| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fly1ngV
Joined: 27 Feb 2006
Posts: 1081
Location: Chicagoland Illinois
|
 Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 11:48 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| I'm a catholic by faith, but not exactly by practice. there are some things to me that don't exactly make sense (not going to list them to avoid claims against me). but on the topic i do believe that we came from a common ancestor, it's just that we have to find what it is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sully 
Joined: 12 Nov 2006
Posts: 4570
Location: Tampa, FL
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 12:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pk217doc wrote: | | I have always argued that religion was created simply to give the masses something to believe in. If a person is living an awful life (bad/no job, bad/no relationships, can't catch a break, etc.), what gives that person the will to go on, to keep striving? In my opinion, religion. |
I've always felt that religion existed for comfort and control. Control as in "be good or you'll be punished eternally" and comfort when people experience a major loss (like the death of a loved one) or need to know that there's something more to this life than just death.
My mother died in September 2005. She was 52 years old and in good general health until she was diagnosed with cancer in Feb 2005. Her death, which was fairly sudden (we thought she was on the road to recover after a major operation) was the hardest thing I've ever been through. I always felt that we were as close as any mother and son have ever been, at least partly because of the fact that she raised me, an only child, as a single mother.
The only chance that I'll ever see/know my mother again lies in the belief of a religious afterlife (Heaven, et all). As an atheist, it has been very tough to accept that my mother is gone and that I'll never be with her again, but I do see how that proposition could be so overwhelming for people to sway their beliefs.
| Matt wrote: | | In response to number 1, the Bible is penned by over 40 different people, not just one person. |
The bible has been through a plethora of translations during times which the only literate people were the religious elite and the recording of history/historical events was very poor. Do you not admit that there is a huge chance for corruption/misinformation within the bible, be it by intent or by accident?
Also, do you also feel that you are a Christian by complete luck? Correct me of I'm wrong- but were you raised as a Christian by Christian parents who were, in turn, raised by Christian parents? What if you were born in a Muslim society instead? Ancient Greece? Do you not feel that your religious affiliation is purely coincidence? And if you are the exception (as in you found Christianity after a lengthy search through various religions), do you not see that the vast majority of religious people fit into the cycle I described? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pk217doc
Joined: 08 Nov 2006
Posts: 145
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 12:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sully wrote: | | pk217doc wrote: | | I have always argued that religion was created simply to give the masses something to believe in. If a person is living an awful life (bad/no job, bad/no relationships, can't catch a break, etc.), what gives that person the will to go on, to keep striving? In my opinion, religion. |
I've always felt that religion existed for comfort and control. Control as in "be good or you'll be punished eternally" and comfort when people experience a major loss (like the death of a loved one) or need to know that there's something more to this life than just death.
My mother died in September 2005. She was 52 years old and in good general health until she was diagnosed with cancer in Feb 2005. Her death, which was fairly sudden (we thought she was on the road to recover after a major operation) was the hardest thing I've ever been through. I always felt that we were as close as any mother and son have ever been, at least partly because of the fact that she raised me, an only child, as a single mother.
The only chance that I'll ever see/know my mother again lies in the belief of a religious afterlife (Heaven, et all). As an atheist, it has been very tough to accept that my mother is gone and that I'll never be with her again, but I do see how that proposition could be so overwhelming for people to sway their beliefs.
| Matt wrote: | | In response to number 1, the Bible is penned by over 40 different people, not just one person. |
The bible has been through a plethora of translations during times which the only literate people were the religious elite and the recording of history/historical events was very poor. Do you not admit that there is a huge chance for corruption/misinformation within the bible, be it by intent or by accident?
Also, do you also feel that you are a Christian by complete luck? Correct me of I'm wrong- but were you raised as a Christian by Christian parents who were, in turn, raised by Christian parents? What if you were born in a Muslim society instead? Ancient Greece? Do you not feel that your religious affiliation is purely coincidence? And if you are the exception (as in you found Christianity after a lengthy search through various religions), do you not see that the vast majority of religious people fit into the cycle I described? |
In response to Matt, Sully pretty much took the words out of my mouth, albeit a little more windy, but put well. My main point was that it said there was a certain person/being/god/something that supposedly started all the actions and supposedly got the 40 some odd people to write the Bible. And as Sully mentioned, all the different iterations and translations of the Bible can be misleading/misunderstood somewhere along the way I'm sure.
