I am going to be extra nice to him now so he doesn't smite me.</strong><hr></blockquote>He's not that big. It's just that his pants are too small. Check it out!
The arguments of creationists demonstrate only that they understand neither science nor religion.
Evolution and creationism do not exclude each other at all. Why would the prime mover of the totality of natural existence operate by laws other than those of nature? Nature depends on a sequence of causality. God initiates that sequence (and here we are not talking about the morally qualified GOD of the religious factions). How historically useless is the concept of 'days' when tackling the question of a timeless being. God (perhaps a touch pantheistic) operates as it will. If you should spring from the same place as the apes, that should not surprise or insult you, you are not that special, and yet you are more special than you know.
The creationist smacks of an existential inferiority complex: "We're special, we're different, how debasing to be lumped together with the vulgar beasts." Such an attitude in fact shows a deep contempt for 'creation' itself, almost as the mytholgical Angelic contept over the dawn of man.
Holes in evolution are readily acceptable to the rational scientific mind. Science (in it's best spirit) recognizes it's fundamental incompleteness, it welcomes correction, it is of humble and deeply spiritual disposition.
Creationism is something rather more desperate, jealous even in it's defence -- not of mythology or scripture or truth, as none of these would matter if they did not assist the preservation of -- self importance.
You can believe in God without arrogance and self importance, you do not have to shield yourself from fear and doubt at every turn. Religion is not the antidote to mystery, but it unfortunately get used that way
<strong>Talk all you want, but I'm standing behind you when he shows up to prove you wrong. </strong><hr></blockquote>I'm not worried. I'm like 5000 miles away. If I were you though...
You're cute and cuddly and all, but he's got that killer look.
No no, that's not Sean Connery, it's Charlton Heston.
What God needs a face (eyes, ears, nose and mouth) for, when he's just hanging out in space beaming galaxies from his brain while watching for sinners and so on is yet another mystery.
Hard to believe he could do all that and make sure people were slaughtering animals to atone for their sins all at the same time.
And how come he didn't have people slaughter dinosaurs instead of sheep? Poor little sheep didn't hurt anyone. I'm sure the T-Rex's were more deserving than some innocent woolly little sheep. Come to think of it, why would he put people and dinosaurs on the same planet at the same time? For food? To make clothes out of? That just doesn't make sense.
A start to some of the many reasons why I "laugh" at macroevolution are in the linked writing below.
[quote]
In fact, it is not even science at all, but an arbitrary system built upon faith in universal naturalism. <hr></blockquote>
[quote]
A professor in the Department of Biology at Kansas State University says:
Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic. <hr></blockquote>
[quote]
As far as the twentieth century is concerned, the leading evolutionist is generally considered to be Sir Julian Huxley, primary architect of modern neo-Darwinism. Huxley called evolution a "religion without revelation" and wrote a book with that title (2nd edition, 1957). In a later book, he said:
Evolution . . . is the most powerful and the most comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on earth.
Later in the book he argued passionately that we must change "our pattern of religious thought from a God-centered to an evolution-centered pattern." Then he went on to say that: "The God hypothesis . . . is becoming an intellectual and moral burden on our thought." Therefore, he concluded that "we must construct something to take its place." <hr></blockquote>
Read the below writing and you come back to me and give me one scientific fact that proves evolution.
The very first paragraph is incorrect, for a start.
[quote] No Upward EvolutionFirst of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and?apparently?unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution. <hr></blockquote>
Long studies of finches on the Galapagos islands demostrate just the kind of evolutionary changes (in the shapes of the beaks of birds with different diets) that lead eventually to speciation.
Long studies of finches on the Galapagos islands demostrate just the kind of evolutionary changes (in the shapes of the beaks of birds with different diets) that lead eventually to speciation.
Two points I would like to make to possibly clear up a couple of issues:
1. Genetic differences as we see in humans height, skin color, facial features etc. as well as all microevolution genetic differences are well known BUT,, and I repeat BUT,, do not prove macroevolution.
If there were no genetic variation as you know we would all be identical twins. And we don't want that. Again never has one species gone from one to another in some kind of macroevolutionary transition. If it has Come Show Me!
2. I allow for all views to be believed. Let's just be honest about what we are questioning.
Some of you question my Creator. I question the so called "missing links" of evolution.
