Was Darwin Wrong?

that last post had some interesting points, some sounded really good (god who created the laws of physics), however i would like to challenge you on some points:

'the earth is 6000 years old' that point can be discredited by a ton of info. as a geologist and geomorphologist, i study the earth and the processes that occur. you cannot create the mountains such as the rockies, himilayas, andes, in 6000 years, it takes millions to billions of years. look at processes that are currently under way, such as glaciation: glaciers scour valleys shaping them into U-shaped valleys, leaving distinct features such as cirques, striations, polish, etc. these processes studied now are an incredibly slow thing, ther occur over large time spans greater than 6000 years. look at rivers: a river system such as a stable meandering channel with nice well-developed floodplains and terraces: the floodplains are composed of fine sediments, identical as the one's in suspension in the stream provided fomr sources upstream., When the ocean levels fall, terraces are cut, and then new floodplain develops. you can see bar accumulations and meander movement very obvisously thru air photos. this is not a quick process. the earth is not 6000 years old, it is a heck of a lot older than that.

-about fossils and dating. for your info, carbon dating is only used for items though to be aroun 5000 years old or less, it is NOT used for dating of older things. For larger time-scale dating, people use potassium-argon dating, and many others, which involve half-lives, as well as zircon dating for rocks. These methods are very consistant with each other for the time being, and using these rocks have been dated back to 3.9billion years old, prior to that it is speculated that the earth is in a really tectonicaaly and volcanically active states, recycling rocks, therefore none are still present on earth. I spoke to a prof about the dating methods and currently these are the accepted methods, in a bit they may find that they are millions of years off, but for now this is how it is.

7 days does not equal 7days as we know it.

 
if you are seriously wondering about creationism, creationscience.com -> faq.

your questions about creationism are addressed quite well here.

-Joel

'I was in the waiting room of my doctor's office before a physical this morning. There's nothing wrong with me, but healthy people get physicals just-for-the-hey-of-it every couple of days. When they finally mispronounced my name, I got up and walked down a hall with a nurse. After a while, the doctor came in and inspected my holes. He said that I should lose weight and consider stop smoking. I blew smoke in his face and explained that he is a douche bag. We all had a good laugh and he agreed.' -Skydaddy
 
i will admit that creationism is merely a theory, one i will do my best to support until we reach eternity and then neither of us will prove anything

to the above:

i said that the flood created the mountains and such. the bible states:

'In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.' immesurable pockets of water exploding to the surface can change the topography like nothing else. the flood wasnt just rain, and i will never say that the earth being that young could have developed like that without some sort of cataclysm

youre theory states that all has continued as it has now since the beginning of the earth.

ok, to the kid that states that a day doesnt mean one 24 hr period, check this:

the word used in genesis 1 is the word YAMIM which means 'days', it appears 722 times in the old testament, and always referes to a solar day, therefore the word days means 24 hr periods.

and if moses (inspired writer of genesis) wanted the word to be anything other than a solar day, he could have done it much clearer

-Joe

______________________________________

'Really, I gotta say that I'm glad you exist, 'cause if there wasn't there'd be noone to make fun of and diss.'

Solider in the NS ARMY

Rollers of NS unite!!!

603 for life

I'm conservative, just so you all know.

Member Number: 5172

Golden Wheel Chair Award 2004-09-21

 
the adam and eve stuff is not bullshit if god created the universe. think of the order according to science and the bible, both agreeing on how things were made into the universe:

day 1: Light was created/stars formed as the universe expanding and collisions of particles continued at high rates (ie, our sun),

day2: sky and water were separated/ as more elemental combinations became present in the universe, like things attracted, ie, water accumulates on surfaces, and oxygen, nitrogen, co2, 03, rich 'air' accumulates separatly,

day3: sea and land: on a large planetismoid, waters collected further, and formed around areas of high land

day4: sun, moon, and stars/ as the planetismoids in our solar system got near a star known as our sun, they are sucked into orbit around it by its gravitational field. and as the planets spin, part of the planets face the sun, and parts face away (night, day). as the planets orbit around the sun, different stars become present in the night sky, this marks off one year as a full cycle of stars.

day5: fish and birds were created: god created life on earth (this is where the construction of the unvierse and earth ends, and moves into the living stuff)

day6: animals and mand and woman created/ as birds, fish, land animals lived, they took on specific traights according to the conditions in order for them to survive, look at humans, we are not all white, depending on location.

day 7: god rested/previous to corruption of adam.

