coral reefs take millions of years to grow
- Thread starter caomt
- Start date
ithorian_r
Member
i sat here and read this entire post i want to say that i am entirely upset. people on here, while freely open to discuss/debate, do so on almost completely unresearched and disreputable data. you may argue that you looked it up on the internet, but sorry to disappoint not everything you read on the internet is true. yes you may have read it on an .edu site or perhaps even looked it up on a scientific journal (which i doubt). but ask yourself, where does this information come from?? have you ever considered that?
im not questioning religious data here, i just want to point out that even though something might be published it might not be true. you have to be careful in what you read. science is the search for truth. but science operates on the basis of theories. and all we can do is disprove theories. science does not prove anything is absolutely true. it only disproves theories we once thought were correct.
if any of you particulary enjoy this type of debate, i encourage you to pick up a copy of, state of fear, by michael crichton. very interesting book. while it doesnt deal with creation vs. evolution. it does ask some very real questions about public knowledge and influence by the government and media.
im not questioning religious data here, i just want to point out that even though something might be published it might not be true. you have to be careful in what you read. science is the search for truth. but science operates on the basis of theories. and all we can do is disprove theories. science does not prove anything is absolutely true. it only disproves theories we once thought were correct.
if any of you particulary enjoy this type of debate, i encourage you to pick up a copy of, state of fear, by michael crichton. very interesting book. while it doesnt deal with creation vs. evolution. it does ask some very real questions about public knowledge and influence by the government and media.
keleighr
Active Member
Originally Posted by ithorian_r
i sat here and read this entire post i want to say that i am entirely upset. people on here, while freely open to discuss/debate, do so on almost completely unresearched and disreputable data. you may argue that you looked it up on the internet, but sorry to disappoint not everything you read on the internet is true. yes you may have read it on an .edu site or perhaps even looked it up on a scientific journal (which i doubt). but ask yourself, where does this information come from?? have you ever considered that?
im not questioning religious data here, i just want to point out that even though something might be published it might not be true. you have to be careful in what you read. science is the search for truth. but science operates on the basis of theories. and all we can do is disprove theories. science does not prove anything is absolutely true. it only disproves theories we once thought were correct.
if any of you particulary enjoy this type of debate, i encourage you to pick up a copy of, state of fear, by michael crichton. very interesting book. while it doesnt deal with creation vs. evolution. it does ask some very real questions about public knowledge and influence by the government and media.
Wow
I love the fact that you said that I am not debating the religious data............amazing.
It's funny when a scientist says they find religious artifacts that date back thousands and thousands of years the religious folks love the heck out of that scientist.
But if a scientist proves over and over again that we have evolved over time then Science becomes something that "you need to be careful of".
This is exactly why I avoid going to churches. Too Hypocritical for me.
The best saying I have ever heard was from a person who had all his life attented Church and still loves and believes in God but stopped attending due the fact that every time you blinked the money trays were rolling around.
He said "It's funny how a lot of folks say in the religious community that money is the root of all sins, yet the church has NO problem accepting my money left and right"
i sat here and read this entire post i want to say that i am entirely upset. people on here, while freely open to discuss/debate, do so on almost completely unresearched and disreputable data. you may argue that you looked it up on the internet, but sorry to disappoint not everything you read on the internet is true. yes you may have read it on an .edu site or perhaps even looked it up on a scientific journal (which i doubt). but ask yourself, where does this information come from?? have you ever considered that?
im not questioning religious data here, i just want to point out that even though something might be published it might not be true. you have to be careful in what you read. science is the search for truth. but science operates on the basis of theories. and all we can do is disprove theories. science does not prove anything is absolutely true. it only disproves theories we once thought were correct.
if any of you particulary enjoy this type of debate, i encourage you to pick up a copy of, state of fear, by michael crichton. very interesting book. while it doesnt deal with creation vs. evolution. it does ask some very real questions about public knowledge and influence by the government and media.
Wow
I love the fact that you said that I am not debating the religious data............amazing.
It's funny when a scientist says they find religious artifacts that date back thousands and thousands of years the religious folks love the heck out of that scientist.
But if a scientist proves over and over again that we have evolved over time then Science becomes something that "you need to be careful of".
This is exactly why I avoid going to churches. Too Hypocritical for me.
The best saying I have ever heard was from a person who had all his life attented Church and still loves and believes in God but stopped attending due the fact that every time you blinked the money trays were rolling around.
He said "It's funny how a lot of folks say in the religious community that money is the root of all sins, yet the church has NO problem accepting my money left and right"
kablamo
Member
Ok, I couldn't resist getting in on this one.
First of all, at least after reading the first three pages I didn't see one source cited by a creationist besides creationist websites. You people just read stuff and repost it here and formulate your opinions based on the opinions of others.
Here is why creationism REALLY bothers me.
Science is the quest for knowlege, to hypothesize, perform experiments, test your results, and come up with some kind of conclusion based on those results, the entire system is based on DISPROVING previously conceived notions, if you overthrow the established pattern, you are likely to recieve a nobel prize.
Creationism however, like many psuedosciences, is out to disprove evolution, in exchange for intelligent design.
When you go out to prove something, everything gets VERY hairy, as you can "prove" things all day long, by tailoring and tinkering with an experiment to get it to give you your desired results.
