# Evidence fish grew legs much earlier than thought



## News Bot (Jan 7, 2010)

*Published On:* 07-Jan-10 04:00 AM
*Source:* Associated Press
*Author:* By RAPHAEL G. SATTER

LONDON (AP) -- The sea-dwelling ancestors of modern-day mammals, reptiles and birds emerged from the water millions of years earlier than previously believed, according to new research published Wednesday....

*Go to Original Article*


----------



## lizardjasper (Jan 7, 2010)

I don't believe in evolution. It's like saying that a motorbike oozed up out of the oil over millions of years, then evolved into a car, then into a truck, then into a semi-trailer. 
Not to mention there's no true scientific evidence to prove the theory.
Sorry, but it's true!


----------



## wiz-fiz (Jan 7, 2010)

lizardjasper said:


> I don't believe in evolution. It's like saying that a motorbike oozed up out of the oil over millions of years, then evolved into a car, then into a truck, then into a semi-trailer.
> Not to mention there's no true scientific evidence to prove the theory.
> Sorry, but it's true!


 

where do you think we came from if we didn't evolve?


Will


----------



## cris (Jan 7, 2010)

lizardjasper said:


> I don't believe in evolution. It's like saying that a motorbike oozed up out of the oil over millions of years, then evolved into a car, then into a truck, then into a semi-trailer.
> Not to mention there's no true scientific evidence to prove the theory.
> Sorry, but it's true!



I agree, dont get me started on these idiots who think the world is a spherical body, if it wasnt flat we would all just roll to the bottom or fall into hell. They trouble is these days kids just read this so called 'science' of the interwebnet and get confused about reality.


----------



## jham66 (Jan 7, 2010)

lizardjasper said:


> I don't believe in evolution. It's like saying that a motorbike oozed up out of the oil over millions of years, then evolved into a car, then into a truck, then into a semi-trailer.
> Not to mention there's no true scientific evidence to prove the theory.
> Sorry, but it's true!



Motorbikes did evolve; first there was the wheel, then the bicycle, then a motorised bicycle, then ...........eventually it became the motorcycle we know today. The same can be said for cars, trucks and semi-trailers. You even even say they all share a common ancestor (The wheel) as well. I think you chose a very poor example of evolution not occurring, technology is the most quickly evolving of all mans creations.


----------



## lizardjasper (Jan 7, 2010)

Yes, I'll give you that jham66, but they didn't evolve by themselves did they? They had a creator.


----------



## sara_sabian (Jan 7, 2010)

lizardjasper said:


> =
> Not to mention there's no true scientific evidence to prove the theory.
> Sorry, but it's true!


 
You're going to argue there's no scientific profe and then go on to cite a creator? are you serious? show me some proof, please, I'd be happy to see it. 

Prooving evolution to soeone who does not want to beleive in it is like trying to prove the sky is blue to someone wearing red tinted glasses.

I also doubt you've looked into ANY of the scientific proof available on evolution.

Comparing the creation of a motorbike to organic, living creatures is redundant and has absolutley nothing to do with natural selection and survival of the fittest.
A mechanical structure simply will not change unless influenced by outside forces, it can't change form, can't _evolve. _Life forms can, they change and the changes that work survive. Evolution in a nutshell.


----------



## morgs202 (Jan 7, 2010)

Also, theres 98% (i think) genetic similarity between us and chimps, fossilized remains of cro magnon man and neanderthals. Also, a motorbike cant exactly evolve because its not organic. Things that are alive CAN evolve as they adapt to new surrounding and reproduce. Do let me know if you see to motor bikes gettin it on though!


----------



## xavarx7 (Jan 7, 2010)

sara_sabian said:


> You're going to argue there's no scientific profe and then go on to cite a creator? are you serious? show me some proof, please, I'd be happy to see it.
> 
> Prooving evolution to soeone who does not want to beleive in it is like trying to prove the sky is blue to someone wearing red tinted glasses.
> 
> ...



very nicely put could not have said it better my self.. and i got to love when ever some one says show me the prof... go to a museum and look at the progression of the fossils and how they change through the years


----------



## antaresia_boy (Jan 7, 2010)

Lol calm it guys, I'm _pretty_ sure jasper is screwin' with you all...at least I hope so.


----------



## lizardjasper (Jan 7, 2010)

Ahh indeed. You'll see!


----------



## otomix (Jan 8, 2010)

HAHAHA!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Why wont god heal amputees??? cmon jebus!!!!

Jasper, you ARE joking right?


----------



## Fuscus (Jan 8, 2010)

lizardjasper said:


> It's like saying that a motorbike oozed up out of the oil over millions of years, then evolved into a car, then into a truck, then into a semi-trailer.


Mama motorbike does not combine blueprints with papa motorbike to make baby motorbike so the comparison, like all creationist arguments, is intellectually feeble


lizardjasper said:


> Not to mention there's no true scientific evidence to prove the theory.


Funny, I see it every day. Maybe we live on different planets or I walk around with my eyes open.


lizardjasper said:


> Sorry, but it's true!


Ahhh, usage of the word "True" that I'm not familiar with.


----------



## the_tsar (Jan 8, 2010)

Re: A Creator etc. 

I think a lack of scientific knowledge is the only reason people cant see Evolution.

I also think the Laws of Physics that exist in Chemistry are the way Life becomes assembled, needing No room for a creator. So to me life is inevitable anywhere this chemistry is free to "be", in a UNiverse whose laws reach the furthest corners.
I mean the laws governing star chemistry are the same, so I assume is the interaction of Chemistry in organic material.

And if Physics/chemistry creates life, and evolution produced US, when exactly does God come into the picture?? 

As Dawkins said, When one looks at the evidence, NO reasonable person could refute Evolution. 
We have Intermediatry species (links) we have fossils that show common variety, who sit in mud aged appropriatly for evolutions theory to be maintained, and even discounting this evidence, there is genetic evidence of evolution.

There is NO question I cant answer competantly, without God as an answer. To me, one is either wise enough to See Evolution, or confused enough to still fit God into life as a reasonable assumption about our History. 

I personally think a true Darwinian IS an Athiest, and those who believe in both God and Darwin, have not thought their phylosophies out well at all, as they are intellectually, incompatable. 

Thats my 2 cents. Just for reference really.


----------



## lizardjasper (Jan 8, 2010)

Yebby, I'm havin a go at yas. Ya'll really shouldnt be so defensive!
(especially when there's no evidence) lol  sorry can't help myself!


----------



## noah07 (Jan 8, 2010)

yeah right.... your just back peddling now coz everyone is jumping down ya throut..........


----------



## naledge (Jan 8, 2010)

cris said:


> I agree, dont get me started on these idiots who think the world is a spherical body, if it wasnt flat we would all just roll to the bottom or fall into hell. They trouble is these days kids just read this so called 'science' of the interwebnet and get confused about reality.



I choked on my Pepsi when I read this, thanks for that :lol:

For those that don't believe in evolution, get a tadpole.


----------



## Just_Plain_Nuts (Jan 9, 2010)

Firstly Cris , the Bible does indicate to us that the world is round, just doesnt make a big deal about it. See Isaiah 40:22. "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth and its people are like grasshoppers" 
Secondly the Theory of Evolution is just that...a THEORY meaning that it has not been proven. Thirdly the whole chimp thing , does it not make sense that all of someones' works share similarities...seeing as they are made by the same person??? 
Fourthly (if there is such a word?) Concerning Darwin...his theory was conceived in 1859 before electron microscopes etc. A lot has changed since then...and a lot of his theory is falling apart. Lets start here, he said, _"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."_
--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species
With our modern technology we now discover organisms like the bacterial flagellum which are certainly complex and are not reducible in its complexity. Not to mention Darwin's ideas on the so called simple cell.....which is completely been blown out of the water. I agree that animals can and do evolve, to a degree but not to the extent of the diversity of life in our world. Another interesting fact is the statistical probability of these evolution steps to occur are far beyond absurd. eg for a red blood cell to be formed by chance from the amino acids it consists of are 1 in 10 to the power of 650...for those mathematicians out there will realise the magnitude of such a number. And before I get the "you are blind and ignorant and know nothing of science" retorts , I am very much into science and had studied it my entire life. I got dragged to church but after examining the facts and doing extensive research I have made up my own mind. It is just hard for people to believe anything but evolution because it gets drummed into us from childhood at school. In case you had not gathered by now, I believe in GOD. Anyone one want to argue some more iI welcome it..


----------



## garycahill (Jan 9, 2010)

You claim that evolution hasn't been proven.
God - Jesus - the bible has a lot less proof to go on.
I can't see why anyone would blindly follow something there is no proof to.
Particulary when the churches have spent their entire time as an entity gathering wealth.


----------



## Just_Plain_Nuts (Jan 9, 2010)

The church does have a lot to answer for but so does humanity as a whole. The question is how much do you know about the Bible? Everyone is quick to bag the Bible and i can guarantee that none of the bible knockers have actually ever read it let alone understood much of it.. I have studied it for three years and I still know very little of it. As to its proof or validity , it is the first port of call for ancient historians, it is the most accurate and complete collection of ancient history that is backed up and supported by other books, scrolls, documents, archeological artifacts.


----------



## garycahill (Jan 9, 2010)

Fine, point out some actual proof that Jesus or God actually exist.
You seem to have dodged that part of the question in your last post.


