Jesus is the way....wtf.

[HellaCaliJosh]

Alllah is the WAY!!!!

 

[NAKED MIKE]

Kabooooommmmmm!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Choku_Dorian]

Choku_Dorian, you are making vague, weak, baseless and false comments. You literally do not know what you're talking about. You don't know what evolution is despite the fact I put it in bold

and i quoted it, i know what evolution is.

"species come from other species"

and making that statement, but not explaining how it began, or how the process happens is

vague, weak, baseless and false

.

 

[Ricky Cash]

I don’t believe I said there is a date or timeframe of the creation of earth in the Bible. I’m not speaking about the Christian religion as a whole. I’m speaking about a specific group of Creationists, who just happen to be Christian, known as the Young Earth Creationists. These people take the dates and ages in Genesis literally, and believe the Earth was created some 10,000 years ago.

In GENESIS 1:1,2 it starts off saying that, IN the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. And the eath was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep. Heaven with a litte "H" to imply that it is talking about the heavens or the sky not His habitiation. In that first verse it shows God created the earth in the beginning not specifying an actual time so it probably was a couple of millions or billion maybe even trillion of years ago. The earth was void and without form, probably being that it might have been a big ball of gas like science states, but it wouldn't take science to prove that it could've been a big ball of matter. then God created lght, night day, birds and animals and vegetation. i'll stop there.
evolution follows creation, to the point that humans evolved from other humans and animals from other animals.
we now are not as those before us. starting from the tallest man and woman in existence (even though they wont get the credit) adam and eve. they lived to around 800years old and were about 15+ feet tall. now we see today that humans cannot grow to be that tall nor that old. that is evolution but more in a downward direction. God says it is sin that causes people to die. if sin never entered the world then adam would still be alive and these debates would have been non existent.
animals also fall into this category, how many people actually know of horses with horns in the middle of their heads or seen a dinosaur, as the earth evolved and grew older it made life a little harder to sustain and people as well as animals had to adapt to the earth changing conditions.
for you not believe that there is some sort of evolution going is ignoring the facts and this is ignorance. but creation and evolution go hand in hand you cannot have one without the other, doesn't make any sense. how did the chicken come from the egg, the chicken had to be created first.

 

[AKsamuraiS14]

ok religous agruements dont turn out so well, just hope no lightning hits ya'll computers and blows up........ sorry, all these religous readings got me crazy.... PRAISE THE LORD!!!!!!!!!!

 

[JiujitsuDrift]

I think the basis of this argument though was not if god created earth or whatever. I think it has more to do with the FACT that most people find it ok for others to preach about how god exists, but somehow it is not ok to talk about the possibility that he does not exist. I understand that some people would feel hurt if I said Jesus never existed. There is no God. But they do not realize that they might be stomping on someone else's beliefs. I personally believe there is no God. I find it offensive for someone to tell me I'm going to hell for the life I lead. Yet I hold my tongue and smile when they tell me. It's called restraint. You should try it sometime.

 

[ilida of cola]

In GENESIS 1:1,2 it starts off saying that, IN the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. And the eath was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep. Heaven with a litte "H" to imply that it is talking about the heavens or the sky not His habitiation. In that first verse it shows God created the earth in the beginning not specifying an actual time so it probably was a couple of millions or billion maybe even trillion of years ago.

It doesn't specify a time, but Young Earth Creationists have taken all mentioned ages and time frames in the Genesis to come up with this approximation of 10,000 years.

The earth was void and without form, probably being that it might have been a big ball of gas like science states, but it wouldn't take science to prove that it could've been a big ball of matter. then God created lght, night day, birds and animals and vegetation. i'll stop there.

evolution follows creation, to the point that humans evolved from other humans and animals from other animals.
we now are not as those before us. starting from the tallest man and woman in existence (even though they wont get the credit) adam and eve. they lived to around 800years old and were about 15+ feet tall. now we see today that humans cannot grow to be that tall nor that old. that is evolution but more in a downward direction. God says it is sin that causes people to die. if sin never entered the world then adam would still be alive and these debates would have been non existent.

People tend to back up points based on examples from the Bible. How can anyone compare what it says in the Bible to Evolution when we are ultimately discussing that very issue?

