O/T: split from 'letter' thread

Post Reply New Topic

Bush thinks that Evolution is just a theory.
I guess its true that "Christians don't believe in Gravity"

You mean the theory that over a huge amount of time the simple becomes complex?

Do you assume that a penny you find out in the forest just appeared out of the blue? Impossible? Wait a second, with evolution it'll happen!

Bush believes that it takes an intelligent being to make programming, and thus an intelligent being to make DNA. If you think that there was this mysterious big bang-which cannot be mathmatically founded (Get very high into math, God can be proved mathmatically, I mean doctorate in mathmatics high though) and that there isn't a creator outside of this universe that made this universe, you need to look into your scientific backing.

I've already had a large debate about evolution. Here's how it went in extremely shortened posts.

"Evolution is proven."

"Okay, so a cell manipulates it's own DNA from certain circumstances and becomes better?"

"Yes."

"Define cancer."

"Uhhh, why?"

"Is cancer not the changing of a cell's DNA causing an irregularity that makes the cell reproduce uncontrollably?"

"Yes."

"So you're saying that, when cancer is the random changing of a cell's DNA, or caused by outside circumstances, that this same random changing occurs for the better? This means that you take two steps back and one step forward at the very most."

"No, the changes are passed on through the genetic material, the reproductive genes are modified."

"Oh, okay, now you're saying that the change doesn't happen in the cell's DNA but, let's say an 'evolution' permitting a human being to see infrared light occured. Instead of that occuring in the eye it is passed directly, without testing, to the reproductive organs, thus poisoning every single offspring of this animal if it goes wrong?"

"No, 99% of all changes are neutral, .5% are negative and .5% are positive."

"But wait, let's get back to cancer. It is the mutation of a cell causing it to reproduce much much faster then normal. If I'm correct the DNA that would be modified in the reproductive organ without testing, the percentage would be 99% negative, .5% positive and .5% neutral."

"But look at dogs! How many different breeds are there!?"

"Tons, how are they classified? Are they in the same family? Species?"

"Yep. That proves evolution."

"Wait a second, let's take the DNA of a border collie and a wolf, and compare them, okay?"

"Okay."

"You're saying that when there is essentially NO difference in DNA between a wolf and a border collie, or ANY other species of dog, that it's 'evolution' or the changing of the simple to the complex?"

"Well, no, but look at the dinosaurs! They all died out because they were unfit to live!"

"Would a worldwide flood have taken care of these dinosaurs?"

"Of course.."

"Are there not fossils of sea life on the tops of mountains?"

"Yes, there are, your point?"

"There is evidence of a worldwide flood. The wording in the bible allows for the dinosaurs to be left out of the arc."

"But carbon dating says they are billions and billions of years old!"

"Carbon dating is measuring the amount of the chemical when carbon radioactively decays, I believe it's nitrogen, but that may be wrong, correct?"

"Yes, that's exactly what it is and it proves evolution to be correct."

"Carbon dating assumes there is no nitrogen, or whatever chemical it breaks down into, present in the fossil. It also leaves no room for variables."

It went on like this for a long time. Evolution is a theory, as is creationism. Creationism has been around for much much longer. Let's take a look at a greek scientific theory that lasted for a long time, I can't remember who started it. It was accepted as FACT.

"There are four elements that make up every material in existence."
Earth
Fire
Water
Air

Also, the theory of spontaneous generation, accepted in medieval times. It basically stated that if it rained, tadpoles magically appeared in puddles. Louis Pastieur, I believe, proved that wrong with his experiment with two pieces of meat. One was left covered with a cloth in a jar, the other sat in a jar alone.

The uncovered one developed maggots, the covered one did not.

Charles Darwin, the founder of modern evolution, or so he's called, had great respect for the theory of spontaneous generation.

"Even as my body ages and becomes dust from flesh, nothing from something, loses it's energy and breaks down, I believe that everything in the universe tends to become more complex, stronger, more powerful."

