The Religion Discussion

[Humes]

LOL...I don't see you complaining when your compatriots doing the same thing. Hypocrite...

The very first sentence of my very first post in this thread.

And it's not the only time I said as such over the duration of the thread.

So is this the part where I call you an idiot, or illiterate?

LOL...that is Biological evolution in action. Again, it may play a part but that cannot be generalized to explain Evolution.

Explain? That is where the theories come in. You said evolution is not observable, and you've been presented with proof. Evolution is fact.

You're conveniently mixing up your terms. Evolutionary theory might encompass environmental conditions etc, but evolution is simply genetic change down through generations. It's rational. It can be deduced. It can be observed. It's fact.

What's confusing you is the difference between the fact of evolution and the theories used to explain it. Just because scientists aren't certain about or can't observe how it happened doesn't mean evolution itself doesn't happen.

If you spent more time reading and thinking and less time with the silly jabs, you might have realised where you've been going wrong by now.

[hydroep]

All fine and well. But I can't for one reason...the lack of proof.

I'm sorry but I can't take the "proof" provided in avian science at face value. To me it raises the same questions of authenticity relevant to the human fossil debate.

well there were no modern birds around at the time of dinosaurs. Modern birds just didnt pop up on earth one day so long after creation. There were sharks and crocodiles around then too. There were avian dinosaurs and a long chain of flying reptiles, raptors, feathered dinosaurs, prehistoric birds all showing a slow mutation to each other over time but all maintaining skeletal and reproductive systems such as the avian hip bone structure and hard shelled egg laying.

read it up - the evidence is irrefutable.

The most that we can say Duane is that we haven't found evidence of modern birds existing at the time of the Dinosaurs. I've seen the theories on the Megladon (the supposed ancestor of the Great White) and what not. Again...they built the whole shark from one tooth eh...

I'm as open minded as they come, but I draw the line at being asked to accept flawed scientific dogma.

I also have some concerns about the accuracy of the carbon dating system. If the detractors are correct, it'll turn the whole theory on it's head. But I'll leave that for another day...

[hydroep]

Lawd have mercy...

LOL...I don't see you complaining when your compatriots doing the same thing. Hypocrite...

The very first sentence of my very first post in this thread.

And it's not the only time I said as such over the duration of the thread.

So is this the part where I call you an idiot, or illiterate?

LOL...this is a complaint?

I doh see the need for any side of this debate to antagonise the other.

Look I'm tired. Do me a favour and call yourself an idiot.

LOL...that is Biological evolution in action. Again, it may play a part but that cannot be generalized to explain Evolution.

Explain? That is where the theories come in. You said evolution is not observable, and you've been presented with proof. Evolution is fact.

You're conveniently mixing up your terms. Evolutionary theory might encompass environmental conditions etc, but evolution is simply genetic change down through generations. It's rational. It can be deduced. It can be observed. It's fact.

What's confusing you is the difference between the fact of evolution and the theories used to explain it. Just because scientists aren't certain about or can't observe how it happened doesn't mean evolution itself doesn't happen.

Explain what? I've explained time and time again that Evolutionary Theory considers things other than Biological evolution but you eh want to hear that.

And I eh mixing up nothing. It's just that you have a profound lack of understanding.

Biological evolution is not Evolution as in the general theory that refers to the origin of the species. Even Duane said they're not mutually exclusive per se which implies a difference.

I'll say it again that article does not prove Evolution it only shows Biological evolution in action, a process which may have played a part in the former.

You keep repeating the same thing over and over as if it makes a difference, but it doesn't.

If you spent more time reading and thinking and less time with the silly jabs, you might have realised where you've been going wrong by now.

Well boy it takes one to know one...

[Humes]

Lawd have mercy...

LOL...this is a complaint?

I doh see the need for any side of this debate to antagonise the other.

I want to say I surprised that you doh understand such a simple statement, but I realise you have a little problem with language:

Biological evolution is not Evolution as in the general theory that refers to the origin of the species.