By saying since God created Adam and Eve, who were 15+ feet tall, and modern man is not that tall, then we must have evolved at some point. The argument is a bit out of context because the debate IS about whether the Bible is correct, and whether God magically created Adam, Eve, vegetation, animals, etc. Many people have ignorantly backed up points based on something that is the very core of this debate.

BUT if you want to say that that Creation and Evolution could somehow be interconnected by means other than those mentioned in the Bible, then I would agree. For example, I don't believe that God just created a human being that lived 800+ years. But I do believe that there lies a possibility that a higher power put together all of the ingredients for life such as amino acids like Adenine, Thymine, Guanine, Cytosine (that compose DNA), and from there on evolution took over. Because, remember, Evolution does not explain how life began, but rather how it came to be.

animals also fall into this category, how many people actually know of horses with horns in the middle of their heads or seen a dinosaur, as the earth evolved and grew older it made life a little harder to sustain and people as well as animals had to adapt to the earth changing conditions.

for you not believe that there is some sort of evolution going is ignoring the facts and this is ignorance. but creation and evolution go hand in hand you cannot have one without the other, doesn't make any sense. how did the chicken come from the egg, the chicken had to be created first.

I agree. Evolution is based on a HUGE timescale. But events characteristic to evolution happen daily. Anytime two animals fight for the female during the mating season, you're seeing natural and sexual selection whereby favorable genes (like strength) are passed on to offspring.

"During adaption, some structures may lose their original function and become vestigial structures. Such structures may have little or no function in a current species, yet have a clear function in ancestral species, or other closely-related species. Examples include the non-functional remains of eyes in blind cave-dwelling fish, wings in flightless birds, and the presence of hip bones in whales and snakes. Examples of vestigial structures in humans include wisdom teeth, the coccyx, and the vermiform appendix."

If someone can explain, by ways other than mentioning evolution, why whales and snakes have hipbones that they do not use, and blind cave-dwelling fish have remains of eyes, but not eyes themselves, then I would forget all about Evolution.

I think the basis of this argument though was not if god created earth or whatever. I think it has more to do with the FACT that most people find it ok for others to preach about how god exists, but somehow it is not ok to talk about the possibility that he does not exist.

Very good point.

 

[FlyinFINN]

I make awesome threads.

 

[obby]

and i quoted it, i know what evolution is.

If you knew what evolution is, you wouldn't have made this statement:

so cant explain where the first origin came from, cant explain how they evolve...but it is 'fact' so i guess it happens.

Do I have to bold the fact that evolution isn't about how life started? It's about how life changes. Let's bold it anyway.

Evolution makes no claim on how life began.

Also, the explanation for how life changes and species come from other species can be explained by genetic mutations and natural selection. You know, BIOLOGY. You are seeming more and more like the type of person that can't be bothered to look into anything for themselves.

Now, back the core of the matter

Species come from other species.

You say this is vague, how is it vague? It's a statement that makes a direct claim. If I say that a red apple is polka dot purple, that is not vague. It is a statement that makes a claim. Wrong? Perhaps. Vague? No.

You say it is a weak statement, but it is strong and clear. If a statement is not vague it is also unlikely to be weak.

You say it is baseless, when there are mountains evidence, observations, experiments and logical explanations to support the notion. All you have to do is open a book and read about DNA, or look at fossils that show the transitional forms that you dismiss as non-existant, or watch a documentary on the subject. If you bother to look at that you would understand it is absurd to claim that species come from other species is "baseless". You can at best point at the evidence and say "Nu uh!!, You're wrong!". Of course then the burden again falls you on to show how it is wrong.

You say it is false, despite the evidence, then bring your own evidence and say why. A google search, trip to the library, speciation experiment or visit to a museum can easily produce evidence of evolution, so I have no need to paste millions of words and pictures here in this forum. You are still ignorant, educate yourself and you will be better for it, here is a decent starting point:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/

You would also benefit from fact checking the things you are saying:

evolutionists havent been able to explain the 'theory' for over two centuries

The accepted explanation for evolution is that DNA changes due to mutations and these mutations are selected for according to how well those mutations propagate through a population. Every single organism on this planet shares DNA.