Evolution, or spontaneous generation with time, can be disproven.

The people who sport it as truth will respond to any other theory with "That's not science."

www.icr.org

A follow up edit, Isaac Newton was a creationist.

A further comment. Newton was also an Alchemist, and see how wrong he was there.

I personally follow evolution guided by God.

And I think the bible is the attempt by the simple minds of man to understand the infinate power of god.

I agree with everything BlackLiger just said. I would also like to add that religion and science have disagreed on many issues in the past. At one pont in history, Christians taught that the Earth was the centre of the solar system. They thought anyone who believed the Sun was at the centre was a heretic and would go to hell. Who won that argument? I think the evolution argument will end up the same way.

And now on rationality corner: the TRUTH about evolution.....

Darwinian Evolution is WRONG. Fact. Darwinian Evolution states that forms slowly, over a period of time, adapt and change to become new forms. Fossil and archaeological records show that evolution actually happens in sudden "jumps". One minute apes are schlepping around and then suddenly, from nowhere, there are humans wearing toupees and carrying cellphones. There is, as yet, no satisfactory theory to explain why this is the case.

However.....

The fact is that Darwinian Evolution is currently the best we've got.... At some point someone will come up with a better explanation that will then lead us on to the next set of answers, and of course, questions. That is the nature of science. The dark, invisible areas of knowledge get illuminated, bit by bit, over the course of time allowing us to see the rest of the dark bits.

To go down the tiresome, whoary old, intellectual cop-out path of "nobody knows why, so it must be God" is unworthy of anything but scorn and disdain, and I will brook it no further...... Honestly..... As pointed out by the Becster, once upon a time, noone knew why the earth went 'round the sun, and so assumed "it must be because of God" - now we know better. We will know better about evolution eventually too.

Let's try to remember what century we're in people, OK?

I won't give a huge speal in support of evolution.
I will only give you this:
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/

Whoever can successfully go after absolutely everything in the book, should publish it.
It is alot, and it is currently the best theory we have.
There will be others, the question is when?

Actually, NO other book has been kept with the accuracy of the bible. If you don't believe in the bible, you don't believe in Christ. If you don't believe in Christ, you don't believe in salvation.



Actually, it has been shown that apes did not become humans. All so called transition stages have been shown to be nothing but mixtures of ape and human bones. I love your last sentence.

Well, hmmm, computer code has to be made by man...it is essentially two parts...DNA is four parts...but it happens by chance..? Wait a second..

Bullcrap. A dog will never be a horse.



HA HA HA HA HA! LOL!

The people RESPONSIBLE for the heliocentric theory were Christians. Get it straight, if you lump us all in with the catholic church you're going to get nothing but laughter. If you EVER let religion and politics mix you get men who want power, or political figures, as religious heads. This is what corrupted the catholic church, and what cripples it even still today.

Learn what Christianity is before you come in debating it, I am *VERY* tired of dealing with people lumping me in with the same church that took protestants and burnt them at the stake in the inquisition. If you want to make me angry, say it again. I'll take personal offense to it and report it to an admin.

If you honestly didn't know there was a difference between catholics and protestants, then please forgive me.



Darwinian evolution is 'holier' then my backyard. And I mean that it's holy in the same way swiss cheese going through a sowing machine without thread is. If you'd like, I can direct your attention to a site that will shatter evolution, but I don't believe in baby feeding people knowledge. That stopped after elementry school and you won't make it past your first year in college expecting knowledge to be baby fed to you. I will post up a few links at the end of this post.



First off, the laws of physics. Are they orderly or unorderly?

Solid, liquid, gas, plasma, orderly? Unorderly?

DNA, orderly? Unorderly?

Death or decay always occurs in the long run, true or false?

Life can not be made out of non-life synthetically, true or false?

Here's the key. Orderly, orderly, orderly, orderly, true, false.