When you WANT results, you are almost certain to get those results, especially if your career rests on your getting those certain results.
It is very easy to engineer your experiment in order to forge a certain result and hide the forgery (by the way, to forge is to create or sculpt as in, forging weapons out of iron) within the fine print. You also observe your results and tinker with the conclusion until it looks like your results support your predisposed belief.
If you are simply doing an experiment, from a scientific standpoint, you are merely an observer and a recorder of data, not one who sets up a charade of an experiment designed to fool the laychristian into believing Hebrew myths.
My main thought is that I don't like to see Creationism equated with intelligent design theories. Creationists believe that God made the entire universe in a week.
Intelligent design theorists are generally looking for patterns within the facts established by science to try and show evolutionary processes here on earth could have a telos.
What they are doing is the philosophy of science. There are plenty of secular scientists doing the same thing from the other perspective (like Richard Dawkins).
I would be as unhappy to see the kind of evolutionary theory that Dawkins proposes being taught in schools as I would intelligent design. This is why we need philosophy classes running throughout all stages of the formal education process.
What Creationists want isn't "intelligent design". They want a Hebrew myth substituted for science.
Man if there were no moderators on this site i would really let you guys have it!
First of all, at least after reading the first three pages I didn't see one source cited by a creationist besides creationist websites. You people just read stuff and repost it here and formulate your opinions based on the opinions of others.
Here is why creationism REALLY bothers me.
Science is the quest for knowlege, to hypothesize, perform experiments, test your results, and come up with some kind of conclusion based on those results, the entire system is based on DISPROVING previously conceived notions, if you overthrow the established pattern, you are likely to recieve a nobel prize.
Creationism however, like many psuedosciences, is out to disprove evolution, in exchange for intelligent design.
When you go out to prove something, everything gets VERY hairy, as you can "prove" things all day long, by tailoring and tinkering with an experiment to get it to give you your desired results.
When you WANT results, you are almost certain to get those results, especially if your career rests on your getting those certain results.
It is very easy to engineer your experiment in order to forge a certain result and hide the forgery (by the way, to forge is to create or sculpt as in, forging weapons out of iron) within the fine print. You also observe your results and tinker with the conclusion until it looks like your results support your predisposed belief.
If you are simply doing an experiment, from a scientific standpoint, you are merely an observer and a recorder of data, not one who sets up a charade of an experiment designed to fool the laychristian into believing Hebrew myths.
My main thought is that I don't like to see Creationism equated with intelligent design theories. Creationists believe that God made the entire universe in a week.
Intelligent design theorists are generally looking for patterns within the facts established by science to try and show evolutionary processes here on earth could have a telos.
What they are doing is the philosophy of science. There are plenty of secular scientists doing the same thing from the other perspective (like Richard Dawkins).
I would be as unhappy to see the kind of evolutionary theory that Dawkins proposes being taught in schools as I would intelligent design. This is why we need philosophy classes running throughout all stages of the formal education process.
What Creationists want isn't "intelligent design". They want a Hebrew myth substituted for science.
Man if there were no moderators on this site i would really let you guys have it!
keleighr
Active Member
Man if there were no moderators on this site i would really let you guys have it!
And this would just prove that you are???????? What smart??????
All that last sentence did was make you look like one of these "judgemental people" who are just throwing crap down that they learned from a website.
It's funny how you keep quoting people who wrote down many of their ideas that you can now find on the internet. They very thing you keep dogging folks out for in order to get their information.
Again AMAZING how intelligent you just came across.
And this would just prove that you are???????? What smart??????
All that last sentence did was make you look like one of these "judgemental people" who are just throwing crap down that they learned from a website.
It's funny how you keep quoting people who wrote down many of their ideas that you can now find on the internet. They very thing you keep dogging folks out for in order to get their information.
Again AMAZING how intelligent you just came across.
hagfish
Active Member
Originally Posted by keleighr
Wow
But if a scientist proves over and over again that we have evolved over time then Science becomes something that "you need to be careful of".
This is the problem. Science hasn't actually proved evolution. Many people who believe in it seem to have accepted it as proven fact when it just isn't. There is actually no proof whatsoever. Most creationists have no problem with evolution being presented as a theory and other possible theories being explained along with it. But that rarely happens.
Originally Posted by keleighr
The best saying I have ever heard was from a person who had all his life attented Church and still loves and believes in God but stopped attending due the fact that every time you blinked the money trays were rolling around.
He said "It's funny how a lot of folks say in the religious community that money is the root of all sins, yet the church has NO problem accepting my money left and right"
There is nothing wrong with the church accepting money. When you realize that that money (along with everything else you own) belongs to God anyway you really own the church (God) your 10% and then some. Now I'm sure that there are churches that abuse the money they get to some degree. But I think the majority are using the money just as they should be which is to draw people to the faith and help the community. And it's not like churches force you to pay or kick you out. And they don't (or shouldn't) want your money out of your own guilt.
The tithe is a biblical concept that all Christian churches should be following through with IMO. And most people will tell you that not only do you not notice the money you give away, but it seems as if you do better financially by doing so. That is God's blessing, although it is not a guarantee. But the giver will be blessed in some way whether they know it or not.