If the theory of evolution were true, it would be difficult to classify organisms

Dig in. Have Seconds.

what would be unlogical is if monkeys were popping out baby humans and i was denying evolution. but not vice versa?

It's unlikely that a human woman would give birth to chimp, because the genetic changes required would be unlikely to occur in one generation. However because man is related to apes, they share DNA, and stuff like this can happen:
http://images.google.com/images?q=human+tail&hl=en&safe=off&um=1&sa=X&oi=images&ct=title

If you were concerned at all with the validity of what you are saying then you might start making sense, but until you educate yourself it is non-sense.

edit: Once you have a basic understanding of evolution, you can also check this out: http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

[Tonymac]

well as I would say it dosen't matter if religion is correct or science is correct.

I would say if nothing else live your life the way you want, not the way the government wants you to, not what some book tells you to, or even your parents. Do what you want to do within reason. Cause if you don't then I see that as a wasted life. You have all this time on this planet and if you spend half of it trying to please someone just get somewhere after you die. Then what do you have.... a dog.

Your life is your's and your's only make it a good one.

Anarchy. Yeah. I have a feeling we (the human species) would never have made it this far if it weren't for rules (set out by religious sects, government, ect). Not saying everything every governing body has to say is correct - there will never be a perfect solution from any pov - but we need rules, laws, morals, ect to survive.

 

[FlyinFINN]

^^ I agree one thousand percent.

 

[Piner]

Anarchy. Yeah. I have a feeling we (the human species) would never have made it this far if it weren't for rules (set out by religious sects, government, ect). Not saying everything every governing body has to say is correct - there will never be a perfect solution from any pov - but we need rules, laws, morals, ect to survive.

Im not talking about anarchy. Im not that far right wing. But I do believe we need to start trusting people a little more then we do. My argument was when it comes to religion vs. science not freedom vs. government. Because if True and complete freedom is anarchy then any form of government control past that, is constricting true freedom. Im just saying I don't need a religion to tell me right from wrong. What I can do or when I can do it. Thats why we try to have separation of church and state is to keep the majority religion from controlling the laws to fit their ideal's.

Besides Right and wrong, good and evil are relative to your position on the issue. One man's Satan is another man's God.

 

[Ricky Cash]

It doesn't specify a time, but Young Earth Creationists have taken all mentioned ages and time frames in the Genesis to come up with this approximation of 10,000 years.

exactly it doesn't specify a time; these are people that look at the Bible as black and white dont take the time read between below behind and around the lines. they think of science only when someone brings up evolution and basically are narrow minded.

By saying since God created Adam and Eve, who were 15+ feet tall, and modern man is not that tall, then we must have evolved at some point. The argument is a bit out of context because the debate IS about whether the Bible is correct, and whether God magically created Adam, Eve, vegetation, animals, etc. Many people have ignorantly backed up points based on something that is the very core of this debate.

i was basically supporting my point on how evolution and creation go hand in hand. i was not trying to imply that the Bible was correct or incorrect in any way. However before it was the Bible it could have been the Torah or whatever Scipture or piece of history laying out everything prior to now, stating all the great things that might have happened in the past. if you wanna go for truth then what about the education you receive about world history in school. the first thing you hear about is mesopotamia and the fertile crescent(in the Bible) or the great pyramids of Egypt(also in the Bible), you receive information about Alexander 'the great,' Babylonia and The mighty Nile river. But if its the Bible then you wouldn't have believed it? c'mon. no one can truly deny the Bible the only thing they go against is the existence of God, or any higher being, not the validity of the Bible, why because man wrote the Bible about the time present around them. it was transcribed into many languages, but i wont say that most of the translation are 100% correct though. However when i read a history book and then go back and read the Bible and see it in there its like, 'wow it must be true, if im getting the info from two sides that supposedly are seperate.' so yeah i believe that History is true, Black History mind you.
-sourced from School World History Book(forget the publisher)
-BIBLE
-Antiquities of Flavius Josephus (ancient Historian) whole book available online

If someone can explain, by ways other than mentioning evolution, why whales and snakes have hipbones that they do not use, and blind cave-dwelling fish have remains of eyes, but not eyes themselves, then I would forget all about Evolution.

that is natural selection, for people to state that natural selection takes place of creation is absurd, because natural selection doesn't explain how matter or anything came to be.
i dont like wikipedia but here is something about natural selection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection), some people take natural selection as evolution, not saying that you do but the evolution of species through natural selection is expected.

i like this thread for real, but i dont think someone should enter half armed for real, everyone should be open to someone else responses without making personal attacks to each other. lets keep the levity even though the topic is heavy.