Now, roll a 24 sided dice. Keep rolling it until you hit a number you pick ten times. Every time you hit a number that is a multiple of that number, start over.

This is gambling. And this is much simpler then evolution. So, random events culmulated to throw together through chaos an orderly universe?

Imagine a turd. A small turd, but a stinky turd. It is a mouse turd. It dreams of turning into an elephant turd one day.

The mouse turd will NEVER be an elephant turd. They're both turds, they're both mammalian turds, but the mouse turd will never EVER *EVER* turn into an elephant turd or anything remotely like it WITHOUT OUTSIDE INTERFERENCE!

Things *DO* change, but essentially stay the same. Black ink can be put on paper any number of ways but no matter how you put it on paper it won't turn bright pink and slide off the page, without outside interference.



Yes, let's try to remember it. I agree wholeheartedly. In this age of science let the scientific method be used, let mathmatics be used to reason. Let God's glory and creation be acknowledged.

www.morrowind.com go tell these programmers that their game originated by chance, oblivion, and that they're just claiming responsibility for it.

www.microsoft.com Go say that what they made came together randomly.

Why wouldn't machines, which are SO much simpler then organic beings, have 'evolved' before us? The parts are MUCH less prone to decay then organic matter!

These links go from easiest to hardest to read.

http://www.livingwaters.com/witnessingt ... tion.shtml

http://www.livingwaters.com/witnessingt ... sing.shtml

http://www.livingwaters.com/witnessingt ... ists.shtml

http://www.icr.org/

I'm going to just let you loose on icr, e-mail them and they'll answer any of your questions with much more information then you can possibly hope to swallow.

Truthfully, if you can believe that a tiny ant can one day become a blue whale, then you have been watching too many cartoons and reading too many fiction books.

I suppose asking for a change of record would be futile as you obviously only have the one (and what a very dusty, warped and cracked one it is too - you want to try converting to CDs, they're so much more "with the times", dont'cha know?).

The argument "we can only explain the inexplicable through God" is becoming so tiresome it is simply untrue..... I don't have the answers any more than you or anybody else, but at least I have the moral courage to accept the fact and not indulge in the old "I don't have all the answers!! !! I'm far too important not to have all the answers!! !! I need ready made quick-fix answers, and NOW, but where? THE BIBLE!! !! !! Of course!! !! ! My sanctimoniousness and self-righteousness are saved!! !! ! Halleluyah!! !! !! Praise be to..... (hang on, what was the guys name again.... *reads* a-ha! Found it!) God!! !! !" cobblers you lot always trot out in the most predictable ways imaginable..... Maybe it is "God": who knows? (you certainly don't, as you prove so consistently) It's got much more important things to worry about than anyone's stinking sins if it is, believe you me.... Sorting out this trashcan mess of creation it lumbered us with would be a good start ....

"You can prove God exists through science" = bull-hockey!! !! You can prove no more than that there are answers we don't have yet, and maybe even ever.... Nothing more....

Please keep that messy old Messiah of yours off of my furniture please in future, at least until he's house-trained.... So kind.....

I had a big nasty post posted up, dissing takfash or whatever, but I'm sure the rest of you don't need to hear it.

Feel free to post up your arguements against creation if you'd like. I'll respond to them in as dignified a matter as possible.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=dogma
Definition two.

Let's make a deal. I'll learn more about religion (which I already know about), if you learn more about history.

All Christians were Catholics until the Reformation in the late 1500s. Of course, those responsible for the heliocentric theory were members of the Church. Everyone (unless you were a Muslim or a Jew) was a member of the Church then! Nicolaus Copernicus wrote De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres) in the early 1500s. It was published when he died in 1543.

In the Catholic faith, people follow both the teachings of the Bible and Pope. Catholics, including those who would eventually become Protestants, thought that heliocentrism was a direct contradiction of the Bible. Note: I said Bible, not the Pope's teachings. Protestants believe in the Bible too. So would their beliefs on what the Bible taught wouldn't change. Their beliefs on heliocentrism were the same.