I don't know how true this story is, but I've heard a joke that the translation of the Kuran (Quran???) that says a "martyr" killing an infidel in a jihad will be greeted by 70-something dark haired virgins is incorrect, and that the correct version is that he would receive 70-something crystal clear raisins. Granted, I don't know if this is true, but if it were, I'm sure there could be inconsistencies in other religious works (i.e. the Bible).
In response to Sully, I am sorry for your loss and understand what you mean about the proposition of never seeing her again. To be honest, I am only 23 (soon to turn 24), and my 7 year old step-daughter was killed in a car accident while riding in a car with her father's fiance. Obviously, my wife (her mother) and I will never fully get over this, it is hard to accept it simply as "It must have been God's will" or something else along those lines. For now at least, her death is about the only reason I hope there actually is a heaven and/or God, so that she can be there and not just be gone forever.
Well, with those 2 cents, I'm officially up to about 20 cents altogether I think.
_________________
       
  
| Alakaiser wrote: | | They should be around some time between now and when they're up. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
youhas 
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 3015
Location: Santa Clara, CA
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 12:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Snarky Comment: "Of course evolution exists! This thread proves it - it evolved from a simple discussion of scientific principles to strict-Creationist Bible-wrangling, as such threads always do!  "
Less-Snarky But More Thoughtful Comment: "This thread gets to live on for pages and pages, but the well-mannered and reasonably-well-policed political thread got closed for being one of the disallowed controverial topics? WTF? Shouldn't this one have fallen under the same ScoreHero off-topic-subjects heading, too? I don't get it."
Actual non-meta on-topic commentary follows.
| Matt wrote: | | I can understand if you don't want to believe in something that you have no concrete proof of, but why do you find it so hard to accept other people's belief in a God? Is the idea of the answer being so simple unsettling? |
Really, I found this quote the most revealing, as - as was sort of expected - you are conflating two emphatically different concepts: your belief in God and your belief in a 6,000 year old Earth. The former is an intimately personal and spiritual affair, as covered in the theism and atheism threads previously. The latter is something in the purview of science - where we can actually collect evidence, form hypotheses based on those evidences, see whether future accumulation of data matches those theories, and so on. You seem to be parsing an attack on the latter as an attack on the former.
Really, from here, the thought process reads much like so: "My religion told me that there's a 6,000 year old Earth, and I believe them. If I were to concede that I were wrong about that, then I'd be 'wrong'... and to admit that I was wrong about that would open the door on the potential for my faith to have steered me wrong about other matters. That a priori cannot be the case, as my religion is Right, and must be right about these matters as well. Consequently, I will continue to conclude that the 6,000 year old Earth is correct via whatever means necessary, up to and including discrediting peer-reviewed evidences for gossamer-thin reasons, embracing outdated and non-dispassionate research that agrees with my beliefs, and otherwise picking-and-choosing evidences that enable this 'rightness' to be maintained."
Because honestly, on balance? That complex life arose from the evolution of simpler organisms has a whole ass-ton of evidences behind it. Carbon and uranium dating, the genetic markers in junk DNA, that more similar lifeforms share such a hefty percentage of their genetic code - seriously, this isn't a bunch of one-off observations here. The present theory of evolution has a systemic network of evidences which all seem to fit quite well within it, more consistently than with any alternative theory offered.
You asked if a scientific sort would ever find themselves in the sort of circumstances where they would disbelieve evolution. The answer is "yes, of course". All scientific conclusions are open to discussion and presentation of counterexamples. If someone found some sort of definitive evidence that did not mesh with previous evidences and this evidence was independently and repeatedly verifiable, theories would shift accordingly. As mentioned above, though, there is an ass-ton of evidence in place at present; consequently, you'd need an ass-ton of counter-evidences pointing towards some unified different theory in order for that new conclusion to seem most legitimate.