Wow
But if a scientist proves over and over again that we have evolved over time then Science becomes something that "you need to be careful of".
This is the problem. Science hasn't actually proved evolution. Many people who believe in it seem to have accepted it as proven fact when it just isn't. There is actually no proof whatsoever. Most creationists have no problem with evolution being presented as a theory and other possible theories being explained along with it. But that rarely happens.
Originally Posted by keleighr
The best saying I have ever heard was from a person who had all his life attented Church and still loves and believes in God but stopped attending due the fact that every time you blinked the money trays were rolling around.
He said "It's funny how a lot of folks say in the religious community that money is the root of all sins, yet the church has NO problem accepting my money left and right"
There is nothing wrong with the church accepting money. When you realize that that money (along with everything else you own) belongs to God anyway you really own the church (God) your 10% and then some. Now I'm sure that there are churches that abuse the money they get to some degree. But I think the majority are using the money just as they should be which is to draw people to the faith and help the community. And it's not like churches force you to pay or kick you out. And they don't (or shouldn't) want your money out of your own guilt.
The tithe is a biblical concept that all Christian churches should be following through with IMO. And most people will tell you that not only do you not notice the money you give away, but it seems as if you do better financially by doing so. That is God's blessing, although it is not a guarantee. But the giver will be blessed in some way whether they know it or not.
keleighr
Active Member
This is the problem. Science hasn't actually proved evolution. Many people who believe in it seem to have accepted it as proven fact when it just isn't. There is actually no proof whatsoever. Most creationists have no problem with evolution being presented as a theory and other possible theories being explained along with it. But that rarely happens.
I guess then all the museums need to take down the skeletal remains of all the folks who were here way before us............
since they have showing in a progressive oder which tends to look like our Evolution to what we are now.
The tithe is a biblical concept that all Christian churches should be following through with IMO. And most people will tell you that not only do you not notice the money you give away, but it seems as if you do better financially by doing so. That is God's blessing, although it is not a guarantee. But the giver will be blessed in some way whether they know it or not.
Sadly this goes on more than no one at their own church will ever admit.
So far my experiance is to see that the church's are more concerend with the money than the people who attend. Oh sure they want you to attend but only because it's the money that they want.
I'm sorry, the church is a man made entity. Even though I do not follow the Lord's path I do strongly believe that you do not have to go into a church just to be able to believe and for him to be able to hear you.
This no gurantee is another issue that I will not touch........I hope people feel they are blessed with out having to give up $$$$ to get it.
Regardless if that is not the church's intent that how it sounds every time I have attended a church.
AND yes I have attended many many many church's of all faiths.
I guess then all the museums need to take down the skeletal remains of all the folks who were here way before us............
since they have showing in a progressive oder which tends to look like our Evolution to what we are now.
The tithe is a biblical concept that all Christian churches should be following through with IMO. And most people will tell you that not only do you not notice the money you give away, but it seems as if you do better financially by doing so. That is God's blessing, although it is not a guarantee. But the giver will be blessed in some way whether they know it or not.
Sadly this goes on more than no one at their own church will ever admit.
So far my experiance is to see that the church's are more concerend with the money than the people who attend. Oh sure they want you to attend but only because it's the money that they want.
I'm sorry, the church is a man made entity. Even though I do not follow the Lord's path I do strongly believe that you do not have to go into a church just to be able to believe and for him to be able to hear you.
This no gurantee is another issue that I will not touch........I hope people feel they are blessed with out having to give up $$$$ to get it.
Regardless if that is not the church's intent that how it sounds every time I have attended a church.
AND yes I have attended many many many church's of all faiths.
kablamo
Member
Originally Posted by keleighr
Man if there were no moderators on this site i would really let you guys have it!
And this would just prove that you are???????? What smart??????
All that last sentence did was make you look like one of these "judgemental people" who are just throwing crap down that they learned from a website.
It's funny how you keep quoting people who wrote down many of their ideas that you can now find on the internet. They very thing you keep dogging folks out for in order to get their information.
Again AMAZING how intelligent you just came across.
First of all, What are you talking about? reread my post and find a SINGLE quote. I didn't quote anybody.
Secondly, what I mean by the mod thing is that If I was openly debating christianity on this forum, I would get banned, hands down, banned, no repeal. I know too much, i've read the bible too many times and could tell you exactly what to read in order to realize it's not what you think it is, and it's NOT acceptable for talking about in public, many of these things are so reprehinsable that they would disgust even the vilest of serial killers.
If you would like to discuss this further please visit http://www.squinny.net/phpBB2
Third, your post had nothing to do with what I said. Why don't you go ahead and try to refute something I said in the post instead of running and hiding behind your sarcasm and your insults?
Man if there were no moderators on this site i would really let you guys have it!
And this would just prove that you are???????? What smart??????
All that last sentence did was make you look like one of these "judgemental people" who are just throwing crap down that they learned from a website.
It's funny how you keep quoting people who wrote down many of their ideas that you can now find on the internet. They very thing you keep dogging folks out for in order to get their information.
Again AMAZING how intelligent you just came across.
First of all, What are you talking about? reread my post and find a SINGLE quote. I didn't quote anybody.
