Evolution continues for the Finches

[Vong]

The animals that helped inspire Charles Darwin in the Galapagos Islands are continuing to evolve. Score another point (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060713/finches060713/20060713/) to science! :cool:

[The Postmaster General]

No, that's all wrong. God just designed a better Finch.

;)

[outsyder]

Isn't this how Godzilla came about?


When will we learn . . . .

[Lynn7]

I'm confused- the article talks about "evolutionary" changes and "evolving" and then ends up by describing natural selection which is not the same thing. If the finches are dying off and the ones that are left who can open the seeds ar enow breeding,then that is not the same as one finch developing a beak that is better. Misleading article.

[darchangel]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I'm confused- the article talks about "evolutionary" changes and "evolving" and then ends up by describing natural selection which is not the same thing. If the finches are dying off and the ones that are left who can open the seeds ar enow breeding,then that is not the same as one finch developing a beak that is better. Misleading article.

The second paragraph of the article says:

"A medium sized species of Darwin's finch has evolved a smaller beak to take advantage of different seeds just two decades after the arrival of a larger rival for its original food source."

Then the last paragraph says:

"That's a form of evolution known as character displacement, where natural selection produces an evolutionary change in the next generation, Grant explained in a recorded statement made available by Science."

So the article's saying that the small beak finches now have SMALLER beaks than they did before to better capitalize on their food source...doesn't seem misleading to me, Lynn....


~darchangel~

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I'm confused- the article talks about "evolutionary" changes and "evolving" and then ends up by describing natural selection which is not the same thing. If the finches are dying off and the ones that are left who can open the seeds ar enow breeding,then that is not the same as one finch developing a beak that is better. Misleading article.


What are you talking about? The article did say they developed a beak that is better.

It says right there in the article that there where two groups of finches. One large, and one medium. When the large one inhabited and competed for food, the medium finches started being born with smaller beaks. Now the medium finches have smaller beaks than they did two decades ago.

"What? Huh? Calling someone who engages in acts of good-will "Jesus-like" is misleading unless they have a beard and wear sandals. I'm so confused!"

You're misled just like Clinton was when he didn't understand the meaning of sex.

Evolution by means of natural selection. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection#Evolution_by_means_of_natural_se lection)

[Lynn7]

"In 1982 a breeding population of large ground finches, Geospiza magnirostris, arrived on the island and began competing for the large seeds of the Tribulus plants. G. magnirostris was able to break open and eat these seeds three times faster than G. fortis, depleting the supply of these seeds.

In 2003 and 2004 little rain fell, further reducing the food supply. The result was high mortality among G. fortis with larger beaks, leaving a breeding population of small-beaked G. fortis that could eat the seeds from smaller plants and didn't have to compete with the larger G. magnirostris for large seeds."

The larger beaked birds DIED off leaving the smaller beaked birds to reproduce.

Of course the children will reflect the genetic characteristics of their parents. That is what we all have known since the beginning of time. There is the biblical story of Jacob who outsmarted his father-in-law by understanding genetics and tricking him into getting himself a herd of sheep.

[Vong]

Of course the children will reflect the genetic characteristics of their parents. That is what we all have known since the beginning of time. There is the biblical story of Jacob who outsmarted his father-in-law by understanding genetics and tricking him into getting himself a herd of sheep.

I don't think you are understanding the article.
The scientists are commenting on how the species of birds competed for dominance in the environment. This is known as the "Wheel of Fortune" in evolution. Obstacles and changes in an environment will pitt two of the same species against each other, and the one who survives the changes dominates the characteristic in the animals gene pool that made its surivial possible. This is also known as "punctuated equilibrium", where characteristics in a particular species will deviate from the patternal units.

"Life finds a way"

[Monotreme]

As Darwin's teachings show, the strong, or in this case the one with the advantage, survives. Evolution and natural selection are connected.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
"In 1982 a breeding population of large ground finches, Geospiza magnirostris, arrived on the island and began competing for the large seeds of the Tribulus plants. G. magnirostris was able to break open and eat these seeds three times faster than G. fortis, depleting the supply of these seeds.

In 2003 and 2004 little rain fell, further reducing the food supply. The result was high mortality among G. fortis with larger beaks, leaving a breeding population of small-beaked G. fortis that could eat the seeds from smaller plants and didn't have to compete with the larger G. magnirostris for large seeds."

The larger beaked birds DIED off leaving the smaller beaked birds to reproduce.

Of course the children will reflect the genetic characteristics of their parents. That is what we all have known since the beginning of time. There is the biblical story of Jacob who outsmarted his father-in-law by understanding genetics and tricking him into getting himself a herd of sheep.


There were two separate but interconnected events. One, the larger beak birds died off. Second, the medium sized finches started being born with smaller beaks.

Do you hear this Lynn? The medium sized finches had larger beaks than they did two decades ago. TWO DECADES AGO, THERE WERE NO MEDIUM SIZED FINCHES WITH SMALL BEAKS. Do you got that? Do you 10-4?

"A medium sized species of Darwin's finch has evolved a smaller beak to take advantage of different seeds just two decades after the arrival of a larger rival for its original food source.

The altered beak size shows that species competing for food can undergo evolutionary change, said Peter Grant of Princeton University, lead author of the report appearing in Friday's issue of the journal Science."

It said, an altered beak size did it not. This is right there.

Then the story GOES ON to say that because of natural selection, the large sized finches dies off. This doesn't change that the medium sized finches started developing and evolved into medium sized finches with smaller beaks.

Again - the medium sized finches of two decades ago had larger beaks than they do now. No matter how out of context you take the natural selection portion of the story. This doesn't change that the medium sized finches evolved, developing smaller beaks.

[The Heart Collector]

In an ideal world, a thread about EVOLUTION wouldn't have to be in a politics forum.

[AWP82]

Originally posted by The Heart Collector
In an ideal world, a thread about EVOLUTION wouldn't have to be in a politics forum.

Yeah. Ivan Reitman must've been drunk when he made that. It didn't even feel like his work.

[Lynn7]

Sounds like genetics to me. That's my opinion about the article. You guys are entitled to yours. Ok I'm done.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Sounds like genetics to me. That's my opinion about the article. You guys are entitled to yours. Ok I'm done.


"Yeah, fuck this thread. You guys are stupid anyway." :rolleyes:



This is ridiculous. There is something called "Evolutionary Genetics" which is the commonly held standard in neo-darwin evolution - genetics and evolution aren't mutually exclusive topics, in fact they go hand-in-hand like physics and science. Atop of that, natural selection is a basis of evolution.

Lynn's whole argument against the conclusions in the article is the equivalent of telling someone that the Pythagorean Theorem doesn't apply because the situation is clearly something that requires geometry.

I once explained to an impaired individual where light goes when you turn off a lamp - up until now, that was the most comically obvious thing I'd ever found myself explaining.

[Criminal Rock]

Don’t you know Lynn? Anything we can use against them Christians is totally important. Don’t be so stupid.

[darchangel]

Originally posted by Tai Mai Jew
Don’t you know Lynn? Anything we can use against them Christians is totally important. Don’t be so stupid.

Ooh, touche. :rolleyes:


Virtually everybody on this board is trying to tell Lynn that the article says the finches DID evolve, where Lynn's claiming that's not what the article said. It has nothing to do with ganging up on Christian beliefs or on Lynn.


~darchangel~

[someguy]

Oh come on now Tai Mai. For one, we're not attacking Christians because there are a lot of Christians who support or believe in some form of evolution. I don't know why you generalize Christians as believing Creationism (which is what we were aiming more towards on this article). Reading over the topic it looks like this.

Experienced scientist in article: This is a great example of evolution happening!

Unexperienced person on a message board: Well you're wrong it's genetics okay now I'm leaving so you can't question me.

This is pretty much flat out denying something that she finds going against her beliefs to the point of ignorance. It's already been explained how this isn't genetics but nothing stuck obviously. But of course, this is just to hate on the Christians who appear to all believe in Creationism.

[The Postmaster General]

Don't deny the comic backbone of the whole issue, someguy. Genetics and evolution go hand-in-hand. Like I said, the argument is on scale with saying the Pythagorean Theorem is incorrect when clearly the topic is about geometry.

Or to make it movie-related - questioning how someone can say it's a James Woods movie when it says right on the poster that it's John Carpenter's Vampires.

[someguy]

Jeez Bubba, does it always have to be about YOU and YOUR COMPARISONS!?!?

[Lynn7]

I said that would be the end of my discussion because Heart Collector's comment was right- we have had many evolutionary discussions and it always boils down the same- you guys beleive one way and I beleive another. I was just saying that the article was misleading. The beaks didn't change by themselves- that would be evolutionarily stupid anyway since this is something that happened in a particular location at a particular point in time. If the seeds changed again tomorrow then evolution made a dumb "choice" and would have to correct itself again. If these "changes" are so common why don't we see them all the time. Usually evolutionaists have to point to some supposedly transitional life form from thousands of years ago. And for the record, I have never had a problem with 'natural selection" which is just genetics from what I can see.

If you guys carefully reread the article it talks about evolutionary changes and then it goes on to explain how these evolutionary changes happened- through dying off and reproducing through breeding the beak size of the finches who did not die off. It simply does not say that the beaks changed on their own. Then it goes on to say natural selection which is just parents reproducing offspring like themselves.

Tai- I appreciate your presence here on the board.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by someguy
Jeez Bubba, does it always have to be about YOU and YOUR COMPARISONS!?!?


Actually, I thought my comments were about genetics and evolution going hand-in-hand and how it pertained to the arguments being presented by Lynn.

So to answer your question: About as much as it has to be about YOU and YOUR OBSESSION WITH EGOS.

[Criminal Rock]

Why does everybody refer to me as 'Tai' or 'Tai Mai'? It’s Tai Mai Jew god dammit!

[someguy]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Actually, I thought my comments were about genetics and evolution going hand-in-hand and how it pertained to the arguments being presented by Lynn.

So to answer your question: About as much as it has to be about YOU and YOUR OBSESSION WITH EGOS.

JEEZ BUBBA ALWAYS YOU YOU YOU

MARSHA MARSHA BUBBA

I tend to just ignore the Jew part in your name Tai Mai jew, but I never thought about why I did it. Maybe it's like some subconscious anti-semitism we have. Whoa, wouldn't that be weird.

[Criminal Rock]

http://img.freecodesource.com/gallery/images/banners/prod_228_5900.jpg

Score another point to pointless-picture-posting.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Tai Mai Jew
Why does everybody refer to me as 'Tai' or 'Tai Mai'? It’s Tai Mai Jew god dammit!

Well, since you brought it up, what does it mean? Or how did you come up with it? I don't mind if people call me Lynn, and don't use the 7 ;)

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by someguy
JEEZ BUBBA ALWAYS YOU YOU YOU

MARSHA MARSHA BUBBA



So when will you finally introduce us to George Glass?

[darchangel]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I was just saying that the article was misleading.

No it isn't...you skimmed the basic premise of the article and turned it into what you wanted to see, which was this...


Originally posted by Lynn7

If you guys carefully reread the article it talks about evolutionary changes and then it goes on to explain how these evolutionary changes happened- through dying off and reproducing through breeding the beak size of the finches who did not die off. It simply does not say that the beaks changed on their own. Then it goes on to say natural selection which is just parents reproducing offspring like themselves.

Then I guess if you carefully re-read the article, then you'll see that is says that the beaks are getting smaller to capitalize on their food source, not because all the large finches died off...you also say that the beaks didn't change on their own...well, how could something evolve if there's no reason to change? Can't you even consider that environmental change is a factor in evolution?

Originally posted by Lynn7

Tai- I appreciate your presence here on the board.

Because he made an incredibly valid point in your defense... :rolleyes:

[Lynn7]

I originally said to Tai (mai Jew) that I appreciated his support but I didn't want people to look down on him for supporting me but I guess no matter how I phrased it it would be turned against me. Whatever.

I explained the reasons why I interpretted the article the way I did. I still interpret it the same. I don't see it the way you do. This is no surprise. I'm fine with it. I am not an idiot. I have a college education, in fact more than most people. I don't understand why you want to cast me in the light of being an idiot because most people on this board disagree with me. This board is not reflective of the political makeup of the country. There are millions of people who agree with me, you know.

[Vong]

There are millions of people who agree with me, you know.

As misleading as they all are....

Did I say that? :rolleyes:

[MacReady]

Originally posted by Lynn7
There are millions of people who agree with me, you know.

There are many millions more than that who disagree with you.

Also, If you're going to keep coming to this board and insisting we treat you with respect, then respect us and the amount of time we put into replying to you and put some reasoning behind your statements. Don't cut and run like you're doing now. This is a respectful debate forum, but it's a debate forum at heart.

Now tell us why you have the opinion you have about creationism being more solid than evolution.

[Lynn7]

That's funny MacReady. I gave many reasons as to why I beleived what I did about the article. Also, respect is a rule of the board, it is not something that I demand. It is impossible to engage in debate when it turns into name calling. My comments were aimed at the article itself. We have had the creationism/evolution debate many times. You must be bored with it by now.

[MacReady]

Originally posted by Lynn7
That's funny MacReady. I gave many reasons as to why I beleived what I did about the article. Also, respect is a rule of the board, it is not something that I demand. It is impossible to engage in debate when it turns into name calling. My comments were aimed at the article itself. We have had the creationism/evolution debate many times. You must be bored with it by now.

Respect is a rule of this board. However if you continously state an opinion but refuse to debate on it then why do you come to this forum?

I'm not tired of it. Your "that's my opinion" is bullshit. For the last few months I've seen you continue on in certain threads while ducking hard questions (like how you insist Bush is completely 100% innocent of any wrongdoing in the Hurricane Katrina screw-up). As someguy also pointed out, at times you've also outright rejected the other sides argument without actually debunking it. That's why I and others called you names. It's not because of your different opinion, but because it was like you didn't 'play by the rules'.

Nobody should call anybody here names and shit, but if you're gonna come here and tell us you're an intelligent, college-educated woman and shit and that creationism is the right belief, then prove it. Put up an argument. It's all I'm saying. It's what this forum is about: intelligent, civilised debate. Saying 'it's just my opinion' is like 'it's awesome', or 'it sucks' when talking about movies and shit in the rest of board. If you feel uncomfortable the way people contantly nag you over your beliefs, then why not stop sharing them with us?

All that aside, care to eloborate as to what makes you think that evolution is false and creationism is true?

[QUENTIN]

For the most part, I agree with MacReady, and you know, as long as I've been on this politics forum, and I'm a pretty active reader, sometimes poster, I don't think I've ever heard Lynn actually explain herself when it comes to the Evolution/Creationism debate. Unless I've missed it somewhere, in which case it would be easy to repeat, you could even copy and paste it. It's actually a very Bush-like tactic. Frequently, exasperatedly say you've already explained yourself so many times that you're sick of repeating yourself, without ever really explaining in the first place.

Originally posted by Lynn7

I explained the reasons why I interpretted the article the way I did. I still interpret it the same. I don't see it the way you do. This is no surprise. I'm fine with it. I am not an idiot. I have a college education, in fact more than most people. I don't understand why you want to cast me in the light of being an idiot because most people on this board disagree with me. This board is not reflective of the political makeup of the country. There are millions of people who agree with me, you know.

Originally posted by Lynn7
We have had the creationism/evolution debate many times. You must be bored with it by now.


The fact is, we should be able to reasonably expect a college educated, intelligent adult to be able to form an argument to support her beliefs. You seem to post as much or more than anyone else on the politics forum, and it is a forum for debate, so if you're so interested in debating, why can't you engage in debate with us?

A debate is not two people from opposing sides saying, "The sky is green," "No. The sky is blue." "Well, I disagree. I'm done here." It's two people making statements and then backing those statements up with reason and fact. That's all we're trying to get out of you.

As for anyone who thinks this is "ganging up on Lynn", as people so often say, it's not. It's simply trying to get her to play fair, on level playing ground, and engage in real debate rather than spout the occasional platitude, then cut and run or defend only her actions on the board rather than her actual beliefs. Can't you defend your beliefs Lynn?

[AWP82]

Originally posted by QUENTIN
For the most part, I agree with MacReady, and you know, as long as I've been on this politics forum, and I'm a pretty active reader, sometimes poster, I don't think I've ever heard Lynn actually explain herself when it comes to the Evolution/Creationism debate. Unless I've missed it somewhere, in which case it would be easy to repeat, you could even copy and paste it. It's actually a very Bush-like tactic. Frequently, exasperatedly say you've already explained yourself so many times that you're sick of repeating yourself, without ever really explaining in the first place.






The fact is, we should be able to reasonably expect a college educated, intelligent adult to be able to form an argument to support her beliefs. You seem to post as much or more than anyone else on the politics forum, and it is a forum for debate, so if you're so interested in debating, why can't you engage in debate with us?

A debate is not two people from opposing sides saying, "The sky is green," "No. The sky is blue." "Well, I disagree. I'm done here." It's two people making statements and then backing those statements up with reason and fact. That's all we're trying to get out of you.

As for anyone who thinks this is "ganging up on Lynn", as people so often say, it's not. It's simply trying to get her to play fair, on level playing ground, and engage in real debate rather than spout the occasional platitude, then cut and run or defend only her actions on the board rather than her actual beliefs. Can't you defend your beliefs Lynn?

Nuh uh! I disagree. Lynn's right because she's entitled to her opinion. If you don't agree, you're not respecting it. Stop harassing her. It's wrong.

That is my opinion, and I'm entitled to it because I'm right.

I'm done with this thread. I don't feel like arguing. :D ;)

[darchangel]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I originally said to Tai (mai Jew) that I appreciated his support but I didn't want people to look down on him for supporting me but I guess no matter how I phrased it it would be turned against me. Whatever.

I explained the reasons why I interpretted the article the way I did. I still interpret it the same. I don't see it the way you do. This is no surprise. I'm fine with it. I am not an idiot. I have a college education, in fact more than most people. I don't understand why you want to cast me in the light of being an idiot because most people on this board disagree with me. This board is not reflective of the political makeup of the country. There are millions of people who agree with me, you know.

No one is calling you an idiot...you're the one who put this statement in your post:

Originally posted by Lynn7
If you guys carefully reread the article

like we didn't read the article, and everybody who's disagreeing with you is stupid. You've constantly said that the article is misleading, which it simply isn't. I've quoted the article over and over, showing you that the article is not misleading, yet you still choose to ignore it completely and go the route that I'm calling you names because Tai Mai Jew made a comment that had nothing to do with anything we were debating.

All I ask is that if you're going to debate, please make a point...your opinion is not going to convince me that the article was in any way misleading.



~darchangel~

[Vong]

The fact of the matter is that Lynn is seeing this article with different eyes. Lynn obviously has a deep understanding of her religion, it's what makes Lynn "Lynn". The problem is that we are all looking at the article with eyes favored for the article (ie. scientific lenses). Let's face it, science is not Lynn's friend...empirical reasoning is not her friend either. Since her understanding of this world is based in her faith, her attempt to understand this scientific article is being blocked by her religious side. Just as any of us science folks wouldn't understand a religious article because it interferes with our science side. There are those who have eyes for both, and these people truly are wonders of this world.

I can only assume that Lynn never got a proper science-class education in high school. Evolution was a hot-topic where I went...and it was a Catholic High School, by the way. But I think the reason why so many of us are taking this article the same way is because we all understand the workings of evolution, at least in some way.

I'm trying to make a passive attempt to make things right, and spare feelings being hurt. But the fact is Lynn, you are messing with the scientific bull, and being threatened with the horn of empirical evidence. You have a knack for entering scientific threads and making it as if god was the one who committed this or that act. Through many of the religious threads, some of us have made adequate arguments against religion. But I haven't seen a post where you bring proper reasoning or logic to the table. And the fact is because you cannot use your faith as a defense or a piece of evidence, because there is no logic or reasoning in faith. Both are killers to faith.

I've even seen you try to use your faith and bible references as a method of foreign relations. But you can't honestly believe that something like that passes for reasonable logic, especially when it comes to foreign affairs and the fact that not everyone in this world obeys the lectures of the bible.

Not to beat a dead horse here, but you have to back things up more productively Lynn. Debates are not about just putting opinions into the foray. It's about citing references and proper evidence to support your claims.

Just as you would ask any of us to read the bible and get an understanding of where you are coming from, I would ask you to do some research on evolution and see where we are coming from.

[The Postmaster General]

I know where Lynn's confusion comes in. There are two separate events outlined in the article. One, the medium-sized finches started being born with smaller beaks. Two, the large-sized finches died off, leaving only the smaller beaked medium-sized finches.

What Lynn thinks is that the large finches bred with the Medium-sized Finches and somehow produced a bird with a smaller beak than the medium-sized finches, or she is saying that the big birds just lost - if I'm not mistaken.

Either way, she isn't taking into account the fact that the birds beaks are smaller now than they were previously. That's a fact, and what evolution proposes. She says that this is natural selection, which is the backbone of evolution.

Here are other articles that better specify the evolution part

Large ground finches intruded on the territory of medium-sized ground finches on Daphne Major Island in 1982. In the two years following a 2003 drought, as competition for seeds dramatically increased, the length of the smaller finch's beak shrank by 5 percent, better adapting it to eat smaller

From - http://www.boston.com/news/globe/health_science/articles/2006/07/17/darwins_finches_seen_as_still_changing_today/

Since then the medium ground finch, a long-time Daphne resident, has evolved to have a smaller beak—apparently as a result of direct competition with the larger bird for food.

From - http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/07/060714-evolution.html



I would just like to hear Lynn explain how this would be different than a fish beginning to grow legs over thousands of years, in order to compete for food. Or how it would be different than man not walking upright, but then walking upright over the course of many generations, in order to compete for food. That's all I want to know.

[Vong]

I want to add an anecdote to my post as well.

Last year, one of my third year courses I took was called the Philosophy of Biology. Basically it was a science class discussing evolution. At the first lecture, my professor introduced himself, explained the course and layed out what we would be tackling. He also mentioned that he is deeply spiritual, more specifically a Catholic. This took my as a little bit of a surprise, so I raised my hand and asked how he was able to believe in both his faith and science. He smiled at me and said, "Let's find out". Through the next few months, the taught the class many of the scientists and theologists who have made comments and theories of their own based on Dawrin's. One of the recquired readings of the course was a book written by himself, commenting on the evolution of human brain. By the end of the course, the professor said that as a man of faith, he believes deeply in god and the works he has created. But he also believes that nature is chaotic and cannot be in the domain of god's work. My professor said he believed god was the catalyst to life; creating the universe, the laws of science and the finite of existence. But that is as far as it went. God's influence went only so far as creating the universe. "God and nature are two different entities", my professor said. "One promotes peace, while the other promotes chaos."

I was lucky to be able to take that course. Not only did it teach me the works of evolution, but it also gave me insight to people like my professor. It is possible to live life in two different worlds. The only recquirement to achieving both world views is to not become a fanatic of one side.

"Science and religion can play nice in the game of life, the only problem is that the rules weren't given."
- Professor David Johnson

[QUENTIN]

Aw, shucks. Now that a bunch of people who aren't Lynn have replied with varying points, the miniscule possibility that Lynn would directly address my points has gotten even smaller...

[someguy]

JEEZ QUENTIN IT'S ALL ABOUT YOU YOU YOU

MARSHA MARSHA QUENTIN

[Lynn7]

You guys are funny. I always take my posting seriously. I do not hit and run with comments but ususally take the time to explain where I am coming from. If I state why I beleive something, as I did above with the discussion about the article, then someone posts that I never addressed something or other. I do the best I can.

I said above that it is funny that usually scientests point out transitional life forms from thousands of years ago to demonstrate evolution. Yet here is this "breakthrough study" and I have seen it no where in the newscasts but you guys insist that I am reading the article wrong. OK. Why isn't this study all over the news? I think I have read the article the right way. I think it is genetics they are speaking of.

But here is something that will please you all immensely. I will state without doubt that if a million scientests said that they believed evolution, I would still not beleive it because I have faith in the Christian God. I do not believe that evolution goes hand in hand with the Bible as some Christians do. I beleive in the Bible as it is written. I also don't think the theory of life evolving into more complex life forms makes any sense whatsoever as I have gone into great detail with before. You can mock me and laugh at me and gang up on me but I am proud of my beliefs. I used to beleive as you guys do but from the time I began to study the Bible, life has never made so much sense and I have never regretted it for one second. It is all completely logical to me (and millions of others). :D

[darchangel]

Originally posted by Lynn7
You guys are funny. I always take my posting seriously. I do not hit and run with comments but ususally take the time to explain where I am coming from. If I state why I beleive something, as I did above with the discussion about the article, then someone posts that I never addressed something or other. I do the best I can.

I said above that it is funny that usually scientests point out transitional life forms from thousands of years ago to demonstrate evolution. Yet here is this "breakthrough study" and I have seen it no where in the news but you guys insist that I am reading the article wrong. OK. Why isn't this study all over the news? I think I have read the article the right way. I think it is genetics they are speaking of.

But here is something that will please you all immensely. I will state without doubt that if a million scientests said that they believed evolution, I would still not beleive it because I have faith in the Christian God. I do not believe that evolution goes hand in hand with the Bible as some Christians do. I beleive in the Bible as it is written. I also don't think the theory of life evolving into more complex life forms makes any sense whatsoever as I have gone into great detail with before. You can mock me and laugh at me and gang up on me but I am proud of my beliefs. I used to beleive as you guys do but from the time I began to study the Bible, life has never made so much sense and I have never regretted it for one second. It is all completely logical to me (and millions of others). :D

Then apparently you're not reading/watching the same news everybody else is:

ABC News

http://abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1688507.htm

The LA Times

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-sci-finches15jul15,1,492459.story?coll=la-news-a_section

The Boston Globe

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/health_science/articles/2006/07/17/darwins_finches_seen_as_still_changing_today/

MSNBC

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13845002/


Also, you're still just saying 'My religion says evolution is wrong and that's it' with absolutely NO points to back it up...that's why everyone's saying you cut and run instead of debating.


~darchangel~

[free]

"When a person's entire basis of truth is based on scriptural precedent, no argument based on reason or logic could be persuasive."

Christopher L. Bennett, author

[QUENTIN]

Originally posted by Lynn7
You guys are funny. I always take my posting seriously. I do not hit and run with comments but ususally take the time to explain where I am coming from. If I state why I beleive something, as I did above with the discussion about the article, then someone posts that I never addressed something or other. I do the best I can.

I said above that it is funny that usually scientests point out transitional life forms from thousands of years ago to demonstrate evolution. Yet here is this "breakthrough study" and I have seen it no where in the newscasts but you guys insist that I am reading the article wrong. OK. Why isn't this study all over the news? I think I have read the article the right way. I think it is genetics they are speaking of.

But here is something that will please you all immensely. I will state without doubt that if a million scientests said that they believed evolution, I would still not beleive it because I have faith in the Christian God. I do not believe that evolution goes hand in hand with the Bible as some Christians do. I beleive in the Bible as it is written. I also don't think the theory of life evolving into more complex life forms makes any sense whatsoever as I have gone into great detail with before. You can mock me and laugh at me and gang up on me but I am proud of my beliefs. I used to beleive as you guys do but from the time I began to study the Bible, life has never made so much sense and I have never regretted it for one second. It is all completely logical to me (and millions of others). :D

Thank you for addressing no one's points and basically using three paragraphs to re-iterate the point: "I am a Christian".

[electriclite]

I'd actually respect it more if she'd just say "I'm a Christian and don't believe this." from the start.

It'd save a lot of typing for everyone, including Lynn.

My mother's a Christian and we've never had these arguments, because she just says flat out what she believes, and voila, no arguments, and lots of respect.

PEACE

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by darchangel
Then apparently you're not reading/watching the same news everybody else is:

ABC News

http://abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1688507.htm

The LA Times

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-sci-finches15jul15,1,492459.story?coll=la-news-a_section

The Boston Globe

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/health_science/articles/2006/07/17/darwins_finches_seen_as_still_changing_today/

MSNBC

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13845002/


Also, you're still just saying 'My religion says evolution is wrong and that's it' with absolutely NO points to back it up...that's why everyone's saying you cut and run instead of debating.


~darchangel~

Let me be more specific- The original article was an Associated Press article so of course it went out to all the news outlets but I dont' hear any new discussion about this as they would about some big breakthrough study. but since you posted the links I will just go ahead and point out a few things. first, they are talking about how certain finches DIED out.They did not change their beaks. Second. one guy said that usually this scientests studies are taught as the exception. And third, one article says that the study has not yet been replicated and that long term studies are very difficult to do (really?) And it was fun to see that one of the articles had a typo and since I make a lot of them myself it was good to see that even major news sources make mistakes.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
first, they are talking about how certain finches DIED out.They did not change their beaks.


Right, like men who didn't walk upright just DIED out, and you think that has nothing to do with anything.

You keep saying what is funny, but here's something else that's funny: Creationists claim ad infinitum that there is no bridges in bone history to show proof of evolution. Yet, in addition to the finches, we are seeing small changes in organisms. We are seeing the bridges that you folks claim don't exist. However, when presented with that evidence, you say - "Ah, that's just genetics; it's natural selection." All the while, from the start, Evolutionists have said that genetics and natural selection are included with evolution.

If God created The Universe, from nothing, as stated in the bible, what better proof of the existence of something coming from nothing? Why force Evolutionists to provide proof of the gaps, when there are gaps in scripture as well? Did Jesus not exist during his teenage years, or are we smarter than to believe that is the case since it's not scripted?

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by QUENTIN
Thank you for addressing no one's points and basically using three paragraphs to re-iterate the point: "I am a Christian".

So my first two paragraphs you can ignore but then you say I ignored people's points?And what points have you made except to ridicule me?

And Electiclite, if you want me to simply say "I am a Christian" and yet be here on a discussion board, how much sense does that make.

And for anyone else who is critical of my beleifs, my scriptural beliefs have survived thousands of years and have been believed by the greatest minds of mankind until the last few generations which of course are so infintiely wise that the world is going to rot, why do you say that I believe the scriptures and yet you guys beleive an article based on one study by a man you do not know anything about.

Why are you so confident in the study of evolution that has not been able to prove itself except through a few supposedly transtional life forms that are thousands of years old and do not appear every generation as it should be if evolution was every going to work?

As I have pointed out before, if there was a male/female organism then it would have died out before it could ever become seperate male and female and evolve separate organs as we have today. And even if it did it still would've died out along the way (since evolution is so damn slow no changes can be seen over THOUSANDS of years) . It simply does not make any sense.

But people feel so smart saying that our complex human bodies evolved from single cell organisms simply because millions of years went by and of course ANYTHING can happen in millions of years, even if it is illogical, right?

And now I will watch posts that ignore the points I have made. I get accused of that all the time but of course everyone else always addresses every point I make. It's just that I don't bring it up when it happens.

If I was on a board loaded with conservatives and there was one liberal making points I would never gang up and talk down to him or her.But that is what many of you guys do. I don't get it really.

[The Heart Collector]

Originally posted by Lynn7
There are millions of people who agree with me, you know.