(Which is why many of the "counterarguments" voiced seem almost petty, frankly. One-off decades-old observations from random scientists? An unfounded assertion that maybe the rate of carbon decay changed in the past, with no good reason to assume that it would and zero evidence to suggest such a change? Honestly, it sounds like so much grasping at straws - like you could wish away the evidence if you just tried hard enough. I mean, honestly, scientifically speaking, which is more probable: "one new hypothesis, which may or may not have any weight behind it at all, invalidates the mountain of other evidences", or "one scientist had some bad data, yo"? Propose to me an alternative theory that can meet the same rigors of independent objective verification and then we'll talk.)
I'm sorry if you feel that folks are attacking your belief in God, sir. Lord knows I'm not. But if you believed that the moon was made of green cheese - because a non-cheese moon "just didn't make sense", or "in 1959, one Uruguay astronomer determined that the moon had the same refractive properties as feta" - I'd call you out just as vehemently. 
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
woozerkristen 
Joined: 16 Mar 2007
Posts: 1917
Location: Auburn/Tuskegee, AL
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 2:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| endstille wrote: | It bugs me more that even if you could push away the mountains of evidence for evolution, how would you decide which religion to pick? because you'd be pretty pissed after you die if the Muslims were right.  |
Though this isn't really on the topic of evolution, I thought I'd give a short answer to this question: because Christianity stands up to scrutiny that other religions don't, historically speaking. Happy to elaborate via PM if anyone is interested, but a longer answer here is really tangential to the topic of this thread.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Matt
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 3780
Location: Bethel, Vermont
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 4:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sully wrote: | | Matt wrote: | | In response to number 1, the Bible is penned by over 40 different people, not just one person. |
The bible has been through a plethora of translations during times which the only literate people were the religious elite and the recording of history/historical events was very poor. Do you not admit that there is a huge chance for corruption/misinformation within the bible, be it by intent or by accident?
|
When the found the dead sea scrolls recently, they found that out of the portion of the Bible recorded on it, there was (if I recall) a single letter difference between that and today's version of the same language.
| Sully wrote: | | Also, do you also feel that you are a Christian by complete luck? Correct me of I'm wrong- but were you raised as a Christian by Christian parents who were, in turn, raised by Christian parents? What if you were born in a Muslim society instead? Ancient Greece? Do you not feel that your religious affiliation is purely coincidence? And if you are the exception (as in you found Christianity after a lengthy search through various religions), do you not see that the vast majority of religious people fit into the cycle I described? |
I was raised a Christian, yes. And I used to have some doubts in the back of my mind about how much was true, if any. But it was after I did some very serious studying of it recently that I lost all doubt about it.
And I don't know if I would say the "vast" majority of religious people fit into what you described, but I will admit that probably most of the "casual" followers of any religion fall into that cycle.
I am sure if I was born under certain other circumstances, I would have never even considered Christianity.
Now for another misconception just about all non-Christians have (and a lot of Christians, do, too) is this (and this is my understanding from reading the book of Revelation):
Accepting Christ as your savior is a free ticket into Heaven. However, those who die without that get to Hades (READ: *NOT* Hell). They remain there until Judgment Day, where *everyone* who has ever lived will be judged. Those who accepted Christ will be judged on their good works alone, and be given extra rewards on top of eternal life. Those who did not die knowing Christ will be judged on their entire lives. Then some may get into Heaven from there.
Now this settles many issues for me that have plagued me for a while. For example, what if someone dies without even being told of Christianity? What if someone is raised in a religion that forbids them to leave, and so they are too afraid to? How would Jews, who are God's chosen people throughout the Bible, get into Heaven since they do not believe Christ to be the Son of God? And so on.
The Bible says that God is the ultimate Justice, and to me, it wouldn't be fair for someone to just go to hell without ever having a chance.
| youhas wrote: | | Matt wrote: | | I can understand if you don't want to believe in something that you have no concrete proof of, but why do you find it so hard to accept other people's belief in a God? Is the idea of the answer being so simple unsettling? |
Really, I found this quote the most revealing, as - as was sort of expected - you are conflating two emphatically different concepts: your belief in God and your belief in a 6,000 year old Earth. The former is an intimately personal and spiritual affair, as covered in the theism and atheism threads previously. The latter is something in the purview of science - where we can actually collect evidence, form hypotheses based on those evidences, see whether future accumulation of data matches those theories, and so on. You seem to be parsing an attack on the latter as an attack on the former. |
You are right, I went slightly awry with that. I apologize.
