Evolution or Creation?

[4dmin]

Please choose and explain what you consider the life of the common frog?

http://www.ipcc.ie/lifecycle.jpeg

[metalman]

Nothing more then procreation in action, preservation of specie...not NEW one.
Frogs make more frogs...and so on.

Now, what about the polonium halos with a lifespan of nanoseconds FROZEN in rock??
No way to freeze something lasting a nano second UNLESS....hmmm...thats right...you create the granite instantly!!! Only one "theory" for that...and its not evolution. ;)

Before you get too involved in frogs there are many other scientific questions that need answers!! :D

[GsrTurbo320]

hmm..

[{X}Echo419]

the universe didn't just "happen" out of nothing.

[aaronfelipe]

Evolution

[Killer]

it's creation.... just because it takes time for the frog to take shape doesn't mean it's evolution....

[ISAtlanta300]

Creation.... then growth.

[4dmin]

Ok for you people who say CREATION? You think the frog just came out of nothing? If that is your logic then why aren't we asexual?

[David88vert]

Both are principles of religion based upon faith. Neither is proveable.

Creationism is a building block principal of Christianity. You cannot prove that it happened, nor can you disprove it. You can only choose to believe or not to believe. That is a personal choice for each individual.

Evolution is a building block of Atheism. Again, it comes down to a personal choice.

[4dmin]

Please edit. I have no idea what you just asked. :-p

what i'm saying is there is not fucking magical hat for life !POOF! why do we have reproductive organs if creation is the how we exsist?

[Kelly]

This may be a question that we won't know the exact answer for until we get to Heaven. God gave us this "gift" to be used as an act of intimacy between a HUSBAND and his WIFE. As for animals- I'm not sure why they aren't all asexual to be honest.

[metalman]

I would add...
Sexuality was given not only as "an act of intimacy" but for humans to be part of the creative process as well. If you study human relations you will also find that human sexual intimacy also plays a major role in the bond between two people. It is a muti "purpose" feature. ;)
"be fruitful and multiply...."

[Kelly]

True...

[{X}Echo419]

... if creation is the how we exsist?

is this an Abbot and Costello routine?

[David88vert]

As for animals- I'm not sure why they aren't all asexual to be honest.

It's so you can see the right way to do it "doggy-style" .... :D

[David88vert]

Please choose and explain what you consider the life of the common frog?

http://www.ipcc.ie/lifecycle.jpeg

Frogs mate and lay eggs. Just like chickens.
Frog legs taste like chicken, or do chicken legs taste like frog? :)
Has nothing to do with evolution.....
http://allaboutfrogs.org/weird/general/cycle.html

http://allaboutfrogs.org/weird/pictures/mate1.jpg

[Z33_kid]

sorry if im wrong but i tink evolution thtts juss my opinion

[AWD OWNZ U]

As for animals- I'm not sure why they aren't all asexual to be honest.

The children of conservative parents have to learn about sex from somewhere, since their parents won't tell them anything but not to do it. Why do you think guys always want to hit it from behind? Because that's how they do it on animal planet baby. Think of nature as God's Pre-K sex-ed class.

[TallGuy]

Both are principles of religion based upon faith. Neither is proveable.

Creationism is a building block principal of Christianity. You cannot prove that it happened, nor can you disprove it. You can only choose to believe or not to believe. That is a personal choice for each individual.

Evolution is a building block of Atheism. Again, it comes down to a personal choice.
:goodjob:

[babowc]

so.. someone really believes we, meaning the first humans, came from a single cell?
and... we turned into monkeys, then somehow, evolutions took us to become humans?

soudns a bit off to me..
im not here to prove/disprove, but God made us with dirt, we shed skin cells which in turn, turn into dust.
we get cremated (SP?) and we turn into dust.

...maybe a coincidence..?

[AWD OWNZ U]

so.. someone really believes we, meaning the first humans, came from a single cell?

Scientific fact my friend. What do you think babies start out as babies? Nope, they begin as a single egg cell. So people already start as a single cell, no reason to believe we couldn't evolve from one as well.

[babowc]

the cells inside a mother's womb generates because of the nutrition and necessary needs are fulfilled by the mother to the fetus.

so, we're all somehow connected to the insects crawling outside of your house?
do you really believe that?

[4dmin]

the cells inside a mother's womb generates because of the nutrition and necessary needs are fulfilled by the mother to the fetus.

so, we're all somehow connected to the insects crawling outside of your house?
do you really believe that?

have you ever seen the movie gattica? ya well we aren't far from being able to do that, considering the advancements we have made w/ dna/cloning... so yes we are all connected by single cell, in some form.

[babowc]

sorry, i havent seen that movie before.
i dont think they've succesfully cloned a human yet, have they?
i'm korean and im ashamed to say some idiot korean doctor lied to the press about the regenerating stem cell (iirc?) research.

people are tryingto play God.

[4dmin]

man has always played GOD and will always ;)

[metalman]

Scientific fact my friend. What do you think babies start out as babies? Nope, they begin as a single egg cell. So people already start as a single cell, no reason to believe we couldn't evolve from one as well.

Well...except for the mountain of OBVIOUS evidence against it. ;)

[Decker1.8t]

evolution

[NEONRACER]

Did evolution happen the way science says it does, probably not. Did creation take place, of course not. Will we ever know the real truth? Yes, but not in our lifetime.

[NEONRACER]

Just for the record there is no shred of evidence to back up religion. No matter what argurment is brought to dispute this statement you will fail. You talk about no scientific evidence to support evolution but you actually have less to support creation.

[Jaimecbr900]

This age long argument is nothing more than reverse engineering IMO.

Just because you can DUPLICATE something doesn't mean YOU created the original........ ;)

In 500 years if there are people still around, a Scientist will come up with yet another marvelous theory on how we all got here today :rolleyes: .

Just as has been mentioned already, and I've said in a gazillion other discussions in this forum, a lot if not all our debates boil down to one basic thing; FAITH. Trying to logically explain something that defies logic is like putting someone in a round room and tell them to go sit in the corner......can't be done. :D

[metalman]

Just for the record there is no shred of evidence to back up religion. No matter what argurment is brought to dispute this statement you will fail. You talk about no scientific evidence to support evolution but you actually have less to support creation.

You obviously havent read some of the scientific evidence already mentioned in this and other threads. There is actually more to support creation then evolution. You can start with polonium halos. When youre done explaning how those fit with evolution there is alot more. ;)


I have NO problem with people believing in evolution, its the false information they often share regarding "evidence" that I find objectionable.

[AWD OWNZ U]

You can start with polonium halos. When youre done explaning how those fit with evolution there is alot more. ;)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html

Next.

[metalman]

You obviously have not studied the scientists papers in question...and I would suggest you didnt study carefully the so called "refuted" evidence either. Nearly everything that is "refuted" by these scientists has already been addressed, even YEARS ago by the scientist in question. The scientists doing the refuting have been shown to largely be unfamilair with the evidence already presented in scientific journals and elsewhere. BUT....I wouldnt expect anyone who does a quick google search/cut/paste to know that. ;)

[metalman]

The real fuel for the debate AGAINST a creative origin lies with one primary issue... the HOPE man clings to that their is no God, no judgement, accountibility...etc etc
People do not wish to face the POSSIBILITY of any of that. They do not wish to study into what truth may be or sift through the various religions to sort out the BS from fact. Thats too much work. Its too overwhelming.

This is much like smokers/tobacco companies did for over 100 years, they continued to IGNORE the plain evidence right in front of them for a hope that tobacco wasnt a cause for illness and death when in fact the evidence and proof was right in front of them the whole time. Some people acknowledged this, the majority did not.
Same with creation science...most people are happier believing what they HOPE is the fact rather then to investigate with an open mind to see what IS the fact....or to even ACKNOWLEGE the evidence for it in even a small way. ;)

[NEONRACER]

Actually it is the fact that you are too scared to admit that when you die you die. You need to cling ot the hope that there is a heaven that you will spend eternity in. Will you remember your life on earth? What will you do in heaven? Some people need the fear of hell to keep them in line. Do you even know if your religion is right? Remember everyone believes there religion will get them into heaven and all the others are evil, which one are you? Do you even know?

[metalman]

You obviously know nothing about me. :)

I have never offered any church/denomination/religion as the "only one". I do know however that there is truth and there is error. I have no problem examining the facts to see what is what. And yes, I have learned alot about what is true and what isnt. Many (perhaps you I dont know) simply reject any possibility theyre not familiar with without any investigation and for the above reasons I already mentioned.


Also, I too reject the notion that one needs fear of hell etc to keep one in line. That is a problem that many churches have and even teach for the most part....probably largely due to catholic influence. In fact I reject most all of the commonly held beliefs of what hell is, and how its taught as nonsense. But then again, a simple understanding of english and reading just the Bible would tell that in a NY minute, not to mention the logic. So nothing of that sort motivates me.

But all of this aside...we still have MUCH scienctific evidence for creation as an origin.
THAT can't just be swept under the rug although obviously many like to do that. ;)

[4dmin]

What i don't get is all of the people trying to refute the LIFE CYCLE AS I POSTED as creation? If it is truely creation at hand:

WHY DO WE NEED REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS? god is so great he can do it w/o the intervention of man.

IF IT IS CREATION WHY DO YOU HAVE TO EVOLVE INTO A FORM? god could just BAM you are a man, no need for sperm to egg to..

IF IT IS CREATION WHY ARE WE NOT ASEXUAL? there is no need for sex to begin with, your precious bible tells the story of Mary, when was the last time you saw a pregnant virgin?

Some of you need to get a clue, you can call it any name you want but the life cycle is evolution... as i stated in previous post, you can call an apple an orange but its still an apple. I find it amazing i dont' believe in your god yet i can amount life to some divine intervention to start the process and evolution takes over; yet there has not been one of you to say the same :jerkit: . Its like your world would come crashing down if the thought of evolution exsisting at all... you guys are blinded by faith.

[metalman]

... you guys are blinded by faith.

I dont think its any faith thats the issue here...its the lack of any compelling information in your argument that leads to others remaining unconvinced.
You simply have shown that life can be re-created/reproduced from one cell, one egg, one embryo etc etc. That is ALL in complete harmony with a creative origin of the FIRST CELL/LIFEFORM...period. The subsequent adaptation, reproduction, etc etc of lifeforms is not itself at all compelling as evidence for non creative origin of those lifeforms...which is the central thesis of evolutuon.

[babowc]

lots of things in the bible can be proved SCIENTIFICALLY.
if thats what you need.

i knew a few.. but i forget.. i'll post em next sunday or something
i have to go ask my pastor

[metalman]

lots of things in the bible can be proved SCIENTIFICALLY.
if thats what you need.

i knew a few.. but i forget.. i'll post em next sunday or something
i have to go ask my pastor

LOL... :D For your sake I hope youre joking!

I am aware of many things Biblical that are proven by science.
However, relying on any pastor/priest/rabbi/guru/minister/deacon/elder etc to tell you what to believe or think is VERY bad news to say the very least.

[4dmin]

I dont think its any faith thats the issue here...its the lack of any compelling information in your argument that leads to others remaining unconvinced.
You simply have shown that life can be re-created/reproduced from one cell, one egg, one embryo etc etc. That is ALL in complete harmony with a creative origin of the FIRST CELL/LIFEFORM...period. The subsequent adaptation, reproduction, etc etc of lifeforms is not itself at all compelling as evidence for non creative origin of those lifeforms...which is the central thesis of evolutuon.

^ what are you babbling about? you are doing everything possible to not use the word evolution so your not wrong. Adaptaion and reproduction is evolution. Like i said you can call it what you want but its evolution; you still to answer 3 question i've brought up about reproduction.

Also the BIG BANG i guess you forgot that, its about as proven as Creation.

[metalman]

^ what are you babbling about? you are doing everything possible to not use the word evolution so your not wrong. Adaptaion and reproduction is evolution. Like i said you can call it what you want but its evolution; you still to answer 3 question i've brought up about reproduction.

Also the BIG BANG i guess you forgot that, its about as proven as Creation.

I have already acknowleged evolution in that form more then once.

Big bang proven??? Something (cells/lifeforms from NOTHING)LOLOLOLOLOL......yeahhhhhhhhh right. Now youre cracking me up!!
Talk about faith!! And...HOPE! Better have ALOT of faith in scientists who want you to use carbon dating for time measurments when such has been proven to be less accurate then a broken clock with no hands!

Yet...in another sense they may be right...in Genesis God spoke...and BANG it was! Hows that for a big bang?? ;)

[metalman]

What evolutionists (those who believe life came from nothing over time) fail to acknowlege is that the whole house of evolutionary theory is like a house with a foundation of loosely packed sand. First you have radio carbon dating, a "science" used by evolutionists to show how old soemthing is. This is so HIGHLY inaccurate it would be disposed of quicker then a used tampon IF there was anything else to cling evolutionary hope upon.

THEN you have the fossil record of strata where in one layer there is NO life, and the next layer there is ABUNDANT lifeforms of a complex nature. This scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor or CREATION!! Bam!! Kick it up a notch creation!! Interestingly enought within this same layer you find halos frozen within the rock which lasted only nanoseconds.....no way for these to be present if rock took millions of years to "evolve" as some would have us beleive.....MORE science!! One doesnt even need to examine the rest of the science to see what this does to the foundation of evolution. Its completely swept away.......................whoosh!! Just like ANY house built on a flimsy foundation.

But...everyone....believe whatever you wish, thats cool with me...we all have choice...I treasure individual freedom and choice....just dont tell me the evidence is in favor of what its not. ;)

[4dmin]

I have already acknowleged evolution in that form more then once.

Big bang proven??? Something (cells/lifeforms from NOTHING)LOLOLOLOLOL......yeahhhhhhhhh right. Now youre cracking me up!!
Talk about faith!! And...HOPE! Better have ALOT of faith in scientists who want you to use carbon dating for time measurments when such has been proven to be less accurate then a broken clock with no hands!

Yet...in another sense they may be right...in Genesis God spoke...and BANG it was! Hows that for a big bang?? ;)

Big bang was a joke tard, much as the idea of the Creation you are grasping hold of... i guess your god is like a magician he just pulled everything out of a hat. thats how you got here right? Creation can't be proven any further than a book written by man that is not even 2000 years old. :jerkit:

[metalman]

Big bang was a joke tard, much as the idea of the Creation you are grasping hold of... i guess your god is like a magician he just pulled everything out of a hat. thats how you got here right? Creation can't be proven any further than a book written by man that is not even 2000 years old. :jerkit:

Youre free to whatever opinion you wish to hold.
The only thing I will repeat to you is this....there is MORE scientific evidence for a god that pulled the universe out of a hat then for a universe that "evolved" from nothing. Period.

