Do you believe in macroevolution?

[Surroundx]

thankyou. that is right along the lines of my thinking. not sure about the abortionists bit tho and what you were getting at with that, but glad to see someone with the correct thinking.

I was just illustrating a dangerous belief which would be bad to act upon, and in which case it would be right to demand justification for such an action (which of course there isn't any).

 

[Australis]

This is a really great TED video with Dawkins explaining the concept of the "middle world brain". It is a must see for anyone struggling with sound scientific facts being believable just because its too hard to understand.

Richard Dawkins on our "queer" universe
Richard Dawkins on our "queer" universe | Video on TED.com

 

[Adzo]

I'll just put this here.
Scientist evolve Multicellular Yeast.
Multicellular Evolution Apparently Isn't That Tough To Do and Only Takes 60 Days

This clip is good for a laugh[video=youtube;z1xUiuZvUuw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1xUiuZvUuw&feature=player_embedded[/video]
BTW, the best answer I have ever read to the question "If dinosaurs lived at the same time as humans, why aren't they mentioned in the bible?" has to be "They were so common back then that they didn't no one thought to mention them."

 

[Australis]

Great video Adzo.. ive seen this before, as well as a few other creationist museum videos scary stuff.

 

[Snakewoman]

the best answer I have ever read to the question "If dinosaurs lived at the same time as humans, why aren't they mentioned in the bible?" has to be "They were so common back then that they didn't no one thought to mention them."

:facepalm: That is all.

 

[Just_Plain_Nuts]

I'll just put this here.
Scientist evolve Multicellular Yeast.
Multicellular Evolution Apparently Isn't That Tough To Do and Only Takes 60 Days

This clip is good for a laugh[video=youtube;z1xUiuZvUuw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1xUiuZvUuw&feature=player_embedded[/video]
BTW, the best answer I have ever read to the question "If dinosaurs lived at the same time as humans, why aren't they mentioned in the bible?" has to be "They were so common back then that they didn't no one thought to mention them."

But they are mentioned in the bible...they just dont call them dinosaurs or brachiosaurs or such because those names were not derived till like the 1800's.

 

[Donkey_Kong]

But they are mentioned in the bible...they just dont call them dinosaurs or brachiosaurs or such because those names were not derived till like the 1800's.

can you quote the parts of the bible that mention dinosaurs??

 

[Just_Plain_Nuts]

sure...

[h=3]Job 40:15-24[/h]King James Version (KJV)

[SUP]15[/SUP]Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
[SUP]16[/SUP]Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
[SUP]17[/SUP]He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
[SUP]18[/SUP]His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
[SUP]19[/SUP]He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.
[SUP]20[/SUP]Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
[SUP]21[/SUP]He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
[SUP]22[/SUP]The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.
[SUP]23[/SUP]Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
[SUP]24[/SUP]He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.

 

[waruikazi]

Sounds kinda like an elephant to me...

 

[Just_Plain_Nuts]

Do elephants have tails like cedar trees?? The cedar trees that the bible often refer to are cedars of lebanon which were massive trees of diameter up to 3 metres..

[h=3]Job 41[/h]New International Version (NIV)

