Amon Member Posts: 30 From: London Registered: 06-14-2003 |
Hi! I have a new question to ask. I'm asking it here because the last time I posed questions here they were logically explained. I'm a christian with a faith problem due to science. If all I knew was god then my faith would be no problem, but science is causing a sort of conflict in my mind. Any way. With the current explanations of evolution, there is but one question that pops up in my mind. How does evolution determine and make changes to a form. ie. A red blood cell has a curved shape bacause it would then have more surface area for it to hold the oxygen molecules. How did evolution determine that the red blood cell should be shaped like that, without first thinking about it? Where did the information get processed for evolution to then make the change? I hope I'm making sense. It just appears to me that evolution is thinking, its taking data from its surroundings and then creating change. How would evolution determine that an entity will need an eye to be able to move around its surrounding, without first thinking about this? ------------------ |
CobraA1 Member Posts: 926 From: MN Registered: 02-19-2001 |
Well, some of us are creationists; we don't automatically assume evolutionary thinking  .------------------ |
|
nfektious Member Posts: 408 From: Registered: 10-25-2002 |
I'm truly unaware of the entire evolutionary premise (that is, the full circle argument of the evolutionary theory in its entirety, beyond Creation, to all of life and the life processes), but I do recall reading or hearing something to the effect that all the data for an organism to evolve was built into the original. I could be completely way off base, but this is my recollection nonetheless. If my memory is correct, then a red blood cell would have the intelligence to know what it is supposed to look like since the information it needs is readily available. However, following this logic, one has to assume that the cell knows what data is to be applied and what is to be ignored. This makes the cell not only a thinking cell, as you say, but also intelligent to know what it is and possibly what it is to become. Of course, this also suggests that every organism has the same elements in it and can evolve to anything else over time. The issue with this on the Creationist side is that species reproduce their own species. The exception to this, obviously, is when mankind has tampered with nature, resulting in unique species that have limited reproductive abilities if any at all. A red blood cell would reproduce red blood cells, not plankton, etc etc. When you consider all of this, you have to wonder if the original cell in the evolutionary theory knew what it was doing and why it took so long to reach the human species formula it was carrying all along. Was it all a result of trial and error, going from one species to another until the ultimate formula was perfected? If the cell was intelligent in the first place, why didn't it just jump straight to the human species instead of spending millions of years wasting energy? There are many more issues in there to consider and wonder about I'm sure, but I will leave my response as it is for now. I hope I have helped you consider some things. Science does not have all the answers. Even if it did, it would still require an understanding of the answers to be satisfied with the Why's and How's of life. Even then, you have to take things with faith. |
GUMP Member Posts: 1335 From: Melbourne, FL USA Registered: 11-09-2002 |
Good question. If you could provide an answer to it then you would probably receive a nobel prize! Not kidding either, no one has been able to come up with a workable mechanism as of yet. There have been suggestions raised over the years but nothing that worked after testing. [This message has been edited by Gump (edited October 15, 2003).] |
|
TheManFromGanymede Member Posts: 14 From: Boulder, CO Registered: 06-21-2003 |
It's not conscious according to the theory, but it's usually treated as such in the language of articles and textbooks because the theory begins to sound ridiculous when you say, "red blood cells, through blind chance, happened to increase in surface area in an organism, lending it a survival advantage while others in it's species die." Under Evolution (the spontaneous development of life from non-living matter and change from simple lifeforms to complex ones), there IS no intelligence creating new features in an animal. There's merely a natural process determining which features to keep. The best they can do as far as the source of new information in a creature's genetic code is random copying errors. Scientists may contradict Christianity, but science doesn't. I would suggest that you check out www.answersingenesis.org It's got a LOT of scientific information supporting the Creation/Fall model of the world defined in the bible. It's helped me out alot with the same questionst you're having. ------------------ |
BlazeQ Member Posts: 260 From: USA Registered: 05-11-2002 |
quote: Had to quote this to make sure you saw it. Very good resources on the website and in the Creation and Technical Journal magazines. Here's a little article on the chance of a simple protein molecule developing: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2725.asp Evolution is practically a religion. You have to have either a great faith in it or a strong hatred of God to believe in it. GB, ------------------ [This message has been edited by BlazeQ (edited October 15, 2003).] |
Klumsy Administrator Posts: 1061 From: Port Angeles, WA, USA Registered: 10-25-2001 |
quote: true to a point - but i believe many people who believe in evolution do so quite passively so aren't in the catogory of the above with ignorance you can believe in evolution as well - many people don't require evolution to explain itself or make sense, they are just happy enough with it on the surface. their ignorance is bliss. or through propaganda (education, socially accepted norms, messages through media, arts) other people believe in it. and even christians are so subceptible to propaganda one way or another, if you feed on the world, the world molds your worldview, if you abide in Christ, Christ molds your worldview. also to the unregenerated soul which is in rebellion against God - anything that undermines God and his authority is the natural state. ------------------ |
|
BlazeQ Member Posts: 260 From: USA Registered: 05-11-2002 |
quote:True, true. I was thinking then of those who actively support evolution. ------------------ |
ArchAngel Member Posts: 3450 From: SV, CA, USA Registered: 01-29-2002 |
personally, I have seen no substantial evidence to believe in evolution... I personally think that it's gonna die out like the geocentric theory; ignorance isn't that strong, though it does control most people's life. according to evolution, they have the trail-by-error.. basically.. long ago (millions and millions to be perfectly precise *sarcasm*) many types of red blood cells were created; curved, square, maybe even star shaped ones... but the only one that really survived was the curved one, because it gave the best results, etc... this thinking is pretty good for some topics, mostly adaption, but can't explain all. basically all evolutuion is about is chance. however, we live in a world governed by law and order. Science is studying the world by using laws and rules. that's why evolution makes to sense. it does seem to be some entity, huh. people can't escape some authorship to the universe... many evolutionists said this, including carl sagan and others. ------------------ |
|
GUMP Member Posts: 1335 From: Melbourne, FL USA Registered: 11-09-2002 |
I'll give a much longer answer now (though I've copied and pasted this from something I wrote earlier): For many scientists 15 billion years for the age of the cosmos is assumed to be an abundance of time for random interactions of atoms and molecules to generate life. A simple arithmetic lesson reveals this idea to not be as simple as commonly believed. Fred Hoyle, the eminent British cosmologist, published similar calculations two decades ago. Here is a sampling of various probabilities: •
"At present, science has no satisfactory answer to the question of the origin of life on the earth. Perhaps the appearance of life on the earth is a miracle. Scientists are reluctant to accept that view, but their choices are limited; either life was created on the earth by the will of a being outside the grasp of scientific understanding, or it evolved on our planet spontaneously, through chemical reactions occurring in nonliving matter lying on the surface of the planet. The first theory places the question of the origin of life beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. It is a statement of faith in the power of a Supreme Being not subject to the laws of science. The second theory is also an act of faith. The act of faith consists in assuming that the scientific view of the origin of life is correct, without having concrete evidence to support that belief." Robert Jastrow of NASA |
|
CobraA1 Member Posts: 926 From: MN Registered: 02-19-2001 |
Hmm, I'm not seeing all of the "^"'s in that last post . . . ------------------ |
|
GUMP Member Posts: 1335 From: Melbourne, FL USA Registered: 11-09-2002 |
Had another thought when I was programming: Essentially, DNA is a high level language since the information is encoded and requires a compiler. For a comparison let us compare my latest build of Eternal War to DNA. My code is about 1.2MB or 1,265,664 bytes. If I make one tiny mistake it can bring down the whole engine (a crash) or it can cause a result not intended; a mutation if you will. The human genome contains 3.2 billion bases which is the rough equivalent of about 3.2 GIGABYTES of information or 3,276,800,000 bytes. If this information was stretched out end to end it would be about 6 times the distance from Jupiter to Earth while my little program may reach the moon. But that is just the simplistic approach to things by just counting the bases. It does not count the fact that DNA apparently uses some sort of compression algorithm and depending on how the bases are read they may serve as different commands; thus reusing the same encoded information. As if yet we're still figuring out DNA so for all we know DNA decompressed could be the equivalent of Terrabytes of information.... or even much, much more. DNA... proof that God is the ultimate l337 h4x0r! [This message has been edited by Gump (edited October 17, 2003).] |
|
ArchAngel Member Posts: 3450 From: SV, CA, USA Registered: 01-29-2002 |
yeah.. dna just doesn't happen... nothing just doesn't happen... ------------------ |
|
Amon Member Posts: 30 From: London Registered: 06-14-2003 |
Thanx for the brilliant replies guys.  It just appears to me that evolution is thinking. It gathers information then makes an intelligent decision as to what will work for a given species. Still in all my thinking i do not understand why for instance an entity without an eye, would evolve one. I doubt that a simplistic organism, an ancient one, would turn around and say to itself "Hmm, you know what? I think i'll grow an eye." I just dont buy it. There is an intelligence behind this whole process of evolution. Somebeing, some entity, is thinking and making changes. I think evolution itself is an intelligent entity. Now what about this missing link situation. According to evolutionists species evolve gradually and change. Problem is that they can find no inbetweens of this process. They have the first fossil but none of the inbetweens that show the gradual change from ie 1 - 10. they just have 1 and 10. The inbetweens are all missing. Surely if they can find the oldest one, then to find the ones inbetween would be simple. I think that in the effort to prove that a creator does not exist, evolutionists and their scientist friends are shooting themselves in the foot. thx again guys ------------------ |
Psyco Member Posts: 55 From: Australia Registered: 08-25-2003 |
Just OT here, is this the same Amon from BC.com?? ------------------ |
zookey Member Posts: 1902 From: Great Falls, Montana, USA Registered: 04-28-2002 |
WELL, SINCE NO ONE IS ABLE TO TOTALLY PROVE HOW (OR IF) EVOLUTION WORKS----------THAT RAISES A SERIOUS POINT --------BOTH SCIENCE AND JESUS REQUIRE YOU TO TAKE A LEAP OF FAITH ---------JUST SCIENCE WANTS TO CONVINCE YOU THAT YOU AREN'T REALLY TAKING A LEAP OF FAITH AND JESUS FOCUSES ON THE FACT THAT THE FAITH IS WHAT IT IS ALL ABOUT AND YOU ONLY NEED A SMALL AMOUNT TO DO GREAT THINGS. ----------ANOTHER SCIENTIFIC LEAP OF FAITH MY MENTOR POINTED OUT TO ME---THEY SAY THAT THE BIG BANG THEORY (WHERE MATTER EXPLODED CREATING THE UNIVERSE) MADE OUR WORLD---BUT WHERE DID THAT INITIAL MATTER COME FROM? ----------BOTH SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE CAN ONLY EXPLAIN THINGS TO A POINT AND REQUIRE FAITH TO FILL IN THE GAPS:-) ------------------ |
|
GUMP Member Posts: 1335 From: Melbourne, FL USA Registered: 11-09-2002 |
Two things: First, I would not say that it is a case of religion versus science at all. The idea that evolutionist's beliefs do not have a strict scientific basis, that these beliefs are actually a sort of quasi-religion, is something that most evolutionists reject out of hand. There can not be any gray areas in their beliefs; it is either science fact or science fraud. The idea that their beliefs are not facts is something they cannot accept, for this is part of their faith and to admit otherwise would be to question their own beliefs. That is why they always talk about 'science versus religion', for as part of their own faith they will not believe that the situation is really 'their faith versus someone else's faith', even when they admit that their beliefs are founded on the basis that eventually science will find all the solutions for the places where their ideas break down (and if they're being intellectually honest the SHOULD tell you all the massive problems). Thus it is incorrect to refer to "science vs religion". It is really an athiest's beliefs combined with science vs a Christian's beliefs combined with science.
