Christian Thread

[uniquinous]

I really like the "give him your love and comfort" part, but I can't see how the rest really... works with the point I made in my previous post. The "I ask you heal him tho understand it may not be what you want" part just seems... Is this making any sense? I'm having difficulty trying to explain the point. It's just, if it's not his will, asking for it doesn't do anything, and if it is his will, then asking for it doesn't change anything. So, there doesn't seem much reason to ask either way. I think I would understand/agree with it more if it was simply "i place my trust in your decision of wolfy", but in my limited experiences have found most prayer undermines that to specifically ask for what the person wants at the time. I see a large difference between "i trust you in your decision" and "I want _____"

EDIT: missed your first paragraph - yeah explain the jesus sinner paradox to me as I've not heard it.

[Cephas]

I really like the "give him your love and comfort" part, but I can't see how the rest really... works with the point I made in my previous post. The "I ask you heal him tho understand it may not be what you want" part just seems... Is this making any sense? I'm having difficulty trying to explain the point. It's just, if it's not his will, asking for it doesn't do anything, and if it is his will, then asking for it doesn't change anything. So, there doesn't seem much reason to ask either way. I think I would understand/agree with it more if it was simply "i place my trust in your decision of wolfy", but in my limited experiences have found most prayer undermines that to specifically ask for what the person wants at the time. I see a large difference between "i trust you in your decision" and "I want _____"

EDIT: missed your first paragraph - yeah explain the jesus sinner paradox to me as I've not heard it.
'I trust in your decision' and 'I want ____' can co-exist though. As a parent, I appreciate hearing my children tell me what they want, but I appreciate it even more when they know that I am looking out for their best interests and even though I may not give them what they always want, I will not steer them in the wrong direction. Asking, by the way, does change. Let me give an example of something in which it is very definitely God's will we have it: wisdom. We are encouraged to ask for wisdom from God, but he's not going to force it on someone who really doesn't want to be wise...

The Jesus as human yet not sinner is simple, yet eludes most people. The problem is perspective. He was perfectly human, just as Adam and Eve were perfectly human. It is we who are not. By introducing sin, we have become less than what we were meant to be. I wonder how much might look different with a slight shift in perspective... ;)

[camolots_guardi]

Thou shalt use protection.(Me: verse 3)

[TheSilverRider]

Thou shalt use protection.(Me: verse 3)

Um thats a nice verse a guess.:huh: :dry:

[andalite]

I think CS Lewis put it well, in the Chronicles of Narnia: when Polly and Diggory realized that they didn't bring any food for their trip, and they were like, wouldn't Aslan know that we need food? And Fledge replied "I get the feeling he likes to be asked." (If anyone has the full verse?)
And yeah, I think I agree with Cephas now about the prayer thing. I'm also learning through this convo ^^

Edit: *Please let Wolfy be ok, and please be with him and his family throughout this time Lord.

[TheSilverRider]

I'm also learning through this convo ^^

I think we all would agree that we all are...:)

[Pudge]

Bah, I wish there was a poll on this thread with the Q "Are You A Christian?" and the choice "Yes" and "No."

I'm just kind of interested on how many Christians there are here in TAO/the TAO forums.

Anyways, I am a Christian, so how is life, my brothers? :)

[TheSilverRider]

Im doing fine! Lol its nice to see a fellow christian every once in a while. :)

[Man's Laughter]

I'm sure it's hard to find one among the ~33% of the worlds population which is part of one of the many denominations of the Christian belief system.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

I'm sure it's hard to find one among the ~33% of the worlds population which is part of one of the many denominations of the Christian belief system.
Super difficult. Like finding a white guy in America.

[TheSilverRider]

Super difficult. Like finding a white guy in America.

HA HA HA That was hilarious i needed that laugh! HA HA HA. :rofl:

[Jeffery]

LOST CHAPTER IN GENESIS

So God asked him, "What is wrong with you?" Adam said
he didn't have anyone to talk to . God said that He
was going to make Adam a companion & that it would be
a woman. God said, "This person will gather food for
you, cook for you, & when you discover clothing,
she'll wash it for you. She will always agree with
every decision you make. She will bear your children
& never ask you to get up in the middle of the night
to take care of them. She will not nag you & will
always be the first to admit she was wrong when you've
had a disagreement. She will never have a headache &
will freely give you love & passion whenever you need
"it." Adam asked God, "What will a woman like this
cost?" God replied, "An arm & a leg." Then Adam
asked, "What can I get for a rib?" The rest is
history.

[Dove]

Man, now I understand SO much better... quite enlightening Jeff.

The Second Gap Theory there, chronicling the detailed origin of the woman.

I've always appreciated how many outspoken Christians there are in this community. I've come from forums where I was literally the ONLY active and known Christian browsing the boards. It's nice here though, I've always enjoyed it.

[Zoticus]

What about the children Jeff? Are they suppose to be slaves? I was in my youth, I had to sit at the tv and change the channel, there was not remote.

[Jeffery]

I guess the TV radiation theory is true then.....

[Zoticus]

Yes it is true, just look at me, I'm living proof.

[Office_Shredder]

http://blogs.knoxnews.com/knx/silence/archives/2006/03/missouri_to_get.shtml

This seems like the appropriate place to post this

[Aro23r]

Not just municipal level.... (See "Good thing none of these men are in power" thread, last post)

[ReTodd]

http://blogs.knoxnews.com/knx/silence/archives/2006/03/missouri_to_get.shtml

This seems like the appropriate place to post this

They need to recognise Christianity in Missouri. Every time my wagon passes through, Zeke gets the cholera and dies. Damn you Oregon Trail!

[Tao Rocks!]

I'm with you there Deathbydarkness, Im a Christian and all nonchristians can do or say watever but they're all going to go to #$%^

[TheSilverRider]

I'm with you there Deathbydarkness, Im a Christian and all nonchristians can do or say watever but they're all going to go to #$%^

That was not the point of this thread.:dry:

[Jehutyv.2.0]

I'm with you there Deathbydarkness, Im a Christian and all nonchristians can do or say watever but they're all going to go to #$%^
Especially the Jews. All of them. Oh, wait, wasn't Jesus a Jew? Yeah... he was.

[Aro23r]

I'm not sure how serious you are, Jehutyv...

[Jehutyv.2.0]

I'm not sure how serious you are, Jehutyv...
Here's a hint: I'm a Jew.

[Aro23r]

Please don't use that crappy argument again [Jesus was a Jew]. It really gives Jews a knock.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Please don't use that crappy argument again [Jesus was a Jew]. It really gives Jews a knock.
What... argument? :confused:

[Aro23r]

Saying: Oh, wait, wasn't Jesus a Jew? Yeah... he was

to back up beliefs or argue against a Gentile's statement.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Saying:

to back up beliefs or argue against a Gentile's statement.
To disprove that Jews are going to hell? No, thanks, I will use the argument that the savior of their faith was a Rabbi. It's not crappy at all.

[Aro23r]

But do you follow what the Rabbi taught?

[Jehutyv.2.0]

But do you follow what the Rabbi taught?
That has no bearing on the situation. He, were he alive today, would say his religion was Jewish. Therefore, by this idiot's logic, he would be in hell. But that creates a paradox. So his statement is denied.

[Aro23r]

Answer the question.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

First tell me what is wrong with my argument. That was your assertion before, was it not?

[Aro23r]

I'm leading up to it. No matter what I say you won't listen, hence I'm making gradual steps leading up to it.

Answer my question:

Do you follow / belief what said Rabbi taught?



EDIT: In case you are misunderstanding me, I'm not making the stance that all Jews go directly to Hell.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

I'm leading up to it. No matter what I say you won't listen, hence I'm making gradual steps leading up to it.

Answer my question:

Do you follow / belief what said Rabbi taught?



EDIT: In case you are misunderstanding me, I'm not making the stance that all Jews go directly to Hell.
If I had been there at the time and his words made sense to me, then yes, I would. Does this deny the fact that he is a Jew? No.

[Aro23r]

It's a yes/no question that you still haven't answered.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

It's a yes/no question that you still haven't answered.
No, I do not believe all of his words.

[Aro23r]

So, according to your logic, two people who believe two radically different things (fundamentally opposed to each other, and essential to the basis of their belief system, even) can be considered of the same religion?


In specific non-general terminology,

One person says: I am the Son of Man, Logos, God made Flesh, etc...
One person says: You're not... (you get it)

Yet they are the same religion?

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Explain to me how Christianity and Judaism are, as how you put it, "Radically different".

EDIT: Know what? I'll do you one better: I'll list them for you.

Jews' day of relaxation is Saturday as opposed to the Christian Sunday.
Jews don't eat pork, a rule established for logical reasons at the time, Christians don't eat meat on certain days in reverence.
Jesus is not the savior of humanity or God in human flesh in the Jewish faith. He was, however, a prophet.

There.

[Aro23r]

In a nutshell:

Jesus is the savior of the World.

Jesus is not the savior of the World.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

In a nutshell:

Jesus is the savior of the World.

Jesus is not the savior of the World.
And yet Jesus preached kindness to your neighbor, like the Jews. He preached forgiveness, like the Jews. He preached a monotheistic God was the only one ever.

Judaism and Christianity (on an average of all the different branches of Christianity) are 98% the same religion.

[Aro23r]

So by the same ticket is Buddhism the same as Judaism?

Zen and other forms of Buddhism preach compassion.


Weak example, I admit, since Buddhism is more of a philosophy. Sorry.

[Office_Shredder]

And yet Jesus preached kindness to your neighbor, like the Jews. He preached forgiveness, like the Jews. He preached a monotheistic God was the only one ever.

Judaism and Christianity (on an average of all the different branches of Christianity) are 98% the same religion.

Every religion preaches kindness to your neighbor and forgiveness. Nobody would follow one that didn't :rolleyes:

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Very weak, considering the Torah and the OT are THE SAME TEXT. That's like saying, "Well, you know, Harry potter 1 and Harry potter 2 are the same, and so is Lord of the Rings, because they both have magic".

[Aro23r]

I prefer the rhetorical question method... O_s here displays the "just say it, dammit!" method.

Do The Two Towers and The Return of the King not further explain and reveal events in The Fellowship of the Ring?

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Every religion preaches kindness to your neighbor and forgiveness. Nobody would follow one that didn't :rolleyes:
Very weak, considering the Torah and the OT are THE SAME TEXT. That's like saying, "Well, you know, Harry potter 1 and Harry potter 2 are the same, and so is Lord of the Rings, because they both have magic".Know why Jesus preached the same things as the Torah? Because he was RABBI.

[Office_Shredder]

Know why Jesus preached the same things as the Torah? Because he was RABBI.

Jesus also said that the teachings of the OT were obsolete.

[Aro23r]

We're too deep into analogies and allusions. Let's get back to what we're discussing.

Last I checked, Jesus was killed because he was a "bad Jew"

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Jesus also said that the teachings of the OT were obsolete.
Hmm. Yet they're in the bible. Interesting, don't you think?

[Jehutyv.2.0]

We're too deep into analogies and allusions. Let's get back to what we're discussing.

Last I checked, Jesus was killed because he was a "bad Jew"
We're not getting into the whole "Did the Jews kill Jesus?" debate. You'll say your bit, I'll say mine, we'll disagree, it'll escalate, and it'll all turn sour with everyone on your side because you're the elder and more respected one. Let's try and keep this as friendly as possible.

[Aro23r]

I am keeping this civil.

Who killed Him, then?


EDIT: Again, I'm not insinuating anything with my comments.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

I am keeping this civil.

Who killed Him, then?


EDIT: Again, I'm not insinuating anything with my comments.
Romans.

[Aro23r]

Ah, I see why you didn't want to get this started, but let's agree to end it before it does turn into what you saw beforehand.

But it cannot be denied that the Pharisees were more than happy to see Him dead.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Of course. Let's say you were a super angry democrat. If someone offed Bush and Cheyney and whoever was not liked, you wouldn't have done it, but you might be relived someone more fit is now at power, eh?

Don't connect the benefitted with the crime.

[Office_Shredder]

Hmm. Yet they're in the bible. Interesting, don't you think?

It makes me think the bible is a claptrap of stories, and not an integrated holy text. So yes, I suppose that is interesting, just not in the way that you thought. ;)

[Jehutyv.2.0]

It makes me think the bible is a claptrap of stories, and not an integrated holy text. So yes, I suppose that is interesting, just not in the way that you thought. ;)
But if we cannot trust the bible which has Jesus' teachings, how can we know he thought the OT was bunk?

[Aro23r]

I'll leave you to argue with O_S now, since our argument is going to grind to a halt. Kill it before it does deteriorate into the mess you called for above.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

But... there was no point. I'm not saying that saying "Jesus was a Jew" could win any argument... just in the case of this moron.

[Aro23r]

Oh. Could have said that earlier and save us this page and half or so. :happy:

[Office_Shredder]

But if we cannot trust the bible which has Jesus' teachings, how can we know he thought the OT was bunk?

Well, I don't think he was a prophet either. But if you buy into that sort of stuff, then I guess the bible would be the best place to see what he said

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Not here to fight belief, OS, only logic. Though I know you do love picking on me because I'm easy prey. ;)

[AlabamaBoy]

I have gone to church every sunday for my whole life and I have tried to interpret the message of it all. Jesus died for our sins, it was decided already before he was born. No doubt when he sees all the killing in his name it anoys him. Anyway I believe that the teachings of christ were aimed to make the world a better place not to point blame at something that happened thousands of years ago. If you want to make god happy be good unto your fellow man.

Placeing blame and getting riled up about something we cant change doesnt get us anywhere. If we always look back we cant see what lies ahead. Dont be caught up in your self liberation in the eyes of god. If you are a good person if you help others and help those in need you are good.

God loves all of his children, vengeance is not one of the lords qualities. I think that god saves people from the wrong and shows them the light.

Have faith always.

[Aro23r]

Jesus was born to die?

Does that not knock right at Jesus' free will and play into the Calvinistic view of predestination?



I don't want to debate this because I don't know enough about modern views of this question. Just something to think about.

[AlabamaBoy]

That not exactly what I meant. I am saying that I believe Jesus was born to spread the word, show humanity the ways of good, make the worls a better place and redeem us. I dont think the way he was meant to redeem us was predestined, but it had to happen some way. And it turns out thats what happened.

[Aro23r]

Jesus died for our sins, it was decided already before he was born.


Devil's advocate time. I apologize.
Just playing devil's advocate (just so that you know)

I dont think the way he was meant to redeem us was predestined

So God the Father didn't know? Not really omniscient then, eh?

[AlabamaBoy]

It depends if you think that he can see foward as well as back. Since every choice that every sentiant being makes changes the outcome of everything, we cannot know if the lord is all knowing about the future as well as the past.

[Aro23r]

But nothing happens without a reason.

Therefore, if every aspect of the past is known (EVERY), the future isn't too hard to foresee.