I know the Church is involved in politics. I wasn't discussing their political stance on the issue, I was discussing their religious stance on the issue. Interesting. You don't think religion and politics should mix, yet if I am not mistakened, you support George W. Bush. Correct? It seems that you believe religion and politics should mix, as long as it's your religion.



I know all about Christianity and I also know the history of Christianity. Protestantism evolved from Catholicism. As for the Inquisition, I think the Church did a horrible, horrible thing. I really don't know why you brought it up. Did you read anything into my post that might have said I support the killing and torture of human beings? During the Reformation Protestants also killed hundreds, if not thousands, of Catholics. I apologise if this makes you angry, but this is a debate. This is not a personal attack on you, but I guess if you feel the need to go an admin you have the right and freedom to do so.

About your turd example: A piece of poo is not a living organism. It doesn't have cells. If it doesn't have cells it can't evolve.

*Sarcasm gun warms up.*



Okay, hmmm...convincing arguement.

All germans, during the late 1930's and early 1940's were nazis. Everyone agreed with them and everyone submitted.

Wait a second...my great grandparents left germany because of the nazis..but if you spoke out against the nazis in germany...you were shot..

During the protestant reformation the inquisition was formed, many protestants were burnt at the stake. If you were caught disagreeing with the church you were tortured and/or killed. When you say that everyone agreed with them, and everyone believed the same way, you discredit many people who could not afford to stand up and fight against them.



The bible never does say that the sun revolves around the earth. I believe an article is in order.

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-253.htm



You very well knew what I meant. *Sigh.* Rephrasing that, never let the church become the state nor the state become the church, better?

EVERYONE has a religious bias, REGARDLESS of their religion. I'd rather have someone that believes there is life after death and that every action they make could lead a person to a positive life after death, if they do the right things, or a negative one, if they do the wrong things. Imagine, living with that sort of guilt and tell me you wouldn't do your absolute best to make sure you set the best example you could.



Catholisism originally was fundamentalist and 'protestant' if you will. As it gained power it started to become segregated from the bible. The catholics used ignorance as their strength, and fear as their sword.



Someone was putting protestants in with catholics, namely you.

Quote:

Christians taught that the Earth was the centre of the solar system. They thought anyone who believed the Sun was at the centre was a heretic and would go to hell.

That was why it was brought up. Remember the distinction between the two faiths, and remember that the catholics were *NOT* acting biblically.



I believe I was speaking of takfash, I'm not sure and am not really in the mood to scroll up. I *ENJOY* stimulating debates, not obese packmules.



But by magical events happening it can suddenly become a living organism. Also, it is much more likely for a piece of poo to change form instead of degrading then it is for DNA to rewrite itself on a cellular level. When DNA does happen to be manipulated by an uncontrolled outside force, or just by a fluke, it usually results in cancer, let's give it a nice number and say 80% of all changes result in cancer, this drastically cuts the population, and many bad traits are hereditory. Not a pretty picture.

I believe I gave this example before, but what I never understood is how, when there is such a high percentage ending in error, you can expect something to evolve.

Once more, infra-red vision for humans. The eyes are assaulted by a battery of infrared light and exposed to nothing else. There is a change in the eyes permitting the human to see.

Wait, but how would all the DNA carrying cells in the eye receive this? Wouldn't the white blood cells attack the 'newcomer'?

Or would it be transferred to the genetic reproductive material, which can be proven to be unchanging from birth to death?

So if cells with markedly different DNA form they are attacked, and the genetic material doesn't change.

So a slow sliding, mayhap?

Okay, let's say we batter two generations with infrared light and let them see nothing else, then for the third and fourth and fifth generation let the people wander and live 'normally', would the traits being developed (assuming they are being worked on) still be there, or with an ever changing body would they be dropped?

Also, you mentioned a living cell. A cell is organic matter composed of proteins, amino acids, etc. All of these are biodegradeable. For a single celled organism to come alive all of these materials would have to come together at once, EXACTLY at once so they would not degrade, the organism would have to be able to feed itself via photosynthesis as it would be the first organism to be made, AND it would have to be able to reproduce!

Even if the organism was put together who's to say it would have the right proteins or DNA? It could be a frankenstein of parts that don't correspond to it! Who's to say the DNA wouldn't correspond to a wolf's skin cell? In that case, you have a dead bacteria. The same would happen if any amino acids, organelles, or other bits and pieces of the cell were off just a bit.

Get ahold of an old computer, a socket A board. It is more complex then a super socket 7 board. Take the socket A and socket 7 processors and force them into the other. Take the PC133 RAM and the DDR1600/2100 and force them into the other's ram slot.

Boot up the computer.

Does it work?

So a motherboard with the wrong processor won't work, nor will a motherboard with the wrong type of RAM. The computer doesn't start up AT ALL

It may give a squeal of protest, or it may catch on fire. If you leave it on long enough the result is the same as when you first turned it on, it is inoperable.

So, why would organic matter which is exponentially as complex as the movie The Matrix's robots form first, why not a bot like that that can replicate itself? It has a much higher chance of working!

I could keep going on, but it isn't needed.

According to them, they were acting Biblically. That is what they believed the Bible said.



This was absolutely what they did. However Protestants do not have a clean slate either. All of the of the following Catholics were killed by Protestants due to their beliefs:

Abbot, Henry: hanged, drawn and quartered at York, England, on 4 July, 1597
Abel, Thomas: hanged, drawn and quartered at Smithfield, England, on 30 July,
1540
Alfield, Thomas: tortured and hanged at Tyburn, England, on 6 July, 1585
Almond, John: hanged, drawn and quartered at Tyburn, England, on 5 December,
1612
Amias, John: hanged, drawn and quartered at York, England, on 16 March, 1589
Andeton, Robert: hanged on the Isle of Wight, 25 April, 1586
Andleby, William: hanged, drawn and quartered at York, England, on 4 July,
1597
Arnaud, William: murdered by Albegensians at Avignonet in 1242
Ashley, Ralph: executed on 7 April, 1606 after two years of torture...

If you would like more you can go to this site.

Let's go back to the turd analogy. I can say that it will happen with evolution, does it make it true? No.



Impressive list.

Once more, they were not acting biblically. I just ducked out of a chatroom to avoid harming anyone.

We are mandated to teach, not to kill. If they were doing that to people they needed to be hoisted up a flagpole and spanked with a cat of nine tails for awhile.

Did I say that protestants have a clean slate? Humans aren't perfect thus no one will *EVER* be able to follow Christianity to the dot (Except Christ himself).

Reading your source I see that these people were killed for..



That doesn't fly, this is specifically the angelican church and not the 'protestant' church as a whole. The angelican church is what the pilgrims-another protestant group-fled. It is also what the puritans-yet another one, tried to purify.

Not a well built site, they definitely aren't being objective about this..oh well.

(Just for future debates, find a different site, I dug through that site a bit and found all sorts of crud. It really doesn't look like a site trying to provide information for information's sake but for shock value..I may be wrong, but other people will get POed if you bring anything other then lists like that from it.)

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn´t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don´t. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn´t thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

Now you're catching on.The bible is just a book of myths. Jesus of Nazareth was a great man, but certainly no "christ." There is no life after death. there is no salvation. there is no damnation.

Read my posts, then reply. Also, the bible *NEVER* says to abandon logic in your pursuit of God, else I wouldn't be posting. Don't make yourself look bad, please post up real responses to what this post is currently on.



What is the thread of continuity that runs through the Bible—the consistent theme from the Old Testament through the New Testament?

Answer this, if you can I'll respond to you knowing you have read the bible, if you can't, then you are making baseless claims.