Found it: Now they spend a lot of time in this article presenting their belief/bias that evolution still (how exactly is not answered) did occur but they do know there is not a genetic connection. Also, their dating methods are based upon this: "Mitochondrial DNA is inherited unchanged from the mother only, allowing researchers to trace unadulterated DNA back hundreds of thousands of years." That is shocking considering that this idea HAS been disproven for many years; yet these researchers still used it for dating. Anyway, the key is that this investigation by scientists still proves that Neanderthals (read: monkeys) did not contribute to modern humans in regards to DNA. EDIT: I will note that most likely this dating system doesn't work at all but if did work then it actually points to the "Mitochondrial Eve" only being 6 to 10 thousand years back. Unfortunately thorough investigation into the technique has revealed its basis is entirely flawed and thus what could have been a good argument for Christians is now completely void. It is amazing that scientists are still purposely turning a blind eye to this fact. [This message has been edited by Gump (edited October 18, 2003).] |
|
Amon Member Posts: 30 From: London Registered: 06-14-2003 |
Hi Psyco, Yes its me. From blitz coder. I come here when my faith is low and my mind needs defragmenting. lol ------------------ |
|
Amon Member Posts: 30 From: London Registered: 06-14-2003 |
Thx all for the replies. You guys have given me some brilliant information and links to visit. Thx for that link Gump. Incredible.. thx again... ------------------ |
|
GUMP Member Posts: 1335 From: Melbourne, FL USA Registered: 11-09-2002 |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3200214.stm A new purple frog found... I find some of the statements in there hilarious. |
|
Amon Member Posts: 30 From: London Registered: 06-14-2003 |
A purple Frog. lol NMow I've seen everything. ------------------ |
Xsniper Member Posts: 209 From: Registered: 05-11-2002 |
Ok, I really really really hate how only one side of the argument is adequately portrayed here in all these evolution threads on this site. So I'm going to have a go at this one, responding to each post one at a time. Its 1:52am, looks like I'll be up for awhile. POST #1 by Amon quote: I would first like to define "evolution" as a process. It is not a living entity, a thinking entity, or anything of the sort. Evolution is the process by which a living thing changes over time through random mutation and natural selection.
quote: Once again evolution is a process, not a thinking entity. But to answer your question the curved shape of the red blood cell evolved over time. It did not start this way necessarily but it may have. Suffice it to say over a massive period of time there were changes occuring in the red blood cell because some were created slightly different than others over time and if the ones that had new things about them like a curved shape happened to survive and thrive more than the others then their chances of reproducing were higher and thus they would survive while the other blood cells with lower chances of survival would eventually die off.
quote: Once again evolution determined nothing. Whatever entity that you speak of which has an eye now likely did not have an eye at some point in its evolutional history. But at some point one of these entities was created that happened to have an eye and this eye was a great benefit to this entity and helped him to servive and procreate more than the eyeless entities. Thus his mutation of an eye was passed on to his offspring and they thrived and over the years all the eyeless entities died out because they did not have this advantage. POST #2 by CobraA1
quote: Indeed and you are entitled to your beliefs. POST #3 by nfektious
quote: Woh, definitely misinformed here my friend. I think what you may have heard or read was that there are pieces of DNA in every living thing that are identical and can be traced back to the first life forms. All data for an organism to evolve was certainly not built into the "original".
quote: The cell certainly doesn't think. You can think of a cell like a function in a program. It is designed to perform a task and only perform that task. However a cell is a little more complex than that and if you really want to get scientific with this analogy then you'd say a cell is like a program made up of many many functions that all perform their individual tasks and as a result of those functions performing their tasks the cell in essence performs a task as well. The cell becomes what it becomes through the process of evolution as defined above.
quote: Ok lets talk about a term called Gene Flow. This term pretty much says that over time a mutation that occurs in a species will spread to all members of that species if they are all connected some how through procreation. All connected somehow meaning say living in the same environment, having contact with one another, etc. Now lets talk about the concept of a new species forming off of an existing species. Lets say that this species lives on a large continent and one day a huge earthquake rips the continent in half and ocean now seperates this continent keeping the inhabitants of either newly created island isolated from each other. As a result of this you now have 2 islands with say half of the original species on each. Both of these groups of the species are now isolated, mutations occuring in any member of the species on island 1 have no way of reaching those on island 2. Also mutations in any member of the species on island 2 have no way of reaching those on island 1. If this isolation remains for a long period of time, say hundreds of thousands to millions of years then both species will no longer be the same even though they may have started out the same. Because over this period of time each species will continue mutating slowly but seperately from the other species, thus creating 2 distinctly unique species from the original 1 species.
quote: The cell was never intelligent to begin with and never had the ability to just magically become a human when it wanted to. It took a very long period of time for such a simple organism to eventually "become" a human. Although in all reality a cell did not become a human it became a part of a human and a part of other more complex animals before that.
quote: You are correct, science certainly does not have all the answers. In fact it doesnt necessarily even have the absolute right answers. The answers that science has are the best answers available to the question at this time. And these "answers" are repeatedly tested when new testing methods become available to see if there might be a "better answer" out there. If there is a "better answer" out there then it will undergo much testing before becoming the new "best available answer at this time". POST #4 by Gump
quote: I respect you Gump but you have no basis for this answer saying that there have been suggestions raised over the years but nothing that worked after testing. There is no way that you can prove this statement to be true. POST #5 by TheManFromGanymede
quote: There was no "blind chance" to it. Simply put if I am taller than you and our only means of survival is to pick the fruit from the high trees that i can reach but you can't then I will continue to eat fruit and live while you will starve to death and die and those that i mate with will bear my offspring which will also be tall and be able to pick the fruit from the high trees. While you would be dead and thus you did not get a chance to procreate meaning that the short people would die out with you.
quote: This www.answersingenesis.org is a biased publication from the "christian" perspective so ofcourse its going to have "scientific information" supporting the Creation/Fall model. Any piece of information can be turned to support any theory, idea, or belief if put into the hands of a skilled person. POST #6 by BlazeQ
quote: |
D-SIPL Moderator Posts: 1345 From: Maesteg, Wales Registered: 07-21-2001 |
And what does all this matter?? So what if we evolved or not, has no bearing on the here-and-now whatsoever. Don't argue about unimportant stuff... --D-SIPL ------------------ [This message has been edited by D-SIPL (edited November 06, 2003).] |
|
CobraA1 Member Posts: 926 From: MN Registered: 02-19-2001 |
Wow, that's one really long post, Xsniper.
quote: That sorta happens when we're all on the same side
quote: Believe it or not, this definition is vague enough to allow a 6,000 year-old earth and creation also.
quote: Feels good to live in the USA. Too bad not all of our schools feel the same way - they're pretty biased against students having such beliefs. Not enough time for a complete look at your post, I'll look at it more closely later.
quote: That's nice
quote: I think it would be wrong to state that we've only been seeing one side of the argument our whole lives - I have a TV and an Internet connection just like everybody else. I would be blind not to see Evolution.
quote: That's 10^80, or 10 multiplied by itself 80 times. His post doesn't have all of the "^"'s in; it got formatted incorrectly. Hence your confusion Look more closely later, have to go to school. ------------------ |
|
Xsniper Member Posts: 209 From: Registered: 05-11-2002 |
quote: Hey buddy this thread is about evolution, you don't seem to have a problem with people arguing about the creationist point of view, I just thought I'd liven up the party a little bit with the other half of the equation.
quote: You are correct, I left the definition very vague on purpose because I dont want anyone to try and hold me down to any given time frame. However there is other evidence to support that Earth is far far older than 6,000 years and that Man as we know it (biologically the same as we humans are today) has been around for longer than that. We know as a scientific fact that man first began farming over 9,000 years ago. http://www.life.umd.edu/classroom/bsci124/lec24.html
quote: I touched on this briefly earlier but now that I'm more awake I was able to go look up some "evidence" for you. Check out this link. http://www.wsu.edu:8001/vwsu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/timeline/timeline.html
quote: Its not that schools don't want students to have beliefs its simply that here in the USA we have this thing called seperation of church and state. Religion has no place in the government. This is a whole nother argument all together so I won't go too deep on it. This is government funded public schools we speak of, private schools can do whatever they want.
quote: I'm sorry but I don't have the time to filter through their hundreds or thousands of articles to determine whether they are correct or not. So instead I will just make an assumption that because they are biased not all of their information is likely to be 100 percent accurate.
quote: I'm not saying that you've only seen one side of the argument your entire life, that was more directed at a hypothetical situation of a child being brought up solely in the church or solely in the public education system. However I will say that I think your chances of believing one side of the argument are directly influenced by which side of the argument you were presented with first.
