Godzillla vs the creator ( The evolution thread)

[poptart]

First off, I asked for takes from the two fellas who are Christians, and, I assume, Bible believers.

I asked for them to address a specific question.

I didn't ask for you, Bushice, but I'll answer you anyway.


The Biblical timeline in no way interferes with the reality of Dinosaurs.
'Young-earthers' don't deny dinosaurs existed.

The flood?

What's your problem with it...?


An earth that is 4-6 billion years old is not a fact at all.

It's a line of thinking, much as a 6,000 yr old earth is.

One can make arguments either way, and you won't be able to claim either is a fact.


How long do 'evolutionists' tell us 'man' has been on earth....?
One million years? Two million? 3 or 4 million..?

Ok, whatever it is, it first of all doesn't pass the common sense test.

1. Using even the VERY most EXTREMELY conservative population growth rates, the number of folks who would be living on the earth now would be ........ standing room only on 'bout every square foot of dry land.

It's absurd. MILLIONS of years = MANY MANY people, even if the 'evolutionist' tries to argue for an OBSCENELY low pop. growth rate. So, where are all the dead bodies....? Where'd they go....?

2. Man has been around for millions of years...? Why did he sit on his thumb and accomplished diddly squat for 99.9999% of the time he's been on the planet....?

In case you haven't noticed, if man is ANYTHING, he is a DOER.

Only in the past 2000 years have we seen man DO things. And only since the industrial revolution have we REALLY seen him do things.

Your 'man' was a damn dumb S.O.B. for a HELL of a long time.

That'd be a HELL of a long time.

That's right, long enough to make the whole 'theory' completely absurd, sorry.

[Truman]

When I teach evolution, I tell the kids that if/how they reconcile the course material with their personal beliefs is completely up to them

Rack that, Mike. Here’s hoping that the local R-VII promotes similar enlightenment with its faculty.

How do YOU 're-organize' scripture to fit what you see science as telling you...?

Please tell me that this isn’t a thinly veiled call out, ‘tart. If so, tread lightly, Sparky, ‘cuz the next time you ‘get over’ on me will be your first.

I’ve read the Book of Genesis. I believe it to be an oration written in simple terms that people from 5,000 years ago could easily understand and assimilate into their beliefs. This oration, in its current form, has survived due to the ingenuousness of Man, his innovations, and his determination to spread the Gospel. Despite the protestations of the good evangelicals down at the local Abundant Life Baptist Church, from what science has now proven, I cannot take the events as described in the Book of Genesis as verbatim; specifically: I do not believe that Man was literally created on a Sixth Day.

That said, I am humored by the pin-heads who suggest that Man arose out of the seas from amoebas or some-such. Oh really: Just where, pray tell, did these amoebas arise from? OK, so we take our argument to the sub-atomic level… Cool! Where did the sub-atomic particles come from?

Easy answer: Our Creator. Specifically, God in Heaven, to His believers….

Deep concept, pops, but consider this perspective: Man arising from protoplasm has a greater probability than MuleFan ever posting a cognizant take. That’s why I bank on an All Powerful Creator.

Look, poppy, I don’t pretend to have all the answers, and I’m certainly not about to disparage you or your spiritual beliefs – or anyone else’s for that matter - in this forum. You wanna quote The Book of Wisdom? Fine and dandy: Faith in God’s Word, as quoted in John 3:16 and 14:6 will provide me Eternal Salvation, much to the consternation of my Catholic friends, who are sorely convinced that anyone – even those “of faith” - outside the True Church is doomed to fires of hell, and my Mormon friends, who pity us all.

That said, the bottom line is that we just don’t know. And we never will in this Life. Regardless of curriculum, I believe that children should be taught that pure science alone does not hold all the answers. I believe that an acknowledgement to Higher Power - however briefly discussed – should be proffered to our children.

“War” ...Er, Peace Jesus…

Out.

[Mister Bushice]

The Biblical timeline in no way interferes with the reality of Dinosaurs.
'Young-earthers' don't deny dinosaurs existed.

