Someone who would post a debate topic with a subject so inflammatory is never going to let themselves understand or listen to an opposing view anyway.POINTS were deducted for this post by Mr. ModononPlease refer to the forum rules to find out why your points were deducted.
Who the hell would believe in evolution???
Started by
Guest_MichahSimmons
, Jan 09 2006 08:34 PM
1136 replies to this topic
#827
Guest_TranzMaster
Guest_TranzMaster
-
- Guest
Posted 17 May 2008 - 09:46 AM
Nazer, i didn't mean to make somebody angry. I just gave my own opinion. I just believe that God exists.And i dont assume were from apes, if was sarcastic.MasterOfDisaster: It's usually appreciated here in the debate part of the forums when your claims are substantiated, and your arguments valid. From what I just read, you supplied no real arguments, you merely stated your opinion after giving us examples you cannot prove are in fact, true.Although I am uncertain of the evolutionary reason for our developing a taste for art and so forth, this does not mean "God did it". I believe your claim is what one calls a "non sequitur". Jumping to conclusions is never good (because A is true, this does not make B true, just because A has no certain answer yet).I am confused. Can you prove that Sanskrit and Hebrew are "better" languages than those we use today? Unless you can, why would you use it as an argument? Also, can you prove Hebrew and Sanskrit were the first languages? I believe the first written language was the "cuneiform script" (naturally, spoken language came first, but you still can't prove Sanskrit and Hebrew were the first languages). Either way, why would a complicated language be beneficial? Wouldn't efficient communication be a vast improvement? Considering you seem to have trouble writing English (a language considered crude and simple by many), how would you fare writing Hebrew or Sanskrit? And don't give me the "I'm foreign" excuse, I speak and write two languages fluently, and can understand / speak quite a bit of Spanish.Still confused here. Why do you assume we were apes ten thousand years ago? We were "modern humans" in anatomical terms 200 000 years ago. I'd like an explanation as to why you presume we've changed from monkeys to humans in a few thousand years, as that would be evolution on a level so extreme it'd be scary. Should I look over my shoulder for clawed beast men evolved from rapists next?Today, we have made buildings far more advanced than we did thousands of years ago. Believe it or not, we could do mathematics back then as well. The first mathematical text is 3900 years old. Oh, and for the record: they didn't just use a few hundred people, nor did they use just a few years building these things. Thousands of people died building most of the ancient structures we admire today, and some were built in a century or two, while others in several decades. Last I checked, we knew what the wheel was 6000 years ago, so why we'd be unable to move large monoliths back then is beyond me.DNA is the result of evolution. No one has perfect DNA. Most people have hundreds if not thousands upon thousands of flaws in their genes. Where you got the idea that DNA was perfect, I have no clue. Cancer for example is the result of cellular mutation (a cellular mutation that spreads very quickly is the definition, as far as I know).Either way, you're significantly mistaken in most of your claims, and unless you can back them up, it'd be appreciated if you refrained from writing them.
I wonder why you think out of my post that were evolved from apes omg gross!!! You seem to know more about it. And seemm to be just a stupid 17-year old guy. If you look in nature, do you truly believe that everything came to existence by coïncidence???I just don't believe in evolution. I believe God created the first human.If you search more and more in science , you ask yourself more and more questions (i do). I am no more shocked that Einstein believed in God.Evolution is an evolution of mind and body. But if you look what is happening today, the mind part hasn't evolved at all. Where is the morale in this world???I can just give proofs that some parts of the evolution aren't right, but then you give your own view of it. And this Evolution-non-evolution debate will go on for eternity.And if my last post wasn't a morale question of the evolution that is perhaps your opinion. Others ones may say im right, some guys say yar right. He have a different point of view.Evolution is a "non sequitur". Its a theory that has never been proven. Why does it still name the Evolutiontheory and not the Evolution fact???And i probably wasted 10 mins of my time. Forgive me.
#828
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
-
- Guest
Posted 17 May 2008 - 10:00 AM
Believing in God has nothing to do with not believing in evolution. There is no conflict between believing in evolution and believing in God at the same time. Do you know what a non sequitur is? Example: Because someone is in Japan, it doesn't mean they are in Tokyo. Unlike everything you've said, evolution is based in logic and evidence. Countless scientists have tried to disprove evolution to no avail. You are not a scientist. I understood you were being sarcastic, but it seemed you thought evolutionists believed people were apes ten thousand years ago (and like I said, that's a silly prospect).A debate has nothing to do with beliefs, it has to do with arguments for these. You can't waltz into a debate and just state your opinion with lots of falsified facts. It just doesn't work that way. You have no proof what so ever that evolution is a lie, whereas evolution has a lot of fossils to support it (fossils that weren't made by man, unlike certain texts you likely believe in).Apparently you haven't really gotten involved in what science is about. Pretty much everything in science is a theory, but a scientific theory is backed up by evidence or proper logical reasoning. Most "accepted" theories are backed up by lots and lots of evidence, and countless experiments done to prove them right. You reap the rewards of scientific theories every day, yet you seem oddly unaware of what makes these rewards work.If God created the first human, why did he do so 200 000 years ago rather than what, six or seven like he claimed?