Biological evolution is evolution.

The general theory that refers to the origin of species that you're referring to is either general evolutionary theory or something more specific. Duane differentiated clearly between phenomenon and theory.

You could have avoided this whole setta talk by simply putting "theory of" where it belongs instead of referring to evolutionary theory as evolution itself.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

easy fellas, easy - we all here to share ideas bound by logic

All fine and well. But I can't for one reason...the lack of proof.

I'm sorry but I can't take the "proof" provided in avian science at face value. To me it raises the same questions of authenticity relevant to the human fossil debate.

well there were no modern birds around at the time of dinosaurs. Modern birds just didnt pop up on earth one day so long after creation. There were sharks and crocodiles around then too. There were avian dinosaurs and a long chain of flying reptiles, raptors, feathered dinosaurs, prehistoric birds all showing a slow mutation to each other over time but all maintaining skeletal and reproductive systems such as the avian hip bone structure and hard shelled egg laying.

read it up - the evidence is irrefutable.

The most that we can say Duane is that we haven't found evidence of modern birds existing at the time of the Dinosaurs. I've seen the theories on the Megladon (the supposed ancestor of the Great White) and what not. Again...they built the whole shark from one tooth eh...

I'm as open minded as they come, but I draw the line at being asked to accept flawed scientific dogma.

"When fossilized shark teeth were first discovered embedded in terrestrial rocks - sometimes high up mountainsides and far from the sea - their origin was a complete enigma." - And rightfully so because science didnt understand how the geology of the earth changed.

Sharks have cartilage as bone, that will not stand up long enough to be fossilized, therefore the only things on a shark that will be fossilized are the teeth.

They have found hundreds of megalodon teeth already, some scientists have found enough by themselves to make an entire mouth, seeing for themselves the way the jaw was made up. It is undeniable that these are shark teeth. The only difference is the scale. From modern day sharks they can calculate what the entire megalodon would look like. It's not that far fetched.

have you ever seen a turkey leg bone? its big compared to what you are accustomed seeing after eating out your KFC. But its easy for you mentally reconstruct the size of this fowl judging from the size of the leg bone - and you dont have to be a scientist - you only need to know this is the leg bone of a bird.

[Humes]

I read that they found parts of a megaladon spinal column as well.

[hydroep]

easy fellas, easy - we all here to share ideas bound by logic

LOL...referee break it up oui. Truce boy Humes, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

"When fossilized shark teeth were first discovered embedded in terrestrial rocks - sometimes high up mountainsides and far from the sea - their origin was a complete enigma." - And rightfully so because science didnt understand how the geology of the earth changed.

Sharks have cartilage as bone, that will not stand up long enough to be fossilized, therefore the only things on a shark that will be fossilized are the teeth.

They have found hundreds of megalodon teeth already, some scientists have found enough by themselves to make an entire mouth, seeing for themselves the way the jaw was made up. It is undeniable that these are shark teeth. The only difference is the scale. From modern day sharks they can calculate what the entire megalodon would look like. It's not that far fetched.

have you ever seen a turkey leg bone? its big compared to what you are accustomed seeing after eating out your KFC. But its easy for you mentally reconstruct the size of this fowl judging from the size of the leg bone - and you dont have to be a scientist - you only need to know this is the leg bone of a bird.

Interesting point, but it's still a guess.

It's easy to postulate when you know what the creature looks like. You have a reference point so your guesses can be fairly accurate. For instance I've eaten a couple of Chicken and Turkey legs in my life and can honestly say that there is a difference in the texture and structure of the bone. Coming across one of those I could make a pretty good guess as to what it was.

But what if you never knew what a turkey was or what it looked like and you found it's leg bone what would you do? Go on what you know right? If your only frame of reference was a chicken, you'd construct something like a big chicken, not so? But a chicken does not have the plumage or colours of a Turkey so you'd be guessing as to what it was. Now that wouldn't be very accurate would it?