You miss the point of Macroevolution,no one ever claimed that unrelated species evolved from one another,but that they evolved from common ancestors.There are transitional species,loads of them.Go visit the Natural History Museum in Washington and look at the skeletons.You will see how similar the skeletons of all animals are,even in details.I find this similarity to be quite blatant proof that they evolved from a common ancestor.One of the most striking features is how obscure anatomical details exist in two seemingly dissimilar species.Look for example at the sternocleidomastoid muscle,the main muscle that rotates and stabilizes the head,it has a very strange construction,running from a dual attachment at the sternum and clavicle to an insertion on the mastoid process of the cranium.It could be constructed many different ways,but it follows this one pattern in the mammals.Ask yourself about the coccyx,why do humans have the vestigal remains of a tail?These bones are completely useless,why would they exist?Because we are descended from tailed creatures.Why is this so difficult for you to accept?
<strong>You miss the point of Macroevolution,no one ever claimed that unrelated species evolved from one another,but that they evolved from common ancestors.There are transitional species,loads of them.Go visit the Natural History Museum in Washington and look at the skeletons.You will see how similar the skeletons of all animals are,even in details.I find this similarity to be quite blatant proof that they evolved from a common ancestor.One of the most striking features is how obscure anatomical details exist in two seemingly dissimilar species.Look for example at the sternocleidomastoid muscle,the main muscle that rotates and stabilizes the head,it has a very strange construction,running from a dual attachment at the sternum and clavicle to an insertion on the mastoid process of the cranium.It could be constructed many different ways,but it follows this one pattern in the mammals.Ask yourself about the coccyx,why do humans have the vestigal remains of a tail?These bones are completely useless,why would they exist?Because we are descended from tailed creatures.Why is this so difficult for you to accept?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Rick1138... You add further evidence to the Fact that this deception called evolution has gripped FAR too many people...
[quote]Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook:
<strong>
Microevolution simply labels or represents the variety of genetic differences within a species.
Macroevolution is a myth that would like to project that species by species we evolve via genetic mutations into more viable specialized beings.
Bottom line difference is which side of species are you standing on. That is the difference
Fellowship</strong><hr></blockquote>
Okay then you have to define species. How much variation within a species is nessesary before you get a new specie (hmm is that the singular version of species?).
And how do varity occur within a specie? Is it just new mixes of the same gene poole or does mutations occur. If the first how can new longer or shorter beaks occur from a gene poole that have shown no variation before?
Is DNA the code for animals and man "design"? Can DNA mutate (from radiation or other outside factors)? If DNA from one animal is changed to the DNA from another will the animal produced from this DNA be the second animal?
My limited education allows for this possibility which I find an acceptable theory. But I dont know.
Surely macroevolution is the result of many several stages of microevolution. Where do you draw the line? If a species micro evolves a thousand times, you might see that the species no longer is directly recognisable as the original, you could argue that the difference between x and y is a result of macroevolution, having come from many stages of microevolution. On the other hand, if the environment between x and y barely changed, you might find that species y is almost exacly the same as the original x, (both cases having microevolved the same number of times over the same time period) thus you would say that it is still the same microevolved x.
I must not go there. Must concentrate on my tasks at hand. Have a nice day, bye.
Fellowship, do not take the politica of some scientists as the general disposition of the 'scientific'. They are not the same.
Common creator and common ancestor are NOT incompatible. Creator-ancestor-me. Simple and crude, but it goes back to my point of the workings of God and creation.
Evolution is not trying to undo creation even if some atheistic scientist might be. Atheism is fraught with it's own problems, it is wholly dissatisfying from a philosophical/rational interogation, and it exposes a psychological trauma on the other end of the spectrum from that exhibited by creationists.
Evolution is science in the same way that Newton is physics. We have found many intricate difficulties with Newton, but that does not mean his observations were incorrect or useless. We just know a lot more than Newton did, and can fathom cases that were beyond imagination at the time. So we refine our thinking and test our cases untill we can describe more and more detailed phenomena. Likewise, we know more about the development of species than we did before -- we know that evolution is not linear or smooth -- and we have more difficulties because we're dealing with more information and none of it is complete.
Those doctors of yours are involved in very poor/hasty 'scientific' reconing. They are not helping their religions, they are only hurting them by preserving the same hastiness and wilfull ignorance the turns people from religions in the first place.