[AlabamaBoy]

The point is, if the lord is all knowing about the past he can pretty much know for sure what will happen in the future, because of this 99.9 omniscient.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

But nothing happens without a reason.
I'm going to have to call you on this one, Aro.

That's the logical view of it. God is omnipotent (in the concept of God) and thus can defy logic.

[Aro23r]

Way to burst my bubble, Jehutyv.2.0

As much as I hate the Kantian philosophy there ("I have found it necessary to deny reason to make room for faith"); I can't argue against it because our definition of terms comes in the way and we can't proceed.

But AlabamaBoy, 99.9% implies that there is something that is unknown; hence, not all-knowing.

[AlabamaBoy]

All powerful and all knowing are two very very differant things. The way I look at it is this, do you logic your way into loving?, can you find faith with logic?, and do you logic yourself into hope... The answer to all of these is no.

You feel love, faith finds you and hope is a gift that helps us through the difficult times in our lives.

Faith, hope and love...

[Aro23r]

When have I mentioned "power" or "loving"

I'm talking about "knowing".

[Man's Laughter]

All powerful and all knowing are two very very differant things. The way I look at it is this, do you logic your way into loving?, can you find faith with logic?, and do you logic yourself into hope... The answer to all of these is no.

You feel love, faith finds you and hope is a gift that helps us through the difficult times in our lives.

Faith, hope and love...

Logic > Faith, hope, and love

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Way to burst my bubble, Jehutyv.2.0

As much as I hate the Kantian philosophy there ("I have found it necessary to deny reason to make room for faith"); I can't argue against it because our definition of terms comes in the way and we can't proceed.

But AlabamaBoy, 99.9% implies that there is something that is unknown; hence, not all-knowing.
Heh, you have your vendetta against Jesus being a Jew, I have mine against logic against God. ;)

[Aro23r]

...More like a vendetta against pointless and contentless yet overly used and abused aphorisms. But oh well,

[AlabamaBoy]

Man's laughter is wrong. Without those things you can never be whole.

[Aro23r]

Man's Laughter disagrees with you.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

...More like a vendetta against pointless and contentless yet overly used and abused aphorisms. But oh well,
Yep, same with mine.

[AlabamaBoy]

Edit: Yeah thanks aro im a little tired and i didnt see which way the pointer thing was going...

[Aro23r]

Heh, it's late; happens.

[AlabamaBoy]

Yeah well, Ill take it as a sure sign its my nap time.

A parting word:
"look outside you window at beuaty in nature, breath the sweet air and thank god everyday for the blessings bestowed upon you."
-Father Andrew J. Johnson

My preacher was a good man, he gave me the faith in god and myself to carry on through the hard times. As he used to say,
"Theres a light at the end of the tunnel boy and it aint a train..."Yeah he was a good man...

[Man's Laughter]

Man's laughter is wrong. Without those things you can never be whole.

I am whole. I am lacking in no physical "pieces"-- I have all of my proper organs, sections of my skeletal structure, nervous system, etc.. Spirituality is not necessary to be "whole".

Whoops.

[AlabamaBoy]

After you die you lose your body...


And if you are not spiritualy whole... Then you are incomplete you are nothing, but a broken and empy vessal.

[Hellblazer]

After you die you lose your body...


And if you are not spiritualy whole... Then you are incomplete you are nothing, but a broken and empy vessal.
There's no such thing as a "spirit". Geez, no wonder I went atheist. Nothing on this page makes any scientific sense.

[uniquinous]

interesting...

what argument do you have to back that claim?

How does one become spiritually whole? Your religeon? Any religeon? Beliving that you are whole? Please tell me. Scholar are constantly trying to define consciousness, let alone spiritual consciousness. Take your best shot.

How does one become whole? If you say "by following blah blah blah bible", I will ask why other religeons can't reach that same end through different means. What does it?

[Hellblazer]

interesting...

what argument do you have to back that claim?

How does one become spiritually whole? Your religeon? Any religeon? Beliving that you are whole? Please tell me. Scholar are constantly trying to define consciousness, let alone spiritual consciousness. Take your best shot.

How does one become whole? If you say "by following blah blah blah bible", I will ask why other religeons can't reach that same end through different means. What does it?
Me?

[uniquinous]

no, the other noob :p "you're not complete" and all that. AlaBoy

[uniquinous]

Entirely incorrect. Not to mention you selectively ignored key points of my post. Try not to prove my point in your posts, please. It makes debate all too easy.
Simply because we disagree on certain things does in no way mean I must contend every single one of your points. If you feel I am proving your points, it speaks more to agreement then one of us winning some forum competition that one of us doesn't even know exists.

Knowledge is not pointless. However, it is not fulfilling. Think of how often theories and "laws" are revised. How arrogant of us to think that ours is the final revision; the last link of the intellectual chain. God has allowed us to obtain truth through science. However, He has not allowed us to grasp ultimate truth through science.
Who has ever claimed that? Also, knowledge is very fullfilling to some people. Some spend their entire lives dedicated to research - and when they find an outcome to that research, it can make their life so meaningful. This probably belongs in the christianity thread (as that is your basis at this point), but saying God allows for research findinds suggests there is a lack of free will... Also, you're assuming there is some ultimate truth that can be grasped (which might not be the case). I can assure you that someone studying the dumpy nematode is not out for "ultimate truth", just some simple genetics. :)

Christianity does not retard progress. Essentially all of western knowledge was prolonged by monastic writers and historians. When Rome fell and the church picked up the pieces, monasticism was the predominant force in retaining the knowledge of the Greeks and Romans and was the only force in producing new knowledge. While limited progress took place outside the church, it was mostly stagnant. Also, I believe I already stated that Christianity does not abolish science; IT ENCOURAGES IT. Christian scientists exist (as I've already said and you've chosen to ignore because it's not within your presupposed stereotype of Christianity and is thus incomprehensible to your closed mind) because GOD TELLS US TO TAKE STEWARDSHIP OF THE EARTH. HE tells us to study and to take dominion. As I already said, God gives us science to encourage us to explore and expand our minds. You chose to ignore this in my post. Please don't in this one.
Yes, it does, very often. The church was responsible for the inquisition - killing people who believed the earth revolved around the sun. That's not to say it *only* retards progress, but it's had it's fair share, much moreso then most other religeons. I never refuted the claim that christianity abolishes science. Just because I don't touch on a topic doesn't mean I disagree with it, or don't have a counterargument. And please, before you start lecturing on "presupposed stereotypes of my incomprehensible closed mind", you might want to take a step back and realize you just classified me in a presupposed stereotype when I haven't said *anything* on this topic previously. Hypocrisy in the face of agreement speaks poorly to your character. Everything is not in extremes or opposition.

However, I will make the claim that "christian science" at its core is "science" that happens to fit with the church's ideas (this is why there are christian creationists, and not christian based evolutionists). Science is the pursuit of documentable truth, whether that truth agrees with what's wanted/expected or not. The hardcore christian scientists don't follow this creed. Self proclaimed christian "scientists" prototypically set out to prove the bible right. A pre-set goal that can't be changed or swayed isn't science.

your poorly formulated and ignorant retort. Try not to make such a fool out of yourself next time... anti-Christian moron If you want to make this a disrespectful dialogue, I will follow. Is this the knowledge and warmth your god has shown you? I never realized christianity teaches that petty insults are the way to make a point. If you are an example of your religeon's teachings, that must be a pretty pathetic belief system. Christ must have been a real bastard if you are an example of his teachings. See? Even I can make gross generalizations, assumptions, and superficial stabs at insult. The difference is I don't actually believe these insults, and only used them to make a point. Please, leave such language out of this conversation.

Ok. That's true. There's no rebuttal on my behalf because nothing you said here goes against any of my beliefs or my previous statements. You said this why? Because you ignored what I said. Try not to make such a fool out of yourself next time. This will include reading what I have to say and having an open mind. I'm sorry I expect so much.
Again it seems you have taken all defensive steps against me despite the fact that we agree on many points. You call me closed minded yet you don't even see this simple fact. I say things to make points, whether they are agreeing points you haven't elaborated fully, or respectful disagreements.

Perhaps you should reconsider your forum etiquette.

Respectfully,
~uniquin

[Hatchet Klown]

OMFG, this DeathByDarkness noob is still around?!?!?!?!

WOW!!!

[Office_Shredder]

I just need to expand upon
Knowledge is not pointless. However, it is not fulfilling


If knowledge is not fulfilling, then what is? Worshipping god? Do you not find it more fulfilling to worship a god you understand fully, and can comprehend to the best of your ability? Or do you find it more fulfilling to wallow in ignorance of your own religion? Knowledge IS fulfilling, else you wouldn't care whether a god existed or not

[Dove]

If knowledge is not fulfilling, then what is? Worshipping god? Do you not find it more fulfilling to worship a god you understand fully, and can comprehend to the best of your ability? Or do you find it more fulfilling to wallow in ignorance of your own religion? Knowledge IS fulfilling, else you wouldn't care whether a god existed or not

You can make no different of a case for science than I can for God.

Do you understand science fully? Absolutely not. It's impossible. Do I understand God fully? No, but I have the promise that some day I will.

In the current human state, the best that either of us can do is comprehend to the best of our abilities. It just doesn't make sense to me that people would place their trust in something that promises no hope for the future. Does science require faith? Oh yes. Absolutely. Moreso than Christianity... God never changes, it's very real and very personable... while He doesn't change, He reveals different aspects and facets of Himself to different people in different ways. It's both personal and ultimate. Clearly understandable and at the same time admittedly incomprehensible. Such is God.

Science changes, however. Laws are rewritten, principles revised or washed into inexistence only to be replaced by the newest in a continuous cycle that hasn't stopped yet, nor will it ever. People say Christians are stupid for following an ancient text. Um, I'd rather put my faith and trust in something that has been without revision for the last two thousand years, all that without being disproven or discredited.. It's not stupid... it's belief in something consistent as opposed to something dynamic.

You'll have to clarify your last statement, I'm not sure I hear what you're trying to say.

[uniquinous]

You can make no different of a case for science than I can for God.

Do you understand science fully? Absolutely not.
How, exactly, do you define "science"? I'm just a little curious, as you make it sound through various posts that science is complete knowledge of the universe. Perhaps this is the source of the miscommunication. Science, in my own eyes, is the pursuit of truth. It is defined in dictionaries as:
"The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena."
To that end, science absolutely can be fully understood. I fully understand Newtonian mechanics, genetics, c++ logic, the relationship between current and resitance in circuits, the difference between the plant and animal kingdoms, etc. These are all science, understanding, identification, description. I can fully understand historical findings, as well as current works and findings.

[Dove]

How, exactly, do you define "science"? I'm just a little curious, as you make it sound through various posts that science is complete knowledge of the universe. Perhaps this is the source of the miscommunication. Science, in my own eyes, is the pursuit of truth. It is defined in dictionaries as:
"The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena."
To that end, science absolutely can be fully understood. I fully understand Newtonian mechanics, genetics, c++ logic, the relationship between current and resitance in circuits, the difference between the plant and animal kingdoms, etc. These are all science, understanding, identification, description. I can fully understand historical findings, as well as current works and findings.

Perhaps. The point is that science has obvious limitations: human perception among the foremost of them.

I don't see any sense in lifting up science as a primary priority or a "god" figure, when, because of various reasons, it is impossible to use to explain everything. The difference I find is this: I can't fully understand an eternal God, neither can you understand the entirety of the universe and all aspects of it. However, because human perception is drastically limited (even small, insignificant examples as I gave in the other thread attribute themselves to the fact that human perception and understanding can be skewed), science in whatever form you prefer it does not OFFER an ultimate explanation. God does.

At any rate, apologies if I've breached any boundaries. While I don't show it often on the forums I get steamed from time to time and recently a few people have had the burner on under my kettle.

I'm headed out for the night. I've gotta get some rest so I can calculate my horsepower tomorrow morning.

*flies away*

[battle composed]

Even thought this thread started out shaky, it has become an interesting read as the pages increases. I'm quite enjoying this thread.

I'm just curious about this. Is christianity more than a book? The book in question is the bible. The priests->people probably do not get visions from God, which means their wisdom are taught from the bible. Mankind wrote the book, and it is said to be based on God. So are the words of God the bible?

Did God create the bible or did the bible create him? And so, is christianity more than just the bible?

This can probably apply to most religions out there.

[uniquinous]

Perhaps. The point is that science has obvious limitations: human perception among the foremost of them.
Yes and no. Some things are inherently true. You can point to unexplainable atomic or universal phenomena, but those are areas that science hasn't quite fully characterized. Despite our "limitations in perception", we have come forward with great truths about the natural sciences. Science reports on our limitations, among other things, and thus can be very fullfilling.

I don't see any sense in lifting up science as a primary priority or a "god" figure, when, because of various reasons, it is impossible to use to explain everything. The difference I find is this: I can't fully understand an eternal God, neither can you understand the entirety of the universe and all aspects of it. However, because human perception is drastically limited (even small, insignificant examples as I gave in the other thread attribute themselves to the fact that human perception and understanding can be skewed), science in whatever form you prefer it does not OFFER an ultimate explanation. God does.
Who here has lifted up science as a god figure? I absolutely see it as a primary priority for humanity though. Advancement in medicine, which save lives and increase lifespans come from science, not god. Pharmaceutical products allows people to live with great physical pain; god might help them get through it, but they still *feel* the pain itself. Point being: a medical scientist developing a new procedure or instrument will help patience much more then praying. That's not to say prayer is unimportant, just that we have it in our ability to physically aid people much more through science and the expert training of doctors. While enlightenment and spiritual healing might be attained through religeon, it can't really perform a triple bypass.

You claim only god can offer an "ultimate explanation". The problem with that argument is, s/he doesn't. Not to the living anyway. So my claim is that science offers explanation enough to heal, to offer some truth, to give explanation enough to move this world forward. Science does this - the seeking of truth, not prayer. You cannot deny this claim.

At any rate, apologies if I've breached any boundaries. While I don't show it often on the forums I get steamed from time to time and recently a few people have had the burner on under my kettle.If? Let me be the first to say you have. While I accept your appology, I am hesitant to believe we have seen the end of such outbursts. Short tempers can be harmful, and I don't like the fact that you took other aggression out on me and other forumers.

I'm here to have intersting dialogue. Andalite, Cephas, and many others have provided great examples of how differences in beliefs can still come together in respectful exchanges and share ideas. (note to self: spread some rep...).

[AlabamaBoy]

Uniq, following one practice or religeon does not make you whole so i will not tell you that it does. I know alot of people disagree with me here, but being a good person has nothing to do with what deviation, sect, cult ect. you belong to. The basic moral principles never change.