Yet they ain't mentioned anywhere.

The flood?

What's your problem with it...?

Based on the biblical timeline for the flood, Egypt should have been underwater during a time when their heiroglyphic records show no such thing occurred.

An earth that is 4-6 billion years old is not a fact at all.

It's a line of thinking, much as a 6,000 yr old earth is.

No, a 4-6 billion year old earth is a hypothesis based on scientific research and study.

A 6,000 year old earth is not based on anything but a biblical timeline.

One can make arguments either way, and you won't be able to claim either is a fact.

True, but one is based on scientific study, the other is not....

How long do 'evolutionists' tell us 'man' has been on earth....?
One million years? Two million? 3 or 4 million..?

Ok, whatever it is, it first of all doesn't pass the common sense test.

1. Using even the VERY most EXTREMELY conservative population growth rates, the number of folks who would be living on the earth now would be ........ standing room only on 'bout every square foot of dry land.

I've heard the hypothesis, but I've never seen any real mathematical breakdown that would prove it that also include lack of food die outs, disease, and genetic dead ends.

Besides, the same population growth curve could be used for animals, and I don't see them crowding out every corner of the earth.

It's absurd. MILLIONS of years = MANY MANY people, even if the 'evolutionist' tries to argue for an OBSCENELY low pop. growth rate. So, where are all the dead bodies....? Where'd they go....?

The same place that dead trees and other living organisms went - eaten by organisms, followed by microorganisms, then time and weather, until they are no more. We're not indestructible. Hell, how many bones from bodies not buried in coffins 500 years ago are there lying around?

2. Man has been around for millions of years...? Why did he sit on his thumb and accomplished diddly squat for 99.9999% of the time he's been on the planet....?

I blame Bush. :)

In case you haven't noticed, if man is ANYTHING, he is a DOER.

Only in the past 2000 years have we seen man DO things. And only since the industrial revolution have we REALLY seen him do things.

Your 'man' was a damn dumb S.O.B. for a HELL of a long time.

That'd be a HELL of a long time.

That's right, long enough to make the whole 'theory' completely absurd, sorry.

It's called "EVOLUTION" for a reason, tart. Survival itself is accomplishing a lot when the brain is only capable of simple concepts and there are other animals that are larger, faster, more well equipped for survival and are stronger than you. "Modern Man" has a timeline of only 14,000 years or so, and it wasn't until after the last ice age (you know, one of those things that could significantly upset your population growth figures) which lasted until about 10,000 years ago that real progress was seen. Prior to that "Man" was largely nomadic. Egyptian History begins about 5,500 years ago with evidence of organized, permanent settlements prior to the pharonic era.

Kinda sucks that your noahs flood took them all out 2,400 years ago. someone should have told them, I guess.

[Truman]

Almost every biology professor I ever had gave nod to a Higher Power at work in the universe and acknowledged the fact that some things simply cannot be easily explained by science alone. That stated, however, we went about the business of learning the precepts of species adaptation and micro-evolution.

Personal belief and Classroom curriculum are not interwoven for a reason.

Bullshit. Teachers are human too ('cept during finals), and are subject to their own belief system. You need look no further than the rampant bias and liberalism as expressed by professors on our nation's college campi. Care to expand?

Much as proponents from both sides would argue differently, isn’t it enough to say that we definitively just don’t know? Can’t a science professor attribute such unknowns to phenomena we cannot begin to understand at this time without being branded a fundamentalist?

As long as that "Unknown" isn't a "God" Or Supreme Being", I see no problem with saying " There is no known cause for this".

Why? What's so wrong with acknowledging a "Creator"?

but it's ignorant and self serving to lump everything we don't understand about science into the category of being a creation by a superior being.

... Just as it is arrogant to try to dismiss "everything we don't understand about science into the category of being a creation by a superior being."

What're you afraid of Bushy?

[poptart]

Because the Bible doesn't make specific reference to dinosaurs doesn't prove a damn thing.
There are a LOT of things the Bible doesn't make mention of.

At any rate, Job 40: 15-24 could be speaking of a dinosaur.