_________________
"For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his life?"
Mark 8:36 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Confrontational
Joined: 15 Aug 2007
Posts: 1131
Location: A floating rock out in the Pacific
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 11:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Matt wrote: | OK, I'm not sure why you are getting so upset, but I feel I should respond to this:
First, evolution just doesn't make sense to me. It is as ridiculous an idea to me as a 6000 year old earth is to you. The idea that all the complex parts of us could come about from mutations is absurd to me. The fact that the idea of a universe that is billions of years old leaves us with so many questions (I linked to those earlier) also further makes the idea unbelievable to me. |
I'm going to ignore the questions you linked earlier because, as much as I have read and written on this subject in my young life (I home-schooled through high school, I reserve the right to have too much time on my hands  ), I have never once seen or heard mention of the Earth's magnetic field weakening at a constant rate of 5% per century, nor have I really ever seen proof of it, and as such I 1) Find little reason to believe it, and 2) Find myself ill-prepared to refute it. That argument's a failed one from the get-go because, even though the greatest extent of your resources on this matter seems to be "There's more out there, but it's hidden deep", my resources are fewer still.
But mutations?
You make it sound like it's completely random, or unnatural. The idea behind these changes ("mutations" as you haphazardly called them) is that they are a gradual response to a need that must be met. For instance, single-celled organisms may have developed nuclei and more complex microbiological structures after rising higher in early Earth's oceans, as opposed to the cold, dark recesses of the deep, after which point they had to adjust to the new temperatures, exposure to the Sun (note: early plant life?), and other things. One could argue it's about as natural as that instinct to eat something when you're hungry, and acts in about the same way.
| Quote: | | Now on the other hand, creationism involves a supernatural being creating everything. I can understand if you don't want to believe in something that you have no concrete proof of, but why do you find it so hard to accept other people's belief in a God? Is the idea of the answer being so simple unsettling? |
Do you believe in Santa Claus?
I know this may seem like a loaded question to you, and if you don't feel like answering it for that reason, don't, but I do have a point. Do you?
| Quote: | I leave you with this question, if you decide to reply:
Let us say, hypothetically, that your idea of evolution was wrong. What kind of scientific proof would it take before you could accept a theory that the earth is only 6000 years old? |
I think the best response to that question would be one of my own:
Let's say, again, hypothetically, that your idea of creation, intelligent design, etc. is wrong. What kind of scientific proof would it take for you to draw your mind away from such a conclusion? What amount of evidence would it take to convince you even that evolution is plausible even if doing so wouldn't detract from your creationist viewpoint (moving you to an "Intelligent Design" medium)?
Forgive me, that's also a loaded question. I can't imagine any reasonable amount of scientific evidence drawing your mind away from the conclusion that, in the beginning, God created life, the universe, and everything, because, fundamentally, your beliefs are founded on faith.
Now, here's the kicker, and save this one for the record books because you won't hear an apologist of the evolutionist's side say this often:
Fundamentally, our way of thinking is fueled by faith as well.
Fact of the matter is, when it comes to the inexplicable, I don't think anyone on our side is claiming to actually have the answer. The scientific method is simply used to find the one most plausible conclusion out of potentially millions and test it against as many things that might contradict it as humanly possible until either A) it is disproved, or B) it remains plausible and is considered a "theory". So no reasonable, scientifically-minded human being is ever going to try and sell you a sure thing on evolution or the beginning of the universe, only the most plausible thing we have cooked up at the time.