1. Be good to one another.
2. Do not kill unless the other person is trying to kill you and it is in defense.
3. Hold family above all else.
4. Keep your promises unless someones life would be put in danger by that promise.
5. Do not assume anything until you have a good enough understanding of it.
6. Contribute to your community, volunteer, or give money whatever you can do to better the world around you.
7. Spend time outside away from cars, other people and cities.
8. Try to gain a deeper understanding of yourself and thoses you love.
9. Avoid confrontation, if at all possible.
10. Dont be afraid to share how you realy feel or else you will regret it later.
11. Find someone you can spend the rest of your life with. Be it a good friend, adopted child, lover, wife, husband ect. You get the point.
12. Seek opportunities to better yourself.
13. Dont take things too personaly, you never know what someone else is going through.
14. Laugh, its good for the soul.
15. Dont become a slave to ruotine or you will regret it. Seek things that make your life exiteing and fun.

If you feel like I am missing something on my list, please message me.
Thankies :D

[Aro23r]

I can name several philosophers / theologians / historians who would slash your list to pieces...

You give too many exceptions to your own rules.

[Office_Shredder]

Perhaps. The point is that science has obvious limitations: human perception among the foremost of them.

Interestingly enough, no. If human perception was an obvious limitation, we wouldn't be studying the cosmic background radiation, or taking images of individual atoms, or viewing galaxies so far away they appear as a speck of dust would in a haystack. Human perception holds literally no bounds for science in this day and age.

I don't see any sense in lifting up science as a primary priority or a "god" figure, when, because of various reasons, it is impossible to use to explain everything.

So? Just because it can't explain everything doesn't mean that what it DOES explain is incorrect. Would you throw away a high school math book because it doesn't go deep enough into set theory? Of course not... you use what resources you have on hand to increase your understanding.

The difference I find is this: I can't fully understand an eternal God, neither can you understand the entirety of the universe and all aspects of it. However, because human perception is drastically limited (even small, insignificant examples as I gave in the other thread attribute themselves to the fact that human perception and understanding can be skewed), science in whatever form you prefer it does not OFFER an ultimate explanation. God does.

Here's the crutch of your argument. God offers me no ultimate explanation. Religion, at best, promises that one day, in the far off future, everything will be explained to me.

One more thing: Human understanding of science can be skewed.... so why can't human understanding of religion also be far off mark?

[uniquinous]

Aro beat me to it, but I will be the one to actually do the slashing.

1. This is pretty vague, and doesn't actually touch on any moral.
3. There are many cases where this shouldn't be so. Abusive families should not be held in high regard.
5. Again, pretty vague. Everyone believes they have a "good enough" understanding of the things they assume - that's why they assume them.
7. How is this a "basic moral principle that never changes"?

9. This one I'll set far apart from all the rest. Many cultures, such as the society of friends, (which I hold very dear), very strongly encourages confrontation, and further reasons that not all confrontation need be bad. Constructive dialogue and clarifications can result from confrontation, and such is the better action then bottling up anger or hatred. Quite a few people are confused why I send them PMs after direct attacks on my personality. This is why. I can chew the person out in public, leaving both of us worse off in the end, or I can come to them trying to settle matters peacefully in a great confrontation. I think avoiding confrontation leads to worse things in the end. While it might be uncomfortable, it clearly helps in the long and short run.

k I think I'll stop there. Just had to point out the confrontation one.

[Cephas]

Uniq, following one practice or religeon does not make you whole so i will not tell you that it does. I know alot of people disagree with me here, but being a good person has nothing to do with what deviation, sect, cult ect. you belong to. The basic moral principles never change.

1. Be good to one another.
2. Do not kill unless the other person is trying to kill you and it is in defense.
3. Hold family above all else.
4. Keep your promises unless someones life would be put in danger by that promise.
5. Do not assume anything until you have a good enough understanding of it.
6. Contribute to your community, volunteer, or give money whatever you can do to better the world around you.
7. Spend time outside away from cars, other people and cities.
8. Try to gain a deeper understanding of yourself and thoses you love.
9. Avoid confrontation, if at all possible.
10. Dont be afraid to share how you realy feel or else you will regret it later.
11. Find someone you can spend the rest of your life with. Be it a good friend, adopted child, lover, wife, husband ect. You get the point.
12. Seek opportunities to better yourself.
13. Dont take things too personaly, you never know what someone else is going through.
14. Laugh, its good for the soul.
15. Dont become a slave to ruotine or you will regret it. Seek things that make your life exiteing and fun.

If you feel like I am missing something on my list, please message me.
Thankies :D
From where are you coming up with these maxims? I disagree with many.

[uniquinous]

pwnzor3d by your own p30pl3z!

[Aro23r]

I'm just gonna throw this into the fire; I'm not saying I agree or disagree or anything with it. This is Dostoevsky's main question:

You conceive a child.
You lock your child in the cellar and chain him to a wall.
Everyday for 20 years, you come home from work, go to your cellar, and beat the crap out of your child.
On his 20th birthday, you buy him a house, a car, introduce him to excellent, intelligent, beautiful people, find him a job; everything he could possibly ever want.

Does this fix the problem?


Discuss; I'm just tossing it into the fire. It was brought up in a discussion on Crime and Punishment and Fyodar Dostoevsky today.

[Kyir]

I'm just gonna throw this into the fire; I'm not saying I agree or disagree or anything with it. This is Dostoevsky's main question:

You conceive a child.
You lock your child in the cellar and chain him to a wall.
Everyday for 20 years, you come home from work, go to your cellar, and beat the crap out of your child.
On his 20th birthday, you buy him a house, a car, introduce him to excellent, intelligent, beautiful people, find him a job; everything he could possibly ever want.

Does this fix the problem?

not at all, it just covers it in a layer of frilly pink stuffs

[AlabamaBoy]

I live my life by those rules.
The exception proves the rule Aro.

[Office_Shredder]

I live my life by those rules.
The exception proves the rule Aro.

The exception proves the rule incorrect.

[AlabamaBoy]

okay O_S
your right
#9

[Office_Shredder]

okay O_S
your right
#9

In direct contradiction with number 10 :rolleyes:

[uniquinous]

is anyone else confused by recent posts or is it just me? :huh:

EDIT: oh, yes - i see O_S claim - #9 directly conflicts with #10 - still confused on other things tho...

[d00msday]

I was tryin to read them to make sense of it but i cant.

[Office_Shredder]

is anyone else confused by recent posts or is it just me? :huh:

EDIT: oh, yes - i see O_S claim - #9 directly conflicts with #10 - still confused on other things tho...

Aro said that there are well known people who are respected as top minds in the realms of philosophy and theology who would disagree with the master list. Alabama said "the exception proves the rule", apparently believing that an exception to the rule (i.e. the philosophers), proved it. I explained to him how the exceptions proved the rule false, not true, and he replied by citing rule number nine

[uniquinous]

Ah, gotcha - it was that lack of reasoning that lost me for a bit - thanks for the clarification :)

[andalite]

About rule #9... I just wanted to mention that Jesus probably was one of the greatest radicals in His time. He spoke against the Pharisees and Sadducees so much that they arrested and killed Him. He kicked out the moneylenders from the temple, and He taught that He was the Son of God. You don't get much more confrontational than that. But I think what you mean is that there are some societal values that are common across all peoples, not just all religions, and I agree with that, if not with your rules in particular.

[Scorpionz]

Hmm I guess your right...

[TheBlazedAce]

Now that we're into defining a standard moral system, I'll give mine, because I really want it to be torn to pieces all ready, I've had it for way too long:

The most right thing to do in a situation is the course of action that results in the most total(net) happiness.

The most wrong thing to do in a situation is the course of action that results in the most total(net) unhappiness.

Statistics apply, another words, take the action that most of the time will output these things. For example, sometimes lying keeps people a little more happy for the moment, but statistically if this is a huge deal then over time they'll eventually discover the lie and much more unhappiness will proceed. Also, sometimes no one discovers that a murder was done so someone is happy in that situation and because no one else knows, they are not unhappy, but statistically most of the time people will discover what happened and people will be very unhappy.

[Cephas]

I'm just gonna throw this into the fire; I'm not saying I agree or disagree or anything with it. This is Dostoevsky's main question:

You conceive a child.
You lock your child in the cellar and chain him to a wall.
Everyday for 20 years, you come home from work, go to your cellar, and beat the crap out of your child.
On his 20th birthday, you buy him a house, a car, introduce him to excellent, intelligent, beautiful people, find him a job; everything he could possibly ever want.

Does this fix the problem?


Discuss; I'm just tossing it into the fire. It was brought up in a discussion on Crime and Punishment and Fyodar Dostoevsky today.
Out of curiosity, did anyone at all involved in the discussion you mentioned actually agree that the materialistic band-aid approach fixed the problem?

Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, but it strikes me that the spoiling that seems to show forth after year 20 is equally detrimental to the cruelty of the first 20 years...

[Liquid Swordsman]

Jesus won't you fucking whistle
Something but the past and done

[TheSilverRider]

Please dont cuss.

[ReTodd]

Jesus won't you f#*king whistle

Am I responsible for cussing since I posted someone else's writing to bring it to the attention of the rest of the community? Or, am I justified in posting obscenities because it was not I who expressed those views? I feel I am responsible. What do your moral ideals tell you (christian or other)?

:p

EDIT: the curse word has been edited to keep from offending anyone.

[TheSilverRider]

I would say since that word is posted BY YOU it is your fault. If you truly thought that was wrong you should have altered the quote still getting the point across (i.e. f******).

[Liquid Swordsman]

I would say since that word is posted BY YOU it is your fault. If you truly thought that was wrong you should have altered the quote still getting the point across (i.e. f******).
Why have these forums become overun with such pussies?

[uniquinous]

perhaps because we aren't insecure in our gender and need to constantly remind ourselves how macho we are by cursing and belittling others in a pathetic delusion to feel like we are elevating ourselves. ;) Just an idea tho.

BlazedAce - this is indeed a good principle, and is what many religeons and government form their ideas/laws around, whether directly or indirectly. Suicide is seen as bad, even if it's what the person in question wants, due to all the other social implications it has (which creates a net negative), for example.

[Liquid Swordsman]

perhaps because we aren't insecure in our gender and need to constantly remind ourselves how macho we are by cursing and belittling others in a pathetic delusion to feel like we are elevating ourselves. ;) Just an idea tho.

Nah, I don't think that's it.

[uniquinous]

meh, i've been wrong before

[Jehutyv.2.0]

perhaps because we aren't insecure in our gender and need to constantly remind ourselves how macho we are by cursing and belittling others in a pathetic delusion to feel like we are elevating ourselves. ;) Just an idea tho.

Nail to head-->WHAM!

[TheBlazedAce]

Dam, I was hoping more the one person commented on my moral system... At least some of these guys always going morals are all relative bla bla bla...

[Jehutyv.2.0]

You just like to stir up trouble, don't you?

[TheBlazedAce]

You just like to stir up trouble, don't you?
The thirst for knowledge is only further aroused by confrontation and destruction, why do you think almost every great invention is attributed to some war throughout history?

[uniquinous]

:huh: ?

[Jehutyv.2.0]

The thirst for knowledge is only further aroused by confrontation and destruction, why do you think almost every great invention is attributed to some war throughout history?
Just like the matress. That is one machine of war, right there.

[Jeffery]

:huh: ?
He is saying that the greatest advances in human knowledge come during times of conflict, because at that time there is a greater NEED for advances.

[uniquinous]

hmm... I dunno - I think many novel ideas hit the backburner, while advancements to existing ideas came about.

The Airplane - 1903. I think the closest war was WWI at... 1914? (I'm really weak in history so please correct me if I'm wrong.)

The Intarw3bz - 1983 Closest war was 1973 - Vietnam, right?

If you can give me 2 greater inventions, I will swallow Wizzy` whole. :p

[Jehutyv.2.0]

He is saying that the greatest advances in human knowledge come during times of conflict, because at that time there is a greater NEED for advances.
That is the truth. But this is the internet, not some battlfield, so no invention will come of this.

[Jeffery]

hmm... I dunno - I think many novel ideas hit the backburner, while advancements to existing ideas came about.

The Airplane - 1903. I think the closest war was WWI at... 1914? (I'm really weak in history so please correct me if I'm wrong.)

The Intarw3bz - 1983 Closest war was 1973 - Vietnam, right?

If you can give me 2 greater inventions, I will swallow Wizzy` whole. :p
The IDEA for the internet was from the military though. The creation of the actual web was inspired to be a way to communicate on the battlefield without fear of losing communication if one connection was lost. This makes the intraweb inspired by the military in anticipation of conflicts.

The airplane was invented in peacetime, but the greatest advances in it, ie jet power, was brought forth during wartime. As was radar, sonar, and guidance systems.

Anticipation of conflict often spurs the advances, so that IF the conflict happens, we are ready.

As for greater inventions:
Light Bulb
Electricity
The Wheel
Geopolitcal Police Actions

[Jehutyv.2.0]

The IDEA for the internet was from the military though. The creation of the actual web was inspired to be a way to communicate on the battlefield without fear of losing communication if one connection was lost. This makes the intraweb inspired by the military in anticipation of conflicts.

The airplane was invented in peacetime, but the greatest advances in it, ie jet power, was brought forth during wartime. As was radar, sonar, and guidance systems.

Anticipation of conflict often spurs the advances, so that IF the conflict happens, we are ready.

As for greater inventions:
Light Bulb
Electricity
The Wheel
Geopolitcal Police Actions
Woah, hang on. Electricity wasn't invented and actions aren't inventions.

[Jeffery]

Woah, hang on. Electricity wasn't invented and actions aren't inventions.
If you say generating, harnessing and distributing electrical currents is not considered an invention, then you just said 2 very prolific inventors never did anything.

[uniquinous]

OK Jeffery - point well taken, but that wasn't the original claim. My counter to the original claim was exactly what you just said:
I think many novel ideas hit the backburner [during war], while advancements to existing ideas came about.
So yes, we are in agreement, but my point still stands: despite whether they were developed during or in anticipation of wartime, many of these were initially invented outside of war. (but yes, I agree with you, with the exception of the light bulb - that's overrated)

[Jeffery]

OK Jeffery - point well taken, but that wasn't the original claim. My counter to the original claim was exactly what you just said:

So yes, we are in agreement, but my point still stands: despite whether they were developed during or in anticipation of wartime, many of these were initially invented outside of war. (but yes, I agree with you, with the exception of the light bulb - that's overrated)
Ok, so when will you eat Wizzy?

[uniquinous]

no no, swallow whole - the trouble is catching him...

*notices this is the christian thread*

hey, you guys want his soul? or should i toss it to Jeffery?

[Jehutyv.2.0]

If you say generating, harnessing and distributing electrical currents is not considered an invention, then you just said 2 very prolific inventors never did anything.
My point still stands. No one invented Electricity.

[Jeffery]

My point still stands. No one invented Electricity.
Only if your a dirkadick and want to argue gramatics.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Only if your a dirkadick and want to argue gramatics.
*Semantics :p

Regardless, I'm still right.