Doesn't matter either way though.


There is 'scientific study' for a young earth just as there is for an earth billions of years old.

[Mister Bushice]

Almost every biology professor I ever had gave nod to a Higher Power at work in the universe and acknowledged the fact that some things simply cannot be easily explained by science alone. That stated, however, we went about the business of learning the precepts of species adaptation and micro-evolution.

Personal belief and Classroom curriculum are not interwoven for a reason.

Bullshit. Teachers are human too ('cept during finals), and are subject to their own belief system. You need look no further than the rampant bias and liberalism as expressed by professors on our nation's college campi. Care to expand?

Yes. Teachers opinions are just that and are not included as part of a course curriculum on any syllabus, test, or quiz. They can say whatever they want but that has no bearing on established theories or hypotheses.

Much as proponents from both sides would argue differently, isn’t it enough to say that we definitively just don’t know? Can’t a science professor attribute such unknowns to phenomena we cannot begin to understand at this time without being branded a fundamentalist?

As long as that "Unknown" isn't a "God" Or Supreme Being", I see no problem with saying " There is no known cause for this".

Why? What's so wrong with acknowledging a "Creator"?

Nothing, as long as you can prove there is a creator and who created said creator.

but it's ignorant and self serving to lump everything we don't understand about science into the category of being a creation by a superior being.

... Just as it is arrogant to try "to lump everything we don't understand about science into the category of being a creation by a superior being."

What're you afraid of Bushy?

Stupid theories based on the suppositions of an ignorant mind.

[Truman]

There is 'scientific study' for a young earth just as there is for an earth billions of years old.

Quick answer: No there isn't. Post a link if you truly believe this to be true.

Look, pop - friend - the Earth is what it is. And this is a simple Message Board... I don't expect you to accept the word from some mook you occasionally banter with in cyberspace. But dude... Look it up.

You wanna believe the Earth is 'young'? Well, to your credit, there were those who insisted that our planet was flat; that the sun rotated around the earth; and that Mike Shanahan could win a Superbowl without John Elway.

Go figure :roll:

[Truman]

Well and good, Bushy.

You fail to acknowledge a Creator.

Then where do we come from?

I'll wait while you sputter....

[poptart]

Look what up....? friend

I could go ahead and post a bunch of links. We could bang all the info back and forth.

Your link(s), mine, back and forth.

Gulf coast-to-cornland ping pong battle extraordinaire.

Not interested in a link v. link debate.

Been there, done that.....a few times on these boards.

That song's been sung.




Why didn't you give an answer to my earlier question...?

A real tuffie...?

[Mister Bushice]

Well and good, Bushy.

You fail to acknowledge a Creator.

Then where do we come from?

I'll wait while you sputter....

Short sputter, coming up....

We evolved.

[Truman]

Look what up....? friend

Why didn't you give an answer to my earlier question...?

A real tuffie...?

Harumph. And here I thought I adressed all your questions and concerns. You wanna clear answer? Then mix in a parenthetic question- or-seven.

Look, 'tart: I'm from the Ozarks. Please type slow so's I can keep up.

[Truman]

We evolved.

Hey, neat! Er, from where?

[poptart]

Well and good, Bushy.

You fail to acknowledge a Creator.

Then where do we come from?

I'll wait while you sputter....

Short sputter, coming up....

We evolved.

Breath of life.



Tru,

If 'ID' is speaking of the God of the Bible then the two (ID and Darwinism) are not harmonious.

The Bible clearly tells us that death and 'corruption' entered the world after Satan deceived man and man sinned. (Rom 5:12, ICor 15:21)

4-6 billion years of death and corruption before Satan made his mark on the world ...... ?

How do YOU 're-organize' scripture to fit what you see science as telling you...?

[Mister Bushice]

4-6 billion years of death and corruption before Satan made his mark on the world ...... ?

How do YOU 're-organize' scripture to fit what you see science as telling you...?

You don't. Scripture has too many holes in it, thus trying to tie ID and the bible (Or God as creator) together was easily revealed and then shot down.