Of course, this is just as true for gravity, physics/astronomy and basic math as it is for evolution and origin, but I'll let you sort that mess out.
| psuzeppelin5 wrote: | | I hope this doesn't offend you, but the bible says creationism is how it happen, buy yeah, IF the Big bang happened, God would have caused it |
Just curious, but... "IF the Big Bang happened", denoting a definite belief in the total impracticality of the Big Bang, "God would have caused it", denoting a certainty beyond any doubts that God was behind the creation... What makes you so certain?
| dreamaddict wrote: | Such a theory would only be proven true after the universe had ended, since the future is essentially unknowable and unpredictable, and as long as the universe was alive, there would always be room for more evidence. Therefore as long as we exist we will never have that sort of truth, not in a unified, 100% proven form. The only way we'll ever have truth, then, is to take an idea that looks pretty close to being true and just have faith that it is true. Holy crap, was that just a logical justification for the necessity of faith in human life? Sorry, atheists.
Wait, where was I? If you're waiting for that, then your mind will never be changed. |
Congratulations, you have very brilliantly stated his point in only five times as long as it took him to do it not long before you.
It does, however make me feel stupid about typing out the exact same thing five times longer than you did it before reading what you said.
I feel sad now. 
| Matt wrote: | | In response to number 1, the Bible is penned by over 40 different people, not just one person. |
Which brings up another issue.
The Bible is supposed to be the divinely inspired, inerrant word of God. Why's it written by men? What exactly do we know about these men? Did they convene and form a council to write and edit the Torah of the Old Testament, much like the Council of Nicaea under Constantine to select the New Testament books? (Let's not go into the other books of the Old Testament, as the Prophets, while certainly carrying a religious message, are hardly divinely inspired, and the Writings are more like contemporary stories of Israeli glory.) What about the Torah, or any of the books from either Testament for that matter, should lead us to believe that it was divinely inspired, infallible, or the literal word of God?
In my all-too-rash, yet humble opinion, shouldn't the cover of the Bible read something like this?
THE INFALLIBLE WORD OF GOD*
*As written & interpreted by fallible men
Sorry if I'm overstepping my bounds here, but the closest thing to a divinely inspired book by any stretch of the imagination is the Qu'ran, and that's only if you believe Gabriel really did help Muhammad learn to recite the Qu'ran, word for word, over a 30-year span of time.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MasterBlaster
Joined: 01 Jul 2007
Posts: 720
Location: Florida
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 1:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I believe in evolution, but to tell you the truth, it doesn't matter as much to me. I don't think much about the beginning. The way I see it is, my life is the way it is and I'm enjoying it ni matter how it started.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cheedie101
Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 1726
Location: Michigan
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 2:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Confrontational wrote: |
THE INFALLIBLE WORD OF GOD*
*As written & interpreted by fallible men
Sorry if I'm overstepping my bounds here, but the closest thing to a divinely inspired book by any stretch of the imagination is the Qu'ran, and that's only if you believe Gabriel really did help Muhammad learn to recite the Qu'ran, word for word, over a 30-year span of time. |
I'm pretty sure the writers and recorders of the Bible, like the pope is now, were infallible.
_________________
| Deimos wrote: | | "~WeeDSk8r420's~Pot~Page~ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Matt
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 3780
Location: Bethel, Vermont
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 2:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Confrontational wrote: | But mutations?
You make it sound like it's completely random, or unnatural. The idea behind these changes ("mutations" as you haphazardly called them) is that they are a gradual response to a need that must be met. For instance, single-celled organisms may have developed nuclei and more complex microbiological structures after rising higher in early Earth's oceans, as opposed to the cold, dark recesses of the deep, after which point they had to adjust to the new temperatures, exposure to the Sun (note: early plant life?), and other things. One could argue it's about as natural as that instinct to eat something when you're hungry, and acts in about the same way.
|
Mutations "are" random. From my understanding of evolution, it is the ones that are *kept* that are dictated by how they help the creature.
| Confrontational wrote: |
| Quote: | | Now on the other hand, creationism involves a supernatural being creating everything. I can understand if you don't want to believe in something that you have no concrete proof of, but why do you find it so hard to accept other people's belief in a God? Is the idea of the answer being so simple unsettling? |
Do you believe in Santa Claus?
I know this may seem like a loaded question to you, and if you don't feel like answering it for that reason, don't, but I do have a point. Do you?
|
No, I do not believe in Santa Clause, for starters because he was another character based on Pagan gods, he supposedly lives in the North Pole and we know from satellite photos and manual exploration that there is no "Sant'a workshop" up there, there is no feasible way he could get food or materials for toys, and every gift given on Christmas can be traced back to a human giver.