----------



## Just_Plain_Nuts (Jan 9, 2010)

need to get some sleep but i'll get back to you tomorrow, cheers


----------



## garycahill (Jan 9, 2010)

Lol


----------



## grimbeny (Jan 9, 2010)

Just_Plain_Nuts said:


> Firstly Cris , the Bible does indicate to us that the world is round, just doesnt make a big deal about it. See Isaiah 40:22. "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth and its people are like grasshoppers"
> Secondly the Theory of Evolution is just that...a THEORY meaning that it has not been proven. Thirdly the whole chimp thing , does it not make sense that all of someones' works share similarities...seeing as they are made by the same person???
> Fourthly (if there is such a word?) Concerning Darwin...his theory was conceived in 1859 before electron microscopes etc. A lot has changed since then...and a lot of his theory is falling apart. Lets start here, he said, _"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."_
> --Charles Darwin, Origin of Species
> With our modern technology we now discover organisms like the bacterial flagellum which are certainly complex and are not reducible in its complexity. Not to mention Darwin's ideas on the so called simple cell.....which is completely been blown out of the water. I agree that animals can and do evolve, to a degree but not to the extent of the diversity of life in our world. Another interesting fact is the statistical probability of these evolution steps to occur are far beyond absurd. eg for a red blood cell to be formed by chance from the amino acids it consists of are 1 in 10 to the power of 650...for those mathematicians out there will realise the magnitude of such a number. And before I get the "you are blind and ignorant and know nothing of science" retorts , I am very much into science and had studied it my entire life. I got dragged to church but after examining the facts and doing extensive research I have made up my own mind. It is just hard for people to believe anything but evolution because it gets drummed into us from childhood at school. In case you had not gathered by now, I believe in GOD. Anyone one want to argue some more iI welcome it..



When you say you have studied science all your life what do you mean, any particular field? I certainly wouldnt ask a neuroscientist about particle physics even though they would probably have some perspective on it. You say evolution is just a theory, yet as someone who has imersed themselves in science you would surely know what this means. A theory is the highest ranking an explanation of something can get in science. The fact that the earth revolves arround the sun is just a theory. To lay men the word theory should really be read as the word as fact. Evolution by natural selection is a theory and will always be a theory no matter how much proof we can generate for it.

I cant help but think you copied that irreducible complexity argument from some religious website. I dont know if you have read much on it but irreducible complexity is an extremely poor line to follow on trying to debunk natural selection. For starters the evolution of many biological systems that were once considered ireducibly complex have since been better understood. Claiming something is far to complex to ever understand is like limiting ourselves to only things that are blindingly obvious.

I encourage you to take a look into the litterature on the current theories about the evolution of things such as the flagella motor. 

"Another interesting fact is the statistical probability of these evolution steps to occur are far beyond absurd. eg for a red blood cell to be formed by chance from the amino acids it consists of are 1 in 10 to the power of 650..."

This is a very interesting point becaus it outlines how you dont actually understand the theory of evolution. The theory of natural selection works on probability but there is a huge component which skews the results. Say the evolution of a red blood cell was like getting 10 000 dice and rolling all 6's. By random chance this seems very unlikely. But what if every generation you got to re roll all the dice except those which were already 6's, you can see how after 2 billion years you might get some pretty interesting results. There is a very interesting book that explains evolution in a way that people who dont understand can learn how it really works. Its called climbing mount improbable.

If you want to claim that you have imersed yourself in science then i encourage you to actually read and understand the principles you are talking about before you discredit them.


----------



## naledge (Jan 9, 2010)

garycahill said:


> Fine, point out some actual proof that Jesus or God actually exist.
> You seem to have dodged that part of the question in your last post.





Just_Plain_Nuts said:


> need to get some sleep but i'll get back to you tomorrow, cheers



haha gold.


----------



## D3pro (Jan 9, 2010)

haha... I funny find arguments these....


----------



## grimbeny (Jan 9, 2010)

Just_Plain_Nuts said:


> The church does have a lot to answer for but so does humanity as a whole. The question is how much do you know about the Bible? Everyone is quick to bag the Bible and i can guarantee that none of the bible knockers have actually ever read it let alone understood much of it.. I have studied it for three years and I still know very little of it. As to its proof or validity , it is the first port of call for ancient historians, it is the most accurate and complete collection of ancient history that is backed up and supported by other books, scrolls, documents, archeological artifacts.



Interesting point, becaus most of the documentaries i have seen on the topic do not use the bible as a true account of events . Practically all of the old testiment has no supporting evidence for any of the stories written within. Most of the stuff that could be verified in the new testiment has not been. There is very little evidence to accompany any of the bible. All of the new testiment was written atleast 70 yrs after jesus's death by people who never met him. There is not enough supporting evidence for it to be taken as a complete non-fictional account of events on any level.


----------



## garycahill (Jan 9, 2010)

That's what I always believed also, but I don't have enough proof or knowledge to argue the fact.
I would also like to know where & how you studied the bible?
It wasn't by any chance as part of a church group? Or was it part of an impartial scientific study?
I have also studied the bible, for 6 years! At school, although I did do quite a lot of sleeping.
What documents provide proof to the bible & which ancient historians used the bible as their first port of call? 
This also needs to be taken into context as religion as a whole was view very differently before science progressed. 
Churches are guilty of trying to prevent science of progressing, for what seems to be self preservation. 
After all, thousands were murdered & raped all around the globe in the name of Christianity.
They had it blessed by the church before they set out & called it the crusades!


----------



## cris (Jan 9, 2010)

Just_Plain_Nuts said:


> The church does have a lot to answer for but so does humanity as a whole. The question is how much do you know about the Bible? Everyone is quick to bag the Bible and i can guarantee that none of the bible knockers have actually ever read it let alone understood much of it.. I have studied it for three years and I still know very little of it. As to its proof or validity , it is the first port of call for ancient historians, it is the most accurate and complete collection of ancient history that is backed up and supported by other books, scrolls, documents, archeological artifacts.



I went to Christian schools, involving not only daily attempted brainwashing, but also religious education on Christianity and other popular superstitions. This made it impossible for me to be anything other than an atheist, im yet to see a religion with any credibility. I have always wondered why religious schools teach science as its in direct and incompatible conflict with the blind faith of any religion. In a hypothetical situation you could raise humans in a controlled environemnt wiothout any contact to previous religions and they would simply make up a new one. I could go on but it may start becoming offensive to religious types.


----------



## D3pro (Jan 9, 2010)

well I have to get on the "the world has a creator side" in this argument lol...

and I have many many reasons and I don't care much of what people think of my opinions... cause all opinions stink.

By far the biggest question is.... us? How did we get here? well Darwin thought he was smart and said "Monkeys" lol.... ok Darwin, I'll byte lol, where's your proof? Darwin:"um, there's a missing link"... Oh I see, well lets go digging.....Darwin the old boy died and till this day no link (or links) which is weird... cause if we evolved from monkeys then there must be thousands of links to show our evolutionary road here right? well i guess we can keep digging lol. 

my second question is, the universe and all life in general... How did that get here? You look at nature and it's complicated... even our non living galaxy is complicated... one living cell (even a so called simple cell) is more complicated then any technology we can yet imagine. In fact, scientists cant figure out how these "simple" cells came to be... "Oh it was a coincidence".... Oh was it? ok, well here is a clock... i'm going to take this apart, piece by piece and put in a box... now i will shake the box for millions of years... ok to be fair, billions... when I stop shaking, according to this theory of coincidence, a working clock will fall out...

Scientists/science understands sooo much of our universe... all 5% of it (actually it's 4%, but lets not get technical) 

Is there a creator? well um, I dont know... maybe it was all a coincidence, or maybe there is something in the rest of the universe (96% of it) that created life...

lol life is a joke kids, lets all die laughing


----------



## garycahill (Jan 9, 2010)

Science has been able to create life in the lab for some time now.
By create I mean from gasses that are found in the atmosphere & space, not fertilising an embryo.


----------



## D3pro (Jan 9, 2010)

nope... we have manipulated life... no man made cell yet


----------



## cris (Jan 9, 2010)

The best question for any believer in creationism, is who created the creator of the creators creationists, creators creator? Then when you answer that ask the same question again about who made that creator.


----------



## grimbeny (Jan 9, 2010)

D3pro said:


> By far the biggest question is.... us? How did we get here? well Darwin thought he was smart and said "Monkeys" lol.... ok Darwin, I'll byte lol, where's your proof? Darwin:"um, there's a missing link"... Oh I see, well lets go digging.....Darwin the old boy died and till this day no link (or links) which is weird... cause if we evolved from monkeys then there must be thousands of links to show our evolutionary road here right? well i guess we can keep digging lol.
> 
> my second question is, the universe and all life in general... How did that get here? You look at nature and it's complicated... even our non living galaxy is complicated... one living cell (even a so called simple cell) is more complicated then any technology we can yet imagine. In fact, scientists cant figure out how these "simple" cells came to be... "Oh it was a coincidence".... Oh was it? ok, well here is a clock... i'm going to take this apart, piece by piece and put in a box... now i will shake the box for millions of years... ok to be fair, billions... when I stop shaking, according to this theory of coincidence, a working clock will fall out...
> 
> ...



Thousands of missing links have been found... why dont you google the evolution of man, you will see that many of intermediate stages between the ancestors we share with chimpanzees and ourselves have been identified and reconstructed.

The other thing is evolution by natural selection is not about random chance, we dont think all of the parts just fell together after being shaken. Whenever somthing went right it was copied millions of times, when something went wrong it wasnt copied. Its like your clock analogy but whenever a piece did fall into the right place it was glued into position. you can see how with lots of shaking and lots of glueing you could get a clock that works. 

Ofcourse these analogies can only take you so far, if you want to actually understand them you need to read some of the writing on the topic.


----------



## garycahill (Jan 9, 2010)

D3pro said:


> nope... we have manipulated life... no man made cell yet


 
That contradicts what I have read. Where did you find that information?
As far as not having found the missing link, it is more than possible that it is in the fuel tank of your car!
Carbon based life forms make up crude oil.
Another interesting fact is how long ago was it when the missing link should have been around?
I don't find it hard to believe that no-one can find it, I generally can't find my car keys after a night at the pub.