the bible was written in the mesopotamia area of the world. they had no idea that north or south america existed, or even europe and asia or most of africa. the world to them was the mesopotamiam region. when the great flood happened, 'the world was inundated', now does this mean the entire earth, ot the 'world' to them. there is a large amount of evidence (geologically) of a giant flood covering the entire mediterranean sea and surrounding area, just gigantic. this was the world to them, how big was the flood, no one knows, but you must always think of the context things are written

 
Evolutionism is a theory that works in harmony and does not or is not contradicted by superiorly acknowledged, and academically supported epistemological theories. Creationism may be a theory, but in order for its world view to be considered an image of the world that is the closest to the truth (that is in order to be solf-core, or non-acedemic ''truth''), countless theories, models, and world-views, from the whole spectrum of acedemic history must be ignored or completely discarded, in order to allow a very flawed world-view any semblance of credibility. And taking in consideration what has built the Theory of Creationism in the first place, namely imersion in a metaphysical quest for truth with no concern what-so-ever for the epistemolical battling that must run alongside the metaphical in importance, creation is even more uncrediable. That is to say, the proponents of creationism are so epistemologically ignorant (and existenially inauthentic I suppose you could say) that until the above issues are resolved, it simply isn't worth it wasting time looking at severly acedemically flawed philosophies simply because they come from an incredably infectious and dangerous culture. They should be dealt with, but not as valid concept and world-view, but rather dangerous specimans of the most infectious meme ever known to man.

P.S. To all those who would attack this post on the basis of the it poor acedemic quality, I ask of you to refrain, because I know how proposterous the above is, but let's stick with what's at issue here.

-TAK, PPPhd

''Fuck gorilla; it's all about the penguin steeze.''

-Sdot, in reference to Tanner Hall's rather questionable atire and mental state
 
the bible is full of true life experiences, but no one was there to experience the creation of earth and the universe. god gave the information on how he created the world to man, not thru personal experience but through 'voices' or 'thoughts'. why does a 'day' according to god equal a 'day' according to man? they don't have to, and considering that man can never be as good as god, it can't be.

the flood did not create all our mountains, that is ridiculous. water erosion does not creat jaggedness, but nice, smooth rounding, sorting, and grading. our mtns are not smooth, the rockies are pretty damn rocky, and look at glaciers that are currently carving mtns, you cannot deny that fact. plate tectonics occurs right now and is continuing to do so. the himilayas are growing (rate of growth =rate of erosion), vancouver island is rising, the dead sea is closing in. look at volcanoes, they are creating mtns right now, go to hawaii, or any volcanic island chain and witness the process yourself, look at mt st helens, one big accumulation of volcanic eruptions, and nust a few weeks ago, it erupted again. the processes of water did not carve out landscape 100%. Tell me why the rocky mtns have giant coral reefs preserved in them? reefs containing corals never seen to man (currently alive), in all of his/her day?

 
take a look into something called the hydroplate theory. it explains how the flood shaped the earth's physical features.

-Joel

'I was in the waiting room of my doctor's office before a physical this morning. There's nothing wrong with me, but healthy people get physicals just-for-the-hey-of-it every couple of days. When they finally mispronounced my name, I got up and walked down a hall with a nurse. After a while, the doctor came in and inspected my holes. He said that I should lose weight and consider stop smoking. I blew smoke in his face and explained that he is a douche bag. We all had a good laugh and he agreed.' -Skydaddy
 
actually, the bibkle was written in the mesoptamian region, although, there is much evidence in the bible supporting the fact that the population of the pre-flood world was as great as ours today, and spread over the entire earth (as we know it) read the genesis flood.

arguements for a worldwide flood and not a local flood:

God could have told moses to migrate, instead of having him build an ark, and they wouldnt have to worry about the animals

the purpose was to destroy the all unredeamable wickedness on earth, and a local flood could not have done that

the whole world was repopulated by Noah, Gen 9:19, 10:32

the effects of the flood are worldwide, not just in the mesopotamian area

there are also many theologiacal points i have not given, such as the Noahic covenant, the rainbow covenant, and much related to the language, wording, and referances pointing to it in the Bible

as for the incoherrant post made by tak up there: dude, it may actually make sense, but if you want people to take you seriously, you need to write to your audience, noone here knows what you mean. one of the first things taught in eng comp, and speech are to speakat your audiences level. and, while what you mean may make total sense, and be quite thought compelling, we dont want to get a dictionary to cypher through your post

-Joe

______________________________________

'Really, I gotta say that I'm glad you exist, 'cause if there wasn't there'd be noone to make fun of and diss.'