Which brings us full circle to another discussion....it takes MORE faith to believe in evolutionary theory then creation theory...based upon the evidence. ;)

[Jaimecbr900]

How is reproduction tied into proving evolution exactly?

Even Adam and Eve had to reproduce to populate the world....?

I understand the loose point you are making about how "God" should just snap his fingers and things should merely happen, but that is another discussion all together. Couldn't we use the same loose knit argument that IF there really was a "big bang" or "single cell origination", how come there are no spontaneous species popping up or another "big bang" ever happened again? In other words, if we all evolved from mindless single cell organisms and mindless single celled organisms STILL exist today.....how come you don't see spontaneous copies of what happened billions of years ago? Are today's single celled organisms suddenly "smarter" than their ancestors???

IF God suddenly parted the sky and had a deep loud voice like in the movies and performed miracles daily, why wouldn't everyone "believe" then? Much like logical and real world, things don't get handed off to you without having to do something for it. In the religious realm and based on what you believe is what determines how much you have to "do" to get what you want. It's not a blind race. There is a road map, but it's only understandable if you READ the road map, otherwise it IS a blind race.

Point is that all non-believers have been waiting for the irrefutable "sign" for millenia. Again, it's a gamble everyone plays in their lifetime. Some choose to believe, while others don't. Just like any gamble, there are winners and there are losers. Everyone should place their bet on what they truly believe in their own heart regardless of what everyone else around them thinks.

This also applies to evolution and creationism IMO.

[4dmin]

Which brings us full circle to another discussion....it takes MORE faith to believe in evolutionary theory then creation theory...based upon the evidence. ;)


OK, there was a simple question presented and you have still have yet to prove the fact that a life cycle is creation.

[4dmin]

Even Adam and Eve had to reproduce to populate the world....?
that is fine but the question wasn't did they reproduce, what is the life cycle evolution or creation? there is far more facts to point out the obvious it is evolution. it is that far out of the box for you to believe that even your god could of created evolution?


I understand the loose point you are making about how "God" should just snap his fingers and things should merely happen, but that is another discussion all together. Couldn't we use the same loose knit argument that IF there really was a "big bang" or "single cell origination", how come there are no spontaneous species popping up or another "big bang" ever happened again? In other words, if we all evolved from mindless single cell organisms and mindless single celled organisms STILL exist today.....how come you don't see spontaneous copies of what happened billions of years ago? Are today's single celled organisms suddenly "smarter" than their ancestors??? Yes, you sir are a single celled organism that is now evolved into a complex organism, you are smarter today then you were as a fetus are you not?


Point is that all non-believers have been waiting for the irrefutable "sign" for millenia. Again, it's a gamble everyone plays in their lifetime. Some choose to believe, while others don't. Just like any gamble, there are winners and there are losers. Everyone should place their bet on what they truly believe in their own heart regardless of what everyone else around them thinks. hmm no, i'm a non believer and i'm not awaiting anything, if i was waiting for a sign i would be christian. but i still find it amazing that with proven facts of life given in front of you for the sake of argueing christians like yourself are trying to state that the life cycle is creation when it is far from it.

[babowc]

dont understand why its so bad to ask a pastor about things in the bible that has been scientifically proven.
we're not promoting science, we're stating for all you un-believers that its been proven by science, since it would be the only thing people would believe.

well said jamiecbr900

[metalman]

IF God suddenly parted the sky and had a deep loud voice like in the movies and performed miracles daily, why wouldn't everyone "believe" then? ....
Point is that all non-believers have been waiting for the irrefutable "sign" for millenia.

Sad thing is that if indeed God appeared Himself in person to declare His creation and prove His existence still MOST would choose not to believe for one reason or another. The primary reason being MAN DOESNT WANT ACCOUNTABILITY to a HIGHER AUTHORITY!

And IF one believes the Bible then the other sad fact is that by the time He does appear in person it will be too late, just like it was too late for those who didnt believe it would rain in Noahs day.

[4dmin]

dont understand why its so bad to ask a pastor about things in the bible that has been scientifically proven.
we're not promoting science, we're stating for all you un-believers that its been proven by science, since it would be the only thing people would believe.

well said jamiecbr900

i think the point was why dont' you get the answers yourself.

:thinking: what has been proven by science... that Jesus lived? DNA advancements have come pretty far, but i dont' think that has happened yet :goodjob:

[metalman]

dont understand why its so bad to ask a pastor about things in the bible that has been scientifically proven.


Wasnt meant as a personal attack upon you or your pastor. Its a statement in general of what I see as a MAJOR issue within christianity & churches of all denominations. Most people dont study for themselves....just ask the pastor.
If one believes the Bible they should do what it says right?? And it says study for yourself! ;)

[bigdare23]

Both are principles of religion based upon faith. Neither is proveable.

Creationism is a building block principal of Christianity. You cannot prove that it happened, nor can you disprove it. You can only choose to believe or not to believe. That is a personal choice for each individual.

Evolution is a building block of Atheism. Again, it comes down to a personal choice.

I agree 100% :goodjob:

[4dmin]

Sad thing is that if indeed God appeared Himself in person to declare His creation and prove His existence still MOST would choose not to believe for one reason or another. The primary reason being MAN DOESNT WANT ACCOUNTABILITY to a HIGHER AUTHORITY!

And IF one believes the Bible then the other sad fact is that by the time He does appear in person it will be too late, just like it was too late for those who didnt believe it would rain in Noahs day.


:lmfao: this is fucking retarded now. THERE IS NO SPOON. Right.

http://www.matrixmania.com/photopost/data/515/4486The_Spoon-med.jpg

[Jaimecbr900]

that is fine but the question wasn't did they reproduce, what is the life cycle evolution or creation? there is far more facts to point out the obvious it is evolution. it is that far out of the box for you to believe that even your god could of created evolution?

You'll have to expand on that because I don't quite follow you there.



Yes, you sir are a single celled organism that is now evolved into a complex organism, you are smarter today then you were as a fetus are you not?

True, but to believe evolution you'd have to believe that a mindless single celled organism not only created life, but all other living organisms too. If you believe that, then basically what you are saying is that evolution went something a little like this: "big bang"->single celled organism->everything from dirt to sky develops over a quintillion millenia into what we have today. That just doesn't logically make any sense to me. You may be able to reverse engineer a lot of things, but how a single cell makes a "cloud" or "wind" or "mountains" or even the "stars" has yet to be done. Isn't it too simplistic to merely say.....it all started with a "bang"???? I'm with metalman.....the only "bang" was when God said, "let there be light....". :D


hmm no, i'm a non believer and i'm not awaiting anything, if i was waiting for a sign i would be christian. but i still find it amazing that with proven facts of life given in front of you for the sake of argueing christians like yourself are trying to state that the life cycle is creation when it is far from it.

Yes you are. You just won't admit it, and I'll prove it to you.

If God himself would part the sky one day and speak down to everyone (like in the movies), I'm 100% certain you'd believe THEN he existed, right? Only a fool would question it then, right? I know you're neither a fool nor stupid. So therefore IF that were to ever happen you'd completely have to rethink your stance on this subject, right? So you, my friend, are in fact waiting for that "sign" in order to change your mind about this.

You know I'm a Christian. I'm not waiting for any sign what-so-ever to "believe". So you are way wrong there. I've been convinced long ago about what to believe and not believe as my core belief system. I've changed churches. I've even changed some things I used to think were OK and now I don't. But my CORE belief remains intact. So to say that "Christians" are waiting for some sign is actually ironic because Christians are actually the only ones that are ALREADY CONVINCED...... ;)

[Jaimecbr900]

Sad thing is that if indeed God appeared Himself in person to declare His creation and prove His existence still MOST would choose not to believe for one reason or another. The primary reason being MAN DOESNT WANT ACCOUNTABILITY to a HIGHER AUTHORITY!

And IF one believes the Bible then the other sad fact is that by the time He does appear in person it will be too late, just like it was too late for those who didnt believe it would rain in Noahs day.

The funny thing is that I almost typed the exact same response a little while ago. I was trying to show how people always want this full proof "sign" in order to fully commit to the idea of "God", but yet by the time that "sign" shows up it will be too late.

[metalman]

:lmfao: this is fucking retarded now. THERE IS NO SPOON. Right.

http://www.matrixmania.com/photopost/data/515/4486The_Spoon-med.jpg

If you have no response other then that I would suggest you have not much of a case for your opinion. Yet I support your right to believe whatever you wish. But...time will tell wont it..... ;)

I must also say that some (perhaps you too, perhaps not) have asked the impossible.
That being....prove something that you will not aknowlege any proof for or have an open mind to even being a possibilty.

Sorta like if I drove up in a 65 Vette and stepped out telling you that its my car. To which you respond.."I dont believe it"
I say.."It is...I just drove up in it...I have had it for 2 years"
You say..."I dont believe it"
The problem isnt with the "proof" the problem is you dont accept it....just keep saying I dont believe.

This happens alot within the creation vs evolution discussion. People present science that leans well toward creation yet others just keep repeating..."I dont believe it".
Well fine...why ask for the proof then?????? Why ask for evidence that wont be considered?? Why ask for proof for a theory one will never believe in regardless OF the evidence??
Again, this may or may not be you but it IS the prevelant "argument" against creation as an origin of life. And its not much of one. ;)

[4dmin]

True, but to believe evolution you'd have to believe that a mindless single celled organism not only created life, but all other living organisms too. If you believe that, then basically what you are saying is that evolution went something a little like this: "big bang"->single celled organism->everything from dirt to sky develops over a quintillion millenia into what we have today. That just doesn't logically make any sense to me. You may be able to reverse engineer a lot of things, but how a single cell makes a "cloud" or "wind" or "mountains" or even the "stars" has yet to be done. Isn't it too simplistic to merely say.....it all started with a "bang"???? I'm with metalman.....the only "bang" was when God said, "let there be light....".

You are incorrect by stating that, i for one believe in Creation then Evolution, they can and have worked hand and hand. I have stated this many times already as my stance on the subject.

Now, the issue at hand is just the life cycle, we are not discussing exsistance, please reread the first post. The life cycle is evolution, it is a process or recreation and evolving into a greater form. Hence the word CYCLE.



Yes you are. You just won't admit it, and I'll prove it to you.

If God himself would part the sky one day and speak down to everyone (like in the movies), I'm 100% certain you'd believe THEN he existed, right? Only a fool would question it then, right? I know you're neither a fool nor stupid. So therefore IF that were to ever happen you'd completely have to rethink your stance on this subject, right? So you, my friend, are in fact waiting for that "sign" in order to change your mind about this.

waiting would imply i want something... i want and desire nothing, i'm fine with parting my shell and cease to exsist. i plan on become dust as your book describes. but the chance that i am wrong and the CHRISTIAN idea of heaven/god is real would i accept it yes... why b/c who wouldn't???

that would be like Jehova coming down and offering me a slot out of the 144,000 going to heaven and me turning it down. Is anyone that stupid. But that doesn't make me waiting for a sign from Jehova either. ;)

[Jaimecbr900]

If you have no response other then that I would suggest you have not much of a case for your opinion. Yet I support your right to believe whatever you wish. But...time will tell wont it..... ;)

I must also say that some (perhaps you too, perhaps not) have asked the impossible.
That being....prove something that you will not aknowlege any proof for or have an open mind to even being a possibilty.

Sorta like if I drove up in a 65 Vette and stepped out telling you that its my car. To which you respond.."I dont believe it"
I say.."It is...I just drove up in it...I have had it for 2 years"
You say..."I dont believe it"
The problem isnt with the "proof" the problem is you dont accept it....just keep saying I dont believe.

This happens alot within the creation vs evolution discussion. People present science that leans well toward creation yet others just keep repeating..."I dont believe it".
Well fine...why ask for the proof then?????? Why ask for evidence that wont be considered?? Why ask for proof for a theory one will never believe in regardless OF the evidence??
Again, this may or may not be you but it IS the prevelant "argument" against creation as an origin of life. And its not much of one. ;)




+1 billion for you for that comment right there.

I've been saying the exact same thing on this forum since it's beginning.

There have been many people that have presented evidence for everything from the accuracy of the Bible to whether or not Jesus even existed, yet at every turn someone tries to merely squash that by saying, "nope, I still don't believe...".

I said it before and I'll say it again....everyone has to make up their own mind what speaks to their hearts and what doesn't. "Proof", like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Proof for me may not be proof for Paul, yet it doesn't change the fact that I have reached a point where proof is no longer necessary for me to believe. He obviously hasn't got to the that same conclusion, which is fine.....for now ;) . Judgement will only come once....ready or not...... ;)

[4dmin]

If you have no response other then that I would suggest you have not much of a case for your opinion. Yet I support your right to believe whatever you wish. But...time will tell wont it..... ;)

I must also say that some (perhaps you too, perhaps not) have asked the impossible.
That being....prove something that you will not aknowlege any proof for or have an open mind to even being a possibilty.

Sorta like if I drove up in a 65 Vette and stepped out telling you that its my car. To which you respond.."I dont believe it"
I say.."It is...I just drove up in it...I have had it for 2 years"
You say..."I dont believe it"
The problem isnt with the "proof" the problem is you dont accept it....just keep saying I dont believe.

This happens alot within the creation vs evolution discussion. People present science that leans well toward creation yet others just keep repeating..."I dont believe it".
Well fine...why ask for the proof then?????? Why ask for evidence that wont be considered?? Why ask for proof for a theory one will never believe in regardless OF the evidence??
Again, this may or may not be you but it IS the prevelant "argument" against creation as an origin of life. And its not much of one. ;)

you should really listen to yourself when you speak... i got respect for you on almost every topic but this. if you owned a vette you could prove it thats the point. Every heard of a title/insurance :thinking:

YOU CAN NOT PROVE THAT YOU WERE BROUGHT HERE BY CREATION. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE BEGINING OF MAN I'M TALKING ABOUT YOU, PHYSICAL YOU.

Your parents are already apart of a process of adaptation which is evolution which then in return created you. There was not hand of creator involved in the process. If you can see it, touch it, then it is real. If there was no evolution to life we would all be sperm.

We can discuss this all day but i have given you all of the facts to support my stance, and i have repeadily asked you questions about ASEXUAL and REPORDUCTIVE ORGANS. You can still not tell me why we have such if we are all here individually by creation.

You have done nothing but twist the original question to prove your point of existance not the life cycle.

[Jaimecbr900]

You are incorrect by stating that, i for one believe in Creation then Evolution, they can and have worked hand and hand. I have stated this many times already as my stance on the subject.

