U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-13-2009, 09:22 PM
 
Location: part of the Matrix--for now!
1,030 posts, read 1,152,342 times
Reputation: 327

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carico View Post
it's impossible for apes to turn into people whether over a gazillion years or 9 months.
Human beings are apes, genius.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-13-2009, 09:29 PM
 
4,512 posts, read 6,598,899 times
Reputation: 811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nietzschean Gangsta View Post
Human beings are apes, genius.

your genealogy and my evolution still seem lightyears apart.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2009, 10:15 PM
 
Location: vagabond
2,631 posts, read 4,847,687 times
Reputation: 1302
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluepacific View Post
But herein lies the problem. The Creationist mythical story of 6 literal days or 144 hours and then poof, everything magically appears is not only unscientific, but it's also not biblical. One person on this forum told me there were no growth rings in the old growth forest trees when God made the old growth forests. If that were true it would be recorded in the fossil record somewhere. I mean, just one 10 foot diameter Redwood tree fossil would do the trick !!! Why is it that the 6 creative periods are viewed as 6 literal 24 hour days and yet the God's 7th day of rest is still ongoing at this time and in existance today ???

Can you understand why there are critics.
ok. i don't know how i could have been any clearer.

if you argue the political dogma that is known as creationism, then yes, your point holds. but if you would have read my post (which you obviously didn'tif you're going to skim or speed read, you still need to make sure you get the point of the argument), then you would have realized that i was arguing that 'creationism' is not what i claim.

Quote:
what "evidence" are you pointing to? If anything, I should be the one lecturing you on ignoring evidence. There is an embarrassing lack of evidence for evolution. The best you've got is that all the different species kind of look like each other. I call that evidence for design.
this is one of the stupidest posts i have seen on these boards. i can only say that on behalf of one who believes in God, i am embarrassed by your lack of education on the subject that you seem to think yourself an expert of. you should definitely not be teaching anyone anything about science. if you have taken 'different species kind of look like each other' as the argument for evolution, you have not been doing any significant amount of study lately.

i would like to see you outline what kind of evidence it would require to prove that evolution exists. let us see if you actually understand how to test theories and prove laws.

Quote:
So now God gets to take credit for evolution.
where is this 'now' part coming in to play? some of us have believed that God uses what we know as the sciences for as long as we can remember. in fact, many of the scientific discoveries were initiated by men and women with those beliefs. it does not have to be one or the other. to say it does is to place science and religion into the political arena, and we've already seen how well the polarization of the democrats and the republicans has done.

aaron out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2009, 11:43 PM
 
11,145 posts, read 13,589,779 times
Reputation: 4209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carico View Post
How about mice into humans since mice have DNA similar to humans.

It's not only absurd, it's an embarrassment that people who call themselves intelligent invented the story, much less duped a whole world into believing it. But that's because Satan, the father of lies, entices most people to believe anyone with a Ph.d. in science no matter how irrational he shows himself be. If anything proves that Satan exists, it's the story of evolution.
You can't just fall back on "Satan" every time someone challenges your worldview. It's been used for millenia by fear-based people as a way to never have to intellectually engage in an issue. It's too easy to hide behind a figure whose existence you can't even prove.

So, as a previous poster did, I challenge you Carico to really educate yourself about the foundations of evolutionary theory (your posts suggest that you do not understand it) and forward an argument that would prove your assertion about evolution.

If you will not do that, at least offer irrefutable proof of this "Satan" character you mention. Quoting from allegorical religious books is not acceptable proof.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2009, 01:39 AM
 
Location: Oregon
1,458 posts, read 5,134,306 times
Reputation: 1377
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdbrich View Post
Evolution directly contradicts the Biblical accounts of creation. I don't know if you believe the Bible or not...but they are not compatible.
Not entirely, but partially I suppose.

Most people don't know how to read Genesis right anyway.

For starters, there was no Hebrew word "was" as in "the Earth WAS without form and void" in King James. Or whatever version.

There was a word "became" - and the "Earth became" without form and void.

The average bible reader and many ministers are unaware that Genesis is referring to the fact that Earth already existed in verse 1:1.

Then something happened.

The following verses of chapter 1 are not talking about the beginning of Earth, but about a repopulation and change on it. That's why the word "created" was not used for plants.

But "created" was used for for the particular type of animals and man, indicating the start of a type of animal and man that did not exist on the previous Earth before whatever messed it up.

Even scientists who believe in evolution can agree with that much. It's obvious that man now is not the same as man many years ago, and there are animals now that are not like the animals many years ago.

I don't believe evolution accounted for the biggest part of the change. But it's pretty obvious either way that there is always a bit of evolution. That's what breeders do to a certain degree.

Odds are that's why Goliath's brother was noted has having birth defects. It's a potential implication of breeding family to produce people with characteristics. Can't prove it. But in such a small book, anything said had to have a reason to be mentioned.

I think the biggest and most obvious flaw in the pure evolution theory, would be the simultaneous evolution of BOTH the male organism and female organism that could reproduce with molecular accuracy, stemming from a single cell uni-sex or non-sex organism.