Secondly, what I mean by the mod thing is that If I was openly debating christianity on this forum, I would get banned, hands down, banned, no repeal. I know too much, i've read the bible too many times and could tell you exactly what to read in order to realize it's not what you think it is, and it's NOT acceptable for talking about in public, many of these things are so reprehinsable that they would disgust even the vilest of serial killers.
If you would like to discuss this further please visit http://www.squinny.net/phpBB2
Third, your post had nothing to do with what I said. Why don't you go ahead and try to refute something I said in the post instead of running and hiding behind your sarcasm and your insults?
hagfish
Active Member
Originally Posted by Kablamo
When you go out to prove something, everything gets VERY hairy, as you can "prove" things all day long, by tailoring and tinkering with an experiment to get it to give you your desired results.
You don't think evolutionists are trying to prove evolution? For a theory to become a fact it has to be proven.
Originally Posted by Kablamo
When you WANT results, you are almost certain to get those results, especially if your career rests on your getting those certain results.
This is exactly right. But you can't honestly tell me that most evolutionary scientists aren't doing exactly that. There really haven't been "results" in evolution. Just a bunch of similarities between animals. There has yet to be a single missing link found and there are certainly plenty of people looking.
Let me ask you this. Is there more evidence that something can be created from nothing than that something has to be created by something? Have you ever seen anything be created by nothing? Take a basketball for example. It's really a fairly simple object. Why is it that nothing similar has ever occured in nature? I think you would agree it would take a human (at the least) to create a basketball. Now that is a non-living object that is just not very complicated. Let's take an eyeball now. It has all kinds of rods and cones and things that I honestly know nothing about other than that it's very complex. What makes you think that would just appear from nothing? And if it built slowly over time, then wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that we would find cyclops versions of all kinds of animals because if the eye has to start from scratch with no intelligence and random chance then it would have to start as a single eye. And since that single eye is so complex, how did "nature" figure out how to put it all together and make it work?
When you go out to prove something, everything gets VERY hairy, as you can "prove" things all day long, by tailoring and tinkering with an experiment to get it to give you your desired results.
You don't think evolutionists are trying to prove evolution? For a theory to become a fact it has to be proven.
Originally Posted by Kablamo
When you WANT results, you are almost certain to get those results, especially if your career rests on your getting those certain results.
This is exactly right. But you can't honestly tell me that most evolutionary scientists aren't doing exactly that. There really haven't been "results" in evolution. Just a bunch of similarities between animals. There has yet to be a single missing link found and there are certainly plenty of people looking.
Let me ask you this. Is there more evidence that something can be created from nothing than that something has to be created by something? Have you ever seen anything be created by nothing? Take a basketball for example. It's really a fairly simple object. Why is it that nothing similar has ever occured in nature? I think you would agree it would take a human (at the least) to create a basketball. Now that is a non-living object that is just not very complicated. Let's take an eyeball now. It has all kinds of rods and cones and things that I honestly know nothing about other than that it's very complex. What makes you think that would just appear from nothing? And if it built slowly over time, then wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that we would find cyclops versions of all kinds of animals because if the eye has to start from scratch with no intelligence and random chance then it would have to start as a single eye. And since that single eye is so complex, how did "nature" figure out how to put it all together and make it work?
hagfish
Active Member
quote from keleighr
I guess then all the museums need to take down the skeletal remains of all the folks who were here way before us............
since they have showing in a progressive oder which tends to look like our Evolution to what we are now.
---
They do have skeletal remains of ancient peoples. But there has yet to be proven a single evolutionary species. Any thought otherwise has been implanted by the media.
Every time a missing link has been thought to be found, science discovers that it's really just another species.
I guess then all the museums need to take down the skeletal remains of all the folks who were here way before us............
since they have showing in a progressive oder which tends to look like our Evolution to what we are now.
---
They do have skeletal remains of ancient peoples. But there has yet to be proven a single evolutionary species. Any thought otherwise has been implanted by the media.
Every time a missing link has been thought to be found, science discovers that it's really just another species.
hagfish
Active Member
Even if natural selection did exist, how does that account for the initial creation of any and all living things? That goes back to my point about the basketball. Millions of years ago a bunch of slime didn't come together to form something as simple as a basketball. But it did manage to make something that was alive and was even smart enough to improve on it's own cellular structure with no external help? How can you explain that?
caomt
Member
actually people like you are joining the post to say something we already know you guys are going to say... yes i am a catholic and yes i started the post.. and no no one ever said they were 100% right .. i listed websites i found information on to see if anyone else would find information similar on another site or word of mouth.. i never said i was right or anything.. if i thought i was correct i wouldnt of started this post..
caomt
Member
tell me what is faith...faith is believing in something you do not see or for sure do not know for a fact... there is no reason for you guys to be steaming up in a post like this.... if you guys have anything else besides steaming up on us about whos right and whos dumb for thinking whatever whatever then yeh you guys are more then welcome to join us.. but if your gonna just come in and post a comment on how dumb other people..find another post
caomt
Member
what makes faith so....umm faithy is faith...right? i want you guys to read what i putted in between the *** ***
...im pretty sure i shouldnt believing www.m-w.com which is a dictionary we all been using since we were in k...