quote: Ah well that clears that up quite a bit then. 10 to the 80th power of atoms in the cosmos sounds a little more reasonable then 1080. I still don't see where that number was came up with though. More replies later. ------------------ |
|
GUMP Member Posts: 1335 From: Melbourne, FL USA Registered: 11-09-2002 |
The number of atoms came from William Dembski, who if I remember correctly is not a creationist, and I had that information in my post above. I do not know of anyone who disagrees with those figures. I doubt you could find a scientist who would argue against my argument too much as I actually biased the data in FAVOR of the evolutionist standpoint. I'm still not sure why this forum stripped out my "^"s. I guess I'll format it like this: 10e80. Also, I may have been a little vague on my first post. I was thinking of scientists finding a workable mechanism for how chemicals could come together to form a system such as DNA. There HAVE been ideas on how certain sections, like the double helix structure, possibly could occur naturally but nothing too feasible as of yet. The hard part, which is what my post was specifically targeting, is how this high level language could have come about. As of last year no one has come up with anything feasible or testable which is why I posted like I did (I'm sure I would have noticed otherwise because it would be proclaimed in journals and in the regular news media). BTW, I would be careful about throwing certain information around as being facts... often times their information touted as facts is based upon preconceived timelines, from BOTH sides of the argument. I am fairly open minded when it comes to the age of Earth and the universe, though I will admit my bias at this time is towards the white hole cosmology. It is unfortunate but you'll often find scientists and colleges who, quite frankly, are passing off BS as facts (not just evolutionists either...). Especially the colleges, books printed this year STILL have many ideas, and blatant errors, touted as facts that the leading scientists on evolution KNOW are not true, and are behind the current paradigm. [This message has been edited by Gump (edited November 06, 2003).] |
|
TheManFromGanymede Member Posts: 14 From: Boulder, CO Registered: 06-21-2003 |
quote: Your reasoning is circular. Your own example in support of evolution presupposes the existence of the information for being taller, yet you attempt to use evolution as an explaination for the existence of that information. What you describe is natural selection, not evolution. Natural selection is a natural mechanism that "selects" the best trait among all those that already exist. I have no qualms about its validity (considering the fact that it's a truism, why would anyone?). Evolution, by contrast must also provide a mechanism for the generation of those traits. Thus far, random mutation through blind chance is the only explaination supporters of evolution have to offer for said generation. Furthermore, in your example, a differnce in height is something that could easily come about through such a mutation. However, many irreducibly complex(every component must be present from the beginning for it to lend any survival advantage) biological mechanisms such as blood-clotting, photo-sensitive cells, and especially the first living organism cable of reproduction cannot be adequately explained by random mutations.
quote: Any pro-evolution source you might cite is also biased. People will defend that which they believe. Any source that is, by definition, completely unbiased would have no opinion on the subject and would therfore be completely useless in the context of this debate.
quote: Amazing how having scientific information is suddenly a bad thing if it happens to disprove something you believe.
quote: Of course. The question then becomes whose reasoning is more sound. You'll have to debate on that basis rather than disregarding an organization simply because it disagrees with the majority. ------------------ |
|
CobraA1 Member Posts: 926 From: MN Registered: 02-19-2001 |
quote: Actually, creationists tend to be in the 6,000-10,000 year range, so 9,000 would be within acceptable limits. In any case, you probably already know that creationists tend to question many of the dating methods.
quote: By what definition of "fact"? I personally pretty much only have three things I define as "fact": -Raw data
quote: Christianity is a religion; Creationism is a theory. Let's get that straight first, OK? This isn't "science vs religion," it's "dogma vs dogma" - both sides are pretty dogmatic about being right. Students have been failed, professors fired, just for being creationist. Yes, it is that we don't want students to have certain beliefs. If it was just a matter of two competitive theories, we would allow both to coexist, and let the student decide. Eventually, these topics will come up - Religion has played a big role in History, Culture, Philosophy, and even Science itself - if religion is not mentioned at all, we leave a huge gap in our education! We will end up with students that will go "huh?" when asked questions about religion!
quote: Nobody claimed 100% accurraccy, and I doubt there's much out there that's unbiased. ------------------ |
|
Xsniper Member Posts: 209 From: Registered: 05-11-2002 |
quote: You're delving a little deeper than you should here perhaps. We all know that some people are taller than others. It happens, be it from God's divine hand making me taller than you or through some process of evolution it happens, or perhaps its the result of something else entirely.
quote: Ofcourse I was describing natural selection. It is through natural selection that things evolve over time in the process of evolution. Natural selection is a part of the evolutionary process. I would say that random mutation through blind chance is not the only explanation for mutations, atleast one other factor to take into consideration is the environment in which the mutation takes place.
quote: Must all the components be there from the beginning for it to lend a survival advantage? Could a component not lay dorment and over time it combines with other components to create the complex component which lends to the survival advantage?
quote: You are correct, it would be very hard to find an unbiased source.
quote: Any information can be good or bad, its all in how its used. Have you ever heard of a thing called politics? My I've never seen such amazing word twisting as I've seen in politics. That website will use selective sources of scientific information that happens to agree with their viewpoint while conveniently ignoring other pieces of scientific information that disagree with their viewpoint.
quote: Sorry friend, I disregard the organization because of what it does. Instead of seeking out new and better answers, instead of questioning the answers it already has, it chooses to instead hold strong onto the answers it has even if those answers turn out to not be the best of answers. So it takes the information that occurs in the world and bends it to support its set of answers. And ofcourse its set of answers comes from the bible. Gump: quote: The information I throw around as fact is supported in many cases by concrete physical evidence. I must admit I am likely making a mistake by calling these things a fact, but I will say this. I find it very very very hard to dispute the evidence found in the evolution of man. The various hominids that have been found over the years and through scientificly tested techniques have been dated back to millions of years ago. I cannot ignore that Homo Erectus would most certainly have used bipedal locamotion given the way his bones were configured, the angle of his hips would suggest upright movement. It is not know as fact that these things occured but it is a very very good theory and it is "the best answer we have at this time". When a better answer comes along, and I'm sure it will, then it will replace this answer. That is the essence of the scientific process. We will not say that any one answer is absolute, there is always a better answer.
quote: I'm sure there are scientists and others who are passing off BS as facts. It happens, in this day and age in this world, one man can wield a lot of power. If he can affect a book that would be published and viewed by thousands and if he has malicious intent, naughty ideas, unmoral theories or methods, then he may very well do such a thing in an attempt to shift views in his direction. It happens, such is the life of an elf as my father would say. ------------------ |
|
Xsniper Member Posts: 209 From: Registered: 05-11-2002 |
quote: It was a mistake to use the word fact, and ofcourse it would be isolated and used to discredit what I say. So let me change the word "fact" to "theory". And let me remind you that a "theory" does not just come about. A "theory" starts as a "hypothesis". This "hypothesis" undergoes much testing by many many many different parties and if it survives all of this rigorous testing then it may become a "theory". So a "theory" is not as good as a fact (there is still likely a better answer out there), but it is certainly better than a "hypothesis".
quote: Sure creationism is a theory, but it is a theory rooted in Christianity! You can not deny this at all and I know you won't even try to. For this reason Christians support "creationism" because it is a theory developed using their ideologies and using the bible as a source for evidence supporting this theory.
quote: Creationism is rooted in religion and evolution is rooted in science. So therefore you could very well say that it is "Science vs Religion". However, I want to make a point that I'm sure will be ignored sadly. It is one that I've tried to make through multiple posts so far. Science is not trying to disprove religion. Science seeks to provide the best answer it can for a given question at this given time. Science does not say that religion is wrong. Science cannot measure "god" at this time and therefore has no comment on "god". Science isn't saying that "god" doesnt exist, nor is it saying that "god" does exist.
quote: Religion as a historical topic is taught in every school in this country. Because as you say, religion played a very very large role in history, culture, and philosophy. I'm not saying that religion as a historical topic should not be taught in schools. I'm saying that schools should not teach a religion to the children. Teaching the children about christianity is in essence making them christians. Because you teach it to them in such a way that it is presented as factual, that god said this, and god did that, and this happened in the bible, and that happened in the bible. To teach this is what I am against. Teaching about religions is one thing and teaching a religion is another. In the USA we have the right to worship in any way we see fit, or not to worship at all. And to teach a religion to my child in a school is to infringe upon his right to worship in the way he wants to worship. ------------------ |
|
TheManFromGanymede Member Posts: 14 From: Boulder, CO Registered: 06-21-2003 |
quote: Natural selection is certainly necessary for evolution, but not sufficient. Mutations are by definition errors made when copying DNA. I am unaware of any means by which the environment can manipulate those errors to produce ordered results. Can you please elaborate?
quote: Yes. All the components needing to exist from the beginning to lend a survival advantage is what is meant by "irreducibly complex". (if one component lent an advantage, it would be reducible by that component.) Whether a particular structure meets this definition obviously depends on that particular structure.
quote: If a component is dormant, it cannot be acted upon by natural selection. Thus one of the two components required by evolution is again missing.
quote: Can you give an example of them deliberately doing this? I cannot disregard them as a source based solely on an assumption.
quote: First, I am unconcerned with whether an answer is new. I am only concerned with whether it is correct. Second, the scientists in charge of their site have sought out better answers instead of sticking to old flawed ones. For example: the question of how light from stars millions of light-years away could have reached the earth in less than 10,000 years(the available time in a biblical timeline). Rather than sticking to poor answers that have been given by creationists over the years(God created light in transit, decay in the speed of light) they now support a better answer(white hole cosmology).