 

[Choku_Dorian]

.

oh. someone taught you how to have a discussion, and not simply call people 'ignorant' (although your large ego is still hanging out in this regard) b/c they dont happen to be as well versed in a certain, particular subject as you yourself are.

good job.

i looked at the info you put up. some was enlightening. some left me scratching my head. some was blah.

The accepted explanation for evolution is that DNA changes due to mutations and these mutations are selected for according to how well those mutations propagate through a population.

by "accepted explanation" do you mean "proven"?

and really that sentence means nothing more to me than that certain species are able to adapt. i have no issue with that sentence unless you apply it to humans.

Every single organism on this planet shares DNA.

well. as you know, DNA is nothing more than the blueprint of an organism, dictating how it will be "put together" (for lack of better words). so i dont know exactly what that proves...

and really humans/primates sharing DNA doesnt stumble my beleifs. since i beleive they both came to be in existence the same exact way. in essence they should have similarities in their genetic makeup.(that goes for all organsims on earth really)

I find it offensive for someone to tell me I'm going to hell for the life I lead.

+1 for you having self-control.

also, if someone tells you that. tell them they need to do some research on their own beliefs, because the bible does not teach hellfire or a place of torment after death. man teaches that.

anyways, i think the s14 would look good. minus the preaching.

 

[obby]

oh. someone taught you how to have a discussion, and not simply call people 'ignorant' (although your large ego is still hanging out in this regard) b/c they dont happen to be as well versed in a certain, particular subject as you yourself are.

As I stated earlier, ignorant does not mean stupid, and is not inherently a bad thing provided it isn't willful ignorance. I called you ignorant because you were making ignorant remarks, and not contributing anything of value to the conversation because of it. I was saying it as a motivator to get you to address the lack of knowledge and do some reading. Looking back at it it was pretty misguided on my part and I didn't mean to offend you by it.

by "accepted explanation" do you mean "proven"?

and really that sentence means nothing more to me than that certain species are able to adapt. i have no issue with that sentence unless you apply it to humans.

By "accepted explanation" I mean that it hasn't been disproved. That explanation is the best that fits the known evidence, and evidence to the contrary has yet to be discovered.

If you accept that all creatures on this planet share DNA, yet you refuse to accept that humanity can adapt if pressures of natural selection are introduced, then you are implying that man has special DNA that is incapable of mutation. This is something that is obviously false, otherwise DNA would be worthless for forensic evidence, man would be free from genetic diseases, and we'd all be identical clones of one another.

well. as you know, DNA is nothing more than the blueprint of an organism, dictating how it will be "put together" (for lack of better words). so i dont know exactly what that proves...

That all organisms have DNA, and indeed share DNA sequences, supports the theory that species come from other species. Again, nothing observed contradicts it.

 

[Tonymac]

Im not talking about anarchy. Im not that far right wing. But I do believe we need to start trusting people a little more then we do. My argument was when it comes to religion vs. science not freedom vs. government. Because if True and complete freedom is anarchy then any form of government control past that, is constricting true freedom. Im just saying I don't need a religion to tell me right from wrong. What I can do or when I can do it. Thats why we try to have separation of church and state is to keep the majority religion from controlling the laws to fit their ideal's.

Besides Right and wrong, good and evil are relative to your position on the issue. One man's Satan is another man's God.

Yeah but a lot of people are happy having faith in something while being given a way to live - or at least a general code of morals and ethics. I personally do not follow the teachings of any religious organizations but after years of catholic school and church, I'm sure they've had their affects on my moral standpoint. I'm also pretty sure that was a good thing. I dunno.

 

[Choku_Dorian]

By "accepted explanation" I mean that it hasn't been disproved. That explanation is the best that fits the known evidence, and evidence to the contrary has yet to be discovered.

evidence has not been found to disprove a creator. yet alot of people would call it a lie to say that. "God is a fact".