Main Entry: 1faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Old French feid, foi, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b ****(1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof ****(2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
synonym see BELIEF
- in faith : without doubt or question : VERILY
...im pretty sure i shouldnt believing www.m-w.com which is a dictionary we all been using since we were in k...
Main Entry: 1faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Old French feid, foi, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b ****(1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof ****(2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
synonym see BELIEF
- in faith : without doubt or question : VERILY
hagfish
Active Member
Originally Posted by keleighr
Sadly this goes on more than no one at their own church will ever admit.
So far my experiance is to see that the church's are more concerend with the money than the people who attend. Oh sure they want you to attend but only because it's the money that they want.
I became a Christian almost 4 years ago. I've attended two churches in that time and I'm on the financial ministry with this one and I was on the personell commitee in the last one. Both of those deal directly with budgeting. In the first church, none of the workers had received a raise in at least 3 years. The pastor himself insisted that we do not allow him to have a raise. If the money was there, it would have been fine to give them just over inflation, but nothing more. In those 4 years, I don't recall a single Sunday spent talking about tithing or giving to the church. That is not to say it is never mentioned, but even a brief mentioning has probably only occured maybe 5 times.
Originally Posted by keleighr
I'm sorry, the church is a man made entity. Even though I do not follow the Lord's path I do strongly believe that you do not have to go into a church just to be able to believe and for him to be able to hear you.
The church was made by man, that man was Jesus. Here's a quote from http://www.scripturessay.com/study22.html
"In response to Peterís confession to Jesus in Matthew 16:16 that, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God". Jesus then says in Matthew 16:18, "On this rock I will build My church." To whom was this church to belong? "My" is possessive, which shows the church belongs to Jesus"
I absolutely agree that you do not have to go into a church to be able to believe. Many people become believers without having ever stepped foot into a church. You also don't have to go into a church for The Lord to hear you. But the prayers of an unbeliever will go unheard. As for the attendance of church, the following quote from http://www.scripturessay.com/ch5.html explains it beautifully.
"Christ is the head of the church, her ruler, her authority, her director. If one desires to have Christ as his head he must be in the church, the church which is his body. And he must follow the directions given by the head. If one loves the Lord, if he respects him as the head of the church, why would he want to be in anything else? How could he be in anything else Scripturally? To be in another body would be to have another head."
Sadly this goes on more than no one at their own church will ever admit.
So far my experiance is to see that the church's are more concerend with the money than the people who attend. Oh sure they want you to attend but only because it's the money that they want.
I became a Christian almost 4 years ago. I've attended two churches in that time and I'm on the financial ministry with this one and I was on the personell commitee in the last one. Both of those deal directly with budgeting. In the first church, none of the workers had received a raise in at least 3 years. The pastor himself insisted that we do not allow him to have a raise. If the money was there, it would have been fine to give them just over inflation, but nothing more. In those 4 years, I don't recall a single Sunday spent talking about tithing or giving to the church. That is not to say it is never mentioned, but even a brief mentioning has probably only occured maybe 5 times.
Originally Posted by keleighr
I'm sorry, the church is a man made entity. Even though I do not follow the Lord's path I do strongly believe that you do not have to go into a church just to be able to believe and for him to be able to hear you.
The church was made by man, that man was Jesus. Here's a quote from http://www.scripturessay.com/study22.html
"In response to Peterís confession to Jesus in Matthew 16:16 that, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God". Jesus then says in Matthew 16:18, "On this rock I will build My church." To whom was this church to belong? "My" is possessive, which shows the church belongs to Jesus"
I absolutely agree that you do not have to go into a church to be able to believe. Many people become believers without having ever stepped foot into a church. You also don't have to go into a church for The Lord to hear you. But the prayers of an unbeliever will go unheard. As for the attendance of church, the following quote from http://www.scripturessay.com/ch5.html explains it beautifully.
"Christ is the head of the church, her ruler, her authority, her director. If one desires to have Christ as his head he must be in the church, the church which is his body. And he must follow the directions given by the head. If one loves the Lord, if he respects him as the head of the church, why would he want to be in anything else? How could he be in anything else Scripturally? To be in another body would be to have another head."
kablamo
Member
Originally Posted by hagfish
Even if natural selection did exist, how does that account for the initial creation of any and all living things? That goes back to my point about the basketball. Millions of years ago a bunch of slime didn't come together to form something as simple as a basketball. But it did manage to make something that was alive and was even smart enough to improve on it's own cellular structure with no external help? How can you explain that?
Your argument is riddled with fallacies, a basketball is infinitely more more complex than any protein or amino acid.
A basketball first of all, is made of rubber, an organic compound, which would not exist without rubber trees, secondly, for a basketball to exist, there must exist a civilization that would and could make use of a rubber ball, third, that civilization would have to have the technology to create an airtight rubber ball with a tread.
I shouldn't have to explain that, but for someone who makes comparisons like THAT, i might just have to.
How about a virus? Virii aren't even technically alive, they are actually more like chemical compounds than bacteria, they even have mapable chemical formulae, but they reproduce just like the rest of us.
makeup of a virus:
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/art...re_image.shtml
Now imagine the millions of rubber molecules it takes to make a basketball. Looks rather simple after all.
You may as well have said "it didn't produce the internal combustion engine, so how could it make things that are alive?"