#829
Guest_TranzMaster
Guest_TranzMaster
-
- Guest
Posted 17 May 2008 - 10:28 AM
In the 1950’s Stanley Miller and Harold Urey wanted to know how the earth and solar system had come to be. They studied the chemical reactions of gases that existed in Earth’s primitive atmosphere, and were the first to show that amino acids could have formed in the atmosphere. Although he never proved how life originated, he did add evidence to the theory that life could have started by itself on the primitive earth. Here is what really happened: Miller took gases in a system of tubes and circulated them around while producing electric sparks. The gases used were Nitrogen, Methane, Hydrogen and Ammonia (No oxygen). Textbooks say that he got a solution that was “rich in amino acids”. This was not really true, or even representative of the “way it was” long ago. First of all, he excluded oxygen, knowing that it would oxidize everything and kill it. Life cannot evolve with oxygen present. Yet 20% of our atmosphere is oxygen. Amino acids would be destroyed in oxygen. Miller said that the early atmosphere did not have oxygen. The problem here is without oxygen, you have no ozone, which means that ultra violet radiation would come in and destroy the ammonia, not to mention the amino acids. We also know that the earth has always had oxygen. Oxygen is found in the lowest rocks, and in higher concentrations.What is the evidence for a primitive methane-ammonia atmosphere on earth? The answer is that there is no evidence for it, but much against it. In general, we find no evidence in the sedimentary distribution of carbon, sulfur, uranium, or iron, that an oxygen-free atmosphere has existed at any time during the span of geological history recorded in well preserved sedimentary rocksAlso, 85% of the “soup” that Miller made was tar, and 13% was carboxylic acid, both of which was poisonous to any kind of life. Also, only 2 out of the 20 needed for life were produced. They also bond very quickly with water and tar. Also, half of the amino acids he produced were left handed and half right handed. This is a problem because even the smallest proteins have 70-100 amino acids in precise order and they are all left-handed. Since amino acids bond readily with water, they will do this faster than they will bond with each other. So they couldn’t have made proteins while they were in water. And if nature uses left-handed amino acids, where are the right handed???Spontaneous synthesis of aminoacid combinations isnt possible, its a fact , its a law in chemistry. Amino acid structures break in water.
#830
Guest_Jmaniscool
Guest_Jmaniscool
-
- Guest
Posted 17 May 2008 - 09:08 PM
OK. Your proof against carbon dating is that it cannot accurately tell the age of an object. Well, you are right. But, you are mistaken with your chemistry facts. To carbon date, you need to find the amount of Carbon-14 to Carbon-12 in an object. If you do not give carbon enough time to degrade to Carbon-14, then you cannot determine the age of the object by means of carbon dating. (The half-life of carbon is 5,700 yrs) Oh, and one more thing; i am not an atheist. I believe in God, so i am not trying to be anti-religious here.
#831
···
-
- Dragon's Elite
-
- 928 posts
·
Reputation: 0
Neutral
Posted 17 May 2008 - 09:12 PM
The main problem with your post, MasterofDisaster, is that you want evolution to explain the origin of life, and that's a different thing altogether.Early earth oxygen levels were nowhere near those of today. There is plenty of evidence of early earth atmospheres, and little supporting free oxygen in those times.And if there isn't much evidence about the atmosphere in early earth, other than the "well preserved sedimentary rocks," then who is to judge the possibility of combination of amino acids? Look up "abiogenesis." There are plenty of theories about the origin of life, and eventually one will become accepted as most probable. Same thing happened with evolution: Darwin's theory was best supported and most logical, and, as it has been observed in many ways, it is globally accepted.
Look up what his religious beliefs were. His belief in "God" is not what common belief is.I am no more shocked that Einstein believed in God.
The mind can evolve without "morale," which is based almost entirely on societal acceptance, also evolving. Don't pretend the mind hasn't evolved.Evolution is an evolution of mind and body. But if you look what is happening today, the mind part hasn't evolved at all. Where is the morale in this world???
The word "theory" has a different meaning than the colloquial one. Look that up, too. It's not a "guess or conjecture"; it's a well-supported group of propositions. Your argument from ignorance isn't any less fallacious than you claim evolution to be: something isn't false just because it hasn't been "proven" to be true. (Despite the fact that evolution is supported in so many ways.) Please, describe, if you will, the illogical parts of the theory of evolution, excluding other theories such as the origin of man, life, and the universe.Your other argument, an argument from personal incredulity, is also as fallacious, since, as you don't believe that life could have originated abiogenetically, you say that it must not have.Evolution is a "non sequitur". Its a theory that has never been proven. Why does it still name the Evolutiontheory and not the Evolution fact???
Someone, make something better.