[Mister Bushice]

We evolved.

Hey, neat! Er, from where?

Not where, what.

[Truman]

Well and good, Bushy.

You fail to acknowledge a Creator.

Then where do we come from?

I'll wait while you sputter....

Short sputter, coming up....

We evolved.

Breath of life.



Tru,

If 'ID' is speaking of the God of the Bible then the two (ID and Darwinism) are not harmonious.

The Bible clearly tells us that death and 'corruption' entered the world after Satan deceived man and man sinned. (Rom 5:12, ICor 15:21)

4-6 billion years of death and corruption before Satan made his mark on the world ...... ?

How do YOU 're-organize' scripture to fit what you see science as telling you...?

Dad burn it, 'tart. I stated my answer 16 posts above. Mix in an attention span or a pair of readin' glasses, will ya:

I’ve read the Book of Genesis. I believe it to be an oration written in simple terms that people from 5,000 years ago could easily understand and assimilate into their beliefs. This oration, in its current form, has survived due to the ingenuousness of Man, his innovations, and his determination to spread the Gospel. Despite the protestations of the good evangelicals down at the local Abundant Life Baptist Church, from what science has now proven, I cannot take the events as described in the Book of Genesis as verbatim; specifically: I do not believe that Man was literally created on a Sixth Day.

You want more, I'll gladly expand....

Oh, and BTW: In regard to natural selection and intelligent design, Mssrs. Darwin was a child of God...

[Truman]

We evolved.

Hey, neat! Er, from where?

Not where, what.

Fine.

Expand.

Genius. :roll:

Lest we crumble your useless diatribes like clay pigeons at a shooting range....

[poptart]

Missed that, Tru, sorry. A bit 'busy' in this here thread.

Being a believer in Christ is the bottom line, no doubt. How a person gets there, or what he believes beyond that most critical point is window dressing. I think we both agree on that.

You gave and answer to my question and I'll leave it at that.

[Mister Bushice]

Hey, neat! Er, from where?

Not where, what.

Fine.

Expand.

Genius. :roll:

Lest we crumble your useless diatribes like clay pigeons at a shooting range....

You really need to be spoon fed this? What is it you're looking for?

We share common genetic traits with many animals, but most closely with apes. We evolved from lower life forms.

If you would like to continue this, I'll split it off on its own. This thread was started to debate the whole ID concept and the court decision related to it, not specifically evolution vs God.

[poptart]

Life arose from non-life.

How does that happen...?

[Mister Bushice]

Life was created from nothing, by someone who was not created.

How does that happen?

[poptart]

Book of Genesis.

Faith.


My faith doesn't belong in a public school science class, IMO.

Nor does the faith that life somehow arose from non-life belong in a public school science class.


Both ought to be offered as electives.

[Truman]

Not where, what.

Fine.

Expand.

Genius. :roll:

Lest we crumble your useless diatribes like clay pigeons at a shooting range....

You really need to be spoon fed this? What is it you're looking for?

We share common genetic traits with many animals, but most closely with apes. We evolved from lower life forms.

If you would like to continue this, I'll split it off on its own. This thread was started to debate the whole ID concept and the court decision related to it, not specifically evolution vs God.

Your call, B - you wear the Mod tag... It is Page 6, after all, and for God's sake, and I would love to see this discussion get more play. Again, your call.

BTW, We're a lot closer on a lot of fronts than you might think on this one, B....

Humans and apes share almost identical DNA structure - but there are marked differences as well. I vehemently disagree that we - humans - evolved from lower life form. Sure, it's been theorized... But until I see the so-called missing link.... It's a non starter. Humans share a number of similarities with pigs too.

I'll repeat my challenge to you: If not God... Then where do we come from? I await your answer in this or another thread.

Truman

[Diogenes]

We share common genetic traits with many animals, but most closely with apes.

Correct. either because....

We evolved from lower life forms.

..or because we were designed that way.

If you would like to continue this, I'll split it off on its own. This thread was started to debate the whole ID concept

It is precisely here, Darwin's theory of descent with modification (not natural selection) that the ID advocates question neodarwinist orthodoxy.