Ok Paul....you're gonna have to work a little bit on your grammar on that one because I think I know what you're trying to say but some words are missing somewhere.... :thinking:


Now, the issue at hand is just the life cycle, we are not discussing exsistance, please reread the first post. The life cycle is evolution, it is a process or recreation and evolving into a greater form. Hence the word CYCLE.

I'm going to use some of your wording against you here:

Evolution can also imply that something is evolving into something different and possibly even better. So how is the frog in your example any different or any better by having been egg-tadpole-frog-dead? So how did it "evolve" into anything other than what it was since the beginning? Are frogs now better or smarter than frogs in the middle ages? Only animals that have the equipment to can and do evolve from their predecessors. Rocks now are the same kind of rocks as 1000 years ago (for the most part). How did the sky evolve from the sky of 1000 years ago? How did the dirt evolve from a 1000 years ago?

So how is a frog's life cycle proving that evolution is how all of us beings came about?




waiting would imply i want something... i want and desire nothing, i'm fine with parting my shell and cease to exsist. i plan on become dust as your book describes. but the chance that i am wrong and the CHRISTIAN idea of heaven/god is real would i accept it yes... why b/c who wouldn't???

that would be like Jehova coming down and offering me a slot out of the 144,000 going to heaven and me turning it down. Is anyone that stupid. But that doesn't make me waiting for a sign from Jehova either. ;)

Well, I think you missed my point.

I was pointing out how IF you ever got that one great "sign" that would unequivacly (sp?) change your mind about "God", it would not only be something you were waiting for but also too late. ;)

You can't have it both ways. Live your entire life fully believing there is no "God", only to then die and come to your judgement day and suddenly you're like, "DOOOHHHHH, I guess I believe now that I finally get to "see" you...." Things don't work that way. You have to believe BEFORE you get to that point, and that is EXACTLY the point.......... ;) :D

[NEONRACER]

Adam and Eve did not re-populate the world. According to the story they Had 2 sons and that was all. So here we have 3 men and 1 female and they are all family. Sounds like incest to me. It shouldn't matter what adam and eve did because their offspring were killed and the world was re-populated by Noah and his family which again is a story of incest. Creation and the stories of the bible don't add up, they say one thing and do another.

[metalman]

YOU CAN NOT PROVE THAT YOU WERE BROUGHT HERE BY CREATION. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE BEGINING OF MAN I'M TALKING ABOUT YOU, PHYSICAL YOU.



Well therein lies the problem. Its the origin of mankind/life that I am addressing. That is the only one that really matters.




Your parents are already apart of a process of adaptation which is evolution which then in return created you. There was not hand of creator involved in the process. If you can see it, touch it, then it is real. If there was no evolution to life we would all be sperm.


Here is where your logic falls flat. Sorry dude...it doesnt add up.
There is the hand of a creator in EVERY life, He is in fact the source of all life, He gave humans the sperm and all needed components to reproduce themselves in His image and by His power. Failure to recognize the source of that power is the problem. The Bible teaches this very clearly, and the scientific facts as I have previously stated, back up the Bible account of Creation and origin of life & reproduction exactly as outlined in Genesis. Although a measure of faith is needed there is plenty of evidence for anyone WILLING to SEE. ;)
The very miraculous nature of human reproduction, the numerous delicate perfectly balanced systems involved in that alone, ALL point to ITELLIGENT DESIGN of that process and a Creator God who gives the universe its life.

[metalman]

Adam and Eve did not re-populate the world. .

One smart thing you've said.
Youre right...they didnt RE populate it...they populated it. ;)

Your failure to understand how two can make any number of offspring is beside the point. "Incest" as you put it...is a good thing...WHEN the species is perfect.

[Jaimecbr900]

you should really listen to yourself when you speak... i got respect for you on almost every topic but this. if you owned a vette you could prove it thats the point. Every heard of a title/insurance :thinking:

YOU CAN NOT PROVE THAT YOU WERE BROUGHT HERE BY CREATION. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE BEGINING OF MAN I'M TALKING ABOUT YOU, PHYSICAL YOU.

Your parents are already apart of a process of adaptation which is evolution which then in return created you. There was not hand of creator involved in the process. If you can see it, touch it, then it is real. If there was no evolution to life we would all be sperm.

We can discuss this all day but i have given you all of the facts to support my stance, and i have repeadily asked you questions about ASEXUAL and REPORDUCTIVE ORGANS. You can still not tell me why we have such if we are all here individually by creation.

You have done nothing but twist the original question to prove your point of existance not the life cycle.


But wait....that is completely different than someone saying they believe in one or the other. What you are inferring there is that TODAY we "evolve" and reproduce as humans, but how is THAT related to the beginning of time?

The Evolution vs Creation argument is based on the beginning of time, not today.

[4dmin]

Ok Paul....you're gonna have to work a little bit on your grammar on that one because I think I know what you're trying to say but some words are missing somewhere..

i'm thinking too fast to type everything out how i say it in my head :D


Evolution can also imply that something is evolving into something different and possibly even better. So how is the frog in your example any different or any better by having been egg-tadpole-frog-dead? So how did it "evolve" into anything other than what it was since the beginning? Are frogs now better or smarter than frogs in the middle ages? Only animals that have the equipment to can and do evolve from their predecessors. Rocks now are the same kind of rocks as 1000 years ago (for the most part). How did the sky evolve from the sky of 1000 years ago? How did the dirt evolve from a 1000 years ago?

So how is a frog's life cycle proving that evolution is how all of us beings came about?
that is easy, the cycle of a frog was used as an example but all life uses the same process as even stated by METALMAN - "ADAPTATION" which is nothing more than a form of evolving. the frog in form of tad pole breaths under water, eventually grows legs, then breaths air through lungs. that is evolution. how is it different then say a from 100 years ago, well the enviroment has changed so yet so shall the species.


You can't have it both ways. Live your entire life fully believing there is no "God", only to then die and come to your judgement day and suddenly you're like, "DOOOHHHHH, I guess I believe now that I finally get to "see" you...." Things don't work that way. You have to believe BEFORE you get to that point, and that is EXACTLY the point.......... And you know this how Jaime? You've died before, you've met your maker, what...? I don't believe in god and i have nothing to fear in death b/c i dont' believe in your heaven/hell or your book, so i can believe exactly what i want. ;)

[NEONRACER]

Now that statement was, well...

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/christianity_adamandeve.html

Incest is not acceptable and that is not how the world was populated.


Religion is a cult that uses brainwashing to control it's people. Even though there is no scientific proof to back up the bible. There is no shred of evidence to support it, religion is the king of everything. Muslims are wrong, Christians are wrong, the Catholic Church is wrong. Guess what they are all wrong. Instead of buying into what you have been taught is accpetable, look at the world and research for yourself with an open mind the world's history. It is all right there for you to see. The evidence to support creation doesn't exist. You keep dwelling on one small unexplainable occurance to support creation. If all you have is rocks to support your theory, then you are sadly misinformed. Look around you, look into the night sky and see how very small we are in the universe. God was around way before the bible, in every culture. They were all proven to be false.

[4dmin]

But wait....that is completely different than someone saying they believe in one or the other. What you are inferring there is that TODAY we "evolve" and reproduce as humans, but how is THAT related to the beginning of time?

The Evolution vs Creation argument is based on the beginning of time, not today.

your still taking out of context the original question at hand... THE LIFE CYCLE OF THE FROG? Where did i ask how the frog got here? I dont' give a shit about BIG BANG, GOD, whatever... i asked about the on going LIFE CYCLE. If you can't see that there is evolution at hand in that photo i posted then you are blind.

[4dmin]

Incest is not acceptable and that is not how the world was populated.

if you believe in the bible that is how we got here, Adam/Eve, Noah & his family, etc... sorry to break it to ya, its ok for you to fuck your sister :lmao:

ITS IN THE BIBLE.

[Jaimecbr900]

i'm thinking too fast to type everything out how i say it in my head :D

It happens. :D


that is easy, the cycle of a frog was used as an example but all life uses the same process as even stated by METALMAN - "ADAPTATION" which is nothing more than a form of evolving. the frog in form of tad pole breaths under water, eventually grows legs, then breaths air through lungs. that is evolution. how is it different then say a from 100 years ago, well the enviroment has changed so yet so shall the species.

Ok, again, I think we are referring to two different things. I'm starting to see you are talking about evolution in today's form, while I was talking about evolution as the theory of the beginning of mankind.

My point still is: what about the FIRST frog? Don't creationist think that FIRST frog "evolved" from that same single cell organism which created ALL life? If so, explain HOW a single cell organism creates dirt, rocks, sky, wind, and even that FIRST frog.... ;) THAT is my point. Divine intervention HAD to be involved in the very beginning and THEN evolution of the species took over, just as planned and ordaned by God.



And you know this how Jaime? You've died before, you've met your maker, what...? I don't believe in god and i have nothing to fear in death b/c i dont' believe in your heaven/hell or your book, so i can believe exactly what i want. ;)

Just like the childhood song you probably know says......because the Bible tells me so...... ;)

I know you don't believe now, but you have made many comments that lead me to believe you have your own internal doubts. ;)

[4dmin]

Ok, again, I think we are referring to two different things. I'm starting to see you are talking about evolution in today's form, while I was talking about evolution as the theory of the beginning of mankind. Evolution is both a theory and a real time effect... you lost your tail, grew lungs + arm + feet, and now are a man. that is evolution at work. simple cell becomes complex cell.


My point still is: what about the FIRST frog? Don't creationist think that FIRST frog "evolved" from that same single cell organism which created ALL life? If so, explain HOW a single cell organism creates dirt, rocks, sky, wind, and even that FIRST frog.... THAT is my point. Divine intervention HAD to be involved in the very beginning and THEN evolution of the species took over, just as planned and ordaned by God.

^ thats exactly what i have been saying since the begining of the thread. I never asked about exsistance of the first frog, i asked about the life cycle of the frog. To me it is evolution, you can see it first hand.

[Halfwit]

evolution ftw. but yeah why arent most of u out their fukin ur sisters, or ur "virgin" mother?

[metalman]

.


Even though there is no scientific proof to back up the bible. There is no shred of evidence to support it, religion is the king of everything. Muslims are wrong, Christians are wrong, the Catholic Church is wrong. Guess what they are all wrong. Instead of buying into what you have been taught is accpetable, look at the world and research for yourself with an open mind the world's history. It is all right there for you to see. The evidence to support creation doesn't exist. You keep dwelling on one small unexplainable occurance to support creation. If all you have is rocks to support your theory, then you are sadly misinformed. Look around you, look into the night sky and see how very small we are in the universe. God was around way before the bible, in every culture. They were all proven to be false.

Keep clinging to your "hope" there is no God in the Christian sense and that the foretelling of judgement etc etc by Christianity wont happen. Time will tell.

For me there is no downside if I am wrong. Wish I could say the same for those who dont believe.

Also with all due respect, to say there is "no scientific evidence to support the Bible" clearly demonstrates how little you actually know or have studied of this particular subject. The rocks are only the beginning as far as science. The fact you dont wish to believe or even consider the evidence is the real issue....as it always is in these discussions. You have stated such things have been "disproven" yet offered NOT ONE shred of evidence. Understandable since its tough to manufacture such. :)

As for God being around before the Bible...youre indeed correct. He was. As for the universe you would also be correct if you assumed God Created more then this little place called earth. But alas anyone who studies carefully already knows that. ;)

[metalman]

if you believe in the bible that is how we got here, Adam/Eve, Noah & his family, etc... sorry to break it to ya, its ok for you to fuck your sister :lmao:

ITS IN THE BIBLE.

Well if youre married or having sex (with a woman) you are with your sister. Sorry to inform you. Were all related. Its just a matter of "distance" of relation....but youre cousins make no mistake.

Its well known in the breeding of dogs or other species that breeding perfect specimens creates perfect offspring even when the two being bred are related. Likewise breeding to defective will create defective offspring, even increasing the defects. Most ill effects of inbreeding come with time because whatever traits you have keep becoming more pronounced.

Did you know there are human cultures that inbreed strictly with no ill effects?? Wrap your mind around that awhile.

I shouldnt have even brought this up in this forum. Too many pinheads. ;)
My point was that at Creation (Adam/Eve) were perfect human specimens, without blemish, and their offspring "breeding" would not be detrimental to the species intially, although distasteful to us and our culture to be sure.
FYI, Bible addresses some of the breeding that was going on near that time, not an easy subject to grasp for most.

[metalman]

In these discussions, and others on various subjects, its not hard for me to see the possibilities concerning what the Bible says about "wailing and nashing of teeth".
Some think this refers to something in "erternal torment, burning" etc
I do not concur with that.

I think it has much more to do with what people will do when they realize how much truth and understanding they were exposed to but rejected in favor of faulty human reasoning and wishes. I can certainly see the possibility for a person to nash their teeth and wail when they fully realize how close they were to the ark before the door was shut.

As a contrast, if believers in Christ are wrong, and He doesnt exist, they will never wake up after death and 'sleep' forever blissfully. But if theyre right I can see the definite possbilties for some serious wailing.

Its nice to know that if I am wrong about what I believe there is NO DOWNSIDE for me......ever. Yet that being said, I still want to know whatever I can learn and these type discussions are a help for that.
Like someone said, its a matter of where you place your "bets" and I prefer the best odds in light of all evidence.

[metalman]

Evolution is both a theory and a real time effect... you lost your tail, grew lungs + arm + feet, and now are a man. that is evolution at work. simple cell becomes complex cell.


^ thats exactly what i have been saying since the begining of the thread. I never asked about exsistance of the first frog, i asked about the life cycle of the frog. To me it is evolution, you can see it first hand.

Yes,,,To put it another way...micro-evolution exists and is part of Creation. Macro-evolution is a far fetched theory for which there is no proof and in addition much science disproves. ;)

[metalman]

For those that like scientific evidence....

Earlier it was mentioned that there were fossil evidence of dinasours and humans in the same strata "layer" of earth thereby dimissing the notion of "millions of years" between the existence of humans and those creatures. One such place where those fossils have been found is along the Biloxi river in Texas.

In the la brea tar pits where many fossilized remains have been recovered, a "zillion" year old "bird" (teridactle?)dinosaur was excavated...then later in a layer UNDER it human remains.

The "explosion" at Mt St Helens trapped a lake or body of water, which subsequently "escaped" its sediment tomb....forming on a smaller scale the EXACT same type of layer formation found at the Grand Canyon, on a smaller scale. And it only took a short time ;)


Theres alot more.....

[4dmin]

Well if youre married or having sex (with a woman) you are with your sister. Sorry to inform you. Were all related. Its just a matter of "distance" of relation....but youre cousins make no mistake.