#832
Guest_}SoC{ Twiggie
Guest_}SoC{ Twiggie
-
- Guest
Posted 17 May 2008 - 09:41 PM
evolution is a bunch of lies that were made just so people can learn sumtin new in skool it's clearly NOT realistic. We came from monkeys???? correct me if im wrong but i don't see anyone going around picking bugs off another person then eating themI believe in evolution totally. It can clearly be seen in science and looking back at fossil records and such.
#833
Guest_Laano
Guest_Laano
-
- Guest
Posted 17 May 2008 - 09:51 PM
Have you ever seen a couple touching? Foreplay probably came from "picking bugs". Have you ever seen a chimpanzee's palm? Chimpanzee's shadow? ... Compare them with yours.Seems like you're not good "in skool".evolution is a bunch of lies that were made just so people can learn sumtin new in skool it's clearly NOT realistic. We came from monkeys???? correct me if im wrong but i don't see anyone going around picking bugs off another person then eating them
Edited by Laano, 17 May 2008 - 09:52 PM.
#834
Guest_TranzMaster
Guest_TranzMaster
-
- Guest
Posted 17 May 2008 - 09:55 PM
Look guys, i just gave my opinion, for some its a good one, for some it isnt. Like i said, this debate can go on forever.We are just fishing for elements that are for or against evolution.There are arguments for, arguments against....If someone has something against me cos i believe in god, let me know.I'll stop posting answers in this topic where 3-4 guys jump on me like i'm a criminal or something like that.BTW, i'm not on Dgemu to discuss evolution.I guess i made a mistake.Sorry.
#835
Guest_dankster
Guest_dankster
-
- Guest
Posted 17 May 2008 - 10:01 PM
Evolution exists in a sence but not how it's shown as in majority things will change but not dramatic things
#836
Guest_kamekasu
Guest_kamekasu
-
- Guest
Posted 19 May 2008 - 11:38 PM
I can't believe people are still making this argument after so much solid, obvious, scientific evidence to the contrary. EVOLUTION IS REAL
#837
Guest_jomimo1200
Guest_jomimo1200
-
- Guest
Posted 20 May 2008 - 05:28 AM
First I would like to start out by saying this, Evolution isn't something you accept. Saying accept is implying there is no other explanation for how we got here. The Theory of Evolution has thousands of problems, here is the one I think is the biggest. Evolution is based on the findings of Charles Darwin, who, on a trip to Madagascar, saw there were unusual species of animals he hadn't seen before. He thought that there had to be a reason that these animals were so different from the ones he had previously known. He came up with the idea that over time,and being separated from other animals they developed certain characteristics that put them at an advantage over their counterparts. Let's just say that the timing and conditions were right, and this did begin to happen to a certain species of ape. They begin to develop more human-like characteristics such as more drawn back jawbones, and less reliant on their arms for movement. They also begin to have more intelligent behaviors. Where do they go from a classification as an ape to a human? Or to an animal to having free-will? Was it when one of the baby chimp-humans was able to speak? Or was it when, at one of their monthly meetings when they decided they should be able to believe in what they wanted and wanted to become a more intelligent life form? There is no single piece of evidence shows that there ever were a single dividing species from ape to human, just several different ape skulls that hardly resemble human characteristics. Also, if these apes did change into a better race, why didn't all of them begin this change??? God, is the reason why we are here, and there isn't a single piece of evidence that can contradict Christianity, The Bible, God, or anything in between.
You are retarded for saying that touching and foreplay comes from "picking bugs". Why in HELL would that have anything to do with survival?Next time you post, use your God given brain (or ape as you call it), and think.Original Video PageHave you ever seen a couple touching? Foreplay probably came from "picking bugs". Have you ever seen a chimpanzee's palm? Chimpanzee's shadow? ... Compare them with yours.Seems like you're not good "in skool".
#838
Hola supermercado!
-
- Dragon's Elite
-
- 1,153 posts
15/f/cali
Reputation: 799
Demi-God
Posted 20 May 2008 - 11:14 AM
i'm saying we came from fishsquirrels having buttsecks with a monkey...... so says ms. garrisonFirst I would like to start out by saying this, Evolution isn't something you accept. Saying accept is implying there is no other explanation for how we got here. The Theory of Evolution has thousands of problems, here is the one I think is the biggest. Evolution is based on the findings of Charles Darwin, who, on a trip to Madagascar, saw there were unusual species of animals he hadn't seen before. He thought that there had to be a reason that these animals were so different from the ones he had previously known. He came up with the idea that over time,and being separated from other animals they developed certain characteristics that put them at an advantage over their counterparts. Let's just say that the timing and conditions were right, and this did begin to happen to a certain species of ape. They begin to develop more human-like characteristics such as more drawn back jawbones, and less reliant on their arms for movement. They also begin to have more intelligent behaviors. Where do they go from a classification as an ape to a human? Or to an animal to having free-will? Was it when one of the baby chimp-humans was able to speak? Or was it when, at one of their monthly meetings when they decided they should be able to believe in what they wanted and wanted to become a more intelligent life form? There is no single piece of evidence shows that there ever were a single dividing species from ape to human, just several different ape skulls that hardly resemble human characteristics. Also, if these apes did change into a better race, why didn't all of them begin this change??? God, is the reason why we are here, and there isn't a single piece of evidence that can contradict Christianity, The Bible, God, or anything in between.You are retarded for saying that touching and foreplay comes from "picking bugs". Why in HELL would that have anything to do with survival?Next time you post, use your God given brain (or ape as you call it), and think.