----------



## grimbeny (Jan 9, 2010)

I they havnt created life yet it wont be long before they do. Here is an article on the topic.
Life to order: Man-made organisms will be here in four months, say biologists | Mail Online


----------



## D3pro (Jan 9, 2010)

garycahill said:


> That contradicts what I have read. Where did you find that information?



Well I read lots of science mags, i love them, and one of the top guys (can't be bothered getting it out) said that how the first micro organism were formed is still a mystery... 

aaand the clock analogy was not for evolution but for the appearance of the first cell... again... I can shake the atoms needed and nothing will happen, maybe gas will come out...

and here we have another problem.... Theory, evolution is a theory... anyone want to look up a dictionary?

Excuse My French emotion, but it seems that theres a herd of evolutionist attacking the creationists... I'm not even bring up the bible, no need... science is great don't get me wrong, but sometimes big adults have to admit that they don't understand everything


----------



## D3pro (Jan 9, 2010)

grimbeny said:


> I they havnt created life yet it wont be long before they do. Here is an article on the topic.
> Life to order: Man-made organisms will be here in four months, say biologists | Mail Online



1:" Scientists are only months away from creating artificial life, it was claimed yesterday." haa, they haven't done it yet...

2:"The pioneering 'gene swap' was performed on a simple species of bacteria called Mycoplasma mycoides.
Carole Lartigue and colleagues removed the bacteria's entire genome and inserted it into the yeast - an organism that is distant from bacteria on the tree of life. 
Yeast is easier to manipulate in the lab and this process allowed the team to alter the genes - in this case, deleting one gene not necessary for bacteria to live." well they seem to be manipulating what was already made... thats not creating a cell from dirt is it?


----------



## grimbeny (Jan 9, 2010)

D3pro said:


> Well I read lots of science mags, i love them, and one of the top guys (can't be bothered getting it out) said that how the first micro organism were formed is still a mystery...
> 
> aaand the clock analogy was not for evolution but for the appearance of the first cell... again... I can shake the atoms needed and nothing will happen, maybe gas will come out...
> 
> ...



Lol so now we are talking about shaking atoms? I thought you were using an analogy to explain a complex problem. I dont think there was any shaking involved in the generation of the first 'living thing'. Life could have begun in our oceans and maybe didnt consist of the molecules we see in living things today but maybe it did. Google abiogenesis, in the library at uni there is a whole wall of books on the topic. 

The origin of life is a mystery and to some it always will be, trying to understand what happened 3 billion years ago is pretty difficult but that is one reason why it is so facinating. Admiting that we dont know everything is the first step in trying to understand somthing, if natural selection was found to be insufficient to explain the evolution of life we wouldnt turn to creation, we would turn to the data and try to find another explanation. If the evidence supported the idea of creation science would be happy to move in that direction.


----------



## D3pro (Jan 9, 2010)

grimbeny said:


> Lol so now we are talking about shaking atoms? I thought you were using an analogy to explain a complex problem. I dont think there was any shaking involved in the generation of the first 'living thing'. Life could have begun in our oceans and maybe didnt consist of the molecules we see in living things today but maybe it did. Google abiogenesis, in the library at uni there is a whole wall of books on the topic.
> 
> The origin of life is a mystery and to some it always will be, trying to understand what happened 3 billion years ago is pretty difficult but that is one reason why it is so facinating. Admiting that we dont know everything is the first step in trying to understand somthing, if natural selection was found to be insufficient to explain the evolution of life we wouldnt turn to creation, we would turn to the data and try to find another explanation. If the evidence supported the idea of creation science would be happy to move in that direction.



Creation was there for so long, science ignored it because humans cannot take the fact the is a more powerful being out there, science is not science, it's an orthodox religion... anyone remember when it was first suggested that the world was round to the scientists of the time?(even tho the bible some how already knew) or even now, it was proven that the world has grown to what it is now.... the continents didn't move around like if it was skating on ice... (yet that teaching has been scrapped) As a child I loved the brontosaurus, but wait, it never existed, it was just a head put on another dinosaurs body, yet, even though it was proven wrong, it is still taught to children as a scientific fact that the Brontosaurus roamed the land billions of years ago... 

How can one take science seriously, if when ever it is proven wrong it shakes it's head, covering it's ears yelling "NEVER MORE".

How did life begin? how come beauty is all around us, when beauty is not necessary for life to exist? How come there are intelligent mathematical equations in creations... How come we feel emotions when, if we were to look at survival of the fittest or evolution, there is no need for it to survive is life. How come we our selves create when we don't need too? Simple questions that make life what it is now have not been answered by science... because science does not have all the answers, because it wont listen.


----------



## D3pro (Jan 9, 2010)

cris said:


> The best question for any believer in creationism, is who created the creator of the creators creationists, creators creator? Then when you answer that ask the same question again about who made that creator.



haha, time is irrelevant, you and I only have a perception of time because we ourselves were created... if there is no actual force as time but rather we are still then there can easily be a being that always was and always will be. 

Many say the universe is timeless, if so, then the universe too has no start... and so no end... but what is the universe but empty space filled with things that had a start, things created by something that didn't have a start.


----------



## Renagade (Jan 9, 2010)

this may have already been pondered...
for the christians: do you think that jesus literally walked on water, rose from the dead...water to wine?... ie, Do you think that the bible is full of facts? that the text was played out as it is written? do you also have and/or support sexest values for women and condem homersexuals? and do you think that societies values can let you adapt the bible for contempory living? ie: is it timeless or is it dated?
i have a variety of friends on all scales of this debate. I have an anglican reverend friend who works in perth who doesn't believe that the bible factually happened but that it is a beautiful way to live harmoniously with 'god' represented a on earth in multiple ways. I have a lesbian friend who goes to a catholic church at least once a week, is a devoured catholic christian even though her own faith condems her. Also muslims, buddists, and an _australian_ amount of athiest who celebrate christian hollidays when it is lucritve... and the a small amout of actual athiests.

It is an interesting debate, not really worth hacking on about why god lets things happen and for what reasons, the fact that there is so many different types of religion to me falsafies all of them. kinda like if you ask people if they think they are good drivers... 90% people respond in saying that they are an above average driver... it makes no sense??? 

have you seen 'life on earth' the bbc doco series? do you think it is far fetched?

ok that is alot of questions... but i do have one more REALLY important one
i AM gay,
I am NOT a virgin...

am i going to hell?


----------



## Fuscus (Jan 9, 2010)

Just_Plain_Nuts said:


> Firstly Cris , the Bible does indicate to us that the world is round, just doesnt make a big deal about it. See Isaiah 40:22. "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth and its people are like grasshoppers"


I read that as people having six legs and compound eyes?


Just_Plain_Nuts;1616586
Secondly the Theory of Evolution is just that...a THEORY meaning that it has not been proven. Thirdly the whole chimp thing said:


> Do you actually know the meaning of theory or are you just parroting the standard creationist tripe?



Fourthly (if there is such a word?) Concerning Darwin...his theory was conceived in 1859 before electron microscopes etc. A lot has changed since then...and a lot of his theory is falling apart. Lets start here, he said, _"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."_
--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species
With our modern technology we now discover organisms like the bacterial flagellum which are certainly complex and are not reducible in its complexity. Not to mention Darwin's ideas on the so called simple cell.....which is completely been blown out of the water. I agree that animals can and do evolve, to a degree but not to the extent of the diversity of life in our world. Another interesting fact is the statistical probability of these evolution steps to occur are far beyond absurd. eg for a red blood cell to be formed by chance from the amino acids it consists of are 1 in 10 to the power of 650...for those mathematicians out there will realise the magnitude of such a number. And before I get the "you are blind and ignorant and know nothing of science" retorts , I am very much into science and had studied it my entire life. I got dragged to church but after examining the facts and doing extensive research I have made up my own mind. It is just hard for people to believe anything but evolution because it gets drummed into us from childhood at school. In case you had not gathered by now, I believe in GOD. Anyone one want to argue some more iI welcome it..[/QUOTE]


----------



## Fuscus (Jan 9, 2010)

Whoops - I posted before completion 


Just_Plain_Nuts said:


> Firstly Cris , the Bible does indicate to us that the world is round, just doesnt make a big deal about it. See Isaiah 40:22. "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth and its people are like grasshoppers"


I read that as people having six legs and compound eyes?


Just_Plain_Nuts said:


> Secondly the Theory of Evolution is just that...a THEORY meaning that it has not been proven.


Do you actually know the meaning of theory or are you just parroting the standard creationist tripe?



Just_Plain_Nuts said:


> Thirdly the whole chimp thing , does it not make sense that all of someones' works share similarities...seeing as they are made by the same person???


the fact we share a common ancestor is far more logical


Just_Plain_Nuts said:


> Fourthly (if there is such a word?) Concerning Darwin...his theory was conceived in 1859 before electron microscopes etc. A lot has changed since then...and a lot of his theory is falling apart. Lets start here, he said, _"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."_
> --Charles Darwin, Origin of Species
> 
> With our modern technology we now discover organisms like the bacterial flagellum which are certainly complex and are not reducible in its complexity.


read this -> Evolution of Bacterial Flagella WARNING - comtains big words
Actually the hypothesis that because 32 proteins are unlikely to form a chain means that a incredibly complex being must have spontaneously appeared is intellectually feeble.




Just_Plain_Nuts said:


> Not to mention Darwin's ideas on the so called simple cell.....which is completely been blown out of the water. I agree that animals can and do evolve, to a degree but not to the extent of the diversity of life in our world. Another interesting fact is the statistical probability of these evolution steps to occur are far beyond absurd. eg for a red blood cell to be formed by chance from the amino acids it consists of are 1 in 10 to the power of 650...for those mathematicians out there will realise the magnitude of such a number.