You talk about "living" things being smart enough to "improve" upon their own cellular structure with "no external help" We are not talking about bacteria, we are not even talking about virii, we are talking about amino acids, which under the right circumstances, spawns proteins on it's own. Virii are a simple arrangement of amino acids and proteins, which are NOT sentient, in the same way plants and sponges are not sentient. They therefore have no clue if they are "improving" which is arbitrary to say the least, one could be improving for years by getting bigger and bigger, but when the climate changes and there is no more food, the ones who have been getting smaller win out because they don't need to eat as much. There really are no improvements, this is not a human world, it is nature, and that means no holds barred, no rules except survive long enough to mate. Proteins that get more complex by chemical reactions and mutations might be less suseptable to breaking down when it gets too cold or too hot, and therefore be more apt to remain, and some quirk about them reacting might cause them to make copies of themselves, therefore creating the first virii, and, as you know, virii attack protiens and rewrite its own code into the protein's makeup. Does this make sense to you guys? Also it isn't about intelligence, unless you are talking about the inate intelligence of the universe, or the Tao as the chinese call it,
Anyway, I believe I may rest my case now, if you would like me to cite my sources, it will take some time, or you can take my word for it.
Even if natural selection did exist, how does that account for the initial creation of any and all living things? That goes back to my point about the basketball. Millions of years ago a bunch of slime didn't come together to form something as simple as a basketball. But it did manage to make something that was alive and was even smart enough to improve on it's own cellular structure with no external help? How can you explain that?
Your argument is riddled with fallacies, a basketball is infinitely more more complex than any protein or amino acid.
A basketball first of all, is made of rubber, an organic compound, which would not exist without rubber trees, secondly, for a basketball to exist, there must exist a civilization that would and could make use of a rubber ball, third, that civilization would have to have the technology to create an airtight rubber ball with a tread.
I shouldn't have to explain that, but for someone who makes comparisons like THAT, i might just have to.
How about a virus? Virii aren't even technically alive, they are actually more like chemical compounds than bacteria, they even have mapable chemical formulae, but they reproduce just like the rest of us.
makeup of a virus:
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/art...re_image.shtml
Now imagine the millions of rubber molecules it takes to make a basketball. Looks rather simple after all.
You may as well have said "it didn't produce the internal combustion engine, so how could it make things that are alive?"
You talk about "living" things being smart enough to "improve" upon their own cellular structure with "no external help" We are not talking about bacteria, we are not even talking about virii, we are talking about amino acids, which under the right circumstances, spawns proteins on it's own. Virii are a simple arrangement of amino acids and proteins, which are NOT sentient, in the same way plants and sponges are not sentient. They therefore have no clue if they are "improving" which is arbitrary to say the least, one could be improving for years by getting bigger and bigger, but when the climate changes and there is no more food, the ones who have been getting smaller win out because they don't need to eat as much. There really are no improvements, this is not a human world, it is nature, and that means no holds barred, no rules except survive long enough to mate. Proteins that get more complex by chemical reactions and mutations might be less suseptable to breaking down when it gets too cold or too hot, and therefore be more apt to remain, and some quirk about them reacting might cause them to make copies of themselves, therefore creating the first virii, and, as you know, virii attack protiens and rewrite its own code into the protein's makeup. Does this make sense to you guys? Also it isn't about intelligence, unless you are talking about the inate intelligence of the universe, or the Tao as the chinese call it,
Anyway, I believe I may rest my case now, if you would like me to cite my sources, it will take some time, or you can take my word for it.
kablamo
Member
Originally Posted by hagfish
You don't think evolutionists are trying to prove evolution? For a theory to become a fact it has to be proven.
FALSE, A theory can only become law after it has withstood the test of time for a few centuries. You cannot prove anything scientifically, you can ONLY disprove.
This is exactly right. But you can't honestly tell me that most evolutionary scientists aren't doing exactly that.
of course not, but at least the entire PREMISE of science isn't merely to attempt to further it's own agenda.
There really haven't been "results" in evolution. Just a bunch of similarities between animals. There has yet to be a single missing link found and there are certainly plenty of people looking.
False, the famous "fruit-fly" experiments force evolved through changing the environment of some fruit flies in a laboratory caused speciation, and the new species was so radically different that they could no longer mate with the original species, we're not talking dog breeds, we are talking genetic variation here.
Let me ask you this. Is there more evidence that something can be created from nothing than that something has to be created by something? Have you ever seen anything be created by nothing?
You are thinking in the wrong terms here, nothing is CREATED, creation is a human idea. Only pots and cars and watches, and guitars are created, not life forms. Life forms GROW. Here's a little allegory of my own.
Say the world is a tree.
Your average christian would consider themselves birds resting in the tree, while in truth we are all leaves, not birds.
Take a basketball for example. It's really a fairly simple object. Why is it that nothing similar has ever occured in nature? I think you would agree it would take a human (at the least) to create a basketball. Now that is a non-living object that is just not very complicated. Let's take an eyeball now. It has all kinds of rods and cones and things that I honestly know nothing about other than that it's very complex. What makes you think that would just appear from nothing? And if it built slowly over time, then wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that we would find cyclops versions of all kinds of animals because if the eye has to start from scratch with no intelligence and random chance then it would have to start as a single eye. And since that single eye is so complex, how did "nature" figure out how to put it all together and make it work?