the classification is made by experts opinions (bioligists and archeologists)and speak is nothing more but making sounds other ppl understand. you say there is no evidence for the evolution theory, but what's the evidence that there is a god who created everything? a book? if i write a book about the mankind coming from fishsquirrels having buttseck with a monkey doensn't mean that it true. the odds of god creating the world are as big as the invisible pink unicorn creating the world. evolution is noticable even now. asian ppl are much shorter than european ppl. and 200 years ago, european ppl were a lot shorter then they are now. that's evolution as well.
You've caused me to weep, you've caused me to mourn
You caused me to lose my home.
Boys will be boys, and girls will be monsters
#839
Guest_Jouten
Guest_Jouten
-
- Guest
Posted 20 May 2008 - 01:17 PM
Evolution theory is the only theory I believe in.That's all I can say.You know if there was NO evolution so why didn't scientists find Human fossils before the dinosaur age?If God created the world when did he make Humans?Did he just pick a time and let them pop in there?And why is the technology only since about 100 years?You wonder why some animals begin to change and some not?Let's say everyone wants to live.Well those who don't want to live are dead by now.Either you die or you'll find away to survive.If there are no plants to eat you will have to survive by eating meat.If you ARE meat you will only survive if you are fast, can hide, too hard or anything else.If you found a way to survive you won't have to evovle more.Otherwise it could be that you evovle too much and die because of this.A turtle with a too big carapace won't be able to move and won't find a partner to change DNA with.A Human doesn't need to evolve. He has no natural enemies, that could kill him.But let's say th UV-radiation would increase, the Human's with worse(plae) skin would die.(that's why people in southern countries have darker skin since they would die if it was too pale)Well today not of course since most of the humans would use skin cream to save themselves.One last thing:Human didn'T evovle out of monkeys that'S true.Monkey are related to us but they are not our forfathers.There was another race that split into two groups Homo-race and monkeys.The Homo-race was an ape similar animal but it had no fur.There where more different Homo-races which all had some intelligence but in the end only Homo sapiens survived.Beacuse they were best at throwing spears.Besides that's a special ability of Humans: Throwing. No other animal can throw like a Human
#840
Guest_Connorguy1805
Guest_Connorguy1805
-
- Guest
Posted 24 May 2008 - 06:24 PM
Here's an interesting article i found on the web arguing against evolution, and anyone who wants to analyze it for errors is welcome to, I agree with most of it, but there are always flaws in an argument."WHY DON'T YOU LEARN SOME REAL SCIENCE? EVOLUTION CAN'T BE A REALSCIENCE BECAUSE IT CAN'T BE PROVEN WRONG.EVERY TIME A CREATIONIST FINDS A PROBLEM THE EVOLUTIONIST SWEEPS ITUNDER THE RUG.HERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS.HOW DID THE EYE FORMED? BY RANDOM CHANCE! DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. HUM.HOW DID MATTER FORM WITHOUT A GOD?HOW DOES EVOLUTION EXPLAIN THE BRAIN?ALL YOU SKEPTICS FROM JAMES RANDI DOWN THE FOOD CHAIN ARE AFRAID OFPEOPLE WITH GREAT IDEAS. THE ICR IS ONE OF THE MOST RESPECTEDINSTITUTIONS IN THE WORLD.GISH IS A GENIUS AND A MAN OF GOD.I HAVE ANOTHER QUESION FOR YOU. HAVEYOU EVER READ THE GENESIS FLOOD? GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE AND AS HARDAS THE ATHIESTS TRY TO BLOCK THAT THE MORE JESUS LETS THE LIGHT SHINETHROUGH.I MAKE MY LIVING AS AN INVENTOR. I KNOW WHAT SCIENCE IS ALL ABOUT. IHAD TO EXPLAIN THESE FACTS TO SOME OTHER SKEPTICS.ANYWAY, IF YOU WANT TO REALLY ARGUE THE POINT ABOUT EVOLUTION TRY BOBENYART - HE WILL KICK YOUR BUTT.I HOPE YOU SOMEDAY SEE THE LIGHT AND COME TO THE LORD.YOURS IN CHRIST--------------------------------------------------------------------------------To: John FillmoreFrom: Tommy HuxleyDate: UnknownFirst, I want to thank you for your response. I appreciate all feedback, whether good or bad, because everybody’s opinions count.After reading your letter, I’m only annoyed with your broad, sweeping judgments. I wish my critics would focus their disagreements over specific details instead of spouting broad absolutist beliefs, but I’ll try to answer your diffuse points individually.WHY DON’T YOU LEARN SOME REAL SCIENCE? EVOLUTION CAN’T BE A REAL SCIENCE BECAUSE IT CAN’T BE PROVED WRONG.Evolution is the process of change over time and self-evident in the natural world. Therefore, it is a science. Even creationists don’t argue with that, although they minimize biological changes to artificial limits that appeal to their notion of Biblical conformity.For example, they claim that after Noah’s ark landed on Mt. Ararat, God supernaturally induced rapid, helter-skelter “microevolution” of created kinds in the animal kingdom to account for the millions of species that exist today. After all, we have 2,700 different species of snakes, 900 species of bats, 37,000 species of spiders, and a quarter million species of beetles. And these different “species” can’t interbreed.Obviously, they couldn’t all fit on that ark! So creationists invented their own theory of evolution that blows away anything Charles Darwin ever conceived of. Creationists believe their definition of evolution is “real science.” So if godless Darwinists and religious fundamentalists alike believe that evolution is a real science, then your objection is moot.But if you’re still not convinced, why don’t you subscribe to the Journal of Molecular Evolution and keep abreast of the latest scientific breakthroughs? Or do you believe that all molecular biologists revel in a global satanic conspiracy?EVERY TIME A CREATIONIST FINDS A PROBLEM THE EVOLUTIONIST SWEEPS IT UNDER THE RUG.Could you be more specific? From my experience, creationists “sweep problems under the rug.”For example, I heard John Morris, President of the Institute for Creation Research, brag on Christian Radio the other day that “evolutionists” can’t account for the paucity of short-period comets in our solar system.“Where do they come from?” Morris asks breathlessly, “if our universe is billions of years old?”Actually, short period comets originate in the Kuiper belt. And astronomers have discovered and catalogued 37 separate Kuiper belt objects, which is amazing when you consider their lilliputian size and enormous distance from the Sun. Obviously, there must be billions more that we can’t see.But John Morris “sweeps all that under the rug” and pretends it doesn’t exist. Poor John!HOW DID MATTER FORM WITHOUT A GOD?Again, evolution only discusses the process of change over time!I’ll repeat it again: change over time!Evolution doesn’t attempt to explain how life or the universe began! Even if God did create matter, energy, space and time through one ad hoc miracle, that wouldn’t negate biological evolution at all! It’s a completely separate topic!HOW DID THE EYE FORM? BY RANDOM CHANCE! DOESN’T MAKE SENSE. HUM.Actually, the eye has evolved over and over again throughout the animal kingdom. We’ve discovered enormous optical varieties. We’ve even found primitive invertebrates thriving next to hydrothermal vents on the seafloor with only the most rudimentary light-sensitive sensory organs. Therefore, the natural history of the eye is easily traced.HOW DOES EVOLUTION EXPLAIN THE BRAIN?What kind of explanation are you looking for? Could you be more specific?I don’t know if this helps, but the fossil remains of hominid skulls reveal that our brain size steadily increased over time.ALL YOU SKEPTICS FROM JAMES RANDI DOWN THE FOOD CHAIN ARE AFRAID OF PEOPLE WITH GREAT IDEAS. THE ICR IS ONE OF THE MOST RESPECTED INSTITUTIONS IN THE WORLD.On the contrary, most people believe that the Institute for Creation Research is a weird, spooky anachronism — even other Christians. And the members of that organization invent bizarre, unbiblical appeals to Biblical authority. Henry Morris’ explanation that the craters on the moon are collateral damage resulting from a battle between Satan and Michael the Archangel is just one of many examples!But I’m confused about James Randi being on the food chain. Is he being stalked by cannibals?GISH IS A GENIUS AND A MAN OF GOD.I HAVE ANOTHER QUESION FOR YOU. HAVE YOU EVER READ THE GENESIS FLOOD?You mean the book by Henry Morris and John Whitcomb, first published in 1961? Yes, I’ve read it. But that book’s theory of how The Deluge accomplished hydrodynamic sorting of the geologic column is paranormal pseudoscience.I doubt that God admires a man like Duane Gish, who lies more often than Bill Clinton. After all, God claims that he “detests lying lips, but delights in men who are truthful.” (Proverbs 12:22)GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE AND AS HARD AS THE ATHIESTS TRY TO BLOCK THAT THE MORE JESUS LETS THE LIGHT SHINE THROUGH.I’m confused. What are you saying? Are you appealing to masculine religious authority? Metaphysical threats to the unrepentant? I’m lost.I MAKE MY LIVING AS AN INVENTOR. I KNOW WHAT SCIENCE IS ALL ABOUT. I HAD TO EXPLAIN THESE FACTS TO SOME OTHER SKEPTICS.You’re an inventor? What have you patented lately?Do you really know what science is all about? Maybe you can “EXPLAIN THESE FACTS TO” me.ANYWAY, IF YOU WANT TO REALLY ARGUE THE POINT ABOUT EVOLUTION TRY BOB ENYART - HE WILL KICK YOUR BUTT.Who is Bob Enyart? And why would he assault my rump?I HOPE YOU SOMEDAY SEE THE LIGHT AND COME TO THE LORD.What LORD are you talking about? Yahweh? Since I’m one of those infidels who “love darkness rather than light” (John 3:19) I doubt I’ll ever see the light.YOURS IN CHRISTYou don’t sound like “mine in Christ.” On the contrary, you sound menacing and scary!But thanks for writing!