So - how many times have the dice been rolled? Your numbers are meaningless unless you can tell me how many mutations have occurred. A good place to start would be to tell us how many animals have lived on this planet 
Anyhow, this is the stock standard creationist misinterpretation of how evolution works. Red blood cells are the result of millions and millions of random changes with some being kept while most discarded. Wind back the clock and red blood cells would have evolved into something different but still done the job.




Just_Plain_Nuts said:


> And before I get the "you are blind and ignorant and know nothing of science" retorts , I am very much into science and had studied it my entire life.


Then why don't you know what a scientific theory is?


Just_Plain_Nuts said:


> I got dragged to church but after examining the facts and doing extensive research I have made up my own mind. It is just hard for people to believe anything but evolution because it gets drummed into us from childhood at school. In case you had not gathered by now, I believe in GOD. Anyone one want to argue some more iI welcome it..


----------



## Just_Plain_Nuts (Jan 9, 2010)

Ok lots of questions and debates to answer but this morning i only have time to answer one because i have to go outside and make a bearded enclosure for my sister in law. But to answer your question Renegade...No one is perfect, not any christian, we are just forgiven of our wrong doings. Jesus did not come only for the good, the pure,and the right. He came to find the sheep who are lost. Mark 2:17 says. On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." All can be forgiven through repentance to Christ. God has not asked us to do anything that He doesn't give us the ability (Grace) to do. You are not expected to get saved and instantly go straight. It would take time and His help to work through it should you ever decide to seek Him. God loves mankind so much that even when we were at the height of our sinful nature and had turned away from Him so many times, He sent His Son to redeem us of our sins so that we can be reconciled with God. I have so many others things to say but i have to stop for now...look forward to more


----------



## grimbeny (Jan 9, 2010)

Just_Plain_Nuts said:


> God loves mankind so much that even when we were at the height of our sinful nature and had turned away from Him so many times, He sent His Son to redeem us of our sins so that we can be reconciled with God.



I think you will find he only did this in round 2, which at this stage is meant to be more mediocre than round 1. In round 1 god just drowned everyone except one family, which apparently we are all decendants from. I dont think drowning is a humain way to put down rats let alone people. 

Your god is anything but forgiving. If he does exist he has hidden ALL evidence of his existance. He only plans to forgive those select few who grew up in a christian nation and got lucky enough to be brainwashed by a minority of cultists. Their are other cults however but people brainwashed by these will suffer the same torturous suffering for eternity as those who choose to open their eyes, look at the amazing processes and systems that exist in the universe which have credible origins that are just waiting to be discovered (obviously the evidence for these origins was planted by god to cover his tracks).


----------



## Hominid (Jan 9, 2010)

don't forget noah was an amazing man who collected two of every speacies of animal, every bird, mammal, reptile, insect ect, an astonishing effort if you consider the amount of speacies out there and we are still finding new ones to this day, then after it all was over he proceeded to inbreed to repopulate the earth, correct me if im wrong but isn't incest condemmed. im sure there is a more reasonable explanation then this.


----------



## Hominid (Jan 9, 2010)

did noah get into heaven after such dispicable acts? and why can't i breed with my relatives? lol, i really hope the story of noahs arch is a metaphor for something cause it doesn't make sense.


----------



## GeckoJosh (Jan 9, 2010)

No inbreeding is ok, don't forget we are all children of Adam and Eve


----------



## garycahill (Jan 9, 2010)

D3pro said:


> Well I read lots of science mags, i love them, and one of the top guys (can't be bothered getting it out) said that how the first micro organism were formed is still a mystery...
> 
> aaand the clock analogy was not for evolution but for the appearance of the first cell... again... I can shake the atoms needed and nothing will happen, maybe gas will come out...
> 
> ...


 
Can't be bothered to get them out but still cite them as proof?
I am not sure they even exist, just a way to back up your arguement.
The thing that get me is that all this happened so long ago, science hasn't got all the answers or proof,* yet!*
Yet there is absolutely no proof that a "_creator_" ever existed & that is supposed to over rule the sciences findings. If anyone can show evidence that a "_creator_" actually exists or existed, I would love you to post the proof, along with every other rational person on this planet. How can someone blindly believe in something that wasn't even written by someone who had even met the creator. In a court of law, this would be dismissed as hearsay evidence, which at the end of the day, is all it actually is.


----------



## coz666 (Jan 9, 2010)

show me god and then i will believe
go to the museum and see evolution


----------



## Hominid (Jan 9, 2010)

basically you can't sit back and bag evolution for lack of proof then say we were created by a superiour being who we cant see, hear, touch, or PROVE.


----------



## D3pro (Jan 9, 2010)

ha ha, it's like going around in circles... well this is my last post cause no matter what I say it's not going to solve anything lol, (it's worse then telling people from the orthodox church that there is no hell haha) 

The universe has we know it (or at least, what we know of it) is run by a set of rules...gravity, light...etc. Science role is to discover those rules, and use them to our advantage, or in most cases our disadvantage. Those rules make it impossible for life to be made from a source that is not living, fact people, get over it. Proof cannot be found because science is looking for proof based on the laws it works by. 

No one has ever created life from nothing, many have claimed too, or that they are about too, but always lack the final results. 

So how can life be made if life should be impossible? simply put, the rules have to be bent and broken, this is why miracles have happened and no one can explain them, of course no one can explain them, miracles don't follow laws. Life is a miracle, and so cannot and will never be explained by the laws that science lives by. 

Proof of a creator is all around us! Every thing in the world had a purpose and design, to look at these designs and say that it's out of coincidence is heartless. Almost like the clock that came out of random... who made the parts? who made it fit? 

I'm not going on about bible stuff, or taking on a religion and preaching to you about it, I'm just saying that science explanation of life popping out at random is silly, and yet it's not, because science can only explain life by the rules it follows. 

Believe what you want, I don't want to change your opinions. If you are satisfied with the answer that life came out of random then ok, stick with it. But if your like me and look at the world and the universe for what it is, a design that was made with a purpose, then the only answer is that there is a creator... one that can bend the rules and create the impossible. Like Einstein said, the answer is in our imagination.


----------



## garycahill (Jan 9, 2010)

Still haven't posted any proof that a "creator" exists or ever existe, 
or posted any references as to where the information that you are quoting comes from.
Key points conveniently overlooked.
The clock came from the roman calander, the clock was invented to measure the increments of time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_calendar
This still isn't a perfect system, that's why we have leap years, but it is close.
Both are actually just measurements of speed. 
The speed it take the earth to revolve on it's axis - 1,670 kph
The speed it take the earth to revolve around the sun - 107,825 kph
So, the clock & calander was invented by scientists.
Not a good example of the creator.


----------



## D3pro (Jan 9, 2010)

lol ok Gary, i'll get you that info... give me a sec


----------



## D3pro (Jan 9, 2010)

garycahill said:


> Still haven't posted any proof that a "creator" exists or ever existe,
> or posted any references as to where the information that you are quoting comes from.
> Key points conveniently overlooked.
> The clock came from the roman calander, the clock was invented to measure the increments of time.
> ...



Dr. Michael Denton, in his book “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis” describes the intricate organization of nerve cells in the brain [pp. 330 - 331].

And the concept of time was not about clocks and calendars, but rather, an explanation of what we cannot grasp because we have a start and an end. 

“The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books - a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects.”

- Albert Einstein | Quotes


----------



## garycahill (Jan 9, 2010)

Now we are moving away from science to philosophy.
In a scientific sense, my last post is correct.
Given enough time to search through philosophic books/papers, I will also be able to find opposing arguements. The debate from the very first post was science vs religion. 
I don't see where phiosophy even fits in other than a lack of an answer.


----------



## D3pro (Jan 9, 2010)

I was never talking about religion lol, i made that statement already... 
look, as I said 

"Believe what you want, I don't want to change your opinions. If you are satisfied with the answer that life came out of random then ok, stick with it. But if your like me and look at the world and the universe for what it is, a design that was made with a purpose, then the only answer is that there is a creator..." 

I don't feel like arguing today, I want people to find their own answers, I can only tell you the ones I already found that make me happy, if it doesn't work for you, then mate, start opening books. Don't be afraid to look in the unpopular places like the bible... and don't stop searching until you find your answer. 

and now, I'm going to do more fun things, like feeding snakes haha


----------



## garycahill (Jan 9, 2010)

LOL.
Still avoiding the questions.
Provide proof there is a creator, religious or otherwise.
Can't stand there & discredit science when all you have as an alternative is a feeling.


----------



## sara_sabian (Jan 9, 2010)

D3pro said:


> How can one take science seriously, if when ever it is proven wrong it shakes it's head, covering it's ears yelling "NEVER MORE".


 
You keep saying that science wont change or isn't open to change. 
That is the one thing you can depend on with science; change, as we discover new things the theories _evolve _(haha) with it. 
When science is proven wrong it starts over based on the new information. Our model of creation so far is Darwin's theory of evolution, convincing evidence so far points to evolution. 
If new proof (_proof_, not hear say and superstition) is found tomorrow that points somewhere else then the theory will change to allow that.

Genesis does not have this exception.
The Bible can not change, it is what it is, there are no new theories, no new information. If anyone is covering their ears and shaking their heads...


----------



## LullabyLizard (Jan 9, 2010)

lizardjasper said:


> *I don't believe in evolution*. It's like saying that a motorbike oozed up out of the oil over millions of years, then evolved into a car, then into a truck, then into a semi-trailer.
> Not to mention there's no true scientific evidence to prove the theory.
> Sorry, but it's true!



What do you believe in?? The Bible? Pffft ha ha ha :lol:


----------



## PhilK (Jan 9, 2010)

I can't see how anybody anywhere in educated society can disagree with evolution.. seriously. I won't enter this debate as it's already been entered by oh so many.. but some of the things being said here are ridiculous.. they remind me of the Medieval times and the views that people had then.