quote: The paradigm under which facts are analyzed always affects one's conclusions whether one is a creationist or evolutionist. Strict adherence to the evolutionary timeline has certainly lead to some strange conclusions in fossil classification, for example. (Many fossils are catagorized not by structure, but by the supposed age of the rock they're found in, while the catagories themselves ARE separated by structure. Why? Because certain species existing at certain times would completely invalidate their chain of evolution.) ------------------ |
|
GUMP Member Posts: 1335 From: Melbourne, FL USA Registered: 11-09-2002 |
Quote from myself from above: "I would not say that it is a case of religion versus science at all. The idea that evolutionist's beliefs do not have a strict scientific basis, that these beliefs are actually a sort of quasi-religion, is something that most evolutionists reject out of hand. There can not be any gray areas in their beliefs; it is either science fact or science fraud. The idea that their beliefs are not facts is something they cannot accept, for this is part of their faith and to admit otherwise would be to question their own beliefs. That is why they always talk about 'science versus religion', for as part of their own faith they will not believe that the situation is really 'their faith versus someone else's faith', even when they admit that their beliefs are founded on the basis that eventually science will find all the solutions for the places where their ideas break down (and if they're being intellectually honest the SHOULD tell you all the massive problems). Thus it is incorrect to refer to "science vs religion". It is really an athiest's beliefs combined with science vs a Christian's beliefs combined with science." Basically what is being taught in schools today is Secular Humanism. I'm sure you've heard of the Humanist Manifesto? In that document they expressed the desire to take over the US school systems... obviously that has succeeded. Interestingly enough, the US Supreme Court has declared Secular Humanism to be a religion. Seperation of Church and State indeed... Personally, I find the supposed "evidence" of human evolution to be completely laughable. Just so you know I'm not basing this opinion upon what Creationists, Intelligent Design advocates, etc have said; I'm basing it upon the EVOLUTIONISTS themselves have said. Meaning, that the foremost experts in these areas will often times, if they're being intellectually honest, list all the problems with their finds, admit they're huge, and yet go ahead and say they BELIEVE it anyway! One expert compared the current evolutionary chart to being so tangled that it could be compared to a plate of spaghetti, so tangled that it doesn't make any sense. Let's put it this way, with the available facts it is obvious it isn't a matter of intellect but of faith for the knowledgeable evolutionist. The facts themselves point out the huge problems with their beliefs but they declare, just like Darwin, that somehow someone in the future will figure it all out. Now then we came to the unknowledgeable Evolutionist. The biggest problem today is that most of the information still being touted as facts have in truth been disproven quite solidly so that the knowledgeable Evolutionist will admit this. It is a persistent dogma(or a myth or rumor) being perpetuated not in a malicious manner at all, which is really sad considering how many people think they're learning up-to-date truth in our colleges, when in fact it is old ideas that have been disproven. Which is why I commented on college textbooks. It is a common complaint of many knowledgeable Evolutionists that this sort of stuff is still being taught even though it is known to be wrong. EDIT: EDIT2: BTW, if you want to talk about the age of the Earth/Universe that would at least be a semi-fuzzy area that all could explore here since no one can be absolutely certain. [This message has been edited by Gump (edited November 06, 2003).] |
|
CobraA1 Member Posts: 926 From: MN Registered: 02-19-2001 |
quote: Other than showing an anti-religious bias, what does this prove?
quote: I'm sorry. Did I say that science is trying to disprove religion?? Nope. But oddly enough, you keep insisting that we keep this a debate on "science vs religion"! I never claimed that science is trying to disprove religion. In fact, I'm the one tring to get away from the "science vs religion" debate. So, you want to make it an issue, or not?
quote: I agree . . . ------------------ |
|
CobraA1 Member Posts: 926 From: MN Registered: 02-19-2001 |
Sorry about missing a few posts, I had to do somthing in the middle of my reply . ------------------ |
|
Xsniper Member Posts: 209 From: Registered: 05-11-2002 |
One last thing before I go.
quote: You put words in my mouth and thats all you can do. I'm tired of it, thats what everyone is doing here is twisting my words. Now someone will reply and point out instances when they did not twist my words. Never did I insist that I wanted to debate about science vs religion. I simply stated that it could be viewed as science vs religion. I knew I should have never even made a reply to this thread because it is too steeped in the creationist world to have any effect. Someone said here that "the majority of the people here are on the side of creationism" so there's my reason for saying the above. I'm not replying any more to this thread, its a waste of my time. All I wanted to do was hopefully relieve a little bit of the ignorance that I've seen in these "evolution" threads on this forum. But again it was pointless. Well I'm done here. Thank you for the replies and good luck in your struggles.
[This message has been edited by Xsniper (edited November 06, 2003).] |
|
GUMP Member Posts: 1335 From: Melbourne, FL USA Registered: 11-09-2002 |
Sorry to say this Mike, but based upon some of your assertions unfortunately you have a problem with ignorance too... though that is not meant to be insulting as it is probably the fault of the resources you've used so far. You can't be blamed for that, a good deal of information on this issue is pure, flat out DOGMA from both sides. I'm fairly leery about using any information from internet based organizations that I'm not sure if they're run by experienced scientists with PhDs; either that or places like Answers in Genesis which seem way too simplistic in their arguments (I will admit I haven't checked the credentials of that organization). Also, you're ASSUMING everyone here grew up in christian homes and are not former athiests. Which I consider odd since my experience has been that many of my local friends who are now hardcore Creationists used to be athiests. They became Christians precisely because of researching this very topic. There are a good number of engineers from NASA and scientists who go to my church in fact. EDIT: Okay, there are at least 3 PhDs in AiG: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0603south_africa2.asp I still think they need to work on their arguments... not technical enough for this engineer. [This message has been edited by Gump (edited November 06, 2003).] |
|
nfektious Member Posts: 408 From: Registered: 10-25-2002 |
Xsniper - Thank you for pointing out my misinformation. You shouldn't turn away from this discussion. You brought up some very important elements in the concept of evolution that are helpful to discuss because they go to the very root of why this thread was started in the first place. Some elements have already been addressed and argued over ad nauseum, so I will try to focus more on those issues that were not addressed. I hope everyone will bear with me on this. As I understand the intent of this discussion, it is about Creation and Evolution. We cannot separate religion from either view, because it plays an important role - whether it is belief in a religion or none at all. These are elements foundational to one's world-view. You cannot isolate part of a world-view and expect it to make any sense - regardless of what you believe or do not believe. What is the premise of Evolution in terms of the development of the beginning of the Universe? My understanding of Evolution, though obviously flawed to some degree, is that it deals primarily with the beginning of life in the Universe and not the beginning of the Universe itself. This is agreed upon by various scientific resources that are available online, but are too numerous to list here. Since Creation deals with the beginning of the Universe and the beginning of life in the Universe, it would be only fair to discuss all the elements so that each perspective is equally represented. So, Xsniper, what do you espouse as the beginning of the Universe? I'll hold my remaining questions so you can answer these first. Thanks again. |
|
GUMP Member Posts: 1335 From: Melbourne, FL USA Registered: 11-09-2002 |
Well, the biggest problem with any discussions on the beginnings of the universe is that all of the current theories start with unprovable assumptions. As an example the Big Bang theory starts with the assumption of the cosmological principle, that the universe does not have a boundary, and also that there was not a center for the explosion. Not to mention that the laws of physics were conveniantly different for different periods. The white cosmology assumes there is a boundary, that all matter came out of a white hole (just one large one), and that the early earth existed within the event horizon. On a side note, I thought it interesting that the results from the recent MAP (Microwave Anisotropy Probe) study by NASA shows a universal axis; which conflicts with the Big Bang theory. You know, I've never looked at their actual sampling method but I wonder if it's close to the texture filtering method? |
|
ArchAngel Member Posts: 3450 From: SV, CA, USA Registered: 01-29-2002 |
Dang! I leave this forum for less than one day, and looks at this! rampant posting! like, 50 in 4.62 hours! wow.. too much reading and too much to do... so basically, God created the World, Chance doesn't exist. leaving now... have fun. ------------------ |
|
CobraA1 Member Posts: 926 From: MN Registered: 02-19-2001 |
quote: OK, OK, I take them back . . . I'm just wondering about relevence here?
quote: If I'm ignoring something, please tell me ------------------ |
|
Xsniper Member Posts: 209 From: Registered: 05-11-2002 |
quote: I'm sorry gump but I find that statement to be hugely insulting. Who are you to say that my "sources" are incorrect, that the things I say are ignorant? I'll have you know that this time last year I took a very very good anthropology class where my eyes were opened to a lot of this information. I had a very very very good professor who made certain to point out the differences between good scientific information and then mainstream information that is put out there for show in things like national geographic or the discovery channel. Another thing he made absolutely clear that he did the entire time was to point out that this was not about science vs religion and that science was not trying to disprove religion. The internet links I pointed out in one of my posts were some sources I found quickly to portray some of the information that I remembered learning in class. I think the timeline link I found was actually a very good display of what I had learned. Now if you just blindly looked at the timeline without reading about the individual species of hominids displayed underneath it then ya you might find that to be a crap source. About the only ignorant thing I said was that it was a fact that 9000 years ago man learned how to farm. I certainly didnt say anything as ignorant as "so basically, God created the World, Chance doesn't exist." I'll leave it at that. So if you are calling my sources ignorant and me ignorant and what I said ignorant then you are calling my professor ignorant as well and I most certainly think a man who spent his life on anthropology would know a thing or two about the subject. Good day to you sir. ------------------ |
|
GUMP Member Posts: 1335 From: Melbourne, FL USA Registered: 11-09-2002 |
Unfortunately, I do not know your professor or where he recieved his information from, but do know I don't understand why you would feel this insulted, considering I was careful to point out the fault would not be yours. Just because your professor obviously believed what he had been told does not make it true. Many evolutionists of the past spent their whole lives researching and postulating just to have today's scientists declare their ideas outdated and wrong. Is it possible this professor based his curriculum upon old, now-know-to-be-false information? Did I not say that the most knowledeable scientists on the subject are complaining how far behind the times these colleges and texbooks are? Also, the only reason I brought up the ignorance point was because you made a blanket statement about everyone else (though I'm assuming you were targeting someone, perhaps CobraA1). Personally, I wasn't insulted at all. EDIT: Also, nfektious, don't feel bad. I've seen actual scientists who should know better write about evolution as if it is an entity with intelligence that makes conscious decisions... which is really odd to say the least. [This message has been edited by Gump (edited November 06, 2003).] |
|
Xsniper Member Posts: 209 From: Registered: 05-11-2002 |
quote: You sounded to me like a person who believes that I'm just a misguided person who has been handed some incorrect information and he believes it to be true but infact he's just a misinformed dumbass. When you said that it
quote: That is what is primarily insulting to me. Seems to me like you certainly consider yourself to be quite knowledgeable on the subject and perhaps you are. What I considered ignorant about these evolutionary threads were things like the following:
quote:
quote:
quote: I'm sure there are some more in there but I'm not going to dig through it.
