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.
I could probably suggest the same about you. You're willing to overlook the holes in evolution, but want to attack the smallest inconsistencies in Scripture.
Whatever.
Tho' it's off-topic, you did bring it up as an example. There are currently no more "holes" in Evolution, just the need to fill in some of the finer detail gaps. As, for example, the constant background noise about the lack of transitional forms. No absurdities or "hole" here; we have chimps, with their exactly and recently documented DNA sequences, and then we have us, with our for the most part identical (minus 1%) recently documented DNA sequencing. The few areas of change account for fur, walking stance, etc. We, and they, are the transitional forms. Evolution continues to this day. We know how and when the DNA mutations occur. The process has been absolutely defined and demonstrated. A lack of understanding by the beligerant and scientifically illiterate won't disprove or discredit anything. No further proofs are required, at least amongst the hundreds of millions of educated professionals out there. All that's happening now, outside of C-D's forums, is a filling in of the finer details.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha8207
He gave you a legitimate answer. Your choice to reject it is just that, your choice.
Doesn't make the answer given any less true....or false for that matter. (But I totally agree with kdbirch on that issue.)
Actually, Alpha, he didn't answer me, he said "whatever". In his example, he made up an hypothetically rational answer for which there is no biblical documentation; he just said "Well it could have happened this way, and I'm OK with that". one account says "A", another absolutely states "B". He adjusted the story to include both. I asked if he was in the creative arts. It exactly demonstrates contextual interpretation.
My point? We're constantly admonished to take the bible as inerrant and complete, right? So why the discrepances? (Note that I didn't even use the sorta nasty OP word "Absurdities". I prefer to not fight openly nor denegrate less'n they draw and fire first...)
That's the point of the OP on this thread. I simply noted, with a humorous intent, BTW, that he was being "creative". Any problem with that?
Last edited by rifleman; 03-16-2009 at 01:25 PM..
Reason: typos
And your qualifications to hold such an opinion, in contrast to those of the majority of the biological community, are ...?
An opinion can be well-founded or poorly founded, that is, with regard to the factual basis for that opinion.
I can understand that, as a believer, the ramifications are very significant to you personally of being convinced of the preponderance of evidence supporting evolution. So you are insisting on a high standard of evidence. Perhaps you underestimate the standards of evidence used in the scientific community. A scientific theory does not come about as a lark.
"Underestimate", PT? I'd say "ignore", "denegrate" or "dismiss" would perhaps be more accurate. I asked another poster, on a related thread, how he could possibly argue about something when he'd previously admitted to knowing absolutely nothing about the topic technically (which just happened to be genetics, evolution, archeology, geology, etc. etc. All related to the absolute proofs of modern-day Evolutionary Laws)
He said he didn't need to; he had his inerrant bible!
And yet, this thread points up the veritable host(I love that biblical word!!!) of inconsistencies (note again that I still avoid that nasty OP "A" word, for fear of the mod's wrath!)
[quote=Mattie Jo;7869957]I believe you are correct in that mutations never get better; whatever is mutated always gets worse. So if we mutated from an ape, we would not be a better creature. Anyway, that is what I have read.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattie Jo
ParkTwain,
Thanks, I didn't realize that. I actually believe in evolution, but I believe that is how God created.
Mattie Jo, thanks for your open-minded approach. It's quite the breath of fresh air!
In tthe briefest of nutshells, Speciation (also known as Evolution) is the direct result of the accumulation of positive functional changes, as recorded in the organism's DNA. Most of these chance mutations, which are observable and not just hypothesis, are fatal and result in the termination of that organism's offspring. Your so-called bad mutations.
On rare occasion though, some do occur which confer a distinct adaptive advantage to the organism, allowing it to then utilize some previously under-utilized opportunity in its environment. We simply call a visibly or functionally different organism a new species, but in truth it's all a continuum. Evolution Happens! We're proof.
Simple, huh? Glad you like it!
The exact processes and means used to be in question (about 20 years ago), but the ever-advancing tools of science have clearly shown it works, and have even demo'd, in August '08, to all rational minds, clear proof of speciation.
That was met with "Well, that's not what we meant by proof! It was only bacteria, after all! We wanna see a cat turn into a dog overnight!"
Which is, of course, patently absurd. (Ooopsss... there's that awful word...)
And your qualifications to hold such an opinion, in contrast to those of the majority of the biological community, are ...?
An opinion can be well-founded or poorly founded, that is, with regard to the factual basis for that opinion.
I can understand that, as a believer, the ramifications are very significant to you personally of being convinced of the preponderance of evidence supporting evolution. So you are insisting on a high standard of evidence. Perhaps you underestimate the standards of evidence used in the scientific community. A scientific theory does not come about as a lark.
We all make decisions about the validity of viewpoints w/out being experts. A lot of people around here have rejected Christianity w/out knowing a thing about it.
We all make decisions about the validity of viewpoints w/out being experts. A lot of people around here have rejected Christianity w/out knowing a thing about it.
True, but a lot of us have a good knowledge of Christianity, but still reject it. On the other side of the coin all creationists reject evolution regardless of what ever knowledge or proof they have of it....Their dogma requires this rejection.
True, but a lot of us have a good knowledge of Christianity, but still reject it. On the other side of the coin all creationists reject evolution regardless of what ever knowledge or proof they have of it....Their dogma requires this rejection.
They mean that there is and was no empirical proof for evolution. It was just either the facts being put together or created for the little convenience of the improvable definition of life. Evolutionists can never improve that definition; creationists say like failing the glory of God, the definition of Life is the big Definition to fail as well.
A lot of people around here have rejected Christianity w/out knowing a thing about it.
Anyone growing up in a western nation is bound to have a familiarity and basic knowledge of Christianity. The foundation beliefs of the Christian faith are not particularly hard to grasp, they're only hard to believe, and that's what's causing the rejection you're referring to.
We all make decisions about the validity of viewpoints w/out being experts. A lot of people around here have rejected Christianity w/out knowing a thing about it.
The "cost of entry" w.r.t. doctrinal knowledge to join a congregation in almost any American Protestant denomination is astoundingly low.
One would expect that the "cost of entry" into any religion that wants to reach "major" status is going to be low. Why? To encourage participation of children, which is the main route for growing the religion's numbers in the long run.
Participation of children in religion is one of the ever-present crimes of nonrational humanity.
Absurdities in the bible: Accept Jesus as savior or suffer permanent torture (2 thess 2 or 3, 3:10) and then, John 3:16 --god loves you so much he murdered his own son for you.
the funny thing is that for evolution to take place it would take millions or billions of years to complete. Were not just looking at humans but all living organisms they are perfectly equipped by GOD not evolution to live and breathe. Also if evolution would of taken so long it would of been physicially impossible to have all this evolution going on the earth has only been in creation about 6500 years. It can be proven by the magnetic field of the earth degenerating. at this rate we would have no magnetic field, if the earth had been created millions of years ago. Also the slowly rising rate of salt in the oceans, there is slowly more and more salt in the ocean if the Earth had been in motion for billions of years then we would only have salt expanses for oceans. And do you really think that man as complex as we are could evolve from amoeba acids creating a protein and growing for millions of years?
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.
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.
Huh?
