the stupid things you say, it doesn't make them any less stupid.
1. It has long been known that some noncoding DNA has important functions. (This was known even before the phrase
"junk DNA" was coined.) However, there is good evidence that much DNA has no function:
* Sections of DNA can be cut out or replaced with randomized sequences with no apparent effect on the organism
(N�³brega et al. 2004).
* Some sections of DNA are corrupted copies of functional coding DNA, but mutations in them, such as stop codons early
in the sequence, show that they cannot have retained the same function as the coding copy.
* The fugu fish has a genome that is about one third as large as its close relatives.
* Mutations in functional regions of DNA show evidence of selection -- nonsilent changes occur less often that one would
expect by chance. In other sections of DNA, there is no evidence that any changes are selected against.
Quote by alexjohnc3
Quote by xxlilkrnanimefreak7 is based on theories, hipothes', formulas, and a bunch of other what nots. While religeon is based on faith and beliefs. I'm a christian and don't believe in somethings they teach in the science rooms. Like how we came from monkeys. Hey, amybe your ancestors are a bunch of chimps and apes, but I know mine aren't!
You disgust me. If Christianity causes people to have your ignorant views, then I'm sure God would be pretty damn disappointed in you.
I find it best to just ignore people who are this ignorant. Apparently they find coming from monkeys demeaning,
completely oblivious to the fact that the bible says they came from DIRT.
Quote by Plunkies
Quote by alexjohnc3You disgust me. If Christianity causes people to have your ignorant views, then I'm sure God would be pretty damn disappointed in you.
I find it best to just ignore people who are this ignorant. Apparently they find coming from monkeys demeaning, completely oblivious to the fact that the bible says they came from DIRT.
It's sickening to know humans are prone to this stupidity though... I guess he's more proof against something
intelligent designing us. ;)
I wonder when people will finally understand that evolution does not deal specifically with humans "coming from monkeys," that evolution is a fact for biological organisms, just as gravity is ( http://theonion.com/content/node/39512 ). Some less informed Christians might also like to know that we did not evolve from "monkeys". Humans and monkeys both have a common ancestry, but we're not direct descendants. God, I hate religious dogma. It screws religious people up so much that it takes away most of their already little credibility in their ability to reason well.
I always wondered if there are any who support the idea of progressive creationism which embraces the possibility of God and science. Like he created the earth and everything else, in succession, and then over time, he left us to our own devices.
Click signature for my blog
The wind of destiny blows, and the descendant shall walk the earth once more...
page 6 of 9 « Previous 1... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next » 196 total items
Back to Religion & Science | Active Threads | Forum Index
Only members can post replies, please register.