[h=4]Job 41[/h] [SUP]1[/SUP] [SUP][a][/SUP]“Can you pull in Leviathan with a fishhook
or tie down its tongue with a rope?
[SUP]2[/SUP] Can you put a cord through its nose
or pierce its jaw with a hook?
[SUP]3[/SUP] Will it keep begging you for mercy?
Will it speak to you with gentle words?
[SUP]4[/SUP] Will it make an agreement with you
for you to take it as your slave for life?
[SUP]5[/SUP] Can you make a pet of it like a bird
or put it on a leash for the young women in your house?
[SUP]6[/SUP] Will traders barter for it?
Will they divide it up among the merchants?
[SUP]7[/SUP] Can you fill its hide with harpoons
or its head with fishing spears?
[SUP]8[/SUP] If you lay a hand on it,
you will remember the struggle and never do it again!
[SUP]9[/SUP] Any hope of subduing it is false;
the mere sight of it is overpowering.
[SUP]10[/SUP] No one is fierce enough to rouse it.
Who then is able to stand against me?
[SUP]11[/SUP] Who has a claim against me that I must pay?
Everything under heaven belongs to me.
[SUP]12[/SUP] “I will not fail to speak of Leviathan’s limbs,
its strength and its graceful form.
[SUP]13[/SUP] Who can strip off its outer coat?
Who can penetrate its double coat of armor[SUP][b][/SUP]?
[SUP]14[/SUP] Who dares open the doors of its mouth,
ringed about with fearsome teeth?
[SUP]15[/SUP] Its back has[SUP][c][/SUP] rows of shields
tightly sealed together;
[SUP]16[/SUP] each is so close to the next
that no air can pass between.
[SUP]17[/SUP] They are joined fast to one another;
they cling together and cannot be parted.
[SUP]18[/SUP] Its snorting throws out flashes of light;
its eyes are like the rays of dawn.
[SUP]19[/SUP] Flames stream from its mouth;
sparks of fire shoot out.
[SUP]20[/SUP] Smoke pours from its nostrils
as from a boiling pot over burning reeds.
[SUP]21[/SUP] Its breath sets coals ablaze,
and flames dart from its mouth.
[SUP]22[/SUP] Strength resides in its neck;
dismay goes before it.
[SUP]23[/SUP] The folds of its flesh are tightly joined;
they are firm and immovable.
[SUP]24[/SUP] Its chest is hard as rock,
hard as a lower millstone.
[SUP]25[/SUP] When it rises up, the mighty are terrified;
they retreat before its thrashing.
[SUP]26[/SUP] The sword that reaches it has no effect,
nor does the spear or the dart or the javelin.
[SUP]27[/SUP] Iron it treats like straw
and bronze like rotten wood.
[SUP]28[/SUP] Arrows do not make it flee;
slingstones are like chaff to it.
[SUP]29[/SUP] A club seems to it but a piece of straw;
it laughs at the rattling of the lance.
[SUP]30[/SUP] Its undersides are jagged potsherds,
leaving a trail in the mud like a threshing sledge.
[SUP]31[/SUP] It makes the depths churn like a boiling caldron
and stirs up the sea like a pot of ointment.
[SUP]32[/SUP] It leaves a glistening wake behind it;
one would think the deep had white hair.
[SUP]33[/SUP] Nothing on earth is its equal—
a creature without fear.
[SUP]34[/SUP] It looks down on all that are haughty;
it is king over all that are proud.”

Sounds kinda like an elephant to me...

and they don't eat grass to my knowledge

[h=3]Isaiah 27:1[/h]King James Version (KJV)

[h=4]Isaiah 27[/h] [SUP]1[/SUP]In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea.

 

[waruikazi]

Ur right, a dinosaur is much much more likely. And dinosaurs definately did not eat grass. That is a fact!

And yes elephants do eat grass.

OK... keep beleiving what you have to...

But what if you're wrong?

 

[littlemay]

Do elephants have tails like cedar trees?? The cedar trees that the bible often refer to are cedars of lebanon which were massive trees of diameter up to 3 metres..

Just a note on how we choose to interpret translation... the ancients had really very strange ways of describing things and it is often extraordinarily difficult to know for sure what such descriptive language actually pertains to. For example, one of my favourite descriptions found in Greek papyri would be of a 'fiery eyed' chicken (or possibly pigeon), which mind you in this particular text is distinctly differentiated from a 'somewhat fiery eyed' chicken.

We have to be very careful in interpreting these things. When something is described as like a cedar tree (likely from Lebanon, as you rightly pointed out), does this automatically mean that the writer is talking about size? What about relative shape? Colour? Any number of other factors associated with cedar trees in that time and place which we may never know about? Just a thought.

 

[Just_Plain_Nuts]

Just a note on how we choose to interpret translation... the ancients had really very strange ways of describing things and it is often extraordinarily difficult to know for sure what such descriptive language actually pertains to. For example, one of my favourite descriptions found in Greek papyri would be of a 'fiery eyed' chicken (or possibly pigeon), which mind you in this particular text is distinctly differentiated from a 'somewhat fiery eyed' chicken.

We have to be very careful in interpreting these things. When something is described as like a cedar tree (likely from Lebanon, as you rightly pointed out), does this automatically mean that the writer is talking about size? What about relative shape? Colour? Any number of other factors associated with cedar trees in that time and place which we may never know about? Just a thought.

true but if you go by that...what can we believe or take literally

Ur right, a dinosaur is much much more likely. And dinosaurs definately did not eat grass. That is a fact!

And yes elephants do eat grass.