[Jeffery]

*Permanent Dirka inspired neg list

[Jehutyv.2.0]

*Permanent Dirka inspired neg list
Yet it isn't really much semantics. Inventing and discovering are two very different thing. I mean, everyone knows that America was invented and not discovered, right?

[Coffin Fedder]

My point still stands. No one invented Electricity.
Actually, that is a opinon. Some people think it was, there is scientific proof that someone had orginally started eletricty threw wires and lights. But, some people actually are said too believe that Benjiman Franklin had orginally started. While some say that actually Alexander Grahm Bell had.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

You're going to tell me there was no such thing as lightning before those men?

[uniquinous]

yes - ol' Ben Franklin flew a kite with a key into a non-lightening storm, and invented lightening and electricity at the same time. That's why he's amazing!

[Cosmo88]

yes - ol' Ben Franklin flew a kite with a key into a non-lightening storm, and invented lightening and electricity at the same time. That's why he's amazing!

No.

He didn't INVENT it, he discovered it. Big difference.

*Slaps mod because I can*
:cool:

[Jehutyv.2.0]

No.

He didn't INVENT it, he discovered it. Big difference.

*Slaps mod because I can*
:cool:
Do you even take the time to read the last page or so and understand sarcasm? And if you go ahead and say your post is sarcasm...

[Cosmo88]

Do you even take the time to read the last page or so and understand sarcasm? And if you go ahead and say your post is sarcasm...

I understand sarcasm, but no, I didn't go read the last few pages, so bite me. :)

[uniquinous]

clearly you don't. Even reading that one post alone infers that lightening never existed before that kite... :dry:

[TheSilverRider]

Ok guys here is my view. Please read the enire thing if you are going to comment on it.

Design in the Heavens

“In the order of the universe, the sun is an ordinary, medium-sized star. Yet its energy and violence almost defy imagination.

“It is a dense mass of glowing matter, a million times the volume of the earth, and in a permanent state of nuclear activity, Every second, 4 million tons of hydrogen are destroyed in explosions that start somewhere near the core, where the temperature is about 55 million degrees Fahrenheit.

“More energy than man has used since the dawn of civilization is radiated by this normal star in a second.

“The earth’s entire oil, coal, and wood reserves would fuel the sun’s energy output to the earth alone for only a few days.

“Tongues of hydrogen flame leap from the sun’s surface with the force of a billion hydrogen bombs. They are forced up by the enormous thermonuclear explosion at the core of the sun, where 564 million tons of hydrogen fuse each second to form helium. . . .

“The sun . . . is like a vast hydrogen bomb, burning slowly. It is only its vast size that makes its energy output so phenomenal. In fact, its output is about one-fifth that of the human body—in relation to volume”

-Reprinted by permission from Strange Stories, Amazing Facts. Copyright 1976 The Reader’s Digest Association, Inc.


“The heat of the sun is so great that a body of solid ice as large as our earth would be melted within two hours if the sun came closer to the earth, and if the earth itself would fall into the sun it would be completely vaporized in a matter of minutes.

“The distance between the earth and the sun is 93,000,000 miles. Astronomers have estimated that if this distance were increased to 120,000,000 miles instead of 93,000,000, our planet would be a perpetual frozen Arctic, and life on it would be impossible.

“If, on the other hand, this distance were reduced to about 60,000,000 miles, the surface of the earth would be a glowing furnace, again making life on it impossible. But the wonder is that this ball of fire of incalculable heat is exactly 93,000,000 miles away, the exact distance to provide the earth with a balanced amount of heat and light to make life in all its forms possible, and also to divide the earth into climactic zones to make variation in plant and animal life possible. Here again we notice the perfect balance in nature, even among these remote heavenly bodies, and the perfect balance has been maintained with mathematical precision ever since this cosmic machine was set in motion.

“There is no rational explanation for this supreme engineering achievement without a supreme, intelligent, and master Builder.”

-Reprinted by permission from The Wonders of Creation by Alfred M. Rehwinkel, published and copyright 1974 Bethany House Publishers, Minneapolis, MN 55438.


“Can any sane person believe all this array of stars and the vast celestial adornment could have been created out of atoms rushing to and fro fortuitously and at random? Could any other being devoid of intelligence and reason have created them? Not merely did their creation postulate intelligence, but it is impossible to understand their nature without intelligence of a high order….

“If any man is not impressed by this coordination of things and this harmonious combination of nature to secure the preservation of the world I know for certain that he has never given any consideration of these matters.”

-Cicero


“When I consider they heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?”



Design in the Animal Kingdom*

“In its structure and anatomy, the bee is wonderful little creature. Its head is equipped with two multiple eyes, like those of the fly. Besides the eye, it has two rod-like projections on the head, which serve as a sense organ for touch and for smell. Each rod is again supplied with countless microscopic sense receptors by which the bee receives the sensory stimuli. Its feet are shod with sharp claws, which enable it to walk over rough surfaces: and in between the slaws are attached suction pads which make it possible for it to walk on glass or any smooth surface, or even hold itself in an upside down position on the ceiling. On its hind legs are attached little basket-like devices in which it carries the pollen gathered from the flowers for food to share with the rest of the colony. But while the bee gathers the pollen for food, it also carries it from flower to flower, and thereby performs a most important service by fertilizing the flower, thus making full development possible.

“The wings of the bees are amazingly efficient and powerful, moving at an incredible speed 75 beats a second, and they are so constructed that the bee can move either up or down or sideways or even hover motionless over a flower or any other object.

“Perhaps the most remarkable fact about this little insect is its ability to make honey from the nectar it gathers from flowers. This honey is the sweetest substance in the world. And when we add to this its skill as a builder of the wax cells to store honey and its unique ability to manufacture its own building materials, the wax from which the cells are made, and its uncanny sense of direction which enables it to go far afield to gather nectar, and yet always find its way back in the shortest and straightest way possible, we again are overawed by the wisdom and the goodness of the Creator who designed this little insect and assigned to it its task of producing honey for man’s enjoyment.”

“The silk of the spider is produced in a specialized gland in its body. Minute ducts called ‘spinnerets’ lead from the gland to the rear part of the spider, to carry its secretion to the surface where, exposed to the air, it becomes a silken thread. These threads are finer than human hair, yet they are many times stronger than steel and elastic like rubber bands. In an experiment it was found that a rope, l one inch thick. Oven of spider webs was stronger than a rope of the same thickness made of steel wire!”

*Adapted and reprinted by permission from The Wonders of Creation by Alfred M. Rehwinkel, published and copyright 1974 Bethany House Publishers, Minneapolis, MN 55438


Design of the Human Body*

“Engineers have never devised a machine to equal [God’s] supreme achievement: the human body. Athletes can sprint at almost 25 miles per hour, throw a ball at more than 100 miles per hour, high jump over seven feet. But even our everyday activities are powered by a system that, in its complexity and efficiency, would make the most sophisticated robot seem inadequate.

“Take the circulatory system. Every minute of our lives the heart pumps 10 pints of blood – 30 pints during brisk exercise – through about 60,000 miles of arteries, veins, and capillaries. An adult body contains between 8 and 10 pints of blood: The average for a man is about 10 pints, containing 25 trillion red cells (to carry oxygen) and 25 billion white cells (to fight disease). Some white cells have a life cycle of only 12 hours; red cells have a life of about 120 days.

“The capillaries – tiny tubes servicing the bloodstream – have a total surface area that would cover a 1 ½ -acre field. Not all are opened at once; otherwise all the blood in the body would drain into them within seconds, like floodwater into a swamp. Instead, local chemical changes and nerves to the muscular portion of microscopic blood vessels operate to maintain a cycle of opening and closing every few minutes.

“One part of the body that needs blood all the time is the lungs. Their capillaries continuously take up oxygen from the tiny air sacs of the lungs, while releasing excess carbon dioxide.

“A baby is born with 305 bones, but some of these fuse together later until there are about 206 (though the number can vary), operated by 650 muscles and more than 100 joints. The tendons anchoring muscle to bone are strong enough to stand a stress of eight tons per square inch, and the thigh bones take a strain of half a ton per square inch while walking.

“All this wonderful complex of [God’s creation] is encased in a flexible, waterproof covering, -the skin. The average man has 20 square feet of it, which wears away and is replaced every few weeks. Set in the skin are up to 5 million hairs; each lasts about three years.

“Nine thousand taste buds come to our aid in choosing what we like, aided by millions of nerve cells; 4 million ‘receptors’ in the skin enable us to feel, distinguish hot from cold, and experience pain or comfort.”

“I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them. How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! How great is the sum of them!” -Ps. 139:14-17

*Reprinted by permission form Strange Stories, Amazing Facts. Copyright 1976 The Reader’s Digest Association, Inc.

[TheSilverRider]

Here is the rest of it....

On Universal Design



“Can it be by accident that all birds, beasts, and men have their right side and left side alike shaped (except in their bowels); and just two eyes, and no more, on either side of the face; and just two ears on either side [of] the head; and a nose with two holes; and either two forelegs or two wings or two arms on the shoulders, and two legs on the hips, and no more? Whence arises this uniformity in all their outward shapes but from the counsel and contrivance of an Author? Whence is it that the eyes of all sorts of living creatures are transparent members in the body, having on the outside a hard transparent skin and within transparent humors, with a crystalline lens in the middle of a pupil before the lens, all of them so finely shaped and fitted for vision that no artist can mend them? Did blind chance know that there was light and what was its refraction, and fit the eyes of all creatures after the most curious manner to make use of it? These and suchlike considerations always have and ever will prevail with mankind to believe that there is a Being who made all things and has all things in his power, and who is therefore to be feared….”

-Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), from Newton’s Philosophy of Nature: Selections from Him Writings, H. S. Thayer, ed. (New York: Hafner Publishing Company, 1953).

[savanna]

this threads still around?!

[TheSilverRider]

Absolutely....

[savanna]

thats sort of scary.

[Cosmo88]

lol sav . . .

Silver, you must have like, 200+ posts in this thread. :rolleyes:

[Kyir]

Absolutely....

why?

[TheSilverRider]

why?

I think it is a great conversation.;)

lol sav . . .

Silver, you must have like, 200+ posts in this thread. :rolleyes:

Is that a problem? :p

[Kyir]

I think it is a great conversation.;)

O RLY?

[TheSilverRider]

O RLY?

Yes, but this discussion is beside the point. I want you guys to read my post above tell me your thoughts.

p.s. Kyir it thought you were leaving...:confused:

[Jeffery]

Question: Does God exist?
Answer: Do you need him to?

[TheSilverRider]

Question: Does God exist?
Answer: Do you need him to?

Your answer is a question. Just so you know.

Real answer: absolutely, we cannot live without him.

[cuckoo]

Real answer: absolutely, we cannot live without him.

Yet I manage to do so pretty well.

Yeah, Jeffery's question does a good job of summing things up.

[TheSilverRider]

Yet I manage to do so pretty well.

Yeah, Jeffery's question does a good job of summing things up.

You do fine for NOW, until you die. Once you do you will need him more than you could ever know.:(

[Kyir]

Yes, but this discussion is beside the point. I want you guys to read my post above tell me your thoughts.

p.s. Kyir it thought you were leaving...:confused:

what gave you that idea?

[TheSilverRider]

what gave you that idea?

You posted a goodbye post....o well.....this discussion is not for this thread...

[cuckoo]

You do fine for NOW, until you die. Once you do you will need him more than you could ever know.:(

And you know this because you've died?

[ReTodd]

Real answer: absolutely, we cannot live without God.

If you don't NEED God until you die, what's the point? I'll be baptised on my death bed, just in case. If God really existed, everyone that uses religion for their own best interests would be struck dead instantly. Why would God allow people to kill others in the name of God?

Silver, please refrain from assigning gender to God. God has no sex organs. Just Kidding, he is hung like GOD!!!!

And you know this because you've died?
I don't need to die, I saw the movie Flatliners. Scared the crap out of me.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

A few things wrong here...If you don't NEED God until you die, what's the point? I'll be baptised on my death bed, just in case. If God really existed, everyone that uses religion for their own best interests would be struck dead instantly. Why would God allow people to kill others in the name of God?

Silver, please refrain from assigning gender to God. God has no sex organs. Just Kidding, he is hung like GOD!!!!
Well... first keep in mind that I am not advocating for myself, just explaining his side of the story. God may judge you in life and determine your fate in death... But maybe God doesn't give death, just waits for it to come otherwise. And maybe God doesn't interfere with this realm, but instead looks upon it as others murder each other.

You don't know that God doesn't have sex organs. Because God is omnipotent, God can do anything. Therefore, God CAN have sex organs.Whee, black text.

[ReTodd]

I do know that god is asexual. Just like the primitive life he created on Earth 3.5 billion years ago.

Fine, unlike Cancer and Chuck Norris, God dosen't kill. Then why don't people misrepresenting God for their own selfishness get Leprosy?

[Jehutyv.2.0]

I do know that god is asexual. Just like the primitive life he created on Earth 3.5 billion years ago.

Fine, unlike Cancer and Chuck Norris, God dosen't kill. Then why don't people misrepresenting God for their own selfishness get Leprosy?
Listen. Any words besides negatives you put after the word "can" in the phrase "God can" make the phrase true. Therefore, God can be asexual or God can be female, or God can be male.

Leprosy: It kills, doesn't it? Also, didn't I just say that God might not interfere with the world?

[ReTodd]

Listen. Any words besides negatives you put after the word "can" in the phrase "God can" make the phrase true. Therefore, God can be asexual or God can be female, or God can be male.

Leprosy: It kills, doesn't it? Also, didn't I just say that God might not interfere with the world?

God can interfere with the universe and our lives, God can give people leprosy, God can be all genders at once. The only reason God dosen't is because God's omnipotent arse is sitting on a tropical island somewhere. Absentee landlord if you ask me.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

God can interfere with the universe and our lives, God can give people leprosy, God can be all genders at once. The only reason God dosen't is because God's omnipotent arse is sitting on a tropical island somewhere. Absentee landlord if you ask me.
Basically what I said, up to the island bit.

[Kyir]

Your answer is a question. Just so you know.

Real answer: absolutely, we cannot live without him.

I do

[ReTodd]

I do
Kyir, you are from Canada. Living and being from Canada are mutually exclusive:p

[Kyir]

Kyir, you are from Canada. Living and being from Canada are mutually exclusive:p

I belive it says Canadia

[ReTodd]

I belive it says Canadia
If you lived in The US you'd probably say you were from America:p

Don't get me wrong, I love Canada. I just hate Rush.

[Kyir]

If you lived in The US you'd probably say you were from America:p

Don't get me wrong, I love Canada. I just hate Rush.

actually, i'm in Molten core right now, thats my mistake ;P

[Office_Shredder]

Is that the inner or outer core?

Or did I just miss a big reference?

[uniquinous]

Yes The Silver R!d0r is very good at quoting references from over 3 decades ago.