A somewhat silly answer, yes, but that was a somewhat silly question.
| Confrontational wrote: |
| Matt wrote: | | In response to number 1, the Bible is penned by over 40 different people, not just one person. |
Which brings up another issue.
The Bible is supposed to be the divinely inspired, inerrant word of God. Why's it written by men? What exactly do we know about these men? Did they convene and form a council to write and edit the Torah of the Old Testament, much like the Council of Nicaea under Constantine to select the New Testament books? (Let's not go into the other books of the Old Testament, as the Prophets, while certainly carrying a religious message, are hardly divinely inspired, and the Writings are more like contemporary stories of Israeli glory.) What about the Torah, or any of the books from either Testament for that matter, should lead us to believe that it was divinely inspired, infallible, or the literal word of God?
In my all-too-rash, yet humble opinion, shouldn't the cover of the Bible read something like this?
THE INFALLIBLE WORD OF GOD*
*As written & interpreted by fallible men
Sorry if I'm overstepping my bounds here, but the closest thing to a divinely inspired book by any stretch of the imagination is the Qu'ran, and that's only if you believe Gabriel really did help Muhammad learn to recite the Qu'ran, word for word, over a 30-year span of time. |
Why the books were written the way they were, I don't know. That is kind of the Christian version of "why does gravity exist?" I admit that I do not have the answers to everything.
Now here is a tidbit for you (and one of the reasons I believe in the validity of the Bible)
But as for the Torah (the first 5 books of the Bible), did you know that if you take the original Hebrew version, go into Genesis (the first book), find the first letter for the word "Torah", and go every 49 letters, you get the word "Torah". Then if you go into Exodus (the second book), you get the exact same thing. Then in Numbers and Deuteronomy (the 4th and 5th books), you get the same thing, but spelled backwards. Now, go to the third (middle) book, Leviticus. Go to the first occurrence of the first letter of the unpronounceable name of God, and go every 7 letters, you get His Name.
Now you may call this coincidence (and that would be quite the coincidence). But by the laws of mathematical chance, you would expect you could find this a few times with different numbers. Yet, 49 and 7 are the only numbers where this works (7 being one of the numbers God seems to like to use a lot). This means that there is no other number by which you can find either of these things in any part of the Torah.
Statistically, this is like winning the Powerball 5 times in a row (OK, I don't know the actual statistics, but I know they are insanely high).
For me, this is kind of like God's watermark for the Bible. And the Bible is full of stuff like this. The total number of letter in the Bible (in its original languages) is divisible by 7. So are the number of vowels (and therefor, also the number of consenants).
_________________
"For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his life?"
Mark 8:36 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kromagnon
Joined: 23 Apr 2007
Posts: 53
Location: Boone, NC
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I believe I have a pretty unique interpretation of things. Being a Christian, AND a scientist I can objectively look at both sides of the argument, and attempt to find some middle ground.
I believe in creation AND evolution.
If God can create a rock, could he not also create a rock that is a million years old? In the Bible, He created Adam, but he wasn't a baby, he was a full grown man. In that same respect, but on a much larger scale, could he have genuinely created the earth 10,000 years ago, but created it with a 6 billion year old past?
_________________
Goals:
Pass TTFAF [X] -- Nov 9 2007
5* TTFAF[X] -- May 8 2008
Make Top 100[X]
Make Top 75[X]
Make Top 50[]
5* Play With Me [] -- (1000 points away) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djkest
Joined: 28 Dec 2007
Posts: 65
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Evolution is a theory
There are gaps in this theory (they dont' know how everything happened/ can't recreate everything) Also, of course they can't really describe where the big bang came from...or where the materials used for the big bang came from.
Accepting evolution is faith in evolution.
No mutation can (has or ever will) resulted in an increase in genetic information. This simple fact thwarts any sort of idea that we could have evolved from slime, sea slugs, or any lesser creatures.