Seriously... woah. I went to a Catholic school but my school wasn't stupid enough to try and tell us evolution didn't occur. We learnt that in science, not that God snapped his fingers and bam - humans!

For all those that are entering the debate.. don't bother trying to convince God people anything else. Their eyes and ears are closed to everything except what they believe.


----------



## Fuscus (Jan 9, 2010)

D3pro said:


> . Theory, evolution is a theory... anyone want to look up a dictionary?



The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:
Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.
Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well. 

The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas (Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003). 

Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin's theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact. 

If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002). Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact. 

Creationism is neither theory nor fact; it is, at best, only an opinion. Since it explains nothing, it is scientifically useless and intellectually feeble.


----------



## BROWNS (Jan 9, 2010)

Very well said in a nutshell Fuscus ol mate!


----------



## Fuscus (Jan 9, 2010)

D3pro said:


> well I have to get on the "the world has a creator side" in this argument lol...
> 
> and I have many many reasons and I don't care much of what people think of my opinions... cause all opinions stink.
> 
> By far the biggest question is.... us? How did we get here? well Darwin thought he was smart and said "Monkeys" lol.... ok Darwin, I'll byte lol, where's your proof? Darwin:"um, there's a missing link"... Oh I see, well lets go digging.....Darwin the old boy died and till this day no link (or links) which is weird


There is a fine transition between modern humans and australopithecines and other hominids. The transition is gradual enough that it is not clear where to draw the line between human and not. 

Intermediate fossils include 

Australopithecus afarensis, from 3.9 to 3.0 million years ago (Mya). Its skull is similar to a chimpanzee's, but with more humanlike teeth. Most (possibly all) creationists would call this an ape, but it was bipedal.
Australopithecus africanus (3 to 2 Mya); its brain size, 420-500 cc, was slightly larger than A. afarensis, and its teeth yet more humanlike.
Homo habilis (2.4 to 1.5 Mya), which is similar to australopithecines, but which used tools and had a larger brain (650-cc average) and less projecting face.
Homo erectus (1.8 to 0.3 Mya); brain size averaged about 900 cc in early H. erectus and 1,100 cc in later ones. (Modern human brains average 1,350 cc.)
A Pleistocene Homo sapiens which was "morphologically and chronologically intermediate between archaic African fossils and later anatomically modern Late Pleistocene humans" (White et al. 2003, 742).
A hominid combining features of, and possibly ancestral to, Neanderthals and modern humans (Bermudez de Castro et al. 1997).

And there are fossils intermediate between these (Foley 1996-2004). 


There is abundant genetic evidence for the relatedness between humans and other apes:
Humans have twenty-three chromosome pairs; apes have twenty-four. Twenty-two of the pairs are similar between humans and apes. The remaining two ape chromosomes appear to have joined; they are similar to each half of the remaining human chromosome (chromosome 2; Yunis and Prakash 1982).
The ends of chromosomes have repetitious telomeric sequences and a distinctive pretelomeric region. Such sequences are found in the middle of human chromosome 2, just as one would expect if two chromosomes joined (IJdo et al. 1991).
A centromere-like region of human chromosome 2 corresponds with the centromere of the ape chromosome (Avarello et al. 1992).
Humans and chimpanzees have innumerable sequence similarities, including shared pseudogenes such as genetic material from ERVs (endogenous retroviruses; Taylor 2003; Max 2003).



D3pro said:


> ... cause if we evolved from monkeys then there must be thousands of links to show our evolutionary road here right? well i guess we can keep digging lol.


Some important factors prevent the formation of fossils from being common: 

Fossilization itself is not a particularly common event. It requires conditions that preserve the fossil before it becomes scavenged or decayed. Such conditions are common only in a very few habitats, such as river deltas, peat bogs, and tar pits. Organisms that do not live in or near these habitats will be preserved only rarely. 

Many types of animals are fragile and do not preserve well. 

Many species have small ranges. Their chance of fossilization will be proportionally small. 

The evolution of new species probably is fairly rapid in geological terms, so the transitions between species will be uncommon.

Passenger pigeons, once numbered in the billions, went extinct less than 200 years ago. How many passenger pigeon fossils can you find? If they are hard to find, why should we expect to find fossils that are likely from smaller populations and have been subject to millions of years of potential erosion? 

Other processes destroy fossils. Erosion (and/or lack of deposition in the first place) often destroys hundreds of millions of years or more of the geological record, so the geological record at any place usually has long gaps. Fossils can also be destroyed by heat or pressure when buried deep underground. 

As rare as fossils are, fossil discovery is still rarer. For the most part, we find only fossils that have been exposed by erosion, and only if the exposure is recent enough that the fossils themselves do not erode. 

As climates change, species will move, so we cannot expect a transition to occur all at one spot. Fossils often must be collected from all over a continent to find the transitions. 

Only Europe and North America have been well explored for fossils because that is where most of the paleontologists lived. Furthermore, regional politics interfere with collecting fossils. Some fabulous fossils have been found in China only recently because before then the politics prevented most paleontology there. 

The shortage is not just in fossils but in paleontologists and taxonomists. Preparing and analyzing the material for just one lineage can take a decade of work. There are likely hundreds of transitional fossils sitting in museum drawers, unknown because nobody knowledgeable has examined them. 

Description of fossils is often limited to professional literature and does not get popularized. This is especially true of marine microfossils, which have the best record. 

If fossilization were so prevalent and young-earth creationism were true, we should find indications in the fossil record of animals migrating from the Ark to other continents.




D3pro said:


> Scientists/science understands sooo much of our universe... all 5% of it (actually it's 4%, but lets not get technical)


How did you arrive at 4%? Did you just pull this figure out from somewhere? I can guess where from so I hope you washed it.


----------



## Just_Plain_Nuts (Jan 9, 2010)

Fuscus , you have way too much time on your hands that would have taken me an hour to type...like D3pro said people won't change till they are ready to do so. There are a lot of factors concerning proof of God but they are more intimate and personal and cannot be readily explained they are things that you need to discover yourself by seeking Him. I know it sounds corny but that's just the way it is unless you are lucky enough that He irrefutibly presents Himself to you. We could argue like this forever and normally would relish it but i'm just too busy at the moment. I wish everyone the best and i hope no one gets too offended with these arguments . If anyone is interested in finding out more about Jesus feel free to contact me


----------



## BROWNS (Jan 9, 2010)

Santa didn't bring me any presents at all this year and I know I've behaved myself better than many other years so I've come to my own conclusion that there isn't really a Santa at all.I'll be absolutely devastated if I find out it wasn't the Easter bunny that soiled my boots when he came last year to stash choccy eggs all round the house


----------



## Fuscus (Jan 10, 2010)

Just_Plain_Nuts said:


> Fuscus , you have way too much time on your hands that would have taken me an hour to type...like D3pro said people won't change till they are ready to do so. There are a lot of factors concerning proof of God but they are more intimate and personal and cannot be readily explained they are things that you need to discover yourself by seeking Him. I know it sounds corny but that's just the way it is unless you are lucky enough that He irrefutibly presents Himself to you. We could argue like this forever and normally would relish it but i'm just too busy at the moment. I wish everyone the best and i hope no one gets too offended with these arguments . If anyone is interested in finding out more about Jesus feel free to contact me


So you are unable or unwilling to defend your previous statements about creationism using observation and logic, changed subjects and now resorted to evangelicalism?


----------



## otomix (Jan 10, 2010)

fuscus, You my friend... Are my Hero. Well said!!!


----------



## the_tsar (Jan 10, 2010)

Just_Plain_Nuts said:


> Fuscus , you have way too much time on your hands that would have taken me an hour to type...like D3pro said people won't change till they are ready to do so. There are a lot of factors concerning proof of God but they are more intimate and personal and cannot be readily explained they are things that you need to discover yourself by seeking Him. I know it sounds corny but that's just the way it is unless you are lucky enough that He irrefutibly presents Himself to you. We could argue like this forever and normally would relish it but i'm just too busy at the moment. I wish everyone the best and i hope no one gets too offended with these arguments . If anyone is interested in finding out more about Jesus feel free to contact me


 

Just to throw my 2 cents in again.

I CAN give you a psychological reason why You feel there is an intimate and peersonal connection to yourself and God. And why because of this feeling, you will happily follow a philosophy short on facts, and empirical evidence to explain your "personal" feelings. To the point where you think he has spoke to you.

This is nothing more than our original mindframe, evolved for Social reasons, now corrupted with GOD.

In tribes of old, Mother Nature was God, but not called God, we were a animal of the land, who felt connected to the lands, and the food she gives us. Our social feelings about mothers and others in our family, now extend to be thankful to Mother nature for providing the tribe with food etc. 
Over time this reverance and closeness to nature and seeing the earth as a provider (like mum n dad) we gave this entity an identity, God. Although he names were different, the word God, mearly covers those powers controled (by a Person entity in many cases).

SO we now have the birth of the concept of God, although the word Im sure took a while before it was to fix at God, as the word for powerful beings.

So your powerful "god spoke to me" is nothing more than evolved feelings, that our societies needed to help with the survival of Humans.

Dont make the mistake in thinking because you tink God knows you that your view of the world is any better than a true athiest. The athiest is a truth biggot, and there is wonder in a world controled by the laws of Physics.

AND please stop using the clock in a box analogy, as it sux, because life is chemistry controlled by physics, in their bonds etc, dictating what chemistry happens, in a clock in a box, there is no laws of physics to attract parts to become whole, so the example is way flawed and shows a lack of sciectific understanding.