:eek: i think that is pretty obvious, but i don't believe in the bible as fact so i don't believe this to be true either.

[metalman]

:eek: i think that is pretty obvious, but i don't believe in the bible as fact so i don't believe this to be true either.

Thats cool. Believe what you want. You will hopefully never hear me condemn you for that. :)

I would have to say evolution as a origin doesnt rule this scenario out either...at least when the first couple "monkeys/humans" started having sex unless there is some scenario of thousands of totally unrelated monkey-beings suddenly "evolving" into existence similtaneously. But then the single cell theory doesnt wash with that either!! The "originals" would all be related. :D

And then we're back to the no proof of it thing again. ;)

[4dmin]

Thats cool. Believe what you want. You will hopefully never hear me condemn you for that.

i don't condemn people for what they believe they do that themselves ;)

believe what you want, i will do the same.

[babowc]

for you guys thinking there was no creation...
i want you guys to take a single piece of your skin and leave it in a container and expose it to many different climates.

keep it for one year, and see what happens to it.
i know, of course, you'll say we took millions of years to form into what we are now, but without an ideal breeding habitat and nutrition, cells will never regenerate, thus, Degenerating or in other common words, rotting, decomposing, etc.

at one point, earth was a marshy grassland
at another, earth was a flaming piece of rock.
at another, it was a frozen wasteland.
now, its a habitat for us humans. we create the environment. we have the power to do about anything now.

of course, the idea of us being created from dust and a breath from god is as well hard to believe, for the non-christians.

if someone neutral were to look at this subject, the idea of both are very far fetched.
darwins theory states we came from monkeys.
we see monekys today, they act very similar to us. or is iWE act similar to THEM?

anyways, if we came from monkeys, where did the monkeys come from?

if evolution really did exist, wouldnt you think since everything was a single cell, we should all be alike? there should be no birds or animals, but only of one thing, since evolution states we came from two single cell structures that became an organism and reproduced to create the many millions of people today.


Question:
in beginning, if a chicken came from an egg, where did the egg come from?

[4dmin]

for you guys thinking there was no creation...
i want you guys to take a single piece of your skin and leave it in a container and expose it to many different climates.

keep it for one year, and see what happens to it.
i know, of course, you'll say we took millions of years to form into what we are now, but without an ideal breeding habitat and nutrition, cells will never regenerate, thus, Degenerating or in other common words, rotting, decomposing, etc.

at one point, earth was a marshy grassland
at another, earth was a flaming piece of rock.
at another, it was a frozen wasteland.
now, its a habitat for us humans. we create the environment. we have the power to do about anything now.

of course, the idea of us being created from dust and a breath from god is as well hard to believe, for the non-christians.

if someone neutral were to look at this subject, the idea of both are very far fetched.
darwins theory states we came from monkeys.
we see monekys today, they act very similar to us. or is iWE act similar to THEM?

anyways, if we came from monkeys, where did the monkeys come from?

if evolution really did exist, wouldnt you think since everything was a single cell, we should all be alike? there should be no birds or animals, but only of one thing, since evolution states we came from two single cell structures that became an organism and reproduced to create the many millions of people today.


Question:
in beginning, if a chicken came from an egg, where did the egg come from?

actually monkey/human DNA is very similiar, that is probably why monkeys are the only animals to learn advanced communication with humans. evolution does take 1000-1,000,000's of years. your not going to find answers to the universe overnight nor are you going to find it in a single text written by man. and to your question we are all alike we all develop from single cell to complex cell organisms, and through the process of adaptation we evolve into what is needed of us.

that is why i posted the life cycle of a the frog, which begins basically fish like, eventually looses a tail and grows limbs/lungs to live above water. that is not creation. as stated previously if it was we would all be asexual and pregnated virgins would be every where. :jerkit:

[metalman]

that is not creation. as stated previously if it was we would all be asexual and pregnated virgins would be every where. :jerkit:

Sorry, that premise just doenst hold any water.
Your notion that Creation = asexuality & impregnated virgins is absurd, it doesnt even begin to add up any more then 1+1+1=71
I think I understand your dilema though...you don't seem to understand created beings that have been endowed with the power, ability & needed cells to reproduce.
Perhaps the fact that some created species are asexual or can switch "sides" is confusing to you. Perhaps the many complex and varying methods of that reproduction is confusing to you. Perhaps youre under some false impression that creation consists of constant "explosions" of creative power in the initial life origins context (God spoke and it was) being replicated literally over and over....thats not the case. Creation is the life giving force that BEGAN life. Creative power, or that God, also sustains life. Without that "spark" we have no life.

You make many good points in this forum but on this one your "math" doesnt even begin to work, even a little. Thats why no one can answer your question. Its kinda like asking how we can get 4 by mutilpying 6X2.
The fact is you cant. Your formula is wrong.
Hey but nothing wrong in posing the question....

[4dmin]

Sorry, that premise just doenst hold any water.
Your notion that Creation = asexuality & impregnated virgins is absurd, it doesnt even begin to add up any more then 1+1+1=71
I think I understand your dilema though...you don't seem to understand created beings that have been endowed with the power, ability & needed cells to reproduce.
Perhaps the fact that some created species are asexual or can switch "sides" is confusing to you. Perhaps the many complex and varying methods of that reproduction is confusing to you. Perhaps youre under some false impression that creation consists of constant "explosions" of creative power in the initial life origins context (God spoke and it was) being replicated literally over and over....thats not the case. Creation is the life giving force that BEGAN life. Creative power, or that God, also sustains life. Without that "spark" we have no life.

You make many good points in this forum but on this one your "math" doesnt even begin to work, even a little. Thats why no one can answer your question. Its kinda like asking how we can get 4 by mutilpying 6X2.
The fact is you cant. Your formula is wrong.
Hey but nothing wrong in posing the question....

oh i'm not confused i think you may be... if the life cycle is nothing more than creation then we would not have reporductive organs and we would be asexual. we also we not go through a growth process.

how is it far fetched to think even your GOD could of created evolution to sustain life on this planet? you already believing in an idea you can't grasp. Creation is not the what sustains life it is what began life. Evolution sustains life. You already said it was ADAPTAION and that is evolution, so your talking out of two sides of your mouth now.

"impregnated virgins is absurd" :lmfao: i'm not the one who believes in jesus i guess you forgot how he got here.... right.

[Jaimecbr900]

Well Paul, I'm obviously on Metalman's side on this discussion.

You do sound like you are expecting a literal "bang" everytime something is created in order for Creationism to be valid.

As I said, you have to always start out from the beginning and work your way up from there. You can't say that humans or animals "evolve" and therefore the Evolution theory must be the right one, because you're not taking into consideration that BEFORE humans or animals can do ANYTHING they have to FIRST be something. That's why I kept asking about the FIRST frog and it's origin. Just like the first of anything, it sets the benchmark from which we of course "evolve", "adapt", "change", or whatever into what you see today. That doesn't change the fact there had to be a BEGINNING.

So what you are saying is that since the frog develops from a tadpole to a common frog that shows that Creationism must be the right answer because it shows how an that particular animal's life cycle goes????? Using that same theory, what about humans? You weren't born with a tail (I think.... :lmfao: ). So how did you "evolve" then?

Do you realize that human life begins not merely by ejaculate, but the exact mix of conditions? Many many people try to have children and can't, even after tests show there is nothing physically wrong with either partner. What does your evolution theory say about that? Does every tadpole turn out to be a frog? In other words, there are signs that point towards a much higher power always at work rather than plain ole Science. Like I said before, you can microdisect and reverse engineer anything and everything. It still doesn't make the microdisector nor the engineer THE creator of anything, just a theorist. ;)

Only the creator of anything can ever truly tell anyone definetively HOW or WHY something was made. Everyone else that comes afterwards is only a speculator. ;)

[4dmin]

So what you are saying is that since the frog develops from a tadpole to a common frog that shows that Creationism must be the right answer because it shows how an that particular animal's life cycle goes????? Using that same theory, what about humans? You weren't born with a tail (I think.... ). So how did you "evolve" then?
you are still complicating the original question? for the last time we are not discussing the exsistence of the frog but the process of which it survives. that is called the life cycle. where other then the very 1st frog ever made is there creation in the cycle of the frog? there isn't it is evolution that sustains the life of the frog. as for the tail question yes you and i both had tails at one point in time... Sperm? unless you were some crazy 2 headed sperm that swam up your mothers vaginal canal w/o a tail.... who knows i've seen crazy things.


Do you realize that human life begins not merely by ejaculate, but the exact mix of conditions? Many many people try to have children and can't, even after tests show there is nothing physically wrong with either partner. What does your evolution theory say about that? Does every tadpole turn out to be a frog? In other words, there are signs that point towards a much higher power always at work rather than plain ole Science. Like I said before, you can microdisect and reverse engineer anything and everything. It still doesn't make the microdisector nor the engineer THE creator of anything, just a theorist. along w/ evolution/adaptation is natural selection/survival ... of course not all tadpoles become frogs just as a not all fetus turn into infants or todlers... what is too hard for you to grasp... that your maker doesn't have a hand in your development or that your maker created a science to which you are made?

FINAL QUESTION SINCE YOU GUYS WANT TO DISECT EVERYTHING EVEN THOUGH YOU WERE POSED W/ A SIMPLE QUESTION.... IF LIFE IS SUSTAINED BY CREATION WHY CAN'T A MAN W/O A PENIS IMPREGNATE A WOMAN OR A VIRGIN WOMAN BE IMPREGNATED? IT IS IN THE BIBLE WHY CAN IT WORK IN REAL LIFE?

[metalman]

You were given a straight simple answer...which made alot more sense then the original question I might add. You dont WISH to accept that answer...thats cool....but it has been given nonetheless...by several people in several ways. Its right there...in front of you. ;)

As to your last question....you are seriously confusing two issues...the miraculous conception and birth of God...which can be called how God became a man. AND how man originates, replicates, reproduces etc.

In BOTH Gods Creative hand is at work. The first contains a mystery that no one can truly explain in absolute detail. BUT it DID happen, thats all that REALLY matters. ;)
No one said Christ/God doesnt require a measure of faith....He does. And those without ANY won't make it. More important then HOW is WHY. The answer to that in brief can be summarized by saying that God bridged the gap between us (God and sinful man) to save anyone that wished to be saved FROM sin and its ONLY ultimate end...suffering & DEATH.

The second...God designed/FORMED man, all of man, his entire body and all the organs from the dust of the earth, he designed it to have NUMEROUS systems, INCLUDING the reproductive system...which includes a penis, vagina, ovarys, testes etc etc etc etc etc THAT system, ORIGINATED and DESIGNED by God is given its very LIFE, which is continued throughout all generations. We pro-create everytime we make a child. We in a very small way participate in creation.

The answers and "proof" is all around us. The very fact the earth is not closer or farther from the sun, the fact that it rotates in a certain order and speed are ALL of God's design and set up to MAINTAIN LIFE. If any of those systems are even slightly alterd, we all DIE!! Everything dies. Its not hard to me to see th hand of God Creative power in all of it. Of course the evolutionist asks me to believe all of those astounding miraculous systems came about by ACCIDENT, just by CHANCE. Yeahhhh riiiight!!
The Creative power is what makes God GOD. No one, nothing else has it...in the same respect or even close.

Now you can certianly keep asking the question...but the answer has been given. :)

[4dmin]

^ what you just gave is a BS answer that still has nothing to do with the original question at hand. you should of just posted ITS IN THE BIBLE SO ITS TRUE, it would of saved you tons of typing. i'm done discussing this topic w/ you.

it is funny you are now reverting your comments about adaptation to creation "We in a very small way participate in creation." :jerkit:

[metalman]

Like I said...the answer WAS given. You dont like that answer OR you don't understand it so you say it wasnt. I understand that.

The proof is all around you. Its even IN you. The fact you choose not to see it is fine with me. I am not into force. The entire Bible from Genisis to Revelation is about CHOICE. Choose God, or choose man, choose life, or choose death, choose to love or choose to hate, etc etc etc....I show and give evidence, you say its BS which is typical in most discussions with non believers. They dont offer proof of the alleged "BS", they just keep telling themselves and saying it is. Thats called clinging to a hope. I've addressed what that hope is man is clinging to already. ;)

I indicated quite early on that man particpates in creation. I have also stated rather clearly that adaptation/evolution is PART of Creation. Sorry you missed it.

I will also say this...its hard for someone, actually anyone, to understand what they havent experienced to some degree. Example...I know my father better then you do simply because I spent alot of time with him and I don't think youve ever met him. Same thing is true about God and the things of God. Those who spend time IN and WITH that come to a clarity of understanding not shared by those who don't. You yourself have stated that I show at least some insights into Bible/theology. Actually I think you put it stronger then that. Regardless..my point is this...the reason that is so is simply because I have spent time and effort studying Bible/theology and with the things of that type. Thats how a greater clarity of understanding comes about. And I am not talking about church attendance here. The day a person can attend church and become a christian is the same day I can enter a barn and become a cow. It takes a bit of personal experience. It ALSO takes an open mind, one that is willing to accept the evidence NO MATTER where it leads. Thats also why it does not anger me if others do not see what is so very plain to me. We are all at different points on that road to understanding. And some also have chosen the other road, which leads nowhere near understanding, which is THEIR choice to make.

[metalman]

In discussing the origins of mankind/life the real underlying central issue IS and HAS ALWAYS been the purpose and meaning of our existence. If one is completely honest one will have to admit that IF our ultimate end regardless of how we began was the same end, the origin would matter not one little bit. We could have been born from monkeys or created by a guy named Bob or hatched from a piece of crow dung and NONE of that would matter because the end result is the same. Not one of us would care about which origin was correct. I dare say this entire thread wouldn’t even exist.

With creation and evolution as origin possibilities the “ultimate end” and purpose for our life is drastically different with each. One (evolution) offers nothing but extinction, eternal oblivion and no subsequent life, reward, punishment, or anything at all. There is no reward. There is no punishment. There is no in between. No real purpose for life outside of self. Just nothing.

The other (creation) offers the possibility for each person to have what he chooses, it entails responsibilty, acountability...it also includes a reward, eternal life and all the subsequent wonders that entails, OR condemnation, punishment & eternal death.

Therein lies the problem for man. We all want a good outcome without price. We’d prefer a reward without sacrifice. But creation doesn’t offer that. So since it doesn’t mankind (for the most part) rejects it in favor of a Godless existence, that leads from nothing TO nothing, with no penalty OR reward, no accountability, just SELF. That in a nutshell is what evolution vs. creation is ALWAYS about.