Solider in the NS ARMY

Rollers of NS unite!!!

603 for life

I'm conservative, just so you all know.

Member Number: 5172

Golden Wheel Chair Award 2004-09-21

 
i see the creationists are pretty damn set in their ways, and i have to do some homework now, so i am signing out. I am a christian, and stronlgy believe in the existance of god, as I have a true prupose for living, and it is not for fun. To the creationists, it is possible that god, who is so crazilly powerful could sculpt the entire earth as it is and that he would give man fake dating methods of fossils and stuff, but why would god be anti-science and anti-pursuit of knowledge, he wouldn't. i encourage you to take some higher level geology courses or do some reading of scientific journals about 'Earth's landforms and processes'.

if you didn't know, the earth is consistantly be deformed as i ahve explained, and this cannot be denied. tectonics, volcanics, water processes, landslides, etc, glaciation and much more. if you truly do not believe in this stuff, i donno what to say, you are an idiot, and maybe you should go to a beach, and watch the water transport sediment, it happens, no ifs and or buts.

 
i had to add one point to the last comment. rememebr the context of 'world'. it is true that the flood wiped out the evil in the world at the time, but the evil originated in the world via adam in the mesopotamiam. why would there be evil across the world in the peaceful self-sufficient first nations of north america, or the natives of south america? these people who lived primitave lives, lived extremely simple, giving thanks to nature for everything they got, and accepting things like when someone died. why was ther evil there? maybe there was no need to wipe out the beautiful communities of first nations people to other continents b/c they did not posess the evil of the meso. Why did jesus come to this area? it was not fluke,. did you ever think that possibly it was because the people of the meso needed help and needed help fast. they were not living godly lives, and jesus came to give them so proof of god.if things were as messed up in 'canada' then why did jesus not go there, the needs of the world have and always will be different

 
read 'inherit the wind'

its a screenplay about a teacher who is put on trial for teaching the evolutionary theory...

religion gets its ass kicked in court

-------------------

Member # 2038
 
thats because the apologist who was portrayed was a bumbling idiot, im not gonna say every creationistis a genious, but neither is every evolutionist.

as for the fact of erosion and deformation of the land, i deff believe that exists

as for why Jesus went where and when he went, that is because of many reasons

and everybody living at the time of flood came from adam, so the evil would be worldwide.

-Joe

______________________________________

'Really, I gotta say that I'm glad you exist, 'cause if there wasn't there'd be noone to make fun of and diss.'

Solider in the NS ARMY

Rollers of NS unite!!!

603 for life

I'm conservative, just so you all know.

Member Number: 5172

Golden Wheel Chair Award 2004-09-21

 
you say evolution is obvious which is true...but i challenge someone to show me any proof of macro evolution. believing in god and evolution is a possibility. many scientists believe that evolution is a guided process by god.

also, you some of you seem to have a limited knowledge on what science is.. science cannot confirm or deny existence of a god-like being bc it does not dwell into the realm of the supernatural. science by defintion only seeks to explain natural phenomena, and in no way can debate supernatural events

sry if any of these points were already made, i only read the first 50 posts

 
Stuff Disproving MOST of the Darwin Theory:

-The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that when left untouched everything in the universe will go from disorder to order. If you drop a drinking glass and it shattered, the pieces will lay there forever never regrouping unless someone puts it back together. This is why cells die and decay. The theory of evolution directly contradicts a law science and the universe is founded on.

-Darwins theory is based on two kinds of evolution: microevoluton and macroevolution. Microevolution states that over a period of time species will undergo change. (ie humans now average being taller than they were 100 years ago). The other is macroevolution, stating that animals, plants, viruses, everything living came from one common ancestor through genetic mutations. it states that reptiles came from amphibians, birds came from reptiles, furry four legged animals came from birds, apes came from furry four legged animals. The second Law of Thermodynamics again proves that wrong.

-The fossil record doesnt support it, there should be MILLIONS of intermediate mutation species like a cartoon flip book but none of theses have been found.

-Earth isnt just an average planet in an average galaxy.

Jupiter acts as a shiled to protect us from comets.

Earth's consistent orbit around the sun keeps un in life sustaing temperatures.

The moons gravitational pull stabilizes the earth's tilt toword the sun. if it was bigger or smaller the oceans would either freeze or boil.

The earth rotates at just the right speed so the wind doesnt blow us away

Water is one of the compounds that expands when it freezes. The Big Deal? if it contacted it would sink to the bottom of the ocean and the oceans would flood the continents.

Were we created or did we evolve?

.