Yes. there's also thousands who agree with NAMBLA.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by free
"When a person's entire basis of truth is based on scriptural precedent, no argument based on reason or logic could be persuasive."

Christopher L. Bennett, author

Yeah the people who wrote the Bible had no reason and were illogical. Again, it is amazing that many of the great minds of the world were so misled. We are the only generation that has ever shown any wisdom right? And so why do we have so many calamities in our time? People starving to death the world over, genocides, terrorism, avian flu, antibiotics that cannot fight superbugs, etc. People are sex addicts, drug addicts, gambling addicts, alcoholics and supposedly we are all from dysfuntional families. Yes, this is a totally logical and reasonable world we live in. The Bible addresses all of these situations- its truth remains unchanged and it offers the only solution to all of the world's problems.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Lynn7

And Electiclite, if you want me to simply say "I am a Christian" and yet be here on a discussion board, how much sense does that make.


It would make a lot of sense in regards to these evolution arguments. We've got tons of other threads, its not like you'd never speak in the Politics forum again.

[Criminal Rock]

Why don't I save you guys the trouble and start a thread called "THE ATTACK LYNN THREAD"...

Some people just need to give it a rest.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7

And for anyone else who is critical of my beleifs, my scriptural beliefs have survived thousands of years and have been believed by the greatest minds of mankind until the last few generations which of course are so infintiely wise that the world is going to rot, why do you say that I believe the scriptures and yet you guys beleive an article based on one study by a man you do not know anything about.

Hindiusm is older than Christianity, and both Hinduism and Christianity has leaders that embrace Evolution.

The single biggest contradiction between Creationism and Evolution is that if man evolved from a single organism, then how could there be a creator? However, Darwin's Theory of Evolution never proposed this. In fact, Darwin proposed that evolution occured through the death of individual species.

You are taking one belief in evolution, and applying it to a single Christian belief, while not taking details of evolution into account, or completely throwing established traits of evolution out the window -- like the fact that natural selection and genetics are not contradictory to Evolution - in fact, natural selection is a basis of the most accepted Evolutionary belief.



Why are you so confident in the study of evolution that has not been able to prove itself except through a few supposedly transtional life forms that are thousands of years old and do not appear every generation as it should be if evolution was every going to work?

Lynn, we are taller than we are in the past. Our pinkies are getting smaller. There are also more people with a bigger second toe than there were many generations ago.

Either way - you said so yourself that what happened to the finches sounds like natural selection to you. Natural selection is a process of evolution.



As I have pointed out before, if there was a male/female organism then it would have died out before it could ever become seperate male and female and evolve separate organs as we have today. And even if it did it still would've died out along the way (since evolution is so damn slow no changes can be seen over THOUSANDS of years) . It simply does not make any sense.


Like Ive said, you are taking one theory based on evolution to disprove all of evolution. It would be like someone getting insight into Christianity by only believing what they saw in Last Temptation of Christ. How would that make you feel?


But people feel so smart saying that our complex human bodies evolved from single cell organisms simply because millions of years went by and of course ANYTHING can happen in millions of years, even if it is illogical, right?


Sure. If something that sounds theoretically impossible that can happen in 6 days, why not something else over the course of a million years?


If I was on a board loaded with conservatives and there was one liberal making points I would never gang up and talk down to him or her.But that is what many of you guys do. I don't get it really.

Both liberals and conservatives believe and don't believe in Evolution. Political-leaning has nothing to do with this.

[someguy]

I think that when a person decides to join a debate but no matter what the opposing side says they will ignore it and outright deny it even if it is fact, it's no wonder why they are being attacked.

edit: this is for tai mai jew which i thought would be directly after his post but bubba got all up in here with his typing.

[Criminal Rock]

she might not be accepting the 'facts'... but even under the worst circumstances, it’s no excuse to gang up on anyone. That’s just retarded. People just need to relax and accept the fact that she doesn’t see it the way you do. Boo fucking hoo... don’t need to cry a river over it.

[The Postmaster General]

Tai Mai Jew - I'm just trying to have a discussion about it. Lynn and I have spoken before and sometimes we see eye-to-eye on more than we realized, sometimes we don't. Neither of us are going to get anywhere by refusing to share thoughts.

I think what you are proposing is that we take turns, or draw straws to reply to Lynn - maybe all threads Lynn participates in should be along the lines of the music tag thread, and when Lynn responds, one person say "tag" and then no one else can respond until she responds, at which time someone else will say "tag" and then respond.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you really want to start a topic about Lynn, please do so, because this thread is a discussion about evolution, which Lynn has decided to participate in. I'm more curious to hear her perception of the ideas I'm proposing than having someone proved right or wrong. Her thoughts are something I don't hear that often, and I welcome them.

[someguy]

Originally posted by Tai Mai Jew
she might not be accepting the 'facts'... but even under the worst circumstances, it’s no excuse to gang up on anyone. That’s just retarded. People just need to relax and accept the fact that she doesn’t see it the way you do. Boo fucking hoo... don’t need to cry a river over it.

She's the only one with a real dissenting opinion to the rest of us that's participating in the the thread's debate. She could stop responding but she hasn't. But none of it is her fault.

[Criminal Rock]

I’m only saying people treat her bad... and they shouldn’t do that. The whole point of this thread was to debate and discuss the shrinking Finch-beak story... which Lynn did at the very beginning. People disputed it (which is fine), but she didn’t want it to escalate into another outrageous/one-sided argument, and also knowing her beliefs wont change, she left because of it. People then thought of it as an excuse to not argue her points. Shortly after, the barrage of unnecessary attacks commenced.

I’m perfectly fine with people debating, that’s not the issue I’m bringing up... even if its 20 against 1, as long as there is respect there’s no problem.

I just find that some of the things that happened here were uncalled for, and unjustifiable.

That is all.

[darchangel]

Originally posted by Tai Mai Jew
People just need to relax and accept the fact that she doesn’t see it the way you do. Boo fucking hoo... don’t need to cry a river over it.

It's a politics DEBATE*** forum, not a 'gee, I guess you're not going to see it any way other than your own, so let's just stop talking about it' forum.


*** - where in the hell is Heart Collector and his eight million point bold font when you need him? ;)



~darchangel~

[Criminal Rock]

Originally posted by darchangel
It's a politics DEBATE*** forum, not a 'gee, I guess you're not going to see it any way other than your own, so let's just stop talking about it' forum.

Good lord... thats what you got from my post? c'mon, you're smarter then that darchangel.

Debating is the name of the game around these parts, I know that... we all know that, but if someone doesn't feel comfortable discussing something for the fear of being ganged-raped, then that certain someone has the right to end their side of the debate without verbal castration from everybody else. Even if it doesn’t make sense, there’s no reason to do anything but let it go. Its called respect.

[Lynn7]

The things that bother me is when it is said that I never respond to anyone's points and then when I get accused of not accepting "facts'. I find that very insulting. Quentin, another thing I don't like is when instead of responding to the points in my post a few days ago about Muslims, you used my own words and decided to mock my post. Then two other posters joined in and laughed about it in a way that sought to humiliate me. Then of course you said that I didn't respond to your posts but in a way that again was mocking. I miss the debates I used to have on the board. I have been here for years and have always enjoyed the discussions but in the last few months there has been name calling and now this week I really feel like the atmosphere around here is getting to me. It would be a wonderful world if the conservatives (especially the Christian ones!) could just wake up and see the facts and then everyone can agree and life would be good, right?

Thanks again Tai Mai Jew. It is really nice to have someone to stick up for another. I have received some private messages from others with support (which I have enjoyed) but I guess they don't want to get involved publicly but you are a brave one ;)

[The Postmaster General]

So what you are saying is that recognizing religious-biased statements through the use of drama clearly demonstrates how natural selection is not connected with Evolution.

That would be easy for me to except, if not for one time when Quentin and I were in a chat room, and this guy could not respond when we asked him to mention one Martin Scorsese film that had poor cinematography. He became very angry and called us names, as well as making several vulgar remarks. Since he believed in Creationism, I think this clearly demonstrates how natural selection and Evolution do go hand-in-hand.

[QUENTIN]

Originally posted by Lynn7
So my first two paragraphs you can ignore but then you say I ignored people's points?And what points have you made except to ridicule me?

Originally posted by Lynn7
The things that bother me is when it is said that I never respond to anyone's points and then when I get accused of not accepting "facts'. I find that very insulting. Quentin, another thing I don't like is when instead of responding to the points in my post a few days ago about Muslims, you used my own words and decided to mock my post. Then two other posters joined in and laughed about it in a way that sought to humiliate me. Then of course you said that I didn't respond to your posts but in a way that again was mocking. I miss the debates I used to have on the board. I have been here for years and have always enjoyed the discussions but in the last few months there has been name calling and now this week I really feel like the atmosphere around here is getting to me

First of all, I never ridiculed you. Here's what ridiculing you would look like:

Lynn7: "Valid point about Creationism"
QUENTIN: "I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper. I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries. "

Never did anything of the sort. As far as I'm concerned, you made no points about Muslims, instead what you said was quite blatantly racist and bigoted. I do think that you have a general bias against Muslims. I'm not trying to ridicule you or cry "Racist!", but, well, in the majority of your posts you have this fear of Muslims in general clearly expressed. Of course you caveat it with "I'm sure most Muslims are nice..." or "it's a religion of peace" or whatever, just like even Ann Coulter must do sometimes, but to me that's like saying "Black people are mostly dumb criminals...but the guy who does my lawn is black and he is nice." My best friend and roommate happens to be a Muslim and that personally offends me. So I made fun of your racism by pointing out how silly it was, you mentioned 6 million or so French Muslims and how awful it would be if they "rose up" in support of a Muslim terrorist group or something, as if the entire Muslim population is a single united entity with terrorist ambitions. I used your words, re-arranged, to say that that is as silly as looking at all US Christians as a single group who support one thing, which is not the case. But I do fear SOME Christians, those on the far right, who I think are in many ways ruining the country I live in. As you should fear SOME Muslims, those on the far right, who may try and ruin yours. That post wasn't the one I was referring to when I said you ignored points I addressed though, it was the one in this thread that starts with the words "For the most part I agree with MacReady..." where I pleaded to hear your argument.

As for accepting facts, well... it's not evolutionists fault that much of science is facts and very little of religion is. Granted, not all science is yet accepted as fact, but the basic principles of evolution are. If we try to explain over and over that, to use science's cousin math, 1+1 = 2, but you say Jesus had only one bread loaf and one fish and turned it into several thousand equal pieces, so you deny the validity of math...well, at the very least we'd ask you to defend your statement with a source other than the Bible. The Bible is not a recognized scholarly text, and only Christians believe in it. Many of the sources we use are recognized scholarly texts that people of all religions can believe in because they don't deal with religion but rather scientific observation, but you seem to dismiss them outright. I've read that article that started this thread 3 times now, it's simply not misleading. You're a college-educated woman in one of the smartest states in the country, so I don't think you really didn't understand the article, which interests me into why you think it's misleading. In a more macroscopic point, a point I made earlier and asked fairly politely of you:

You must be sick of repeating yourself, so don't. It seems like often you must feel forced to beat a dead horse and say the same thing over and over in threads like this. I know I speak for myself and probably others when I say once would be enough. You said earlier in this thread that you've had this evolution debate a million times before on this board, so obviously you've made a valid argument at some point to defend your beliefs on the subject. I just ask, pretty please, with sugar on top, would you mind giving us that argument here just the once? We'll never need to engage you in the evolution debate again and we can move on to discussing Iraq, Katrina, Ted Kennedy, oval office blowjobs and whatever else comes up on these boards. If you've had the debate so often, you can even COPY and PASTE your argument here, I was just asking to hear it once. I'm curious.

[QUENTIN]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
So what you are saying is that recognizing religious-biased statements through the use of drama clearly demonstrates how natural selection is not connected with Evolution.

That would be easy for me to except, if not for one time when Quentin and I were in a chat room, and this guy could not respond when we asked him to mention one Martin Scorsese film that had poor cinematography. He became very angry and called us names, as well as making several vulgar remarks. Since he believed in Creationism, I think this clearly demonstrates how natural selection and Evolution do go hand-in-hand.

We really can cut the dramatic crap. Until someone calls for Lynn's crucifixion or calls her a dumb bitch, I don't think she needs a White Knight Tai Mai. Several people disagree with her, that's all.

Bubba, I think you should skim these boards and compile "Bubba's Big Book of Analogies". I'd pay $20 for that.

[Criminal Rock]

I am the White Knight... I'm the Whitest Mother Fucking Knight you've ever seen.

Not like Marten Laurence... that slut is qua'.

[Lynn7]

Quentin,
If you thought I was being racist then you could've said that. Instead you took a response I had made to someone else and used it almost word for word and created one of the most snotty posts I have ever seen here on the boards. Then two other posters followed up that post with praise for your snotty post.

You say to respond just once about the evolution debate. Well look no farther than a few posts up when I said that if a single organism is going to evolve to become a more complex one and eventually to a human being at ONE point along the way it would have to split into two separate organisms and begin to reproduce as male and female. My point is that once the two organisms are split they would have to develop complimentary reproductive equipment (as we have now-vagina vs penis, ovaries/testes etc).Well how would the two separate organisms "know" what they would need to develop if they have split and become different entities and also since we don't see these changes occur rapidly (we havne't even changed reproductively in thousands of years!) then when these split organisms died off in their normal life span how would they be able to continue to "evolve"? Would each single celled organism continue to "evolve" along the same lines and why would they?And even if they did, how could they ever accomplish the split into male and female without dying off first?

I beleive that scientests study things that they find and sometimes come to wrong conclusions. A life form that may appear "transitional" to some may just be a similar looking animal that has died out. That article about finches is a very superficial article. It explains nothing has no counter arguments from any other scinetests. There are always counter arguments in science as you well know. It seems pretty simple to me- some birds died out in this particular place cause they couldn't access the food and now the other finches are living happily there until the food supply changes again and then what? It is what goes on all over the world and I don't see what the big deal is. If food isnt' available animals die out and other animals still might be able to survive. That's how its always been. The article is very weak. If there is more information on this "discovery" then the articles are just missing it totally. And I also mentioned that in one of my other posts.

By the way, I dont mind if people argue with me or if multiple people argue with me- that is not my problem. Its the ridicluing and ganging up without points that I hate. I also abhor it when people say I make the same points over and over as if the other side does not? Or that I dont' respond to every point in every post when others do the same thing. There are basically two basic sides to every issue that tend to fall into liberal and conservative points of view. It seems like a few people have insinuated that I should just not give my side of the issue at all. What kind of a society is that? Think about it.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Quentin,
If you thought I was being racist then you could've said that. Instead you took a response I had made to someone else and used it almost word for word and created one of the most snotty posts I have ever seen here on the boards. Then two other posters followed up that post with praise for your snotty post.

You say to respond just once about the evolution debate. Well look no farther than a few posts up when I said that if a single organism is going to evolve to become a more complex one and eventually to a human being at ONE point along the way it would have to split into two separate organisms and begin to reproduce as male and female. My point is that once the two organisms are split they would have to develop complimentary reproductive equipment (as we have now-vagina vs penis, ovaries/testes etc).Well how would the two separate organisms "know" what they would need to develop if they have split and become different entities and also since we don't see these changes occur rapidly (we havne't even changed reproductively in thousands of years!) then when these split organisms died off in their normal life span how would they be able to continue to "evolve"? Would each single celled organism continue to "evolve" along the same lines and why would they?And even if they did, how could they ever accomplish the split into male and female without dying off first?

I beleive that scientests study things that they find and sometimes come to wrong conclusions. A life form that may appear "transitional" to some may just be a similar looking animal that has died out. That article about finches is a very superficial article. It explains nothing has no counter arguments from any other scinetests. There are always counter arguments in science as you well know. It seems pretty simple to me- some birds died out in this particular place cause they couldn't access the food and now the other finches are living happily there until the food supply changes again and then what? It is what goes on all over the world and I don't see what the big deal is. If food isnt' available animals die out and other animals still might be able to survive. That's how its always been. The article is very weak. If there is more information on this "discovery" then the articles are just missing it totally. And I also mentioned that in one of my other posts.

By the way, I dont mind if people argue with me or if multiple people argue with me- that is not my problem. Its the ridicluing and ganging up without points that I hate. I also abhor it when people say I make the same points over and over as if the other side does not? Or that I dont' respond to every point in every post when others do the same thing. There are basically two basic sides to every issue that tend to fall into liberal and conservative points of view. It seems like a few people have insinuated that I should just not give my side of the issue at all. What kind of a society is that? Think about it.


Am I on your ignore list, or something? I've addressed every one of your points ABOUT EVOLUTION, and the points you've made in the above post ABOUT EVOLUTION. In addition, I've said how welcoming I am to hear your points ABOUT EVOLUTION. Yet, you keep responding with this soap opera stuff. If you really think you are being victimized, then stay on topic Lynn.

Ted Turner on a pogo stick! In another thread you say that women can avoid being raped by not going out and drinking, but here you demand pity when people chastise you for not discussing points, then go on to say you are even more victimized because people won't address your points, and when you are given responses to your points, you even claim more victimization for stuff that happened like a gazillion posts ago and have nothing to do with any of the points. WHA-WHA-WHA-WHAT!? To take your own advice: sober up, and stop grinding your ass against topics that have nothing to do with evolution/creationism and maybe you won't have to be so worried about being ganged up on.

[QUENTIN]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Quentin,
If you thought I was being racist then you could've said that. Instead you took a response I had made to someone else and used it almost word for word and created one of the most snotty posts I have ever seen here on the boards. Then two other posters followed up that post with praise for your snotty post.


I find it interesting that you didn't even attempt to claim that what you said wasn't racist. At least you're not in denial. And I chose to respond as I wanted to, simply crying racism would do nothing. Instead I satirized your post, I pointed out how ridiculous what you said was by saying the exact same thing and replacing only the people and the country. If you found it snotty, well, that's to be expected. After all, I was making a joke at your expense. And I wasn't just being flippant either, I was making a serious point about a problem I have with right-wing extremists in a jokey way.

For clarification on your point about evolution, is the crux of your anti-evolution argument that you find the notion that asexually reproducing organisms over time becoming sexually reproducing organisms with separate but complementary sex organs too preposterous to accept (which things such as mutation, genetic recombination, and shifting allele frequencies can explain...or, you know, the will of God) but the notion that all of the world's plants and animals were created exactly as they are today say 6,000 years ago is entirely plausible?

I don't think evolution is a religious or political issue at all, you say most viewpoints will fall into liberal or conservative but it shouldn't have anything to do with that. If you don't believe in God, evolution occurs naturally, if you do, God intelligently designed the earth and its organisms to "know" as you say how to properly evolve until finally they developed into an organism intelligent enough to recognize the method of the plan and trace it.

[darchangel]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Quentin,
If you thought I was being racist then you could've said that. Instead you took a response I had made to someone else and used it almost word for word and created one of the most snotty posts I have ever seen here on the boards. Then two other posters followed up that post with praise for your snotty post.

You say to respond just once about the evolution debate. Well look no farther than a few posts up when I said that if a single organism is going to evolve to become a more complex one and eventually to a human being at ONE point along the way it would have to split into two separate organisms and begin to reproduce as male and female. My point is that once the two organisms are split they would have to develop complimentary reproductive equipment (as we have now-vagina vs penis, ovaries/testes etc).Well how would the two separate organisms "know" what they would need to develop if they have split and become different entities and also since we don't see these changes occur rapidly (we havne't even changed reproductively in thousands of years!) then when these split organisms died off in their normal life span how would they be able to continue to "evolve"? Would each single celled organism continue to "evolve" along the same lines and why would they?And even if they did, how could they ever accomplish the split into male and female without dying off first?

I beleive that scientests study things that they find and sometimes come to wrong conclusions. A life form that may appear "transitional" to some may just be a similar looking animal that has died out. That article about finches is a very superficial article. It explains nothing has no counter arguments from any other scinetests. There are always counter arguments in science as you well know. It seems pretty simple to me- some birds died out in this particular place cause they couldn't access the food and now the other finches are living happily there until the food supply changes again and then what? It is what goes on all over the world and I don't see what the big deal is. If food isnt' available animals die out and other animals still might be able to survive. That's how its always been. The article is very weak. If there is more information on this "discovery" then the articles are just missing it totally. And I also mentioned that in one of my other posts.

By the way, I dont mind if people argue with me or if multiple people argue with me- that is not my problem. Its the ridicluing and ganging up without points that I hate. I also abhor it when people say I make the same points over and over as if the other side does not? Or that I dont' respond to every point in every post when others do the same thing. There are basically two basic sides to every issue that tend to fall into liberal and conservative points of view. It seems like a few people have insinuated that I should just not give my side of the issue at all. What kind of a society is that? Think about it.

First of all, you claim that everybody's taking shots at your expense, yet you call Quentin's posts 'snotty.' That's all I'll say about it...I'm sure Quentin can take care of himself.

About the single celled organisms and their changes, cells don't have to reproduce to share genetic material.

"Sex is the transfer of genes from one cell to another and in microorganisms this often occurs without cell division, so that there is no reproduction
Bacteria can transfer genetic material through projections called pili"

http://members.aol.com/BearFlag45/Biology1A/LectureNotes/lec14.html (http://)

This could explain the transfer from asexual to sexual reproduction...also, here's an article that explains that prokaryotes (believed to be the first single-celled organisms in existence) can sometimes join into colonies (while they can still be free existing cells), which could explain their ability to continue the evolution process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prokaryote#Evolution_of_prokaryotes (http://)

I would also like to take this opportunity to point out that bacteria/viruses that exist now are still simple cell construction organisms and they adapt and evolve to beat medications used to treat them...I don't think it's that much of a stretch that a cell colony either mutated in the reproduction process and built upon that mutation or over time collectively found a better way to reproduce (through meiosis).

Furthermore Lynn, please stop insisting that the finch article is misleading/weak/superficial. It isn't any of those things...just because you don't agree with what it says and/or don't understand it doesn't mean it's not valid proof of evolution theory.

Others have said this and I'll say it again; this isn't a liberal/conservative issue. And as far as people saying you shouldn't post your side of the issue, that's not what anyone is saying; we're saying STOP POSTING YOUR OPINION AND STATING IT AS FACT. Your last post is the first actually valid argument you've made for your side of this issue in this thread.

And really, your actual reasoning for not believing evolution was what I wanted to see, not "I don't believe that because I'm a Christian and that article is misleading anyway" with absolutely no theory/documented evidence to back it up.

So thank you for actually giving your reasons for thinking evolution is not true...I just happen to disagree.



~darchangel~

[The Postmaster General]

Anyone see The Simpsons tonight, or when it originally aired?

[QUENTIN]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Anyone see The Simpsons tonight, or when it originally aired?

Hah, just watched it and was thinking the exact same thing, "I wish I could show this to Lynn."

[Monotreme]

I don't understand how religion and the theory of evolution can't coincide. And why if you're religious, conservative or believe in the bible in any way, then you certainly don't acknowledge the theory of evolution. By the way, why is it called a theory? Political correctness? It's a scientific fact. We don't call the force that keeps our feet on the ground the "theory of gravity", do we? Anyway, on with the post:

Earlier this year, our school set out for a two-day seminar of co-existence with religious-nationalist Jews. That is, not Hassids (those Penguins you sometimes see in Jerusalem or in New York City reading the scriptures all day), but Orthodox Jews who serve in the army, work, pay taxes, and viciously believe in Judaism. Anyway, they could have basically called it the "arguement seminar" because we all came out with hoarse throats after all the arguing, and among the various topics we all argued about (political beliefs, religion, Plato's cave theory, the "truth" versus belief, faith, homosexuals, the security situation... you name it), we also argued about evolution. I was fascinated to learn that, while half of these religious Jews indeed refused to acknowledge the truth of the theory of evolution, a good half of the people there did acknowledge the truth in the theory, and "believed" in evolution.

The religious twist is that God's will comes in place of natural selection and randomness. For instance: Why were humans chosen to be the only sentient race on the planet? Some say that nature is random, chaos theory and all that stuff; some say natural selection, the result of various circumstances and unfolding of events, etc etc... and some believe that it is simply God's will that humans will evolve to be sentient beings. The same can be said about these Finches. Belivers of logic and science will say that this is all a matter of natural selection and adaptation to a changing environments, and believers in the bible will say that it was God's will for these Finches to evolve and adapt themselves. It's as simple as that.

Also, are there actually people who accept the creation story in Genesis as fact? Because if there are, their eyes definitely need opening. While there were disagreements on the various topics of discussion at this seminar, one point that was pretty much unanimous among all the religious people was that the creation story in Genesis is an allegory, a metaphor for the scientific creaton of the world. In fact, upon examination of the six days of creation, one can see that the order of events pretty much coincides with the scientific order of events - that is, the "big bang" (creation of the cosmos), differentiating between land and sea (creaton of earth), sea animals, plant-life, land animals, and finally, humans. Difference is that in the bible it sums it all up in 6 days while scientifically it took billions of years. The point is, though, that the creation story can easily be seen as an allegory to the actual creation of the earth, and the use of "days" as a measurement of time as a symbol of the different stages of evolution and development of Earth. The only twist that the bible adds was that the selection of Earth, single-cell organisms, certain species of fish to evolve, etc is not random, chaotic or even natural, but that the will of God is what selected these developments.

It's simple. There is no black and white here, there are grey zones on both sides. And an arguement about belief will lead you guys nowhere - trust me, we had plenty of those arguements at this seminar, and everyone pretty much came to the conclusion that you can't just CHANGE somebody's entire faith or beliefs by trying to convince him/her that you are right and they are wrong. Because from their perspective, it's quite the opposite - they are obviously right, and you are so obviously wrong. It's vicious, but why can't we just accept that there are multiple truths in the world, and not one truth that some people are aware of/exposed to and all the other people are blind?

[Lynn7]

Here's a little surprise- I dont beleive in evolution. I used to and now I don't. You guys all feel superior to me because you are on the side of the scientific community on this. I have to admit that I feel that I have this one right so nothing you guys say will change my mind on this. Call me narrow minded, thick headed or backward thinking. I really don't care. I have my opinion and you guys have yours. I didn't want to get into it yet again but I said it once more in response to Quentin's post.

Quentin,
You think I am a racist because of my comments toward Muslim groups but of course it is OK for anyone to ridicule Christian beleifs. I like the way you said it is like when a person says they have a black friend and then use that to claim they are not racist. Well by definition, if a person has one black friend then they are not racist or they would not have that friend.

I do not have any Muslim friends but I do not have hatred toward the Muslims. But I would be lying if I said I didn't think that the Muslim religion is moving in quickly around the world and I do beleive if any of those groups gain power we will soon be forced to choose between the Mulsim religion and death as happnes in most of the other Mulsim countires. Of course there are good people who are Muslims. But they are afraid of those who have taken over the direction of the religion. Those will be the people who wield the power and the others will go along as they do now out of fear for their own lives. Remember Hitler? Why was his party able to dominate Germany and get away with the extermination of so many people? Because people were blind to the threat until it was too late and then there was nothing good people could do because the Nazis had all the power.

And Monotreme, I am one of those people who does beleive the accounts in Genesis. It all holds together as true when you consider that we are talking about an all-powerful God who has made this world, the universe and all the universes. No puny power here and nothing impossible for Him.Why do you doubt the account He cared to place in the Bible and beleive a scientific communtiy who is always changing?

From Isiah 40:21-30
21 Do you not know? Have you not heard? Has it not been told you from the beginning? Have you not understood since the earth was founded? 22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in. 23 He brings princes to naught and reduces the rulers of this world to nothing. 24 No sooner are they planted, no sooner are they sown, no sooner do they take root in the ground, than he blows on them and they wither, and a whirlwind sweeps them away like chaff. 25 "To whom will you compare me? Or who is my equal?" says the Holy One. 26 Lift your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these? He who brings out the starry host one by one, and calls them each by name. Because of his great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing.

27 Why do you say, O Jacob, and complain, O Israel, "My way is hidden from the Lord; my cause is disregarded by my God"? 28 Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He will not grow tired or weary, and his understanding no one can fathom. 29 He gives strength to the weary and increases the power of the weak. 30 Even youths grow tired and weary, and young men stumble and fall; 31 but those who hope in the Lord will renew their strength. They will soar on wings like eagles; they will run and not grow weary, they will walk and not be faint.

[someguy]

I never understood this weird rift of opinions about the first book of the Bible. The Jewish people wrote the Old Testament and they believe in Genesis as what Monotreme said, but the Christians who did not write the Old Testament simply say 'No' and take it literally. I prefer to take the opinion of the people who made the books though and go on the side of symbolism/allegory rather than literal.

[Thrizzle]

Lynn, maybe this has been answered previously in the discussion, im not sure and dont care to read go over this thread :p ; anyway i was wondering how the religious community explains something that would hint at an evolutionary process like the fossil record does.

According to most religious beliefs and creationists, the earth and humanity have come about fairly recently (in thousands of years, correct?) but scientists have dated fossils and earth materials back millions of years. The layers of earth seem to illustrate a history of life on earth as something thats been evolving and becoming more complex. For example, the deepest levels of earth that have been dug up/examined contain fossils of animals that are very simple, basically unicellular, and succeeding levels of earth show the evolutionary process, as fossils become multi-cellular, then signs of appendidges, and etc until human and neanderthal remains on the most recent layers of earth (hundreds of thousands of years past).

How does the religious community address this sort of evidence?

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
Lynn, maybe this has been answered previously in the discussion, im not sure and dont care to read go over this thread :p ; anyway i was wondering how the religious community explains something that would hint at an evolutionary process like the fossil record does.

According to most religious beliefs and creationists, the earth and humanity have come about fairly recently (in thousands of years, correct?) but scientists have dated fossils and earth materials back millions of years. The layers of earth seem to illustrate a history of life on earth as something thats been evolving and becoming more complex. For example, the deepest levels of earth that have been dug up/examined contain fossils of animals that are very simple, basically unicellular, and succeeding levels of earth show the evolutionary process, as fossils become multi-cellular, then signs of appendidges, and etc until human and neanderthal remains on the most recent layers of earth (hundreds of thousands of years past).

How does the religious community address this sort of evidence?

You've never heard anything from Bill Hicks have you?

[someguy]

Thrizzle you better change or you'll be falling through heaven's trap door

[Squid Vicious]

God put dinosaur fossils on Earth to test our faith. :p

Lynn: it's obvious at this point that you know next to nothing about evolution. That's fine. There are plenty of things I don't know very much about, like, say, nuclear physics. So I try to avoid getting into conversations with people about nuclear physics. If I wanted to join in on those conversations, I'd do a little research. Maybe read the Wikipedia entry or something (;)).

However, you've made it very clear that things like facts and evidence have absolutely no effect on you. So, in light of that, I'd suggest that you stop posting on topics that you know very little about and are unwilling to learn about. Remember what Mark Twain said -- "It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt."

[The Postmaster General]

Us coming from single celled creatures is one theory based on Evolution. Darwin proposed evolution happens through natural selection and genetics, which Lynn says - well, she's never said. Lynn doesn't seem to like holding discussion.

Evolution isn't a conservative/liberal issue.

[Lynn7]

Not all scientests believe in evolution you know. But as all science is prone to change as soon as new "evidence" comes along maybe people shouldn't hold to tight to these supposed "findings". Scientests claim to discover this or that and then they discovers oemthing esle that changes the findings and they just readjust their interpretations and move on as if nothing bad has happened. I choose to put my faith in something solid- the Bible is unchanging and holds truths that not all will accept. That is also in the Bible.

Someguy if you reread Monotreme's post, it says HALF of them refused to beleive evolution so which half do you side with? It's not always easy to know which of the Jewish people to beleive right? Many Jews beliieve that God created the world and everything in it and why would it be hard for this God to blink and create anything. He is God after all. God is not like us-He is not human. Jesus took on human form for a time but then he shed it and is again divine.

Someone gave me the advice many years ago if I ever needed God to pray in the name of Jesus and one day when I was in really bad shape (years later), I remembered those words, I said the prayer and I experinced one of the most awesome rides of my life. Life changing and yet it was still a few more years until I really got it. He is in my life every day and he is totally awesome. My friends and I share these things in Bible studies and at church and I am constantly amazed at how good this God of ours is. That is my "evidence." My evidence is right to me and I have experienced much of it first hand. Also I have experienced the before and after of this kind of life and the after is totally superior in every way to the time when I believed in evolution and was prochoice

[outsyder]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Not all scientests believe in evolution you know. But as all science is prone to change as soon as new "evidence" comes along maybe people shouldn't hold to tight to these supposed "findings". Scientests claim to discover this or that and then they discovers oemthing esle that changes the findings and they just readjust their interpretations and move on as if nothing bad has happened. I choose to put my faith in something solid- the Bible is unchanging and holds truths that not all will accept. That is also in the Bible.


If a major scientific discovery occured tomorrow which provided rock solid evidence that the Earth was born by means of being pooped out of an intergalactic space frog, I'll be inclined to accept that, as hard as it may be.

Evolution is not a belief. It is a theory put together based on observations of the world around us. So far, it's the most logical and evidence supported theory of life that we have.

And about the Bible being solid. If I write somethng on a piece of paper, and thousands of years in the future people start believing it based on its age, that doesn't exactly make it true.

[someguy]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Someguy if you reread Monotreme's post, it says HALF of them refused to beleive evolution so which half do you side with? It's not always easy to know which of the Jewish people to beleive right? Many Jews beliieve that God created the world and everything in it and why would it be hard for this God to blink and create anything. He is God after all. God is not like us-He is not human. Jesus took on human form for a time but then he shed it and is again divine.

I was not referring to evolution when I said that, it was their interpretation of the book of Genesis being an allegory rather than concrete fact. That is something the Jewish people mostly agree on.

[Monotreme]

Originally posted by someguy
I was not referring to evolution when I said that, it was their interpretation of the book of Genesis being an allegory rather than concrete fact. That is something the Jewish people mostly agree on.
That is a fact, at least the conservative/reform Jews. The orthodox Jews (the penguins) have a very hard time removing their minds from the feudal age and accepting the facts of life. I wouldn't be surprised if some of them still think the world is flat, they are completely disconnected from the real world.

[Lynn7]

The bible falls apart when it is treated as allegory etc. REad it again with new eyes. Read it as fact and it will make sense to you. I agree with the penguins as you call them. Don't write them off as feudal- the Bible has never changed and all of its truths apply today the same as they ever did. Accepting the "facts of life" as you call them is the modern fadish thing to do- these "facts" of modern times are the cause of much of the turmoil in family life and are the root cause of most of our unhappiness as a society. 50% divorce rate, people not getting married at all, children having multiple step parents, increasing drug use and promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases etc. And you call the Orthodox way the backwards way? At least in the past when the Bible was respected and followed, you could count on family.

[QUENTIN]

Originally posted by Lynn7

Quentin,
You think I am a racist because of my comments toward Muslim groups but of course it is OK for anyone to ridicule Christian beleifs. I like the way you said it is like when a person says they have a black friend and then use that to claim they are not racist. Well by definition, if a person has one black friend then they are not racist or they would not have that friend.

This provides a lot of insight into your view of the world as per racism. It is okay for anyone to ridicule Christian beliefs, as it is okay for anyone to ridicule Muslim beliefs, atheist beliefs, Druid beliefs, etc... I haven't done it, but it's okay to do. Ridiculing a belief is very different than ridiculing a group of people though. "Islam believes that Judas was crucified in Jesus's place and he was taken to Heaven by God before his execution, hahahahaha, how silly" for instance is fine. "Islamic people are hateful and violent" is totally not. As for racists, in addition to being silly and ridiculous, your comment is flatly very wrong. Most racist people in America no longer don white hoods and carry signs proclaiming "I hate niggers," instead they have a deep-seated prejudice against blacks or Jews or Mexicans or Muslims or whatever group it is they have racist beliefs about, but still will make small talk in the office with the person of that ethnicity/religion because to do otherwise would cost them their jobs, social acceptance, etc... Essentially every modern racist I know uses the "But I have a XXXXXX friend, so it's okay" excuse, that is in fact such a common argument made by racists that it has become a stereotype in and of itself, often parodied. 99+% of modern American racists are no longer bold enough to be forthright and public with their racism, but rather they make judgment calls in private, tell jokes in their homes, and write hate-imbued messages on the internet.

Originally posted by Lynn7

I do not have any Muslim friends but I do not have hatred toward the Muslims. But I would be lying if I said I didn't think that the Muslim religion is moving in quickly around the world and I do beleive if any of those groups gain power we will soon be forced to choose between the Mulsim religion and death as happnes in most of the other Mulsim countires. Of course there are good people who are Muslims. But they are afraid of those who have taken over the direction of the religion. Those will be the people who wield the power and the others will go along as they do now out of fear for their own lives. Remember Hitler? Why was his party able to dominate Germany and get away with the extermination of so many people? Because people were blind to the threat until it was too late and then there was nothing good people could do because the Nazis had all the power.


You start by saying you don't hate Muslims, perhaps that is true, but you do have a racistly informed opinion of them and seem to fear them in general or think of them as one big conspiring group (there are a billion of them, you know). You say you don't hate them, but then go on to say they are growing as if that is something negative or to fear, say they will kill us, and go on to compare them to the Nazis. Yeah, sure, that's not racist...

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by outsyder

And about the Bible being solid. If I write somethng on a piece of paper, and thousands of years in the future people start believing it based on its age, that doesn't exactly make it true.

The bible was written by about 40 authors over about 1600 years and yet they all managed to form a cohesive whole with hundreds of prophecies fullfilled etc. Here are some interesting points about the Bible that show it is much more than some written pages that have lasted for thousands of years:

The Number of the Stars in the Universe


In the years 161-126 BC, the man who is said to have first started the study of astronomy, Hiparchus, counted the number of stars in the heavens, and put the number at 1,080. This number was considered to be fairly accurate 300 years later, when Ptolemy announced that the number was more like 1,056.

It wasn't until the invention of the telescope that people realized that the number of the stars was huge ...in the countless millions. The Bible didn't make the mistake of saying that the number was merely a few hundred or thousand, but rather, in about 600 BC, the prophet Jeremiah says the number is "countless as the stars of the sky and measureless as the sand on the seashore" (Jer. 33:22). Also, from the year 1500 BC, the same concept comes from Genesis 22:17. And this is correct, because we now estimate the number of stars to be approximately 10 to the 26th (which may also be a fair estimate of the number of the grains of sand on all the earth's sea-shores), but the actual number is "countless" for us to attempt to precisely count. ---However, God, who is infinite in knowledge, knows the exact number, as the Bible says, "He determines the number of the stars and calls them each by name" (Psalm 147:4).

The Immense Size of the Cosmos


The Bible makes it clear that the knowledge of God, and His ways of doing things, are virtually infinite beyond that of mankind, ---and the size of the starry cosmos is used as an illustration of this, when God says (in 700 BC), "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts higher than your thoughts" (Isaiah 55:9).

The Roundness of the Earth


At different times and in different places it has been thought that the earth is flat. In fact, as recently as the 16th century, sailors would threaten to mutiny on ocean-going ships that sailed too far from land, for fear of sailing off the edge of the earth, which was thought by many to be flat like a table top. There are even a few who believe in a flat-earth today!

(Some have wrongly thought that the Bible teaches a flat earth, but it does not. The Bible speaks of the "four corners" of the earth (in Rev. 7:1), but this is only a figurative way of referring to the "four points" (basic directions) of the compass ---and this same verse speaks of the "four winds," which refers to the same thing.)

In comparison, the Bible actually says, "He (God) sits enthroned above the circle of the earth and its people are like grasshoppers" (Isaiah 40:22 NIV). In that verse, the word translated "circle" is the Hebrew "khoog", which can also be translated as "roundness," "circle," "circuit," or "compass" (ref: Strongs Dictionary, 2329). The roundness of the earth is a viewpoint from space that no mere man had in 760 BC when those words were written. (Although, it might easily be suspected that the earth is round, by looking at the sun and moon). Furthermore, from about the year 1500 BC, it says in Job 26:10, "He marks out a circle (or roundness) on the face of the waters for a boundary between light and darkness." Indeed, a circle would be the correct shape which describes any line between darkness and day-light along the surface of the oceans.

For more on the roundness of the earth in the Bible, see: "What Shape is the Earth In?" by J.P. Holding. --- And for a history of the "flat earth" idea, see: Who invented the flat Earth? at ChristianAnswers.net.


The Earth is Suspended in Space


For centuries various cultures around the world speculated what holds up or supports the earth among the stars and sun and moon. The ancient Greeks believed that a giant being, Atlas, stood with the earth on his huge arms and shoulders, while the Hindus believed that the earth was supported on the backs of immense elephants, which stood on the shell of a great cosmic turtle which then swam around in the "cosmic sea."

But the Bible, on the other hand, gives an amazingly accurate picture of what we have confirmed to be scientific reality today, as seen from space. The Bible says (concerning God): "He suspends the earth over nothing" (Job 26:7). This is an accurate description of what it is like to view the earth from outer space, from any direction. It also does not run counter to the gravitational (and momentum) force which "suspends" the earth in space "over nothing." ---Amazingly, these are words written in about 1500 BC!

Orderly Astronomical Movements in Space


In about the year 600 BC, God declares through the prophet Jeremiah: "Thus says the LORD, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night ...if this fixed order departs from before me, declares the LORD, then shall the offspring of Israel cease from being a nation before me forever" (Jer. 31:35,36). So, there is an orderly relationship in the positioning of the sun, moon, stars and earth, which is established in relation to each other. However, this is not a static or motionless relationship, because God created the sun, moon and stars to move in a regular fashion for the measuring of time, as God said (as written in 1500 BC), "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and for years" (Gen. 1:14). So, the orderly relationship and motions of the bodies in space has been established by the God of the Bible, and their regular and orderly motion has a time-measuring function. Such order arises from the laws of physics which are part of what God created in matter.

Genetically Inherited Characteristics


In the early 1800s, the French naturalist Jean Baptiste de Lamarck proposed the hypothesis of the "inheritance of acquired characteristics," in which it was suggested that animals could (by exercise, diet, grooming, etc.) develop certain traits in their bodily structures, which as a result would then be passed on to their offspring. Lamarck gave as an example, the giraffe, which supposedly stretched its neck upward to get food, and after many generations of stretching this resulted in offspring which were born with longer necks.

This hypothesis has since been proven wrong, because the body cells (somatic cells) in an animal do not pass on any such developmental changes to the sexual reproductive cells (germ cells; sperm and eggs). We now know that it is the germ cells which pass on the inherited characteristics to the offspring, including any potential to develop under various conditions.

It is thus quite fascinating, that in the 30th chapter of the book of Genesis (v.37-42) we find that Jacob held a wrong view which was similar to that of Lamarck, that is: Jacob was trying to produce striped and spotted goats by putting a pattern of white and dark streaked branches in front of the eyes of the animals while they were breeding, because Jacob thought that the striped and spotted pattern being viewed by the animals during breeding would result in offspring with that spotted pattern in their coats.

However, in contrast to Jacob's false (Lamarck-type) notion of "acquired characteristics," God revealed to Jacob in a dream the actual (and genetically accurate) reason that the baby goats were being born with striped and spotted coats... as in Genesis 31:10-12 Jacob said:

"In the breeding season of the flock I lifted up my eyes and saw in a dream that the male goats that were mating with the flock were striped, spotted and mottled. Then the angel of God said to me in the dream, 'Jacob,' and I said, 'here I am!' And he said, 'Lift up your eyes and see that all the male goats which are mating with the flock are striped, spotted and mottled, for I have seen all that Laban has been doing to you."

---With this statement, God makes it clear in Genesis that it is not what the parent might see while mating, but it is the genetically-produced appearance of the coat of the parent which affects the appearance of the coats of the offspring... even though spotted goats were previously removed (which Laban did in order to "double-cross" Jacob), the genetics of the spotted males (who actually did the mating) is passed on to the young.

Although this accurate assessment of the situation was revealed to Jacob in about 1500 BC, these genetic laws were not understood by scientists until thousands of years later.

Vision of Birds of Prey


It had long been thought by generations of scientists that birds of prey (such as eagles and falcons) located their prey by means of an acute sense of smell, however it has since then been discovered that such birds actually have a very poor sense of smell. Instead, ornithologists have determined that such birds have remarkable vision capabilities. In fact, it has been discovered that while some such birds are diving to catch their prey, the shape of the cornea varies during the descent, enabling it to maintain a perfect focus. In about 1500 BC, Job 28:7 makes note of the falcon's excellent vision, and in Job 39:27-29 it states that the eagle looks down from an inaccessible cliff, and spies out its prey "from afar."

The Hydrologic Cycle


In a good brief description of world-wide air movements and the hydrologic water cycles of the weather, we read, "The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course. All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again" (Ecclesiastes 1:6-7). In similar manner, Job 36:27-28 says, "He (God) draws up the drops of water, which distill into rain from the vapor; the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind," which is a statement from 1500 B.C. ---It wasn't until data and measurements were taken all over entire hemispheres of the globe in our modern era that such an understanding of the hydrologic cycle and world air-currents was achieved, and then once again, the Bible is confirmed as correct.

Conclusion


Such examples (and there are more) are evidence of divine inspiration, as they demonstrate that there are many principles of modern science which the Bible states as facts of nature thousands of years before scientists confirmed them by observation and experimentation. --Although there are various statements in the Bible which describe some things in a "phenomenological" way (such as saying the sun "rises" and moves "across" the sky), we make the exact same statements today despite being fully aware of modern scientific facts, and so the Bible should not be unfairly faulted as making a "false" statement of science when it is not actually asserting a teaching on scientific fact, but is using every-day expressions.

But the descriptions of scientific truths which the Bible does make (such as listed above), are further evidence that the Bible is authored by the true and living God who created the universe and all of nature, and those who read the Bible can therefore have solid confidence that its words are true and reliable. In fact, no statement of what the Bible teaches or asserts has ever been proven to be false or in error by any real facts of science or history.

[QUENTIN]

Originally posted by Lynn7
The bible falls apart when it is treated as allegory


Same thing if you treat it all literally, interestingly enough. But fortunately it seems you don't actually...

Originally posted by Lynn7

(Some have wrongly thought that the Bible teaches a flat earth, but it does not. The Bible speaks of the "four corners" of the earth (in Rev. 7:1), but this is only a figurative way of referring to the "four points" (basic directions) of the compass ---and this same verse speaks of the "four winds," which refers to the same thing.)


You realize of course that once you admit that some language in the Bible is figurative rather than literal, i.e. "the four corners of the Earth", you have to accept that the Bible is not meant to be interpreted entirely literally. So an entirely literal reading of the Bible is, by your own admission and explanation, wrong. And if not ALL of it is taken literally, that opens up all seemingly fantastical stories and language to be interpreted figuratively or as allegory.

[Lynn7]

No comments about how in the world the Bible could have gotten things right thousands of years before facts were known to our great men of science who have gotten things wrong through the centuries (and have had to correct themeslves)? The Bible never has to correct itself.

So we must remove all similes and metaphors from all books so they can be treated literally? Interesting point.

As to your other post about racism, I have always found it really frustrating when the charge of racism enters a discussion because it always effectively shuts down discussion. It is a technique liberals have used for many years. People make fun of other people. It is a part of human nature and it doesn't matter if they are white or black. Comics make their living doing this. We all enjoy the comics because they say what is supposed to be unspoken. To me, racism is when a person degrades another person because of their race. The way the term is used lately it is a weapon meant to cut down another possibly well meaning individual. Nothing a person can do will ever be all right because they are 'racists' by the accuser's definition. No one wants to be known as a "racist' and so it scares people from discussing the issues and then shuts down solutions because people stop discussing freely.

[outsyder]

The point I was attempting to make was that age does not necessarily facilitate truth. Although the Bible does have many accurate references to historical locations, etc. I really don't think that makes everything in it true.

[QUENTIN]

Originally posted by Lynn7
So we must remove all similes and metaphors from all books so they can be treated literally? Interesting point.

Nope, I'm all for the beauty of metaphors. You're the one who has repeatedly tried to claim an entirely literal interpretation of the Bible. This would not allow for metaphors. You can't have it both ways. If you will admit that the "four corners" is a metaphor for the four directional points on a compass, you have no room to argue against the equally acceptable notion that the "six days" God created the Earth in is a metaphor for six millenia or six ages.

Originally posted by Lynn7

As to your other post about racism, I have always found it really frustrating when the charge of racism enters a discussion because it always effectively shuts down discussion. It is a technique liberals have used for many years. People make fun of other people. It is a part of human nature and it doesn't matter if they are white or black. Comics make their living doing this. We all enjoy the comics because they say what is supposed to be unspoken. To me, racism is when a person degrades another person because of their race. The way the term is used lately it is a weapon meant to cut down another possibly well meaning individual. Nothing a person can do will ever be all right because they are 'racists' by the accuser's definition. No one wants to be known as a "racist' and so it scares people from discussing the issues and then shuts down solutions because people stop discussing freely.

People making fun of other people, like I said, is totally acceptable. In fact, it's about the first thing I said. From my first post: "It is okay for anyone to ridicule Christian beliefs, as it is okay for anyone to ridicule Muslim beliefs, atheist beliefs, Druid beliefs, etc... I haven't done it, but it's okay to do." Ridicule, criticism, plain old parody or satire, all are totally acceptable. What comics (whether you mean animated strips or stand-up performers, or both) do is fine, in fact, it's very valuable. What is not okay and what makes something racist is when negative values are attached to a race or religion. And you have that. I'm not calling you a racist to stop you from discussing issues, I'm calling you a racist because your speech has a clear bias against Muslims. You fear them, you compare them to Nazis, and you label them as Murderers and cowards.

By all acounts and throughout all history and definitions, agreed upon by liberals and conservatives alike, racism is when you make a generalization about a group of people based on their ethnic group, race, or religion, especially if that generalization is negative. And you've done that, repeatedly. You can't dismiss it as some crafty liberal tactic, you're saying racist things, simple as. And as I said before, I find it interesting that you don't even attempt to defend your statements or claim you're not racist. I guess you accept it, but resent being called out on it? You tell me. Discuss it freely, by all means.

[Lynn7]

You read my statements and then interpret them and restate them as generalizations. Cut and paste my actual statements (in context) and then we will talk about how "racist" I am.

[MacReady]

Originally posted by Lynn7
So we must remove all similes and metaphors from all books so they can be treated literally? Interesting point.

As to your other post about racism, I have always found it really frustrating when the charge of racism enters a discussion because it always effectively shuts down discussion. It is a technique liberals have used for many years. People make fun of other people. It is a part of human nature and it doesn't matter if they are white or black. Comics make their living doing this. We all enjoy the comics because they say what is supposed to be unspoken. To me, racism is when a person degrades another person because of their race. The way the term is used lately it is a weapon meant to cut down another possibly well meaning individual. Nothing a person can do will ever be all right because they are 'racists' by the accuser's definition. No one wants to be known as a "racist' and so it scares people from discussing the issues and then shuts down solutions because people stop discussing freely.

Yeah, QUENTIN, how dare you make a well-rounded and intelligent argument suggesting somebody here harbor prejudice. Obviously she finds this insulting, so she should just disregard it rather than thinking up of an actual counter-argument.

She's also right about liberals making claims of the other side being racist, just like that schmoe who came in here and said the opposing political side had anti-semitic tendencies and that jews should change their political affiliations because of it.

Oh, and Lynn, I have to leave, but on the subject of the bible being 100% right, I leave you with a puzzle that you've yet to conquer:

Beetles �‚ four legs (in case that doesn't show, it's a sign that shows 'does not equal'). And no, I won't accept "the bible is always because it says so" as an answer.

[QUENTIN]

Originally posted by Lynn7
No comments about how in the world the Bible could have gotten things right thousands of years before facts were known to our great men of science who have gotten things wrong through the centuries (and have had to correct themeslves)? The Bible never has to correct itself.


What did it get right? That there are countless stars? Technically, that is not true, there is a certain number. Besides, I can look up at the sky and go "Wow, there are so many stars. It's like we could never know how many." That takes vision and common sense, no higher power, and it's not a prophecy or scientific indicator of anything. I've said more accurate and profound things while stoned. The Bible has prophecies like Nostradamus had prophecies. You can twist prophecies' language and stretch their meaning to make it fit any real world situation you want to, and anything that cannot be stretched and twisted, well that merely hasn't happened yet, but you just wait!


Originally posted by Lynn7
You read my statements and then interpret them and restate them as generalizations. Cut and paste my actual statements (in context) and then we will talk about how "racist" I am.


With pleasure. Your words, in this thread, in the context of me claiming you had a racist and illogical fear of French Muslims in other thread:

Originally posted by Lynn7

I do not have any Muslim friends but I do not have hatred toward the Muslims. But I would be lying if I said I didn't think that the Muslim religion is moving in quickly around the world and I do beleive if any of those groups gain power we will soon be forced to choose between the Mulsim religion and death as happnes in most of the other Mulsim countires. Of course there are good people who are Muslims. But they are afraid of those who have taken over the direction of the religion. Those will be the people who wield the power and the others will go along as they do now out of fear for their own lives. Remember Hitler? Why was his party able to dominate Germany and get away with the extermination of so many people? Because people were blind to the threat until it was too late and then there was nothing good people could do because the Nazis had all the power


You say you believe the Muslim religion is "moving in quickly", as if the world's second most popular religion's continual growth is a threat in and of itself. You say you believe that if groups of Muslims "gain power" then "we" will soon be forced to choose between conversion and death. You are making a generalization painting Muslims as murderers. That's very clear. You then caveat that, of course, there are "some" good Muslims, but then you generalize them as cowards. You say that the Muslims who are not murderers are afraid of the Muslims who have "taken over" Islam, also claiming that it is only the murderers who wield power in Islam. You then compare Islam and Muslims to Hitler and Nazis, drawing paralells and alluding to cowardly Muslims and others letting the only other group of Muslims according to your words, murderers, exterminate people.

So, in your words, in plain English, clear to see for all who are literate, you say Muslims are murderers who will force others to convert or die, and the other Muslims who are not this way are cowards to stand up to the murderers, and then directly compare them to the most atrocious group of people in modern history. Clear enough for you?

[The Postmaster General]

Dodging Points: The Best Argument Against Evolution

[Monotreme]

Originally posted by Lynn7
The bible was written by about 40 authors over about 1600 years and yet they all managed to form a cohesive whole with hundreds of prophecies fullfilled etc. Here are some interesting points about the Bible that show it is much more than some written pages that have lasted for thousands of years:
Cohesive whole? Have you even READ the bible? It's one of the most contradictory books ever written. From little trivial things, such as battles mentioned in one book are not mentioned in others, events mentioned in one chapter are not mentioned in others, conflicting opinions on the rightful place of God (some authors wrote with the opinion that God's true resting place is the Temple Mount, and so present in good light those kings who resented and destroyed service to God outside of Jerusalem's walls; in other books, these same kings were ridiculed and called violent tyrants for slaughtering innocent people - and the authors who wrote these chapters held the belief that God is everywhere and so it doesn't matter where you pray to him. Hell, you can just go back to Genesis to find a contradiction: In chapter 1, Earth is created in 6 days and Adam and Eve created last, both from God's own self. In chapter 2, Earth is created in 1 day, Adam is created first out of dust from the ground, then all the animals, plants, seas, etc... Eve is created last out of Adam's rib. Essentially, there are TWO creation stories, each contradicting the other. And you call this a cohesive whole?

[Squid Vicious]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Dodging Points: The Best Argument Against Evolution

http://www.algonet.se/~tourtel/hovind_seminar/kent_hovind.jpg

Indeed.

[Jon Lyrik]

Who the hell is that guy?

[Squid Vicious]

Originally posted by Jon Lyrik
Who the hell is that guy?

I think you're gonna be sorry that you asked.

Meet Kent Hovind. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind)

[Jon Lyrik]

Oh, I know Hovind. Just didn't recognize him.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by QUENTIN


With pleasure. Your words, in this thread, in the context of me claiming you had a racist and illogical fear of French Muslims in other thread:



You say you believe the Muslim religion is "moving in quickly", as if the world's second most popular religion's continual growth is a threat in and of itself. You say you believe that if groups of Muslims "gain power" then "we" will soon be forced to choose between conversion and death. You are making a generalization painting Muslims as murderers. That's very clear. You then caveat that, of course, there are "some" good Muslims, but then you generalize them as cowards. You say that the Muslims who are not murderers are afraid of the Muslims who have "taken over" Islam, also claiming that it is only the murderers who wield power in Islam. You then compare Islam and Muslims to Hitler and Nazis, drawing paralells and alluding to cowardly Muslims and others letting the only other group of Muslims according to your words, murderers, exterminate people.

So, in your words, in plain English, clear to see for all who are literate, you say Muslims are murderers who will force others to convert or die, and the other Muslims who are not this way are cowards to stand up to the murderers, and then directly compare them to the most atrocious group of people in modern history. Clear enough for you?

Yes- it's VERY clear- you restate what I say and then generalize. You use the word "some' in quotations and yet I did not say that that way so you restate what I say and then use quotations. What I said was "there are good Muslims". You say that I said that Muslims are cowards- where did I say that? I said "But they are afraid of those who have taken over the direction of the religion." That means they are COWARDS? Yeesh. And you don't think that any bad people who want to kill infidels have taken over the direction of the religion? I just will point out any newcast that will quote the actual words of the terrorist leaders. They want the entire world to be Muslim and they want to kill the infidels (people who are not Muslim). The Nazis, who I am comparing these people to, also wanted to exterminate people who did not fit in with their vision of the world and although they did not call these victims "infidels' they still exterminated them. Is this not a fact?

You also say (and I quote you): "you say Muslims are murderers who will force others to convert or die." I did not say "Muslims" are murderers. I guess it's ok to restate what another has said and then to generalize it. I dont' appreciate it.

So is this how you define racism? Again, you have an interesting way of reasoning things out. But of course there are many here on your side so you must feel confident that you are right on this.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Monotreme
Cohesive whole? Have you even READ the bible? It's one of the most contradictory books ever written. From little trivial things, such as battles mentioned in one book are not mentioned in others, events mentioned in one chapter are not mentioned in others, conflicting opinions on the rightful place of God (some authors wrote with the opinion that God's true resting place is the Temple Mount, and so present in good light those kings who resented and destroyed service to God outside of Jerusalem's walls; in other books, these same kings were ridiculed and called violent tyrants for slaughtering innocent people - and the authors who wrote these chapters held the belief that God is everywhere and so it doesn't matter where you pray to him. Hell, you can just go back to Genesis to find a contradiction: In chapter 1, Earth is created in 6 days and Adam and Eve created last, both from God's own self. In chapter 2, Earth is created in 1 day, Adam is created first out of dust from the ground, then all the animals, plants, seas, etc... Eve is created last out of Adam's rib. Essentially, there are TWO creation stories, each contradicting the other. And you call this a cohesive whole?

Yes, it is a cohesive whole. Why don't you put away the other books you read and just take the time to read the Bible through as it is written. I can tell by your post that you have not done this. You are too busy listening to others' interpretations. Do the reading of the pure word. Your life will never be the same.

[Jon Lyrik]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Yes, it is a cohesive whole. Why don't you put away the other books you read and just take the time to read the Bible through as it is written. I can tell by your post that you have not done this. You are too busy listening to others' interpretations. Do the reading of the pure word. Your life will never be the same.

Um...speaking as someone who has read the KJV Bible in its entirety, I can safely say my life wasn't changed at all, and overall, the tome bored me aside from the occasional pretty poem.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Yes, it is a cohesive whole. Why don't you put away the other books you read and just take the time to read the Bible through as it is written. I can tell by your post that you have not done this. You are too busy listening to others' interpretations. Do the reading of the pure word. Your life will never be the same.


Brilliant irony considering that she don't sound as if she's read *in-whole* any of Darwin's complete thoughts on Evolution. She's made more generalizations on Evolution than anyone has on Creationism. (ie. Evolution equals man coming from singled-celled creatures, natural selection exists separately with evolution, genetics and evolution are mutually exclusive)

[Monotreme]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Yes, it is a cohesive whole. Why don't you put away the other books you read and just take the time to read the Bible through as it is written. I can tell by your post that you have not done this. You are too busy listening to others' interpretations. Do the reading of the pure word. Your life will never be the same.
Actually, I have read the bible, at least the Old Testament. Obviously, my life is exactly the same, and if anything's changed, it's simply that I discovered that the Bible is a pretty boring book. I mean, the opening books with all the fantasy segments, especially Genesis, are pretty cool, but then it just becomes a really poorly written history book full of contradictions and lists and details that nobody cares about. The books of Samuel, Kings and all the Prophet books are pretty boring, although occasionally you get some cool characters, like Elijah or Jeremiah. My favourite book in the bible, though, is easily the Song of Songs. What beautiful poetry, it's really some of the best ever written, in my opinion. Book of Job is also pretty neat, concept-wise. And then it gets boring again with more historal facts and all sorts of stuff like that near the end - again, all contradictory to whatever was written in Samuel, Kings or Prophets, but who cares.

[MacReady]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Yes, it is a cohesive whole.

Prepare to die.

God good to all, or just a few?
PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.

JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

War or Peace?
EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who is the father of Joseph?
MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who was at the Empty Tomb? Is it:
MAT 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

MAR 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

JOH 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is Jesus equal to or lesser than?
JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.

JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which first--beasts or man?
GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The number of beasts in the ark
GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How many stalls and horsemen?
KI1 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.

CH2 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is it folly to be wise or not?
PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.

ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

1 Cor.1:19: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and wil bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Human vs. ghostly impregnation
ACT 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

MAT 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The sins of the father
ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The bat is not a bird
LEV 11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
LEV 11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
LEV 11:15 Every raven after his kind;
LEV 11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
LEV 11:17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
LEV 11:18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
LEV 11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

DEU 14:11 Of all clean birds ye shall eat.
DEU 14:12 But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
DEU 14:13 And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind,
DEU 14:14 And every raven after his kind,
DEU 14:15 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
DEU 14:16 The little owl, and the great owl, and the swan,
DEU 14:17 And the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the cormorant,
DEU 14:18 And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rabbits do not chew their cud
LEV 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

'Gerah', the term which appears in the MT means (chewed) cud, and also perhaps grain, or berry (also a 20th of a sheckel, but I think that we can agree that that is irrelevant here). It does *not* mean dung, and there is a perfectly adequate Hebrew word for that, which could have been used. Furthermore, the phrase translated 'chew the cud' in the KJV is more exactly 'bring up the cud'. Rabbits do not bring up anything; they let it go all the way through, then eat it again. The description given in Leviticus is inaccurate, and that's that. Rabbits do eat their own dung; they do not bring anything up and chew on it.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Insects do NOT have four feet
LEV 11:21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
LEV 11:22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
LEV 11:23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Snails do not melt
PSA 58:8 As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fowl from waters or ground?
GEN 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
GEN 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Odd genetic engineering
GEN 30:39 And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The shape of the earth
ISA 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

MAT 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

Astromical bodies are spherical, and you cannot see the entire exterior surface from anyplace. The kingdoms of Egypt, China, Greece, Crete, sections of Asia Minor, India, Maya (in Mexico), Carthage (North Africa), Rome (Italy), Korea, and other settlements from these kingdoms of the world were widely distributed.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Snakes, while built low, do not eat dirt
GEN 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Earth supported?
JOB 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

JOB 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

Heaven supported too
JOB 26:11 The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at his reproof.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The hydrological cycle
ECC 1:7 All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.

JOB 38:22 Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail,

Storehouses are not part of the cycle


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Order of creation
Here is the order in the first (Genesis 1), the Priestly tradition:

Day 1: Sky, Earth, light
Day 2: Water, both in ocean basins and above the sky(!)
Day 3: Plants
Day 4: Sun, Moon, stars (as calendrical and navigational aids)
Day 5: Sea monsters (whales), fish, birds, land animals, creepy-crawlies (reptiles, insects, etc.)
Day 6: Humans (apparently both sexes at the same time)
Day 7: Nothing (the Gods took the first day off anyone ever did)

Note that there are "days," "evenings," and "mornings" before the Sun was created. Here, the Deity is referred to as "Elohim," which is a plural, thus the literal translation, "the Gods." In this tale, the Gods seem satisfied with what they have done, saying after each step that "it was good."

The second one (Genesis 2), the Yahwist tradition, goes:

Earth and heavens (misty)
Adam, the first man (on a desolate Earth)
Plants
Animals
Eve, the first woman (from Adam's rib)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How orderly were things created?
#1: Step-by-step. The only discrepancy is that there is no Sun or Moon or stars on the first three "days."
#2: God fixes things up as he goes. The first man is lonely, and is not satisfied with animals. God finally creates a woman for him. (funny thing that an omniscient god would forget things)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How satisfied with creation was he?
#1: God says "it was good" after each of his labors, and rests on the seventh day, evidently very satisfied.
#2: God has to fix up his creation as he goes, and he would certainly not be very satisfied with the disobedience of that primordial couple. (funny thing that an omniscient god would forget things)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Moses' personality
Num.12:3: "Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the fact of the earth."

Num.31:14, 17, 18: "And Moses was wroth...And Moses said unto them, "Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman, ... But all the women children ... keep alive for yourselves."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Righteous live?
Ps.92:12: "The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree."

Isa.57:1: "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Acts 1:18: "Now this man (Judas) purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out."

Matt. 27:5-7: "And he (Judas) cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests...bought with them the potter's field."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jesus' first sermon plain or mount?
Matt.5:1,2: "And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying...."
Luke6:17,20: "And he came down with them, and stood in the plain, and the company of his disciples, and a great multitude of people...came to hear him.. And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples and said..."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jesus' last words
Matt.27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."

Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

John19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Years of famine
II SAMUEL 24:13: So God came to David, and told him, and said unto him, shall SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE come unto thee in thy land? or will thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue. thee?

I CHRONICLES 21:11: SO God came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee. Either THREE YEARS OF FAMINE or three months to be destryed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee;


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Moved David to anger?
II SAMUEL 24: And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Isreal and Judah.

I CHRONICLES 21: And SATAN stood up against Isreal, and provoked David to number Israel.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The GENEALOGY OF JESUS?
In two places in the New Testament the genealogy of Jesus son of Mary is mentioned. Matthew 1:6-16 and Luke 3:23-31. Each gives the ancestors of Joseph the CLAIMED husband of Mary and Step father of Jesus. The first one starts from Abraham(verse 2) all the way down to Jesus. The second one from Jesus all the way back to Adam. The only common name to these two lists between David and Jesus is JOSEPH, How can this be true? and also How can Jesus have a genealogy when all Muslims and most Christians believe that Jesus had/has no father.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

God be seen?
Exod. 24:9,10; Amos 9:1; Gen. 26:2; and John 14:9
God CAN be seen:
"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (Ex. 33:23)
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (Ex. 33:11)
"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (Gen. 32:30)

God CANNOT be seen:
"No man hath seen God at any time." (John 1:18)
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live." (Ex. 33:20)
"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1 Tim. 6:16)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CRUEL, UNMERCIFUL, DESTRUCTIVE, and FEROCIOUS or KIND, MERCIFUL, and GOOD:
"I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy." (Jer. 13:14) "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling."

"The Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy." (James 5:11)
"For his mercy endureth forever." (1 Chron. 16:34)
"The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works." (Ps. 145:9)
"God is love." (1 John 4:16)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tempts?
"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham." (Gen 22:1)

"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." (James 1:13)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Judas died how?
"And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself." (Matt. 27:5)

"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out." (Acts 1:18)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ascend to heaven
"And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." (2 Kings 2:11)

"No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, ... the Son of Man." (John 3:13)

Holy shit, I can't post anymore but that's only half of what I originally found. Naturally it would be insane to expect to refute it all, but I'm curious as to how she'll continue to insist the bible is totally cohesive and the absolute word of god (who apparently can create the universe but not keep his stories straight).

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Monotreme
Actually, I have read the bible, at least the Old Testament. Obviously, my life is exactly the same, and if anything's changed, it's simply that I discovered that the Bible is a pretty boring book. I mean, the opening books with all the fantasy segments, especially Genesis, are pretty cool, but then it just becomes a really poorly written history book full of contradictions and lists and details that nobody cares about. The books of Samuel, Kings and all the Prophet books are pretty boring, although occasionally you get some cool characters, like Elijah or Jeremiah. My favourite book in the bible, though, is easily the Song of Songs. What beautiful poetry, it's really some of the best ever written, in my opinion. Book of Job is also pretty neat, concept-wise. And then it gets boring again with more historal facts and all sorts of stuff like that near the end - again, all contradictory to whatever was written in Samuel, Kings or Prophets, but who cares.

So do you beleive in God?

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Jon Lyrik
Um...speaking as someone who has read the KJV Bible in its entirety, I can safely say my life wasn't changed at all, and overall, the tome bored me aside from the occasional pretty poem.

The problem is that you read the KJV, lol. Why did you read the bible in its entirety? Maybe it would be boring if a person did not beleive it was from God. I read it as the word of God and it is a powerful book when read in that way. I can never read it without coming away deeply moved.

For thousands of years people around the world have read the bible with wonder and have felt its power but it seems that a few of you here have found nothing great about it and I guess that explains why you guys feel the way you do about the issues of the day. There is simply no depth to life in the way it is percieved by many these days. The answers to life are to be found in Darwin's writings- a man who took a trip and came up with some thoughts about nature. Amazing!

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by MacReady
Prepare to die.



Holy shit, I can't post anymore but that's only half of what I originally found. Naturally it would be insane to expect to refute it all, but I'm curious as to how she'll continue to insist the bible is totally cohesive and the absolute word of god (who apparently can create the universe but not keep his stories straight).

Wow, MacReady- I have never heard any of these contradictions before! My faith is totally shattered! Just kidding! These things are posted all over the internet and there are answers to all of these things. When you study the bible instead of taking things out of context or failing to take things like language into consideration things can be corrupted. I will address one of these issues from a Christian site that is also found on the internet that answers these very original claims against the bible.

2 Kings 2:11 And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.
John 3:13 "No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, ... the Son of Man."

Some skeptics charge Jesus with missing out on Elijah being first to "ascend into heaven" but the solution is the same as it is today: The Hebrew word translated "heaven" in the first verse. shamiyim, simply means the sky, as "heavens" does metaphorically today. The "heavens" were also regarded as the abode of God, but at the time of 2 Kings there was as yet no conception of "Heaven" with a capital H as the special abode of God shared with His people.

The Greek word in the second verse, ouranos, can also mean the sky, but it is also used in the sense of God's realm (as in, the "Kingdom of Heaven" [ouranos]. Note John 3:27 "John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven." The word carries theological freight that shamiyim does not. Therefore, there is no conflict in these verses, for 2 Kings merely asserts where Elijah went physically and carries no theological overtones.

__________________________________________________ ___

There are actually eight rules of intepretation that are not only used by Christians, but also "used by legal experts for more than 2500 years."

Eight Rules of Interpretation

Rule of Definition.
Define the term or words being considered and then adhere to the defined meanings.

Rule of Usage.
Don't add meaning to established words and terms. What was the common usage in the cultural and time period when the passage was written?

Rule of Context.
Avoid using words out of context. Context must define terms and how words are used.

Rule of Historical background.
Don't separate interpretation and historical investigation.

Rule of Logic.
Be certain that words as interpreted agree with the overall premise.

Rule of Precedent.
Use the known and commonly accepted meanings of words, not obscure meanings for which their is no precedent.

Rule of Unity.
Even though many documents may be used there must be a general unity among them.

Rule of Inference.
Base conclusions on what is already known and proven or can be reasonably implied from all known facts.
__________________________________________________ ___



People have studied and discussed all of these issues and more for thousands of years. There are many atheists who have come to beleive in God after undertaking studies of the bible. They realize that there are answers to these questions and it all makes sense. The great writer and thinker C.S Lewis was one of these atheistic converts.

[Monotreme]

Originally posted by Lynn7
So do you beleive in God?
Irrelevant, but just for the sake of conversation: I believe in science and logic. I wouldn't go as far as saying that I'm an atheist, since there isn't any solid proof that God DOESN'T exist, but I will say that I am an agnostic. But I do not believe in God, and he has no part in my life. I don't see what difference it makes, though.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Lynn7
The problem is that you read the KJV, lol. Why did you read the bible in its entirety? Maybe it would be boring if a person did not beleive it was from God. I read it as the word of God and it is a powerful book when read in that way. I can never read it without coming away deeply moved.

For thousands of years people around the world have read the bible with wonder and have felt its power but it seems that a few of you here have found nothing great about it and I guess that explains why you guys feel the way you do about the issues of the day. There is simply no depth to life in the way it is percieved by many these days. The answers to life are to be found in Darwin's writings- a man who took a trip and came up with some thoughts about nature. Amazing!


Look everything about the Bible makes sense to you because you're starting with your Faith and working backwards from it.

Of course it makes perfect sense, because like anyone who starts from a preferred beliefe first, you'll go back and work it so that it all becomes cohesive in YOUR INDIVIDUAL MIND.

And for thousandas of years people have believed in a God and the value of life has not changed. People who believe in God kill others in his name, murder children, taken people into slavery and justify and started wars it because its written in the Bible, or they've worked it so they can use teh Bible to JUSTIFY it.

As far as I know, no one has killed another person based on the writings of Darwin.

You cannot broadly prescribe the Bible as the cure to all the world's ills when the world has already used it to inflict part of those ills. Faith is personal, not everyone succombs to it at the same time. You didn't fall into it when you were young, as you have stated, so why are you trying to ply it onto those who are obviously not at a point (or may never be) in their lives to accept it?

[MacReady]

Lynn, the folks I got those quote from also made a back-up attack for those who would try to disproove their quotes:

Of the various methods I've seen to "explain" these:
1. "That is to be taken metaphorically" In other words, what is written is not what is meant. I find this entertaining, especially for those who decide what ISN'T to be taken as other than the absolute WORD OF GOD--which just happens to agree with the particular thing they happen to want...

2. "There was more there than...." This is used when one verse says "there was a" and another says "there was b," so they decide there was "a" AND "b"--which is said nowhere. This makes them happy, since it doesn't say there WASN'T "a+b." But it doesn't say there was "a+b+litle green martians." This is often the same crowd that insists theirs is the ONLY possible interpretation (i.e. only "a") and the only way. I find it entertaining they they don't mind adding to verses.

3. "It has to be understood in context" I find this amusing because it comes from the same crowd that likes to push likewise extracted verses that support their particular view. Often it is just one of the verses in the contradictory set is suppose to be taken as THE TRUTH when if you add more to it it suddenly becomes "out of context." How many of you have goten JUST John 3:16 (taken out of all context) thrown up at you?

4. "there was just a copying/writing error" This is sometimes called a "transcription error," as in where one number was meant and an incorrect one was copied down. Or that what was "quoted" wasn't really what was said, but just what the author thought was said when he thought it was said. And that's right--I'm not disagreeing with events, I'm disagreeing with what is WRITTEN. Which is apparently agreed that it is incorrect. This is an amusing misdirection to the problem that the bible itself is wrong.

5. "That is a miracle." Naturally. That is why it is stated as fact.

6. "God works in mysterious ways" A useful dodge when the speaker doesn't understand the conflict between what the bible SAYS and what they WISH it said.

I mean, first of all, there's like a billion other quotes I'd like to see you debunk (I could pick just five if you wanted). Even your answer suggests that the bible is poorly translated and in that respect it's status as the 'true word of god' is suspect.

[darchangel]

Lynn, I posted an explanation (with sources) to counter your disbelief in evolution...why no response?




~darchangel~

[Criminal Rock]

Probably because she has to post to 10 onther people... but that's just me :D.

[darchangel]

Originally posted by Tai Mai Jew
Probably because she has to post to 10 onther people... but that's just me :D.


Well I can't help that...I'm gone for three freaking days and this thread turns into the JoBlo.com Crusades.

However, I would like to hear Lynn's explanation of why there's no response.




~darchangel~

[outsyder]

I'm betting that everyone will come away from this thread with the same opinions they had going into it. Like every other Internet thread.

[someguy]

outsyder's stocking up on the captain obvious posts today

[Vong]

He excels at it.

[outsyder]

Originally posted by someguy
outsyder's stocking up on the captain obvious posts today

At least they aren't the "Comment pointing out how obvious an obvious comment is" post.

As long as I'm being right today.

[someguy]

My posts are only necessary to show how unnecessary your posts are.

[outsyder]

Originally posted by someguy
My posts are only necessary to show how unnecessary your posts are.


If my post is unnecessary, then anything commenting on it certainly isn't necessary.

[someguy]

I'm imagining this situation in other contexts, like the Miami Vice thread in current movie talk

"Miami Vice is a movie"
"thank you captain obvious for that unnecessary post"
"psh, at least I'm saying something right"

[outsyder]

Originally posted by someguy
I'm imagining this situation in other contexts, like the Miami Vice thread in current movie talk

"Miami Vice is a movie"
"thank you captain obvious for that unnecessary post"
"psh, at least I'm saying something right"


Or . . . .


"Global warming is a serious issue affecting the planet."
"What an obvious statement."
"My point may have been obvious, but it's not as pointless as the followup post pointing out the original post's redundancy."

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by outsyder
I'm betting that everyone will come away from this thread with the same opinions they had going into it. Like every other Internet thread.


I'm pretty open to discussion, but like darchangel, am wondering why our civil responses are being ignored in lieu of dramatic exclamations.

Obviously it's because I'm a Miami Vice fan, and Lynn likes to snub people like us, making us feel inferior. If this was a Miami Vice forum, and there was one non-Vice fan, you wouldn't see us all snubbing their comments.

[Monotreme]

Originally posted by electriclite
As far as I know, no one has killed another person based on the writings of Darwin.
Actually... this guy did:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/00/Hitler-triumph.JPG

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by darchangel
First of all, you claim that everybody's taking shots at your expense, yet you call Quentin's posts 'snotty.' That's all I'll say about it...I'm sure Quentin can take care of himself.

About the single celled organisms and their changes, cells don't have to reproduce to share genetic material.

"Sex is the transfer of genes from one cell to another and in microorganisms this often occurs without cell division, so that there is no reproduction
Bacteria can transfer genetic material through projections called pili"

http://members.aol.com/BearFlag45/Biology1A/LectureNotes/lec14.html (http://)

This could explain the transfer from asexual to sexual reproduction...also, here's an article that explains that prokaryotes (believed to be the first single-celled organisms in existence) can sometimes join into colonies (while they can still be free existing cells), which could explain their ability to continue the evolution process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prokaryote#Evolution_of_prokaryotes (http://)

I would also like to take this opportunity to point out that bacteria/viruses that exist now are still simple cell construction organisms and they adapt and evolve to beat medications used to treat them...I don't think it's that much of a stretch that a cell colony either mutated in the reproduction process and built upon that mutation or over time collectively found a better way to reproduce (through meiosis).



~darchangel~

I didn't respond to this because I had gone into this in a previous thread just a few months ago with Bubba. I also am not sure you wiIl read it or that I would be eloquent enough to make myself understood.

I understand that cells can reproduce and exchange genetic material. My problem is how does a cell change over millions of years into a human being? It would mean that a cell would have to change into a multiple celled organism and then on and on to become a bigger and more sophisticated organism. At one point, If an organism would actually be able to evolve into a more sophisticated organism without dying first, this organism has to split into male and female.

We can start with the premise that this organism has evolved into a hermaphrodite but say that it creates another hermaphrodite- how does it split? Evolutionary changes do not happen fast enough to be able for two organisms to continue to develop into a male and female. They would die off before they would ever be able to make the change. So one might answer that there would be other similar hermaphrodites that would continue to develop as weach organism dies off. But other hermaphrodite organisms that might have been reproduced off the original hermaphrodite would not continue to develop in the same way. To make progress in an evolutionary way it would require some sort of intelligence to make any cells evolve into a higher life form, to know what changes it would need to make to differentiate cells to get to a particular goal. An eye would need cornea, retina, rods cones, conjunctiva etc and then all be connected to a brain to pull it all together.

As I've said before (using the male/female argument) how would an organism know it would need a penis that would correspond to another organism's vagina? Once the hermaphrodite had split it would not have anyway of knowing how the other organism was developing and what would be needed to reproduce with it. In the female you have ovaries, fallopian tubes, eggs that need to travel down the tubes in a specific way and which need a bunch of sperm in a male prganism that would have to meet said egg at a particular time in a particular milieu. The sperm of the other organism would have to know that they would have to swim to meet the egg and also how to enter the egg. I don't understand how any of that could ever happen. It does not make any sense to me. Our life spans are short and then the organisms would die off and then new organisms would have to know how to keep developing in a specific way. They would have to start over again evolving. There has to be intelligence involved. There has to be an overseeing intelliegence involved. There has to be a god involved to make any of this work.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I understand that cells can reproduce and exchange genetic material. My problem is how does a cell change over millions of years into a human being?


You are arguing against one theory based on Darwin's theory.

It would be like me saying Christianity is bogus because I found some stuff in The Book of Mormon that didn't jive.

You said so yourself - what the finches did was a process of natural selection.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Monotreme
Actually... this guy did:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/00/Hitler-triumph.JPG

Touche.


He's also another example of someone who started from a preferred belief (Anti-Semitism, and/or "The Crazies") and worked his way backward to make everything jive with it.

[darchangel]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I understand that cells can reproduce and exchange genetic material. My problem is how does a cell change over millions of years into a human being? It would mean that a cell would have to change into a multiple celled organism and then on and on to become a bigger and more sophisticated organism. At one point, If an organism would actually be able to evolve into a more sophisticated organism without dying first, this organism has to split into male and female.

We can start with the premise that this organism has evolved into a hermaphrodite but say that it creates another hermaphrodite- how does it split? Evolutionary changes do not happen fast enough to be able for two organisms to continue to develop into a male and female. They would die off before they would ever be able to make the change. So one might answer that there would be other similar hermaphrodites that would continue to develop as weach organism dies off. But other hermaphrodite organisms that might have been reproduced off the original hermaphrodite would not continue to develop in the same way. To make progress in an evolutionary way it would require some sort of intelligence to make any cells evolve into a higher life form, to know what changes it would need to make to differentiate cells to get to a particular goal. An eye would need cornea, retina, rods cones, conjunctiva etc and then all be connected to a brain to pull it all together.

As I've said before (using the male/female argument) how would an organism know it would need a penis that would correspond to another organism's vagina? Once the hermaphrodite had split it would not have anyway of knowing how the other organism was developing and what would be needed to reproduce with it. In the female you have ovaries, fallopian tubes, eggs that need to travel down the tubes in a specific way and which need a bunch of sperm in a male prganism that would have to meet said egg at a particular time in a particular milieu. The sperm of the other organism would have to know that they would have to swim to meet the egg and also how to enter the egg. I don't understand how any of that could ever happen. It does not make any sense to me. Our life spans are short and then the organisms would die off and then new organisms would have to know how to keep developing in a specific way. They would have to start over again evolving. There has to be intelligence involved. There has to be an overseeing intelliegence involved. There has to be a god involved to make any of this work.

The problem with this argument is that you're missing that the whole reason for evolution is for organisms to find better, more efficient ways of doing things.

In the article about colonies I posted, why would prokaryotes find the need to suddenly attach to each other in colonies? Because it is more beneficial to them, and helps them to become more efficient in their existence. It's the same principle as what you're saying with male/female parts.

Let's suppose that the first organisms were hermaphroditic (which I'm sure they were). Hermaphroditic breeding is not a very efficient means of reproduction (as far as I know, the only complex creatures that still exist through hermaphroditic reproduction are earthworms). If prokaryotes have already shown a tendency to bond to each other for the sake of efficient survival, isn't it plausible that these early multi-celled creatures began to slowly genetically alter because of their need for efficient survival?

You say that they couldn't exist because of they wouldn't develop fast enough to keep the species alive. But if the species developed as a whole there would be no need for genetic 'catching up'. They would all begin to develop together...and if they are still living in joined colonies at this point, it would make sense that the collective colony would produce the same mutations in their offspring because they function as a whole.

Hope this helps.


~darchangel~

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Lynn7

I understand that cells can reproduce and exchange genetic material. My problem is how does a cell change over millions of years into a human being? It would mean that a cell would have to change into a multiple celled organism and then on and on to become a bigger and more sophisticated organism. At one point, If an organism would actually be able to evolve into a more sophisticated organism without dying first, this organism has to split into male and female.

We can start with the premise that this organism has evolved into a hermaphrodite but say that it creates another hermaphrodite- how does it split? Evolutionary changes do not happen fast enough to be able for two organisms to continue to develop into a male and female. They would die off before they would ever be able to make the change. So one might answer that there would be other similar hermaphrodites that would continue to develop as weach organism dies off. But other hermaphrodite organisms that might have been reproduced off the original hermaphrodite would not continue to develop in the same way. To make progress in an evolutionary way it would require some sort of intelligence to make any cells evolve into a higher life form, to know what changes it would need to make to differentiate cells to get to a particular goal. An eye would need cornea, retina, rods cones, conjunctiva etc and then all be connected to a brain to pull it all together.

As I've said before (using the male/female argument) how would an organism know it would need a penis that would correspond to another organism's vagina? Once the hermaphrodite had split it would not have anyway of knowing how the other organism was developing and what would be needed to reproduce with it. In the female you have ovaries, fallopian tubes, eggs that need to travel down the tubes in a specific way and which need a bunch of sperm in a male prganism that would have to meet said egg at a particular time in a particular milieu. The sperm of the other organism would have to know that they would have to swim to meet the egg and also how to enter the egg. I don't understand how any of that could ever happen. It does not make any sense to me. Our life spans are short and then the organisms would die off and then new organisms would have to know how to keep developing in a specific way. They would have to start over again evolving. There has to be intelligence involved. There has to be an overseeing intelliegence involved. There has to be a god involved to make any of this work.


See here's where I really get confused.

We've already had the discussion before about those whoe believe that God uses evolution as his tool for creating life on earth.

But then you say you don't believe that because you believe that this belief makes God weak in some way. That those who believe that idea probably have weak faith (and don't go any farther into that or you will not only have science out to get you but other Christians as well). But in those last three sentences you're saying just that!

So which is it? God is David Copperfield or God is the Immensely Patient Bio-Engineer?

[QUENTIN]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Yes- it's VERY clear- you restate what I say and then generalize. You use the word "some' in quotations and yet I did not say that that way so you restate what I say and then use quotations. What I said was "there are good Muslims". You say that I said that Muslims are cowards- where did I say that? I said "But they are afraid of those who have taken over the direction of the religion." That means they are COWARDS? Yeesh. And you don't think that any bad people who want to kill infidels have taken over the direction of the religion? I just will point out any newcast that will quote the actual words of the terrorist leaders. They want the entire world to be Muslim and they want to kill the infidels (people who are not Muslim). The Nazis, who I am comparing these people to, also wanted to exterminate people who did not fit in with their vision of the world and although they did not call these victims "infidels' they still exterminated them. Is this not a fact?

You also say (and I quote you): "you say Muslims are murderers who will force others to convert or die." I did not say "Muslims" are murderers. I guess it's ok to restate what another has said and then to generalize it. I dont' appreciate it.

So is this how you define racism? Again, you have an interesting way of reasoning things out. But of course there are many here on your side so you must feel confident that you are right on this.

Really? That's your argument? Okay, rather than discussing the merit or the points of the things you said, you've decided to construct your argument completely around semantics. As such, you force me to enter into this argument in the same way, with the help of my trusty friend the dictionary. I'll go through this "point" by "point".


Originally posted by Lynn7
Yes- it's VERY clear- you restate what I say and then generalize. You use the word "some' in quotations and yet I did not say that that way so you restate what I say and then use quotations. What I said was "there are good Muslims".

The basis of your argument here is that I inserted the word "some" as an expression of the fact that your statement of "there are good muslims" was a caveat to your point about them killing us if we don't convert. But some just doesn't do anything to change the meaning of what you or I said.

From the Webster's English dictionary:

some (adj)

1. Being an unspecified number or quantity.
2. Being a portion or an unspecified number or quantity of a whole or group.
3. Being a considerable number or quantity.

So you said "I would be lying if I said I didn't think that the Muslim religion is moving in quickly around the world and I do beleive if any of those groups gain power we will soon be forced to choose between the Mulsim religion and death as happnes in most of the other Mulsim countires. Of course there are good people who are Muslims" and took real objection to the fact that I interjected the word "some". But since "some" means from anywhere between all but one Muslim to only one Muslim, it doesn't change what you said at all. It is an unnecesary word even, if I remove it, the meaning is the same. And that meaning is that you're painting most Muslims as people who will kill "us" if "we" don't convert, but that there are others who are good. These good Muslims you paint as cowards though, and we'll get to that in a sec...

Originally posted by Lynn7

You say that I said that Muslims are cowards- where did I say that? I said "But they are afraid of those who have taken over the direction of the religion." That means they are COWARDS? Yeesh.

Again I'll have to consult the dictionary to prove your point completely invalid:

Coward (n.)
1. One who shows ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain.
2. A person who shows fear or timidity

So yes, when you paint a group of Muslims as having taken over the direction of the religion, that direction being to take over the world and convert everyone or kill them, and then the good Muslims are afraid of them...they are by definition cowards. In other words, yes, what you said means they are COWARDS. Go yeesh yourself.


Originally posted by Lynn7
And you don't think that any bad people who want to kill infidels have taken over the direction of the religion? I just will point out any newcast that will quote the actual words of the terrorist leaders.

No, not at all. Are there bad people who are Muslims and are in roles of power? Yup, sure are. This is true of all religions, political idealogies, etc. I think it is patently ridiculous to claim that a religion which boasts 1.4 billion people and comprises 20% of the world's population (more of them in Indonesia than anywhere else) has a singular direction. You enter into racist, or at the very least extremely ignorant, territory here by the simple implication that it is terrorists who have taken over the "direction of the religion".

Originally posted by Lynn7
They want the entire world to be Muslim and they want to kill the infidels (people who are not Muslim)..

"They" do Lynn? I don't actually think any major person believes this (most Muslims, even terrorists, simply want to be left alone and have land they believe is theirs remain sacred. I'm not agreeing with the method of certain Muslims whom I consider terrorists, but just painting them as foaming-at-the-mouth monsters who hate America for no more reason than we're not a Muslim country is retarded), but who does this refer to? Hopefully not the Muslim populace, that would paint them as murderers. Oh but wait, you already did without an ounce of ambiguity earlier.

Originally posted by Lynn7
The Nazis, who I am comparing these people to, also wanted to exterminate people who did not fit in with their vision of the world and although they did not call these victims "infidels' they still exterminated them. Is this not a fact?

Again Lynn, "these people", you're using the common vernacular of the bigoted. And you tried to complain how it is a tactic to cry racism to invalidate someone's point, how about comparing those you hate to Nazis? Liberals do it to conservatives more than any other group, so you should be familiar with it. You're comparing the world Muslim population to Nazi Germany, claiming the so-called "leaders of the religion" wish to exterminate the rest of the world, and that the Muslims who disagree with them are cowards, afraid to stand up to the violent murderers. THIS IS RACIST!


Originally posted by Lynn7

You also say (and I quote you): "you say Muslims are murderers who will force others to convert or die." I did not say "Muslims" are murderers. I guess it's ok to restate what another has said and then to generalize it. I dont' appreciate it.

I don't appreciate your bullshit Lynn. I searched long and hard for another word to describe what you're doing, but finally realized any other word would be disingenuous. You're playing a coy little semantic game, and doing it poorly at that. You said: " I would be lying if I said I didn't think that the Muslim religion is moving in quickly around the world and I do beleive if any of those groups gain power we will soon be forced to choose between the Mulsim religion and death as happnes in most of the other Mulsim countires." To imply that statement is not saying Muslims are murderers is to imply it would be someone other than Muslims killing "us" for not converting to Islam. Is that what you're trying to say now Lynn? If so, I don't believe you. If not, you're calling Muslims murderers. Cut the bullshit.

Originally posted by Lynn7

So is this how you define racism? Again, you have an interesting way of reasoning things out.

You seem to have a lot of trouble defining a lot of things Lynn, but no worries, I'm helping you out here. Since I've gone and defined everything else you invalidly tried to throw my way as a defense, not of your comments, but of my straight-forward and literal interpretation of them (and I thought you based your life on literal interpretations?), I'll go ahead and define racism again: racism is when you make a generalization about a group of people based on their ethnic group, race, or religion, especially if that generalization is negative. And as I said previously and have now shown (the obvious) three times, you've done that repeatedly. I won't even venture into the way you reason things out, as this has gotten heated enough as is.

Originally posted by Lynn7

But of course there are many here on your side so you must feel confident that you are right on this.

Nope, I'm confident that I'm right on this because I'm right on this. Because you have clearly said indefensibly racist things about Muslims on this board. The opinion of the rest of the board is irrelevant.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

What amazes me is, despite all of this clear and well-supported evidence that's absolutely indisputable, people will still refuse to believe it just because it contradicts their religious/political beliefs. Big deal if it does, it doesn't mean you can't continue being a conservative or a christian, it just means that one tiny thing you don't support is right.

Honestly, gather a group of 1,000 scientists who have no preexisting biases, put them together, and see what they think about evolution. They will all say that it is indeed a proven fact, and not just a theory.

Same goes for global warming. The only scientists who actually disagree with it are scientists who are biased on the whole issue and purposely perform junk studies to claim their point, and eventually land a job at the White House.

Now, not to bully Lynn more, since she is being treated kinda unfairly, but this is exactly what's going on with people with this mindset. Even though we clearly have what is an evolving species, it still won't click with some people. The difference between natural selection and evolution is a thin red line. The reason the finches did evolve is because their beaks were able to get different kinds of seeds. When there was a drought, it was the ultimate test of survival. The ones with the larger beaks had a difficult time getting seeds, so they died out and now we have the shorter-beaked finches. See, Lynn, you cannot dispute this. Quote Genesis as much as you won't, but it isn't going to fly here. This is a solid, scientifically proven FACT and you have got to stop dancing around the issues by repeatedly stating your beliefs and provide us with some solid EVIDENCE that proves otherwise.


Now, though you may disagree with evolution, you and your Christian "scientist" friends cannot dispute one thing: and that's the world is 4 billion years old, not 4 thousand like most of you claim. 4 billion is an unbearably long amount of time. If it only took a few years for these finches to evolve, imagine every single other scenario in our world history. Apes evolving into humans not only seems reasonable, it's highly probable.

That's my take on it.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by darchangel
The problem with this argument is that you're missing that the whole reason for evolution is for organisms to find better, more efficient ways of doing things.

In the article about colonies I posted, why would prokaryotes find the need to suddenly attach to each other in colonies? Because it is more beneficial to them, and helps them to become more efficient in their existence. It's the same principle as what you're saying with male/female parts.

Let's suppose that the first organisms were hermaphroditic (which I'm sure they were). Hermaphroditic breeding is not a very efficient means of reproduction (as far as I know, the only complex creatures that still exist through hermaphroditic reproduction are earthworms). If prokaryotes have already shown a tendency to bond to each other for the sake of efficient survival, isn't it plausible that these early multi-celled creatures began to slowly genetically alter because of their need for efficient survival?

You say that they couldn't exist because of they wouldn't develop fast enough to keep the species alive. But if the species developed as a whole there would be no need for genetic 'catching up'. They would all begin to develop together...and if they are still living in joined colonies at this point, it would make sense that the collective colony would produce the same mutations in their offspring because they function as a whole.

Hope this helps.


~darchangel~

So you have two bodies who have successfully separated and they need to find a way to reproduce that would involve the specific male organs and the specifice femael organs. How do they know what they have to do to get to where they need to be? In female bodies right now, are the cells adjusting to changes in the males' bodies? How in the world could they know what to do? What is developing in Jane's body and what is developing in Jim's body? And where does this intellignece come from that can determine what needs to be done? Is it something that was inherent in that very first cell that supposedly evolved? And then that one-celled designing genius knew to evolve into the extremely sophisticated and complex bodies that we have today? Nope. Im not buying any of it.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by electriclite
See here's where I really get confused.

We've already had the discussion before about those whoe believe that God uses evolution as his tool for creating life on earth.

But then you say you don't believe that because you believe that this belief makes God weak in some way. That those who believe that idea probably have weak faith (and don't go any farther into that or you will not only have science out to get you but other Christians as well). But in those last three sentences you're saying just that!

So which is it? God is David Copperfield or God is the Immensely Patient Bio-Engineer?

What I was trying to say is that I don't see how anyone could beleive in evolustion unless a god was involved in the design and implementation. But I happen to beleive that the God that I believe in has had a book written through His inspiration to men that tells of how He created the universe. I choose to believe the way that He has written. I dont beleive in evolution at all. To me it makes no sense and then it also does not jive with the Bible's account. I tested the Christian faith before I decided to live the life. I thought about these issues a lot before I made my decision. Christianity at some point has to be about making a decision. I suppose some people might accept the faith based on feeling alone but that is not how my mind operates.

[darchangel]

Originally posted by Lynn7
So you have two bodies who have successfully separated and they need to find a way to reproduce that would involve the specific male organs and the specifice femael organs. How do they know what they have to do to get to where they need to be? In female bodies right now, are the cells adjusting to changes in the males' bodies? How in the world could they know what to do? What is developing in Jane's body and what is developing in Jim's body? And where does this intellignece come from that can determine what needs to be done? Is it something that was inherent in that very first cell that supposedly evolved? And then that one-celled designing genius knew to evolve into the extremely sophisticated and complex bodies that we have today? Nope. Im not buying any of it.

Lynn, you really need to stop looking at this in terms of human males and females...you've got to keep in mind that this started from the smallest of the small in terms of organisms and took eons to get where it is now. And yes, I suspect that even as we sit here, the human race is very slowly adapting to become more efficient at surviving, which is the whole point of evolution.

Yes, I do believe that the trait of evolving for the sake of survival is inherent from the beginning...we see it in virtually all lower-class animals; even humans have the most basic need to survive, as is seen in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Why is it so hard for you to believe that the primary need of single-celled organisms was to continue surviving? It's the same with mother animals that will fight to the death to protect their children: they have an instinct to protect their young, therefore furthering their existence as a species. If you don't believe that evolution exists, then where do you think these survivalist instincts come from in virutally all life forms?


~darchangel~

[Lynn7]

Quentin. the word some was used to convey a negative connotation about what I said. Whatever. You think I am a racist. I say the word racist has been abused to the point that it no longer has any meaning. I am friendly to everyone I meet. I have taught my kids to be nice to everyone even if they do not have the same religion or politics as they do. I have never hurt anyone. I would never treat a minority in an unkind way. As I have said before, If I was on a mostly conservative bulletin board and there was a lone liberal I would never be unkind to that person. I would never be unkind to a Muslim.

My own kids are descended from the Middle East. They are part Lebanese and part Syrian, with two other ethnicities mixed in but their grandmother was born and raises in Lebanon and they have an aunt who is there right now in Beirut. Their own grandfather was Syrian, born in Turkey but raised in Syria until the time he came over to the US as an older teen. Now, here is a man who hated the Muslims. One time my sister-in-law had made a Muslim friend and he just about spit poison darts. He was a Christian but I guess his parents had been killed by Muslims.

I have admired many people who are Muslims. I see people like the king of Jordan and other people in Iraq for instance who I really have a heart for. I have never had a Muslim friend. It is not that I have not chosen to associate with them but they tend to keep to themselves, at least here in this part of Massachusetts.

So, I watch the TV and I hear many Muslims chanting death to Israel and death to the US and I do not hear any of the counter protests coming out against this sentiment of death to the people of two countires. Teh regular people, when interviewed are coming out in support of Hezbollah. Do the non-protesting Muslims agree that we should all die or are they to afraid to speak up in our defense? And these silent Muslims do have power whether they choose to speak or not. When I hear a a man on Tv concerned that there are 6 million Muslims living in France, it concerns me because although I know that there are a minority of Muslims who are terrorists, I also know that when it comes right down to it, a Muslim will always vote for another Muslim before they would for any infidel. Why? It is part of their religion to support each other.

If you define my concern as racism then that is fine but does racism mean that you can never consider that a group of people may choose to stick together and act in a certain way? I know that Christians will stick together. My own people the Greeks and the Irish will stick together. Italians will stick together and so on. It is a fact that people find comfort in belonging to groups that are like themselves. Why do all of the Puerto Ricans who have immigrated to Mass choose to live inthe same neighborhoods? Why do the Vietnamese do the same? And the Russian immigrants do the same. Returning again to the Greeks, although they might not still live in the same neighborhoods as they once did, they still meet every year at the big Greek festivals, they worship together e3ach week in church, they share common music and food and all kinds of culture, and you had better believe that when a Greek man runs for office the Greeks will come out in droves to support him. Is that racist of me to say that? Well, I guess I must be racist against my own people.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
What amazes me is, despite all of this clear and well-supported evidence that's absolutely indisputable, people will still refuse to believe it just because it contradicts their religious/political beliefs. Big deal if it does, it doesn't mean you can't continue being a conservative or a christian, it just means that one tiny thing you don't support is right.

Honestly, gather a group of 1,000 scientists who have no preexisting biases, put them together, and see what they think about evolution. They will all say that it is indeed a proven fact, and not just a theory.

Same goes for global warming. The only scientists who actually disagree with it are scientists who are biased on the whole issue and purposely perform junk studies to claim their point, and eventually land a job at the White House.

Now, not to bully Lynn more, since she is being treated kinda unfairly, but this is exactly what's going on with people with this mindset. Even though we clearly have what is an evolving species, it still won't click with some people. The difference between natural selection and evolution is a thin red line. The reason the finches did evolve is because their beaks were able to get different kinds of seeds. When there was a drought, it was the ultimate test of survival. The ones with the larger beaks had a difficult time getting seeds, so they died out and now we have the shorter-beaked finches. See, Lynn, you cannot dispute this. Quote Genesis as much as you won't, but it isn't going to fly here. This is a solid, scientifically proven FACT and you have got to stop dancing around the issues by repeatedly stating your beliefs and provide us with some solid EVIDENCE that proves otherwise.


Now, though you may disagree with evolution, you and your Christian "scientist" friends cannot dispute one thing: and that's the world is 4 billion years old, not 4 thousand like most of you claim. 4 billion is an unbearably long amount of time. If it only took a few years for these finches to evolve, imagine every single other scenario in our world history. Apes evolving into humans not only seems reasonable, it's highly probable.

That's my take on it.

Not all scientests beleive in evolution. I say that it makes sense that the finches who could not access food died out because of course they starved.If there was no food in my communtiy and there was no way for us to access any then we would all die out. But the people in the next communtiy who did have access to food would not die out. Are they the best designed people to survive? Did they have stronger genes? Nope. The food was there for them. Their children did not evolve while ours did not. It is all about the food supply.

Science is just so very new. It was not that long ago that people were dying because the doctors didn't know about washing their hands and carried dangerous diseases between patients. And in my grandmother's life, they did not have antibiotics- the doctors would give her a perscription of whiskey when one of her kids was sick. That was not very long ago. So now, I am supposed to beleive that science has suddenly found all the answers to everything? These scientests can tell how the world is 4 billion years old. Wow, How can they possibly know this? I'm sure they have their "ways" but they simply have no way of successfully testing this out since it is such a new thing. Let's let some time go by before we can say without quesiton that the dating methods are indesputable. Let's at least wait about a thousand years or so to see if the billions year thing holds up.

Science is new and it is failing us already. The miraculous antibiotics are beginning to fail us and they are anticipating that the Avian flu may do us all in by killing people in the millions as plagues in the past have done. So while people want to put their faith in this science and claim to find all the answers there, I prefer to find my answers in an eternal God who quotes "scientific" truths in His word thousands of years before the doctors ever thought to wash their hands. And again, "genetics" was something Jocob did in the Old Testment long before DArwin ever came up with it. Darwin started out in religion- maybe he came up with it from the Bible? And they he just took a left turn along the way.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by darchangel
Lynn, you really need to stop looking at this in terms of human males and females...you've got to keep in mind that this started from the smallest of the small in terms of organisms and took eons to get where it is now. And yes, I suspect that even as we sit here, the human race is very slowly adapting to become more efficient at surviving, which is the whole point of evolution.

Yes, I do believe that the trait of evolving for the sake of survival is inherent from the beginning...we see it in virtually all lower-class animals; even humans have the most basic need to survive, as is seen in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Why is it so hard for you to believe that the primary need of single-celled organisms was to continue surviving? It's the same with mother animals that will fight to the death to protect their children: they have an instinct to protect their young, therefore furthering their existence as a species. If you don't believe that evolution exists, then where do you think these survivalist instincts come from in virutally all life forms?


~darchangel~

I'm not looking at it in male or female terms. It is just that I guess it is easy to think of a single cell becoming two and then three and so on and then over millions of years it becomes a human. The problem comes when you begin to think about it step by step. As I've said before. how does an organism know that it has to develop an eye to see. But let's say it somehow does. How does it first "know" how to make the proper cells to form a retina. and then a cornea, and then the iris or that it would need to be connected to nerves and then of course to a brain? And let's say it does now all this and it starts to develop all of these highly differentiated cells, then when the organism dies off as all organisms do, then how does another organism who is still alive deveolp in the same exact way? It would keep dying off before it even formed the retina, let alone the cornea etc. And the brain!!!! Did that just happen to evolve over millions of years. They say we don't understand most of what the brain does or how it operates and yet a single celled organism evolving into an organism understands all of this?

I think it makes more sense to think that there is a very powerful life form called God who has designed us as very complex beings who have been placed in an environment that supports all of our needs from the oxygen and the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (we need both to survive) to the water and the food supply (plants and animals) that is perfect to support our lives. And the world is so beautiful and all of nature is so logical. I think it makes a lot more sense to think that we were created by a far superior being who also created the countless stars and planets and the depths of the seas which are teeming with some creatures and plants that we are still discovering. He is a great God.

[darchangel]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Not all scientests beleive in evolution. I say that it makes sense that the finches who could not access food died out because of course they starved.If there was no food in my communtiy and there was no way for us to access any then we would all die out. But the people in the next communtiy who did have access to food would not die out. Are they the best designed people to survive? Did they have stronger genes? Nope. The food was there for them. Their children did not evolve while ours did not. It is all about the food supply.

Again, you missed the whole point of the article (I really don't think I can say this enough).

Originally posted by Lynn7

Science is just so very new. It was not that long ago that people were dying because the doctors didn't know about washing their hands and carried dangerous diseases between patients. And in my grandmother's life, they did not have antibiotics- the doctors would give her a perscription of whiskey when one of her kids was sick. That was not very long ago. So now, I am supposed to beleive that science has suddenly found all the answers to everything? These scientests can tell how the world is 4 billion years old. Wow, How can they possibly know this? I'm sure they have their "ways" but they simply have no way of successfully testing this out since it is such a new thing. Let's let some time go by before we can say without quesiton that the dating methods are indesputable. Let's at least wait about a thousand years or so to see if the billions year thing holds up.

Science and medicine, while sometimes going hand in hand, are two completely different fields. The people who didn't wash their hands and gave rum as medicine are also the same kind of people who believed that mental illnesses were cases of demon possesion. I'd really like a comparative number of currently working mental health professionals versus the number of currently working exorcists.

And just so you know, scientists are using those useless, unsuccessful dating techniques to try and discover the authenticity of things like the Shroud of Turin...hmmm...maybe that's why you don't like them...

Originally posted by Lynn7

Science is new and it is failing us already. The miraculous antibiotics are beginning to fail us and they are anticipating that the Avian flu may do us all in by killing people in the millions as plagues in the past have done. So while people want to put their faith in this science and claim to find all the answers there, I prefer to find my answers in an eternal God who quotes "scientific" truths in His word thousands of years before the doctors ever thought to wash their hands. And again, "genetics" was something Jocob did in the Old Testment long before DArwin ever came up with it. Darwin started out in religion- maybe he came up with it from the Bible? And they he just took a left turn along the way.

Great...so if I get bird flu, I'll just pray for it to go away.

Furthermore, I hate to break it to you, but just because the spoken concept of genetics comes up in the Bible, that doesn't mean that genetics didn't exist before then. You really need to try looking beyond the constraints of this ancient book and try to focus on what empirical evidence is showing us right now. If you based all your information on beliefs that were created hundreds of years ago, then people would still think the earth is flat, the sun is the center of the universe, and slaves and women don't count as real people.


~darchangel~

[darchangel]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I'm not looking at it in male or female terms. It is just that I guess it is easy to think of a single cell becoming two and then three and so on and then over millions of years it becomes a human. The problem comes when you begin to think about it step by step. As I've said before. how does an organism know that it has to develop an eye to see. But let's say it somehow does. How does it first "know" how to make the proper cells to form a retina. and then a cornea, and then the iris or that it would need to be connected to nerves and then of course to a brain? And let's say it does now all this and it starts to develop all of these highly differentiated cells, then when the organism dies off as all organisms do, then how does another organism who is still alive deveolp in the same exact way? It would keep dying off before it even formed the retina, let alone the cornea etc. And the brain!!!! Did that just happen to evolve over millions of years. They say we don't understand most of what the brain does or how it operates and yet a single celled organism evolving into an organism understands all of this?

I think it makes more sense to think that there is a very powerful life form called God who has designed us as very complex beings who have been placed in an environment that supports all of our needs from the oxygen and the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (we need both to survive) to the water and the food supply (plants and animals) that is perfect to support our lives. And the world is so beautiful and all of nature is so logical. I think it makes a lot more sense to think that we were created by a far superior being who also created the countless stars and planets and the depths of the seas which are teeming with some creatures and plants that we are still discovering. He is a great God.

Okay...think of it this way....the first organisms are single-celled. Eventually, they become multi-celled. After that, they become very primitive life forms, only a few short steps above mutli-celled organisms...they have the same types of feeding, breeding and sensory facets as the multi-celled organisms from which they came.

Then the survivalist/evolutionary process really starts to kick in. The primitive life forms begin to develop incredibly basic senses, like sight and touch, that enable them to better survive in their environment. That doesn't mean that they immediately grow eyes and digits, they just begin to show signs of having incredibly basic sensory organs, like the little hair-like appendages that amoebas use to move themselves around, only infinitely more basic.

Over time, these sensory organs develop to better suit their environment. Once they develop to at least a level of basic functioning, the evolutionary process works once again. It would be more beneficial to the life forms if these sensory organs were connected in a way that allowed them to work in concert with each other. Then the basic beginnings of the primitive central nervous system come into play, connecting the sensory organs to each other and helping the organism to grow.

I don't really think you're looking at this in the same time frame I am. I mean, you have to think that it took literally billions upon billions of years for these organisms to grow and grow until they became the massive array of lower, middle and upper class life forms we have today.


~darchangel~

[electriclite]

Science is new and it is failing us already. The miraculous antibiotics are beginning to fail us and they are anticipating that the Avian flu may do us all in by killing people in the millions as plagues in the past have done.

People have been studying and practicing science as far back as Ancient Greece. That doesn't sound very new to me. The reason why its been practiced for so long is because people have always had a natural interest about why things are the way they are, and even back then "because the gods deem it so" started to become an unacceptable explanation for why things happened. Ancient Greek philosophers were already pondering the very concept of an atom in a time when most of all naturally occuring phenomena were being explained with "religion", not to mention the idea that all life started in the sea, medicine (Hippocrates anyone?) as well as the water cycle (nope, it wasn't just covered in the Bible)


And anti-biotics work, but as any scientist will tell you viruses, such as the flu, mutate and change. Why? Because they are nature's cleaning service, whiddling down over-abundant species in order to maintain the equilibrium of nature. Nature's defenses must remain vigilant.

What a coincidence that the Avian Flu popped up in an area that contains the LARGEST population of human beings on the planet.

Plagues occur, not because God has a bone to pick with mankind, but because nature has to keep our numbers in check so that we don't over-take the environment and throw the natural balance off center. Since we're at the top of the food-chain, viruses are the only natural method that keeps us in check.

As for evolution, this has always made sense to me: Ontogeny (http://www.gwu.edu/~darwin/BiSc150/Systematics/systematics.html)

http://www.gwu.edu/~darwin/BiSc150/Systematics/EMBRYOS.GIF

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by darchangel
Again, you missed the whole point of the article (I really don't think I can say this enough).



Science and medicine, while sometimes going hand in hand, are two completely different fields. The people who didn't wash their hands and gave rum as medicine are also the same kind of people who believed that mental illnesses were cases of demon possesion. I'd really like a comparative number of currently working mental health professionals versus the number of currently working exorcists.

And just so you know, scientists are using those useless, unsuccessful dating techniques to try and discover the authenticity of things like the Shroud of Turin...hmmm...maybe that's why you don't like them...



Great...so if I get bird flu, I'll just pray for it to go away.

Furthermore, I hate to break it to you, but just because the spoken concept of genetics comes up in the Bible, that doesn't mean that genetics didn't exist before then. You really need to try looking beyond the constraints of this ancient book and try to focus on what empirical evidence is showing us right now. If you based all your information on beliefs that were created hundreds of years ago, then people would still think the earth is flat, the sun is the center of the universe, and slaves and women don't count as real people.


~darchangel~

As far as genetics goes, I believe that God designed us and designed genes.

About science and medicine and the flat earth and the sun being center of the universe....people from the beginning of time have looked at things and have tried to figure them out. The people who thought the world was flat were using their minds to try to understand something that they only had limited knowledge about. They thought the world was flat because it was flat as far as they could tell. Well, the same is true for the people of today. They look around and try to figure things out based on the knowledge that is available to them. The problem is that when new knowledge is discovered they often have to go back to the drawing board and come up with a different solution when the old one doesn't fit. And this happens all the time. Margerine is good for you- no margerine is bad for you. etc.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by darchangel
Okay...think of it this way....the first organisms are single-celled. Eventually, they become multi-celled. After that, they become very primitive life forms, only a few short steps above mutli-celled organisms...they have the same types of feeding, breeding and sensory facets as the multi-celled organisms from which they came.

Then the survivalist/evolutionary process really starts to kick in. The primitive life forms begin to develop incredibly basic senses, like sight and touch, that enable them to better survive in their environment. That doesn't mean that they immediately grow eyes and digits, they just begin to show signs of having incredibly basic sensory organs, like the little hair-like appendages that amoebas use to move themselves around, only infinitely more basic.

Over time, these sensory organs develop to better suit their environment. Once they develop to at least a level of basic functioning, the evolutionary process works once again. It would be more beneficial to the life forms if these sensory organs were connected in a way that allowed them to work in concert with each other. Then the basic beginnings of the primitive central nervous system come into play, connecting the sensory organs to each other and helping the organism to grow.

I don't really think you're looking at this in the same time frame I am. I mean, you have to think that it took literally billions upon billions of years for these organisms to grow and grow until they became the massive array of lower, middle and upper class life forms we have today.


~darchangel~
This is exactly my point. Anything can supposedly happen over the millions or billions of years. All the in between changes are just kind of glossed over. Again, how would the organism know how to develop something even if the environment was hostile to it? It would have to have some sort of intelligence within the organism that interpretted a hostility and then comes up with a design to react to that enviroment in such a way that created differentiated cells that would function in a certain way. And then of course when that organism died without making any changes, another organism would be thinking about the problem and how to created its own differentiated cells until it of course dies. How would these organisms have gotten this intelligence? What would have infused them with this knowledge? Our great brains can't even come up with any answers about this stuff. Can any great scientest design a new cell and then figure out how to make one? Then how could a much lower life form accomplish this feat?

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Not all scientests beleive in evolution.


Not all Christians don't believe in evolution.

[darchangel]

Originally posted by Lynn7
This is exactly my point. Anything can supposedly happen over the millions or billions of years. All the in between changes are just kind of glossed over. Again, how would the organism know how to develop something even if the environment was hostile to it? It would have to have some sort of intelligence within the organism that interpretted a hostility and then comes up with a design to react to that enviroment in such a way that created differentiated cells that would function in a certain way. And then of course when that organism died without making any changes, another organism would be thinking about the problem and how to created its own differentiated cells until it of course dies. How would these organisms have gotten this intelligence? What would have infused them with this knowledge? Our great brains can't even come up with any answers about this stuff. Can any great scientest design a new cell and then figure out how to make one? Then how could a much lower life form accomplish this feat?


How is this helping your point? Single-celled organisms don't even have a central nervous system, to speak nothing of a brain, and they reproduce to further their species...it has nothing to do with intelligence, only instinct.

As far as 'how would the new generation of cells gotten this information' question goes, I've addressed that in the previous posts; when cells form colonies, they can share traits. My first post about this even had a link saying that genetic material can be shared between cells without replication. This is how the cells get the information they need to evolve.

I just can't see where you believe that the Bible's explanation that the world was suddenly created as it is right now is more plausible than the theory that creatures had to become what they are now.



~darchangel~

[darchangel]

Originally posted by Lynn7
As far as genetics goes, I believe that God designed us and designed genes.

About science and medicine and the flat earth and the sun being center of the universe....people from the beginning of time have looked at things and have tried to figure them out. The people who thought the world was flat were using their minds to try to understand something that they only had limited knowledge about. They thought the world was flat because it was flat as far as they could tell. Well, the same is true for the people of today. They look around and try to figure things out based on the knowledge that is available to them. The problem is that when new knowledge is discovered they often have to go back to the drawing board and come up with a different solution when the old one doesn't fit. And this happens all the time. Margerine is good for you- no margerine is bad for you. etc.

And so you think that an archaic text which says the entire world and all of its workings and plants/animals/minerals/weather/geographical information was created in seven days by some anonymous, ominpotent being who has yet to prove their existence is the drawing board here?


~darchangel~

[Vong]

Lynn, when you explain to me how a human embryo has gills and a tail during its development other than reasons given by the evolutionary theory, I'll be a born again Christian.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by darchangel
How is this helping your point? Single-celled organisms don't even have a central nervous system, to speak nothing of a brain, and they reproduce to further their species...it has nothing to do with intelligence, only instinct.

As far as 'how would the new generation of cells gotten this information' question goes, I've addressed that in the previous posts; when cells form colonies, they can share traits. My first post about this even had a link saying that genetic material can be shared between cells without replication. This is how the cells get the information they need to evolve.

I just can't see where you believe that the Bible's explanation that the world was suddenly created as it is right now is more plausible than the theory that creatures had to become what they are now.



~darchangel~


So are you saying that one group of cells has the penis cells and another group has the vagina cells and they get together and choose what they know somehow that they will need? Years later they share the cells for ovaries and eggs and fallopian tubes and the corresponding male anatomies that are required? And then of course the cells would need to have hormones that have to secrete in just the right quantities and at just the right times to get the eggs to ovulate and on and on. It requires intelligence. It requires design. I agree with Bubba that there are many Christians who beleive in evolution. They beleive the science but realize the developing cells would need a designer who could orchestrate the entire process. I really can't see how evolution could evere work without a designer. That is not to say that I believe in evolution because I believe that God wrote the Bible, through men, and that He would tell us if he had life evolve. Why wouldn't He say it when He tells us other things. People are just so ready to toss the thought of God out because people don't beleive in "magic" so to speak. God has powers that have the ability to create life-to create stars and planets and oceans and zebras and elephants and puppies and sharks and anteaters and people. We live in a spectacular world full of gorgeous and mesmerizing wonders. The beauty and complexity of the world testifies to God's existence.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Vong
Lynn, when you explain to me how a human embryo has gills and a tail during its development other than reasons given by the evolutionary theory, I'll be a born again Christian.

You mean an embryo has parts that may LOOK like gills and a tail for a little bit until they develop into what they are supposed to be? That does not mean that they ever were gills and a tail.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Lynn7
You mean an embryo has parts that may LOOK like gills and a tail for a little bit until they develop into what they are supposed to be? That does not mean that they ever were gills and a tail.

Scientists don't study organisms only superficially Lynn. Obviously they see what looks like gills and wonder: "Are those gills? Let's dig further into it and see if they really are." And then in the end if it looks like gills and behave as gills are supposed to function, guess what they are?

[MacReady]

Originally posted by Lynn7
So are you saying that one group of cells has the penis cells and another group has the vagina cells and they get together and choose what they know somehow that they will need? Years later they share the cells for ovaries and eggs and fallopian tubes and the corresponding male anatomies that are required? And then of course the cells would need to have hormones that have to secrete in just the right quantities and at just the right times to get the eggs to ovulate and on and on. It requires intelligence. It requires design. I agree with Bubba that there are many Christians who beleive in evolution. They beleive the science but realize the developing cells would need a designer who could orchestrate the entire process. I really can't see how evolution could evere work without a designer. That is not to say that I believe in evolution because I believe that God wrote the Bible, through men, and that He would tell us if he had life evolve. Why wouldn't He say it when He tells us other things. People are just so ready to toss the thought of God out because people don't beleive in "magic" so to speak. God has powers that have the ability to create life-to create stars and planets and oceans and zebras and elephants and puppies and sharks and anteaters and people. We live in a spectacular world full of gorgeous and mesmerizing wonders. The beauty and complexity of the world testifies to God's existence.

Who created god?

I mean, here you are telling me that obviously something as earth-shatteringly complex as human genitals simply must have been made by somebody else, so I'm curious as to your explanation about the origins of a being so powerful as to be able to shape entire galaxies not only with a mere though, but in only in as much as a mere nano-second if it so pleases him?

Come to think of it, how did he know exactly how to design humans? I mean, to believe him it has never happened before?(If you're going to respond with the fact that angels come first or something, then apply the question to them) How come he gave us so many physical deffects, like the fact that we need food and water, the fact that we're vulnerable to thousands of diseases, our many genetic defects (explain to me what's the use of giveing a species to ocassional ability to spawn a child that has both male and female genitals)? Seems to me weren't that perfectly designed, and that we have a long way to go.

How about all the endless arrays of species that have gone extinct in earth's history? Did he have spare parts around or something when he made the Mammoths? Seems like creating an organism that had flaws that ultimately lead to it being unfit to survive looks like a waste of time that's unfit for an allmighty deity to spend his time doing?

I have other questions but this will do for now. Tell me, what's with creationism's many plotholes in explaining the very begining? I don't even care much if you don't address all my points, but one thing that steams me is the paradox that I address in my very first question. Just tell me where he came from without having your "dicks and pussies are too hard to make themselves on their own" theory collapse completely.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Lynn7
So are you saying that one group of cells has the penis cells and another group has the vagina cells and they get together and choose what they know somehow that they will need? Years later they share the cells for ovaries and eggs and fallopian tubes and the corresponding male anatomies that are required?

The design of the male and female sexual organs are actually every similar. In each sex you can find a similar design for same almost the same function. For instance:

Ovaries are round and contain the female genetic material
Testicles are round and contain the male genetic material

Vas Deferens: Fallopian tubes

Clitoris: Penis

Which is why some unfortunate children are born with completely botched genitals, because of the stark similarities between the male and female sex organs.


And no Lynn, those Christians who believe God works through evolution do not believe science first.

The bible makes no mention of dinosaurs, yet their bones exist throughout the earth, displayed in museums all across the globe. But the Bible felt no need to mention this. If it is explained as a trick by God, than God becomes some sort of throwback to previous pagan gods who had nothing better to do then torment human beings for their own satisfaction. How great a being is that?

I don't believe, personally, for an infinite being to work in a span of time that is only significant to humans who have such comparatively short life spans. We are often guiilty of "temporal chauvanism", meaning that if it can't be done within our lifetimes, than it can't be done or isn't worth doing. So of course saying a being can do it within that enviable time frame impresses mankind, that's what we're always searching for: The quick fix.

If you have all the time in the world, or actually there is no time, because it hasn't been invented so saying the world was created in days becomes an arbitrary statement. Only humans need times and labels for things, a higher power would have no need for it. But things have to made in a way that human beings can understand, within their own frame of reference. Why on earth would a beng as powerful as you deem God to be work within the tiny confines of human understanding.

It's a contradiction, much like many things written in the Bible.

Anyway, I've more than likely wasted my time writing this, but I'm bored and it keeps my mind off the heat.

[Monotreme]

Why do you believe the Bible is the only definitive source of God's wisdom, Lynn? Does it not seem totally logical that God chooses certain times to reveal to humanity another piece of information vital to their knowledge? I mean, if we all knew everything all at once, there wouldn't really be any point in living, discovering, and learning, now would there? Could it not be that God simply chose to leave the information that evolution exists hidden from mankind until the 19th century, when he decided "alright, it's about time they know about THIS little tidbit..."

I myself do not believe in God, but I'm simply trying to help you broaden your own scopes. The Bible has many typos. Have you noticed it? They correct the typos on the side of the page, because one is not allowed to touch the word of God. If he's the almighty, it seems odd to me that he'd make spelling errors. But that's not the point. The point is, I don't understand how or why you have limited yourself to believing that the Bible is the single only definitive form of God's wisdom communicated to mankind. Yeah, the Bible says nothing about evolution. It also says nothing about the world being round, or about Earth not being the centre of the universe, or about penicilin, or about electricity, or about any of these things. And yet, all of these things obviously exist and/or are true.

[Vong]

Originally posted by MacReady
Who created god?

God has no beginning. He was not created. Being the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, god does not exist within our reality. He is not bound by linear time. This is based on the fact that god is omniscient and omnipresent; he knows what will happen and when it will happen. However, this is one of the pitfalls of faith today and the reason I choose not to believe in god. But that is another story.

Originally posted by MacReady
I mean, here you are telling me that obviously something as earth-shatteringly complex as human genitals simply must have been made by somebody else, so I'm curious as to your explanation about the origins of a being so powerful as to be able to shape entire galaxies not only with a mere though, but in only in as much as a mere nano-second if it so pleases him?

Come to think of it, how did he know exactly how to design humans? I mean, to believe him it has never happened before?(If you're going to respond with the fact that angels come first or something, then apply the question to them) How come he gave us so many physical deffects, like the fact that we need food and water, the fact that we're vulnerable to thousands of diseases, our many genetic defects (explain to me what's the use of giveing a species to ocassional ability to spawn a child that has both male and female genitals)? Seems to me weren't that perfectly designed, and that we have a long way to go.

How about all the endless arrays of species that have gone extinct in earth's history? Did he have spare parts around or something when he made the Mammoths? Seems like creating an organism that had flaws that ultimately lead to it being unfit to survive looks like a waste of time that's unfit for an allmighty deity to spend his time doing?

The idea behind god MacReady is that you cannot understand the complexity that is him. God represents the highest form of power that could ever exist.

If you know god, you know everything. Since you cannot know everything, you cannot know god.

Nothing is greater than god. If you were to know god, you would become greater than him. Since you cannot become greater than him, you cannot know god.

I love logic :D

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by electriclite
Scientists don't study organisms only superficially Lynn. Obviously they see what looks like gills and wonder: "Are those gills? Let's dig further into it and see if they really are." And then in the end if it looks like gills and behave as gills are supposed to function, guess what they are?

Well, if they were gills and tails then we would have gills and tails.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by MacReady
Who created god?

I mean, here you are telling me that obviously something as earth-shatteringly complex as human genitals simply must have been made by somebody else, so I'm curious as to your explanation about the origins of a being so powerful as to be able to shape entire galaxies not only with a mere though, but in only in as much as a mere nano-second if it so pleases him?

Come to think of it, how did he know exactly how to design humans? I mean, to believe him it has never happened before?(If you're going to respond with the fact that angels come first or something, then apply the question to them) How come he gave us so many physical deffects, like the fact that we need food and water, the fact that we're vulnerable to thousands of diseases, our many genetic defects (explain to me what's the use of giveing a species to ocassional ability to spawn a child that has both male and female genitals)? Seems to me weren't that perfectly designed, and that we have a long way to go.

How about all the endless arrays of species that have gone extinct in earth's history? Did he have spare parts around or something when he made the Mammoths? Seems like creating an organism that had flaws that ultimately lead to it being unfit to survive looks like a waste of time that's unfit for an allmighty deity to spend his time doing?

I have other questions but this will do for now. Tell me, what's with creationism's many plotholes in explaining the very begining? I don't even care much if you don't address all my points, but one thing that steams me is the paradox that I address in my very first question. Just tell me where he came from without having your "dicks and pussies are too hard to make themselves on their own" theory collapse completely.

I don't know anything about God except for what is revealed in the Bible. It really does blow my mind when I think about the fact that He has always existed. And yet we know that we do exist and that somehow our world got started. Our job is to figure out what to place our faith in.

One thing I have considered is that because we have a beginning (birth) and an end (death) that is all we are able to comprehend. That is our only reality so that is how we judge everything. We have a beginning and an end so then of course God must've had a beginning, right? And yet I know that God has said that His ways are high above our ways and Jesus said that there are many things we cannot comprehend. There are also writings about how the angels (and Satan) existed before we did.

I dont' know how God knows how to design but he can do anything at anytime and in the smallest amount of time. Why do created things get corrupted? That is answered in the Bible. Everything was perfect in the Garden of Eden. When sin entered the world death came in. We were no longer protected by God but would now experience pain and death and evil. Adam and Eve's own son killed one of their other sons. The very long life spans in the beginning of the Bible became shorter and shorter over time. Disease, genetic problems etc. God did tell his people certain rules that protected them like how to prepare food, not to intermarry etc.

This is the Christian point of view. I am not trying to convince you so don't take it like that. It's funny but faith in God can be an easy thing and yet it can be the hardest thing ever. When I tell people that the only requirement to get into heaven is to have faith in Jesus as saviour they say, that's all? And yet for many it is not that's all? But it is you've gotta be kidding me! That is a lot to ask of someone.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Well, if they were gills and tails then we would have gills and tails.


That's like saying if we didn't have lungs we still wouldn't have them.

The gills develop into a gland that regulates calcium, which is also a function of the gills on a fish.

[Vong]

Lynn, the reasoning behind embryos having tails and gills is because as embryos, we take on "genetic echos" that were part of our genetic ancestors. These features are maintained within our gene pool. They have no use for us, but are prevalent during our maturation as an embryo.

Another form of a "genetic blooper" is known as an internal constraint. This is the reason why men have nipples and women have a clitoris. They are characteristics in a body that gives advantage for one sex, while has no use whatsoever for the other and they are carried along for the ride.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by electriclite
The design of the male and female sexual organs are actually every similar. In each sex you can find a similar design for same almost the same function. For instance:

Ovaries are round and contain the female genetic material
Testicles are round and contain the male genetic material

Vas Deferens: Fallopian tubes

Clitoris: Penis

Which is why some unfortunate children are born with completely botched genitals, because of the stark similarities between the male and female sex organs.


And no Lynn, those Christians who believe God works through evolution do not believe science first.

The bible makes no mention of dinosaurs, yet their bones exist throughout the earth, displayed in museums all across the globe. But the Bible felt no need to mention this. If it is explained as a trick by God, than God becomes some sort of throwback to previous pagan gods who had nothing better to do then torment human beings for their own satisfaction. How great a being is that?

I don't believe, personally, for an infinite being to work in a span of time that is only significant to humans who have such comparatively short life spans. We are often guiilty of "temporal chauvanism", meaning that if it can't be done within our lifetimes, than it can't be done or isn't worth doing. So of course saying a being can do it within that enviable time frame impresses mankind, that's what we're always searching for: The quick fix.

If you have all the time in the world, or actually there is no time, because it hasn't been invented so saying the world was created in days becomes an arbitrary statement. Only humans need times and labels for things, a higher power would have no need for it. But things have to made in a way that human beings can understand, within their own frame of reference. Why on earth would a beng as powerful as you deem God to be work within the tiny confines of human understanding.

It's a contradiction, much like many things written in the Bible.

Anyway, I've more than likely wasted my time writing this, but I'm bored and it keeps my mind off the heat.

Why do you think you have wasted your time writing this? If it is because you know I will not change my mind then I'm sorry you feel that way. It is never a waste of time to have discussions about things that interest you with people who have opposing points of view. Even if viewpoints don't change there are still things that can push us to deeper understandings of what we do or dont beleive.

As to your point about similar characteristics between male and female reproductive organs, if an organism is a hermaphrodite and has both kinds of organs within it and then it at some point splits, it still would need to know how the other organism was developing to know in which direction to develop. It still would die off before any "evolutionary" changes would happen. The differences in the reproductive organs are stark. And similarities are simply very general as far as shape or function goes. Sperm are hugely different from eggs. A clitoris is hugely different than a penis. And even if there are any similarities then why would that preclude God from desinging and creating in this way?

I dont' have my bible in front of me but I think the word the Bible used in Genesis might have been that God created creatures which of course does not exclude dinosaurs.

I dont' know anything about God's time frames. All I know is God can do anything He wants in any way He wants. He also does not lie and is always consistent. He does not change. He is very logical.

In the bible the earth was made in days and yet in another part of the Bible, it says that to God a day is like a thousand years. I don't have any way of knowing if the days in the creation was literal or figurative but I do know it doens't matter as far as God's creation goes. If you want to beleive that He didn't create the parts of our universe in days that is fine but why couldn't He do it? Someone who could create like that, could do anything. I have no problem with this because I think it all makes sense. You sound like you have no problem with evolution and you think it makes sense. We have selected the beleifs that make sense to us. It is not like I have not been exposed to the evolutionary theory. I have read about it, considered it and have chosen Christiantiy (which I also read about and considered).

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Well, if they were gills and tails then we would have gills and tails.

The Discovery and National Geographic Channel aren't allowed in your house right?

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Monotreme
Why do you believe the Bible is the only definitive source of God's wisdom, Lynn? Does it not seem totally logical that God chooses certain times to reveal to humanity another piece of information vital to their knowledge? I mean, if we all knew everything all at once, there wouldn't really be any point in living, discovering, and learning, now would there? Could it not be that God simply chose to leave the information that evolution exists hidden from mankind until the 19th century, when he decided "alright, it's about time they know about THIS little tidbit..."

I myself do not believe in God, but I'm simply trying to help you broaden your own scopes. The Bible has many typos. Have you noticed it? They correct the typos on the side of the page, because one is not allowed to touch the word of God. If he's the almighty, it seems odd to me that he'd make spelling errors. But that's not the point. The point is, I don't understand how or why you have limited yourself to believing that the Bible is the single only definitive form of God's wisdom communicated to mankind. Yeah, the Bible says nothing about evolution. It also says nothing about the world being round, or about Earth not being the centre of the universe, or about penicilin, or about electricity, or about any of these things. And yet, all of these things obviously exist and/or are true.

Sure, God could've chosen to let man discover Evolution, as they did electricity and microbes etc. The problem is that God did talk about creation in the Bible and He said how he created people. He did not say that he put things in place that would develop over the millions of years. He explains it quite differently. Having read the Bbile and seeing how wise it is and how prophetic it is, I have come to trust in the Bible completely. The bible does mention the world being a circle and although it does not talk specifically about electricity it speaks of a time when the whole world will watch as something happens in the last days (television which is run by electricity). He does not mention penicillin but as I mentioned before, He gave his people many teachings that prevented them from getting sick from diseases they would know nothing about. Why were they prevented from eating pork which was considered to be unclean? Nothing was known about microorganisms back then but of course God knew.

I dont' know anything about typos but I know that God told the writers what to write and they each wrote it in his own style. Since people who wrote the Bible had all different levels of education it is not impossible that there might have been some typos. King David was a shepherd for example. He did not attend college. Yet his psalms are amazing and what is most amazing are some of the prophecies he wrote and could not possibly know.

Psalm 22 describes the crucifix of Jesus a loooooooonnnnnnng time before it ever happened:

Psalm 22

1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, so far from the words of my groaning? 2 O my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer, by night, and am not silent. 3 Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One; you are the praise of Israel. 4 In you our fathers put their trust; they trusted and you delivered them. 5 They cried to you and were saved; in you they trusted and were not disappointed. 6 But I am a worm and not a man, scorned by men and despised by the people. 7 All who see me mock me; they hurl insults, shaking their heads: 8 "He trusts in the Lord; let the Lord rescue him. Let him deliver him, since he delights in him." 9 Yet you brought me out of the womb; you made me trust in you even at my mother's breast. 10 From birth I was cast upon you; from my mother's womb you have been my God.

11 Do not be far from me, for trouble is near and there is no one to help. 12 Many bulls surround me; strong bulls of Bashan encircle me. 13 Roaring lions tearing their prey open their mouths wide against me. 14 I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint. My heart has turned to wax; it has melted away within me. 15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth; you lay me in the dust of death. 16 Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet. 17 I can count all my bones; people stare and gloat over me. 18 They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing. 19 But you, O Lord, be not far off; O my Strength, come quickly to help me. 20 Deliver my life from the sword, my precious life from the power of the dogs. 21 Rescue me from the mouth of the lions; save me from the horns of the wild oxen.

22 I will declare your name to my brothers; in the congregation I will praise you. 23 You who fear the Lord, praise him! All you descendants of Jacob, honor him! Revere him, all you descendants of Israel! 24 For he has not despised or disdained the suffering of the afflicted one; he has not hidden his face from him but has listened to his cry for help. 25 From you comes the theme of my praise in the great assembly; before those who fear you will I fulfill my vows. 26 The poor will eat and be satisfied; they who seek the Lord will praise him-- may your hearts live forever! 27 All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations will bow down before him, 28 for dominion belongs to the Lord and he rules over the nations. 29 All the rich of the earth will feast and worship; all who go down to the dust will kneel before him-- those who cannot keep themselves alive. 30 Posterity will serve him; future generations will be told about the Lord. 31 They will proclaim his righteousness to a people yet unborn-- for he has done it.

__________________________________________________

.The first words of the Psalm were words Jesus uttered from the cross. He was scorned and mocked by men. His tongue sticks to the roof of his mouth- Jesus said " I thirst" from the cross. His hands and feet were pierced. He can count all his bones- none of his bones were broken as was typical in crucifixion because the guards saw he was dead and they pierced his side intead of breaking his legs to finish him off. And of course they did cast lots for Jesus' clothing. This is one place where there are prophetic sayings from the Bible that many say is filled with myths and stories. How could David have possibly known all of these things hundreds of years before Jesus was born?

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
That's like saying if we didn't have lungs we still wouldn't have them.

The gills develop into a gland that regulates calcium, which is also a function of the gills on a fish.

The problem is with interpretation. If a scientest comes across a life form that is like another one but does not exist anymore I suppose he could say the life form evlolved. Or he could say that there was another animal that was similar that no longer exists because it is extinct. If a scientest sees something that looks like gills but it develops into a gland then he could say it once was a gill when we were still evolving or he could say it looks like a gill but it develops into a gland so it is a gland and not a gill. Looks like doesn't quite cut it for me.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Looks like doesn't quite cut it for me.


It also shares a function - the parathyroid and gills also regulate calcium absorption. So, it's more than just looks like it.

[Monotreme]

Originally posted by Lynn7
.The first words of the Psalm were words Jesus uttered from the cross. He was scorned and mocked by men. His tongue sticks to the roof of his mouth- Jesus said " I thirst" from the cross. His hands and feet were pierced. He can count all his bones- none of his bones were broken as was typical in crucifixion because the guards saw he was dead and they pierced his side intead of breaking his legs to finish him off. And of course they did cast lots for Jesus' clothing. This is one place where there are prophetic sayings from the Bible that many say is filled with myths and stories. How could David have possibly known all of these things hundreds of years before Jesus was born?
The answer is simple: The depiction of Jesus' crucifixion in the New Testament is not historically accurate, and the disciples simply lifted texts from Psalms and transfered them to the story of Jesus' crucifixion. According to my logic, looking at the bible as an historic document and not as a religious one, that explanation makes perfect sense. But you believe everything written in the Bible is truth, and so I won't be able to convince you that this is the case. It all boils down to interpretation. If you choose to take everything written in the Bible as truth and fact, that's your own choice and I think it's unfair to expect everyone else to also believe that the Bible is the ultimate truth and all else is false.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Monotreme
The answer is simple: The depiction of Jesus' crucifixion in the New Testament is not historically accurate, and the disciples simply lifted texts from Psalms and transfered them to the story of Jesus' crucifixion. According to my logic, looking at the bible as an historic document and not as a religious one, that explanation makes perfect sense. But you believe everything written in the Bible is truth, and so I won't be able to convince you that this is the case. It all boils down to interpretation. If you choose to take everything written in the Bible as truth and fact, that's your own choice and I think it's unfair to expect everyone else to also believe that the Bible is the ultimate truth and all else is false.

When did you start thinking I expected everyone to beleive in the Bible. I have always said that this is what I beleive. I am happy to write about where I am coming from and to read about where you guys are coming from.

If the disciples lifted texts from the Old Testament and then applied them to the story of Jesus' crucifixion that does not explain why they all went to their deaths of torture for their beleifs. Why would they die deaths of torture for something that they knew they had made up? Even the head terrorists of today don't submit to death. They run and hide and convince young gullibles to blow themselves up. But the leaders of our fatih were all killed except for John who was boiled and then survived. Most Christians were given the opportunity to renounce their faith so they would not be tortured and killed. They did not. They were fed to lions along with their children and they were burned alive. The Jewish people have long done this too. Daniel was willing to be fed to the lions rather than to stop praying to God. The bible teaches us not to fear those who can kill the body but those who can kill the soul.

If you think that Christians manufactured these things then there are hundreds of other Biblical prophecies that are present in the bible that the Christians would have no way of tampering with. Also, don't forget that many witnesses to the crucifx were not Christian at all and because of this had no cause to go along with lies that these Christians might make up.

Do you ever wonder why the Jewish people have been so persecuted throughout history? Why them? It is because they are God's people and are attacked routinely by God's adversary who we call Satan. He orchestrates the attacks. We beleive as Christians that we have been adopted into God's family and that are also persecuted. Though we have had a time of great acceptance we are seeing how Christians are being increasingly persecuted. There are some countries where Christians are massacred for their faith. I should qulify this by saying that this is what Christians believe and I don't expect you to beleive this.

Evolution is a great way for people who do not want to beleive in the God of the bible to try to explain it all away. If we can say that we never needed a god to create us that it all happened in a vaccum then we can be comfortable in ignoring all the Bible's inconveninent expectations about the way we should live our lives. But I think our quality of life has suffered because of this. There isn't' any respect for life anymore. It is easy to abort someone or euthanize someone because there is no great meaning of life. We're born and we die and we are all expendable. Let's all have a good time while we're here. In the Bible it teaches that God knows how many hairs are on each person's head. It also says in Psalm 139 that before a word is on our tongue, God knows it completely. In our faith there is a God who really cares about us as individuals whereas in evolution we are all chemical reactions to our environment.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
It also shares a function - the parathyroid and gills also regulate calcium absorption. So, it's more than just looks like it.

If it looks like a duck and quaks like a duck then it is probably a duck :D

Gills
The gills have three functions. When water is passed over the gills, oxygen is absorbed and carbon dioxide and ammonium is exhaled. 75% of the ammonia excreted by the fish is through the gills. The gills also help the fish osmoregulate, (equalize body pressures). The two gills are located on the head of the fish, just behind the eyes. They are covered by a boney flap known as the operculum. Each gill consists of a bone arch with filaments extending at right angles to the arch. Lamellae are the tiny branches on the filaments. Healthy gills are bright red and do not stick together. Signs of trouble with the gills are listlessness, flashing, and rubbing. Examination of a damaged gill will show excess mucous along with hyperplasia and a pale color.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Gills
The gills have three functions. When water is passed over the gills, oxygen is absorbed and carbon dioxide and ammonium is exhaled. 75% of the ammonia excreted by the fish is through the gills. The gills also help the fish osmoregulate, (equalize body pressures). The two gills are located on the head of the fish, just behind the eyes. They are covered by a boney flap known as the operculum. Each gill consists of a bone arch with filaments extending at right angles to the arch. Lamellae are the tiny branches on the filaments. Healthy gills are bright red and do not stick together. Signs of trouble with the gills are listlessness, flashing, and rubbing. Examination of a damaged gill will show excess mucous along with hyperplasia and a pale color.


So, you are saying that since they don't do everything that gills do, they aren't really gills. I don't see how that would be any different than saying that blind people not being able to see is proof that they don't have eyes. Could you explain the difference to me?

[darchangel]

Originally posted by Lynn7

If the disciples lifted texts from the Old Testament and then applied them to the story of Jesus' crucifixion that does not explain why they all went to their deaths of torture for their beleifs. Why would they die deaths of torture for something that they knew they had made up?

By that logic, you must believe that David Koresh and the Heaven's Gate cult were legit messengers for God too.


Originally posted by Lynn7

Do you ever wonder why the Jewish people have been so persecuted throughout history? Why them? It is because they are God's people and are attacked routinely by God's adversary who we call Satan. He orchestrates the attacks. We beleive as Christians that we have been adopted into God's family and that are also persecuted. Though we have had a time of great acceptance we are seeing how Christians are being increasingly persecuted. There are some countries where Christians are massacred for their faith. I should qulify this by saying that this is what Christians believe and I don't expect you to beleive this.


I don't understand how you think Christians are an incredibly persecuted faith...look at Native Americans or African religions if you want to see people who were (and still are) judged and persecuted.

Originally posted by Lynn7

Evolution is a great way for people who do not want to beleive in the God of the bible to try to explain it all away. If we can say that we never needed a god to create us that it all happened in a vaccum then we can be comfortable in ignoring all the Bible's inconveninent expectations about the way we should live our lives. But I think our quality of life has suffered because of this. There isn't' any respect for life anymore. It is easy to abort someone or euthanize someone because there is no great meaning of life. We're born and we die and we are all expendable. Let's all have a good time while we're here. In the Bible it teaches that God knows how many hairs are on each person's head. It also says in Psalm 139 that before a word is on our tongue, God knows it completely. In our faith there is a God who really cares about us as individuals whereas in evolution we are all chemical reactions to our environment.

I don't believe in the Bible, and I consider myself a more moral person that 80% of the Christians I know....I guess that depends on your definition of 'moral' though...

Also, you need to leave the abortion thing out of this...it's hot out, and I don't want to have to turn into the Incredible Hulk today.



~darchangel~

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Lynn7


Thats because they're not really religious, and they know they are figureheads to their cause. if they die, its bad for morale.


Originally posted by Lynn7
[B]The bible teaches us not to fear those who can kill the body but those who can kill the soul.

And ironically, most fundamental Christians refuse to let anyone, except a criminal, to die.




Originally posted by Lynn7
If we can say that we never needed a god to create us that it all happened in a vaccum then we can be comfortable in ignoring all the Bible's inconveninent expectations about the way we should live our lives. But I think our quality of life has suffered because of this. There isn't' any respect for life anymore.

As compared to when?

When exactly in the time since the inception of Christianity was mankind so respectful of human life before Evolution came to be?

The Crusades? The Spanish Inquisition? The Conquering of the Indians? The Hundred Years War? Slavery? The Reformation? The Salem Witch Trials?

All occured before Origin of the Species was ever published, and I'm leaving lots of stuff out for sure.

People believed in God during these times and still people were having abortions, being put into slavery, being tortured, maimed, murdered and raped.

God or no God, mankind has a proven track record of disregarding life whenever its suited him. And sometimes they even worked it out so that it seemed like it was all permitted by the divine.

[Lynn7]

Bubba, I would say that people who are blind still have eyes but that's just me.

Darchangel, David Koresh was a cult leader. There is a difference He was in it for himself. He profitted in every way. Christians are instructed to empty themselves of lust for power, money etc. The first Christian leaders did not seek any power for themselves. They were continually hunted down, imprisoned, stoned, etc. They didn't have any way of knowing that Jesus would become known and worshipped around the world some day. I guess some people will believe the Bible and others won't. I just happen to beleive it.

Christianity was a persecuted faith for many years as I mentioned. We had it really good for a long time though and that made the religion weak in a way because people started to think they were pretty great and there was a lot of corruption that entered the church. The Bible says there will always be a remnant of people who are really true to Him though. These are the ones who are persecuted. The ones who stand by the teachings of the Bible are being ridiculed and actually killed in other countries although not here yet.

As far as morality goes, I think God is the moral one. I think allof us humans are immoral becasue we are all sinners. If you are more moral than most Christians I'm sure I dont' know about that. I don't consider myself to be better than anyone but I know the God I worship is better than anyone.

Electriclite, I agree that the terrorists are not really religious but I think some of their followers beleieve they are and that is why they go to their deaths so willingly. I don't think they don't want to die because of morale- I think it is cause they (the leaders) are chicken.It is also chicken to launch missiles from civilian areas and not let the civilians escape. Then the terrorists cry when Israel dares to fight back.


Letting people die. Hmm. I think Christians are willing to let people die natural deaths. As I've said before, I think it would've been OK to let that woman die in Florida if her parents had been OK with it but her husband made the decision against theri wishes. Also I thought it was cruel to disallow anyone to try to give her anything by mouth which would've been natural and not an artifical feeding. But we won't go there again! And I think most Christians are divided on the issue of captial punishment. I myself would be OK with letting murderers live as long as they had life without parole but the judges in this country are pretty darn wacky and are letting all these people out on the streets to kill again.

and finally I think mankind will always be evil adn do evil. It has nothing to do with anything except that we are all sinners living in a fallen world where evil reigns supreme. Yes the church has done corrupt things and yes people do evil things and say they are doing it in the name of God. There are many verses in the Bible about these people and they are promised to pay for doing these things. It is not OK.

I would've given you guys the last word on this but I didn't want you to think I was copping out on you. So we can all agree to disagree about the finches! I am also dying of the heat- It's quite horrible here!

[darchangel]

Originally posted by Lynn7

Darchangel, David Koresh was a cult leader. There is a difference He was in it for himself. He profitted in every way. Christians are instructed to empty themselves of lust for power, money etc. The first Christian leaders did not seek any power for themselves. They were continually hunted down, imprisoned, stoned, etc. They didn't have any way of knowing that Jesus would become known and worshipped around the world some day. I guess some people will believe the Bible and others won't. I just happen to beleive it.

Christianity was a persecuted faith for many years as I mentioned. We had it really good for a long time though and that made the religion weak in a way because people started to think they were pretty great and there was a lot of corruption that entered the church. The Bible says there will always be a remnant of people who are really true to Him though. These are the ones who are persecuted. The ones who stand by the teachings of the Bible are being ridiculed and actually killed in other countries although not here yet.

As far as morality goes, I think God is the moral one. I think allof us humans are immoral becasue we are all sinners. If you are more moral than most Christians I'm sure I dont' know about that. I don't consider myself to be better than anyone but I know the God I worship is better than anyone.




David Koresh died...I don't think that was profiting. So did the Jim Jones cult and the Heaven's Gate folk. In the end, most of these people killed themselves to be with god. If suicide is a hellworthy sin, then how did Jesus go to Heaven for letting himself be killed and is still seen as the messiah, yet these other people are just random nutjobs who will be in punished in hell for eternity?

Secondly, I don't think you need to tack a 'yet' onto people not being murdered for their faith here. I seriously doubt that any Christians are going to be martyred in this country, seeing as the trend in our politics and our personal views as a whole are almost entirely Christian.

And as far as the last paragraph goes, I don't understand what you're getting at...first, you say the lack of faith in God and the inability to listen to the teachings of the Bible are the reasons for the moral downslide in this country (which I definitely do NOT agree with...some of the most abominable deeds in history have been done in the name of one god or another), then you say that all people are sinners? If we're all sinners, then how does lack of faith come into play at all? If we're all evil, then why would you say that the lack of Bible reading is why people no longer have respect for life?



~darchangel~

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Bubba, I would say that people who are blind still have eyes but that's just me.


I know you would, but that wasn't what I asked. My question was how saying they are eyes didn't follow the "If it looks like a duck" logic you mocked earlier.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Lynn7
In our faith there is a God who really cares about us as individuals whereas in evolution we are all chemical reactions to our environment.

On the contrary. Evolution shows that all life sprung forth from nature (and we are a part of it) which is of course God's creation... or more than that. If you read up on early Christian and Jewish philosophy of the Middle Ages, they believed God had a feminine side, or "Mother Nature". In Greek this side is called "Sophia", and is said to have appeared in a vision to a nun in the 12th century, who happened to study science as well.

[MacReady]

Thanks for the reply, but it wasn't what I'd hoped for.

Originally posted by Lynn7
I don't know anything about God except for what is revealed in the Bible. It really does blow my mind when I think about the fact that He has always existed. And yet we know that we do exist and that somehow our world got started. Our job is to figure out what to place our faith in.

See, that's my problem with the creationist movement. You've come on this board and essentially demanded that people who believe in evolution proove it by practically showing you elapsed videos of all the cellls from every species on earth being matched up with their ancestors in order to demonstrate them evolving, yet the bilble must be taken as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth despite it's endless list of contradictions. It seems to me you're only being skeptical with evolutionary elements, while doing everything in your power to disregard and ignore biblical flaws and fallacies.

My question remains: you respond by saying cells couldn't be smart enough to complex organs, but when something that's supposed to be more powerful than all the universe put together is said to have been merely made on it's own, you reply with 'it blows my mind', but you go on believing in it. If you can grant that he made himself or some shit like that, then why are cells unable to slowly alter and shape themselves over millions of years to adapt to different environments?

Originally posted by Lynn7
One thing I have considered is that because we have a beginning (birth) and an end (death) that is all we are able to comprehend. That is our only reality so that is how we judge everything. We have a beginning and an end so then of course God must've had a beginning, right? And yet I know that God has said that His ways are high above our ways and Jesus said that there are many things we cannot comprehend. There are also writings about how the angels (and Satan) existed before we did.

Actually, it's not good enough. Again, you demand that evolutionist bring you back in time to see less-evolved versions of things, but when you see christianity spouts something even you claim is hard to swallow, you simply say that how the world works and go off to bed without giving it so much as a second though. I'll make this simpler:

What does a cell's knowledge of how and what to evolve into in order to make itself more suitable for it's environment and god having no creator despite being easily the most complex being in the universe? Both are something Lynn7 doesn't know the answer to and claims is too complex to understand. However she's only interested in solving the claim that's usually made outside her faith, while not asking question about the one from within her faith. Why is this?

Originally posted by Lynn7
I dont' know how God knows how to design but he can do anything at anytime and in the smallest amount of time. Why do created things get corrupted? That is answered in the Bible. Everything was perfect in the Garden of Eden. When sin entered the world death came in. We were no longer protected by God but would now experience pain and death and evil. Adam and Eve's own son killed one of their other sons. The very long life spans in the beginning of the Bible became shorter and shorter over time. Disease, genetic problems etc. God did tell his people certain rules that protected them like how to prepare food, not to intermarry etc.

If you say that you have no idea how god knew how to do what he did, how come you believe in it? How does god know how to do anything at anytime?

The bible's logic doesn't make any sense. Some kids who have never done anything wrong in their lives are born with hideous deformities that will gurantee unplesant lives because some naked jackass wanted to learn a little about his environment? Since god is all-knowing, then he knew what was going to happen, why the hell did he bother putting them there in the first place? It's a pointless waste of time.

And I really am curious as to where my nipples fall into the equation. They're hardly a punishment, but they don't really give anything. Why did god give them to anybody? Even adding the garden of eden into the equation, why did he make animals that wouldn't survive outside, but many that did? Why did he create primitve, less advanced versions of certain animals at the same time as the more sophisticated ones, if all beasts were made in the same day?

In fact, aren't you a bit put off by the message behind the Garden Of Eden? I mean, what I got is your not supposed to question or second-guess the bible's claim and that knowledge is evil and leads to great pain and misery. It's the ultimate anti-intellectual claim, basically stating that people should tay dumb and refrain from trying to learn outside of what the bible's god says. Ignorance is bliss, in so few words.

Originally posted by Lynn7
This is the Christian point of view. I am not trying to convince you so don't take it like that. It's funny but faith in God can be an easy thing and yet it can be the hardest thing ever. When I tell people that the only requirement to get into heaven is to have faith in Jesus as saviour they say, that's all? And yet for many it is not that's all? But it is you've gotta be kidding me! That is a lot to ask of someone.

I can believe in something with minimal evidence, but to ask me to set my life by ridiculous rules for as log as I live without providing a shred of evidence except for a boring old book written thousands of years ago that's loaded with contradictions, barbaric laws and faulty science is waaaaaaaaaay much more than I can handle. I don't feel your asking for my faith, but rather for me to read the bible, look the other way whenever an inconvenient error shows up, then buy into it. I'm not gonna do it.

Thank you for replying to me however, and I await your rebuttal (and please remember what I said about making a double standard for the requirement of evidence and when you write up a response).

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
I know you would, but that wasn't what I asked. My question was how saying they are eyes didn't follow the "If it looks like a duck" logic you mocked earlier.

I dont' get your point. If a human body part looks like a gill along the way and it develops into something that is not a gill then it will fit the definition of the body part it becomes. If an eye looks like and eye and develops into an eye but it does not work correctly it will still be defined as an eye.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by darchangel
David Koresh died...I don't think that was profiting. So did the Jim Jones cult and the Heaven's Gate folk. In the end, most of these people killed themselves to be with god. If suicide is a hellworthy sin, then how did Jesus go to Heaven for letting himself be killed and is still seen as the messiah, yet these other people are just random nutjobs who will be in punished in hell for eternity?

Secondly, I don't think you need to tack a 'yet' onto people not being murdered for their faith here. I seriously doubt that any Christians are going to be martyred in this country, seeing as the trend in our politics and our personal views as a whole are almost entirely Christian.

And as far as the last paragraph goes, I don't understand what you're getting at...first, you say the lack of faith in God and the inability to listen to the teachings of the Bible are the reasons for the moral downslide in this country (which I definitely do NOT agree with...some of the most abominable deeds in history have been done in the name of one god or another), then you say that all people are sinners? If we're all sinners, then how does lack of faith come into play at all? If we're all evil, then why would you say that the lack of Bible reading is why people no longer have respect for life?



~darchangel~

These guys were kings of their empires. In Koresh's case wasn't he able to have sex with all the females of the group and didn't everyone worship him and follow his teachings and any orders he had to give? And when they were under attack he knew he would go to prison so instead of giving himself up, he had everyone die with him. How can that be compared to Christianity? Jesus going to his death was not a suicide. His death was planned from the beginning as mentioned in Genesis when it says you will bruise his (Jesus') heel but he will bruise your (Satan's)head. I'll look up the exact quote later but it prophecized that Satan would inflict a wound on Jesus (through the crucifixion and death) but then Jesus would inflict a mortal head wound on Satan through his resurrection. Satan thought he had won but he lost.

I would have agreed with you about this country being mostly Christian about 10 years ago but it no longer is. Christians are routinely mocked in the media and that is the beginning. The values are changing too. Teh values that most people adhere to have nothing to do with the Christian teachings. The Christian teachings are now seen as intolerant or old fashioned. That is not the way it was 10 or 15 years ago.

I do beleive that our decay is related to godlessness. I think that the teachings in the Bible lead to kindness and consideration. I look and see that the countries founded on Christianity are the kindest countries and the ones who are atheist or Muslim tend to be conducted without thought to the individual. Life does not seem to have personal value in these countries. Look at Israel and the US- they really try to make sure that civilians are cleared out before bombing wheras the Hezzbolaah (along with Syria and Iran) seem to deliberately target civilians. Life just works better when it is conducted under Judeo-Christian teachings, IMO.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by electriclite
On the contrary. Evolution shows that all life sprung forth from nature (and we are a part of it) which is of course God's creation... or more than that. If you read up on early Christian and Jewish philosophy of the Middle Ages, they believed God had a feminine side, or "Mother Nature". In Greek this side is called "Sophia", and is said to have appeared in a vision to a nun in the 12th century, who happened to study science as well.

If life sprung out of nature then it is impersonal and from what people have been saying here the reason life has evolved was in response to its environment. So in the Christian view we have a God who designed and created us and an environment that would support our lives and also challenge us to keep us occupied with conquering said environment. The bible also said that God knows each of us intimately, every single thought we have. It also says He loves us. That is personalization. The way evolution is explained it is all very impersonal.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by MacReady
Thanks for the reply, but it wasn't what I'd hoped for.



See, that's my problem with the creationist movement. You've come on this board and essentially demanded that people who believe in evolution proove it by practically showing you elapsed videos of all the cellls from every species on earth being matched up with their ancestors in order to demonstrate them evolving, yet the bilble must be taken as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth despite it's endless list of contradictions. It seems to me you're only being skeptical with evolutionary elements, while doing everything in your power to disregard and ignore biblical flaws and fallacies.

My question remains: you respond by saying cells couldn't be smart enough to complex organs, but when something that's supposed to be more powerful than all the universe put together is said to have been merely made on it's own, you reply with 'it blows my mind', but you go on believing in it. If you can grant that he made himself or some shit like that, then why are cells unable to slowly alter and shape themselves over millions of years to adapt to different environments?



Actually, it's not good enough. Again, you demand that evolutionist bring you back in time to see less-evolved versions of things, but when you see christianity spouts something even you claim is hard to swallow, you simply say that how the world works and go off to bed without giving it so much as a second though. I'll make this simpler:

What does a cell's knowledge of how and what to evolve into in order to make itself more suitable for it's environment and god having no creator despite being easily the most complex being in the universe? Both are something Lynn7 doesn't know the answer to and claims is too complex to understand. However she's only interested in solving the claim that's usually made outside her faith, while not asking question about the one from within her faith. Why is this?



If you say that you have no idea how god knew how to do what he did, how come you believe in it? How does god know how to do anything at anytime?

The bible's logic doesn't make any sense. Some kids who have never done anything wrong in their lives are born with hideous deformities that will gurantee unplesant lives because some naked jackass wanted to learn a little about his environment? Since god is all-knowing, then he knew what was going to happen, why the hell did he bother putting them there in the first place? It's a pointless waste of time.

And I really am curious as to where my nipples fall into the equation. They're hardly a punishment, but they don't really give anything. Why did god give them to anybody? Even adding the garden of eden into the equation, why did he make animals that wouldn't survive outside, but many that did? Why did he create primitve, less advanced versions of certain animals at the same time as the more sophisticated ones, if all beasts were made in the same day?

In fact, aren't you a bit put off by the message behind the Garden Of Eden? I mean, what I got is your not supposed to question or second-guess the bible's claim and that knowledge is evil and leads to great pain and misery. It's the ultimate anti-intellectual claim, basically stating that people should tay dumb and refrain from trying to learn outside of what the bible's god says. Ignorance is bliss, in so few words.



I can believe in something with minimal evidence, but to ask me to set my life by ridiculous rules for as log as I live without providing a shred of evidence except for a boring old book written thousands of years ago that's loaded with contradictions, barbaric laws and faulty science is waaaaaaaaaay much more than I can handle. I don't feel your asking for my faith, but rather for me to read the bible, look the other way whenever an inconvenient error shows up, then buy into it. I'm not gonna do it.

Thank you for replying to me however, and I await your rebuttal (and please remember what I said about making a double standard for the requirement of evidence and when you write up a response).

I don't know it I'll have time to address all your points today but I 'll see how far I can get.

I didn't demand to be shown anything about evolution nor did I expect you guys to buy what I am saying. If you scroll back to the beginning I think I said that this conversation would end up with all of us beleiving the same things we did when we came into it. I already went through my questioning period many years ago. I actually beleived evolution because that is what I was taught by teachers and by books and even my parents beleived it and they were Christians (although they had never read the Bible nor were they familiar with it). So I believed it and then when I started looking into it and really thought about it it didn't really make a lot of sense to me although I was not a scientest so I still thought the scientests must be right.

I began to study the bible and that really made sense to me. for the first time in my life everything made sense. It was all logical and all the pieces fit together. It was amazing how the wisdom from thousands of years ago could still apply to today. It still amazes me.

It blows my mind that there is a God who designed us. When I look at the sky and see the sun the stars the moon and know there are universes beyond it blows my mind. To think of such power and such intelligence and ability and to think that this God I speak of cares about each of us as individuals and loves us, it blows my mind. If I am to think of some cells changing over the millions of years and reacting to an environment that there is seemiingly no explanation for, it does not make sense to me. Look at a baby and consider its soft skin, it's tiny little fingernails, the cute little smiles and giggles, the way it grasps your hand and squeezes it so tightly.... ahhhh! Such wonder and beauty. Nothing I would ever attribute to an evolutionary process. Look at a puppy- the way it gallops around and does such crazy antics and wags its tail and licks your hand and rolls around and plays catch with you. I can't attribute this to evolution but to a loving God who has desgined the world as a place of wonder and pleasure. I also consder the God who made the shark who is so sleek and dangerous and yet also a work of art.

I dont' know how God was created because he says He was not created. He says He is the beginning and the end. He has always existed. I dont' understand it. The bible says that without faith it is impossible to please God. I guess my argument could fall apart since I don't know how God could always be-it doens't make any sense to me and yet I know that in evolution it is the same thing. There had to be a "beginning" to evolution because there had to be something that started somewhere according to our brains. I don't base my faith just on this though. I base it on a million things but mostly my personal experience with God since I started to beleive in Him. and that is something that is very convincing to me but I cannot convey to you.

Some things are very unfair in this world. We come to this world with nothing and can't demand anything. Our places are assigned to us. Some of us are deformed and some of us will die young or suffer terrible diseases. The Bible explains this as the fact that we are sinners living in a fallen world. The two people were created perfect and suffered no diseases and no deformities. They lived in a perfect world and would live eternal lives. They were given free choice by God to obey him or not. when Satan tempted them they fell and then entered the world of deformitites and sickness. But God provided a way back and that way is Jesus, according to the Bible.So people with deformities can expect that upon their death they will live eternally in paradise with perfect bodies.

The Bible didn't say that knowlege was evil, it said don't eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They did not know evil but we all know it now. God designed the world in a way that would nurture our knowlege. We discovered radio waves and all kinds of nifty things that God provided for us to use our knowledge upon. The fact that our medicines are from plants etc means that they are there for us to discover. But God does let us know not to think we are all that smart because His ways are higher than our ways. It is that arrogance that brought about the downfall to begin with- Adam and Eve thought they could function apart from God but they brought about disaster and everytime we stray away from the teachings of our God we also experience disaster, IMO.

Now, how did evolution get its start and where did anything come from before any of it came to be and how did it develop the intelligence to develop an environement and so many diverse life forms and why are some planets in possession of water and atmosphere and others are not? Shouldn't all places have the ability to develop and adapt? Why no fish or zebras on Mars? Why is it impossible to beleive that God always existed but you are not troubled by the same question as it applies to anything in evolution. Where did the life come from? I thad to start somewhere, right?

[darchangel]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I would have agreed with you about this country being mostly Christian about 10 years ago but it no longer is. Christians are routinely mocked in the media and that is the beginning. The values are changing too. Teh values that most people adhere to have nothing to do with the Christian teachings. The Christian teachings are now seen as intolerant or old fashioned. That is not the way it was 10 or 15 years ago.

I do beleive that our decay is related to godlessness. I think that the teachings in the Bible lead to kindness and consideration. I look and see that the countries founded on Christianity are the kindest countries and the ones who are atheist or Muslim tend to be conducted without thought to the individual. Life does not seem to have personal value in these countries. Look at Israel and the US- they really try to make sure that civilians are cleared out before bombing wheras the Hezzbolaah (along with Syria and Iran) seem to deliberately target civilians. Life just works better when it is conducted under Judeo-Christian teachings, IMO.

Being 'mocked in the media' is not the equivalent of not being allowed to worship or being stoned to death...I don't see how that can be constituted as 'persecution.' As we speak, we live in a country where homosexuals are being denied their civil liberties because of archaic Christian values. South Dakota is taking constitutional rights away from women by not allowing abortions based on a Judeo-Christian belief that is never actually mentioned in the bible. How can you say this country isn't being based on Christian-derived values?

Secondly, are you KIDDING me??? Hitler thoughtlessly slaughtered THOUSANDS of individuals in the name of Christian god...witch judges throughout Europe and New England tortured and murdered innocent women and girls under the pretense they were 'agents of satan', and American slaves were treated like property rather than people with the understanding that slaveowners were 'saving them from heathen ways', yet you can honestly say that atheists and Muslims have no thought for the individual (furthermore, I'd like to know exactly which countries are predominantly atheist, since over 90% of the world believes in some kind of deity). That just doesn't fly with me, Lynn.

There are extremists in EVERY religion, people who care more about preserving the belief system than incorporating the good ideas into their society. THAT is why I have a problem with the direction the political idealism is taking lately...our country seems to care more about loving their biblical principles than loving their fellow humans, and if we can't seem to have liberty and justice for all, then I don't see the point in calling this a democratic country.



~darchangel~

[Monotreme]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I do beleive that our decay is related to godlessness. I think that the teachings in the Bible lead to kindness and consideration.

America and Israel's conduct has nothing to do with religion, it has everything to do with democracy and government. The fact that Israel warns civillians to get out of bombed areas while Hezbollah deliberately targets civillians has nothing to do with Judaism versus Islam, it has to do with a western democratic sovereignty versus a totalitarian third world fascist terrorist organization.

Also let's not forget that the teachings in the Bible were the direct or indirect causes of such events as the middle ages, witch hunts, the spanish inquisition, the crusades, the persecution and execution of scholars, scientists, doctors and philosophers, the 100 year old war, the purging of the frontier, slavery, the KKK, the NRA, and the war on terror. And last I checked, none of these events were particularly kind or considerate.

Historic fact: Organized religion is the root of all problems this world has EVER seen. How anyone can fail to see this is beyond me.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I dont' get your point. If a human body part looks like a gill along the way and it develops into something that is not a gill then it will fit the definition of the body part it becomes. If an eye looks like and eye and develops into an eye but it does not work correctly it will still be defined as an eye.


"Marty, you're not thinking fourth dimensionally!"

Lynn, why would it be a gill if it had evolved into a parathyroid gland?

[Vong]

I dont' get your point. If a human body part looks like a gill along the way and it develops into something that is not a gill then it will fit the definition of the body part it becomes. If an eye looks like and eye and develops into an eye but it does not work correctly it will still be defined as an eye.

Lynn, evolution doesn't have to make sense. A body part could have no/little use to an animal at one point, and somewhere down the road it becomes essential. This is adaptation and exaptation.

For example, feathers were an adaptation for temperature among feathery dinosaurs. As the dinosaur/reptiles evolved the feathers were used for flying through exaptation, and would become neccesary for all birds. Exaptation is when a trait that was made for one use became another. If animals have a trait that is no longer useful, they put it to another use.

[electriclite]

I don't believe Christians in this country are on some sort of decline seeing as how enough of them were able to vote George Bush in office, a man who has made it publically known how "fervent" a Christian he is.

We're a Christian country who votes for Christians. You're safe.

Being mocked is more of an indication of how big and familiar an organization is, rather than radical persecution. Most estimates say that by the year 2025 Christians will STILL have the most number of believers. Two point one billlion members world wide is not an endangered minority by any stretch.

[Jon Lyrik]

Twenty one billion?

[Jon Lyrik]

Originally posted by darchangel
yet you can honestly say that atheists and Muslims have no thought for the individual (furthermore, I'd like to know exactly which countries are predominantly atheist, since over 90% of the world believes in some kind of deity).

Czech Republic is 50%+ atheist. I think another Eastern European country is, but I'm not sure. The Czechs, of course, are having an economic collapse and are conducting a widespread persecution of the dirty Christians, easily worse off than any other ex-communist country, because of their degenerative God-hatin'.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Jon Lyrik
Twenty one billion?


Sorry, bad typing. Fixed now.

[EVILxxx]

Originally posted by Monotreme

Also let's not forget that the teachings in the Bible were the direct or indirect causes of such events the NRA, and the war on terror. And last I checked, none of these events were particularly kind or considerate.


I hope you meant to type the IRA.

[Lynn7]

A lot of the comments about Christains being responsible for the ills of the world sound a lot worse than Gibson's comments about the Jews and you guys are sober!

Well, I just have to say that I disagree with you all. You have a low opinion of Christianity if you think that it is responsible for all the ills in history. I see it as a redeeming grace through those evil times that were brought about by evil men. Monotreme, democracy has everything to do with Judeo-Christian teachings. Democracy is rare in Muslim countries and it is also rare in countries that practice religions other than Judaism or Chrisitianity.

DArchangel,
maybe being mocked isnt' religious persecution but what about in the Sudan and other places where Christians are routinely slaughtered? I don't understand how you can say that women are being denied abortions because of Christian teachings is a bad thing- if you look at the issue from the babies' perspective it might look a bit differently.

The problem of terrorism is not going to go away- this isnt' a country who is acting up and therefore, it cannot be stopped. There will always be many many terrorists who will pick up where the last ones left off. This is it. These are the times the Bible has predicted from thousands of years ago. Who could've ever imagined that a force like this would come into existence and how futile it is to try to put it down? The people strike at civilians and they hide among civilians like a cancer in a body.

The Bible called it right. So, based on the premise that this Islamofascism is here to stay, how do you see the Christians being treated in all of this? They won't be mocked but will be targeted as surely as the Jews are being targetted. The forces we face are Satanic forces and there is no evolutionary scientest who is going to present the answers about this to anyone. People will have to make a choice eventually- to choose God or to join the Islamofacist movement. There won't be any in-between. I am willing to die to stay true to my God. What will you guys do if the Islamists come into world power which is what they aim to do? What will your choices be?

[darchangel]

Originally posted by Lynn7
DArchangel,
maybe being mocked isnt' religious persecution but what about in the Sudan and other places where Christians are routinely slaughtered? I don't understand how you can say that women are being denied abortions because of Christian teachings is a bad thing- if you look at the issue from the babies' perspective it might look a bit differently.

The problem of terrorism is not going to go away- this isnt' a country who is acting up and therefore, it cannot be stopped. There will always be many many terrorists who will pick up where the last ones left off. This is it. These are the times the Bible has predicted from thousands of years ago. Who could've ever imagined that a force like this would come into existence and how futile it is to try to put it down? The people strike at civilians and they hide among civilians like a cancer in a body.

The Bible called it right. So, based on the premise that this Islamofascism is here to stay, how do you see the Christians being treated in all of this? They won't be mocked but will be targeted as surely as the Jews are being targetted. The forces we face are Satanic forces and there is no evolutionary scientest who is going to present the answers about this to anyone. People will have to make a choice eventually- to choose God or to join the Islamofacist movement. There won't be any in-between. I am willing to die to stay true to my God. What will you guys do if the Islamists come into world power which is what they aim to do? What will your choices be?


In the first paragraph, you say people shouldn't be killed for believing what they believe (which I wholeheartedly agree with). Then in the last paragraph you say you're willing to die for your beliefs...one could conclude that is the way these people being slaughtered must also feel. While being killed for your religious beliefs in unequivocally wrong, you have to remember that believers of all religions are killed all over the world for choosing the 'wrong religion.' It's not like the whole world is hunting down Christians left and right. Also, your previous posts made it sound as though Christians are on the verge of slaughter in the U.S., which is just a ridiculous thought, no matter how you look at it.

We've been over the abortion issue, Lynn...as far as I'm concerned, the baby is not a sentient being during the first trimester of development, and the mother has the right to terminate the pregnancy if she chooses. I don't think it should be a matter for the church or the state to decide.

Finally, your prediction for our religious power struggle future is nearly laughable to me. I've said it before and I'll say it again: not all people who practice Islam are our enemies. I've also said this before: there are fanatical zealots in every religion, and who they worship doesn't make them any less scary or dangerous to me. Zealots can't maintain followers long enough to achieve world domination; nearly all 'religious' violence has another underlying cause. From Bloody Mary to Hitler, history shows us that religious fervor alone cannot sustain an angry mob for extended periods of time. They get sloppy. There's infighting. The cause is questioned. Eventually, they either burn themselves out, kill each other off, or are taken out by an external party. I just don't see Islam vs. Jesus for world takeover ever happening, Lynn.

And as far as what I would do in such an event: I'd stay atheist and be burned at the stake by either one group or the other.



~darchangel~

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Lynn7
maybe being mocked isnt' religious persecution but what about in the Sudan and other places where Christians are routinely slaughtered?

What do you say about the Chinese history of persecuting and torturing buddhists and other religious groups? There's far less of them than there are Christians in the world.


Originally posted by Lynn7
I don't understand how you can say that women are being denied abortions because of Christian teachings is a bad thing- if you look at the issue from the babies' perspective it might look a bit differently.

Look you're not going to stop everyone from having sex outside of marriage, therefore you're not going to force people to raise children they're either not ready to or don't want to raise. Yes its selfish but then so is forcing people to do what you feel is right because that's how you feel.

South Dakota bans abortions except in the case that the mother's life is at stake. So if a woman is raped she has to suck it up or take a bus out of state. The problem with "activism" like this is that it makes it crystal clear that a "being" that is unable to think, speak or vote, now has more consideration than the person carrying it who CAN think, speak and vote.

You're more than entitled to an opinion on the subject based on your beliefs, but not dictating the actions and options of others who don't follow your beliefs.



Originally posted by Lynn7
This is it. These are the times the Bible has predicted from thousands of years ago. Who could've ever imagined that a force like this would come into existence and how futile it is to try to put it down?

It should bother you in some small way that this is same panicked kind of talk that fundamentalist Islamic leaders spout to try and inspire followers to go out into the world and reek havoc.

I say that the situation right now would be greater evidence that we need far more cool heads in the world.


Originally posted by Lynn7
People will have to make a choice eventually- to choose God or to join the Islamofacist movement. There won't be any in-between. I am willing to die to stay true to my God. What will you guys do if the Islamists come into world power which is what they aim to do? What will your choices be?

That's kind of a ridiculous statement considering Muslims, Jews and Christians all believe in the same God.

In between your readings of the Bible, please consider at least boning up on some information about the religion you consider "your enemy". If you wish, you may think of it as knowing more about your enemy in order to defeat them. Whatever you wish.

[Jon Lyrik]

Yes, the end times are here. Just like they were here in 1844, 1914, 1975, and so many other dates. The Bible is nothing like Nostradamus or horoscopes at all, it can't possibly be deliberately vague enough to be interpreted as one sees fit, not at all. And the world was never chaotic before now, it was always peaceful, especially when those damned Muzzies left us alone.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by darchangel
In the first paragraph, you say people shouldn't be killed for believing what they believe (which I wholeheartedly agree with). Then in the last paragraph you say you're willing to die for your beliefs...one could conclude that is the way these people being slaughtered must also feel. While being killed for your religious beliefs in unequivocally wrong, you have to remember that believers of all religions are killed all over the world for choosing the 'wrong religion.' It's not like the whole world is hunting down Christians left and right. Also, your previous posts made it sound as though Christians are on the verge of slaughter in the U.S., which is just a ridiculous thought, no matter how you look at it.

We've been over the abortion issue, Lynn...as far as I'm concerned, the baby is not a sentient being during the first trimester of development, and the mother has the right to terminate the pregnancy if she chooses. I don't think it should be a matter for the church or the state to decide.

Finally, your prediction for our religious power struggle future is nearly laughable to me. I've said it before and I'll say it again: not all people who practice Islam are our enemies. I've also said this before: there are fanatical zealots in every religion, and who they worship doesn't make them any less scary or dangerous to me. Zealots can't maintain followers long enough to achieve world domination; nearly all 'religious' violence has another underlying cause. From Bloody Mary to Hitler, history shows us that religious fervor alone cannot sustain an angry mob for extended periods of time. They get sloppy. There's infighting. The cause is questioned. Eventually, they either burn themselves out, kill each other off, or are taken out by an external party. I just don't see Islam vs. Jesus for world takeover ever happening, Lynn.

And as far as what I would do in such an event: I'd stay atheist and be burned at the stake by either one group or the other.



~darchangel~

People should never be killed for their beleifs but they are. If I beleive Christians are on the verge of slaughter I will just qualify that by saying that I am beleiving in what the bible says so it is actually more complicated than this. Verge is a relative term, I guess. There are some Christians who are being slaughtered now for their beliefs but of course while our countries remain civilized that will not happen. However, consider this- on this board there is a lot of anger toward Christians and accusations about how they are the cause of many of the ills in history and have the audacity to be against abortion or gay marriage. Even 30 years ago these "radical" Christian beliefs were adhered to by most people and certainly most Christians. Now many Christians don't even adhere to them anymore. The tide is turning-Christians will be persecuted for thier "intolerance."

Re: abortion- yes, I beleive that a baby's right to live should outweigh the convenience of two people who have had sex- we won't talk rape or incest since everyone I know who has had an abortion has had it for the inconveneince reason and most abortions are for the same reason.

I agree with your point about people not being able to keep their act together without infighting etc however, once someone is in power they can at least maintian it for their life time (Castro, Hussein) until someone stronger comes along and wrests it from them or their successor. In this case it is different though. We have a myraid of groups who have the same goal- to defeat and kill Israel and the US and then all the rest of the world ultimately. There will be fighting between these groups but for now they will stand in solidaritly and then if they come into power they will begin the infighting. But how could we recover at that point? Once you lose your power, it is gone. The other oppressed people in the world are no less smart than we are and they can't get out from under dictatorships.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Lynn7
However, consider this- on this board there is a lot of anger toward Christians and accusations about how they are the cause of many of the ills in history and have the audacity to be against abortion or gay marriage. Even 30 years ago these "radical" Christian beliefs were adhered to by most people and certainly most Christians. Now many Christians don't even adhere to them anymore. The tide is turning-Christians will be persecuted for thier "intolerance."

Maybe because the Christians they are considering when writing their responses are the loudest and covered the most by the media. Kinda like the same way it only shows the loudest and radical muslims.

Probably because most of them were raised Christian and maybe the belief left them with doubts based on the actions of those who called themselves and believed so fervently that they were good Christians.

Maybe the sad fact of it is that Christianity isn't being ridiculed and criticized by some evil foreign entity, but by those who were once part of it.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by electriclite
What do you say about the Chinese history of persecuting and torturing buddhists and other religious groups? There's far less of them than there are Christians in the world.




Look you're not going to stop everyone from having sex outside of marriage, therefore you're not going to force people to raise children they're either not ready to or don't want to raise. Yes its selfish but then so is forcing people to do what you feel is right because that's how you feel.

South Dakota bans abortions except in the case that the mother's life is at stake. So if a woman is raped she has to suck it up or take a bus out of state. The problem with "activism" like this is that it makes it crystal clear that a "being" that is unable to think, speak or vote, now has more consideration than the person carrying it who CAN think, speak and vote.

You're more than entitled to an opinion on the subject based on your beliefs, but not dictating the actions and options of others who don't follow your beliefs.





It should bother you in some small way that this is same panicked kind of talk that fundamentalist Islamic leaders spout to try and inspire followers to go out into the world and reek havoc.

I say that the situation right now would be greater evidence that we need far more cool heads in the world.




That's kind of a ridiculous statement considering Muslims, Jews and Christians all believe in the same God.

In between your readings of the Bible, please consider at least boning up on some information about the religion you consider "your enemy". If you wish, you may think of it as knowing more about your enemy in order to defeat them. Whatever you wish.

I agree that Christians aren't the only relgious group ever persecuted.

I know I cna't stop people from having sex outside of marriage. I can't stop it when people leave their babies locked in a hot car on a summer day either while mom goes into the grocery store to "get a few things." I feel bad when people don't consider that there is a precious life involved that has interfered with convenience. Life should not be all about having a good time without any consequences. If one drinks and drives he might kill someone. He might get off if it is his first offence- the victim isn't so lucky. If one has sex she can get pregnant- no problem just abort it! The man often tells the woman to abort the baby even if she wants it but he doesn't want to be tied down. It's all good.

The panicked talk that you spoke of is something that we should be experiencing right now. I think many in this country do not understand the gravity of the situation we are in. Iran is really in everyone's face threatening all about interfering with their "right" to get their nukes up and working for their "nuclear energy plants" and oh yeah, their wish to destroy Israel and the US. They say if sanctions are applied that they will withhold their oil. Now what would that do to our economy? Millions of people could go under in the snap of a finger without affordable gas. So now countries have to make a choice- allow Iran to build nukes or go without the oil that is so needed.

Christians and Muslims absolutely do not worship the same God. The Muslim God has teachings that we do not beleive in or have any intention of following. Their God is NOT our God. We beleieve in the same God as the Jews do however maybe they might say we don't beleive in the same God as they do because although our New Testament is totally based on the Old Testament and is just as much a part of our Bible, they do not recognize Jesus as their God and so might say they do not beleive in our God. Anyway, Gods are not interchangable just cause we might all choose to worship a higher being.

I dont' consider people who worship a different god an enemy unless they are hurting others. I do consider Satan an enemy because he orchestrates the evil of the world. He is the great deciever and seeks to destroy the things of God.

I guess it must be so easy to beleive in evolution and just think that all these different religious groups and their agendas are simply an abberation in the increasing superiortiy of man. What is it about the evolved brain that causes man to believe in a god? Was it some misstep in the evolutionary development that lent itself to this phenomenon? And how can it be fixed? Why don't apes seem to have these cataclysmic problems?

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I guess it must be so easy to beleive in evolution and just think that all these different religious groups and their agendas are simply an abberation in the increasing superiortiy of man. What is it about the evolved brain that causes man to believe in a god? Was it some misstep in the evolutionary development that lent itself to this phenomenon? And how can it be fixed? Why don't apes seem to have these cataclysmic problems?


Evolution doesn't deny a collective unconscious.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by electriclite
Maybe because the Christians they are considering when writing their responses are the loudest and covered the most by the media. Kinda like the same way it only shows the loudest and radical muslims.

Probably because most of them were raised Christian and maybe the belief left them with doubts based on the actions of those who called themselves and believed so fervently that they were good Christians.

Maybe the sad fact of it is that Christianity isn't being ridiculed and criticized by some evil foreign entity, but by those who were once part of it.

Jesus had an answer for this:

Matthew 24:4-31
4 Jesus answered: "Watch out that no one deceives you. 5 For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ,' and will deceive many. 6 You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 7 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are the beginning of birth pains. 9 "Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. 10 At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11 and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12 Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13 but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

These are the teachings we beleive in.

[shoe1985]

I am not a religious person. I don't go to church. I believe that god created us and expected us to evolve into better human beings. In a way, he/she was a scientist. He/she developed us, and let us do the rest.

As for the bible, a professor once told my class that it is a good story. She said it may be true, it may not, but live your life how you want too, you only live once. If you want to live it by the bible, do it, if not, don't. We all have our own opinions on things and nobody should try to change our thinking, unless it is proven to be false.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
These are the teachings we beleive in.


With all due respect to all those scientific and intellectual discoveries that apply to your daily life. Sorry Lynn, but the bible can't teach you how to keep your car running, or what to do with a sick infant, so stop acting like those specific teachings are the say all and end all to everything.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by shoe1985
I am not a religious person. I don't go to church. I believe that god created us and expected us to evolve into better human beings. In a way, he/she was a scientist. He/she developed us, and let us do the rest.

As for the bible, a professor once told my class that it is a good story. She said it may be true, it may not, but live your life how you want too, you only live once. If you want to live it by the bible, do it, if not, don't. We all have our own opinions on things and nobody should try to change our thinking, unless it is proven to be false.

I agree that you can't change people's minds but I think it is OK to discuss ideas if it is done in a respectful way. Unfortunately, relgious and political discussions are often vulnerable to becoming emotionally charged.

I had a philosophy professor who once said that if there is no god it doesn't matter if you beleive or not. If there is a god then it does matter if you beleive and how you believe. This professor figured that we should all beleive because then we will all be safe. He was joking around and didn't mean what he was saying. However, it is true that if there is a god then it does matter. So, it behooves every person to look into the subject for themselves and not to be lazy about following the pack because in the end we will face death alone-the pack will not be with us. I have taken many classes in my time but there have not been any professors that I would ever trust with about an important subject like God. People may take courses and learn things but when it comes to God no person has the "in" on the answers to life. These people are born and die just like everyone else. I beleive in the Bible which I beleive was written by God and through many men. I see an entire plan unfolded across the thousands of years and written through men from all different walks of life who did not know each other. I beleive in a man who was tortured, killed, and resurrected despite the fact that he was under heavy guard becasue they were afraid that people might try to steal his body, And yet, his body was still gone.

I dont beleive that God started us and then let us continue to evolve on on or own. Why do we try to define who God is by Darwin's writings? Why does the Bible get pushed aside and everything written is defined by the Great Darwin.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
With all due respect to all those scientific and intellectual discoveries that apply to your daily life. Sorry Lynn, but the bible can't teach you how to keep your car running, or what to do with a sick infant, so stop acting like those specific teachings are the say all and end all to everything.

It is a timeless book of wisdom- it is not a instruction manual. However, it does teach us about prayer and that is something that people are still doing today when their cars stop running and their infants get sick. It also teaches us to look past this temporal life which can end in a moment and to see the life that can last for eternity.

[darchangel]

Originally posted by Lynn7

I dont beleive that God started us and then let us continue to evolve on on or own. Why do we try to define who God is by Darwin's writings? Why does the Bible get pushed aside and everything written is defined by the Great Darwin. Who the heck was Darwin? a man who was a theologian turned "scientest" when science was still in the dark ages. I guess it's like being a doctor back when doctors went around perscribing whiskey for colds. The educational standards were a lot different back then.


And if we're going to get into 'who was Darwin?' then you realize there are going to be about a billion comments that reply 'who was Jesus?'

At least Darwin's existence on earth can be doubtlessly proven.



~darchangel~

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by darchangel
And if we're going to get into 'who was Darwin?' then you realize there are going to be about a billion comments that reply 'who was Jesus?'

At least Darwin's existence on earth can be doubtlessly proven.



~darchangel~

You are too fast for me- I just went back and removed those comments from my post cause I thought they were fresh but when I edited it I came back and saw that you had them. Well, Jesus is a man who revolutionized the entire world and Darwin is the man who has mesmerized the scientific community so that now all science classes teach the kids that evolution is a proven fact (which it is not) and then these kids grow into the scientests who interpret everything through the lenses of evolution and no longer are willing to consider any other explanations like the fact that one speices could die out and that does not mean it changed into another species that "looks" similar.

[darchangel]

Originally posted by Lynn7
You are too fast for me- I just went back and removed those comments from my post cause I thought they were fresh but when I edited it I came back and saw that you had them.

Seems my journalism degree paid off after all...:D


Originally posted by Lynn7

Well, Jesus is a man who revolutionized the entire world and Darwin is the man who has mesmerized the scientific community so that now all science classes teach the kids that evolution is a proven fact (which it is not) and then these kids grow into the scientests who interpret everything through the lenses of evolution and no longer are willing to consider any other explanations like the fact that one speices could die out and that does not mean it changed into another species that "looks" similar.

Jesus was a prophet who claimed to be the son of god...and we don't even know if he really existed. All writings about Jesus are third party...he may or may not have been a fictional represenatation of an actual person, like King Arthur. At best Jesus is a man who geniunely tried to help those around him; at worst, he is a morality myth.

Secondly, what the hell? Most science classes avoid the evolution/creationism thing altogether because parents throw a bitch fit if their children are taught anything other than 'god created everything.' Any child who grows up to be a scientist looks at things rationally...and creatures whose genetic makeup changes to adapt to their environment is a much more plausible theory than some all-knowing man in the sky created every single person, animal and plant in seven days.

Keep in mind this story came from the same book where a man put two of every single creature in the planet (and presumably food and water for all of them) on a boat and kept them there for months. I don't understand where you think that evolution blinds people to how things really are.


~darchangel~

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
It is a timeless book of wisdom- it is not a instruction manual. However, it does teach us about prayer and that is something that people are still doing today when their cars stop running and their infants get sick. It also teaches us to look past this temporal life which can end in a moment and to see the life that can last for eternity.


Sorry Lynn, but using the bible as an instruction manual is exactly what you are doing when you cite it as an unflexible reason to think and behave a certain way.

[shoe1985]

It is a proven fact that we evolve so we can adapt to our environment. We start out as a baby and evolve into a man or woman.

I am not saying the bible is false. I just don't believe we should live our lives by it when we don't know if it is real or not. Don't believe everything you read or hear.

I have friends who are very religious and we try not to talk about that stuff because we used to argue about it. This is the touchiest subject because some people live their lives by the bible.

[Lynn7]

Bubba, I guess I do use it as an instruction manual but I didn't mean it in that spirit when I responded to you about that. I think it does instuct us on all the real important things, the lasting things in life.

Shoe, I don't believe everything I read. I think the bible stands up to all the questions that I have had or that any of the anti-bible scholars have had. There are some friends who I do not discuss politics or religion with. It depends on how well they can handle discussion. I definitely hate to get into any disrespectful pissing matches. My brother who is a conservative but is very mild mannered (not like me!) got into a political discussion with a life long friend who is extremely liberal and the friend went as far as to suggest that my brother wasn't as smart as he was because he had never gone to college and so he could not possibly be right on any politcal issues. This hurt my brother deeply and though he never said anything to his friend about it, the relationship will just never be the same. It's just so not worth it when discussing issues with people who get vile when discussing things.

PS I say that we do not evolve from babies into adults- we are designed to be adults but we are born small so we can fit into our mothers uteruses.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Bubba, I guess I do use it as an instruction manual but I didn't mean it in that spirit when I responded to you about that. I think it does instuct us on all the real important things, the lasting things in life.

So explain to me what the bible says to do if your child becomes sick. If it doesn't say exactly what to do, why do you choose to listen to the wisdom found outside the bible that dictates what you would do, but not to other wisdoms found outside the bible?



PS I say that we do not evolve from babies into adults- we are designed to be adults but we are born small so we can fit into our mothers uteruses.

Do you believe we are born without lungs?

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
So explain to me what the bible says to do if your child becomes sick. If it doesn't say exactly what to do, why do you choose to listen to the wisdom found outside the bible that dictates what you would do, but not to other wisdoms found outside the bible?



[b]

Do you believe we are born without lungs?

God gave us brains to figure this stuff out. He gave us brains and then designed a world that would challenge those brains. What we really need is not an instruction manual for the day to day things but a guide of wisdom about what the world is and why are we here and where are we going.

I don't understand the lung question. I beleive that we were designed to have lungs so that we could process the all of the gases that were exactly right for our survival in an atmosphere that is found no where else in the universe. The Earth is perfectly designed, we are perfectly designed and the animals the fish the ocean the lakes etc are all perfectly designed. Go figure.

Darchangel- no one has ever disputed the fact that Jesus lived. There are tons of all kinds of evidences that historians have verified. The thing people have to decide is (as C.S.Lewis said) is he Lord, liar, or lunatic?

[Vong]

no one has ever disputed the fact that Jesus lived. There are tons of all kinds of evidences that historians have verified.

....such as......

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Vong
....such as......

Well, there are probably thousands of books written on it but do you really think that Jesus's existence is in dispute?

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Well, there are probably thousands of books written on it but do you really think that Jesus's existence is in dispute?

There are thousands of books that go against evolution, but do you really think that evolution is disputed?

[Lynn7]

Evolution is still a theory so there we are.

[MacReady]

Holy fuck, I just realized that I responded to the same reply by Lynn twice and that there was another after it that I forgot. My apologies.

[Vong]

Evolution is still a theory so there we are.

Lynn, in the scientific community, a theory is just as legit as a law. A theory has just as much evidence to support its claim as a law does. If there was no evidence supporting evolution, it would be called a "hypothesis". The only thing that is really keeping evolution a theory is two things; politics and the "missing link". I wonder what would happen when evolution became a law. How would you think the scientific community would be responded? The religious community would denounce everything they would say, since the science community is basically stepping all over their beliefs.

The missing link is also making things hard for scientists. However, just because one link between apes and humans hasn't been found yet, it doesn't mean that there isn't enough evidence to prove that evolution is correct. Look at the theory of relativity, or the theory of wave particles. They are "just" theories, but they have had practical use in helping to explain the universe.

And I find it really odd Lynn that you would discount evolution as lacking evidence when as a person of faith you should have no need for evidence to believe in something.

[MacReady]

Originally posted by Vong
And I find it really odd Lynn that you would discount evolution as lacking evidence when as a person of faith you should have no need for evidence to believe in something.

Fuckin' A.

I love how people use the 'it's just a theory' in order to make it sound as if it was just above a wild guess made months ago. It's been around for over a century and is widely believed by the scitenfic community which is dedicated to knowing everything there is to know about the world. We have tons of evidence pointing to our stuff real. All you guys have is your sense of amazement ("That mountain is so awesome, that my amazement of it proves there's a god who created it!").

[MacReady]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I began to study the bible and that really made sense to me. for the first time in my life everything made sense. It was all logical and all the pieces fit together. It was amazing how the wisdom from thousands of years ago could still apply to today. It still amazes me.

How logical can it be? It has literally thousands of inconsistencies along with heinous and brutal rules. Whenever somebody puts these out to a christian, most say "it doesn't really mean that" (why is it that whenever a ruling that is considered unacceptable by 21th century standards is mentioned in the bible, it's obviously 'not real' and has to be interpreted in a way that fits the times of today?) or "other people have talked about that, and since christianity is still around that must mean they were proven wrong", afterwards proceeding to ignore that argument and considering it done. It's like being challenged to a fight by somebody who's bigger and stronger than you, running away, then later actually boasting that you won the fight.

Originally posted by Lynn7
It blows my mind that there is a God who designed us. When I look at the sky and see the sun the stars the moon and know there are universes beyond it blows my mind. To think of such power and such intelligence and ability and to think that this God I speak of cares about each of us as individuals and loves us, it blows my mind. If I am to think of some cells changing over the millions of years and reacting to an environment that there is seemiingly no explanation for, it does not make sense to me. Look at a baby and consider its soft skin, it's tiny little fingernails, the cute little smiles and giggles, the way it grasps your hand and squeezes it so tightly.... ahhhh! Such wonder and beauty. Nothing I would ever attribute to an evolutionary process. Look at a puppy- the way it gallops around and does such crazy antics and wags its tail and licks your hand and rolls around and plays catch with you. I can't attribute this to evolution but to a loving God who has desgined the world as a place of wonder and pleasure. I also consder the God who made the shark who is so sleek and dangerous and yet also a work of art.

God I feel dumber now.:(

Let me show you what's incredibly wrong with your argument with a analogy of my own:

"Your honor, sure my wife was in the same room as the victim at the time of the murder victim, was carrying a loaded weapon who's bullets match the ones in the victim's body and somebody even saw her do it, but the idea of her doing it makes me so sad that I refuse to believe it and that it simply must be false"

The Judge: "There there, your feelings say more than real evidence (which you didn't even have) ever could. Case dismissed".

Your sense of astonishment prooves absolutely nothing. At all. It's merely emotions. I want real proof that creator exists. I mean, water and rocks aren't intelligent, but over millions of years ('coincidentaly' the same amount of time that's said to have taken many species to change into something better) they eventually carved the grand canyon by themselves without some aliens coming along to help them or something.

Originally posted by Lynn7
I dont' know how God was created because he says He was not created. He says He is the beginning and the end. He has always existed. I dont' understand it. The bible says that without faith it is impossible to please God. I guess my argument could fall apart since I don't know how God could always be-it doens't make any sense to me and yet I know that in evolution it is the same thing. There had to be a "beginning" to evolution because there had to be something that started somewhere according to our brains. I don't base my faith just on this though. I base it on a million things but mostly my personal experience with God since I started to beleive in Him. and that is something that is very convincing to me but I cannot convey to you.

I can't really attack this point, but I will say I think you should avoid getting into arguments around evolution since your argument is based on a personal feeling that you yourself stated you can't convey to others, what's the point of debating? The argument can't be resolved.

Oh, and please don't mistake this for those rude "change your mind ya' dumb bitch" or "leave our forum" comments. I don't really care about debating abortion and shit with you because you bass those on logic (at least your perception of logical thinking) rather than emotion and thus we can debate those things easier. It's just a thought. You can continue debating for as long as you please. All you should do is please avoid a 'it's my faith' rebuttal since it doesn't really quite cut it for me.

Originally posted by Lynn7
Some things are very unfair in this world. We come to this world with nothing and can't demand anything. Our places are assigned to us. Some of us are deformed and some of us will die young or suffer terrible diseases. The Bible explains this as the fact that we are sinners living in a fallen world. The two people were created perfect and suffered no diseases and no deformities. They lived in a perfect world and would live eternal lives. They were given free choice by God to obey him or not. when Satan tempted them they fell and then entered the world of deformitites and sickness. But God provided a way back and that way is Jesus, according to the Bible.So people with deformities can expect that upon their death they will live eternally in paradise with perfect bodies.

Then why do you obey a god who's law you perceive as unfair?

I mean, god is omnipotent and all-knowing, so he knew damn-well was gonna happen to them. We did he leave that thing around for people to play with it? Why not just know it's gonna happen in the first place and put people on shitty old earth?

I really couldn't think of anything to say for the next paragraph so I skipped it.

Originally posted by Lynn7
Now, how did evolution get its start and where did anything come from before any of it came to be and how did it develop the intelligence to develop an environement and so many diverse life forms and why are some planets in possession of water and atmosphere and others are not? Shouldn't all places have the ability to develop and adapt? Why no fish or zebras on Mars? Why is it impossible to beleive that God always existed but you are not troubled by the same question as it applies to anything in evolution. Where did the life come from? I had to start somewhere, right?

To be frank, I don't know how it quite works. I admit it's a little hard to admit. However, I know there's much more evidence of Darwin having existed, and the fact that his book isn't loaded with absurd, fanstastic tales like millions of animals being gathered on a ship for a month and stuff.

One thing I feel gives evolution credit are our ancestors. How do you explain all those neanderthal and cro magnon and all our ancestors and shit? What are they anyway? Evolution claims that earlier versions of us existed, and eventually we came along and wiped them out because they couldn't keep up. What about dinosaurs? Humans and dinos missed each other by 65 million years. What did the almighty creator do in the meantime?

Can you explain to me how a cockroach is exposed to a poison that's designed to kill it yet it not survives it but it's own body learns to become immune, and it passes this immunity down to other generations thanks to it's genetic information. Hell, even single-celled bacteria and viruses have gronwn new strains in order to be more immune to vaccines and stuff. By your standards the cells are not smart enough to give themselves immunity to things, but they are capable of doing so.

Some of the stuff you mentioned: Mars is unihabitable. Here's it's of a moderate tempurature, plus it has water and air. As for the other planets, ours merely was in the right place at the right time, as one could say. I mean, the planet are not living things so they'll simply form as they form, never mind the fact their existence doesn't really serve any purpose in a universe made by a heavenly creator.

Why can't anything have existed forever? Simple, you don't believe so yourself. As I said before creationists insist anything complex must have a creator, ergo that logic doesn't work, as god would need a creator as well, as would his creator and so forth, going into an endless list of creators. There are signs the universe wasn't around forever.

I don't think evolution perfect, but I do think it's MUCH better than creationism.

Uh, gotta go. Enjoy trying to crack my posts (I remembered something I'll have to add next time).

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Vong
Lynn, in the scientific community, a theory is just as legit as a law. A theory has just as much evidence to support its claim as a law does. If there was no evidence supporting evolution, it would be called a "hypothesis". The only thing that is really keeping evolution a theory is two things; politics and the "missing link". I wonder what would happen when evolution became a law. How would you think the scientific community would be responded? The religious community would denounce everything they would say, since the science community is basically stepping all over their beliefs.

The missing link is also making things hard for scientists. However, just because one link between apes and humans hasn't been found yet, it doesn't mean that there isn't enough evidence to prove that evolution is correct. Look at the theory of relativity, or the theory of wave particles. They are "just" theories, but they have had practical use in helping to explain the universe.

And I find it really odd Lynn that you would discount evolution as lacking evidence when as a person of faith you should have no need for evidence to believe in something.

Teh problem with the scientific community is that they are so sure evolution is true that anything new that comes up is examined with a preexisting outcome. Not objective at all about this issue. They have convinced themselves that evolution is true so everything is fit into that puzzle whether it should be there or not. and as I've said many times, the scientific community is constantly changing their findings about other stuff. The latest is that vitamin and mineral supplements can actually be bad for you- too bad for all those people who have been spending all their money at health food stores- but no remorse from the scientific communtiy- it's a new study and the old is passed. Well wait a few years and maybe they'll say vitamin supplements are good for us again.

They can call evolution a theory or a law but in the end there is no proof only speculation and a lot of filling in blanks with conjecture that sounds good to people who want to believe it all.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by MacReady
How logical can it be? It has literally thousands of inconsistencies along with heinous and brutal rules. Whenever somebody puts these out to a christian, most say "it doesn't really mean that" (why is it that whenever a ruling that is considered unacceptable by 21th century standards is mentioned in the bible, it's obviously 'not real' and has to be interpreted in a way that fits the times of today?) or "other people have talked about that, and since christianity is still around that must mean they were proven wrong", afterwards proceeding to ignore that argument and considering it done. It's like being challenged to a fight by somebody who's bigger and stronger than you, running away, then later actually boasting that you won the fight.



God I feel dumber now.:(

Let me show you what's incredibly wrong with your argument with a analogy of my own:

"Your honor, sure my wife was in the same room as the victim at the time of the murder victim, was carrying a loaded weapon who's bullets match the ones in the victim's body and somebody even saw her do it, but the idea of her doing it makes me so sad that I refuse to believe it and that it simply must be false"

The Judge: "There there, your feelings say more than real evidence (which you didn't even have) ever could. Case dismissed".

Your sense of astonishment prooves absolutely nothing. At all. It's merely emotions. I want real proof that creator exists. I mean, water and rocks aren't intelligent, but over millions of years ('coincidentaly' the same amount of time that's said to have taken many species to change into something better) they eventually carved the grand canyon by themselves without some aliens coming along to help them or something.



I can't really attack this point, but I will say I think you should avoid getting into arguments around evolution since your argument is based on a personal feeling that you yourself stated you can't convey to others, what's the point of debating? The argument can't be resolved.

Oh, and please don't mistake this for those rude "change your mind ya' dumb bitch" or "leave our forum" comments. I don't really care about debating abortion and shit with you because you bass those on logic (at least your perception of logical thinking) rather than emotion and thus we can debate those things easier. It's just a thought. You can continue debating for as long as you please. All you should do is please avoid a 'it's my faith' rebuttal since it doesn't really quite cut it for me.



Then why do you obey a god who's law you perceive as unfair?

I mean, god is omnipotent and all-knowing, so he knew damn-well was gonna happen to them. We did he leave that thing around for people to play with it? Why not just know it's gonna happen in the first place and put people on shitty old earth?

I really couldn't think of anything to say for the next paragraph so I skipped it.



To be frank, I don't know how it quite works. I admit it's a little hard to admit. However, I know there's much more evidence of Darwin having existed, and the fact that his book isn't loaded with absurd, fanstastic tales like millions of animals being gathered on a ship for a month and stuff.

One thing I feel gives evolution credit are our ancestors. How do you explain all those neanderthal and cro magnon and all our ancestors and shit? What are they anyway? Evolution claims that earlier versions of us existed, and eventually we came along and wiped them out because they couldn't keep up. What about dinosaurs? Humans and dinos missed each other by 65 million years. What did the almighty creator do in the meantime?

Can you explain to me how a cockroach is exposed to a poison that's designed to kill it yet it not survives it but it's own body learns to become immune, and it passes this immunity down to other generations thanks to it's genetic information. Hell, even single-celled bacteria and viruses have gronwn new strains in order to be more immune to vaccines and stuff. By your standards the cells are not smart enough to give themselves immunity to things, but they are capable of doing so.

Some of the stuff you mentioned: Mars is unihabitable. Here's it's of a moderate tempurature, plus it has water and air. As for the other planets, ours merely was in the right place at the right time, as one could say. I mean, the planet are not living things so they'll simply form as they form, never mind the fact their existence doesn't really serve any purpose in a universe made by a heavenly creator.

Why can't anything have existed forever? Simple, you don't believe so yourself. As I said before creationists insist anything complex must have a creator, ergo that logic doesn't work, as god would need a creator as well, as would his creator and so forth, going into an endless list of creators. There are signs the universe wasn't around forever.

I don't think evolution perfect, but I do think it's MUCH better than creationism.

Uh, gotta go. Enjoy trying to crack my posts (I remembered something I'll have to add next time).

I won't try to argue the bible's accuracy with you. Teh Bible does say that it is impossible to please God without faith so it is true that there are some things that need to be taken that way. It's up to each person to decide for him or herself.

As far as my sense of astonishment goes, I did not present that as proof. That is just me sharing my feelings. I love God and part of why I love Him is because of His design in the world speaks to who He is. This is not proof- it is just how I feel.

It's funny that you said I should avoid getting into arguments about evolution becasue that is what I tried to do earlier in the thread and I got hammered for it. It always ends up the same doens't it? We all walk away beleiving the same things after it's all said and done. It's my faith is a rebuttal you do not care for but it is my faith. I don't know how I can phrase it any other way. I will just add that I did put a lot of thought into my decision to accept this faith as true. I didn't go to a revival meeting and get swept away on emotion. It was a process that took place over many years and after much reading and listening.

I don't beleive God is unfair. He set up the world so people had free choice- he warned what would happen if they chose that route. It was all done fairly. and it was really wonderful that after the first people regretted their choice he came back again to help them and future generations out. I think that the whole fall was necessary so we would not take him for granted but would really love him when he came to save us from despair.

as far as milllions of animals on a ship the Bible does not say that. It said I think two of each kind. The actual dimensions for the ship are in the bible if I remember right. Those other versions of man- how do you know they were man at all? Just because they had some similar characteristics (like apes do) the scientific community assumes that they were earlier versions of man. maybe they were something else altogether that became extinct? It's all about speculation and conjecture.

I have no problem with dinosaurs but as you may remember I do find it funny that we can supposedly date things accurately for 65 million years! Who's going to be able to test that? We'll check again in a million years and see if we are on track on the dating stuff- oops- we won't be here if science changes its mind on that ! Anyway, I have no problem with God existing for millions of years since He does say He has always existed.

If a roach does not succumb to a poison and then he and she reproduce they will produce offspring who have the same resistance to that poison. Therefore the roaches who are suseptible to the poison will die off and the ones who arne't will be alive to reproduce. They didn't change- the other ones simply died off- like our finches! As far as bacteria goes the problem is often that the person does not finish his or her perscription- the very suseptible bacteria die off first and the heartier ones die last. When people stop their meds too soon., the stong ones live on and multiply and become an SOB to get rid of- also doctors overperscibed antibiotics too which was a big problem.

There are answers for both ways of thinking. On the intenet we can both look up tons of articles that can present differing points of views that make sense to us. It comes down to an individual decision that we each have to make. Evolution has never answered any prayers for me. It neveer offered me the opprotunity to pray to it. In the biblical choice God does offer the opportunity for guidance and love and answered prayers and I have had so many prayers answered. It is now at the point where I am way past ever considering evolution because of my personal experiences with the biblical God. So I am totally not objective anymore. :D

[darchangel]

You had a LOT of points...so I guess I'll just take a few of these and let Mac handle the rest.


Originally posted by Lynn7



I don't beleive God is unfair. He set up the world so people had free choice- he warned what would happen if they chose that route. It was all done fairly. and it was really wonderful that after the first people regretted their choice he came back again to help them and future generations out. I think that the whole fall was necessary so we would not take him for granted but would really love him when he came to save us from despair.

as far as milllions of animals on a ship the Bible does not say that. It said I think two of each kind.

If a roach does not succumb to a poison and then he and she reproduce they will produce offspring who have the same resistance to that poison. Therefore the roaches who are suseptible to the poison will die off and the ones who arne't will be alive to reproduce. They didn't change- the other ones simply died off- like our finches!

Evolution has never answered any prayers for me. It neveer offered me the opprotunity to pray to it.

Point 1- This is, of course, the same God who will accept murderers into heaven as long as they accept him into their hearts. How is that fair to all good living people who won't go to heaven because they haven't accepted God as their savior, Lynn?

Point 2- Two of each animal would be millions...or at the very least hundreds of thousands.

Point 3- I don't understand what you're trying to get across with the roach thing in correlation to the finches. These were two different types of finch, Lynn.

Point 4- Evolution has a plan, Lynn. :D



~darchangel~

[The Postmaster General]

Lynn, what do you think God looks like?

[Vong]

Lynn, what do you think God looks like?

Probably something like this:

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d178/koojoekaper/SouthParkGod.jpg

[JohnTheHenchman]

Vong, too short of a reply.

[someguy]

John, failed attempt to get back at Vong.

[The Postmaster General]

Lynn, my question is serious. Please tell me how you believe God would look.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by darchangel
You had a LOT of points...so I guess I'll just take a few of these and let Mac handle the rest.




Point 1- This is, of course, the same God who will accept murderers into heaven as long as they accept him into their hearts. How is that fair to all good living people who won't go to heaven because they haven't accepted God as their savior, Lynn?

Point 2- Two of each animal would be millions...or at the very least hundreds of thousands.

Point 3- I don't understand what you're trying to get across with the roach thing in correlation to the finches. These were two different types of finch, Lynn.

Point 4- Evolution has a plan, Lynn. :D

~darchangel~

The thing about God is that He knows the sincerity of the heart- He knows if someone is sincerely repentant or not so no killer can fool God. The standard of measurement is not how one person is better than another- it is that we all fall short of God's perfection. So we are all judged the same- sinners, so that no man can boast (that is from the bible). So when you say a person is good by what standard are you measuring? And that killer that you are mad about, God knows how he or she came to be that killer. He knows every second of our lives and he feels our pain. No one will ever know us like God knows us and no one will ever love us like God loves us.

There are people who have written about the animal thing and I don't have time to get the stuff now but the animals would not have to be in the millions etc. It is a great story and I do beleive it but I suppose it can be a stumbling block for some. I guess I'll have to go back and read it again and see exactly what it says.

The roaches/ finches thing is just how things die off and the survivors are left to reproduce. The roaches who survived the poison are the ones who reproduce so the poison might not work so well on those roaches' children. The finches with the right beaks survived to reproduced so their children will be able to access the seeds.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Lynn, what do you think God looks like?

Why do you ask? The Bible says no one can see God and live but there is an instance of where Moses wanted to see God and God allowed him to see the back of Him as He passed by or something like that. Moses had a look on his face after seeing this that people could not look at. I'll see if I can look it up. It's funny but just about an hour ago I was reading something that said Ezekiel described God and he gave a lot of interesting descriptions. It must have been the same thing as Moses since it says no man can see God and live. I'll see if I can check it out.

Exodus 33
17 And the Lord said to Moses, "I will do the very thing you have asked, because I am pleased with you and I know you by name." 18 Then Moses said, "Now show me your glory." 19 And the Lord said, "I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the Lord, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 20 But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live." 21 Then the Lord said, "There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. 22 When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. 23 Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen."

Exodus 34
28 Moses was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant--the Ten Commandments. 29 When Moses came down from Mount Sinai with the two tablets of the Testimony in his hands, he was not aware that his face was radiant because he had spoken with the Lord. 30 When Aaron and all the Israelites saw Moses, his face was radiant, and they were afraid to come near him. 31 But Moses called to them; so Aaron and all the leaders of the community came back to him, and he spoke to them. 32 Afterward all the Israelites came near him, and he gave them all the commands the Lord had given him on Mount Sinai. 33 When Moses finished speaking to them, he put a veil over his face. 34 But whenever he entered the Lord's presence to speak with him, he removed the veil until he came out. And when he came out and told the Israelites what he had been commanded, 35 they saw that his face was radiant. Then Moses would put the veil back over his face until he went in to speak with the Lord.

Ezekiel 1
22 Spread out above the heads of the living creatures was what looked like an expanse, sparkling like ice, and awesome. 23 Under the expanse their wings were stretched out one toward the other, and each had two wings covering its body. 24 When the creatures moved, I heard the sound of their wings, like the roar of rushing waters, like the voice of the Almighty, like the tumult of an army. When they stood still, they lowered their wings. 25 Then there came a voice from above the expanse over their heads as they stood with lowered wings.
26 Above the expanse over their heads was what looked like a throne of sapphire, and high above on the throne was a figure like that of a man. 27 I saw that from what appeared to be his waist up he looked like glowing metal, as if full of fire, and that from there down he looked like fire; and brilliant light surrounded him. 28 Like the appearance of a rainbow in the clouds on a rainy day, so was the radiance around him. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord. When I saw it, I fell facedown, and I heard the voice of one speaking.