It’s NOT the origin that REALLY matters. It’s where the acceptance of that origin ultimately leads, that’s the real issue and always has been.

[babowc]

i also saw somewhere where someone was impregnated w.o having any kind of sexual intercourse, nor medical implantation.
i forget where i saw it though..

however, you saying frogs turn from fish-like things means we turn into walking human from a fetus, an organism blob.
however, the organism blob that we were needed a place to grow.
frogs, w.o a habitat, will not live.

so, like many people asked..
if it was indeed evolution, where did the first frog come from?
dont say a single cell, again. since if you were to say that, as you said we all came from single cells, that means we're long distant family with the frogs?

[David88vert]

The most basic scientific law is that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, only converted.

Where did all of the matter come from that created the universe? In other words, the "Big Bang" could have only converted some matter or energy into the current state. Where did it come from? Did it just spontaneously appear (create itself?)? If so, does that mean that the most basic scientific law is wrong, and as such, we should throw out every scientific conclusion that has any basis upon that law?

Just food for thought.

Here is something else to consider. If evolution is real, where are the in-between states? We do not see any evidence of a species converting to a new species. In other words, we do not have a starting species, an ending species, and mutations to connect the two. Basic observation skills of a 2nd grader can see this even.

[metalman]

Here is something else to consider. If evolution is real, where are the in-between states? We do not see any evidence of a species converting to a new species. In other words, we do not have a starting species, an ending species, and mutations to connect the two. Basic observation skills of a 2nd grader can see this even.

Another aspect of this is genetics. Geneticly speaking, it is not possible for the genetic makeup of living creatures to change.
A genetic mutation of as little as 1 billionth (0.0000001%) of an
animal's genome is relentlessly fatal. DNA itself has built in protective systems. It is self correcting. Evolutionists disregard these facts.

[C22H19N3O4]

The most basic scientific law is that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, only converted.


In a closed system. I would hardly call our universe closed. Many modern Quantum Physicists no longer believe that Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy hold true. Physicists at NASA and MIT have created new forms of matter.

[C22H19N3O4]

Another aspect of this is genetics. Geneticly speaking, it is not possible for the genetic makeup of living creatures to change.
A genetic mutation of as little as 1 billionth (0.0000001%) of an
animal's genome is relentlessly fatal. DNA itself has built in protective systems. It is self correcting. Evolutionists disregard these facts.



Huh? Genetic mutation, no matter how small, is proof of evolution. Most are benign and don't affect the production of a new lifeform. DNA repair is limited in what it can do. Just b/c you don't see a dog evolve into an elephant doesn't mean evolution is not occurring. Countless birth defects are linked to genetic mutation, but most don't die.

[metalman]

Huh? Genetic mutation, no matter how small, is proof of evolution. Most are benign and don't affect the production of a new lifeform. DNA repair is limited in what it can do. Just b/c you don't see a dog evolve into an elephant doesn't mean evolution is not occurring. Countless birth defects are linked to genetic mutation, but most don't die.

The problem with your assertion is that NOT ONE animal has EVER become another, nor will it. The mutations you speak of are ALL within the realm of the SAME specie, which is understandable given the facts regarding genetics.
Changes within the specie, yes.
Changing to a different specie, NO.
Again, this is a theory evolutionists cling to in spite of the evidence.

[David88vert]

Physicists at NASA and MIT have created new forms of matter.

Show proof. No human has ever CREATED matter. That is a fact.

[C22H19N3O4]

Show proof. No human has ever CREATED matter. That is a fact.


SOURCE (http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2005/matter.html)

MIT physicists create new form of matter
Lori Valigra, Special to MIT News Office
June 22, 2005


CAMBRIDGE, Mass. -- MIT scientists have brought a supercool end to a heated race among physicists: They have become the first to create a new type of matter, a gas of atoms that shows high-temperature superfluidity.

Their work, to be reported in the June 23 issue of Nature, is closely related to the superconductivity of electrons in metals. Observations of superfluids may help solve lingering questions about high-temperature superconductivity, which has widespread applications for magnets, sensors and energy-efficient transport of electricity, said Wolfgang Ketterle, a Nobel laureate who heads the MIT group and who is the John D. MacArthur Professor of Physics as well as a principal investigator in MIT's Research Laboratory of Electronics.

Seeing the superfluid gas so clearly is such a dramatic step that Dan Kleppner, director of the MIT-Harvard Center for Ultracold Atoms, said, "This is not a smoking gun for superfluidity. This is a cannon."

For several years, research groups around the world have been studying cold gases of so-called fermionic atoms with the ultimate goal of finding new forms of superfluidity. A superfluid gas can flow without resistance. It can be clearly distinguished from a normal gas when it is rotated. A normal gas rotates like an ordinary object, but a superfluid can only rotate when it forms vortices similar to mini-tornadoes. This gives a rotating superfluid the appearance of Swiss cheese, where the holes are the cores of the mini-tornadoes. "When we saw the first picture of the vortices appear on the computer screen, it was simply breathtaking," said graduate student Martin Zwierlein in recalling the evening of April 13, when the team first saw the superfluid gas. For almost a year, the team had been working on making magnetic fields and laser beams very round so the gas could be set in rotation. "It was like sanding the bumps off of a wheel to make it perfectly round," Zwierlein explained.

"In superfluids, as well as in superconductors, particles move in lockstep. They form one big quantum-mechanical wave," explained Ketterle. Such a movement allows superconductors to carry electrical currents without resistance.

The MIT team was able to view these superfluid vortices at extremely cold temperatures, when the fermionic gas was cooled to about 50 billionths of one kelvin, very close to absolute zero (-273 degrees C or -459 degrees F). "It may sound strange to call superfluidity at 50 nanokelvin high-temperature superfluidity, but what matters is the temperature normalized by the density of the particles," Ketterle said. "We have now achieved by far the highest temperature ever." Scaled up to the density of electrons in a metal, the superfluid transition temperature in atomic gases would be higher than room temperature.

Ketterle's team members were MIT graduate students Zwierlein, Andre Schirotzek, and Christian Schunck, all of whom are members of the Center for Ultracold Atoms, as well as former graduate student Jamil Abo-Shaeer.

The team observed fermionic superfluidity in the lithium-6 isotope comprising three protons, three neutrons and three electrons. Since the total number of constituents is odd, lithium-6 is a fermion. Using laser and evaporative cooling techniques, they cooled the gas close to absolute zero. They then trapped the gas in the focus of an infrared laser beam; the electric and magnetic fields of the infrared light held the atoms in place. The last step was to spin a green laser beam around the gas to set it into rotation. A shadow picture of the cloud showed its superfluid behavior: The cloud was pierced by a regular array of vortices, each about the same size.

The work is based on the MIT group's earlier creation of Bose-Einstein condensates, a form of matter in which particles condense and act as one big wave. Albert Einstein predicted this phenomenon in 1925. Scientists later realized that Bose-Einstein condensation and superfluidity are intimately related.

Bose-Einstein condensation of pairs of fermions that were bound together loosely as molecules was observed in November 2003 by independent teams at the University of Colorado at Boulder, the University of Innsbruck in Austria and at MIT. However, observing Bose-Einstein condensation is not the same as observing superfluidity. Further studies were done by these groups and at the Ecole Normale Superieure in Paris, Duke University and Rice University, but evidence for superfluidity was ambiguous or indirect.

The superfluid Fermi gas created at MIT can also serve as an easily controllable model system to study properties of much denser forms of fermionic matter such as solid superconductors, neutron stars or the quark-gluon plasma that existed in the early universe.

The MIT research was supported by the National Science Foundation, the Office of Naval Research, NASA and the Army Research Office.


Did you really think a law formulated in the late 1700's wouldn't be put to the test year after year? BTW, you may want to research the true defintion of "matter" among scientists and Christian zealots.

Edit: Another bit of info:

Why is matter not being created at the present time, nor being destroyed?

Matter is being created and destroyed now. For example, a high energy X-ray can collide with the nucleus of an atom and disappear and two particles, an electron and an anti-electron (a.k.a. positron), will appear in its place. So extra matter is being produced from no matter. The important thing is that the amount of total energy stays the same, but the energy can change its form from electromagnetic radiation (the X-ray) to matter (the electron and positron). Also, an electron and positron can collide with and annihilate each other, producing X-rays.


Why is every Christian postulate fact ? LoL.

[David88vert]

You are obviously posting something you do not understand fully. Read up on it for yourself, and draw your own conclusions. It is actually an in-between state that they observed. The law of conservation still is applied here.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2002/20mar_newmatter.htm
Law of Conservation of Mass
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass
The actual notes of the lecture (plus audio file)
http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/plecture/ketterle/

But I will day, very good report anyway.

BTW - I am not trying to convert you to Christianity, or any other religion. Believe what you wish. But, personally, I do believe that evolution is modern day mythology. It has to be accepted on faith - just like religion.
1000 years ago scientist KNEW that the world was flat....

[Hektik]

creation.

cause GOd said so..................

[C22H19N3O4]

Damn. I had two paragraphs typed and the site went down. LoL. Well, I won’t retype everything, but I will say that you need to learn the definition of matter before you claim matter has never been created. That definition does not change to suit your Christian needs. Most people assume there are only 3 types of matter: solids, liquids, and gases. In fact, there are at least six: solids, liquids, gases, plasmas, Bose-Einstein condensates, and the new form of matter called fermionic condensates (there is a small debate about the total lol). You posted those links after a quick Google search. Do you even know what they are saying? If you were of an analytical mind and have science background you wouldn’t make blanket statements. But, I do understand that is the Creationism SOP. The sites you linked don’t refute anything. You want to discuss science? I have no problem with that.


But, personally, I do believe that evolution is modern day mythology.

Creationism is bad science and bad theology.


1000 years ago scientist KNEW that the world was flat....

Hey, gravity is just a theory, but who cares about that? :rolleyes:



You are obviously posting something you do not understand fully. Read up on it for yourself, and draw your own conclusions.

I read about it when it happened. I didn't have someone point it out and then try to refute it w/o knowledge of said material. ;)



EDIT: If science can't be relied upon by Creationists, why are they using the SCIENTIFIC Laws of Thermodynamics to refute evolution? :screwy:

[C22H19N3O4]

creation.

cause GOd said so..................


Wow, good point! I'm convinced. :lmfao:

[David88vert]

The sites you linked don’t refute anything.
I read about it when it happened. I didn't have someone point it out and then try to refute it w/o knowledge of said material. ;)


You read what a reporter - not a scientist put out. I gave you the links to the NASA report (with the quotations), and images of his notes. His own words - "That means ... we have the remarkable effect that an atom (in one BEC) plus an atom (in another BEC) gives no atom. It's destructive interference," says Ketterle. "Of course we didn't destroy matter, it just appeared somewhere else in the pattern, so the total number of atoms is conserved."
Like I said, you can believe anything you want, but I would suggest you go to the source of the statements, rather than posting what a reporter interpreted from it. Make your own decsisions though, no one else (including me), can or should be a big factor in your decision-making.

[Hulud]

creation.

cause GOd said so..................
:rolleyes:

[C22H19N3O4]

You read what a reporter - not a scientist put out. I gave you the links to the NASA report (with the quotations), and images of his notes. His own words - "That means ... we have the remarkable effect that an atom (in one BEC) plus an atom (in another BEC) gives no atom. It's destructive interference," says Ketterle. "Of course we didn't destroy matter, it just appeared somewhere else in the pattern, so the total number of atoms is conserved."
Like I said, you can believe anything you want, but I would suggest you go to the source of the statements, rather than posting what a reporter interpreted from it. Make your own decsisions though, no one else (including me), can or should be a big factor in your decision-making.


LoL. Again, understand the types of matter and how they behave, including the condensates. Do you comprehend the Laws of Thermodynamics? Quantum mechanics? There is some limited debate whether FC should be labeled a new form of matter, but most modern physicists label it as such. You actually linked a credible site like wikipedia? LoL. You're reading bits and pieces of want you desire to see. I will assume you're a AiG follower. My beliefs are based on fact and decades of research, which includes quantitative data. I suspect Creationist can't claim the same. There is nothing you or any Creationist can say to sway science or my beliefs. I've had this discussion many times over and will continue to do so in the future. Creationism is faith in the irrational. But hey, you did say we have the mental capacity of second graders. :lmfao:

BTW, Ketterle's research centered around the BEC and not the FC. He decided to jump on the bandwagon after Deborah Jin.

[TheSnail]

Here are the FACTS


For the people that believe in god. Also belive in ghosts and Santa Clause. They believe in ghost since I’m not seeing shit, oh wait there’s god! Oh wait, that’s a cumulus cloud. Then Santa Clause, since you cant make fun of a 10 year old because he still BELIEVES in Santa or else you would be a hypocrite. Do you believe in Santa? It would be much easier to convince me that there is a Santa delivering presents on a flying sled, rather then a fat ass ghost in orbit creating things that I have never see created.

Religion was created to give peasants hope, in order to keep them in check.

[David88vert]

LoL. Again, understand the types of matter and how they behave, including the condensates. Do you comprehend the Laws of Thermodynamics? Quantum mechanics? There is some limited debate whether FC should be labeled a new form of matter, but most modern physicists label it as such. You actually linked a credible site like wikipedia? LoL. You're reading bits and pieces of want you desire to see. I will assume you're a AiG follower. My beliefs are based on fact and decades of research, which includes quantitative data. I suspect Creationist can't claim the same. There is nothing you or any Creationist can say to sway science or my beliefs. I've had this discussion many times over and will continue to do so in the future. Creationism is faith in the irrational. But hey, you did say we have the mental capacity of second graders. :lmfao:

BTW, Ketterle's research centered around the BEC and not the FC. He decided to jump on the bandwagon after Deborah Jin.

Let me explain it in simple English. The scientist that developed it does not say it is a new form of matter. What is so difficult to understand? If you don't believe him, why don't you go tell him, that he is an idiot and doesn't understand his own work?

The link to Wiki was just for you to review the Law of Conservation of Mass. Don't take it to heart as an attack on you or anything.

I an not an AiG follower. You assume incorrectly.

Your beliefs are founded on an unsubstantialed hypothesis that was created for those that are mathmatically challenged. BUT, they are your beliefs and you are entitled to them, the same as anyone else (including religion-based conceptualists).

All I'm saying is that you can live in the deliusion that evolution is based on facts, or you can accept that you believe in evolution based upon faith. There are plenty of observed facts and laws that disprove evolution, but again, anyone can believe anything they wish.

BTW - For your information, I do believe that evolution is probably the greatest science fiction concept ever created. It is fantastic that it has snowballed from a simple concept from Charles Darwin's grandfather into being taught as Gospel. Reminds me of Galileo's times.....