AND this is the main problem, its a case of a little knowledge(science), V's a feeling(that god is real), the feeling will win out over logic, as we seem to think feelings are what makes events real. Sorry to say but our feelings are misguided and this is what a true truth seeker knows, that facts must win out over feelings to gain understanding of our environment. People look for evidence to confirm their "feelings", so Im not surprised religious people talk about their evidence, but in reality their reasoning is so flawed, it is boggling that one debates these people.

God (and religion really) does not open up any understanding, except to help manage peoples feelings.

I wish I could be arrogant enough to convince myself a God is the big picture, unfortunately when one looks at the world, history of religion, I cant help but get more Athiest.

Faith = feelings - evidence. In phsychology this is the start of psychosis. In religion, a right of passage.
I take hell, caused by a side dish of wonder and whimsy of science. Science, who never settled on God as the answer to anything, and rightly so.

AND PLEASE ,,, we didnt evolve from monkeys, we have a common ansestor, huge fifference, as the monkeys we see are also evolved out of this same ansestor, they (todays monkeys) didnt exist 6-10 million years ago.
It is the lack of visualisation of Darwins theory that cause many to see it as wrong. I understand why, it is an Adults theory, not a simple throry as GRAVITY to understand, there is a mosaic of info to process, that confuses the less visual of our societies (that mostly are the ignorant and religious) but they think they know it all.


----------



## Serpentes (Jan 10, 2010)

You guys should go and read some of Charles Birch's work. It would ease the pain of presenting black and white arguments in a grey world. We all know that there is a continuum between black and white, so why not recognise this vast, grey world? A world where black and white are unified, and as such are no longer black nor white but an inseparable admixture. 

For the sturdy creationists, humans did not evolve from knuckle-walking apes. I hope you feel better.

For the sturdy evolutionists, I am an evolutionary biologist and as such have to accept that evolution proceeds in mysterious ways, and is an incomplete explanation of natural processes. But is certainly does exist. I hope you feel better now too.


----------



## Sdaji (Jan 10, 2010)

Just_Plain_Nuts said:


> Firstly Cris , the Bible does indicate to us that the world is round, just doesnt make a big deal about it. See Isaiah 40:22. "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth and its people are like grasshoppers"



I could run around in circles all day joining in all the fun, but I'll limit it to one post.

Spheres are three dimensional, like a ball, or, say, a planet. 

Squares are flat... like, other two dimensional (that is, flat) shapes, like, oh, say, circles for example.

Whichever side you are on, you can see it like this: The other side is completely and utterly stupid and blind. So, if someone has dug their heels in on this issue, they are either correct, just like you are, or they are utterly wrong in the fact of obvious evidence. If they are so passionate about their belief that they can make and maintain such an incredibly stupid mistake for so long, there isn't much point trying to convert them to your side, you are just wasting your time. Let's all get along. Amen.


----------



## Snowman (Jan 10, 2010)

I like to sit on the fence and say God used evolution to create the world


----------



## the_tsar (Jan 10, 2010)

Snowman said:


> I like to sit on the fence and say God used evolution to create the world


 

Did he use evolution?....right, then perhaps answer this:

When did he "stuff" a soul into us humans, 3 million years ago 10000 years ago?. And of these first soul humans, why did their mum and dad not get a soul, were they not quite there evolutionnary wise? Seems like a bummer, being in heaven with mum and dad not making the cut.
Especially as family are the most esposed qwuality in the bible etc.

And If god used evolution, what religion is correct then to get to know God? Especially as they never mention evolution type of mechanisms to explain our arrival here on earth in space in the books religions use, proporting to be written by GOD.

So you cannot have a fence sit, it is impossible, it just means youo know little about both sides, so you cant choose one yet.


----------



## the_tsar (Jan 10, 2010)

Serpentes said:


> You guys should go and read some of Charles Birch's work. It would ease the pain of presenting black and white arguments in a grey world. We all know that there is a continuum between black and white, so why not recognise this vast, grey world? A world where black and white are unified, and as such are no longer black nor white but an inseparable admixture.
> 
> For the sturdy creationists, humans did not evolve from knuckle-walking apes. I hope you feel better.
> 
> For the sturdy evolutionists, I am an evolutionary biologist and as such have to accept that evolution proceeds in mysterious ways, and is an incomplete explanation of natural processes. But is certainly does exist. I hope you feel better now too.


 
Great idea, but it breaks down. God has NO evidence, unless you include people over percieving things as devine, but this isnt proof. Proof that would be in all newspapers.

Proof is the bane of science, and it has oodles. Sciece has no pride at stake, religion does. ciece chages (evolves) religion needing to be right, is slow in this manner (look at muslims, they cant delete any part of the Koran, as apposed to the bible, rewritten after any social change picks out a flaw..eg Hell invented in 600AD. Jeasus never talked about it, evidence of man screwing with the bibles story (unless jesus gives updates). 

What your GREY proposes, is that we can mix, philosophy, with hard factual science.
So we really have Black and White, no grey. God can be either proven or not, if he cant be proven its philosophy, not science. black n white only.

This athiest V's Religion is really philosophy V facts, and science Never recognises philosophy, only facts, of which proving gods existence, dont exist. Just human perception of the earths mechanics, as divine...........philosophy, not science.


----------



## D3pro (Jan 10, 2010)

This thread is going no where... and never will, let me explain why:

Religion runs on faith, Faith meaning; Believing in something that is there but not seen.

Science runs on facts, so only what is proven... and if something is not proven and unanswered, it runs on possible logical theories that could explain it.

So here we have Science trying to convince Religion that it's theories (so not yet proven) are right. Religion looks at science and says "there's more to it, I have Faith" 

Now it take a humble person to look at religion and respect it's stand and not to look at it as something crazy. 

Facts will win against Philosophy, (you hear religion still saying the world is flat?) but when science tries to prove something that it it's self has not yet made fact, then Religion won't listen, and why should it? why should religion lose sight of their belief for a mere theory, no matter how popular.

On the latter side, when Religion tries to convince Science of it's Faith and philosophy, like looking at the design of the universe and how beautiful and complex it is, arguing that it's design must be from a higher being... Science asks "where's the proof?". Faith and philosophy is not regarded to science as facts or a possible logical theory.

Lets pretend that religion and Science are two kids, and they walk by a garden on the street. Religion says to Science, "look, a gardener must of made this, look at the design, the beauty... all nicely set up" but Science looks at him and says and says "where's the proof? where is the gardener? how do we know this wasn't just a coincidence?"

This argument is going no where, you cant convince religion with Scientific theories and you can't convince Science with faith. 

Respect one another, for people to come here and bring up the courage to say "I believe in a higher power" takes more courage then going with the crowd and saying "where's the proof?" 

No point, save your breath, have respect and move on. Please stop flaming one another.


----------



## Snowman (Jan 10, 2010)

the_tsar said:


> Did he use evolution?....right, then perhaps answer this:
> 
> When did he "stuff" a soul into us humans, 3 million years ago 10000 years ago?. And of these first soul humans, why did their mum and dad not get a soul, were they not quite there evolutionnary wise? Seems like a bummer, being in heaven with mum and dad not making the cut.
> Especially as family are the most esposed qwuality in the bible etc.
> ...


 
Wow!!! way to take joke too seriously :shock: 
I feel sorry for you :cry:


----------



## D3pro (Jan 10, 2010)

Snowman said:


> Wow!!! way to take joke too seriously :shock:
> I feel sorry for you :cry:



I agree, gees people are so touchy, I don't get offended by all you people criticizing my beliefs, in fact, i think you have a right to your own belief... but when some one says different from evolutionists, all hell breaks loose.


----------



## the_tsar (Jan 10, 2010)

Snowman said:


> Wow!!! way to take joke too seriously :shock:
> I feel sorry for you :cry:


 

Well....I didnt think you were at the time, I thought you were putting in another belief set. My err.


----------



## the_tsar (Jan 10, 2010)

D3pro said:


> This argument is going no where, you cant convince religion with Scientific theories and you can't convince Science with faith.
> 
> Respect one another, for people to come here and bring up the courage to say "I believe in a higher power" takes more courage then going with the crowd and saying "where's the proof?"
> 
> No point, save your breath, have respect and move on. Please stop flaming one another.


 

Remember Philosophy debates are great sport for some, and a potential "flaming" is the risk that brings excitment to participating.
A good debate means to accept some potential negetive feelings, especiallyt when dealing with the daddy of all personal world constructs..god or not god. If one cant handle -ve feelings about their world views, then they are better served watching from the sidelines. 

So people, Tread ye carefully when sitting at the adult table, I guess.


----------



## mattmc (Jan 10, 2010)

if there is a god, he must be gay, cause he hasnt come out of the closet yet.


----------



## cris (Jan 11, 2010)

the_tsar said:


> This athiest V's Religion is really philosophy V facts, and science Never recognises philosophy, only facts, of which proving gods existence, dont exist. Just human perception of the earths mechanics, as divine...........philosophy, not science.



Philosophy isnt incompatable with science or even in oppostion, it doesnt require fabrication of dieties and things that dont exist, but rather more a type of psychologial science. That said the majority of philosophy is completely illogical IMO. When philosophers start hitting the drugs it can help to some degree but they can also drift off the track a bit...

Everyone has some sort of philosophy, even scientists, but it doesnt mean they have to make up stories to explain things they cant understand.


----------



## cris (Jan 11, 2010)

D3pro said:


> I agree, gees people are so touchy, I don't get offended by all you people criticizing my beliefs, in fact, i think you have a right to your own belief... but when some one says different from evolutionists, all hell breaks loose.



Thats because evolution is a real proccess, even if there was some sort of mystical creator, evolution is still occuring and can be seen beyond any doubt for those that bother to look. Someone shooting down weak arguements doesnt make someone touchy either. Its very hard to tell if someone is joking/stirring/fishing on these sorts of topics due to the weird stuff some actually do believe.