 
Wow, LMP, I don't mean this personmally, but you are an idiot. Seriously. It's not an insult, I'm just saying that's the most flawed logic I've [/b]ever[/b] heard. My god. You apply physics laws to biology and then refute them because you think they contradict each other when really they don't have- and cannot have- anything to do with each other? Holy shit.

-TAK, PPPhd

''Fuck gorilla; it's all about the penguin steeze.''

-Sdot, in reference to Tanner Hall's rather questionable atire and mental state
 
Wow, LMP, I don't mean this personally, but you are an idiot. Seriously. It's not an insult, I'm just saying that's the most flawed logic I've ever heard. My god. You apply physics laws to biology and then refute them because you think they contradict each other when really they don't have- and cannot have- anything to do with each other? Holy shit. This is EXACTLY what I was talking about above; while people may be able to write down their theory of metaphysics, their world-view, they can do so without any consideration for epistemology, and it is our responsibility to realize when people are simply just too intellectually uneducated to produce anything that can be taken as a valid theory and not cerebral artifact.

I might add that I mean no personal insult, but lets be serious here, some people are smarter than others. Deny it if you like, but not all people are created equal. If you're not willing to make this departure from the moral comfort of a childish moralism from which few ever waken, then you have no place in a discusion about evolutionary theory.

-TAK, PPPhd

''Fuck gorilla; it's all about the penguin steeze.''

-Sdot, in reference to Tanner Hall's rather questionable atire and mental state
 
the Law of Conservation of matter states that Matter can neither be created nor destroyed in a chemical or physical change. That would mean that the amount of matter existing today would have to have been existing forever. That makes it so that God would have had to have created all of the matter.

____________________________________________________________

'how vain is it to sit down and write, when you have not stood up to live'

-Andrew P

I was in the petting zoo, or as I like to call it, the touch me zoo this afternoon. All the animals were retarded. Some lady was breast feeding her baby on a bench nearby, an obvious signal. I sat down uncomfortably close to her and yawned my arm around her shoulder. In her attempt to squirm away, she dropped her baby on the ground. I pretended I was concerned for a second, then I punted it over the fence. She still didn't seem interested in me. Whatever.

 
Oh course! Because if we don't understand it then 'God', a creation of ours must have created it. Makes perfect bloody sense!

-TAK, PPPhd

''Fuck gorilla; it's all about the penguin steeze.''

-Sdot, in reference to Tanner Hall's rather questionable atire and mental state
 
look. you would rather believe that everything suddenly popped into existence on its own...over believing that an almighty god created everything we know?

-Joel

'I was in the waiting room of my doctor's office before a physical this morning. There's nothing wrong with me, but healthy people get physicals just-for-the-hey-of-it every couple of days. When they finally mispronounced my name, I got up and walked down a hall with a nurse. After a while, the doctor came in and inspected my holes. He said that I should lose weight and consider stop smoking. I blew smoke in his face and explained that he is a douche bag. We all had a good laugh and he agreed.' -Skydaddy
 
tak: if you believe that each science such as physics, biology, geology, chemistry are all separate realms, and undrelated then you are the idiot. The sciences are so inter-related, and one only sees that after learning high level university science. to the point you made about biology and physics, what the hell is biophysics, at universities it is an entire program, but appareantly the two are unrelated,

i agree with the last guy, i would rather have my faith in a being, rather than pure pointless fluke.

 
My eternity is settled

My sins are forgiven

My purpose on earth is clear

My God is all-controlling

My soul is protected by my God

You are a fluke with no purpose

Thats why I believe in God

-Joe

______________________________________

'Really, I gotta say that I'm glad you exist, 'cause if there wasn't there'd be noone to make fun of and diss.'

Solider in the NS ARMY

Rollers of NS unite!!!

603 for life

I'm conservative, just so you all know.

Member Number: 5172

Golden Wheel Chair Award 2004-09-21

 
ok, im gonna expand on the worldwide evil thing. all men came from adam, they moved out, and did as they pleased. the pre-flood (antideluvian) world was much differantthen post antideluvian world. we know very little about the pre-flood world except what the Bible tells us:

gen. 6:5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

gen 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

that is why God destroyed the earth.

-Joe

______________________________________

'Really, I gotta say that I'm glad you exist, 'cause if there wasn't there'd be noone to make fun of and diss.'

Solider in the NS ARMY

Rollers of NS unite!!!

603 for life

I'm conservative, just so you all know.

Member Number: 5172

Golden Wheel Chair Award 2004-09-21

 
yes

-Joe

______________________________________

'Really, I gotta say that I'm glad you exist, 'cause if there wasn't there'd be noone to make fun of and diss.'