OK... keep beleiving what you have to...

But what if you're wrong?

Are you serious...you're going to go there? I believe I made that point in post #332 in this thread....I mean really, who has more to lose?

 

[waruikazi]

Are you serious...you're going to go there? I believe I made that point in post #332 in this thread....I mean really, who has more to lose?

Oh i just went there!

What if the Muslims are right? Or the Hindus? What will happen to you if you're wrong and they are right?

 

[Surroundx]

true but if you go by that...what can we believe or take literally

The Bible isn't a literal word-by-word account. It's inter-dispersed with parables and other metaphorical language. Ancient authors were very different to what we are, not least because they knew far less than we do. They were less rigorous in their writing. It would only be by coincidence if every description of an animal in the Bible had a clear analogue in the real world. I have more to say, but I'm having a mental blank at the moment.

 

[Just_Plain_Nuts]

Oh i just went there!

What if the Muslims are right? Or the Hindus? What will happen to you if you're wrong and they are right?

Somewhere along the line you need to make a choice on what you stand for and believe in....I guess you believe you are your own God...as long as you can get through life and our laws alright everything will be sweet...

The Bible isn't a literal word-by-word account. It's inter-dispersed with parables and other metaphorical language. Ancient authors were very different to what we are, not least because they knew far less than we do. They were less rigorous in their writing. It would only be by coincidence if every description of an animal in the Bible had a clear analogue in the real world. I have more to say, but I'm having a mental blank at the moment.

That's why you need to study the Bible, not just read a part here and there. It takes thorough reading and meticulous study to begin to fathom what the Bible is saying. It's not just the obvious text but there are so many different levels beyond that. Been studying it for about 6 years now and I know very little....keep plugging away...
Realistically the scientists (or so claimed ) people on here have their own religion...they are still believing most of their theology on faith, on what the scientists have said...because most people do not really know any of this scientific fact first hand they are just believing what they say...not so different from religion really. Main difference is with science they are their own Gods and have only accountability to themselves in confines of what's accepted in our society.

 

[Surroundx]

Realistically the scientists (or so claimed ) people on here have their own religion...they are still believing most of their theology on faith, on what the scientists have said...because most people do not really know any of this scientific fact first hand they are just believing what they say...not so different from religion really. Main difference is with science they are their own Gods and have only accountability to themselves in confines of what's accepted in our society.

There are too many things to know in this world for any one person to know them all. That's why we rely upon other "authorities" to give us the unbiased facts in fields other than those which we are competent to discuss. Since we are all subjective beings, even authorities are wrong on occasion, both in matters of religion and science. It is a risk we must take, however.

As a non-scientist I have to rely upon scientists for virtually all of my scientific knowledge, some of which is bound to be either inaccurate or false. Is this a bad thing? That's a complicated question with no easy answer. Suffice to say in the short space I have that lucky philosophy exists to be able to go over the top of science and prove things using deductive arguments, which, if we simply relied upon the scientific method, would never be completely settled.

 

[slim6y]

The irony of all this belief is that from all the wars of recent time, none of them seemed to be against scientific beliefs.

No one all of a sudden went to war because someone sequenced the human genome.

No one got up in arms over the discovery of ultra violet radiation (something we can't physically see - just like god really).

 

[Retic]

I mean no offense to anyone but I just can't fathom why or how in the enlightened times we live in that people still believe this stuff with absolutely zero proof, just faith.

 

[snakerelocation]

The irony of all this belief is that from all the wars of recent time, none of them seemed to be against scientific beliefs.

No one all of a sudden went to war because someone sequenced the human genome.

No one got up in arms over the discovery of ultra violet radiation (something we can't physically see - just like god really).

understandable so to, there is not just one religion, and this is in the bible, the fall of babalon for one, Genesis 11:1-9, when the people are torn apart, science wont cause wars, have a look at the schools for one, the teachers teach the kids science and they naturally believe what there being told, doest mean its correct, realistically science teachers teach mostly just text book theorys, which like anything is open to interpretation and manipulation. nothing against you slim6y for supposedly being a teacher.
Boa, "absolutely zero proof" mate open your eyes, have a look at some of the awsome things around you, science can not prove that all this has come to light from cell re production, have a look at earth for one, and the way it orbits and its precision, one degree out and we are all cooked. no magic, no machinery, just spinning perfectly, orbiting perfectly.