[David88vert]

Religion was created to give peasants hope, in order to keep them in check.
I agree with you on this statement for the most part. Throughout history, most religions seem to have been pushed by the reigning government to maximize usefulness of their subjects.

[Jaimecbr900]

One question though:

If we give "matter" all sorts of names as different "scientists" come up with their own individual theories, does that still CHANGE the actual Law of Conservation of Mass? In other words, couldn't I come up with some new nifty name for "matter" that I feel suddenly exists so then I can be able to prove a theory I'm trying to prove?

BTW, I agree with David. I said it earlier and noone has addressed it, just like one of his points here. Aethiests hold on to a stead fast belief which has been DISproven by science, yet bash Christians for holding an opposite belief (although they admit they DON'T need science to "prove" anything to them) which also equally has been disproven by science. Ironic how an Aethiest has FAITH on something like that, but then bashes Christians for having their own faith in something else.......Hello POT, my name is KETTLE..... :rolleyes:

[Jaimecbr900]

For the people that believe in god. Also belive in ghosts and Santa Clause. They believe in ghost since I’m not seeing shit, oh wait there’s god! Oh wait, that’s a cumulus cloud. Then Santa Clause, since you cant make fun of a 10 year old because he still BELIEVES in Santa or else you would be a hypocrite. Do you believe in Santa?

When you try and join these discussion, please try and use substance you can back up rather than just conjecture. If you want to remain in the same stack with 10 yr olds, go for it. Most grown up folks figure out the truth about Santa just fine.




It would be much easier to convince me that there is a Santa delivering presents on a flying sled, rather then a fat ass ghost in orbit creating things that I have never see created.


How many of those animals you get your rocks off by killing for no particular reason other than immaturity have you seen a MAN "create"???? :rolleyes:

You don't "see" because you walk around with your eyes closed and don't appreciate how those birds, rabbits, and squirrels you get your jollies from killing FIRST got here.

[metalman]

There is nothing you or any Creationist can say to sway science or my beliefs. .

Well that pretty much sums it up.
Its clear you grasp at straws to find "science" to make you feel comfortable in your already decided beliefs. There are plenty of evolutionists using faulty science and defective methods (carbon dating etc etc) to fulfill that need.
Mankinds lab experiments are not suprising, he has been tampering with creation for thousands of years. Whatever.

The problem is that there is much ACTUAL scientific and fossil evidence that does not in anyway fit with the yet UNPROVEN THEORY of evolution, in fact it almost completely destroys it. We are still left with those FACTS.

From the SUDDEN appearance of complex lifeforms in the earths strata, to the nano second lasting halos "frozen" in those strata, to the calculation of decay rates of the earths magnetic field (which lead to earth being but a few thousand years old), to the imense complexity of the earths life systems and critial timing and DESIGN of each, to the discovery of dinasour and human evidence in the same strata, to the impossibilties of genetics in relation to a specie changing into another, to the FACT that there is absolutely no evidence that ANY specie ever became another completely different one...and on and on...etc etc.
Youre comfortable ignoring these facts for the belief you have already chosen. Thats fine, your not alone. Mankind in general prefers no God, no accountibility, no judgement. Enjoy your "faith".
We all have a choice.

[C22H19N3O4]

LoL. You'll have to excuse my laughter. Seems like the AiG followers have had a meeting of the minds. I will ask this again, if science is so unreliable why are you using it to refute evolution? Use what you hold so near and dear to your hearts, some fictional text you call a bible. Do you really think Creationism is logical? One supreme being snapped his fingers and our world came about? Creationism is for people who can't think for themselves. For the sake of argument, how would you explain your environment without religion? Where would you start? Would you know where to start?


Mankind in general prefers no God, no accountibility, no judgement. Enjoy your "faith".
We all have a choice.

I love when you "philosophize" Metalman. It brings a smile to my face.


to the FACT that there is absolutely no evidence that ANY specie ever became another completely different one.

That never came out of my mouth.


There are plenty of evolutionists using faulty science and defective methods (carbon dating etc etc) to fulfill that need.

So there's no division among Creationists? :lmfao: Creationists that lack the knowledge of any particular field of science shouldn't make assumptions. But that is the basis of Creationism.


I'm willing to bet that most of you visit your physician when you become ill. Also, I'm willing to bet that if he prescribes medication, you'll get it filled and use as directed. What part of this elementary scenario is religion based? How much of it is science based? Would you rather have decades of research by your side or a god? Which method do you think would bring about a speedy recovery? Next time you fall ill, pray to some god and forget about going to a doctor. There's too much science in medicine and pharmacology. Since Creationist have this aversion to science why bother living in a world where science is apparently abundant. Creationists love to use science when it benefits them in some way, but then loathe it when it doesn't conform to their religious propaganda. Pick a side.



There is nothing you or any Creationist can say to sway science or my beliefs. .

Let me rephrase. Creationist will never have quantitative data to support their claims. You may be able to sway those that lack the motivation (or ability) to question the universe.


EDIT: Let's see how long we can go around in circles. :D

Edit #2: I'm not attacking one's core religious beliefs. I take issue with Creationisim's fallacious arguments used to wage war on science.

[Jaimecbr900]

Do you really think Creationism is logical? One supreme being snapped his fingers and our world came about?

A whole lot more "logical" than "everything that is came about initially from a great big "bang" in the vastness of space and somehow or another THAT CREATED a single celled organism which defies the laws of physics and went on to CREATE/EVOLVE into everything from air to trees to dirt to humans...."

RIIIIIGGHGHGHGHTTTTT that makes a whole lot more LOGICAL sense than Creationism. :rolleyes:



Creationism is for people who can't think for themselves.

What theory of relativity or Law of physics did YOU come up with???? :rolleyes: So you are regurgitating what you found in your google search that agreed with you. How'd that take any more effort than anything else?



For the sake of argument, how would you explain your environment without religion? Where would you start? Would you know where to start?

Wouldn't need to since it is YOU that believes our environment evolved from some big bang a gazillion years ago. "WE" already have our own idea of where it came from.....It's called GENESIS....read it.



So there's no division among Creationists? :lmfao: Creationists that lack the knowledge of any particular field of science shouldn't make assumptions. But that is the basis of Creationism.

The only time "science" is brought into this debate is by YOUR side always wanting "proof". The only "proof" you guys ever want is "Science". Problem is that the only one you will give any merit to is the one that agrees with YOUR phylosophy. How convinient.



I'm willing to bet that most of you visit your physician when you become ill. Also, I'm willing to bet that if he prescribes medication, you'll get it filled and use as directed. What part of this elementary scenario is religion based? How much of it is science based? Would you rather have decades of research by your side or a god? Which method do you think would bring about a speedy recovery? Next time you fall ill, pray to some god and forget about going to a doctor. There's too much science in medicine and pharmacology. Since Creationist have this aversion to science why bother living in a world where science is apparently abundant. Creationists love to use science when it benefits them in some way, but then loathe it when it doesn't conform to their religious propaganda. Pick a side.


:blah: :blah: :blah:

I don't know of any so called "creationist" that refuses to go to the doctor when they are ill. Do you? Noone said that in order for Creationism to exist you have to refuse Science or any of it's factors. Where are you coming up with all this garbage? How come you pick and choose which scientific proof you believe and which you don't? How come you if you are so scientifically inclined do you not scientifically rebutt any of the examples Metalman has given in his previous post? He gave a handful of "scientific" examples that shoots holes the size of a Marta bus in your Evolution theory. Address those.

Instead you wanna twist every argument back to: Medicine is scientific. Medicine helps cure people. Therefore Science is the only thing that ever works..... :jerkit: :screwy:



Let me rephrase. Creationist will never have quantitative data to support their claims. You may be able to sway those that lack the motivation (or ability) to question the universe.

Why don't you start by trying to make some of the examples given above dissapear with your all knowing science?

Proof, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. You will never see proof with your eyes closed.

[Hulud]

Aethiests hold on to a stead fast belief which has been DISproven by science, yet bash Christians for holding an opposite belief (although they admit they DON'T need science to "prove" anything to them) which also equally has been disproven by science. Ironic how an Aethiest has FAITH on something like that, but then bashes Christians for having their own faith in something else.......Hello POT, my name is KETTLE..... :rolleyes:
way to fit the christian stereotype on that comment :eye:
funny how you generalize, i would like to you show me where i bash anyone for ANY beliefs not just christians, please. since you said Athiests bash christians.

funny how your saying others are "calling the kettle black" look in a mirror every once in a while, it will help :goodjob:

[C22H19N3O4]

What theory of relativity or Law of physics did YOU come up with???? :rolleyes: So you are regurgitating what you found in your google search that agreed with you. How'd that take any more effort than anything else?

So one needs to formulate his own theory, which takes funding and years of rigorous testing, to agree with the findings of another? Interesting concept. I'm sorry, which college did you do your research? That's the last personal attack I promise. ;) . The fact that the only source of data for Creationists is the bible, IS not logical. Science can at least attempt to reference other sources. We don't have just ONE source to draw from.



Problem is that the only one you will give any merit to is the one that agrees with YOUR phylosophy. How convinient.

Hmm, sounds a lot like Creationism to me. Hard to believe but I am very open-mined. I am willing to consider any point as long as sufficient data exists.


How come you if you are so scientifically inclined do you not scientifically rebutt any of the examples Metalman has given in his previous post? He gave a handful of "scientific" examples that shoots holes the size of a Marta bus in your Evolution theory. Address those.

Metalman's examples have been discussed many times over. Read any Creationist website. I assume you've read those before you posted? It's the same argument. They use "unreliable" science to refute "unreliable" science. Makes no sense to me. Hey, if he wants to discuss coelacanths, newts, abiogenesis, evolution, theory of gravity, and etc that's fine by me. It just becomes a tiresome debate. It takes time to post detailed explanations regardless of which side you are on. BTW, are we talking about ABIOGENESIS or EVOLUTION?



Instead you wanna twist every argument back to: Medicine is scientific. Medicine helps cure people. Therefore Science is the only thing that ever works.

Apparently you didn't read the previous posts. No surprise there.


Therefore Science is the only thing that ever works .

Do you have evidence that suggests otherwise?


Why don't you start by trying to make some of the examples given above dissapear with your all knowing science?

Creationists are questioning established science, so the burden of proof is on their shoulders. Do you really think, given the history of this debate, anything would just disappear? Would you understand why Creationists lobby to eliminate the teaching of the Second Law of Thermodynamics? No matter the evidence provided, Creationists will dismiss it b/c it does not conform to their agenda.


Proof, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. You will never see proof with your eyes closed.

Why do YOU need proof if you have faith? Isn't faith in your heart and mind? Shouldn't matter whether your eyes are open or shut. ;)

Not everyone that opposes Creationism is atheist/agnostic and not everyone that opposes Evolution is religious. Can they co-exist? :thinking:

[Romeyo07]

Creationism doesn't go against science.

The one answer that not one evolutionist can answer is where did the original elements come from that came together to begin evolution? I'll pick this up tonight or tomorrow. Time to go home.

[TheSnail]

How many of those animals you get your rocks off by killing for no particular reason other than immaturity have you seen a MAN "create"???? :rolleyes:

You don't "see" because you walk around with your eyes closed and don't appreciate how those birds, rabbits, and squirrels you get your jollies from killing FIRST got here.


Yes, I do like to shoot animals. But in doing so, I am proving evolution. Battle of the fittest ! HAHAHAHA! Animals-0 TheSnail-470+

[metalman]

I will ask this again, if science is so unreliable why are you using it to refute evolution?

I never made such a statement.
I know that in all science, be it medical, or pertaining to origins of man, or other, there is sound science and unsound science. By judging the methods and formulas used one with reasonable intelligence can see which is which.

For example, as already discussed, the science of carbon dating is a 'flawed' one to say the very least. It doesnt work. A living creature can be carbon dated to be some 25-30000 years old when we KNOW it isnt. Yet evolutionary scientists continue to cling to the hope that its working and correct, even though it isnt. Why??? Because they dont have anything else to pin their faith on.
Theyre clinging to a hope in a theory! Even Darwin aknowledged strong evidence existed AGAINST his theory...which is more then I can say for its "religious believers" today.




Let me rephrase. Creationist will never have quantitative data to support their claims.


Pretty much the same statement. Why don't you just admit that you dont care WHAT evidence is uncovered currently OR in the future because youve already decided it doesnt matter.
You have said just that two different times and ways.
That type of logic and/or scientific approach should certainly not convincing to any thinking person.

MUCH data already refutes the UNPROVEN THEORY or evolution as the orgin of man. Yet you are not interested NOR have you addressed ANY of 'data' of scientific facts already mentioned in this thread. And I doubt you will either. ;)
Thats quite typical of people in the evolutionary camp. The only facts that interest them or that they wish to focus on are the ones they THINK seem to give them more faith in their religion of evolution. That approach to ANY science is faulty to say the very least.

Again, NONE of this (origin of life) would matter EXCEPT for what implication it might have on our current life and future. Thats the real issue here.

[metalman]

Creationism is for people who can't think for themselves.


Yeah...people like Thomas Jefferson. He never was never much into thinking or anything intellectual and simply abhored the notion of thinking for ones self. :lmfao:

[David88vert]

Not everyone that opposes Creationism is atheist/agnostic and not everyone that opposes Evolution is religious. Can they co-exist? :thinking:

Bingo. On this we do agree. :)

Now this is a question for pharm_teg, and only pharm_teg. It is not to provoke anything. I just want to hear your explanation on it.
Evolution relies on the Earth developing slowly over millions of years. It also clearly states that humans came over a million years after dinosaurs died out.
What about the Ica Stones? Obviously, ancient Peruvians saw and used dinosaurs that shoud have turned to buried fossils long before the first caveman. Evolutionists usually avoid this topic like the plague.
Here are a couple of pics of them, and the link to their main museum in Peru.
http://www.labyrinthina.com/icastonemuseum.htm

[Romeyo07]

Voya, clear out your voicemail! Radiator blew on Friday and wanted to see if you wanted to get in on the pull. Its wasn't much but I figured you were always up for getting dirty. I yanked it out and have one coming this week. Gimme a buzz sometime.

IMO, I think things are way too "right" in this world for it to have happened by chance. Our planet is the perfect distance from the sun to prevent us from freezing to death or boiling over. Can you imagine the catastrophic outcome of just a few degrees above normal water temperature? Sea life would cease to exist.

This is just one of a bajillion arguements that neither side will ultimately prove. Pick one, look it up, do research, whatever. Come to your own conclusion. For the most part, you'll never convince the other side any different. We'll agree to disagree...that wont change anything. I wont change what I think of you guys either way.