quote: Yep, you dont know him, you dont even know what information he has, it could just be that his student misrepresented him and now you're ready to dismiss all of his knowledge because of it as some kind of stereotypical "a lot of high level scientists today say that the college textbooks and classes are teaching invalid information". That statement isn't believable for a minute. I'm sure it happens in some instances but until you slap a book infront of my face or give me some good links to support your argument I'm not going to give that statement any validity. BTW, I'm sure I'm alienating myself as all hell by calling some people's statements ignorant, I apologize for that but thats just how I see them from my perspective. I'm sure you guys see a lot of what I've said as ignorant to and you're entitled to that. I wonder when someone will start posting of my mass ignorance now. ------------------ |
|
Xsniper Member Posts: 209 From: Registered: 05-11-2002 |
nfektious, Thank you for your curteous response. I will gladly answer your question and look forward to more questions from you.
quote: I personally am leaning towards the big bang theory at the moment myself. I know countless people will respond to that with "well what created the big bang?" And you could say that maybe god created the big bang? Or if you want to shoot down the big bang theory all together and just say that god created everything then I could fire back at that with "well who created god?" Somewhere something has to exist before anything else. Its the never ending which came first argument, the chicken or the egg. ------------------ |
|
GUMP Member Posts: 1335 From: Melbourne, FL USA Registered: 11-09-2002 |
It depends on the subject really, not to mention not ALL textbooks and professors are outdated in EVERYTHING. We'd be hopeless as nation otherwise. Also, the scientists that are making these complaints are usually only talking about their own fields (it is fairly common for a PhD in one subject to only have rudimentary knowledge in a field not closely related to his/her own). As a real example, when researching for my book I'm writing I use the library in a college that happens to be closer than the town library. I've checked out copies of textbooks published last year and I was very surprised to find statements that I know disagree with books/papers/etc written by real experts on evolution. The problem was that some of these statements in the book had been disproven for over 2 DECADES. There were also references to experiments that were supposedly falsified... infamous cases even. I should have jotted down the name of that book. I just remember returning it because I didn't want to use a book as a reference if it had such errors. The bad part was that the whole Biology department was supposedly using it. Anyway, I think these two quotes sum up the problem: "Our theory of evolution has become...one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus “outside empirical science” but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training" - Paul Ehrlich and L.C. Birch "According to this story, every tree, every blade of grass, and every creature in the sea and on the land evolved out of one parent strand of molecular matter drifting lazily in a warm pool. What concrete evidence supports that remarkable theory of the origin of life? There is none." [This message has been edited by Gump (edited November 06, 2003).] |
|
GUMP Member Posts: 1335 From: Melbourne, FL USA Registered: 11-09-2002 |
The "who created God" argument again.... In an unchanging universe a beginning in time is something that has to be imposed by some being outside the universe; there is no physical necessity for a beginning. In our universe there was a beginning, nobody argues against that, with our concept of time being created at the same moment, meaning that there would need to be a physical necessity for creation. Therefore, if God is unchanging then there is no necessity for a beginning or an end, making any further observation pointless unless you know for sure God or God's plane of existence does change. I'm just pointing out that line of reasoning would be pointless. I consider that mundane comeback such a pain in the neck, it always seems to pop out in the end…. you wouldn't happen to know everything about God would you? BTW, if that seems like it was copied and pasted, that is because it was... from my own book. EDIT: Also, Mike, I do apologize for any insult my words may have caused. For a writer, it's odd that I sometimes find the written medium so limiting. I try to be careful in how phrase things but sometimes my thoughts do not come out as I intend them. Unfortunately, it isn't that hard to do. I remember one time with s simple email I got a close relative I was doing a business deal with really pissed off at me and I didn't even realize it. I just noticed his emails afterwards were stiff, short, and to the point; not at all normal. It wasn't until I saw him later in person that I even found out he had been mad at me, since he had read that email to mean something I didn't intend. [This message has been edited by Gump (edited November 06, 2003).] |
|
nfektious Member Posts: 408 From: Registered: 10-25-2002 |
Thanks Xsniper. Now that I have your starting point (sorry, bad pun), my next question for you is this: Do you hold to what is known as the traditional view of Evolution - Big Bang-->single-cell organism-->early animal-->primate-->human-->unknown? It seems to me, based on your answers to various questions, that this is a new perspective for you - that is, you had another view of the beginning of the Universe and life in the Universe before you accepted the Big Bang and Evolution, correct? If so, what was that? I just want to get an idea of your thought processes and an understanding of where you were/where you are so that I don't ridicule you or your beliefs (at least not anymore than necessary I do want to point out that some of the "ignorant" comments you identified shouldn't really be thought of as such. We all have a point where we want to know more about something and the best way to learn is to become vulnerable and ask "stupid" questions. We've all been there and are likely to visit again from time to time. Regardless of personal feelings and opinions, we should all try to behave with some sense of civility and respect for one another. Differences are what make us all unique, and last I checked that is still a *good* thing. /edit: sorry, nasty typo I had to fix. [This message has been edited by nfektious (edited November 07, 2003).] |
|
Xsniper Member Posts: 209 From: Registered: 05-11-2002 |
quote: Indeed in many cases they were simply stupid questions. However what made them ignorant to me was that in many cases no one bothered to point out to these people that their thought process was flawed. They instead just continued on and let their thoughts sit untouched because they weren't going against the creationist viewpoint, they were instead supporting it through their ignorance and this is one thing that bothered me and made me want to post here.
quote: For the most part that is pretty accurate if you want to be extremely vague. I believe its a whole lot more complex than just that breakdown. A single cell organism underwent millions of years of development before ever becoming an early animal for instance. Single celled organisms become multicelled organisms. Some of them thrive on energy from the sun, others devour the other organisms for energy. For the longest time the earth has no oxygen in the atmosphere and all the land on the planet is a barren wasteland and totally uninhabitable. There is no life on the land. A new organism in the ocean appears, this organism happens to produce oxygen as a waste byproduct. Infact this organism starts to thrive in the ocean and you find it everywhere, but yet traces of oxygen are still very small outside of the ocean. For some reason the oxygen is not escaping out of the water. Why is it not escaping? Because the ocean has massive amounts of iron in it and the oxygen is combining with this iron and creating iron oxide and then sinking to the bottom of the ocean in a nice red rust sort of color. Certain parts of the world today can help support this theory because you see large portions of the land that are a red sand clay material where the ocean bottom once was. Over another million or so years this organism continues to produce oxygen and eventually it has converted all of the iron in the oceans into iron oxide and now finally the oxygen can start to escape from the ocean and start to create an atmosphere for earth. According to this theory then this particular organism is one of the most important forms of life ever because of the role it played in producing an atmosphere for earth. With an atmosphere you can start to have weather but yet there were no great storms on earth, and everything was calm for millions of years still. Until another great thing began happening, and this was the creation of mountains caused by plates slamming up against eachother, pushing the earth high into the air creating mountain ranges like the Himalayas and such. These high mountains caused a shift in the direction of the Jet Stream and as a result of this you start to see terrential downpours of rain and the water rushing down the mountains, creating various affects, mudslides, carving out of rivers, creation of lakes, etc. After this occurs the land is far more inhabitable and you start to have your first signs of life on land. Now all that stuff I just said in the above paragraph is ofcourse theory, you can take it however you want. You can totally disregard it or whatever. There are some things in there though that I think lend it some validity. Most of what I mentioned above I saw on a program on the Science Channel. So it may not be the most valid piece of information, but then again maybe it is? Back to post replies.