To be honest G/god/s creating through evoloution is the only hope they have of staying credible to an educated audience.


----------



## D3pro (Jan 11, 2010)

cris said:


> Thats because evolution is a real proccess, even if there was some sort of mystical creator, evolution is still occuring and can be seen beyond any doubt for those that bother to look. Someone shooting down weak arguements doesnt make someone touchy either. Its very hard to tell if someone is joking/stirring/fishing on these sorts of topics due to the weird stuff some actually do believe.
> 
> To be honest G/god/s creating through evoloution is the only hope they have of staying credible to an educated audience.



How much do you know about god? have you actually asked about it? thought about creation in a different way? Do you wake up in the morning and believe that you were there by chance, just because some ape decided to evolve? Are you like Darwin, who lost a loved one, was let down by the church (hell and heaven crap) and then decided to go on a guessing journey? 

I think it's sad man, it's like all these people have no meaning in life... Am I fooling myself? If I am, at least I will live and die with hope, unlike you, who will die thinking that because of some accident he had to be born and suffer in this crap world with it's liars, fakes, opportunist etc. and die with no meaning... 

Educated? the smartest people in the world, even professor in the field of evolution, have stepped back and recognized that there was more, that chance was not enough for life to exist...

If ancient structural design is attributed to humans, to whom do we attribute design in nature?

Sir James Jeans (British mathematician, physicists and astronomer) in the light of advancing scientific knowledge said "the universe begins to look more like a great thought then like a great machine". He also stated that "the universe appears to have been designed by a pure mathematician" and that it proves "evidence of a designing or controlling power that has some thing in common with our own individual minds"

"The order of the universe has suggested to many a modern astronomer an element of design."
(Paul Davies, Physicist)

Einstein wrote "The fact that the natural world is comprehensible is a miracle" 

So i'm guessing people here are going to say they know better then these few of many i just mentioned?


----------



## GeckoJosh (Jan 11, 2010)

D3, Atheism is the preferred belief of the less ignorant, get over it


----------



## sara_sabian (Jan 11, 2010)

D3pro said:


> I think it's sad man, it's like all these people have no meaning in life... Am I fooling myself? If I am, at least I will live and die with hope, unlike you, who will die thinking that because of some accident he had to be born and suffer in this crap world with it's liars, fakes, opportunist etc. and die with no meaning...


 
So true, all us atheists just float around, depressed, waiting to die and embrace an eternity of nothingness. We're such a miserable bunch, going about our lives devoid of meaning and happiness. That must be why we like to shoot down the beleivers, their beaming smiles are too much for us to handle.


----------



## D3pro (Jan 11, 2010)

Geckoman123 said:


> D3, Atheism is the preferred belief of the less ignorant, get over it



Ok i tried to be good, but since I started most of this and some of the questions people asked me went answered (sorry there were so many posts) I will write one more post that hopefully will help people understand... (i'm actually writing it now... almost done) And then to sleep lol


----------



## D3pro (Jan 11, 2010)

Well I might as well write a semi article on this and then I'm going to leave...

Now...
In the view of many who accept the theory of evolution, life will always be made up of intense competition, with strife, hatred, wars and death. Some even feel that man may destroy himself in the near future. A prominent scientist stated: “We may have only another few decades until Doomsday. . . . the development of nuclear weapons and their delivery systems will, sooner or later, lead to global disaster.”Even if this did not happen soon, many believe that when a person’s life span runs out in death he is then nonexistent forever. Others feel that, in the future, all life on earth will end. They theorize that the sun will expand into a red giant star, and as it does, “the oceans will boil, the atmosphere will evaporate away to space and a catastrophe of the most immense proportions imaginable will overtake our planet.”

Recoiling from these conclusions are the “scientific creationists.” But their interpretation of the Genesis creation account has led them to claim that the earth is only 6,000 years old and that the six “days” allowed in Genesis for creation were each only 24 hours long. But does such an idea accurately represent what the Bible is saying? Was the earth, and all its life forms, created in just six literal days? Or is there a reasonable alternative?

In considering questions related to the origin of life, popular opinion or emotion sway many. To avoid this and to reach accurate conclusions, we need to consider the evidence with an open mind. It is interesting to note, too, that even evolution’s best-known advocate, Charles Darwin, indicated an awareness of his theory’s limitations. In his conclusion to The Origin of Species, he wrote of the grandeur of the “view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one,”thus making it evident that the subject of origins was open to further examination.

Before proceeding further, a clarification may be helpful: Scientific achievement is not at issue here. Every informed person is aware of the amazing accomplishments of scientists in many fields. Scientific study has dramatically increased our knowledge of the universe and of the earth and of living things. Studies of the human body have opened up improved ways of treating illnesses and injuries. Rapid advances in electronics have ushered in the computer age, which is altering our lives. Scientists have performed astounding feats, even sending men to the moon and back. It is only right to respect the skills that have added so greatly to our knowledge of the world around us, from minutely small things to infinitely large ones.

It may also be useful to clarify definitions at this point: Evolution, as used in this post, refers to organic evolution—the theory that the first living organism developed from nonliving matter. Then, as it reproduced, it is said to have changed into different kinds of living things, producing ultimately all forms of life that have ever existed on earth, including humans. And all of this is believed to have been accomplished without intelligent direction or supernatural intervention. Creation, on the other hand, is the conclusion that the appearing of living things can only be explained by the existence of an Almighty God who designed and made the universe and all the basic kinds of life upon the earth.

When a special centennial edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species was to be published, W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, in Ottawa, Canada, was invited to write its introduction. In it he said: “As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution”

THOSE who support the theory of evolution feel that it is now an established fact. They believe that evolution is an “actual occurrence,” a “reality,” a “truth,” as one dictionary defines the word “fact.” But is it?

To illustrate: It was once believed that the earth was flat. Now it has been established for a certainty that it is spherical in shape. That is a fact. It was once believed that the earth was the center of the universe and that the heavens revolved around the earth. Now we know for sure that the earth revolves in an orbit around the sun. This, too, is a fact. Many things that were once only debated theories have been established by the evidence as solid fact, reality, truth.

Would an investigation of the evidence for evolution leave one on the same solid ground? Interestingly, ever since Charles Darwin’s book The Origin of Species was published in 1859, various aspects of the theory have been a matter of considerable disagreement even among top evolutionary scientists. Today, that dispute is more intense than ever. And it is enlightening to consider what advocates of evolution themselves are saying about the matter.

The scientific magazine Discover put the situation this way: “Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism.” Francis Hitching, an evolutionist and author of the book The Neck of the Giraffe, stated: “For all its acceptance in the scientific world as the great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble.”

After an important conference of some 150 specialists in evolution held in Chicago, Illinois, a report concluded: “Evolution is undergoing its broadest and deepest revolution in nearly 50 years. . . . Exactly how evolution happened is now a matter of great controversy among biologists. . . . No clear resolution of the controversies was in sight.”

Paleontologist Niles Eldredge, a prominent evolutionist, said: “The doubt that has infiltrated the previous, smugly confident certitude of evolutionary biology’s last twenty years has inflamed passions.” He spoke of the “lack of total agreement even within the warring camps,” and added, “things really are in an uproar these days . . . Sometimes it seems as though there are as many variations on each evolutionary theme as there are individual biologists.”

A London Times writer, Christopher Booker (who accepts evolution), said this about it: “It was a beautifully simple and attractive theory. The only trouble was that, as Darwin was himself at least partly aware, it was full of colossal holes.” Regarding Darwin’s Origin of Species, he observed: “We have here the supreme irony that a book which has become famous for explaining the origin of species in fact does nothing of the kind.”

Booker also stated: “A century after Darwin’s death, we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place and in recent years this has led to an extraordinary series of battles over the whole question. . . . a state of almost open war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of evolutionary sect urging some new modification.” He concluded: “As to how and why it really happened, we have not the slightest idea and probably never shall.”

Evolutionist Hitching agreed, saying: “Feuds concerning the theory of evolution exploded . . . Entrenched positions, for and against, were established in high places, and insults lobbed like mortar bombs from either side.” He said that it is an academic dispute of far-reaching proportions, “potentially one of those times in science when, quite suddenly, a long-held idea is overthrown by the weight of contrary evidence and a new one takes its place.” And Britain’s New Scientist observed that “an increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all. . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.”

Regarding the question of how life originated, astronomer Robert Jastrow said: “To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened.” He added: “Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation.”

But the difficulty does not stop with the origin of life. Consider such body organs as the eye, the ear, the brain. All are staggering in their complexity, far more so than the most intricate man-made device. A problem for evolution has been the fact that all parts of such organs have to work together for sight, hearing or thinking to take place. Such organs would have been useless until all the individual parts were completed. So the question arises: Could the undirected element of chance that is thought to be a driving force of evolution have brought all these parts together at the right time to produce such elaborate mechanisms?

Darwin acknowledged this as a problem. For example, he wrote: “To suppose that the eye . . . could have been formed by [evolution], seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” More than a century has passed since then. Has the problem been solved? No. On the contrary, since Darwin’s time what has been learned about the eye shows that it is even more complex than he understood it to be. Thus Jastrow said: “The eye appears to have been designed; no designer of telescopes could have done better.”

If this is so of the eye, what, then, of the human brain? Since even a simple machine does not evolve by chance, how can it be a fact that the infinitely more complex brain did? Jastrow concluded: “It is hard to accept the evolution of the human eye as a product of chance; it is even harder to accept the evolution of human intelligence as the product of random disruptions in the brain cells of our ancestors.”

Millions of bones and other evidence of past life have been unearthed by scientists, and these are called fossils. If evolution were a fact, surely in all of this there should be ample evidence of one kind of living thing evolving into another kind. But the Bulletin of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History commented: “Darwin’s theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true.”