On the Sun and celestial placement: Just because something has a lot of energy, does not automatically mean god made it. If I made 10 atomic bombs, you might be bowing down to me, but I wouldn't be god. You say that the distance of 93 million miles is importantly critical, however you also mention we have a good 60 MILLION miles of buffer space before we run into trouble. How can you claim we are just right if there's so much wiggle room? That completely reduces your claim. Also notice that the exact same logic can be used for evolution: life evolved because it was a suitable temperature. An all powerful intelligent designer could have put life on any planet regardless of temperature problem - yet that isn't what happened. So I'd ask what's more likely: some supreme being happened to lump all life into one little place, OR that one place happen to be good enough to support divergant life. I would answer the latter. Your following quote, Cicero, was from 90BC. Again, complexity does not automatically mean god.

Design of the animal kingdom:
All number of animals have specialized structures to help them survive. However, we can trace the genetic and molecular ancestry of how these structures came about through phylogenetic trees. Thinking bees only produce honey for man is probably the most arrogant thing I've heard in a long time. If bees work for the sole purpose of man (putting aside their own eating needs), why on earth would an intelligent designer give them the ability to harm us through bite and sting? Come on - this is a horrid claim. Again, complexity does NOT equal god.

Engineers have never devised a machine to equal [God’s] supreme achievement: the human body This might have been true decades ago when it was first said (tho i doubt it even then), but we have quite a few machines that are better then humans in many ways. Your quote emphasizes how fast we can run - I'd point to a car. Similarly our robots can "throw balls" and "high jump" much more efficiently then humans. The rest of this claim goes back to "complex = god", which yet again isn't true.

Universal Design:
I love all the exceptions of this passage. Everything has two sides evenly (except inside). They conveniently just didn't bring up primitive animals such as the starfish, worm, or sponge. Newton, eh? Remember, not only was he not a biologist in a completely different societal time, but genetics didn't even exist back then.


Each and every one of your claims boils down to "but things are complex". So what? As mentioned, we can trace back phylogenetically how complex structures came about. We can also alter complexities via embryological techniques. My point is this: When you look at that really complex lego castle you built in the corner of your room you can come to one of two conclusions:

1) It took a being of infinate power and knowledge to erect something that complex, or
2) You started one block at a time, constantly adding onto it's structure/function in complexity to eventually, after a long time later, create the final product.

http://www.msgr.ca/msgr-3/LegoChurch4.jpg
keep on praying...

[AlabamaBoy]

That is one of the coolest things iv'e seen in a while uniq... wow lol.

[uniquinous]

thank you i google imaged it myself :bigsmile:


EDIT: here's a more relevant interesting science fact (one of my favorite, as a biology computer science major).
A bit is the physical space a computer uses to store one of two options for data; a zero, or a one (thus you see 'computer-speak' like 00010111101010010). A bit on our average hard drives today happens to be about the same physical size as a human cell nucleus. However, the cell can store 1 of 4 values (A, T, G, C - the DNA bases). Now that's already better then the 1 of 2 values the bit can store. However the cell does this 3 BILLION times, then creates a backup copy, and still has room to spare - all in the same amount of space as a bit. Now THAT, is complexity.

[deleryn]

I'll just jump in, so forgive me if some of this isn't in light of TSR's responses. Is is all response to Uniq, but I feel too lazy to quote everything.

Your argument on the "Lego Church" works against you because it requires an intelligent designer, even if the individual steps were simple. How much planning and care did you think it took to make that?

The human body is also much more complicated than machines. Some specialized machines can do certain things better than specialized humans, but humans are capable of doing a far greater number of things. You could argue either way with maintanence. The thing is, machines are just tools whereas humans are intelligent.

It is a mistake to claim that bees were only created to provide food for human beings because they, like everything, were also created to glorify God. Bees have stingers to defend themselves from other animals and sometimes humans. God obviously wants mankind to be inventive and cunning, not just to sit around and have everything handed to them. Why shouldn't bees have stingers to sting people? God created everything with a will to live and flourish, and stingers are sometimes a way for bees keep pesky people away.

I think that the God created animals like a good artist makes a work full of pattern--by repeatedly using several motifs. This isn't really an argument strongly in favor of Christianity, but it can explain how many things are similar without any occurances of evolution.

When it comes down to it, regardless of how complex something living is, it has the genetic material imprinted on every cell's DNA. How do you explain that that "evolved"? How did single-celled organisms become multi-celled organisms? Can you see that happening more clearly than God creating everything? can you really just disregard a "spiritual" explaination because you haven't witnessed a miracle?

[uniquinous]

yes, I assure you I very much can. When you document a miracle, something that can't happen by chance, please let me know.

I've seen the genetics. I've seen evolution in a petri dish (which can be really annoying sometimes). The fact is, a 5 year old kid can make great lego creations with little intelligence, just minor guidance. Similarly, environmental pressures set up the same guidance system; killing off the things that don't quite fit, and saving the things that do. I still don't understand why people think this is "chance". The child does not need to be all powerful nor all knowing, yet the child (environmental pressures) can build complexity with little intelligence (natural selection).

You say god made all animals. I've posed this question many times yet no one has dared touch it. So now I'm directly pointing it at you deleryn: Did god make the mule?

I'd also like someone to answer why we have goose bumps and other vestigial, uneeded reflexes.

[Office_Shredder]

The human body is also much more complicated than machines. Some specialized machines can do certain things better than specialized humans, but humans are capable of doing a far greater number of things. You could argue either way with maintanence. The thing is, machines are just tools whereas humans are intelligent.

This isn't true... in fact, in the computer science world it's coming down to the point where peopel are beginning to contemplate the exact mechanism for giving computers emotions. At what point are we separate from them? Machines are also now capable of doing math proofs (not just calculating, but deriving proofs like pythagorean theorem), and people have written programs in which, given a set of conditions a virtual "creature" must conform to, multiple generations are able to evolve without pre-determination from the programmer to fit the requirements

It is a mistake to claim that bees were only created to provide food for human beings because they, like everything, were also created to glorify God. Bees have stingers to defend themselves from other animals and sometimes humans. God obviously wants mankind to be inventive and cunning, not just to sit around and have everything handed to them. Why shouldn't bees have stingers to sting people? God created everything with a will to live and flourish, and stingers are sometimes a way for bees keep pesky people away.

Uniq was responding to silver's claim that bee's were perfectly designed to give man honey.

When it comes down to it, regardless of how complex something living is, it has the genetic material imprinted on every cell's DNA. How do you explain that that "evolved"? How did single-celled organisms become multi-celled organisms? Can you see that happening more clearly than God creating everything? can you really just disregard a "spiritual" explaination because you haven't witnessed a miracle?

It's obvious how that evolved. One cell split into two. Each of those cells had the same DNA. Instead of becoming two separate cells, however, these cells maintainted a connection similiar to that of multi-celled creatures today.

[uniquinous]

oh, yes, I seemed to have missed responding to that one - thank you O_S. To elaborate more: Even "single celled organisms" show preference to community dynamic. Bacteria, while they can very easily exist alone, will form biofilms if left unattended. The biofilm is a relatively flat colony of cells that remain in contact with each other, and that happens to have a variety of channels to allow nutrients to still reach all cells. This has been a rather unfortunate problem within medical tubing and equipment, and is the largest cause for hospital-born infections.

However you can look towards primitive multi-celled organisms like the volvox to see what more stable organisms can do.
http://www.microscopyu.com/moviegallery/images/pondscum/volvox.jpg

[TheSilverRider]

You say that the distance of 93 million miles is importantly critical, however you also mention we have a good 60 MILLION miles of buffer space before we run into trouble. How can you claim we are just right if there's so much wiggle room? That completely reduces your claim.

"But the wonder is that this ball of fire of incalculable heat is exactly 93,000,000 miles away, the exact distance to provide the earth with a balanced amount of heat and light to make life in all its forms possible, and also to divide the earth into climactic zones to make variation in plant and animal life possible. Here again we notice the perfect balance in nature, even among these remote heavenly bodies, and the perfect balance has been maintained with mathematical precision ever since this cosmic machine was set in motion.

“There is no rational explanation for this supreme engineering achievement without a supreme, intelligent, and master Builder.”

-Reprinted by permission from The Wonders of Creation by Alfred M. Rehwinkel, published and copyright 1974 Bethany House Publishers, Minneapolis, MN 55438.

That is my answer. You are right there is that much "wiggle room" BUT we are the EXACT distance for us to have a variety of life on this planet with climate zones and all those things we have. Those other two measurments (too close or too far away) were how close/far away we would have to be to be destroyed (burnt/frozen).

You say god made all animals. I've posed this question many times yet no one has dared touch it. So now I'm directly pointing it at you deleryn: Did god make the mule?

I'd also like someone to answer why we have goose bumps and other vestigial, uneeded reflexes.

I believe d00msday already answered this question. God created horses. God created donkeys. Therefore, when they mate, you get mules. You can do the same thing. God created dogs and God created cats. Mate them and see what you get, be my guest.

Here is MY question to you: If we all evolved from APES then why arent any apes today even coming remotely close to evolving into humans. Apes are not continually evolving. If evolution were true we would have many apes today that are half-ape half-human because they are halfway through their evolution process but there are NONE. Also you have no fossils to prove evolution that are not scientifically made. Doesnt that say anything that you have to create fake fossils to prove evolution? Creation has all the fossils it needs to prove creation.

[Office_Shredder]

I believe d00msday already answered this question. God created horses. God created donkeys. Therefore, when they mate, you get mules. You can do the same thing. God created dogs and God created cats. Mate them and see what you get, be my guest.

You'd get nothing. Different breeds of dogs aren't necessarily able to mate with each other, why would they be able to breed with cats?

Here is MY question to you: If we all evolved from APES then why arent any apes today even coming remotely close to evolving into humans. Apes are not continually evolving. If evolution were true we would have many apes today that are half-ape half-human because they are halfway through their evolution process but there are NONE. Also you have no fossils to prove evolution that are not scientifically made. Doesnt that say anything that you have to create fake fossils to prove evolution? Creation has all the fossils it needs to prove creation.

We didn't evolve from apes... humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor. Get your facts straight.

And has been repeated multiple times, the fossil record gives zero support for creation. There's no good explanation from your side why dinosaurs are found farther down than humans, for example

[TheSilverRider]

Answer this maybe you missed it:

If we all evolved from APES then why arent any apes today even coming remotely close to evolving into humans. Apes are not continually evolving. If evolution were true we would have many apes today that are half-ape half-human because they are halfway through their evolution process but there are NONE.

[Office_Shredder]

Answer this maybe you missed it:

If we all evolved from APES then why arent any apes today even coming remotely close to evolving into humans. Apes are not continually evolving. If evolution were true we would have many apes today that are half-ape half-human because they are halfway through their evolution process but there are NONE.


I could have sworn
We didn't evolve from apes... humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor. Get your facts straight.

Answered it, but I guess not

[TheSilverRider]

Then what is that "common ancestor", and why isnt that "common ancestor" still evolving into humans and apes today?

[sayter]

Silver Rider - its tough for a species to evolve when we hunt most of them to near extinction. There are only a few hundred gorillas left in the world, and most breeds of ape are in the same dire situation.

In a sense, it is OUR fault many of these species are failing. However, how do you know that apes havent changed in the past 2 million years? For the most part, humans used to be a lot shorter than they are now. Really, there is no case against evolution any more than there is a case FOR creationism/ID


There are very few species of apes left, gorillas and orangutans being the most common. Monkeys are NOT apes, so they can be excluded from this argument entirely. But most of them are engandered too. And its still our fault. And I doubt it was part of "gods" plan for us to annihilate his creations for our own selfish desires and expansion.

[TheSilverRider]

You just said apes havent changed in the past 2 million years. How does that prove evolution? And what proof do you have that we are taller now than we were before? People live shorter now than in Bible times but that doesnt mean anything. Sure people change, animals change WITHIN A SPECIES. There is no evolution. Just logically looking at how a fish could change into a squirel is crazy.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Then what is that "common ancestor", and why isnt that "common ancestor" still evolving into humans and apes today?
My god, you are dumb. A common ancestor dies out. This is what is known as "survival of the fittest". It evolved into different branches, apes and humans, but because they were more suited to live life on earth, the ancestor died.

Shut up and don't even try to understand this concept. It's far beyond your understanding, as we've seen.

[TheSilverRider]

My god, you are dumb. A common ancestor dies out. This is what is known as "survival of the fittest". It evolved into different branches, apes and humans, but because they were more suited to live life on earth, the ancestor died.

Shut up and don't even try to understand this concept. It's far beyond your understanding, as we've seen.

Explain this: All mutations that happen today are bad. For these animals to evolve into different ones they had to undergo SMALL mutations over a very LONG period of time. But during all this they still had to SUSTAIN LIFE. Now, for instance, you beleive a fish evolved into a type of bird. Now a fish has 2 lungs and a bird 4. For these mutations to take place they would have to be very quick over a very short period of time. You believe it was gradual over a long period of time. There is no way that these animals could undergo such DRASTIC mutations and sustain life much less survive from predators.

[lazygun]

You want a mutation/freak that has no reason to exist?.
The female Kanga' can carry a living,jumping Joey...+..a new-born sucking teat...+..a viable third embryo(to be born when Mom decides)..
Rather redundant for godly perfection?....and not exactly rare on the ground either.

[TheSilverRider]

You want a mutation/freak that has no reason to exist?.
The female Kanga' can carry a living,jumping Joey...+..a new-born sucking teat...+..a viable third embryo(to be born when Mom decides)..
Rather redundant for godly perfection?....

That makes NO sense.:confused:

[lazygun]

You just said all mutations are bad,no?.

[TheSilverRider]

You just said all mutations are bad,no?.

Correct. Show me a mutation that was for the betterment of the human/animal.

[lazygun]

Well in the Kangas' case,it is in areas of Australia classed as a pest and culled to keep the numbers down.Yet it is an International Icon of that country.
In other words,this freakish multi-method birthing creature is/has survived before man;and the way things are going may surpass his selfish ass.:D

[20 Point]

Correct. Show me a mutation that was for the betterment of the human/animal.

the opposable thumb
a large brain
walking upright
all were mutations that worked well for the species. you are an idiot.

[ReTodd]

The mutation from chemosynthesis to photosynthesis.

[TheSilverRider]

The mutation from chemosynthesis to photosynthesis.

In english please?:confused:

[Aro23r]

In stupid english...

The ability to use light to create energy on earth.

[monkus]

Correct. Show me a mutation that was for the betterment of the human/animal.

Bacteria is the best example, because it happens so quickly and is so noticable:

http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/BC/Bacterial_Mutations.html

To explain it: You have a million bacteria, all identical, because they all came from the same species. One is born with a strange mutation, that at the time means absolutely nothing. It reproduces, and makes up a tiny percentage of the population, less than .001%.

A virus, antibacterial, soap, or other bacteria-killing substance is introduced into the colony, and that little mutation saves that one bacterium's life. It reproduces, fills the colony back within days/weeks/whatever, and now the entire colony is resistant to that bacteria-killing substance.