[Jaimecbr900]

way to fit the christian stereotype on that comment :eye:
funny how you generalize, i would like to you show me where i bash anyone for ANY beliefs not just christians, please. since you said Athiests bash christians.

I generalized there because I'm wasn't trying to call out anyone in particular. If you took that personal, I'm sorry. I wasn't trying to stereotype, merely making a point that it is ironic that Evolutionists and Creationist do in fact have something in common....FAITH. Evolutionists have faith in Science and Creationists in a higher power. The big difference being that Creationists don't have a problem with admitting they have FAITH while it seems like most Evolutionists avoid the word like the plague.

That was my point. Is that better now?


funny how your saying others are "calling the kettle black" look in a mirror every once in a while, it will help :goodjob:

I think I explained above exactly why the pot is calling the kettle black... ;)

[Jaimecbr900]

So one needs to formulate his own theory, which takes funding and years of rigorous testing, to agree with the findings of another? Interesting concept. I'm sorry, which college did you do your research? That's the last personal attack I promise. ;) . The fact that the only source of data for Creationists is the bible, IS not logical. Science can at least attempt to reference other sources. We don't have just ONE source to draw from.

Doesn't make it any more correct just because you get it from 5 books instead of 1. ;)




Hmm, sounds a lot like Creationism to me. Hard to believe but I am very open-mined. I am willing to consider any point as long as sufficient data exists.

That was the point. Sufficient data is a subjective term. It's an open ended and open to interpretation, let's ride the fence, statement.




Metalman's examples have been discussed many times over. Read any Creationist website. I assume you've read those before you posted? It's the same argument. They use "unreliable" science to refute "unreliable" science. Makes no sense to me. Hey, if he wants to discuss coelacanths, newts, abiogenesis, evolution, theory of gravity, and etc that's fine by me. It just becomes a tiresome debate. It takes time to post detailed explanations regardless of which side you are on. BTW, are we talking about ABIOGENESIS or EVOLUTION?

The ole "warm soup" theory, eh?

Isn't that the platform from which Evolutionists support most of their "origin of life" theories? There is plenty of research, by noted scientist that are quick to point out are NOT Creationists, to show that Abiogenesis is not possible.

Again, it's been pointed out a million times that not one single scientist has to this day been able to spontaneously and randomly and by "chance" been able to reproduce LIFE from a single celled organism. It has been tried many times. Never succeded. It is easy to microdisect what "life" needs, i.e. amino acids and proteins. But much like a single brick is to a fully finished house, it takes combination of many other things to get the final product correct. A single brick is no more a house you can live in, than a single cell is to a fully grown human.

How about this quote from a Scientist that holds 7 degrees in Biology, Psychology, evaluation and research; is a professor of biology, microbiology, biochemistry, and human anatomy; AND is also a leading researcher in the field of cancer genetics........He says:

"In spite of the overwhelming empirical and probabilistic evidence that life could not originate by natural processes, evolutionists possess an unwavering belief that some day they will have an answer to how life could spontaneously generate. Nobel laureate Christian de Duve (1995) argues that life is the product of law-driven chemical steps, each one of which must have been highly probable in the right circumstances. This reliance upon an unknown “law” favoring life has been postulated to replace the view that life’s origin was a freakish accident unlikely to occur anywhere, is now popular. Chance is now out of favor in part because it has become clear that even the simplest conceivable life form (still much simpler than any actual organism) would have to be so complex that accidental self-assembly would be nothing short of miraculous even in two billion years (Spetner, 1997). Furthermore, natural selection cannot operate until biological reproducing units exist. This hoped for “law,” though, has no basis in fact nor does it even have a theoretical basis. It is a nebulous concept which results from a determination to continue the quest for a naturalistic explanation of life."

Go try and argue with him now...... :rolleyes:



Do you have evidence that suggests otherwise?

Science, as mentioned above, has been shown to be wrong many many many times.

Remember, a little more than 500 yrs ago, "Scientists" assured everyone that they KNEW the Earth was flat.



Creationists are questioning established science, so the burden of proof is on their shoulders. Do you really think, given the history of this debate, anything would just disappear? Would you understand why Creationists lobby to eliminate the teaching of the Second Law of Thermodynamics? No matter the evidence provided, Creationists will dismiss it b/c it does not conform to their agenda.

#1. Established by whom? You?
#2. Scientists themselves have made theories, only to later recant those theories when the experiments they conducted didn't pan out the way they perceived it on paper.
#3. Thermodynamics has nothing to do with CREATING life. It is yet another theory about the displacement of energy rather than destruction of energy. What's that got to do with the CREATION of life?




Why do YOU need proof if you have faith? Isn't faith in your heart and mind? Shouldn't matter whether your eyes are open or shut. ;)

I clearly said I don't need any proof. So I have no idea where you are getting this from.



Not everyone that opposes Creationism is atheist/agnostic and not everyone that opposes Evolution is religious. Can they co-exist? :thinking:

You are absolutely right. They absolutely can co-exist. They have for all of man's history. You are also right in that being an atheist or being religious does not automatically put you on one side or another, although the vast majority is parted down those lines.

[Hulud]

I generalized there because I'm wasn't trying to call out anyone in particular. If you took that personal, I'm sorry.
i didnt dont worry

I wasn't trying to stereotype, merely making a point that it is ironic that Evolutionists and Creationist do in fact have something in common....FAITH. Evolutionists have faith in Science and Creationists in a higher power. The big difference being that Creationists don't have a problem with admitting they have FAITH while it seems like most Evolutionists avoid the word like the plague.

That was my point. Is that better now?
yes better :) im glad you said MOST cause i know i dont shy away from the word "faith" cause the word faith has nothing to do with religion, i mean you can have faith in a person, a job, a car, etc.




I think I explained above exactly why the pot is calling the kettle black... ;)
thanks for clarifying

[trini_gsr]

interesting discussion...but probably pointless because it's not like any of the ppl arguing are gonna actually change their minds or adjust their positions. but an outside person reading might get a question answered or learn something...

now metalman made some comments on placing the best bet (in terms of belief in God/creation), so if you're wrong then you have nothing to lose...

well when it comes to religion/spirituality, i'm gonna look at the info in front of me and go with what feels right. i'm not gonna be bullied into believing in God for fear of eternally getting my ass kicked, or be lulled into it by dangling a prize in my face either. personally, i think that totally defeats the purpose of believing in God or being moral to begin with.

and for the record i do believe in creation as it makes the most sense to me given the facts and my personal experiences...but to deny evolution doesn't occur in nature is pretty ridiculous also. so i doubt life began exactly as described in genesis. that story isn't even original to the bible, and is actually derived from an older and arguably more plausible creation account.

but to stay on topic...like someone said early, either position is defensible and both require a leap of faith...

[Stormhammer]

What i don't get is all of the people trying to refute the LIFE CYCLE AS I POSTED as creation? If it is truely creation at hand:

WHY DO WE NEED REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS? god is so great he can do it w/o the intervention of man.

IF IT IS CREATION WHY DO YOU HAVE TO EVOLVE INTO A FORM? god could just BAM you are a man, no need for sperm to egg to..

IF IT IS CREATION WHY ARE WE NOT ASEXUAL? there is no need for sex to begin with, your precious bible tells the story of Mary, when was the last time you saw a pregnant virgin?

Some of you need to get a clue, you can call it any name you want but the life cycle is evolution... as i stated in previous post, you can call an apple an orange but its still an apple. I find it amazing i dont' believe in your god yet i can amount life to some divine intervention to start the process and evolution takes over; yet there has not been one of you to say the same :jerkit: . Its like your world would come crashing down if the thought of evolution exsisting at all... you guys are blinded by faith.


well depends on how you view evolution - what the large arguement of evolution versus creationalism is on a macro scale ( ie blobs to fish to monkeys to man )

now, on a MICRO-evolution scale - what you posted isn't evolution. Its just growing stages. Mircoevolution was like - back in the industrial revolution in Great Britain there was a white moth that was really common. But from all the new factories and soot layering the forests, it made the white moths stand out right? The brightest ones were killed first, while the darker colors survived cause they would blend in with the soot. Soon the darker species emerged as on top, while the white one practically ceased to exist. Thats what I was taught as microevolution. When the industrial revolution ended, things slowly reverted back to where at least now its a 50/50 combo of light/dark colored moths.


as for why do we believe in creation. wwhat you stated is all reproduction. the arguement of creationalism is how everything came to be.


with all the why's you posted up there, its simple - God made things so that mankind could have free will and choice in things. I wouldn't doubt for a minute that God could do all of that fancy stuff, but then what would be the point of mankind to grow and prosper? What would be the point of having a spouse? Dude, you wouldn't even be able to have any intimacy or anything like that. I can't really offer you any concreted answer as to the WHY's.

but for anyone who's refuted that life cycle as evolution or creationalism

they're idiots lol

its just stages of growing up/maturity. like a bird from a blob in an egg to hatching to getting feathers and all that stuff - no creation/evolution arguement there

[metalman]

well when it comes to religion/spirituality, i'm gonna look at the info in front of me and go with what feels right. i'm not gonna be bullied into believing in God for fear of eternally getting my ass kicked, or be lulled into it by dangling a prize in my face either. personally, i think that totally defeats the purpose of believing in God or being moral to begin with.

...

I actually agree.
To often in so called christianity the emphasis is placed upon the penalty aspect, or the JUST consequential results of our choices, as in believe this or go to hell.

God doesnt bully anyone. He invites. The invitation is FOR ALL, not just a select few. He has even seen fit to give us the liberty of choice. If we prefer what we percieve to be a more 'convient' religion/god He allows us that choice and subsequent outcome.

Fact is, God allows, invites, begs even, ALL to His party, His Kingdom. His UNCONDITIONAL love for us should both serve as an example and a motivation for us to love Him in return. He loves ALL even though NONE are deserving. And although it is true that there are consequenses for our choices remembering THAT love is most important. This is why the subject of Creation vs evolution is important. Acknowleging creation reminds us of where we came from, it should remind us of the great love God has for every human being, even those of us that scorn and ridicule Him.

To me God has given more then significant evidence through many of the facts already mentioned and others beyond that He exists and loves us. The intricate balance of life systems all around us is evidence of His hand. The concience within us is also evidence of God. There are peoples on the earth without any Bible or missionary that ackowlege a Creator God. Even that is put within us. The reward of heaven and all that entails is icing on the cake.

[Jaimecbr900]

I actually agree.
To often in so called christianity the emphasis is placed upon the penalty aspect, or the JUST consequential results of our choices, as in believe this or go to hell.

God doesnt bully anyone. He invites. The invitation is FOR ALL, not just a select few. He has even seen fit to give us the liberty of choice. If we prefer what we percieve to be a more 'convient' religion/god He allows us that choice and subsequent outcome.

Fact is, God allows, invites, begs even, ALL to His party, His Kingdom. His UNCONDITIONAL love for us should both serve as an example and a motivation for us to love Him in return. He loves ALL even though NONE are deserving. And although it is true that there are consequenses for our choices remembering THAT love is most important. This is why the subject of Creation vs evolution is important. Acknowleging creation reminds us of where we came from, it should remind us of the great love God has for every human being, even those of us that scorn and ridicule Him.

To me God has given more then significant evidence through many of the facts already mentioned and others beyond that He exists and loves us. The intricate balance of life systems all around us is evidence of His hand. The concience within us is also evidence of God. There are peoples on the earth without any Bible or missionary that ackowlege a Creator God. Even that is put within us. The reward of heaven and all that entails is icing on the cake.

Yall know I would +1000 this if I could, right? :D

Very good post.

[4dmin]

this shit is still going...


but for anyone who's refuted that life cycle as evolution or creationalism

they're idiots lol

its just stages of growing up/maturity. like a bird from a blob in an egg to hatching to getting feathers and all that stuff - no creation/evolution arguement there


reproduction is adaptation which is a form of evolution, there is obviously an arguement worth discussion we are at 7 pages :goodjob:

[Romeyo07]

how would you tie reproducing and adaptation together?

[RiceBoy]

Bingo. On this we do agree. :)

Now this is a question for pharm_teg, and only pharm_teg. It is not to provoke anything. I just want to hear your explanation on it.
Evolution relies on the Earth developing slowly over millions of years. It also clearly states that humans came over a million years after dinosaurs died out.
What about the Ica Stones? Obviously, ancient Peruvians saw and used dinosaurs that shoud have turned to buried fossils long before the first caveman. Evolutionists usually avoid this topic like the plague.
Here are a couple of pics of them, and the link to their main museum in Peru.
http://www.labyrinthina.com/icastonemuseum.htm


That's interesting..but then some people think they are fake..so do the Peruvian Govt..After looking at some pictures of the stones..They do look uncanny similar...If several people (the missing civilization) carved the stones, why do they all look the same in characteristics. You can say, they only have one design..For someone who supposibly be advance, shouldn't they have creativity?

According to evolution...creativity came first in the human evolution.

[4dmin]

how would you tie reproducing and adaptation together?

maybe you should read up on what adaptation means/is www.wikipedia.org (http://www.wikipedia.org)

[Romeyo07]

it was a serious question and I looked it up...but it only states that organisms that are adapted have the ability to reproduce. It doesn't say adaptation causes a being to reproduce.

[metalman]

it was a serious question and I looked it up...but it only states that organisms that are adapted have the ability to reproduce. It doesn't say adaptation causes a being to reproduce.

Adaptation doesnt give species the ability to repoduce or reCREATE.
The Creator gave that to all living reCREATING species including humans.
Some here are confused about that. ;)

[David88vert]

That's interesting..but then some people think they are fake..so do the Peruvian Govt..After looking at some pictures of the stones..They do look uncanny similar...If several people (the missing civilization) carved the stones, why do they all look the same in characteristics. You can say, they only have one design..For someone who supposibly be advance, shouldn't they have creativity?

According to evolution...creativity came first in the human evolution.

15,000 stones are a lot to carve - especially by hand (you should know :p) ..... And then there is the bacteria/varnish. The old stones have the covering, the one that are obviously fakes do not. So some of the stones have been around a long time, that much is certain.

So keep this in mind as you look at Mexico... http://www.viewzone.com/dinoclay.html

And don't forget the book of Job... "a behemoth with a tail like a cedar"...

The three items are at different times in different parts of the world. All are observations of creatures that should have died out millions of years before. It's easy to dismiss them if they don't fall into your line of thinking. But what if you take a look at all of them collectively? If you do that, the entire description of the Mesozoic Era must be re-engineered.

Just food for thought. By itself, this does not disprove evolution, but if it is indeed true, evolution itself must be re-written to match the observations.

[Stormhammer]

this shit is still going...



reproduction is adaptation which is a form of evolution, there is obviously an arguement worth discussion we are at 7 pages :goodjob:

well wikipediaing adaptation, like the moths example, its just a form of microevolution - where to actually sum it up? microevolution is just where the best survive and continue on - another form of microevolution/reproduction to further prove my point is say you have brown hair, blue eyes, and your spouse has blonde hair and blue eyes - you bang each other - 9 months later, baby pops out - has dirty blonde hair and blue eyes - microevolution right there - 25 years later, they're with their spouse who say, hm, has green eyes and brown hair - get their freak on - 9 months later pop out a kid - brown hair, green eyes - 25 years later they do say a dirty blonde with blue eyes - and pop out a blonde hair blue eyes - all microevolution

so even reproduction doesn't have much of anything to do much with the evolution/creationalism arguement

another case and point - Nazi's committing genocide, wanting the perfect blonde hair blue eyes race - with what you were stating, then if they had succeeded, that would be evolution :confused:



by the way - I don't know if you've heard about it or not

but the idea that God himself created the big bang - now personally I can believe that idea as well - if you think about how time is to God and what not, when the Bible states in Genesis that " God created the Heavens and the Earth " - well he could've created it in one really big CLICKY POW! :D (haha sorry I had to use that word )

[Romeyo07]

clicky pow....I like it!

[4dmin]

Adaptation doesnt give species the ability to repoduce or reCREATE.
The Creator gave that to all living reCREATING species including humans.
Some here are confused about that. ;)

ok, so if a baby dies in the womb of its mother, it can not reproduce it has no reproductive organs....

it is b/c GOD IS BABY KILLER or b/c adaptation the fetus could not survive in its enviroment?

Adaptations are the way living organisms cope with environmental stresses and pressures.

[metalman]

ok, so if a baby dies in the womb of its mother, it can not reproduce it has no reproductive organs....

it is b/c GOD IS BABY KILLER or b/c adaptation the fetus could not survive in its enviroment?
.[/i]

In this world we live with the effects of sin...which include disease, death, birth defects and many misc malfunctions. Death in the uterous is but one.

It is also true that God has created within the human being a system of protection...our immune system etc. It is a fact that often babies die early in pregnancy as part of the protective system. A woman can spontaneously abort simply because the body is rejecting a malformed baby as part of that protective system.

It is also true that as part of the effect of sin our world is polluted, our bodies have "fallen" from the perfection they once had. Either of those or both can cause death.

There are many reasons a baby can die within its mother. None of them disprove creation.

[4dmin]

In this world we live with the effects of sin...which include disease, death, birth defects and many misc malfunctions. Death in the uterous is but one.

It is also true that God has created within the human being a system of protection...our immune system etc. It is a fact that often babies die early in pregnancy as part of the protective system. A woman can spontaneously abort simply because the body is rejecting a malformed baby as part of that protective system.

It is also true that as part of the effect of sin our world is polluted, our bodies have "fallen" from the perfection they once had. Either of those or both can cause death.

There are many reasons a baby can die within its mother. None of them disprove creation.

no but it does prove adaptation

[metalman]

no but it does prove adaptation
Adaptation is creation in action. God created systems of life that have mechanisims of protection which include adaptation.

[Romeyo07]

neverending vicious cycle...

evolutionist say it evolved that way, creationist say it was made that way.

[4dmin]

Adaptation is creation in action. God created systems of life that have mechanisims of protection which include adaptation.

well if that is true then god created evolution and adaptation is a form of that. so again you can call an apple an orange, but its still an apple. :goodjob:

[metalman]

well if that is true then god created evolution and adaptation is a form of that. so again you can call an apple an orange, but its still an apple. :goodjob:

Your confusion about micro evolution / adaptation is well documented here.
You want to add 1 plus 1 and get 3. That doesnt work, no matter how much faith or hope you have.

Again...
Adaptation/microevolution IS of God. It is part of His creation.

Macro-evolution- mankind/life came from nothing is NOT of God. Its an invention of man and a religion in and of itself.

[4dmin]

Your confusion about micro evolution / adaptation is well documented here.
You want to add 1 plus 1 and get 3. That doesnt work, no matter how much faith or hope you have.

Again...
Adaptation/microevolution IS of God. It is part of His creation.

Macro-evolution- mankind/life came from nothing is NOT of God. Its an invention of man and a religion in and of itself.

macro/micro... they are both evolution... its the root word that counts here... you can believe that one is/isn't whatever...

large/small scale of things is what it comes down too... but even macro-evolution is made up of micro-evolution so there you go.

[metalman]

macro/micro... they are both evolution... its the root word that counts here... .

Therin lies your confusion.

Its NOT about the word...its about the origin of life. Its about the purpose/meaning of life. Its about the outcome. It always has been.
Micro evolution has NOTHING to do with that outside of being part of Gods Creation.
Macro evolution on the other hand is a theory of man, a religious belief system for people hoping there is no Creator God.

It really doesnt matter what word we use to describe Gods infinite creative system, it still remains His Creation.
Sorry dude...this isnt a word connection game.

[4dmin]

Therin lies your confusion.

Its NOT about the word...its about the origin of life. Its about the purpose/meaning of life. Its about the outcome. It always has been.
Micro evolution has NOTHING to do with that outside of being part of Gods Creation.
Macro evolution on the other hand is a theory of man, a religious belief system for people hoping there is no Creator God.

It really doesnt matter what word we use to describe Gods infinite creative system, it still remains His Creation.
Sorry dude...this isnt a word connection game.

well it obviously seems it is b/c i guess you missed where i said even macro-evolution is made up of micro.. it really doesn't matter what you want to call it, macro/micro are just the scale of the events. if it was creation why don't we just call it micro-creation/macro-creation?

you believe that god creates every single thing and we are puppets to a set design. i disagree w/ that i believe that possibly divine creation starts a process then evolution micro/macro takes its turn to a uncharted course.

[Romeyo07]

the flaw with your theory of possibly divine creation starting the evolution process is that you'd have to believe that such a divine creator exists. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought you didn't believe in the existance of a divine creator...a little lost here.

[4dmin]

the flaw with your theory of possibly divine creation starting the evolution process is that you'd have to believe that such a divine creator exists. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought you didn't believe in the existance of a divine creator...a little lost here.

no no i never said i didn't believe in anything... i just dont' believe in your God/heaven/hell/devil :goodjob:

[metalman]

well it obviously seems it is b/c i guess you missed where i said even macro-evolution is made up of micro...

I didnt miss it. The fact is the evidence just ISNT there to support YOUR hypothsis....as we have already discussed over and over again in this thread. On the contrary, the majority of factual evidence points to Creation.

As to the puppet scenario...you are seriously disillusioned if you think your evolution religion offers mankind control of his own destiny! By evolutions standards mankind has only a short time until he is extinct making way for the next lifeform to come along.

Even a superficial investigation of the decay of the world/planets life sustaining systems shows that life will not be sustained here very long.
Good luck!!

Fact is the earth and its systems 'waxing old like a garment' was foretold in Biblical prophecy and is coming to pass right before our eyes.

[Romeyo07]

no no i never said i didn't believe in anything... i just dont' believe in your God/heaven/hell/devil :goodjob:

So what do you believe in?

[4dmin]

So what do you believe in?

what i believe ... hmm good question w/ answers i can't give you... probably b/c i don't have them nor do i expect to get them in this life time. i know thats not what you wanted to hear but i'm still breathing so the choices are endless ;)

i guess we'll all just wait to see how the bible plays out right Metalman... tick tock, you nor i will ever see it so it won't matter. :goodjob:

[Stormhammer]

this might help for some insight

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

[4dmin]

^ i've read that


Microevolution can be contrasted with macroevolution; which is the occurrence of large-scale changes in gene frequencies, in a population, over a geological time period (i.e. consisting of lots of microevolution).

^ which is exactly what i stated in post #145

[C22H19N3O4]

Bingo. On this we do agree. :)

Now this is a question for pharm_teg, and only pharm_teg. It is not to provoke anything. I just want to hear your explanation on it.
Evolution relies on the Earth developing slowly over millions of years. It also clearly states that humans came over a million years after dinosaurs died out.
What about the Ica Stones? Obviously, ancient Peruvians saw and used dinosaurs that shoud have turned to buried fossils long before the first caveman. Evolutionists usually avoid this topic like the plague.
Here are a couple of pics of them, and the link to their main museum in Peru.
http://www.labyrinthina.com/icastonemuseum.htm


David you already know what I'm going to say. But I've never run into EVO's that avoided this topic. I remember this being discussed a while back in a few different forums. I think they are a hoax until someone proves me wrong. Why?

1: The guy that bought these was a physician, not geologist or even an archeologist.
2: He refused to let scientist test the areas in which they were discovered. Hell, he wouldn't even take blindfolded scientists to the location. He died and so did his "secret."
3: Scientists tested clay figurines discovered with some of the stones. They were modern. They said one even had water in it..lol. Obviously the stones could not be dated.
4: The stones are reportedly made of andesite, which is extremely hard to carve. I would bet it would take at least a month to actually carve one image. BTW, the ICA stones aren't carvings. They are more like etchings. Can you imagine how long it would take a group of people to actually carve stones made of andesite? I think they allegedly discovered like 10,000-15,000 stones. Plus several thousand more in a "secret" cave.
5: Some of the stones depict flying machines. Now, if an ancient civilization actually had that type of technology, I'm sure there would be more evidence of their existence. The evidence does not exist.
6: Even AiG believes they are fake. Click me (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/bishop.asp#r17). Reference the foot note #17.
7: The farmer that "discovered" the stones admitted they were fake.
I'm sure there were other reasons to refute the stones, but I can't think of them off the top of my head. It's been a long day. I personally think they were created by an artist (the alleged farmer) and used to draw tourists.
Bottomline, I can only answer your question if I believe they are genuine. Facts prove otherwise. BTW, that site you referenced is owned by his relatives. So of course they want to keep this hoax/legend alive. Artifacts are money makers.

[Stormhammer]

^ i've read that



^ which is exactly what i stated in post #145


the only problem is that from what I know, there hasn't been much of any documentation of large scale macroevolution, only theories. In a thousand years, there will be more than likely be better documentation of macroevolution, and I think from there people can start coming to more educated conclusions, but it'd still take a few more thousand years of documenting to come to a solid one that doesn't have any doubt in either case. Right now its just comparing bone structure and such. The velociraptor has similar bone structure to a bird - would you think one evolved from the other? I'm not stating that macroevolution doesn't happen, I'm just stating as before that there hasn't been enough documentation within the past hundred years to really prove much of anything ( since the evolution that tends to be debated against creationalism takes place over thousands of years ) - for all we know evolution could be cyclical, or continuously balanced as human beings ( meaning I dont think that like in the 5000 years humans are gonna have some new special ability or something like breath underwater or some weird stuff like that unless human intervention is involved )

[Stormhammer]

.
5: Some of the stones depict flying machines. Now, if an ancient civilization actually had that type of technology, I'm sure there would be more evidence of their existence. The evidence does not exist.


by flying machines do you mean UFO's?

[B18c1Turboed]

the opening verse of Genesis says: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Gen. 1:1) Thus it comes to grips with a question that baffles evolutionists. Instead of leaving us in the dark as to that fundamental point concerning the origin of all things, it tells us the answer, simply and understandably. It confirms our own observation of the fact that nothing comes into existence by itself. Grass huts, wooden homes and brick apartment buildings all were designed and built by someone. Even though we personally were not on hand when a particular structure was erected, we know that it had a builder. In harmony with that, the Bible reasons: "Every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God."—Heb. 3:4.

As to living things, Do not plants spring from seeds in which there is life? Do not insects, fish, land animals and humans come from living parents? Nothing living comes from a rock, unless seeds have lodged in its crevices or eggs have been laid there. So, then, the producing of something that has life requires a source that is alive. Biologists agree, but those who advocate evolution ask you to believe that, although they can point to no example of it today and there is no parallel for it, life sprang repeatedly from nonliving matter many millions of years ago. Since they cannot find proof of it here on the earth, they have had manned expeditions look for evidence of it on the moon, and they hope to check out their theory on Mars. The Bible, however, agrees with the observable fact that life derives only from a living source. Psalm 36:9 addresses to the "living God," the words: "With you is the source of life."


The Bible also explains how the various kinds of living things came into existence. In its opening chapter it tells us that God made the vegetation, the sea creatures, the birds and the land animals. (Gen. 1:10, 11, 21, 24) The Bible does not say that single-celled life forms evolved into grass, trees, fish, birds and land animals. Nor does it allow for the idea that God created such primitive life forms and then used evolution as the means for producing the various kinds of plants and animals that exist today. It says that he produced each "according to its kind," not from some other kind. When the time came for man to be produced, he was not developed from some apelike pre-Adamite, but, as the Bible says: "God proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul." Then, when that first man, Adam, became father to a son, in harmony with the rule that each produces "according to its kind," his son was "in his likeness, in his image."—Gen. 2:7; 5:3.


It is interesting to note that Science Education for October 1967 says: "The basic reason why the theory of evolution is rejected by so many, many who are familiar with modern biology, is because it conflicts with the account of creation in the Bible." If a person honestly believes that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, then, obviously, this should be the first and foremost reason why he believes in creation. He does not choose to believe in creation simply because he has become aware of flaws in the argument for evolution. Rather, he believes in creation because he believes in God and in His Word.

[Speedm0(\)key]

Evolution.

[{X}Echo419]

Matter can be neither created nor destroyed. Law
Evolution. Theory

Laws>Theory

[Wurm]

What i don't get is all of the people trying to refute the LIFE CYCLE AS I POSTED as creation? If it is truely creation at hand:

WHY DO WE NEED REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS? god is so great he can do it w/o the intervention of man.

IF IT IS CREATION WHY DO YOU HAVE TO EVOLVE INTO A FORM? god could just BAM you are a man, no need for sperm to egg to..

IF IT IS CREATION WHY ARE WE NOT ASEXUAL? there is no need for sex to begin with, your precious bible tells the story of Mary, when was the last time you saw a pregnant virgin?

Some of you need to get a clue, you can call it any name you want but the life cycle is evolution... as i stated in previous post, you can call an apple an orange but its still an apple. I find it amazing i dont' believe in your god yet i can amount life to some divine intervention to start the process and evolution takes over; yet there has not been one of you to say the same :jerkit: . Its like your world would come crashing down if the thought of evolution exsisting at all... you guys are blinded by faith.

maybe he created reproduction organs so he could have a nice porno stash



bahahhahahah fuk creationism