--------------------------------------------------------------------------------To: Tommy HuxleyFrom: John FillmoreDate: UnknownI APPRECIATE YOUR RESPONSE TO ME. I KNOW YOU WON'T CHANGE MY MINDABOUT EVOLUTION, I HOPE I CAN CHANGE YOURS.I AM CURRENTLY WORKING ON A ENERGY MACHINE, SIMILAR TO THE NEUMANMACHINE. I HAVE NOT PATENED ANYTHING YET.I WORK WITH ELECTRONICS. ALL SELF-TAUGHT.BUT BACK TO YOUR ARGUMENT ABOUT THINGS CHANGING OVER TIME. I READ THATIT WOULD HAVE TAKEN TRILLIONS OF YEARS TO FORM A MOLECULE THATREPLICATED ITSELF.SINCE THE EARTH IS 4.5 BILLION YEARS OLD IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSSIBLETO HAVE HAPPENED BY CHANCE.EXACTLY WHAT DO YOU DO FOR A LIVING, TOM?AND I AM NOT MENACING OR SCARY. I AM A 60-YEAR-OLD MAN WHO HAS SEENHIS BETTER DAYS. BUT I FEEL WHEN I SEE THIS STUFF ON THE INTERNET THATI MUST STAND UP AND COMPLAIN.YOU SEEM LIKE A SMART MAN, MR. HUXLEY AND IT JUST SEEMED LIKE A SMARTPERSON LIKE YOU WOULDN'T FALL FOR THIS STUFF.I KNOW YOU PEOPLE THINK I AM A RELIGOUS FANATIC. AND YOU'RE EXACTLYRIGHT: I AM!!!LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION ON EVOLUTION:IF EVOLUTION SELECTS A MUTATION THAT BEST FITS THE PATICULARENVIROMENT, THEN EXPLAIN HOMOSEXUALITY.WHY WOULD THERE BE HOMOSEXUALS, THEY DON'T REPRODUCE?OR IS THIS A LEARNED TRAIT?ANYWAY, YOU HAD THE GUTS TO ANSWER ME AND I APPRECIATE IT.YOUR IN CHRIST--------------------------------------------------------------------------------To: John FillmoreFrom: Tommy HuxleyDate: UnknownThanks again for your response. I’ll try to answer some of your points, briefly.I READ THAT IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN TRILLIONS OF YEARS TO FORM A MOLECULE THAT REPLICATED ITSELF.SINCE THE EARTH IS 4.5 BILLION YEARS OLD IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE HAPPENED BY CHANCE.The fossil record suggests that complex organisms existed almost as long as the Earth itself (geologically speaking).And yes, that’s a good mystery. And since science is a fallible human endeavor, it obviously can’t explain everything. But there are two considerations you should keep in mind.First, creationists have a tendency to multiply probabilities instead of adding them, which bloats their figures. For instance, they assume that life arose through singular events placed end-to-end instead of side-by-side. Life most likely originated through cumulative events, not single-step events, so you can’t take their probabilities for granted.Second, nobody knows what the composition of the Earth was like 3.5 billion years ago. It’s impossible to design an experiment that duplicates exotic environmental factors that are now obsolete.But again, that doesn’t negate biological evolution. When you examine the solid, tangible, physical evidence, the earliest fossils show only single-celled organisms. And when you trace the fossil record through time, life forms show more gradual complexity than the plants and animals that lived before them. In other words, they changed.That’s what scientists mean when they claim that evolution is a fact. Life changed through time. That’s no longer in dispute. Evolutionists only theorize about how these changes occurred, not if they occurred, and that’s where the “controversy” dwells.A lot of people appeal to intuitive, gut feelings that life on Earth, and the structure of the universe in general, shows evidence of intricate, complex, supernatural design. That it couldn’t just “happen” without a master plan.And guess what? I sympathize with that gut feeling. When I pick up a Carolina Wolf Spider, and examine its intricate, bio-mechanical construction, my own intuitive feeling is, “somebody must have thought this thing out before putting it together.”That’s why I’m an agnostic instead of an atheist. I admit that I don’t know everything. And I’m open to the suggestion that an unknown force influences reality, which is also known as the “anthropic principle.”But some Christians boast, “if the universe shows evidence of design, then by default, that designer is Yahweh, and that proves the entire Bible is divine rather than human in origin, and completely infallible in every detail.”That’s a groundless leap of logic. There are so many contradictions, inconsistencies, and fallacies in the Bible that it’s often its own worse enemy. And I don’t make that claim idly. I was raised a Southern Baptist, and I know the Good Book through and through.And not too long ago, I was listening to The Bible-Answer Man show on Christian radio when its host, Hank Hanegraaff, said, “Evolution is an adult fairy tale. That’s all it is! A fairy tale!”Excuse me? Isn’t the Biblical creation story equally vulnerable to such accusations?According to Genesis chapter three, a perfect naked man and a perfect naked woman, living alone together in a tropical garden paradise, brought death and destruction on the entire human race because they ate a piece of magical fruit from the “Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.”Ooooohhhh, that evil knowledge!And this happened after Eve was seduced by a talking serpent that spoke flawless Hebrew.And after God pronounced disproportionate judgment for this dinky offense, he kicked them out of the Garden. And then, he posted a cherub, wielding a giant flaming sword, to guard the entrance so that the two can’t sneak back into the Garden, eat another piece of magical fruit from the “Tree of Life,” and attain immortality, becoming like God!Earlier, you said that I “seem like a smart man and wouldn’t fall for this [evolution] stuff.” Well, look at the “stuff” you fall for! Doesn’t that make us even?EXACTLY WHAT DO YOU DO FOR A LIVING TOM?I’m a computer nerd at a medical company. I know that’s evasive, but since I live in the buckle of the Bible Belt, I try to retain some anonymity. I also love to read books about astronomy and natural history, among others.LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION ON EVOLUTION.IF EVOLUTION SELECTS A MUTATION THAT BEST FITS THE PATICULAR ENVIROMENT, THEN EXPLAIN HOMOSEXUALITY?WHY WOULD THERE BE HOMOSEXUALS, THEY DON’T REPRODUCE?OR IS THIS A LEARNED TRAIT?Since I’m not gay, I don’t have special insight into what sexually attracts people to members of their same sex. I’ve asked some of my homosexual friends when they first realized they were gay, and typically, they’ve said it occurred when they were nine or ten years old.And they’ve told me that this secret attraction brought on feelings of guilt, isolation, and sometimes suicidal depression, so I don’t believe this is a lifestyle that people willingly choose.
#841
Guest_veggetoxl
Guest_veggetoxl
-
- Guest
Posted 24 May 2008 - 09:10 PM
Evolution is pretty much natural selection....The fittest will reproduce and past down their hidden genes which will contribute to evolution.
#842
Guest_Mr Sprinkles
Guest_Mr Sprinkles
-
- Guest
Posted 27 May 2008 - 12:26 PM
Why does everybody keep saying from apes to humans? We are apes.
#843
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
Guest_6SuN$Jyp)Z!.]t%G
-
- Guest
Posted 27 May 2008 - 12:57 PM
Because everybody doesn't believe in biology. Technically, all humans are "great apes".Personally I feel that people who don't believe in biology and science in general can just go live on their own somewhere, without all their benefits. I'm confident your respectable bibles will keep you warm, fed and happy.
#844
Guest_iamq
Guest_iamq
-
- Guest
Posted 27 May 2008 - 09:00 PM
the problem here is most people who suport creationism dont bother to check their facts about science because the bible tells us all about science (sarcasm).i went to a baptist school when i was younger i've read the bible multiple times and know most of its flaws so don't accuse me of the same thing.i've got somany questions that can never be answered by religion i gave up following.science can answer all these questions that religion couldn't even come up with a theory for.science makes sense most things in the bible don't they'er vague and confusing how many people were in the masses 3, 1000, 1,000,000 find me proof of a number in the bible (only the 66 current books).religion will accept any evidence that proves it right but not any that prove it wrong lets take a look at the tomb of jesus (pronounced HEY-ZEUS) they found a tomb that had the name caiphis (not sure on spelling) and before any tests were done to prove that he was caiphis from the bible they said this proves the jesus story. then they find a tomb with the name jesus on one of the burrial boxes but it's not the jesus from the story wtf there were more boxes in the tomb that had other names on them their was mary joseph james the chance that this wasnt the tomb of jesus was in the millions (more chance of getting 3 royal flushes in a row of the same suite every time than this not being the tomb of jesus) but despite the evidence presented it is not the tomb of jesus there is evidence that if true the new testament is wrong yet though highly probable is definatly wrong because the religious people say sothat makes no sense.i totayl agree with nazer the religious people should go live on an island with out the benefit of science and see if god will provide for them
#845
Guest_gamerlockheart
Guest_gamerlockheart
-
- Guest
Posted 29 May 2008 - 05:58 PM
Yeah, I think religions purpose is just to improve morals and give comfort the the dying(heaven and hell crap). We get values in reading it, but we shouldn't derive facts from it, there were many books that are supposed to be in the bible, but only few were chosen but some high priests, the ones that make Jesus a little less God and a little more human were thrown aside.Atleast science is trying to prove things with the use of some evidences(like fossils and oil deposits). I had questions for my religion teachers about this topic(like "after the 7 days of creation when God created men, did God also create dinosaurs? or was the book lying?"-when I was nine), they always said we shouldn't mix religion and science, it'll make a mess out of things, I guess they're right.