God will never be disproved, b/c He is not testable by scientific method. no?

If you accept that all creatures on this planet share DNA, yet you refuse to accept that humanity can adapt if pressures of natural selection are introduced, then you are implying that man has special DNA that is incapable of mutation. This is something that is obviously false, otherwise DNA would be worthless for forensic evidence, man would be free from genetic diseases, and we'd all be identical clones of one another..

mutations are generally sudden changes in genetic structure. no?

Mutations are more harmful than beneficial thousands to one. no?

Mutations have never been found to bring about a new species. no?

That all organisms have DNA, and indeed share DNA sequences, supports the theory that species come from other species. Again, nothing observed contradicts it.

but it also supports that all things were created in a similar fashion, by the same designer. Nothing observed contradicts that. no?

 

[obby]

mutations are generally sudden changes in genetic structure. no?

No, mutations are changes in genetic structure. Sudden doesn't apply.

Mutations are more harmful than beneficial thousands to one. no?

No. Most mutations are benign. You can find evidence of this by simply looking at your fellow man. Changes in height, body proportions, facial structures, eye, skin and hair color(benign mutations) are more prevalent than serious genetic diseases(harmful mutations).

Mutations have never been found to bring about a new species. no?

No. You're doing a great job of ignoring my suggestion that you check your increasing number of false claims. You are also doing a great job of not addressing what I said.

If you accept that all creatures on this planet share DNA, yet you refuse to accept that humanity can adapt if pressures of natural selection are introduced, then you are implying that man has special DNA that is incapable of mutation. This is something that is obviously false, otherwise DNA would be worthless for forensic evidence, man would be free from genetic diseases, and we'd all be identical clones of one another.

Now...

but it also supports that all things were created in a similar fashion, by the same designer. Nothing observed contradicts that. no? ... evidence has not been found to disprove a creator. yet alot of people would call it a lie to say that. "God is a fact".

God will never be disproved, b/c He is not testable by scientific method. no?

The existence of god depends on your belief. Science depends on objective observation.

What good are observations if you attempt to color them with opinions whose ultimate rationalization is based in pure belief? In that manner people of different beliefs will see different things depending on their dogmatic agenda, objectivity goes out the window and no actual science can be done.

Similarly. What good is belief if you are trying to find observations to back them up? Belief is something that can exist without the benefit of observation and also in spite of it. If people continually try to rationalize their faith with evidence then is it really faith anymore?

It follows to say that using science to prove religion and religion to interpret science is an exercise in futility and incompatibility.

That said, you are showing increasing signs that you are attempting to discredit evolution not by contradicting observations, but by your beliefs. Your beliefs are so strong (or you are so lazy...) that you don't consider to check the statements you are making because you believe them to the true by default. You commit folly by using belief or sacred scripture to attempt to disprove a scientific theory. The end game of this line of "argument " can be summarized as follows:

I believe the evidence is _________ there fore it is_________ .

Not an solid argument, to say the least.

 

[ilida of cola]

^ This goes back to my statement describing people that attempt to disprove scientific theories by what they have already come to believe according to the Bible or some other religious text. It is an irrational way to refute the issue in this way because the concepts that people's FAITH is based on is the very thing this argument is about.

It's like saying "God made those trees, so those trees could not have followed evolutionary trend." Yes okay, but we are arguing about whether or not God made those trees in the first place.

Support is weak when it is based on opinions and convictions. Support is strong when it is based on evidence. And evidence is that which tends to prove or disprove something. Likewise, a counterclaim is weak when it attempts to disprove the opposition. It is strong when it attempts to prove your notions. So it is about establishing a supporting foundation for one’s own argument, rather than just finding ways to refute the opposition’s argument.

But, this is not to say that FAITH is an incorrect method of explanation for people that need that kind of thing (no one can judge that), but to have faith and refute all evidence supporting centuries of scientific studies solely because of this FAITH, without supportive evidence directly connected to the claim, the argument falls short in consideration.

Saying you cannot DISPROVE that God created man and everything else is a statement that is neither persuasive nor effective. I would instead suggest making an effort to prove/persuade that he did.

 

[FlyinFINN]

NO, Everyone its like this....
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=11760230

Backed up by those top level scientists.