Solider in the NS ARMY

Rollers of NS unite!!!

603 for life

I'm conservative, just so you all know.

Member Number: 5172

Golden Wheel Chair Award 2004-09-21

 
there is a verse saying that but i cant remember it.

'God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move on the ground according to their kinds' Genesis 1:25

Why do I believe what the bible says? Because science has never proved it wrong, when it does try and prove it wrong it usauly helps prove it.

 
No, not unrelated, just not identical. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, has nothing to with, and cannot be entered as, a reasonable agruement against organic growth or evolution.

But enough refutation, let me give you the short version of the anti-deity agruement... The concept of gods is a creation of man, refutable by all schools of conscious* thought.

That's it. Ockham's Razor in the case leads us too memes.

-------------------------------------------------

note: *that school of consciousness obtained only with hightened, prolonged, and focused mental disipline.

-TAK, PPPhd

''Fuck gorilla; it's all about the penguin steeze.''

-Sdot, in reference to Tanner Hall's rather questionable atire and mental state
 
I am sorry but if you dont believe in evolution you are a fucking retard

Jesus saves!

Gretzky gets the rebound. he feeds the puck to LeClair. he shoots! he scores! the crowd goes wild
 
the verse is:

They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.

genesis 7:14

there is also:

gen 1:21

gen 1:25

^yes im a moron because i believe in creation, thats a good way to build up credibility, conversion through insult, nice try

^^The concept of gods is a creation of man, refutable by all schools of conscious* thought.

apparently not ALL concious thought, as I know most of the world believes in a god of some sort, and the more i look around at the world and start to understand it, the more i see the working of God's hand, and the impossibility of a flue creation

-Joe

______________________________________

'Really, I gotta say that I'm glad you exist, 'cause if there wasn't there'd be noone to make fun of and diss.'

Solider in the NS ARMY

Rollers of NS unite!!!

603 for life

I'm conservative, just so you all know.

Member Number: 5172

Golden Wheel Chair Award 2004-09-21

 
hey hey hey! stop putting words in my mouth! I called you a retard! not a moron

Jesus saves!

Gretzky gets the rebound. he feeds the puck to LeClair. he shoots! he scores! the crowd goes wild
 
also, th=o the kid above my last post, prove that, please, facts, not opinions

-Joe

______________________________________

'Really, I gotta say that I'm glad you exist, 'cause if there wasn't there'd be noone to make fun of and diss.'

Solider in the NS ARMY

Rollers of NS unite!!!

603 for life

I'm conservative, just so you all know.

Member Number: 5172

Golden Wheel Chair Award 2004-09-21

 
well i must say that this is one of the most lacking creation vs evolution threads ever. half of the posts are flat out insults. i quit these types of threads in nsg. unless phattim comes back, then its on.

-Joel

'I was in the waiting room of my doctor's office before a physical this morning. There's nothing wrong with me, but healthy people get physicals just-for-the-hey-of-it every couple of days. When they finally mispronounced my name, I got up and walked down a hall with a nurse. After a while, the doctor came in and inspected my holes. He said that I should lose weight and consider stop smoking. I blew smoke in his face and explained that he is a douche bag. We all had a good laugh and he agreed.' -Skydaddy
 
That a maker is required for anything that is made is a lesson Sir Isaac Newton was able to teach forcefully to an atheist-scientist friend of his. Sir Isaac had an accomplished artisan fashion for him a small scale model of our solar system which was to be put in a room in Newton’s home when completed. The assignment was finished and installed on a large table. The workman had done a very commendable job, simulating not only the various sizes of the planets and their relative proximities, but also so constructing the model that everything rotated and orbited when a crank was turned. It was an interesting, even fascinating work, as you can image, particularly to anyone schooled in the sciences.

Newton’s atheist-scientist friend came by for a visit. Seeing the model, he was naturally intrigued, and proceeded to examine it with undisguised admiration for the high quality of the workmanship. ‘My! What an exquisite thing this is!’ he exclaimed. ‘Who made it?’ Paying little attention to him, Sir Isaac answered, ‘Nobody.’

Stopping his inspection, the visitor turned and said: ‘Evidently you did not understand my question. I asked who made this. Newton, enjoying himself immensely no doubt, replied in a still more serious tone. ‘Nobody. What you see just happened to assume the form it now has.’ ‘You must think I am a fool!’ the visitor retorted heatedly, ‘Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius, and I would like to know who he is.’