quote: Like many other people in this world I was brought up in christ. In the one god system, in our god, in the bible. I went to sunday school, my family spoke of god as truth and fact, everyone around me spoke of god and the bible as truth and fact and I believed it. I even became a christian officially, I remember the day very well when I walked down the aisle and accepted Jesus Christ into my heart. It was an easter sunday church service and the Pastor of this church has a pattern where there is an invitational hymn that invites anyone who may be wanting to bring god into their hearts and become christians. During this hymn these people can get up out of their seats and walk down the aisle and at the end of the hymn the pastor would welcome them to the church and he would say whatever it was he said to them and they would become christians. Then they would stand infront of everyone as the last hymn was sung and then the service was concluded and everyone would get up and shake their hands and welcome them to the church and to god. As the last hymn was sung the pastor would go down the stairs (2 story church) and wait at the front door so that he could shake the hands of the attendees as they left the church at the end of the service. Well on this particular sunday noone took the walk during the invitational hymn and I was but a child of about 9 years of age. I was feeling pressure to take that walk because my sister and my mother had done it in the previous weeks and I was feeling quite left out. I did not know about this pattern of "invitational hymn" and so during the last hymn that everyone was singing I made the walk and there was no pastor at the front to great me and I was confused and people asked me if I needed to go to the bathroom or if something was wrong and I remember saying "I want to become a christian" and one person from the quire(sp) asked me to have a seat in one of the front rows. At the end of the song the pastor came rushing back into the room and he made a joke about how it seems his job is never done or how god calls to you at strange times and such and after that he said to me whatever he says and I became a christian. So a christian I now was and I was baptised shortly after that as well. I don't suppose you asked me for that story but I felt I should tell it as a part of my religious background. My family is still very religious to this day, but to make a long story short as I grew older I became aware of another set of answers that were not there before, through the education system and just through my own personal exploration of the world. I was no longer sure of my faith in god and I began to question it to myself quite often, wondering if god really exists. I started to learn about the evolution side of things through high school and I began to become a sort of half evolutionist / creationist (through being a christian). I thought it was strange that the 2 sides contradicted eachother and as a result I wouldnt allow myself to fully believe in one or the other. What held me to christianity was the fear of if I rejected gods existence I would go to hell. This held onto me for quite awhile but as the years rolled by I started to see sooooo many things of hipocracy in religion, hipocracy in the church of the past (catholicism) and hipocracy in the churches of today. I saw a lot of corruption and I began to see how wonderful a tool this thing called religion was. Religion was a powerful thing and it could be used to suppress the masses of "peasants" and lead them to do many many things, all in the name of god. And I believe it is still used as a tool to this day in different shapes and forms. As I entered into my anthropology class last year I knew I was going to enjoy it because I would get these answers I was seeking and they were provided to me. The scientific details to the theories of evolution and natural selection and all these other things that I did not have before. Before I simply had vague ideas of what these things were but now I had the details behind the idea. This combined with my thoughts of the hipocracy that is religion have helped me to pretty much cancel god out of my life and I don't really believe in his existence at all anymore. Instead I see it as another possibility, there could be a god out there, I won't say that he does not exist but I won't let the fear of rejecting him hold me back anymore. So there you have it, I believe that should adequately answer your questions. I have a feeling that many of you may try to reconvert me to god or something now that you know my story and I was a little leary about telling it. Chances are you will not sway my mind and so you should likely not even bother. I've been on both sides of the fence and the grass is looking a lot greener over here to me. ------------------ |
|
zookey Member Posts: 1902 From: Great Falls, Montana, USA Registered: 04-28-2002 |
WELL, I SHOULD HOPE THAT NO ONE TRIES TO 'RECONVERT' YOU XSNIPER, ESPECIALLY ON AN ISSUE LIKE THIS THAT DOES NOT DETERMINE IF YOU GO TO HEAVEN OR NOT. ALSO, I AGREE WITH RELIGION BEING A SICK TOOL FOR HUMANITY TO USE, BUT I BELIEVE THERE ARE SO MANY TOOLS LIKE THAT, RELIGION, PATRIOTISM, SENSE OF BELONGING ALL OF THIS ARE CONSTANTLY BEING TWISTED BY SICK PEOPLE WHO WANT CONTROL OVER EVERYONE ELSE, AND THE SAD THING IS MOST PEOPLE ARE INTO ACTING LIKE SHEEP AND GO RIGHT ALONG WITH THE SONG AND DANCE. MAYBE THAT IS WHY JESUS SPENT CONSIDERABLE TIME PURPOSELY TICKING OFF THE ORGANIZED RELIGION OF HIS DAY---BECAUSE THEY ARE ABOUT BONDAGE AND HE IS ABOUT THE ONE TRUE FREEDOM THAT WE CANNOT GET FROM ANY HUMAN OR HUMAN SYSTEM. ------------------ |
|
CobraA1 Member Posts: 926 From: MN Registered: 02-19-2001 |
Geez, we've gone from discussing creation and evolution to discussing ignorance  .I don't think anybody here is completely ignorant. OK, maybe we took advantage of the topic being one sided, and let things slide a bit. We were a bit lazy. Now that you're here, I guess we'll have to be more careful about we're saying ------------------ |
|
zookey Member Posts: 1902 From: Great Falls, Montana, USA Registered: 04-28-2002 |
oh i am not saying anybody should be afraid or anything (xcuse the switching between caps and no caps---have to use caps at work and at home now)---------but ignorant people is a thing that really gets me mad---not saying it happened here yet but the topic of talking about ignorant people got started and i threw in my two cents:-) ------------------ |
|
CobraA1 Member Posts: 926 From: MN Registered: 02-19-2001 |
To go off-topic for a second - zookey, what kind of work are you in, that requires caps lock? ------------------ |
|
zookey Member Posts: 1902 From: Great Falls, Montana, USA Registered: 04-28-2002 |
quote: i work at a warranty company that covers electrical and mechanical failures on products sold at stores like Kmart and Sams Club------we use a databse called Oracle and we are asked to keep caps lock on so that, when we have a customer like McGuinness, they don't get mad when they recieve billings and such with certain letters not capitalized that should be----so our supervisors ask us to keep it on:-) kind of fun work---although the customers do fit the ignorant ppl thing we have been talking about--------there are some that actually do life threats and that kind of stuff because their tv isn't working---weird huh? ------------------ |
|
nfektious Member Posts: 408 From: Registered: 10-25-2002 |
Xsniper: I won't go into any more discussion on your views of evolution and such now that I understand your background. I don't see it being worthwhile to discuss issues that are essentially dogma and neither of us are likely to persuade the other in regard to those beliefs. Instead, what I would prefer to focus on is the history you shared about your Christian upbringing. I have a very similar background as you, with the exception of having the freedom at a much younger age to discern my beliefs and investigate them and why I believe what I do. What strikes at my heart is that you experienced a very real and tragic wrong in your life - perhaps more than once - at the hand of someone who called themself a Christian. It is sad that their deed - whether it was intentional evil or unfortunate misguided goodness - has caused you to struggle with a faith in God you once believed without question. There is nothing worse I can imagine than to cause someone to doubt in the qualities and being of Jehovah God to the point of rejecting him altogether. I want to express to you that you cannot put any faith in men - whether they believe in God or not. It seems to me that perhaps your experience with Christianity, with God, was based on having a spiritual relationship built on a fallible system controlled by men who either had no real understanding of the nature of God or something much worse. I have seen that sort of faith - a faith in men rather than God - be shaken and crumble to dust. It happened to me and it was not a simple matter to resolve or understand at the time. But, when I finally understood that I had my faith invested in something much less than perfect, much less than what God is, I suddenly realized more about God's nature and who He really is than I ever learned in all the years of attending church. It wasn't until I let go of the bitterness and hatred in my heart toward those who had destroyed my faith - as feeble as it was - that I came to a spiritual point in my life where I truly knew God was real. It was also at that moment that I realized how much of a hypocrite I was in my own person - not only to myself and to God, but to others around me. It was then that I realized God is where my eyes needed to be looking, my feet needed to be pointing, and my hands needed to be reaching for. We are all hypocrites in our natural core state. We all do things that hurt one another - externally and internally. We all have the same capacity for being the incarnation of absolute evil in this world. It is only through God that we overcome that capacity, that natural core state. It is only by God that we can look beyond that capacity in others and treat them like that capacity doesn't exist in them. It is God who gives us that mercy, grace and love toward others to forgive them of everything they have done or will do. It is the same way God treats us. I know you didn't want me to bother with any of that, but I did anyway. I had to because the burden was on my heart on your behalf. I am glad that you haven't totally discredited God and that you don't let any fear of rejecting him hold you back. God doesn't want us to fear him. It's more a matter of loving and respecting him. The grass always looks greener somewhere else after a time. What really matters is when you reach the point that you're no longer walking on it but are lying under it. It takes more than fertilizer to keep grass green. I hope you think more about what you believe and why. Hypocrisy is not a good point for building a worldview on. At best it is just another excuse for dealing with choices in your life you don't want to take the blame for. I'm certainly not trying to be rude or condescending. I'm simply calling the cards as I see them, having seen them before in my own hand. God bless |
AtheistAdmirer Member Posts: 13 From: Registered: 11-20-2003 |
I think the major problem with evolution came when people assumed that there was no difference between real truth and man's truth, evolution is true in all of its observational senses, animals that arent fit to live tend to die, evolution is not the process, its a term scientists like myself (every person who questions and tests is one, so join the club yo! )use to DESCRIBE a process, it has no more conscious knowledge or prejudice than those studying it have...which as scientists, you shouldnt knowingly place any in your studies (prejudice, that is), but we cant escape the unintentional self promotion of perception onto reality. Religion hasnt been the classical HOW? in historical questionings until creation science started up, its been the WHY?, and church never said it was a science, so there was no reason to examine it. You are a being living in this wondrous universe god made for you, and you are trying to understand how it works, so know that everytime you see a bacterium, or an elephant, or any other element of this existence, your science may not put god into the equation, but your religion will tell you (im pretty sure this is true) that god is not on one side of the equation, he IS the equation! Just be amazed at what you are finding out! evolution is how we describe change in species, it in no way replaces god for people of faith, you just keep it in the back of your mind that GOD is evolution, he is everything and be glad that he blessed you with the inquisitive spirit you have. now, while I dont believe in god, I still dont think its right to not try to understand things from your perspective, and thats why I chose to advise you as I did (hopefully!). you have a wonderful day. ------------------ |
|
AtheistAdmirer Member Posts: 13 From: Registered: 11-20-2003 |
as a matter of fact, couldnt einsteins theories of relativity be used to explain the time distortion of the creation? immense gravity (the kind that would exist within some huge distortion of space) could account for the 6 day 5 billion year evolution gap, since the distortion of space also constitutes a distortion of time according to einstein...Id hate to be providing apologetics with ammunition, but it just occurred to me that the idea is at least viable in hypotheticals. I still cant wrap my mind around the existence of a god, (and dont try to convert me, Im steadfast), but it occurred to me that perhaps creation science wouldnt sound so foolish to people if you looked into the Time/Space distortion of the beginning of all things. This could align biblical prophecy with scientific findings for those who wish to remain persons of faith. ah, maybe im nuts, whatever! The physics of this would be amazing!!! ------------------ |
|
GUMP Member Posts: 1335 From: Melbourne, FL USA Registered: 11-09-2002 |
White hole cosmology - look it up. That is fairly close to what you describe. |
|
CobraA1 Member Posts: 926 From: MN Registered: 02-19-2001 |
Also look up Starlight and Time by D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. His book is the basis for white hole cosmology. ------------------ |
|
GUMP Member Posts: 1335 From: Melbourne, FL USA Registered: 11-09-2002 |
There are actually other scientists advocating the idea but they place the event horizon in a different location in the universe; but Humphreys was evidently the first. The recent WMAP data appears to indicate a finite universe, which is one of the assumptions with the white hole idea. |
Crptc_Prgrmr Member Posts: 169 From: Registered: 02-05-2002 |
Hey xsniper, we're all ready for some evolution debate, we don't mind, we just want to keep it on a fair level, in any arena. You want to claim that only people who argee with you are unbiased? That's what most of the evolutionists tend to do. I've yet to meet a creationist who claimed to be unbiased, but I've heard more than one evolutionist make that claim, and their orgs always try that claim. Actually, most creationists study evolution more thoroughly than non-believers. ICR had to fight a legal battle with California to continue teaching creation in spite of the fact that they teach a thorough study of evolutionary theory, as even the overwhelming majority of non-creationists studying them concluded in allowing them to continue. So, now being taller is evolution? Sure if you make the classic switch of definitions. If you define natural selection as evolution, then by all means it is. But of course that is a false definition. This is actually the evolutionary left-overs of the lamarkian evolutionary theory, thinking that giraffes could get longer necks by physical changes in each generation and such. ------------------ |
|
Xsniper Member Posts: 209 From: Registered: 05-11-2002 |
quote: Where the hell do you get off saying I said that? I'm sorry for my offensive tone but boy your post seems rather offensive to me.
quote: Again, twisting my words! I'm sorry but this is what I can not stand, bold faced ignorance and word twisting. Read what I say for what it is. I'd prefer to be left out of this argument. I don't enjoy people twisting my words as you once again do Cryptic Programmer. Take your attacks elsewhere. Nfektious, I will respond to your latest post as best I can. The only reason why I continued posting in this thread was because you showed a genuine interest in what I had to say and I thank you for that and I thank you for not twisting my words in an attempt to use them against me.