As far as eyes are concerned, you can feel ultraviolet radiation with your skin, there are animals with no eyes but still run and hide when a shadow passes over them. This can easily be concentrated to where this receptive skin can tell the difference between light and dark.
If a shadow passes over one animal and it runs, and not another animal, which one is safer from predators? The sitting duck or the one that knows to hide?
Now, this skin can tell where exactly the shadow is, on the left, right, front, or back.
Why could this not be separated and there not be any feeling in the center so as to more clearly differentiate between left and right, or front and back.
Now its not that difficult to imagine it building up from there, and i don't have time to explain it tonight.
AS far as cyclopses, go look up copepods, the most numerous family of organisms on the earth, i believe you know about them, they are probably all over your tank and they ALL have only ONE eye.
Evolutionists claim that one step up from copepods is shrimp, a genus that has two eyes, and most if not all arthropods evolved from copepods, and everything AFTER them could take advantage of these two eyes.
QED.
You don't think evolutionists are trying to prove evolution? For a theory to become a fact it has to be proven.
FALSE, A theory can only become law after it has withstood the test of time for a few centuries. You cannot prove anything scientifically, you can ONLY disprove.
This is exactly right. But you can't honestly tell me that most evolutionary scientists aren't doing exactly that.
of course not, but at least the entire PREMISE of science isn't merely to attempt to further it's own agenda.
There really haven't been "results" in evolution. Just a bunch of similarities between animals. There has yet to be a single missing link found and there are certainly plenty of people looking.
False, the famous "fruit-fly" experiments force evolved through changing the environment of some fruit flies in a laboratory caused speciation, and the new species was so radically different that they could no longer mate with the original species, we're not talking dog breeds, we are talking genetic variation here.
Let me ask you this. Is there more evidence that something can be created from nothing than that something has to be created by something? Have you ever seen anything be created by nothing?
You are thinking in the wrong terms here, nothing is CREATED, creation is a human idea. Only pots and cars and watches, and guitars are created, not life forms. Life forms GROW. Here's a little allegory of my own.
Say the world is a tree.
Your average christian would consider themselves birds resting in the tree, while in truth we are all leaves, not birds.
Take a basketball for example. It's really a fairly simple object. Why is it that nothing similar has ever occured in nature? I think you would agree it would take a human (at the least) to create a basketball. Now that is a non-living object that is just not very complicated. Let's take an eyeball now. It has all kinds of rods and cones and things that I honestly know nothing about other than that it's very complex. What makes you think that would just appear from nothing? And if it built slowly over time, then wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that we would find cyclops versions of all kinds of animals because if the eye has to start from scratch with no intelligence and random chance then it would have to start as a single eye. And since that single eye is so complex, how did "nature" figure out how to put it all together and make it work?
As far as eyes are concerned, you can feel ultraviolet radiation with your skin, there are animals with no eyes but still run and hide when a shadow passes over them. This can easily be concentrated to where this receptive skin can tell the difference between light and dark.
If a shadow passes over one animal and it runs, and not another animal, which one is safer from predators? The sitting duck or the one that knows to hide?
Now, this skin can tell where exactly the shadow is, on the left, right, front, or back.
Why could this not be separated and there not be any feeling in the center so as to more clearly differentiate between left and right, or front and back.
Now its not that difficult to imagine it building up from there, and i don't have time to explain it tonight.
AS far as cyclopses, go look up copepods, the most numerous family of organisms on the earth, i believe you know about them, they are probably all over your tank and they ALL have only ONE eye.
Evolutionists claim that one step up from copepods is shrimp, a genus that has two eyes, and most if not all arthropods evolved from copepods, and everything AFTER them could take advantage of these two eyes.
QED.
hagfish
Active Member
Originally Posted by Kablamo
Your argument is riddled with fallacies, a basketball is infinitely more more complex than any protein or amino acid.
A basketball first of all, is made of rubber, an organic compound, which would not exist without rubber trees, secondly, for a basketball to exist, there must exist a civilization that would and could make use of a rubber ball, third, that civilization would have to have the technology to create an airtight rubber ball with a tread.
I shouldn't have to explain that, but for someone who makes comparisons like THAT, i might just have to.
How about a virus? Virii aren't even technically alive, they are actually more like chemical compounds than bacteria, they even have mapable chemical formulae, but they reproduce just like the rest of us.
makeup of a virus:
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/art...re_image.shtml
Now imagine the millions of rubber molecules it takes to make a basketball. Looks rather simple after all.
You may as well have said "it didn't produce the internal combustion engine, so how could it make things that are alive?"