How's that for evolution saving a species?

[Pyratheon]

how can you say that....you are so small in comparison to him and you deny him? how can you do that? you are a pig to think that you are so great that you can say "there is not god" and be ok with that? i could go on about how stupid that comment is but its not even worth talking about.

p.s. please dont use profanity in my thread....take that somewhere else...

How can you prove that he exists? We all have our own beliefs for a reason, if I wanted chrisian beliefs pushed on me, i'd go to church. I wouldn't go here...

P.S. It's called freedom of religion and to the profanity part, freedom of speech.

[Kyir]

Answer this maybe you missed it:

If we all evolved from APES then why arent any apes today even coming remotely close to evolving into humans. Apes are not continually evolving. If evolution were true we would have many apes today that are half-ape half-human because they are halfway through their evolution process but there are NONE.

Humans came from apes, or whatever in a certain region, and through a series of genetic mutations over a long period of time that benifed apes (again, or whatever) in the region, hence all of those would now be humans, and "pre" humans

Pøwned?

(if I did get anything wrong (the process of evolution wrong that is) please tell me, I'm really tierd from school right now :|)

[TheSilverRider]

How can you prove that he exists? We all have our own beliefs for a reason, if I wanted chrisian beliefs pushed on me, i'd go to church. I wouldn't go here...

P.S. It's called freedom of religion and to the profanity part, freedom of speech.

Um then why did you come here?:confused:

Profanity is not freedom of speech. Its against the rules.:dry:

[monkus]

How can you prove that he exists? We all have our own beliefs for a reason, if I wanted chrisian beliefs pushed on me, i'd go to church. I wouldn't go here...

P.S. It's called freedom of religion and to the profanity part, freedom of speech.

And it's called misinterpreting BOTH freedoms. Both are freedoms from the government, NOT from other people. If you're in my house, and I want you to not curse or to worship whom I worship, I have every right to kick you out for not complying. These freedoms are only from government interference. Government creates other laws stopping people from infringing upon eachother's liberties, but the first amendment rights are specifically against government intervention.


Also:

Explain this: All mutations that happen today are bad. For these animals to evolve into different ones they had to undergo SMALL mutations over a very LONG period of time. But during all this they still had to SUSTAIN LIFE. Now, for instance, you beleive a fish evolved into a type of bird. Now a fish has 2 lungs and a bird 4. For these mutations to take place they would have to be very quick over a very short period of time. You believe it was gradual over a long period of time. There is no way that these animals could undergo such DRASTIC mutations and sustain life much less survive from predators.

SilverRider, there are two theories of evolution, gradualism and punctuated equilibria. The former says it's a slow, long process. The latter claims that evolution remains stagnant until one freak mutation that changes things greatly.
How can they sustain life? That's the FUN part, Silver. Sustaining life is the "test", so to speak, for new mutations. If, out of 1,000 ancient horses, 999 have 1 leg, and one freak horse has 4 from a craaazy birth mutation, and that horse, let's call him Bob, outruns predators 10x better, gets to new food areas a million times better, gets more women horses to reproduce with him because four legs makes Bob less tired, etc., he'll send his gene onto a thousand generations after him. and thus evolution occurs.
Why aren't apes evolving? First, because it might've taken a million years to get that first evolutionary step, or maybe the equilibria step was so incredibly large that we don't identify it, or maybe new species of apes ARE the result of evolution. Read this for more on the two theories of evolution:
http://www.thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/capsules/outil_bleu09.htm

[Kyir]

Um then why did you come here?:confused:

Profanity is not freedom of speech. Its against the rules.:dry:

actaully, I end up doing it alot

ass.

see?

Correct. Show me a mutation that was for the betterment of the human/animal.

cough, oposable (sp?) thumbs

[Riathmus]

This is a weird thread...

[Pyratheon]

And it's called misinterpreting BOTH freedoms. Both are freedoms from the government, NOT from other people. If you're in my house, and I want you to not curse or to worship whom I worship, I have every right to kick you out for not complying. These freedoms are only from government interference. Government creates other laws stopping people from infringing upon eachother's liberties, but the first amendment rights are specifically against government intervention.

You can't make anyone do what you say. If you tell me to worship "god" I'll laugh at you and say no. And I curse when I want to, after all, the words are coming out of my mouth.

[monkus]

You can't make anyone do what you say. If you tell me to worship "god" I'll laugh at you and say no. And I curse when I want to, after all, the words are coming out of my mouth.

I can't make you, but I can force upon you as many consequences as in my legal right to do so, whether it include kicking you out of my house or ending an agreement between us.

If you don't believe me, try joining a private Christian country club, or try cursing in front of your boss. Tell me what happens.

[Pyratheon]

If you don't believe me, try joining a private Christian country club, or try cursing in front of your boss. Tell me what happens.

That'll never happen. I'd be smothered by rules, and restricions. And i hate those.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Explain this: All mutations that happen today are bad. For these animals to evolve into different ones they had to undergo SMALL mutations over a very LONG period of time. But during all this they still had to SUSTAIN LIFE. Now, for instance, you beleive a fish evolved into a type of bird. Now a fish has 2 lungs and a bird 4. For these mutations to take place they would have to be very quick over a very short period of time. You believe it was gradual over a long period of time. There is no way that these animals could undergo such DRASTIC mutations and sustain life much less survive from predators.
Hey. While the prey was evolving, the predator was as well. The reasons we have predators and prey is because of the speed and effects of evolution. Want a good mutation today? Some people are born resistant to AIDS. Others are born without that burden of an organ, the appendix.

A bird and a fish, eh? 1: Ever hear about the animal called "the frog"? It's amphibious, meaning it can survive both air and water environments. Did you know that at one point in the human's prebirth, the human has gills? Then they disappear for our air-lungs. Hmm... that sounds like "quick growth over a short period of time". And if you think 9 months is good enough, think about BILLIONS OF YEARS.

[Calon]

That'll never happen. I'd be smothered by rules, and restricions. And i hate those.


I doubt you seriously hate rules... but rather just the ones that do not suit you. Rules and restrictions are what sustains society. This is evident even at the most primal of societies.

I'm more of a realist when it comes to human behavior... I like to keep it simple. So... while I enjoy that I get to believe what I want to and worship as I please and hold that right sacred I also allow it to be sacred to anyone else who wishes that same tolerance. In that I am treating my neighbor as I wish to be treated - a basic principle in almost every peaceful religion.

[TheSilverRider]

And if you think 9 months is good enough, think about BILLIONS OF YEARS.

Where did everything start? I want your view.:huh:

[uniquinous]

The SilverRider - I think the biggest problem in some of your arguments is that you begin with a statement that is completely false and then ask us to prove it. For example:
"If we all evolved from APES then..."
"Explain this: All mutations that happen today are bad."

Neither of these statements are true. It's called divergent evolution. It's not that an ape is going to become a man tomorrow - but that the species completely diverged; hit a fork in the road and went in different directions. We did not travel down the same road and just sprint ahead of apes. That didn't happen.

All mutations are not bad - starting a sentence with a false statement and asking us to prove it is illogical. Some mutations can be good, some bad, and some mixed. A mutation might give bacteria antibiotic resitance, or it might completely kill the cell. The difference is that the death mutation does nothing to hinder the species since it killed itself off. The cells in your own body to the same thing: it's called apoptosis. If something goes wrong with your cells' DNA or normal divisions, it will kill itself to ensure it doesn't propagate something horrible. The failure of this sepuku is a disease known as cancer.

However a good mutation in the bacteria allows it to outcompete and outlive it's predecessors and dominate the colony. One mutation will never change a fish into a squirrel - it is a very gradual process. Ducks have scales on their feet as remnants from their phylogentic ancestry. Humans get goose bumps despite the fact we no longer have the body fur that such a function once served. Humans also appear to have gills, as someone else mentioned during early embryogenesis. How can you explain these things with intelligent design? These things are not intelligent.

They are remnants of a genetic past - and nothing more.

[Office_Shredder]

Where did everything start? I want your view.:huh:

SilverRider, this kind of question is going to lead to a logical fallacy. It doesn't matter WHERE things came from, we're just arguing over whether they evolve. You don't need to know where matter came from to verify the existence of gravity, similiarly you don't need to confirm how life started to know whether evolution is true

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Where did everything start? I want your view.:huh:
Be more specific.

[TheSilverRider]

Be more specific.

Ok. Before there was nothing, how did we come to have "something".

[Office_Shredder]

A bit is the physical space a computer uses to store one of two options for data; a zero, or a one (thus you see 'computer-speak' like 00010111101010010). A bit on our average hard drives today happens to be about the same physical size as a human cell nucleus. However, the cell can store 1 of 4 values (A, T, G, C - the DNA bases). Now that's already better then the 1 of 2 values the bit can store. However the cell does this 3 BILLION times, then creates a backup copy, and still has room to spare - all in the same amount of space as a bit. Now THAT, is complexity.

This is actually wrong... thanks to the fact that the bases pair up, each set of 2 "bits" can have up to four total different values, meaning you still only get 2 possible values per bit

[monkus]

Ok. Before there was nothing, how did we come to have "something".

Well, hang on now. We're arguing about two seperate things. Evolution is a lot better-documented than the big bang theory. If you want to argue about that, then we can get into an entirely different discussion that you're a lot more likely to sound reasonable on. I don't think people really want to argue about the Big Bang and such though, because it's so abstract that no one would win and we'd all argue for centuries. Instead, let's stick to evolution.



I want this evolution debate to continue, so for the sole purpose of education, I'm going to take The Silver Rider's side, but with a more firm stance (I happen to be an experienced academic on the subject of evolution). No offense creationist guys, but you've done a pretty terrible job at arguing your side, so I'll take over. This is the first of what I feel is three practically unbeatable arguments against evolution. If you guys are going to prey on creationists, you'll have to get through me first.

Here's the first argument I pose for all of you:

Evolution is impossible without specific divine intervention, because of irreducible complexity.
Systems exist where every single part is necessary and irreplacable. Removal of a single part would cause the entire system to fail its basic purpose. There couldn't be a predecessor to an irreducibly complex system, because no simpler combination would work. It would require not simply a leap in evolution, but a Matrix-esque skyscraper-hopping jump of magic. Because these random mutations are rare and unpredictable, for such a system to be created without a guiding hand would be virtually impossible.
Michael Behe points out a "simpler" irreducibly complex concept:
"Because the bacterial flagellum is necessarily composed of at least three parts -- a paddle,a rotor, and a motor -- it is irreducibly complex. Gradual evolution of the flagellum...faces mammoth hurdles. (p. 72, Darwin's Black Box)"
Consider the intricacies of other systems. Our bodies require a liver, spleen, heart, lungs, pancreas, heart, brain, and a million other components to function. For each to develop indepently would be impossible, because they all require the complex functions of the others. The brain requires oxygen from the blood being pumped, the heart requires the air being provided by the lungs, the lungs require nutrients absorbed from food, the stomach requires poison filters such as the liver and kidneys, as well as the oxygen and blood from the other components. They could not all form independently, and for all to develop simultaneously would be akin to a human popping out of a bacterial mitosis. God must have played a role :p.

For more details, see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html, and http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/GRAPHICS-CAPTIONS/Flagellum.html

That's argument #1. Let's see how many of you gung-ho evolutionists are really evolutionists.

[Office_Shredder]

Systems exist where every single part is necessary and irreplacable. Removal of a single part would cause the entire system to fail its basic purpose. There couldn't be a predecessor to an irreducibly complex system, because no simpler combination would work. It would require not simply a leap in evolution, but a Matrix-esque skyscraper-hopping jump of magic. Because these random mutations are rare and unpredictable, for such a system to be created without a guiding hand would be virtually impossible.

There's not really much to argue here, because it's true that if an irreducibly complex system were found, evolution would fall apart. So I'll have to let this part stand obviously ;)

Michael Behe points out a "simpler" irreducibly complex concept:
"Because the bacterial flagellum is necessarily composed of at least three parts -- a paddle,a rotor, and a motor -- it is irreducibly complex. Gradual evolution of the flagellum...faces mammoth hurdles. (p. 72, Darwin's Black Box)"

First, I'll have to point you here:
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html

These guys seem to know their stuff

To summarize (I didn't read it, you don't have to either :) ), flagella went through what's known as "change of function" evolution. Essentially, if you take out part of the flagellum, it doesn't push the bacterium anymore. However, it can stilly perform a myriad of tasks other than propulsion, depending on which part is removed.

Consider the intricacies of other systems. Our bodies require a liver, spleen, heart, lungs, pancreas, heart, brain, and a million other components to function. For each to develop indepently would be impossible, because they all require the complex functions of the others. The brain requires oxygen from the blood being pumped, the heart requires the air being provided by the lungs, the lungs require nutrients absorbed from food, the stomach requires poison filters such as the liver and kidneys, as well as the oxygen and blood from the other components. They could not all form independently, and for all to develop simultaneously would be akin to a human popping out of a bacterial mitosis. God must have played a role :p.

The problem with this logic is that the human body didn't just evolve out of a bunch of micro-organisms. You could ask me to try and explain how everything evolved to form humans (which seems to be the question here?), but that would be tedious, and I would give a poor explanation because I'm not a biologist and haven't studied this my whole life.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Ok. Before there was nothing, how did we come to have "something".
Again, more specifcs are needed. Are you talking about life, the universe, everything, what?

[Match Strike]

That'll never happen. I'd be smothered by rules, and restricions. And i hate those.
stick it 2 the man!!1!

[monkus]

There's not really much to argue here, because it's true that if an irreducibly complex system were found, evolution would fall apart. So I'll have to let this part stand obviously ;)



First, I'll have to point you here:
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html

These guys seem to know their stuff

To summarize (I didn't read it, you don't have to either :) ), flagella went through what's known as "change of function" evolution. Essentially, if you take out part of the flagellum, it doesn't push the bacterium anymore. However, it can stilly perform a myriad of tasks other than propulsion, depending on which part is removed.



The problem with this logic is that the human body didn't just evolve out of a bunch of micro-organisms. You could ask me to try and explain how everything evolved to form humans (which seems to be the question here?), but that would be tedious, and I would give a poor explanation because I'm not a biologist and haven't studied this my whole life.

Well, you beat the first part in the same exact way I would. Scientific American says:

Generations of creationists have tried to counter Darwin by citing the example of the eye as a structure that could not have evolved. The eye’s ability to provide vision depends on the perfect arrangement of its parts, these critics say. Natural selection could thus never favor the transitional forms needed during the eye’s evolution—what good is half an eye? Anticipating this criticism, Darwin suggested that even ‘incomplete’ eyes might confer benefits (such as helping creatures orient toward light) and thereby survive for further evolutionary refinement. [SA 83]

However, I do think the body part still makes sense. Are you seriously going to tell me that the Brain, with a dependency on oxygen, evolved simultaneously with the organs necessary for oxygen acquirement? If it existed before, it must've depended on something else, in which case an evolved lung would do nothing. If the brain had a requirement, it would never last without the corresponding organ. With the myriad of requirements for each organ, I don't see how it can be reduced.