Also I dont' think people understand what evolution believes. Yes, random mutation is responsible for advantages. While microevolution is certainly apparent, and few people argue with that, it's macroevolution where I see the problem. See, an evolutionist would tell you that a creature mutated, and if it was successful, it would live, and make mutant babies. And these mutant babies would have more babies, they would take over, and now the species has evolved. But I'm not even sure this is possible. Certain things are not passed on to offspring. I'm not an expert on this, it's just my thoughts.
And yes, I'm a Christian. I'm also fairly well educated. I'm not a biologist though. There are plenty of scientists and intelligent people who do not go along with the theory of evolution. As shown again recently a "consensus" does not make truth.
_________________
Noob GH3 PC player
5 star all easy [X]
5 star all medium [ ]
Beat hard! [ ]
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Matt
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 3780
Location: Bethel, Vermont
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 3:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kromagnon wrote: | I believe I have a pretty unique interpretation of things. Being a Christian, AND a scientist I can objectively look at both sides of the argument, and attempt to find some middle ground.
I believe in creation AND evolution.
If God can create a rock, could he not also create a rock that is a million years old? In the Bible, He created Adam, but he wasn't a baby, he was a full grown man. In that same respect, but on a much larger scale, could he have genuinely created the earth 10,000 years ago, but created it with a 6 billion year old past? |
My only problem with this is that I don't think that is very characteristic of God to be deceitful like that, and make things look a different age than they are.
_________________
"For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his life?"
Mark 8:36 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kromagnon
Joined: 23 Apr 2007
Posts: 53
Location: Boone, NC
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't believe his purpose was to be deceitful, Think of what we wouldn't have if things weren't as old as they were. Fossil fuels, for one. And our night sky would be completely empty except for only the VERY closest stars, because most of them are hundreds of thousands of light years away, meaning their light wouldn't have reached us yet.
_________________
Goals:
Pass TTFAF [X] -- Nov 9 2007
5* TTFAF[X] -- May 8 2008
Make Top 100[X]
Make Top 75[X]
Make Top 50[]
5* Play With Me [] -- (1000 points away) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thecaptainof 
Joined: 04 May 2007
Posts: 7571
Location: ¯\(°_o)/¯
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 4:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Matt wrote: | Now here is a tidbit for you (and one of the reasons I believe in the validity of the Bible)
But as for the Torah (the first 5 books of the Bible), did you know that if you take the original Hebrew version, go into Genesis (the first book), find the first letter for the word "Torah", and go every 49 letters, you get the word "Torah". Then if you go into Exodus (the second book), you get the exact same thing. Then in Numbers and Deuteronomy (the 4th and 5th books), you get the same thing, but spelled backwards. Now, go to the third (middle) book, Leviticus. Go to the first occurrence of the first letter of the unpronounceable name of God, and go every 7 letters, you get His Name.
Now you may call this coincidence (and that would be quite the coincidence). But by the laws of mathematical chance, you would expect you could find this a few times with different numbers. Yet, 49 and 7 are the only numbers where this works (7 being one of the numbers God seems to like to use a lot). This means that there is no other number by which you can find either of these things in any part of the Torah.
Statistically, this is like winning the Powerball 5 times in a row (OK, I don't know the actual statistics, but I know they are insanely high).
For me, this is kind of like God's watermark for the Bible. And the Bible is full of stuff like this. The total number of letter in the Bible (in its original languages) is divisible by 7. So are the number of vowels (and therefor, also the number of consenants). |
Although it's unlikely to change my opinions on its own, that would have to rank among the most interesting things I've heard... assuming it's true, of course, but to be honest I see no reason why someone (not meaning you in this case, as doubtless you got that information from somewhere earlier) would make up such a thing when it'd presumably be relatively easy to check out.
While I'm here... I haven't yet got around to reading the link you sent me - got kinda distracted by Guitar Hero leagues and real life - but I'll try to look at it over the weekend when I'm settled in back at university and formulate some kind of response.
_________________
| yksi-kaksi-kolme wrote: | | Wow Mr. Mad, who fucked your buffalo? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Copyright © 2006-2024 ScoreHero, LLC
|
Powered by phpBB
|
![Inbox [ Login ]](templates/subSilver/images/icon_mini_message.gif){kind=icon}
Inbox [ Login ]
Search
Memberlist
Profile
Log in