You talk about "living" things being smart enough to "improve" upon their own cellular structure with "no external help" We are not talking about bacteria, we are not even talking about virii, we are talking about amino acids, which under the right circumstances, spawns proteins on it's own. Virii are a simple arrangement of amino acids and proteins, which are NOT sentient, in the same way plants and sponges are not sentient. They therefore have no clue if they are "improving" which is arbitrary to say the least, one could be improving for years by getting bigger and bigger, but when the climate changes and there is no more food, the ones who have been getting smaller win out because they don't need to eat as much. There really are no improvements, this is not a human world, it is nature, and that means no holds barred, no rules except survive long enough to mate. Proteins that get more complex by chemical reactions and mutations might be less suseptable to breaking down when it gets too cold or too hot, and therefore be more apt to remain, and some quirk about them reacting might cause them to make copies of themselves, therefore creating the first virii, and, as you know, virii attack protiens and rewrite its own code into the protein's makeup. Does this make sense to you guys? Also it isn't about intelligence, unless you are talking about the inate intelligence of the universe, or the Tao as the chinese call it,
Anyway, I believe I may rest my case now, if you would like me to cite my sources, it will take some time, or you can take my word for it.
Well, you have just fully explained the "life" of a virus which you immediately qualified as something that isn't technically "alive". So how can you use this to explain the creation of life?
And perhaps a basketball is more complicated than a virus in physical makeup (that was not what I was attempting to compare), but what about the human brain? Even if you can come up with a way to describe the creation of the physical attributes of a brain, how can you explain how those physical attributes allow for the thinking ability of a brain? Consider that the brain is a part of an entire system which comprises a human body. System is the key word here. What organ do you think was created first? Something needs to intake energy. So maybe the mouth evolved? What good is that though? There's no system in place to digest the calories. Even the evolution of the mouth causes problems. What is the organism doing to take in calories in the millions of years it might take for chance to bring about a mouth?
What is your idea of the concept of natural selection? Most say that it is "nature" trying to insure the survival of a species. That implies an attempt at improvement. If one assumes that evolution says that a creature must start with no eyes (since we are starting from scratch here), then what causes the eye to form and why? If it's not an attempt to improve (chance of survival) then why does a second eye occur? Are there any single eyed species (I honestly don't know, but I've never seen or heard of one)?
Most animals are very well suited to their environment. If they are not, it is typically due to enviornmental change. To believe in evolution and suggest that this is a coincidence and not evolutions attempt to "improve" the chance of survival is a contradiction of belief.
Your argument is riddled with fallacies, a basketball is infinitely more more complex than any protein or amino acid.
A basketball first of all, is made of rubber, an organic compound, which would not exist without rubber trees, secondly, for a basketball to exist, there must exist a civilization that would and could make use of a rubber ball, third, that civilization would have to have the technology to create an airtight rubber ball with a tread.
I shouldn't have to explain that, but for someone who makes comparisons like THAT, i might just have to.
How about a virus? Virii aren't even technically alive, they are actually more like chemical compounds than bacteria, they even have mapable chemical formulae, but they reproduce just like the rest of us.
makeup of a virus:
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/art...re_image.shtml
Now imagine the millions of rubber molecules it takes to make a basketball. Looks rather simple after all.
You may as well have said "it didn't produce the internal combustion engine, so how could it make things that are alive?"
You talk about "living" things being smart enough to "improve" upon their own cellular structure with "no external help" We are not talking about bacteria, we are not even talking about virii, we are talking about amino acids, which under the right circumstances, spawns proteins on it's own. Virii are a simple arrangement of amino acids and proteins, which are NOT sentient, in the same way plants and sponges are not sentient. They therefore have no clue if they are "improving" which is arbitrary to say the least, one could be improving for years by getting bigger and bigger, but when the climate changes and there is no more food, the ones who have been getting smaller win out because they don't need to eat as much. There really are no improvements, this is not a human world, it is nature, and that means no holds barred, no rules except survive long enough to mate. Proteins that get more complex by chemical reactions and mutations might be less suseptable to breaking down when it gets too cold or too hot, and therefore be more apt to remain, and some quirk about them reacting might cause them to make copies of themselves, therefore creating the first virii, and, as you know, virii attack protiens and rewrite its own code into the protein's makeup. Does this make sense to you guys? Also it isn't about intelligence, unless you are talking about the inate intelligence of the universe, or the Tao as the chinese call it,
Anyway, I believe I may rest my case now, if you would like me to cite my sources, it will take some time, or you can take my word for it.
Well, you have just fully explained the "life" of a virus which you immediately qualified as something that isn't technically "alive". So how can you use this to explain the creation of life?
And perhaps a basketball is more complicated than a virus in physical makeup (that was not what I was attempting to compare), but what about the human brain? Even if you can come up with a way to describe the creation of the physical attributes of a brain, how can you explain how those physical attributes allow for the thinking ability of a brain? Consider that the brain is a part of an entire system which comprises a human body. System is the key word here. What organ do you think was created first? Something needs to intake energy. So maybe the mouth evolved? What good is that though? There's no system in place to digest the calories. Even the evolution of the mouth causes problems. What is the organism doing to take in calories in the millions of years it might take for chance to bring about a mouth?
What is your idea of the concept of natural selection? Most say that it is "nature" trying to insure the survival of a species. That implies an attempt at improvement. If one assumes that evolution says that a creature must start with no eyes (since we are starting from scratch here), then what causes the eye to form and why? If it's not an attempt to improve (chance of survival) then why does a second eye occur? Are there any single eyed species (I honestly don't know, but I've never seen or heard of one)?
Most animals are very well suited to their environment. If they are not, it is typically due to enviornmental change. To believe in evolution and suggest that this is a coincidence and not evolutions attempt to "improve" the chance of survival is a contradiction of belief.