[Match Strike]

Ok. Before there was nothing, how did we come to have "something".
Why did there ever have to be nothing?

[uniquinous]

This is actually wrong... thanks to the fact that the bases pair up, each set of 2 "bits" can have up to four total different values, meaning you still only get 2 possible values per bit
I would have to disagree with you there. Despite complimentation the genetic code still has 4 possible combination of 3 letter-words to make proteins. In other words, while you know a C always falls with a G, the cell only reads one side of the DNA, meaning the sequence CGCGCG does not produce the same protein as GGGGGG. The complimentation is the "and stores this information in duplicate" part of my original explanation.

For each to develop indepently would be impossible, because they all require the complex functions of the others.
untruth! The system starts with absorbtion of nutrients. This can happen regardless of any other system, as seenin bacteria, and working up the phylogenetic tree. The planarium has primitive nerve cells (I believe they are called fire cells?), despite lack of heart. Simply put: smaller animals have large surface area to volume ratios, and metabolic nutrients dont need complex circulatory systems to supply their tiny bodies with everything they need. However at tone time they got large enough where nutrients couldn't just diffuse around anymore. Structured channels happened to be formed over much time; initially bathing the tissue in a general direction, then becoming more complex to allow for actual circulation. All of this can happen without a central nervous system. Specializations of the alimentary canal and other organs can give rise quite managably with this rudimentary system. Finally, a developed brain that constantly needed oxygen would sit at the mantle of this evolutionary masterpiece.

The lesson here is that once again, complexity does not mean intelligent design. Looking at the end product: a gigantic tower of physiology, one *can* make the claim that removing any major organ would be devastating. However, that's assuming everything was formed together. More likely, that complex structure was just built up over time.

Lastly, there are many things in the human body which are unnecessarily overly complex, simply because natural selection allowed for a variety of solutions, all of which weren't necessarily weeded out over the millenia. :)

[monkus]

Irreducibly complex:
The Venus' flytrap, Dionaea muscipula, is a small flowering plant which grows naturally in acidic wetlands in North and South Carolina. It has a ferocious looking tooth-edged trap for unwary creatures. It traps and digests insects to make up for the lack of nitrogen in the soils of its habitat.

Here's how the trap works. When an insect brushes against the trigger hairs in the center, the lobes snap most of the way shut with surprising speed. If a small insect is caught, it may escape between the teeth, and then the trap reopens without fully closing. If a good sized bug is caught it is digested over the next few days as the trap closes the rest of the way. Then the trap reopens. A trap can only be fully closed about 4 times, so it must be used sparingly.

Do we have an IC system here? We must specify a function and all the parts needed to carry it out (and no extra parts). The function of interest is trapping insects for food in a manner that brings the plant more benefit than the cost of the trap. The parts are the two lobes, the hinge between the lobes (the midrib of the leaf, which anchors the lobes), the trigger hairs, and spines projecting from the edges of the lobes that make a set of bars as the trap closes. The system is just all these parts, and the trap needs all its parts in order to work. Hence it is an IC system.

No one has questioned that irreducible complexity debunks evolution, so if I find a single IC, evolution's a goner. :bigsmile:

[uniquinous]

yeah but the problem is you can't. This stems back to my last example: you're looking at a complete cheerleading pyramid, stating that the removal of any bottom people will cause the top to fall - but that wasn't how it was built. Complexity, regardless of how interwoven, can always be reducible in origins, even if it's not apparently reducible in final form. Embryogenesis alone of any species will prove that.

[TheBlazedAce]

Why do humans still have an appendix or tonsils. The answer is that we believe at one time these organs may have had a much more useful purpose, but over time their use has become unnecessary. If evolution is guided by a higher power then why don't these useless organs go away after at least a few generations. I'm sure there are tons of examples in the animal kingdom of previously used, but today useless organs or appendages that have not dissappeared.

If the human body is so perfect then why do so many diseases occur? What about cancer? These things point to a very much imperfect system. God is either fallable or didn't have anything to do with our creation/evolution.

[Office_Shredder]

However, I do think the body part still makes sense. Are you seriously going to tell me that the Brain, with a dependency on oxygen, evolved simultaneously with the organs necessary for oxygen acquirement? If it existed before, it must've depended on something else, in which case an evolved lung would do nothing. If the brain had a requirement, it would never last without the corresponding organ. With the myriad of requirements for each organ, I don't see how it can be reduced.

Ahhh... the different organs probably didn't evolve into their final form at the same time... for example, all multicelled animals had brains all the way past the dinosaurs... in the human's specific case, the brain didn't just "appear", it simply became bigger and better. The same would be true for all of its organs. Now, if you want to ask how organs evolved in the first place, and not how humans got them, you'd have a bit better case (one I don't have time to answer right now, but if you care to change your question I'll get to it).

In the case of the venus flytrap, you'll have to excuse me while I copy and paste the rest of the story:

The Venus' flytrap, Dionaea muscipula, is a small flowering plant which grows naturally in acidic wetlands in North and South Carolina. It has a ferocious looking tooth-edged trap for unwary creatures. It traps and digests insects to make up for the lack of nitrogen in the soils of its habitat.

Here's how the trap works. When an insect brushes against the trigger hairs in the center, the lobes snap most of the way shut with surprising speed. If a small insect is caught, it may escape between the teeth, and then the trap reopens without fully closing. If a good sized bug is caught it is digested over the next few days as the trap closes the rest of the way. Then the trap reopens. A trap can only be fully closed about 4 times, so it must be used sparingly.

Do we have an IC system here? We must specify a function and all the parts needed to carry it out (and no extra parts). The function of interest is trapping insects for food in a manner that brings the plant more benefit than the cost of the trap. The parts are the two lobes, the hinge between the lobes (the midrib of the leaf, which anchors the lobes), the trigger hairs, and spines projecting from the edges of the lobes that make a set of bars as the trap closes. The system is just all these parts, and the trap needs all its parts in order to work. Hence it is an IC system.

How might this trap have evolved? I say 'might' have because Venus' flytraps haven't left any fossils that I know of, except a few grains of pollen. Are there any related plants that might provide a clue? Let's look at the well known sundews (Drosera). Sundews trap insects using flypaper traps, slowly closing around insects that get stuck. Darwin, whose book Insectivorous Plants (2) is now available online, made careful observations of these remarkable plants, especially the round leaf sundew D. rotundifolia. As Darwin notes,

If a small organic or inorganic object be placed on the glands in the centre of a leaf, these transmit a motor impulse to the marginal tentacles. The nearer ones are first affected and slowly bend towards the centre, and then those farther off, until at last all become closely inflected over the object. This takes place in from one hour to four or five or more hours. [...] Not only the tentacles, but the blade of the leaf often, but by no means always, becomes much incurved, when any strongly exciting substance or fluid is placed on the disc. Drops of milk and of a solution of nitrate of ammonia or soda are particularly apt to produce this effect. The blade is thus converted into a little cup. The manner in which it bends varies greatly. (2, pp 9, 12)


Here is D. rotundifolia with a fly; Makoto Honda (3) shows the action with a faster species, D. intermedia. Recent genetic research confirms that Venus's flytrap and the waterwheel plant Aldrovanda are related and are in the sundew family Droseraceae, and that snap-traps very likely evolved from flypaper traps (4) as Darwin thought:

CONCLUDING REMARKS ON THE DROSERACEAE.

The six known genera composing this family have now been described in relation to our present subject, as far as my means have permitted. They all capture insects. This is effected by Drosophyllum, Roridula, and Byblis, solely by the viscid fluid secreted from their glands; by Drosera, through the same means, together with the movements of the tentacles; by Dionaea and Aldrovanda, through the closing of the blades of the leaf. In these two last genera rapid movement makes up for the loss of viscid secretion. [...] The parent form of Dionaea and Aldrovanda seems to have been closely allied to Drosera, and to have had rounded leaves, supported on distinct footstalks, and furnished with tentacles all round the circumference, with other tentacles and sessile glands on the upper surface. (2, pp 355-6, 360).

How did the Venus' flytrap avoid the argument that IC can't evolve? In two ways. First, rather than gaining a part, it lost a part - the glue that the sundews use. Even more interestingly, the trap was able to evolve because the parts evolved. The trap started out as a Drosera-like leaf, and the parts of the leaf were progressively changed. This makes a striking contrast with the mousetrap which Behe has repeatedly presented to illustrate why IC cannot evolve. As a manufactured item the mousetrap neatly illustrates his definition, but with its static parts it cannot model evolution. With evolving parts, nature can create a snap-trap after all. The mechanical and manufacturing analogies so influential in Behe's thinking miss the flexibility of living things.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

Why do humans still have an appendix or tonsils. The answer is that we believe at one time these organs may have had a much more useful purpose, but over time their use has become unnecessary. If evolution is guided by a higher power then why don't these useless organs go away after at least a few generations. I'm sure there are tons of examples in the animal kingdom of previously used, but today useless organs or appendages that have not dissappeared.

If the human body is so perfect then why do so many diseases occur? What about cancer? These things point to a very much imperfect system. God is either fallable or didn't have anything to do with our creation/evolution.Well, actually, there are people born without appendices. I dunno about tonsils... and there are people born with an immunity toward AIDS... I believe I said this in an earlier post.

[Jehutyv.2.0]

However, I do think the body part still makes sense. Are you seriously going to tell me that the Brain, with a dependency on oxygen, evolved simultaneously with the organs necessary for oxygen acquirement? If it existed before, it must've depended on something else, in which case an evolved lung would do nothing. If the brain had a requirement, it would never last without the corresponding organ. With the myriad of requirements for each organ, I don't see how it can be reduced.
You are assuming that the brain always functioned on respiration, netting it 32 ATP (the "currency" for energy). The truth is, our cells perform another energy gathering function, glycolosis (not sure on the spelling). This is a much simpler function and produces 2 ATP. It's not enough to power a human body, but it is enough to power simpler lifeforms.

Back when life was created on Earth, the planet was not as stable as it is now, with a steady nitrogen atmosphere and abundant carbon and oxygen. In fact, the first life was probably created with three functions in the chromosomes: Get energy, get rid of wastes and repair chromosomes when they are damaged. Instead of simply saying "divide" they performed a function that repaired the chromosomes to completion, known as mitosis. But back then there was probably only sugar in the primordial stew, and not a complex type. Because the cells could turn it into ATP, they could live on.

The reason most cells use respiration is because somewhere early on, a cell encountered another type of organism, the mitochonrdion. It learned that the cell gained more energy using oxygen and absorbed it. Natural selection took place, and those utilizing the 34 ATP lived on while those with 2 ATP died out. Because of the mitochondrial DNA, they both divide and are in all daughter cells.

Now, with that set up, let us return to the brain and lungs functioning simultaneously. The brain was probably only used as a storage device for the organism, in the reptillian cortex, the cortex that has been around since, as it's name implies, the reptile. There were simple functions then, just eat, get rid of waste, and keep the species alive (instinct and mating). Let's say that there was no brain, just a mass of cells united with many nuclei exchanging information. One mutation in, they decided "Hey! You know what would help us get oxygen a lot better? Lungs. Yeah, man, lungs, this shit is blowing my not yet existant mind!" and so simple lungs were created. Merely in, out, and a bit of circulation. Simple lungs for a simple brain. You intake more oxygen with your mouth than the single nostril used. And we have speculated that many extinct primates breathed through their mouths often when performing actions.

Why? Bad lungs to power a bad brain. As we evolved, both got better. Not everyone mutated the same, though. Some had both mutations, some had only the lungs modified and some had only the brain size increased. The latter would have died out rather quickly and the former and middle survived, though in the end the former out-lasted them.

[Cephas]

Why do humans still have an appendix or tonsils. The answer is that we believe at one time these organs may have had a much more useful purpose, but over time their use has become unnecessary. If evolution is guided by a higher power then why don't these useless organs go away after at least a few generations. I'm sure there are tons of examples in the animal kingdom of previously used, but today useless organs or appendages that have not dissappeared.

If the human body is so perfect then why do so many diseases occur? What about cancer? These things point to a very much imperfect system. God is either fallable or didn't have anything to do with our creation/evolution.

Why do we have tonsils (http://www.entassociates.com/tonsils.htm)? Beats me, have a look at what experts say. And the appendix (http://www.medicalcenter.osu.edu/patientcare/healthinformation/diseasesandconditions/digestive/appendicitis/) seems to serve a purpose in the immune system in the early years of life. I'm by no means an expert, but while we didn't always know of uses of different 'vestigial' parts of our body, it seems that we are still learning.

I don't know that anyone said that the human body is perfect. Let's chalk it off to the fall, the flood, and bad maintenance. This does not make the Creator fallible.

[uniquinous]

So you're saying ancestral remnants that just so happen to be physiologically, histologically, and genetically similar to closely related animals just *happens* to be from "fall, flood, bad maintenance"?

If these were stand alone vestigial items then I could see that logic quite clearly. Don't you think it's just a lil too convenient that humans have goose bumps much like other mammals who use this reflex to appear larger and keep warm? It's completely vestigial. You can't try and tell me that some poor maintanence or flood suddenly sprang forth errector pilli (little goose bump muslces) all over our body, as that would infer creation, not degradation. The only claim that allows for such a degradation theory would mean that humans were once completely covered in fur, and that we were degraded during the fall/flood/poor-maintenance so that the underlying structures were there but the advantage/fur was gone. However, this would make humans appear very ape-like - and christians can't believe that. :p

[Cephas]

So you're saying ancestral remnants that just so happen to be physiologically, histologically, and genetically similar to closely related animals just *happens* to be from "fall, flood, bad maintenance"?

If these were stand alone vestigial items then I could see that logic quite clearly. Don't you think it's just a lil too convenient that humans have goose bumps much like other mammals who use this reflex to appear larger and keep warm? It's completely vestigial. You can't try and tell me that some poor maintanence or flood suddenly sprang forth errector pilli (little goose bump muslces) all over our body, as that would infer creation, not degradation. The only claim that allows for such a degradation theory would mean that humans were once completely covered in fur, and that we were degraded during the fall/flood/poor-maintenance so that the underlying structures were there but the advantage/fur was gone. However, this would make humans appear very ape-like - and christians can't believe that. :p
I think you took my response as one unit. I responded to blazed's two paragraphs seperately, I wasn't looking to link disease, etc to vestigial organs. If you want more on our vestigial friends, I have to refer you to a site I was hoping to avoid: AnswersinGenesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/TJ/TJv14n2_Vestigial.pdf)

[TheSilverRider]

This is my statement of Transitional Forms....