The scientist is NOT trying to describe the moral character of God, he's trying to understand the workings of existence. The Biblical writer is not trying to understand 'nature' he's trying to reckon the moral character of God (and community and man). Both are huge undertakings. The discourse of 'days' is useful for the Biblical writer because it purchases a neccessary economy of language (by sacrificing scientific accuracy.)
It's a good trade, for the Bible proceeds down a different path than science: 'Truth' is historical in places and metaphorical in others, but always it is emotional and psychological. Your interactions then make it intellectual and spiritual.
The bible is not a table or a research paper and thank God for that.
I should more carefully expand this, but I can't get excited about the prospect on banging my head against a wall. Creationists really need some socio-psychological help, but I'm not the one to lead your collective group therapy session.
Well, you have to go to a museum, study some books, learn about it, and the evidence is all around.
It would be nice to see some evidence of god besides the bible. If god is powerful enough to beam planets from his forehead, why not prove it once and for all and get it over with?
Because his power resides in faith? At least evolution, galaxy formations, other planets, and the fact that the earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa (as religion used to kill people for until it was proven wrong on that front as well) can be proven. Or do you not believe that either?
Sheesh. I'm done here. Ignorance must be bliss. Men living with dinosaurs... <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
Comments
Damn! If only they had gotten that published BEFORE Sept. 11th!
<strong>On a more on-topic note:
FShip looks very big.
I am going to be extra nice to him now so he doesn't smite me.</strong><hr></blockquote>He's not that big. It's just that his pants are too small. Check it out!
:eek: (snicker snicker)
Evolution and creationism do not exclude each other at all. Why would the prime mover of the totality of natural existence operate by laws other than those of nature? Nature depends on a sequence of causality. God initiates that sequence (and here we are not talking about the morally qualified GOD of the religious factions). How historically useless is the concept of 'days' when tackling the question of a timeless being. God (perhaps a touch pantheistic) operates as it will. If you should spring from the same place as the apes, that should not surprise or insult you, you are not that special, and yet you are more special than you know.
The creationist smacks of an existential inferiority complex: "We're special, we're different, how debasing to be lumped together with the vulgar beasts." Such an attitude in fact shows a deep contempt for 'creation' itself, almost as the mytholgical Angelic contept over the dawn of man.
Holes in evolution are readily acceptable to the rational scientific mind. Science (in it's best spirit) recognizes it's fundamental incompleteness, it welcomes correction, it is of humble and deeply spiritual disposition.
Creationism is something rather more desperate, jealous even in it's defence -- not of mythology or scripture or truth, as none of these would matter if they did not assist the preservation of -- self importance.
You can believe in God without arrogance and self importance, you do not have to shield yourself from fear and doubt at every turn. Religion is not the antidote to mystery, but it unfortunately get used that way
<strong>Talk all you want, but I'm standing behind you when he shows up to prove you wrong.
You're cute and cuddly and all, but he's got that killer look.
[ 08-18-2002: Message edited by: BRussell ]</p>
<strong>I'm not worried. I'm like 5000 miles away. If I were you though...
You're cute and cuddly and all, but he's got that killer look.
[ 08-18-2002: Message edited by: BRussell ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
why am i envisioning a terribly crude flash animation using these heads?
damn... somebody get me studio mx...
[quote]Originally posted by seb:
<strong>
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Did Sean Connory get promoted to God on his older days? And was that picture taken with the Hubble telescope?
What God needs a face (eyes, ears, nose and mouth) for, when he's just hanging out in space beaming galaxies from his brain while watching for sinners and so on is yet another mystery.
Hard to believe he could do all that and make sure people were slaughtering animals to atone for their sins all at the same time.
And how come he didn't have people slaughter dinosaurs instead of sheep? Poor little sheep didn't hurt anyone. I'm sure the T-Rex's were more deserving than some innocent woolly little sheep. Come to think of it, why would he put people and dinosaurs on the same planet at the same time? For food? To make clothes out of? That just doesn't make sense.
I need to go to bed...
A start to some of the many reasons why I "laugh" at macroevolution are in the linked writing below.