quote: I don't really agree with this. I don't feel that I experienced a wrong in my life at the hands of a christian. I made my decisions myself, no one made them for me.
quote: I believed it without question because I knew of no other possible answer. The only thing I knew was god. When another option presented itself I had an opportunity to evaluate it against the answers I already had. After much evaluation I came to the conclusion that this new option made more sense to me than my old one. I don't think you should see this as some misguided deed by a rogue evil christian or something like that.
quote: Again I disagree. But not directly with what you say. I do not put my faith in men as if to say that what they have to say is definitively right. What I do is listen to what everyone has to say and evaluate that information and come to a decision on my own. I do not believe in men, I do not believe in god, and I do not believe in evolution. I have faith in myself and I believe in myself and that is all I need. Belief is a powerful powerful thing, I don't think it should be used in conjunction with a scientific theory. To say that you believe in evolution is to say that you feel it is 100 percent correct and you will never question it or possibly stop "believing" in it. I feel that evolution is the best answer available to me at this time. I fear there will be much word twisting from my statements here but oh well.
quote: I feel that perfection is in the eye of the beholder and I do not feel that perfection is even an important concept. Does it matter if your faith is placed in something that is not perfect? It may not be perfect to someone else or maybe even to you, but does it suffice? Does it serve its purpose? Who is to say that god is perfect? You say he is, the bible says he is, but that means nothing to a non-believer. To use the religion as evidence to support the religion is meaningless if the one you are trying to convince does not believe in that religion. I think I've addressed enough of your post, if there is anything else you want me to speak on feel free to ask Nfektious. ------------------ |
silicon_chippy Member Posts: 208 From: Scotland Registered: 10-26-2002 |
"I fear there will be much word twisting from my statements here but oh well." Please do not expect me to twist your' words, I would not do that. I would just like to ask why you are here. I don't mean that in a bad way but you have posted 192 times. If you are not a Christian it must have been boring to post to a site you didn't believe in? ------------------ |
|
nfektious Member Posts: 408 From: Registered: 10-25-2002 |
Thank you Xsniper. I guess I jumped to a conclusion there about what may have caused your disbelief in God. My apologies for that; that scenario is one I am all too common with, so I naturally expected it to be the same problem all over again. I am curious to know what it was you did believe in regard to the personhood of God and what it was that you discredited in your beliefs. Perhaps our conversation is better to handle through email with one another than to continue here; just let me know if you would like to converse in that manner. Hoping to hear from you, |
|
Xsniper Member Posts: 209 From: Registered: 05-11-2002 |
quote: 99 percent of those posts were made in the Two Guys Software private section of this website. I am the lead coder of Eternal War for TGS and as such we discuss a lot of things. Hence the mass amount of posts. nfektious, quote: Yes that could work, I wouldn't mind having a discussion with you from time to time through email. This thread isn't necessarily the place for it anymore. I would not be adversed to talking with you through email. I don't have an answer to your most recent question yet because I'd like some time to think on it. ------------------ |
|
nfektious Member Posts: 408 From: Registered: 10-25-2002 |
An email has been sent to your email listed in your profile. n |
|
silicon_chippy Member Posts: 208 From: Scotland Registered: 10-26-2002 |
""99 percent of those posts were made in the Two Guys Software private section of this website. I am the lead coder of Eternal War for TGS and as such we discuss a lot of things. Hence the mass amount of posts."" I would like to apologise for that, I stand corrected ------------------ |
|
Xsniper Member Posts: 209 From: Registered: 05-11-2002 |
Silicon_Chippy, No need to apologize, I'm sure many people would be wondering how I accumulated such a high post count without being noticed around the general forums. ------------------ |
|
AtheistAdmirer Member Posts: 13 From: Registered: 11-20-2003 |
quote: this post was ignored! ------------------ |
c h i e f y Member Posts: 415 From: Surrey, United Kingdom Registered: 03-07-2002 |
atheist what on earth makes you think your post was ignored, it wasn't we read it but this is CCN and your point of view, although valid, doesn't exactly go into the Top Ten around here, how many ppl will leap in admiration to your cause? I respect what you have said but many will read it and choose not to say anything, I can understand why..... ------------------ |
|
CobraA1 Member Posts: 926 From: MN Registered: 02-19-2001 |
quote: I'll try to follow it . . .
quote: OK, maybe a bit more clarifiction . . . maybe I was too fast in posting earlier . . . I mentioned that this definition includes 6,000 year old earth and creation. The debate isn't really about creation vs evolution - creationists are prefectly willing to accept genetic variation. It's the molecules-to-man, millions-of-years, we-and-apes-share-a-common-ancestor parts we have troubles with. We have no quibbles with genetic variation, or with some other types of "evolution".
quote: Not sure what you mean by this . . .
quote: Correction: He is everywhere. He is not everything. There's a difference - it's the difference between worshipping nature and worshipping God.
quote: Our perspective will never be complete, never 100% ------------------ |
|
nfektious Member Posts: 408 From: Registered: 10-25-2002 |
Xsniper - Did you receive my email? Did you reply to it? I haven't heard from you and was hoping your email wasn't filtered as spam. n |
|
Papillon Member Posts: 31 From: Registered: 04-22-2002 |
quote: Dunno if someone's already replied to this, but a lot of what you're saying here is just wrong. 1) The Big Bang assumes the Cosmological Principle is FALSE. The Cosomological principle says that the universe is the same in all space and forall time. The Big Bang says the univers has an ending, and a (finite) size. 2) Whitehole theory (I believe) is an attempt by secular scientists to explain away the begining of the universe which the Big Bang demands. No proof here as far as I've heard. 3) Anisotropy experiments PROVE, not disprove the Big Bang. The dipole is caused by the earths movement through the universe -- which disagrees with the Cosmological principle, but is in perfect line with the Big Bang. As to where the Big Bang came from? God created it, of course |
|
Papillon Member Posts: 31 From: Registered: 04-22-2002 |
Oops... sorry for replying to basically a dead thread... I guess I should read to the end first |
|
CobraA1 Member Posts: 926 From: MN Registered: 02-19-2001 |
quote: I'm not aware of such a theory, and even if such a theory exists, we're not talking about it. We're talking about a different white hole theory.
quote: Depends on who you ask . . .
quote: It's not too old
quote: Hmm, I recognize that name . . . I'll have to search for it, I think he's been in some big debates with some creationist organizations . . . ------------------ [This message has been edited by CobraA1 (edited December 04, 2003).] |
|
Papillon Member Posts: 31 From: Registered: 04-22-2002 |
quote: I'm not aware of such a theory, and even if such a theory exists, we're not talking about it. We're talking about a different white hole theory. [/quote] What white hole theory are you talking about then?
quote: There are two different types of creationists -- young earth and old earth. - Young earth basically believes the earth was created in 6 literal days, by God etc. etc. - Old earth believes that the days refered to in Genesis refer instead to "long-but-finite" amounts of time, which is an alternate translation of the word. However they still believe God created it, still believe God directly created man, and we didn't evolve from apes, and believe that the original Bible is the true and perfect Word of God. Hugh Ross (and I) fit into the second camp. He has held debates with people in the first camp, as well as with athiests, etc. |
|
ArchAngel Member Posts: 3450 From: SV, CA, USA Registered: 01-29-2002 |
quote: more that one? and I have not heard about this? It's a theory, i believe, because no white hole was ever found, unlike black holes. atleast, I've never heard of one being found. you'd think it'd be pretty evident, almost like missing links. except that white holes probably have a better chance of existing... ------------------ |
|
CobraA1 Member Posts: 926 From: MN Registered: 02-19-2001 |
quote: When I think about white hole creation theories, I generally think about Dr. Russell Humphreys' Starlight and Time, a book I should look into buying sometime . . . I'd like to know more about these other white hole theories. Sounds interesting.