Transitional Forms

The lack of transitional forms in the fossil record provides strong evidence that evolution has not occurred. However, modern biological knowledge provides additional evidence against evolution and reveals many fascinating examples of God’s design in the living creation.
Darwin himself realized that blind chance would have immense difficulty creating precisely designed structures such as the human eye:

____________________________________
“To suppose that the eye . . . could have been
formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess,
absurd in the highest possible degree” – Charles Darwin,
Origin of the Species, 6th ed., 167.

Although Darwin’s faith in the philosophy of naturalism led him to believe that it must have happened somehow, he seems to have recognized some of the difficulties involved. Indeed, the more we learn about living things, the more we learn about living things, the more insurmountable these difficulties become. The study of biology provides persuasive evidence that transitional form not only did not, but could not have existed.
_______________________________
"Its bad enough accounting for the origin
of such things [as eyes]once, but the thought
of producing them several times according to
the modern synthetic theory makes my head
swim." – Frank B. Salisbury, “Natural Selection
and the Complexity of the Gene,” Nature (1969)

Impossibility of Transitional Forms
Full function at every step. In the Origin of Species, Darwin makes clear that evolution requires that all structures had to develop one small step at a time, while remaining fully functional at every step. For example, evolutionists believe that the four-chambered heart of birds and mammals evolved from the one-chambered heart of invertebrates. Obviously, the heart could not cease to function at any time during this transition, for the animal would quickly die without a functioning heart. It is also clear that even nonessential organs like eyes, ears, and limbs must also remain fully functional at every step in order for the animal to compete successfully for survival.
Because Darwin realized that gradual change requires that he organism be fully functional and capable of survival at every step, he knew that the discovery of any structure that could not have developed gradually would destroy the hypothesis of evolution:

___________________________________
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex
organ existed, which could not possibly have been
formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications,
my theory would absolutely break down.” –Ibid, 170.

Bat wings: evidence against evolution. Actually, zoology and botany reveal many features of animals and plants that could not have developed by numerous slight modifications. A good example of an organ that could not have developed gradually is the wing of a bat. Evolutionists teach that bats evolved from small, four-legged, rodentlike mammals similar to modern shrews. However, a bat’s wings are composed of extraordinarily long finger bones connected by a thin web of skin. In order for a shrew’s forepaws to gradually become wings, the forepaws would become useless for grasping or running long before they would enable the creature to fly. Thus, enstead of being an “improved” creature favored by natural selection, the long-fingered transitional creature would be deformed monstrosity unable to walk, run, hold food to its mouth, or fly. It is obvious that such a deformed creature would not have survived and reproduced for long enough to become a bat! This fact is also consistent with the fossil record; paleontology reveals no transitional forms between small insectivores and bats. The “earliest” known fossil bat is the “Eocene” bat Icaronycteris, which was 100% bat.

Amphibian egg to reptile egg. Another example in which transitional forms could not have survived is the transition between the jell-and-embryo egg of an amphibian and the complex amniotic egg of a reptile. Although evolutionists teach that amphibians evolved into reptiles, there is no way to gradually change an amphibian egg into a reptile egg that would allow the developing embryo to survive the gestation period. This poses an insurmountable barrier to evolution: if a creature cannot produce offspring, it cannot evolve. Several differences between amphibian and reptile eggs would have to be overcome simultaneously before an amphibian could evolve into a reptile. Not only would the structure of the egg have to be changed, but the structure of the animal’s entire reproductive system would have to be altered. From these facts, it is abundantly clear that the reptile egg could not have evolved by a series of successive, slight modifications from an amphibian egg.

[TheSilverRider]

The bird respiratory system. The respiratory system of birds is completely different from that of birds is completely different from that of any other vertebrate. Although evolutionists teach that birds evolved from reptiles, there are fundamental differences between the reptile and bird respiratory systems that would have prevented transitional forms from surviving. In addition to the miraculous changes in the lungs that would be required to change a reptile into a bird, air sacs would have to be created in the body cavity, the muscles of the chest and abdomen would have to be redesigned, and the manner in which the lungs were attached to the chest wall would have to be changed. In fact, even the manner in which the lungs were prepared in the egg to take their first breath would have to be completely redesigned. Most of these changes would have had to take place simultaneously in order for the creature to survive. From these facts, it is clear that the bird respiratory system could not have been produced by a series of “numerous, successive, slight modifications.”

Natural selection prevents transitional forms. From these and other examples, we see that there are many cases in which transitional forms would be impossible. Indeed, we can state as a general principle that natural selection prevents transitional forms: even if one kind of animal were to somehow begin to change into another kind of animal, it would have to pass through some stages in which it would be unfit to survive, causing it to be quickly eliminated by natural selection.

Punctuated equilibrium and transitional forms. Despite the claims of some of its adherents, the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium cannot overcome these “impossible transitions” any better than orthodox Darwinism. This is true because the standard hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium still requires changes to have taken place in small steps, although the steps are said to have occurred more rapidly (in a few thousand years instead of millions). The “hopeful monster” hypothesis attempts to get around this problem by proposing that each difficult transition was accomplished in a single, miraculous leap, but such genetic leaps are impossible according to the laws of science.

[eloquent]

I'm not a Christian, so I really shouldn't post here. But I'm going to anyways. :)

Long live Aethisim!

[Cephas]

Source? If you're quoting, state what you're quoting. If you are paraphrasing, state what you are paraphrasing. Unless this is all original TSR material...

[TheSilverRider]

-Biology Second Edition Gregory Parker. A Beka Book 1997

[TheSilverRider]

*NEW PAGE*


This is my statement of Transitional Forms....

Transitional Forms

The lack of transitional forms in the fossil record provides strong evidence that evolution has not occurred. However, modern biological knowledge provides additional evidence against evolution and reveals many fascinating examples of God’s design in the living creation.
Darwin himself realized that blind chance would have immense difficulty creating precisely designed structures such as the human eye:

____________________________________
“To suppose that the eye . . . could have been
formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess,
absurd in the highest possible degree” – Charles Darwin,
Origin of the Species, 6th ed., 167.

Although Darwin’s faith in the philosophy of naturalism led him to believe that it must have happened somehow, he seems to have recognized some of the difficulties involved. Indeed, the more we learn about living things, the more we learn about living things, the more insurmountable these difficulties become. The study of biology provides persuasive evidence that transitional form not only did not, but could not have existed.
_______________________________
"Its bad enough accounting for the origin
of such things [as eyes]once, but the thought
of producing them several times according to
the modern synthetic theory makes my head
swim." – Frank B. Salisbury, “Natural Selection
and the Complexity of the Gene,” Nature (1969)

Impossibility of Transitional Forms
Full function at every step. In the Origin of Species, Darwin makes clear that evolution requires that all structures had to develop one small step at a time, while remaining fully functional at every step. For example, evolutionists believe that the four-chambered heart of birds and mammals evolved from the one-chambered heart of invertebrates. Obviously, the heart could not cease to function at any time during this transition, for the animal would quickly die without a functioning heart. It is also clear that even nonessential organs like eyes, ears, and limbs must also remain fully functional at every step in order for the animal to compete successfully for survival.
Because Darwin realized that gradual change requires that he organism be fully functional and capable of survival at every step, he knew that the discovery of any structure that could not have developed gradually would destroy the hypothesis of evolution:

___________________________________
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex
organ existed, which could not possibly have been
formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications,
my theory would absolutely break down.” –Ibid, 170.

Bat wings: evidence against evolution. Actually, zoology and botany reveal many features of animals and plants that could not have developed by numerous slight modifications. A good example of an organ that could not have developed gradually is the wing of a bat. Evolutionists teach that bats evolved from small, four-legged, rodentlike mammals similar to modern shrews. However, a bat’s wings are composed of extraordinarily long finger bones connected by a thin web of skin. In order for a shrew’s forepaws to gradually become wings, the forepaws would become useless for grasping or running long before they would enable the creature to fly. Thus, enstead of being an “improved” creature favored by natural selection, the long-fingered transitional creature would be deformed monstrosity unable to walk, run, hold food to its mouth, or fly. It is obvious that such a deformed creature would not have survived and reproduced for long enough to become a bat! This fact is also consistent with the fossil record; paleontology reveals no transitional forms between small insectivores and bats. The “earliest” known fossil bat is the “Eocene” bat Icaronycteris, which was 100% bat.

Amphibian egg to reptile egg. Another example in which transitional forms could not have survived is the transition between the jell-and-embryo egg of an amphibian and the complex amniotic egg of a reptile. Although evolutionists teach that amphibians evolved into reptiles, there is no way to gradually change an amphibian egg into a reptile egg that would allow the developing embryo to survive the gestation period. This poses an insurmountable barrier to evolution: if a creature cannot produce offspring, it cannot evolve. Several differences between amphibian and reptile eggs would have to be overcome simultaneously before an amphibian could evolve into a reptile. Not only would the structure of the egg have to be changed, but the structure of the animal’s entire reproductive system would have to be altered. From these facts, it is abundantly clear that the reptile egg could not have evolved by a series of successive, slight modifications from an amphibian egg.

[TheSilverRider]

The bird respiratory system. The respiratory system of birds is completely different from that of birds is completely different from that of any other vertebrate. Although evolutionists teach that birds evolved from reptiles, there are fundamental differences between the reptile and bird respiratory systems that would have prevented transitional forms from surviving. In addition to the miraculous changes in the lungs that would be required to change a reptile into a bird, air sacs would have to be created in the body cavity, the muscles of the chest and abdomen would have to be redesigned, and the manner in which the lungs were attached to the chest wall would have to be changed. In fact, even the manner in which the lungs were prepared in the egg to take their first breath would have to be completely redesigned. Most of these changes would have had to take place simultaneously in order for the creature to survive. From these facts, it is clear that the bird respiratory system could not have been produced by a series of “numerous, successive, slight modifications.”

Natural selection prevents transitional forms. From these and other examples, we see that there are many cases in which transitional forms would be impossible. Indeed, we can state as a general principle that natural selection prevents transitional forms: even if one kind of animal were to somehow begin to change into another kind of animal, it would have to pass through some stages in which it would be unfit to survive, causing it to be quickly eliminated by natural selection.

Punctuated equilibrium and transitional forms. Despite the claims of some of its adherents, the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium cannot overcome these “impossible transitions” any better than orthodox Darwinism. This is true because the standard hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium still requires changes to have taken place in small steps, although the steps are said to have occurred more rapidly (in a few thousand years instead of millions). The “hopeful monster” hypothesis attempts to get around this problem by proposing that each difficult transition was accomplished in a single, miraculous leap, but such genetic leaps are impossible according to the laws of science.

-Biology Second Edition Gregory Parker. A Beka Book 1997

[Office_Shredder]

This is my statement of Transitional Forms....

Transitional Forms

“To suppose that the eye . . . could have been
formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess,
absurd in the highest possible degree” – Charles Darwin,
Origin of the Species, 6th ed., 167.


Stop misquoting people

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound."

I won't even waste my time looking over the rest of your post after that failure

[uniquinous]

TSR - do not sit here and spew at us quotes without citing them. Furthermore, do not spew such nonsense to start an argument, yet not actually participate in the discussion. Bring us your own words while using these sources, and when people refute your evidence, as we have been, do NOT just ignore it to move on to spew more quotes.

Now to address the vast fallacies in the words which aren't even your own:
-You misquoted Darwin completely. Minus points. If you got that straight from your book, that should be the first clue that its content should be questioned as inaccurate.
-The Salisbury quote from the 60s (!!!) is not only outdated, but doesn't say anything. "makes my head swim" does not mean "is impossible", it just means it's amazing - which life is. No one will argue that point with you.

Now let's move into the animal systems you brought up:
Heart You say the heart can't just jump in chambers as it would stop functioning. I point you to the three chambered hearts of frogs and lizards. Both oxygenated and deoxygenated blood gets mixed in one chamber. While inefficient, clearly frogs can live with the intermediately chambered heart. Lizards have a larger adaptation in the system in the form of a muscular septum which roughly keeps the bloods separate, while not quite forming indipendent ventricles. This is a very viable form of the transition between chamber number.

Bats - The fallacy in the argument assumes completely modified and unusable limbs were needed for full flight. Not the case. Again, your argument fails simply because it fails to take into consideration gradual changes:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/images_pamphlets/flyingsquirrel.jpg
I give you the flying squirrel. Clearly pre-flight capabilities are utilizable even without damaging appendages. However your example is still bad simply because they say "shrews can't use big hands". Well, if they had big hands used for flight, they aren't shrews anymore, and would use their arms for bat things, not shrew things.


eggs - You say "amphibian to reptile egg transition is impossible". Why? You didn't back this claim whatsoever. Why is it so hard to believe that there's an evolutionary advantage of having a tougher egg coat? Reptile eggs are rather soft for a reason - they aren't as evolutionarily advanced as bird eggs. But yes, please back this claim with more evidence then "it can't happen".

Bird Pulmonary System - Evidence strongly shows that birds have very similar lung systems as dinosaurs. I don't know what your source is talking about, but there would in fact NOT need to be any restructuring of muscles/bones/whatever. The intrapleural cavity physiology works the same for a wide array of animals. No gas exchange happens over bird airsacs - it just makes things more efficient (thus it's not a vital have-or-not-have tissue, and could have easily developed over the generations). Crap I have an exam on the pulmonary system in physio coming up soon... I should study... or continue pwnzing...

Natural selection prevents transitional forms - FALSE (as stated various times above. Natural selection just has a habbit of not always keeping transitional forms. You're pointing out the few cases where transitional forms wouldn't have outcompeted the advanced forms and died away, but I can point to a much larger quantity of specialized structures that very clearly have historical transitions. Examples: Touch, Taste, Smell, etc.

You tend to be bent on proving evolution wront, despite the failure to do such. However, even if, theoretically, you could prove evolution wrong - you still in no way have proven divine intervention. Proving one thing wrong doesn't automatically mean what you want is right. We have just as much reason to believe aliens genetically constructed every animal on this planet as God did.

One last thing tho: many evolutionary advancements or remnants are anything but intelligent.

[TheSilverRider]

Im just gunna say one thing and let you ponder on that:

There are 3 "if's" in that blue statement. I was stating fact not opinion. Please do read the rest of that. I was quoting from a book. I do wish to hear your opinion. Please.

[uniquinous]

There's my opinion - and your statement still grossly misquotes someone just figuring things out in a completely different era.

Bad bad noob. Don't misquote greatness like that.

[TheSilverRider]

It was not a misquote. I dont have time to do it now but i will go through your respone and give my opinion later. I have read through it and WILL be responding.

[andalite]

Books can be biased.
I'm not going to contribute much because if anything, I'd probably contribute on uniq & O_S's side... I believe in evolution with intelligence behind it. For the lego example, the 6-yr-old child, while not an adult, is still intelligent. A monkey may be able to fit the blocks together, but what will it be able to make?

You can see that I don't believe 100 monkeys pounding on a keyboard will produce Shakespeare :)