That and biogenesis, and in neither case do they suggest that God be taught in public schools.

[Mister Bushice]

Fine.

Expand.

Genius. :roll:

Lest we crumble your useless diatribes like clay pigeons at a shooting range....

You really need to be spoon fed this? What is it you're looking for?

We share common genetic traits with many animals, but most closely with apes. We evolved from lower life forms.

If you would like to continue this, I'll split it off on its own. This thread was started to debate the whole ID concept and the court decision related to it, not specifically evolution vs God.

Your call, B - you wear the Mod tag... It is Page 6, after all, and for God's sake, and I would love to see this discussion get more play. Again, your call.

BTW, We're a lot closer on a lot of fronts than you might think on this one, B....

Humans and apes share almost identical DNA structure - but there are marked differences as well. I vehemently disagree that we - humans - evolved from lower life form. Sure, it's been theorized... But until I see the so-called missing link.... It's a non starter. Humans share a number of similarities with pigs too.

I'll repeat my challenge to you: If not God... Then where do we come from? I await your answer in this or another thread.

Truman

For the sake of thread continuity, I'll split it.

Why does there have to be a "missing link" per se?

Think of it in this way. A litter of animals was born under harsh conditions. Only one animal was able to survive in that environment. The others died off or moved to a more suitable environment.

So, among a group of apes there was one was able to stand erect. The change need not be such a gradual one. It may very well be a fluke, or a genetic anomaly, but it became a very critical trait to have, and thus was then passed on.

A microscopic sea creature develops into a more
complex life form, and it survives because of the change.

Several generations later, the creature develops the ability to swim greater distances.

after several more generations a sea creature is born with the ability to breath air as well as swim in water.

Several more generations saw one of those develop the ability to crawl out of the water and live on the land. A few generations after that, and one developed the ability to ambulate...

And so on and so on. I compressed the timeline, but the point is there.

Edit: I tried to split this along post lines where the discussion veered off topic. Feel free to repost any threads wrongly moved from the ID thread. I thought these represented the best continuity.

[Diogenes]

Actually the differance between the two topics rather eludes me, but as for your restating of descent with modification...

It is a theory, as is special creation, as is ID, which falls in the middle (evolutionary processes with external direction and purpose).

The question is probability, which is why I posted a link by a mathamatician....

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=9128

[Truman]

Why does there have to be a "missing link" per se?

Think of it in this way. A litter of animals was born under harsh conditions. Only one animal was able to survive in that environment. The others died off or moved to a more suitable environment.

So, among a group of apes there was one was able to stand erect. The change need not be such a gradual one. It may very well be a fluke, or a genetic anomaly, but it became a very critical trait to have, and thus was then passed on.

A microscopic sea creature develops into a more
complex life form, and it survives because of the change.

Several generations later, the creature develops the ability to swim greater distances.

after several more generations a sea creature is born with the ability to breath air as well as swim in water.

Several more generations saw one of those develop the ability to crawl out of the water and live on the land. A few generations after that, and one developed the ability to ambulate...

And so on and so on. I compressed the timeline, but the point is there.

Edit: I tried to split this along post lines where the discussion veered off topic. Feel free to repost any threads wrongly moved from the ID thread. I thought these represented the best continuity.

Last post on the subject this evening, then off to bed...

My apologies, Bushy... I wasn't looking to derail the train. There is little doubt as to the political volubility of the whole Intelligent Design/Evolution debate. Both sides look to mint political coin with its constituents on the subject.

My grump, however, is the direct result of Darwinists who fail to recognize the precepts of Creationists, and Intelligent Design ideologues who stubbornly dismiss all tenets of Evolution. Given an open mind, both premises easily coexist...

Let's start with you, Bushy...

ID purists would puke, but your post above provides a terrific illustration of adaptation and micro-evolution. But riddle me this Bush-man: Where did your litter of environmentally-challenged whelps come from? Or the simea erectus, as cited in your second example? And I'll assume your microscopic sea creatures invested eons to develop the capability to breath air and crawl on land. Nice. But from where did these organisms originate?