#846
Guest_cupcakefacex
Guest_cupcakefacex
-
- Guest
Posted 29 May 2008 - 10:02 PM
I trust science over the bible.Facts are facts and stories are stories and it will remain that way.
#847
Guest_DeinKonig
Guest_DeinKonig
-
- Guest
Posted 30 May 2008 - 02:24 AM
The Bible describes God and his immense love for creation. It fills in some of the gaps in science. God intended for us to try and understand his creation in all of its intricacies. I'm not really sure why anyone wouldn't belive in science or biology...Because everybody doesn't believe in biology. Technically, all humans are "great apes".Personally I feel that people who don't believe in biology and science in general can just go live on their own somewhere, without all their benefits. I'm confident your respectable bibles will keep you warm, fed and happy.
It may help you to know that the name Jesus was EXTREMELY common at the time (which is why God chose it for him probably). And please, link to the story of the tomb, I'd like to read it. About the Caiphis thing, yes, unfortunately people can get overzealous at times and make rash decisions, but most of us aren't like that. (that would be like saying that ALL liberals are exactly like John Kerry, he's just seen by the public more).The Bible doesn't always tell scientific or precise historical facts (actually the scientific method wasn't even invented when it was written, unless you count the greek way of "thinking things out" without any evidence). Some of it (like Jesus' directly quoted words) we take to be straight out fact, and some of it (the story of creation, Jesus' parables, etc.) we take to be symbolic. Numbers in the Bible are often symbolic as well. (EG: 144,000 will be around the altar of God in revelation, TWELVE thousand from each of the TWELVE tribes of Israel, get the picture?)We also don't deny the fact that Jesus could've gotten the people to share their bread and fish among each other to feed the masses.Also, different denominations have different ways of interpreting the Bible (Lutherans-ALL literal, Catholics-some literal, some symbolism...)the problem here is most people who suport creationism dont bother to check their facts about science because the bible tells us all about science (sarcasm).i went to a baptist school when i was younger i've read the bible multiple times and know most of its flaws so don't accuse me of the same thing.i've got somany questions that can never be answered by religion i gave up following.science can answer all these questions that religion couldn't even come up with a theory for.science makes sense most things in the bible don't they'er vague and confusing how many people were in the masses 3, 1000, 1,000,000 find me proof of a number in the bible (only the 66 current books).religion will accept any evidence that proves it right but not any that prove it wrong lets take a look at the tomb of jesus (pronounced HEY-ZEUS) they found a tomb that had the name caiphis (not sure on spelling) and before any tests were done to prove that he was caiphis from the bible they said this proves the jesus story. then they find a tomb with the name jesus on one of the burrial boxes but it's not the jesus from the story wtf there were more boxes in the tomb that had other names on them their was mary joseph james the chance that this wasnt the tomb of jesus was in the millions (more chance of getting 3 royal flushes in a row of the same suite every time than this not being the tomb of jesus) but despite the evidence presented it is not the tomb of jesus there is evidence that if true the new testament is wrong yet though highly probable is definatly wrong because the religious people say sothat makes no sense.i totayl agree with nazer the religious people should go live on an island with out the benefit of science and see if god will provide for them
#848
Guest_Taylor B.
Guest_Taylor B.
-
- Guest
Posted 30 May 2008 - 04:02 AM
I don't know if I really trust either completely.Evolution is just a concept that we have changed into what we are now from what we once were.Oh and that's over millions of years btw.I don't really believe in things unless I can see them with my own eyes, so evolution seems like a real extension of the imagination to me.Maybe we have to evolve more to learn about it..I trust science over the bible.Facts are facts and stories are stories and it will remain that way.
#849
Guest_Atall
Guest_Atall
-
- Guest
Posted 30 May 2008 - 04:03 PM
I believe that evolution is much more accurate than religion. Where does the Bible come from and who is God anyways? Why are there so many different religions? Because some people made up something and people who couldn't explain natural disasters, thunder or whatever had to make up something to believe in, to fake knowledge. Just like a random guy named Raël started believing(?) in aliens who will revive everyone who believe in them after they die.I also want to bring up the Riddle of Epicurus.Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?I could say more, but the bell rang and I gotta go to my Spanish class.
#850
Guest_DeinKonig
Guest_DeinKonig
-
- Guest
Posted 31 May 2008 - 04:00 AM
He could, but he doesn't. He chooses to respect the free will that he has given humans. He'd prefer to have people love him FREELY than to have to force them to love him. Understand?I believe that evolution is much more accurate than religion. Where does the Bible come from and who is God anyways? Why are there so many different religions? Because some people made up something and people who couldn't explain natural disasters, thunder or whatever had to make up something to believe in, to fake knowledge. Just like a random guy named Raël started believing(?) in aliens who will revive everyone who believe in them after they die.I also want to bring up the Riddle of Epicurus.Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?I could say more, but the bell rang and I gotta go to my Spanish class.