Why not? The Bulletin went on to say that Darwin “was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn’t look the way he predicted it would . . . the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.” In fact now, after more than a century of collecting fossils, “we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time,” explained the Bulletin. Why is this the case? Because the more abundant fossil evidence available today shows that some of the examples that were once used to support evolution now are seen not to do so at all.

This failure of the fossil evidence to support gradual evolution has disturbed many evolutionists. In The New Evolutionary Timetable, Steven Stanley spoke of “the general failure of the record to display gradual transitions from one major group to another.” He said: “The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with [slow evolution].” Niles Eldredge also admitted: “The pattern that we were told to find for the last 120 years does not exist.”

All of this has led many scientists to champion novel theories for evolution. Science Digest put it this way: “Some scientists are proposing even more rapid evolutionary changes and are now dealing quite seriously with ideas once popularized only in fiction.”

For instance, some scientists have concluded that life could not have arisen spontaneously on earth. Instead, they speculate that it must have originated in outer space and then floated down to the earth. But that just pushes the problem of the origin of life further back and into a more forbidding setting. The perils confronting life in the hostile environment of outer space are well known. Is it likely, then, that life began spontaneously elsewhere in the universe and survived under such harsh conditions to reach the earth, and later to develop into life as we know it?

Since the fossil record does not show a gradual development of life from one type into another, some evolutionists theorize that the process must have happened by jerks and starts, not at a steady pace. As The World Book Encyclopedia explains: “Many biologists think new species may be produced by sudden, drastic changes in genes.”

Some adherents to this theory have called the process “punctuated equilibrium.” That is, species maintain their “equilibrium” (they stay much the same), but every once in a while there is a “punctuation” (a big jump to evolve into something else). This is just the opposite of the theory that has been accepted by nearly all evolutionists for many decades. The gulf between the two theories was illustrated by a headline in The New York Times: “Theory of Rapid Evolution Attacked.” The article noted that the newer “punctuated equilibrium” idea had “aroused new opposition” among those who hold to the traditional view.

Regardless of which theory is held, it is reasonable that there should be at least some evidence to show that one kind of life turns into another kind. But the gaps between different types of life found in the fossil record, as well as the gaps between different types of living things on earth today, still persist.

Also, it is revealing to see what has happened to Darwin’s long-accepted idea regarding the “survival of the fittest.” This he called “natural selection.” That is, he believed that nature “selected” the fittest living things to survive. As these “fit” ones supposedly acquired new features that worked to their advantage, they slowly evolved. But the evidence of the past 125 years shows that, while the fittest may indeed survive, this does not explain how they arrived. One lion may be fitter than another lion, but that does not explain how he got to be a lion. And all of his offspring will still be lions, not something else.

Thus, in Harper’s magazine, writer Tom Bethell commented: “Darwin made a mistake sufficiently serious to undermine his theory. And that mistake has only recently been recognized as such. . . . One organism may indeed be ‘fitter’ than another . . . This, of course, is not something which helps create the organism, . . . It is clear, I think, that there was something very, very wrong with such an idea.” Bethell added: “As I see it the conclusion is pretty staggering: Darwin’s theory, I believe, is on the verge of collapse.”

Summarizing some of the unsolved problems confronting evolution, Francis Hitching observed: “In three crucial areas where the modern evolution theory can be tested, it has failed: The fossil record reveals a pattern of evolutionary leaps rather than gradual change. Genes are a powerful stabilizing mechanism whose main function is to prevent new forms evolving. Random step-by-step mutations at the molecular level cannot explain the organized and growing complexity of life.”

Then Hitching concluded by making this observation: “To put it at its mildest, one may question an evolutionary theory so beset by doubts among even those who teach it. If Darwinism is truly the great unifying principle of biology, it encompasses extraordinarily large areas of ignorance. It fails to explain some of the most basic questions of all: how lifeless chemicals came alive, what rules of grammar lie behind the genetic code, how genes shape the form of living things.” In fact, Hitching stated that he considered the modern theory of evolution “so inadequate that it deserves to be treated as a matter of faith.”

However, many advocates of evolution feel that they do have sufficient reason to insist that evolution is a fact. They explain that they are just arguing over details. But if any other theory had such enormous remaining difficulties, and such major contradictions among those who advocate it, would it so readily be pronounced a fact? Merely repeating that something is a fact does not make it a fact. As John R. Durant, a biologist, wrote in The Guardian of London: “Many scientists succumb to the temptation to be dogmatic, . . . over and over again the question of the origin of the species has been presented as if it were finally settled. Nothing could be further from the truth. . . . But the tendency to be dogmatic persists, and it does no service to the cause of science.”

(breathes in)

I hope this is enough, I went through all my available resources just to show the kind people of ASP why I have been so persistent and to also show you my full view point. I am truly sorry if I have annoyed you, i will stop arguing about this now lol.

Goodbye guys, I'm off to sleep.


----------



## mattmc (Jan 11, 2010)

religion = means of controlling the greater population, since science has kicked religion out the door in recent centuries, something else will come up in its place as a means to controll people

climate change for instance. 

whats scripted in bibles and dreamt up fables equivalent which almost all read the same or similar cant be compared evolution...i mean, evolution can happen in your own life time...take rabbits in australia...due to their dangerous numbers in australia, scientists developed mixamatosis in the hope to kill off the population, and did so successfully for a few years..but rabbits EVOLVED to develop a resistence to the virus..so the brought in a new one..calisey (spelling?) which they are starting to grow an immunity to it..

thats my 2 cents on evolution..

by the way...this thread has nothing to do with religion and the religous debate, here stands 6 pages of irrelevantness. it was about evidence that fish grew legs around 395 million years ago and were walking on land....soo lets get back on topic. quite the religious crap, unless you religious nuts wish to be flamed to all hell. my 2 cents, that is all,


----------



## mattmc (Jan 11, 2010)

nice copy and paste job by the way


----------



## mattmc (Jan 11, 2010)

"none are more hopelessly enslaved than those that believe they are free"
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe - 1794-1832


----------



## D3pro (Jan 11, 2010)

mattmc said:


> nice copy and paste job by the way



Matt,

It's a series of quotes and articles that were accumulated, put together to help people understand... The only Copy and pasted parts were the quotes, the rest was written, which isn't much to write cause the whole damn thing is quotes, don't argue over it... it's there, it answers questions, and I don't particularly care anymore what people think... sorry, 2 am lol tired...


----------



## D3pro (Jan 11, 2010)

mattmc said:


> "none are more hopelessly enslaved than those that believe they are free"
> Johann Wolfgang von Goethe - 1794-1832



If you read what I just posted... then you sound pretty silly saying that... "the truth will set you free" yadidadida...


----------



## Just_Plain_Nuts (Jan 12, 2010)

D3 pro you are a champ! But no matter how much evidence you give them there are those people who will only believe what they want to...that they are their own God and are not accountable to anything but what the laws limit them to. D3pro and myself are not asking people to just blindly change their views and become religious rather , if they are serious about finding truth, look into it...ALL. Not looking to disprove religion or evolution but to go into it with a truly open mind. This is difficult i know because of our own biases, but it is what I did. I was evolution and science all the way till i was 32, then I decided to investigate the possibility of Gods existence and after years of learning, And i'm not talking about resentingly being stuck at a christian college and closing myself off because the people there were not true to their faith and i didnt want to be there.. I can guarantee that D3pro and myself know more about science and evolution than all the knockers here know about God and the bible. Sorry if that causes offence but I havent seen anyone demonstrate any knowledge of God or the bible other than mainstream misconcieved knowledge.


----------



## the_tsar (Jan 12, 2010)

Just_Plain_Nuts said:


> D3 pro you are a champ! But no matter how much evidence you give them there are those people who will only believe what they want to...that they are their own God and are not accountable to anything but what the laws limit them to. D3pro and myself are not asking people to just blindly change their views and become religious rather , if they are serious about finding truth, look into it...ALL. Not looking to disprove religion or evolution but to go into it with a truly open mind. This is difficult i know because of our own biases, but it is what I did. I was evolution and science all the way till i was 32, then I decided to investigate the possibility of Gods existence and after years of learning, And i'm not talking about resentingly being stuck at a christian college and closing myself off because the people there were not true to their faith and i didnt want to be there.. I can guarantee that D3pro and myself know more about science and evolution than all the knockers here know about God and the bible. Sorry if that causes offence but I havent seen anyone demonstrate any knowledge of God or the bible other than mainstream misconcieved knowledge.


 

SO what made you overwhelmingly see God as a feasable answer to the Truth your seeking.

I also like the way you talk as if you know something we all dont, when ultimately you have as little proof of Gods existence than all of Us. So Im curious how you see "truth" when others admit, there is no real evidence. I have yet to see a froont page newspaper exclaiming, "Debate of Gods existencce Over!!: conclusive proof found, scientists unite in acceptance that God is no longer a philosophical debate but a being that exists". Did I miss an issue of the Australian?

And knowing the bible, isnt going to help an Athiest learn about the phylosophical question of if there is a god or not, as we men of Science see how Religion and God are man made.
And since you religious people cant even sort out what religion best describes our God, I think its dubious that you know something no one else sees as truth.

I also maintain, you know squat about evolution, even know you think you do, you may know details of evolution, but the bigger philosophical ramifications of evolution, I feel you are sorely lacking understanding in.

I have had no Religious person put to me, any observation or philosophy that would shake the truth actual empirical evidence has shown me, from fossils to DNA, to Geography, to even mans history,nothing. What Empirical evidence have you found that makes you certain God exists.
And to this effect, how did you descide what religion represents God, and evidence this is the correct religion, there are many, so we need to get it right, I perplexed that you have done this.
Let Us know.


----------