Now think a moment, Bushy... You really have only two answers. Thin air... Or God. Talk about locked in a round room and told to piss in a corner: You think of a third, lemme know. I'm gonna knock off some z's while you ponder the question.

[Mister Bushice]

My apologies, Bushy... I wasn't looking to derail the train.

I know that. Some threads just veer off. Most are best left to do so, but in this case it doesn't hurt either way to split it and get more into the evolution aspect, as opposed to the legal ID argument. Makes for two decent threads IMO.

Let's start with you, Bushy...

ID purists would puke, but your post above provides a terrific illustration of adaptation and micro-evolution. But riddle me this Bush-man: Where did your litter of environmentally-challenged whelps come from? Or the simea erectus, as cited in your second example? And I'll assume your microscopic sea creatures invested eons to develop the capability to breath air and crawl on land. Nice. But from where did these organisms originate?

Now think a moment, Bushy... You really have only two answers. Thin air... Or God. Talk about locked in a round room and told to piss in a corner: You think of a third, lemme know. I'm gonna knock off some z's while you ponder the question.

No one knows what a beginning could possibly be, nor could we possibly know what is outside the edge, meaning, how far does the universe go, does it have an end, is there even an outside, or do we even have the brains to comprehend what that might be?

You say there must have been a creator to create the matter that formed the creatures, and maybe so. No one knows. It is certainly a theory worthy of discussion, however impossible to prove.

Just as many say matter always existed, and it has evolved into what we know today. As difficult to prove, but more concrete than a "creator" being, as it does physically exist, and we are seeing evidence right now of matter forming around a star:

http://www.newscientistspace.com/article.ns?id=dn8507


So perhaps I started from the microscopic point of view and moved forward, thinking we were discussing the difference between man being created as opposed to evolving. I have no clear answer for the very beginning, but no one really does, do they?

Those with faith want to believe there is a creator of man, because it helps give substance and meaning to what is.

I chose to think that if there was a creator of man, the creator would not be so absent and allow so much to be going so wrong for so long.

But as for life from non life....

When you see how creatures evolve and adapt to environmental changes in order to survive, it is not far fetched to think life was created from non life, that when the basic building blocks of life (starting with carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen and on up through amino acids formed from those basic elements) are present, in a "non living" state, they can combine to form living things, whcih can evolve into other, more complex living things.

So even though I have no clear argument for the very beginning (and neither do you), you have a concept in the form of a being, and I a concept in the form of matter always existing in some form, but beyond that, it is doubtful that either of us will ever know the reality of which is correct in our lifetimes.

But from the formation of life going forward, I'd say that evolution has a stronger toehold in reality because we can observe this occurring, and by parallel, I would say if there WAS a creator who created everything, would it have stopped at creating mere matter billions of years ago and allowed the natural processes we are now observing to occur to be observed?

I don't believe so. It doesn't seem logical that a being would create all that we are so that we could observe the building blocks of life forming around a star elsewhere, much in the way we theorize life happened.


Paint myself in well enough for ya? :)

[poptart]

But from the formation of life going forward, I'd say that evolution has a stronger toehold in reality because we can observe this occurring,.....

That is entirely false.

We have never observed evolution occurring.

We've seen changes, modifications, etc. within a 'species'.

We have never seen one species change into another.


As for 'life from non-life'.....even the most SIMPLE organism carries HUGE HUGE amounts of complex 'information' which allows it to live.

What was it that added this overwhelmingly LARGE amount of extra information to transform a one-celled creature progressively into birds, trees, people....?

It sure as hell ain't natural selection, because that involves getting RID of information. For example, A group of creatures might become more adapted to the cold by the elimination of those which don't carry the genetic information to make thick fur. But that doesn't explain the origin of the information to make thick fur.

Where did that information to make thick fur come from...?

Again, the complexity for such a thing to take place is COMPLETELY overwhelming.