[quote]
In fact, it is not even science at all, but an arbitrary system built upon faith in universal naturalism. <hr></blockquote>
[quote]
A professor in the Department of Biology at Kansas State University says:
Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic. <hr></blockquote>
[quote]
As far as the twentieth century is concerned, the leading evolutionist is generally considered to be Sir Julian Huxley, primary architect of modern neo-Darwinism. Huxley called evolution a "religion without revelation" and wrote a book with that title (2nd edition, 1957). In a later book, he said:
Evolution . . . is the most powerful and the most comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on earth.
Later in the book he argued passionately that we must change "our pattern of religious thought from a God-centered to an evolution-centered pattern." Then he went on to say that: "The God hypothesis . . . is becoming an intellectual and moral burden on our thought." Therefore, he concluded that "we must construct something to take its place." <hr></blockquote>
Read the below writing and you come back to me and give me one scientific fact that proves evolution.
evolution is not science let alone objective.
<a href="http://www.icr.org/bible/tracts/scientificcaseagainstevolution.html"; target="_blank">Read this and weep</a>
Fellowship
<strong>Greetings Everyone!
A start to some of the many reasons why I "laugh" at macroevolution are in the linked writing below.
Read the below writing and you come back to me and give me one scientific fact that proves evolution.
evolution is not science let alone objective.
<a href="http://www.icr.org/bible/tracts/scientificcaseagainstevolution.html"; target="_blank">Read this and weep</a>
Fellowship</strong><hr></blockquote>
The very first paragraph is incorrect, for a start.
[quote] No Upward EvolutionFirst of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and?apparently?unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution. <hr></blockquote>
Long studies of finches on the Galapagos islands demostrate just the kind of evolutionary changes (in the shapes of the beaks of birds with different diets) that lead eventually to speciation.
<a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/01/010111074902.htm"; target="_blank">come hither</a>
<strong>
Long studies of finches on the Galapagos islands demostrate just the kind of evolutionary changes (in the shapes of the beaks of birds with different diets) that lead eventually to speciation.
<a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/01/010111074902.htm"; target="_blank">come hither</a></strong><hr></blockquote>
Hassan I am not laughing here. It is truly sad. You have fallen to this extrapolation.
Look at my original post opening this thread.
finches were in my list of bunk used by deceptive macroevolutionists. It is microevolution.
Those finches are varieties of the same kind.
Not different kinds
same species
Same is true with Dogs etc.
But NEVER has one species changed into another species
NEVER!!!!!!!!
If so Show Me I want to see it!!!!!
Fellowship
[ 08-18-2002: Message edited by: FellowshipChurch iBook ]</p>
1. Genetic differences as we see in humans height, skin color, facial features etc. as well as all microevolution genetic differences are well known BUT,, and I repeat BUT,, do not prove macroevolution.
If there were no genetic variation as you know we would all be identical twins. And we don't want that. Again never has one species gone from one to another in some kind of macroevolutionary transition. If it has Come Show Me!
2. I allow for all views to be believed. Let's just be honest about what we are questioning.
Some of you question my Creator. I question the so called "missing links" of evolution.
We all are free to question these things.
Fellowship
[ 08-18-2002: Message edited by: FellowshipChurch iBook ]</p>
<strong>You miss the point of Macroevolution,no one ever claimed that unrelated species evolved from one another,but that they evolved from common ancestors.There are transitional species,loads of them.Go visit the Natural History Museum in Washington and look at the skeletons.You will see how similar the skeletons of all animals are,even in details.I find this similarity to be quite blatant proof that they evolved from a common ancestor.One of the most striking features is how obscure anatomical details exist in two seemingly dissimilar species.Look for example at the sternocleidomastoid muscle,the main muscle that rotates and stabilizes the head,it has a very strange construction,running from a dual attachment at the sternum and clavicle to an insertion on the mastoid process of the cranium.It could be constructed many different ways,but it follows this one pattern in the mammals.Ask yourself about the coccyx,why do humans have the vestigal remains of a tail?These bones are completely useless,why would they exist?Because we are descended from tailed creatures.Why is this so difficult for you to accept?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Rick1138... You add further evidence to the Fact that this deception called evolution has gripped FAR too many people...
On your vestigial tail issue take a look at this.
<a href="http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp"; target="_blank">Big Daddy</a>
I believe we all originated from a common creator not a common ancestor.