That's the fatal blow to the evolution theory.

Even one or the other is so remote as to be virtually unbelievable. But for both to occur is redicuous.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2009, 07:14 AM
 
Location: Brussels, Belgium
971 posts, read 1,506,681 times
Reputation: 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdvaden
I think the biggest and most obvious flaw in the pure evolution theory, would be the simultaneous evolution of BOTH the male organism and female organism that could reproduce with molecular accuracy, stemming from a single cell uni-sex or non-sex organism.
The evolution of sexual reproduction is indeed a currently unresolved question, but there are a number of possible explanations. This has been discussed in this bait-thread, which unfortunately turned into a big unrelated discussion between MysticPhD and some atheists. Here is the summary of my explanation:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roxolan View Post
Without a similarly evolved mate, sexual reproduction of the "penis-and-vagina" kind couldn't occur. However, there are various alternative ways that work even with a non-evolved "mate" (at least for very simple organisms), and some of them are listed in this link.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2009, 09:36 AM
 
Location: Columbus, OH
857 posts, read 1,233,604 times
Reputation: 558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carico View Post
I mean just that. No ancient people in history have ever passed along accounts of our alleged "vine-swinging ancestors." One would think that the first fully formed humans would have marvelous stories about their non-speaking parents and ancestors.
If u believe that the evolution is claiming a jump from monkey into man happened fast enough for man to develop a form of writing and keep record of their ape ancestors than u need to re-read the theory. this change occured over thousands of years. If u think evolutionists are claiming that a fully developed human popped out of a monkey than i can see y u think we're all nuts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2009, 12:46 PM
 
4,669 posts, read 3,925,971 times
Reputation: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by ulnevrwalkalone View Post
If u believe that the evolution is claiming a jump from monkey into man happened fast enough for man to develop a form of writing and keep record of their ape ancestors than u need to re-read the theory. this change occured over thousands of years. If u think evolutionists are claiming that a fully developed human popped out of a monkey than i can see y u think we're all nuts.

It's interesting though, that the transition fossils just haven't been found. Every one of them that I've heard of turn out to be hoaxes. Lucy...Nebraska Man....etc..etc....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2009, 01:01 PM
 
Location: Albuquerque
244 posts, read 246,489 times
Reputation: 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by stycotl View Post
where is this 'now' part coming in to play? some of us have believed that God uses what we know as the sciences for as long as we can remember. in fact, many of the scientific discoveries were initiated by men and women with those beliefs. it does not have to be one or the other. to say it does is to place science and religion into the political arena, and we've already seen how well the polarization of the democrats and the republicans has done.
aaron out.
I would have to say that the 'now' part of my statement comes from the fact that I have not been a part of the debate for very long. My realm of study for the past few years has been the Middle Ages after the fall of Rome and a century after the Protestant Reformation, up to the Enlightenment period of the 17th century.

The Church was vehemently opposed to the use of Guttenberg's press to make versions of the Bible in common languages like German where the average, literate (and there were not many, including clergy) individual could read the 'word of God' and consider their own interpretation. Many people were killed for doing this. Latin was viewed as the only language for the 'word of God', partly for the reason that few people knew it and a small minority could decide what the interpretations were going to be.

Early scientists like Copernicus, Gallileo and Ptolemy took great risks to make the assertions they did, and they knew that the Church had to allow them to publicize their findings before they thought to publish anything. Not getting the Church's consent would have caused them to be viewed as heretics, most likely excommunicated, and even burned at the stake. Thank goodness this did not happen.

So, when I say 'now' I am referring to what I call the 'loop hole' that is religion; in that everything is God's plan eventually and we are too ignorant to understand it. It's like the argument in the Bible that only the prophets who make a prophecy that comes true are true prophets while all the others are thus proven false prophets. To me that is exactly like saying that I can always predict when a roll of the dice will come up seven, so long as you are willing to accept that all the other times the dice come up something else I was not predicting then.

I am happy to hear that religious people can accept evolution. The concept seems contradictory to Genesis, but to me that is the basis of religion. Religious people seem to require faith in a larger plan to help them to be more secure in their lives. I don't have a problem with makes an individual secure, useful, and a positive part of society. I do have a problem with the exclusionary mechanism that religion is by separating right thinking people from wrong thinking people who are destined for punishment in the hereafter, as well as the attitude that the earth and everything in it was put here for man's whimsy, and that we are somehow above all other creation. That is a very dangerous way to think in my opinion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2009, 01:08 PM
 
2,633 posts, read 4,461,003 times
Reputation: 586
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdbrich View Post
It's interesting though, that the transition fossils just haven't been found. Every one of them that I've heard of turn out to be hoaxes. Lucy...Nebraska Man....etc..etc....
Don't be naive, every single fossil is transcitional. Even if you don't believe in evolution, you should understand that scientists always have a species that came before the species of the fossil and a species that came after(making the fossil the intermediate between them).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top