Sure, toss a large group of small pieces of .....nothing .... on a table and in a billion years or so it'll group itself together into a watch.



That dog won't hunt.

[Truman]

When you see how creatures evolve and adapt to environmental changes in order to survive, it is not far fetched to think life was created from non life, that when the basic building blocks of life (starting with carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen and on up through amino acids formed from those basic elements) are present, in a "non living" state, they can combine to form living things, whcih can evolve into other, more complex living things.

Far-fetched? Um, yes it is. See, Darwin was mostly wrong.

Examples of adaptation to environment (a captive killer whale teaches others of its pod to lure and kill seagulls) and micro-evolution of species (eohippus to modern-day horse) have been observed in nature and are well documented. But life manifested from non-life? pop’s said it best:

We've seen changes, modifications, etc. within a 'species'.

We have never seen one species change into another.

…the complexity for such a thing to take place is COMPLETELY overwhelming.

Sure, toss a large group of small pieces of .....nothing .... on a table and in a billion years or so it'll group itself together into a watch.

That dog won't hunt.

Rack. Gets it.

Photosynthesis not withstanding.

Genesis 1:1 states that, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Did it occur to you that perhaps modern day astronomers are observing God’s Work in the formulation of your new star? You suggest that …when the basic building blocks of life… are present, in a "non living" state, they can combine to form…complex living things. Neat! So what… or Who… provides the spark of Life?

Two things.

1. Genesis is just a book. It is not part of a confirmed how to manual for the human race.

2. In your belief system, Gods work can certainly be the formation of that star. However, the Scientific community also has an explanation for it that is just as valid, and even more so because it does not involve someone waving a magic wand.

Faith explains it for me… Unfortunately, your science is sorely lacking.

I feel the same way about faith. All faith does is accept the unexplanable without proof, where as science attempts to discern the truth through study, and gets closer to it all the time.

I chose to think that if there was a creator of man, the creator would not be so absent and allow so much to be going so wrong for so long.

Simple Test of Faith, Bushy. Pass, and your reward is Heaven. As for our Creator’s extended leave of absence… Perhaps we should define “so long” on more prescient terms. Work with me here…

For no better reason than to keep the math simple, let’s say that our Earth is 5 billion years old. Let’s also say that “intelligent” man began posting woolly mammoth smack on French cave walls about 50,000 years ago. Extrapolate the Earth’s age to a 24 hour clock, and the Rise of Man is reduced to a mere 2.7 seconds. And 5,000 year old Modern Man? 0.27 seconds.

Kinda hard to keep track of the odd tsunami and all the Joe Stalin’s in the world in the blink of an eye…. ‘Specially since we seem to be such a short work in progress.

Point taken, we are short timers on a galactic scale. However, your faith has God turning his back on man after the first sin. After that corruption ensues, and fuck us all. Right?

That's the one I meant.

Faith can be a funny thing. I recently read somewhere that our “need to believe” is genetically pre-wired into our being. I don’t know about any of that, but I once had a philosophy professor who took great delight in debasing atheists. When challenged by the old, “how can you have faith in something you can’t even see” nugget, Prof. Muhr always replied, “have you ever seen your brain? Here’s a knife – cut open your head and lemme know if you see it.”

I don't go for the flat “how can you have faith in something you can’t even see”, It's more of a "why do you lump all of the unexplanable into the "magic creators" lap and be satisfied with that as an explanation?

That part is just a cop out to me. A crutch for the fearful at truly being alone in the universe.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Welcome to the Dark Ages 2.

Darker. Longer. Promising to be infinitely more cruel.

The only bright note is that it will probably be followed by an Enlightenment.
:)

[Diogenes]

Welcome to the Dark Ages 2.

Darker. Longer. Promising to be infinitely more cruel.

The only bright note is that it will probably be followed by an Enlightenment.
:)

Marty's been reading Revelations again.

[Truman]

Hmph.

Looks like Red's Flat Earth Society meeting was postponed again this evening....

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

I'll let you folks get back to dusting off 8000 year old dinosaur bones and picking through the entrails of dead birds.