Newton then spoke to his friend in a polite yet firm way: ‘This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?’

 
Check this out-

Washington, DC — The Bush Administration has decided that it will stand by its approval for a book claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah’s flood rather than by geologic forces, according to internal documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).
http://www.peer.org/press/524.html

 
oh my freaken hell this is refreshing ....haha ...i live in utah and i constantly have to put up with 'the church is true' and missionarys and all that crap and i am one of the few that strongly support evolution and such ...so it is nice for a change to see that most of you are for evolution exept for people who are still brainwashed by their god beleiving parents and churches ......their is overwhelming evidence that evolution exists ...instead of this 'almighty god' crap .....I mean do you guys still believe in santa claus and the easter bunny ..or do you think that magicians really saw people in half? ....weve all known that that wasnt true since we were kids .....so why ...seeing that there isnt 'magic' how did god just say poof 'i create man' and 2 billion other species on earth? ......religion ...or belief in a god or gods all was invented in about 3000bc or thereabouts and the people who invented it ....the people of the nile, yellow,and the tigris/euphrates river valleys.....were all polytheistic naturalists ..meaning --that they beleived in more than one god ...and --natralists -meaning to explain natural occurances ....they didnt have half the science we have now so they where awed by the power of nature ....floods,storms,wind,lightning,and such so they came up with 'religion' to explain all of these 'natural occurances' and to explain how they came to be now however we know what causes all of these things but people still believe in 'magical tablets ,golden rules ,prophets, and such' because they were 'they were told' that it was true ...either by church leaders or their parents and whatnot ...you were allowed to think for yourself on things like santa and the easter bunny so you used logic to figure out that they werent really existant but most kids these days are taught from an early age that 'god made you' 'jesus loves you' and never allowed to think for themselves so god and religion is passed down from generation to generation because noone is thinking for themselves and looking at evidence of other theorys about how we came to be. people!!! start thinkin for yourself ..........oh my god hahaha i freaken ramble ....but its something to think about ......im out ...Adam

 
my parents arent making me do anything. if i wanted, i coulda skipped town after graduation, and done whatever i wanted, or have gone to a state university, but i chose to go to a Christian college. ive been raised on the Bible, but never just accept w/out reason. i grew up in a Christian school where we were told never to just accept, but to look at the scriptures and figure it out. ive been given both sides- creationism and evolutionism, taught the reasons why creationism is the only choice possible. not just to accept it verbatum.

also, the book of job was written before a lot of those early mesopotamian tribes every stated, long before thier gods, so i think the fact that what is now Christianity is the oldest surviving religion is kinda interesting

-Joe

______________________________________

'Really, I gotta say that I'm glad you exist, 'cause if there wasn't there'd be noone to make fun of and diss.'

Solider in the NS ARMY

Rollers of NS unite!!!

603 for life

I'm conservative, just so you all know.

Member Number: 5172

Golden Wheel Chair Award 2004-09-21

 
Ok, so a bunch of posts before were about how if evolution is correct, 'things just pop into existence'. That is possibly the most ignorant arguement against evolution I have ever heard. In fact, if you actually understand evolution, you'd see how contradictory that statement is. And before I go any further, props to TAK, i totaly agree with him (and on a sidenote to LAG, the Earth really isnt that special, scientists have found many large gas giants in other solar systems, and in fact, if the orbits of these extra-solar planets are studied and calculated, there are anomolies which predict that smaller planets, possibly like Earth, DO EXIST. Read Scientific American from last January)

So, back to the main point. Evolution does not describe things jsut popping into existance (Creation theory does). The jump between non-life and life was a subtle one, but a point that has become of great interest to scientists because of it relitive easiness to isolate and do in a laboratory. In fact, my science class has done this last year in AP Biology.

In the early earth, there were many volcanoes and eruptions. These eruptions let loose the water vapor that eventually amassed in the atmosphere and started raining down on the earth. Pools formed, and the rain falling through the atmosphere caught and brought into these pools many volcanic gasses, such as Sulpher, Carbon, Nitrogen, Silicon and Oxygen (and various compounds of these basic elements, like CO2, CNO3, etc). Because of the huge amount of eruptive activity, the skies over these pools of basic elements would be very charged and lightning would strike often. So scientists thought: what would happen if we could recreate this model in a laboratory?

So they did. The same elements and compounds that were in the early Earth's atmmosphere were diluted in water and sent through a repitous system where the water would be heated, the vapors carring the elements would pass through a high current, and then the condensed vapors would fall back down and rejoin the system. Over time, the system eventually turns from a clear color to a light brown color. When the solution is then tested, it is found that certain amino acids and basic polypeptides exist. In short, the basic nutrients and building blocks were there.