You are on your own as to what you want to choose to believe.
Fellowship
[ 08-18-2002: Message edited by: FellowshipChurch iBook ]</p>
<strong>FCiB: Please give a useful definition of the difference between micro- and macroevolution.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Microevolution simply labels or represents the variety of genetic differences within a species.
Macroevolution is a myth that would like to project that species by species we evolve via genetic mutations into more viable specialized beings.
Bottom line difference is which side of species are you standing on. That is the difference
Fellowship
<strong>
Microevolution simply labels or represents the variety of genetic differences within a species.
Macroevolution is a myth that would like to project that species by species we evolve via genetic mutations into more viable specialized beings.
Bottom line difference is which side of species are you standing on. That is the difference
Fellowship</strong><hr></blockquote>
Okay then you have to define species. How much variation within a species is nessesary before you get a new specie (hmm is that the singular version of species?).
And how do varity occur within a specie? Is it just new mixes of the same gene poole or does mutations occur. If the first how can new longer or shorter beaks occur from a gene poole that have shown no variation before?
Is DNA the code for animals and man "design"? Can DNA mutate (from radiation or other outside factors)? If DNA from one animal is changed to the DNA from another will the animal produced from this DNA be the second animal?
Arrrggggghhhhh..
My limited education allows for this possibility which I find an acceptable theory. But I dont know.
Surely macroevolution is the result of many several stages of microevolution. Where do you draw the line? If a species micro evolves a thousand times, you might see that the species no longer is directly recognisable as the original, you could argue that the difference between x and y is a result of macroevolution, having come from many stages of microevolution. On the other hand, if the environment between x and y barely changed, you might find that species y is almost exacly the same as the original x, (both cases having microevolved the same number of times over the same time period) thus you would say that it is still the same microevolved x.
I must not go there. Must concentrate on my tasks at hand. Have a nice day, bye.
Common creator and common ancestor are NOT incompatible. Creator-ancestor-me. Simple and crude, but it goes back to my point of the workings of God and creation.
Evolution is not trying to undo creation even if some atheistic scientist might be. Atheism is fraught with it's own problems, it is wholly dissatisfying from a philosophical/rational interogation, and it exposes a psychological trauma on the other end of the spectrum from that exhibited by creationists.
Evolution is science in the same way that Newton is physics. We have found many intricate difficulties with Newton, but that does not mean his observations were incorrect or useless. We just know a lot more than Newton did, and can fathom cases that were beyond imagination at the time. So we refine our thinking and test our cases untill we can describe more and more detailed phenomena. Likewise, we know more about the development of species than we did before -- we know that evolution is not linear or smooth -- and we have more difficulties because we're dealing with more information and none of it is complete.
Those doctors of yours are involved in very poor/hasty 'scientific' reconing. They are not helping their religions, they are only hurting them by preserving the same hastiness and wilfull ignorance the turns people from religions in the first place.
The scientist is NOT trying to describe the moral character of God, he's trying to understand the workings of existence. The Biblical writer is not trying to understand 'nature' he's trying to reckon the moral character of God (and community and man). Both are huge undertakings. The discourse of 'days' is useful for the Biblical writer because it purchases a neccessary economy of language (by sacrificing scientific accuracy.)
It's a good trade, for the Bible proceeds down a different path than science: 'Truth' is historical in places and metaphorical in others, but always it is emotional and psychological. Your interactions then make it intellectual and spiritual.
The bible is not a table or a research paper and thank God for that.
I should more carefully expand this, but I can't get excited about the prospect on banging my head against a wall. Creationists really need some socio-psychological help, but I'm not the one to lead your collective group therapy session.
<strong>
If so Show Me I want to see it!!!!!
[ 08-18-2002: Message edited by: FellowshipChurch iBook ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, you have to go to a museum, study some books, learn about it, and the evidence is all around.
It would be nice to see some evidence of god besides the bible. If god is powerful enough to beam planets from his forehead, why not prove it once and for all and get it over with?
Because his power resides in faith? At least evolution, galaxy formations, other planets, and the fact that the earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa (as religion used to kill people for until it was proven wrong on that front as well) can be proven. Or do you not believe that either?
Sheesh. I'm done here. Ignorance must be bliss. Men living with dinosaurs... <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />