View Poll Results: Choose

Voters
59. You may not vote on this poll
  • Creation

    22 37.29%
  • Evolution

    31 52.54%
  • other: explain

    6 10.17%
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 121 to 160 of 161

Thread: Evolution or Creation?

  1. #121
    Official Reality Checker Romeyo07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Woodstock, GA
    Age
    44
    Posts
    758
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    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.


    Our Baby is Registered at Target
    Search for David or Amanda Adorno. Thanks!

  2. #122
    Proud to be Retrosexual Jaimecbr900's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    9,189
    Rep Power
    38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hulud
    way to fit the christian stereotype on that comment
    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
    I think I explained above exactly why the pot is calling the kettle black...
    Last edited by Jaimecbr900; 04-10-2006 at 10:01 PM.

  3. #123
    Proud to be Retrosexual Jaimecbr900's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    9,189
    Rep Power
    38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pharm_teg
    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......


    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?
    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.

  4. #124
    Here and there Hulud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Omnipresent
    Age
    41
    Posts
    29,877
    Rep Power
    55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaimecbr900
    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
    Val for President


  5. #125
    Certified Gearhead
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Age
    49
    Posts
    518
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    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...

  6. #126
    look here, bish Stormhammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Lawrenceville, GA
    Age
    38
    Posts
    9,288
    Rep Power
    35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by admin
    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


    ̿' ̿'\̵͇̿̿\з=(•̪●)=ε/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿ ̿

  7. #127
    Senior Member metalman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,122
    Rep Power
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trini_gsr
    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.

  8. #128
    Proud to be Retrosexual Jaimecbr900's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    9,189
    Rep Power
    38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by metalman
    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?

    Very good post.

  9. #129
    IA KING
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    14,745
    Rep Power
    150

    Default

    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

  10. #130
    Official Reality Checker Romeyo07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Woodstock, GA
    Age
    44
    Posts
    758
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    how would you tie reproducing and adaptation together?


    Our Baby is Registered at Target
    Search for David or Amanda Adorno. Thanks!

  11. #131
    Because I eat RICE RiceBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    2,244
    Rep Power
    25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David88vert
    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.

  12. #132
    IA KING
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    14,745
    Rep Power
    150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Romeyo07
    how would you tie reproducing and adaptation together?
    maybe you should read up on what adaptation means/is www.wikipedia.org

  13. #133
    Official Reality Checker Romeyo07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Woodstock, GA
    Age
    44
    Posts
    758
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    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.


    Our Baby is Registered at Target
    Search for David or Amanda Adorno. Thanks!

  14. #134
    Senior Member metalman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,122
    Rep Power
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    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.

  15. #135
    Slowest Car on IA David88vert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Johns Creek
    Age
    53
    Posts
    8,378
    Rep Power
    37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RiceBoy
    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.

  16. #136
    look here, bish Stormhammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Lawrenceville, GA
    Age
    38
    Posts
    9,288
    Rep Power
    35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by admin
    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
    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! (haha sorry I had to use that word )


    ̿' ̿'\̵͇̿̿\з=(•̪●)=ε/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿ ̿

  17. #137
    Official Reality Checker Romeyo07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Woodstock, GA
    Age
    44
    Posts
    758
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    clicky pow....I like it!


    Our Baby is Registered at Target
    Search for David or Amanda Adorno. Thanks!

  18. #138
    IA KING
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    14,745
    Rep Power
    150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by metalman
    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.

  19. #139
    Senior Member metalman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,122
    Rep Power
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by admin
    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.

  20. #140
    IA KING
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    14,745
    Rep Power
    150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by metalman
    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

  21. #141
    Senior Member metalman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,122
    Rep Power
    22

    Default

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

  22. #142
    Official Reality Checker Romeyo07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Woodstock, GA
    Age
    44
    Posts
    758
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    neverending vicious cycle...

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


    Our Baby is Registered at Target
    Search for David or Amanda Adorno. Thanks!

  23. #143
    IA KING
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    14,745
    Rep Power
    150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by metalman
    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.

  24. #144
    Senior Member metalman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,122
    Rep Power
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by admin
    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.
    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.

  25. #145
    IA KING
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    14,745
    Rep Power
    150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by metalman
    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.

  26. #146
    Senior Member metalman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,122
    Rep Power
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by admin
    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.

  27. #147
    IA KING
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    14,745
    Rep Power
    150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by metalman
    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.

  28. #148
    Official Reality Checker Romeyo07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Woodstock, GA
    Age
    44
    Posts
    758
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    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.


    Our Baby is Registered at Target
    Search for David or Amanda Adorno. Thanks!

  29. #149
    IA KING
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    14,745
    Rep Power
    150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    no no i never said i didn't believe in anything... i just dont' believe in your God/heaven/hell/devil

  30. #150
    Senior Member metalman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,122
    Rep Power
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by admin
    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.

  31. #151
    Official Reality Checker Romeyo07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Woodstock, GA
    Age
    44
    Posts
    758
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by admin
    no no i never said i didn't believe in anything... i just dont' believe in your God/heaven/hell/devil
    So what do you believe in?


    Our Baby is Registered at Target
    Search for David or Amanda Adorno. Thanks!

  32. #152
    IA KING
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    14,745
    Rep Power
    150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Romeyo07
    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.

  33. #153
    look here, bish Stormhammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Lawrenceville, GA
    Age
    38
    Posts
    9,288
    Rep Power
    35


    ̿' ̿'\̵͇̿̿\з=(•̪●)=ε/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿ ̿

  34. #154
    IA KING
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    14,745
    Rep Power
    150

    Default

    ^ 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

  35. #155
    D A W C22H19N3O4's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,041
    Rep Power
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David88vert
    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. 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.
    Last edited by pharm_teg; 04-13-2006 at 01:51 AM. Reason: GOD

  36. #156
    look here, bish Stormhammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Lawrenceville, GA
    Age
    38
    Posts
    9,288
    Rep Power
    35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by admin
    ^ 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 )


    ̿' ̿'\̵͇̿̿\з=(•̪●)=ε/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿ ̿

  37. #157
    look here, bish Stormhammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Lawrenceville, GA
    Age
    38
    Posts
    9,288
    Rep Power
    35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pharm_teg
    .
    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?


    ̿' ̿'\̵͇̿̿\з=(•̪●)=ε/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿ ̿

  38. #158
    Privateer Racing!!
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Duluth,Ga
    Age
    47
    Posts
    5,730
    Rep Power
    31

    Default



    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.


    Last edited by B18c1Turboed; 04-12-2006 at 04:36 PM.


  39. #159
    Senior Member | IA Veteran Speedm0(\)key's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Stone mountain GA
    Age
    43
    Posts
    6,717
    Rep Power
    27

    Default

    Evolution.
    2004 Nissan 350z Trng
    2004 Subaru WRX STi

    solamente los putos te llegan en numeros

  40. #160
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Omicron PERCI 8
    Age
    43
    Posts
    3,647
    Rep Power
    24

    Default

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

    Laws>Theory
    www.fairtax.org
    Quote Originally Posted by kelly
    True. But where's my sig?!! (lol)

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
ImportAtlanta is a community of gearheads and car enthusiasts. It does not matter what kind of car or bike you drive, IA is an open community for any gearhead. Whether you're looking for advice on a performance build or posting your wheels for sale, you're welcome here!
Announcement
Welcome back to ImportAtlanta. We are currently undergoing many changes, so please report any issues you encounter with the site using the 'Contact Us' button below. Thank you!