Ok, so now you might be saying, 'well that was in a laboratory, and the substances were probably less concentrated, blah blah blah'. Think though: The experiment in the lab took a few days to get proper results. The early earth had a few million years of the right circumstances. It is completely possible that these building blocks formed in abundancy in the Darwinian pools of the early earth.

So how did life actually start? Probably in clay coated pools. The clay would have kept most of the liquid from flash evaporating from repeated lightning strikes. Nonpolar molocules, like most hydrocarbons, also have nonpolar and polar ends. If these hydrocarbons are allowed to mix, which can be replicated in your average high school lab with glycogen and syrine, then the molocules will form together in an interesting way. The nonpolar and hydrophobic ends will face inwards, creating a circle of hydrocarbons. basically, this is nearly the same as a cell membrane, and these bubbles of hydrocarbons could have easily trapped some important amino acids inside them. While all of this probably didnt happen overnight, the earth had many millions of years for this to occur, and it is more than quite possible that life formed from Darwinian Pools.

=================================

Rowen

'Aren't you Buzz Lightyear?'

*whispers* 'I love your movies!'

'URAAAAFWAAAGAAA!!!'

 
Also, all you creationalist people are always asking for good solid proof of evolution, but in turn, where is the proof for creationalism?

=================================

Rowen

'Aren't you Buzz Lightyear?'

*whispers* 'I love your movies!'

'URAAAAFWAAAGAAA!!!'

 
i came back, to address your post rekker.

'One classic experiment that is used to support the belief that life “built itself�, is an experiment by Stanley Miller in 1953. In this experiment sparks were discharged into an apparatus, which was circulating common gases. These gases reacted to form various organic products, which were collected and analyzed. The experiment succeeded in producing only a few of the 20 amino acids required by living cells. Yet the results have repeatedly been heralded as evidence that life could have arisen by itself. Furthermore, the dozens of major problems with this experiment as an explanation for the formation of life are seldom reported.1

For instance, our early atmosphere was assumed to have no oxygen because this would stop amino acid formation. However, with no oxygen, there would be no ozone shield. With no ozone shield, life would also be impossible. Furthermore, oxidized rocks throughout the geologic record indicate that oxygen has always been present. In addition to this, the same gases that can react to form amino acids undergo known reactions in the presence of sunlight, which removes them from the atmosphere. The required gases would not have been around long enough for life to have developed! In addition, a cold trap was used to keep the reaction products from being destroyed as fast as they formed.

The biggest problem is that the amino acids formed in this experiment are always a 50/50 mixture of stereotypes (L and D forms). Stereotypes are like a drawer full of right-hand and left-hand gloves, identical in every way except a mirror image of each other. Life contains only L stereotypes of these randomly produced amino acids. Yet equal proportions of both types are always produced. How could the first cell have selected only L stereotypes from a random, equally reactive mixture? No answer to this has ever been found.

These are just a few of the problems with the fanciful idea that life generated itself. The linking of these randomly produced amino acids into the required proteins is an even more overwhelming impossibility. No experiment has ever shown that matter has the ability to come alive. The best explanation for life is still that “life only comes from pre-existing life�. As you search for the truth, perhaps you should consider the possibility that the source of all life... Is God.' - Dr. Kent Hovind.

-Joel

'I was in the waiting room of my doctor's office before a physical this morning. There's nothing wrong with me, but healthy people get physicals just-for-the-hey-of-it every couple of days. When they finally mispronounced my name, I got up and walked down a hall with a nurse. After a while, the doctor came in and inspected my holes. He said that I should lose weight and consider stop smoking. I blew smoke in his face and explained that he is a douche bag. We all had a good laugh and he agreed.' -Skydaddy
 
I agree that the experiment has many flaws, true. But it still does form a possability for explaining how life came to be scientifically, which is currently the most probable scientific way to explain how life started. Its simply the greatest scientific possability, but certianly not the only possability.

The thing about L and D stereotypes is an interesting one, but again, I'd like to remind you that the first cell had millions of years to be created. Cell like structures still did exist, and all that was really needed was time and chance for the right combination to occur over many millions of years. This is kinda off the thing that if you leave a million monkeys in a room with a computer, eventually, one will type out an essay about a modern writer. The tools and building blocks were there and the system just needed time, which it had.

=================================

Rowen

'Aren't you Buzz Lightyear?'

*whispers* 'I love your movies!'

'URAAAAFWAAAGAAA!!!'

 
If the bible was meant to be interpertated literally you better learn biblical hebrew....

-----------------------

'No sympathy for the devil; keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride . . . and if it occasionally gets a little heavier than what you had in mind, well . . . maybe chalk it off to forced consciousness expansion: Tune in, freak out, get beaten.' HST

 
*powsnwbird*, they didnt creat religion to explain their world, they created Myth, and from Myth sprung religion.

You also say that we are alowed to discover for our selves that santa and the easter bunny arnt realy. This is true, however we have concrete ways of doing this. did you ever stay up till the we hours of the morning waiting for santa to arive? did you ever go looking for presents befor christmas only to find ones which later came to be from santa? or maybe it was your older brother who told you that he helped his parents put the presents from santa out and that santa didnt exist. it is easy to prove, in concrete ways that santa doesnt exist. Its the same for the easterbunny. When it comes to somthing like God, there is no easy way to say that he does not exist. there is no proof that there is no God. Its foolish to compare the two. If it was so easy to disprove the existance of god, we would not be having this argument in this thread. thats all there is to it.

-Thom Savery

please pardon the cacography

--->CCR*

'Humanity needs to stop having relations with it's mother' -a freind on Oedipus Rex.

 
i was hoping nobody would bring up the possibility of life forming, but you just had to. so here you go, another article...i'll throw you a link this time.

mathematical probablilty of life forming

^and i agree with you 100% on the hebrew thing.

-Joel

'I was in the waiting room of my doctor's office before a physical this morning. There's nothing wrong with me, but healthy people get physicals just-for-the-hey-of-it every couple of days. When they finally mispronounced my name, I got up and walked down a hall with a nurse. After a while, the doctor came in and inspected my holes. He said that I should lose weight and consider stop smoking. I blew smoke in his face and explained that he is a douche bag. We all had a good laugh and he agreed.' -Skydaddy
 
good call on the last post, about learning hebrew and reading the original. Th bible has already been translated into language english people can understand. If it is to be taken iterally, then why are there so many metaphors in the bible and spoken word?

- granting you take it literally, why would a God who created every law of science and process of the universe be in pursuit of deceiving man. god loves the human race, and has grace. Honest people in the pursuit of knowledge, searching to become more informed of processes, such as geology, why would god go to such ridiculous lengths to fool humans, as if he despises science. that is not the loving god i know, who is compassionate, caring, and graceful. cut and dry is not the way.

i go back to the facts about geology and current processes: volcanoes make mountains, tectonics make moutains, water flows, erodes, and deposits. why are these processes currently occuring. apparently in the past they had NO purpose as you continue to believe god just made everything in an instant. Why would god make these processes occur now, but no in the past (considering areas such as indonesia and the islands there are a volcanic chain produced entirely of volcanic material. Why does it seem so impossible to try and even contemplate the thought that maybe this awesome god set the intial conditions and everything for the universe and earth to become perfect as they are, and god design and produce life on earth, and the human brain and such?

about the flood creating the grand canyon, maybe it is true, we don't know, but what we do know is that currently no great flood is continuing to carve the canyon.We know as a fact that the current river continues to cut and carve the canyon, and probably has for quite some time. Think about this: a great flood happens, and sea levels rise, and rivers run everywhere (but they can ony run to their 'base level', in this case a high sea level). NOw as the sea level falls with the loss of water into ice-caps, glaciers, and into the atomsphere, the rivers flow and have a lot of power as their base level is lower and continues to lower. the rivers then cut deep into the rock and sediment forming canyons. this process is observed worldwide currently, and is a very simple explanantion involving the consequences of the flood.

 
Im not sure creation science evangelism is a reliable unbiased source...

Ok, im not out to disprove God, I'm only trying to prove evolution. Some people condone that maybe god created the universe and everything just worked out from there by natural processes. But my point is that evolution does undenyable happen. I dont have any problem with a person believing in (a) God(s), but when you use that belief to try and disprove a scientific principle... Its kinda like saying that my belief overrules science. I dunno, does it for anyone?

=================================

Rowen

'Aren't you Buzz Lightyear?'

*whispers* 'I love your movies!'

'URAAAAFWAAAGAAA!!!'

 
I'm just goign to comment on lanks statement aobut no oxygen i nthe atmosphere and then there being no ozone layer. Ozone is made up of O3(subscript) while oxygen for cellular respiration is made up of O2, they are two different molecules. Both molecules have different properties. You could argue it's still all oxygen, but then you wouldn't be taking into consideration that they have different properties.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top