WAR ~ American Mullahs

[Truman]

I didn't bother to read thread before validating my idiocy.

FTFY

[Diogenes]

WAR ~ American Mullahs

Why do you hate scientists?

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

WAR ~ American Mullahs

Why do you hate scientists?

Because this thread started off like this:

An earth that is 4-6 billion years old is not a fact at all.

It's a line of thinking, much as a 6,000 yr old earth is.

One can make arguments either way, and you won't be able to claim either is a fact.

[Mister Bushice]

But from the formation of life going forward, I'd say that evolution has a stronger toehold in reality because we can observe this occurring,.....

That is entirely false.

We have never observed evolution occurring.

We've seen changes, modifications, etc. within a 'species'.

We have never seen one species change into another.

Changes within a species is what I meant. one species changing to another? at this level, that would not ever be evident in our lifetime as those changes take longer, and within as small a scope as we have, would not be noticeable.

As for 'life from non-life'.....even the most SIMPLE organism carries HUGE HUGE amounts of complex 'information' which allows it to live.

And yet, the genetic code is all remarkably similar.

What was it that added this overwhelmingly LARGE amount of extra information to transform a one-celled creature progressively into birds, trees, people....?

It isn't that drastic a change. We're all more closely related that you think, and the process isn't always so linear:

The first simple bacteria emerged at least as far back as 3.5 billion years ago, about a billion years after the earth's formation. Eukarotic cells had materialized by at least 2 billion years ago, maybe earlier.

They evolved, scientists believe, by ingesting other species of cells and then, instead of digesting them, adopting them as permanent, genetically reproducible parts of themselves

The above is from this article. Interesting reading:

http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/DeepGreen/NYTimes.html

It sure as hell ain't natural selection, because that involves getting RID of information. For example, A group of creatures might become more adapted to the cold by the elimination of those which don't carry the genetic information to make thick fur. But that doesn't explain the origin of the information to make thick fur.

Where did that information to make thick fur come from...?

Some humans are hairier than others. You are assuming outright that all members of that group are hairless and magically sprung hair. If they were hairless they probably relocated or died off. However if there were any with hair, they'd survive, and eventually that trait would become dominant. Mother Nature has a way of adaptation within species and environment that is amazing.

Again, the complexity for such a thing to take place is COMPLETELY overwhelming.

And yet - you think a mysterious god like creature who snaps his fingers and poof! hairy creatures they have become is not at all hinky??

Sure, toss a large group of small pieces of .....nothing .... on a table and in a billion years or so it'll group itself together into a watch.

A watch is an inanimate manufactured product of man. Poor example.


I have a better one.

How about if we take

Oxygen - not a living thing,

Water - not a living thing,

Inorganic Soil - not a living thing

And Sun - not a living thing.

An Inanimate dry seed incapable of living or developing into life on its own.

And make a tree?



Naw, That's monkey science. Where in hell is that guy who snaps his fingers when we need him?

That dog won't hunt.

My Dog just did, and found dinner to boot. :)

[poptart]

How about if we take

Oxygen - not a living thing,

Water - not a living thing,

Inorganic Soil - not a living thing

And Sun - not a living thing.

And make a tree?

You left out the seed.

Minor detail.



Romans 1: 20: For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse
translation: God is clearly seen through His creation, and all that see it are without excuse if they don't acknowledge Him

Psalm 14:1: The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

[Mister Bushice]

How about if we take

Oxygen - not a living thing,

Water - not a living thing,

Inorganic Soil - not a living thing

And Sun - not a living thing.

And make a tree?

You left out the seed.

Minor detail.

No I did not.

And it is inanimate in its dormant state.

Plus once the tree begins to grow, the entire tree is formed from sunlight, water and air.

None of which ever were alive.

Romans 1: 20: For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse
translation: God is clearly seen through His creation, and all that see it are without excuse if they don't acknowledge Him

Psalm 14:1: The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

[/quote]

What is that crap supposed to prove? That some long dead guy wrote stuff about God?

Well, THAT you have proved, but nothing else.