quote: I've heard the name at other places also, I guess he gets around. *googles* Ahh, yes, AIG and ICR have articles on him - no wonder I've heard that name . . . I tend towards young earth . . . ------------------ |
dream forger Junior Member Posts: 3 From: USA Registered: 12-16-2003 |
Wow! What a long post, by the time it's this length I doubt that anybody will reach this post... As neither have I. But, being a scientist I figured I should post something. I am a physics major, a rare and dying bread of human beings who finds mental pain enjoyable. Physics is the mother of all science. However I find the theory of evolution to be the biggest joke I've ever heard. The only thing that possibly even hints at my anscestors being apes are my dinner maners. However, I should return to the subject at hand. Besides the fact that evolution proposes the proposterous idea that random particle collisions and chemical reactions led to the most advanced critical thinking minds on earth it also fails to explain the deeper more complex issues that are intwined in our most inner existance. For instance their is the concept of existance itself, is there a proggrammer in all CCN, no, all of M1crosoft who can create a code that will allow the most powerful computer in the world to "exist" not carry out a routine, literally exist with a free will mind not determined by particle or code interactions but by choice. For instance at this very second I choose to hit the number key "1", I really liked the number 5 but I decided conciously to take the number near it instead not out of a random particle collision but through a free will concious decision unproggrammed and unhindered by any force of nature save for gravity and as the keyboard is below me, gravity worked in my favor! Another problem is the lack of emotions and feelings (things I have somehow determined to be two seperate events) How can a computer "Love" or "Be happy". Finally though, there are the other possibilities that are far more likely that should occur if evolution were true. Is this the possibility that won out. Let's face it, we are extremely complex systems with sets of variable states that are complex but serve absolutely little purpose in propogation. We are an easily complaining, unpredictable (free will) species which have short dull finger nails and teeth (which fall out and don't grow back if not maintained), weak physical strength, give out easily under tribulations and are the only species I believe that kills itself even from emotional pain (emotions). Actually a much simpler much more effieciant mechanism that should have won this race long ago is one that had no feelings no emotions, with strength, endurance and one code roling through it's mind: eat, reproduce, repeat. As far as evolution goes it is easy to make because of its simplicity and high rate of production. So... where are all the high speed thoughtless killing machines that can come to exist with far less probobility problems than took to create us and why aren't I hiding under some rock hiding from them. Finally I pose the question of the need for keeping a species alive anyway. After all if I die I won't exist anyways to experience the future so why try to bring someone into a future if it doesn't effect me. Couldn't a species just as easily decide not to pro-create and just die off through lack of a program, and in species that pass on genetic material through mere contact like in germs couldn't this wipe out a whole species? I have certainly wrote a lot and I haven't even begun to tap my physics rescources. End said, if you haven't figured it out by now, even though I'm a physicsist I condsider evolution to be a pseudo science. As it has no real basis for a formula save for manipulations of statistics and it makes no definant predictions for all realitly, it is basically an aithiest-faith based science to jam in the empty soul of athiests who have nothing else to stick in the empty slot in their heart reserved for Christ's love. Of course I am sure there are biological christians who would argue for this hypothosis. God Bless you, Dream Forger ------------------ |
|
c h i e f y Member Posts: 415 From: Surrey, United Kingdom Registered: 03-07-2002 |
quote: dream forger welcome to ccn what do you think of the above from Slenkar a good pal of mine he just started a great new thread on the official site "Aliens created us" I find all this discussion amazing, will we EVER really 'know' or truly understand? ------------------ |
|
dream forger Junior Member Posts: 3 From: USA Registered: 12-16-2003 |
hmmm... it is a very interesting article and it seems like your friend has some very interesting views and has spent some time researching his beliefs. However I can't share his view as my faith is knowlege not just belief. I can't state whether or not God created other people out in space as the Bible, to me, only refers to Earth and it's history. Even if there are I have come to predict that they will play little or no role in the future of our world as I believe that such would be predicted in the Bible. However it would seem from reading this thread that your freind says that the Bible and God are the work of aliens something I cannot believe because of my experience with God in my life as I experienced God through the Holy Spirit. Thus denying God would be the equivalent of denying existance to me. This said I would find it highly pecular and bizzare if aliens thought it neccessary for me to worship the single entity of God when a whole species would be a collection of many entities (we're talking a whole race). Therefore the point of such worship would seem pointless and wouldn't exist in an alien species. Also, the need for slaves such as humans come wouldn't be neccessary to the form of advanced civilization your friend speaks of as mindless robots as I stated are far more productive and don't hold many of the problems emotions and feelings bring. However if we were created for a personal reationship with God (single not a plural entity) our emotions, feelings and worship would make logical sense. This is my argument against his thesis that we were created by aliens. Now I've got a new and even stranger question for everybody. Can everybody please crack out their Bibles and if you haven't read them in a while, wipe the dust off the top. I was reading through Genisis yesterday, after writing on this forum, and found the most bizzare thing after reading through part of it. Note that the following isn't ment to be a major question towards the traditions and values that I or anyone else holds but merely curious findings in my readings and I was hopeing that someone could clear this up, or perhaps it really does mean something. Either way here it what I found. I have found at Genisis 1:3-1:5 Originnally I thought that this meant that the light emminated from the sun but down at Genisis 1:14-1:16 "14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and for years: My question here is where is the origin of light in this situation. From personal experience the only source of light (other than minor sources) always comes from the stars, either our sun, or our suns reflection on the moon. Therefore there must have been some very large light in the beginning other than a star for he created light on the first day, but he didn't create the stars the sun and the moon until the fourth day (at least in my interpitation of this). I have my personal opinions being a physist, but I'm going to wait and listen because I am very curious about other peoples opinions about this. There are some other bizzare things I have also found at Genesis 2:4 it say "4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." What seems percular to me is that it refers to the time taken in days and in generations. When normally I would think of a day as 24 hours and a gerenation (especessailly back then) as a really long time, and as there are no specified number of generations, it doesn't give an accurate esstimate on the time in which it was all created. Therefore I am led to believe that perhaps the time described in Genesis isn't a single week as we would think of it. Any opinions or rebuttles are greatly appreciated. ------------------ |
|
CobraA1 Member Posts: 926 From: MN Registered: 02-19-2001 |
quote: IMHO, for a being that can create matter, I don't see energy as being any more difficult. If I understand Russell Humepherey's theory correctly, it probably came from a white hole in his theory.
quote: Hmm, word usage of the Hebrew word (towl@dah (Strong's 08435)) according to the blueletter Bible: 1) descendants, results, proceedings, generations, genealogies A quick scan of the concordance reveals it's usually used in conjunction with those lists of descendents in the Bible. Indeed, Gen 2:4 seems to be referring to the list in verses Gen 2:5-15! It may not be referring to spans of time, but rather a history; a list of events, as that seems to be the usage elsewhere, and using it in conjunction with a list is consistent with the word's usage elsewhere. In the NIV, it's translated "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. When the Lord God made the earth and the heavens -" - no hint of a long period of time at all.
quote: Understood as a period of time, maybe - but the word seems to refer to lists (usually genealogies), not to periods of time, in my opinion. Using the word with the list in verses 5-15 seems to be the better explanation, and more consistent with its usage elsewhere. That's how I read it anyway ------------------ [This message has been edited by CobraA1 (edited December 20, 2003).] |
|
Papillon Member Posts: 31 From: Registered: 04-22-2002 |
Well here we go again The alternative reading is to take the following: Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. and say this is where all the stars (including the sun) were "really" created. But then why later does it talk about God creating the sun/stars/whatever on those specific days? Well, the explanation I've heard is that Hebrew doesn't have very many verb tenses, so a lot of stuff tends to get put in what is noramlly translated as the present, even if it's really the past or the future... We also have something in there about "And the Spirit of God was hovering on the surface of the deep" (sorry don't have my Bible handy for exact wording/reference). Soooo.... the rest of Genesis 1 is describing the forming of the earth (after it had already been created) from the point of view of "the Sprit of God hovering over the waters"... and occasionally throws in references to things which had _already_ been created as they became visible to an observer on the earth... thus at part of the history of the earth, the atmosphere was translucent, so could let light through, without the source of the light being apparent. ALTERNATELY: Big bang theory actually suggests that light existed before stars! This is the "cosmic-background radiation" which there have been a lot of studies about. This light was created because the initial universe was very hot -- thus radiated energy. Anyway, those are just 2 other options... -- Keith P.S. I'm an Engineering Physics major -- which is basically Engineering major + Physics major. P.P.S. I'm going to put it here again, just for kicks: try visiting www.reasons.org for one view of how things could have been. |
|
Papillon Member Posts: 31 From: Registered: 04-22-2002 |
quote: more that one? and I have not heard about this? all I heard of is that a white hole is essentially the opposite of a black hole, where a black hole sucks in everything, white hole shoots it out. And part of that theory is that black holes link to white holes, that everything that comes in a black hole shoots out in another universe. (black holes cause a rip in space time, so.... yeah.) It's a theory, i believe, because no white hole was ever found, unlike black holes. atleast, I've never heard of one being found. you'd think it'd be pretty evident, almost like missing links. except that white holes probably have a better chance of existing... Hmm.... I'm not sure if we're talking about the same theory or not |
|
CobraA1 Member Posts: 926 From: MN Registered: 02-19-2001 |
To quote myself from an earlier post:
quote: ------------------ |
|
CobraA1 Member Posts: 926 From: MN Registered: 02-19-2001 |
quote: Huh? Yeah, God summarized what he was going to do. That's how I see it. Not sure how you get another creation account from 1:1. It introduces 1:3-27, as far as I can tell. *scratches head*
quote: That's nice. Other theories exist where light existed before stars also =). ------------------ |
|
GUMP Member Posts: 1335 From: Melbourne, FL USA Registered: 11-09-2002 |
quote: 1. Wrong. The cosmological principle just assumes the universe is homogenous and isotropic. Evolutionary changes, such as a beginning, are not included in this principle. The principle says that once observers correct for evolutionary changes, they should see the same general features. Also, if you assume this principle is true then the universe cannot have an edge or a center. I have never seen anyone ever say that the Big Bang disagrees with this principle, considering they start with this assumption for the Big Bang model we have today. And if you want to argue further on this, I referred to an Astronomy book published last year from a well known author (michael seeds) that I checked out from the library. I was fairly surprised when you said what you did so I thought I should check my own understanding of the subject before replying. His book only confirmed what I said. 2. There is a secular white hole model that was introduced fairly recently, but it is different in several key aspects to the first Creationist model. 3. With any scientific model, for it to survive long it needs to match at least SOME of the available data, but this does NOT mean it is correct (as any honest scientist will tell you). Unforuntately, scientists often become mired in the popular scientifc paradigm, but any huge errors would have caused the obviously incorrect model to be modified no matter their personal beliefs (or just change the laws of physics again...). That does not mean that all of the data from WMAP agrees with the Big Bang model. If having some of the data match a model "proves" it, then you could say the same of the white hole cosmology. There is not a perfect model available and I doubt there will ever be one. |
|
Skynes Member Posts: 202 From: Belfast, N Ireland Registered: 01-18-2004 |
Just a few things I wanted to say "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" It says the beginning as in before God made the heavens and the earth - nothing existed Heavens is plural i.e. more than one. Hebrew has three words translated as heaven. So God made all three in the beginning. The word Day in Gen 1 is the word 'Yom'. It means day. As in 24hr day. Anyway if the days where periods of time how could there be an evening and a morning? Also When God gives the 10 commandments, in reference to the Sabbath he says "Six days you shall labor and do all your work, " Exodus 10:9 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it." Exodus 20:11 If God didn't make the earth in 6 days this would mean "Six million years you shall labor and do all your work... For in six million years the Lord made the heavens and the earth" Sounds silly doesn't it? Also "Spirit of God was hovering over the waters" Evolution lifts up the stronger as the best. Says the strong survive whilst the weak die off. The strong are more important. What did Jesus say? "Blessed are the meek". He didn't say "Blessed are the strong and mighty who trample the weak underfoot in order to survive" no he said blessed are the meek. Blessed are the poor. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst. Putting science and Genesis aside Evolution STILL contradicts Christianity. Jesus helped the weak and poor, held them to be more important than the big strong pharisees. Evolution exalts the strong and tells the weak to just die. My take on it all is this - I have a choice. I can believe what the Bible says or I can believe what man says, I can't take both as they contradict themselves. Bible was written by God who cannot lie or make mistakes. So I choose the Bible. |
dont make me CRY!
maybe if you write about evolution in "your terms" on blitzcoder you will get a louder response