For fossils related to humans there's no reference point beyond modern primates and modern man himself. That's why there's so much uncertainty about their accuracy. Moreover a lot there's a lot of cross species confusion because the bones in higher order animals are similar. Hence the reason why "Nebraska Man" was built up from the tooth of an extinct pig...

It's all still a lot of guesswork, and guesses aren't proof.

The contradictions don't help none either...

[bluefete]

Look how long I ask him to respond to this.

Again you are presupposing on behalf of the writer? You do not know his vocabulary at the time.

Wow. You implying John of Patmos, the person who supposedly wrote the Book of Revelation, didn't know words for woman, face, death and bird?

Honestly, bluefete...is that what you're implying?


The man used the words face and woman in the very verses you quoted. Numerous descriptions of death and destruction, immediate and otherwise, are found in the book. So is bird, and so is spear, so is fire.

So what you really trying to say?

Remember I told you that it was a recollection from some years ago and I was checking it.


I am kant for doing this, I admit it, but I spent almost 15 minutes googling that Ark story just to see if he was correct of it it was some kinda Snopes urban legend.

Zip.

Remember I told you that it was a recollection from some years ago and I was checking it.

On Sept 21, 2009, I got the following response from the US Naval Academy:

"The library does not have any record of such an experiment. We have forwarded your question to the USNA HydroMechanics Laboratory staff.

R,

Lawrence E. Clemens
Head of Collection Development & Director MSC
Nimitz Library, U.S. Naval Academy
Annapolis, MD 21402-5029
T 410-293-6926"

I was awaiting a response from the Hydromechanics Lab Staff before responding.

So Humes, I did not forget your request!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Patience is a virtue and no you are not a "kant"

I would not give you something I made up and I will find out where that came from because I clearly remember reading it somewhere.

[bluefete]

But I can't for one reason...the lack of proof.

More like a lack of you reading.

Start here.

"When theories no longer conform to the evidence, they are modified or rejected in favor of new theories that do conform. In other words, science constantly tries to prove its assumptions to be false and rejects implausible explanations. In this way, scientific knowledge and understanding grow over time"

This is a quote from what you gave us to read.

So then Humes, it is like Hydroep & I were saying all along:

Today we evolved, tomorrow we devolve.

God is consistent in what he does. Science has to continually experiment. That is why you guys are soooooooooooo confused.

So today Ida is the missing link but tomorrow, please the Lord , it might be Lassie.

Again, make up your minds.

"Just two years after Darwin published On the Origin of Species, a 150-145 million year old fossil of Archaeopteryx click this icon to hear the preceding term pronounced was found in southern Germany. It had jaws with teeth and a long bony tail like dinosaurs, broad wings and feathers like birds, and skeletal features of both. This discovery verified the assumption that birds had reptilian ancestors."

What an amazing co-inkidink". Just 2 years after. Wow.

So where is the evidence to verify the assumption that we evolved from a "branch" of the monkey family?

Notice I used the term "a branch", because isn't that what evolution teaches?

By the way, guys, stop playing the Monkey with us where evolution is concerned. Again I quote from your reference:

"Since the discovery of Archaeopteryx, there have been many other crucial evolutionary gaps filled in the fossil record. Perhaps, the most important one, from our human perspective, was that between apes and our own species. Since the 1920's, there have been literally hundreds of well dated intermediate fossils found in Africa that were transitional species leading from apes to humans over the last 6-7 million years"

So, answer me plainly - Did we evolve from the monkey family tree/branch or not?

[MG Man]

"Since the discovery of Archaeopteryx, there have been many other crucial evolutionary gaps filled in the fossil record. Perhaps, the most important one, from our human perspective, was that between apes and our own species. Since the 1920's, there have been literally hundreds of well dated intermediate fossils found in Africa that were transitional species leading from apes to humans over the last 6-7 million years"

So, answer me plainly - Did we evolve from the monkey family tree/branch or not?

boy u hadda be the biggest tuntun in modern times if u cannot read and understand that

[Humes]

- We're still part of the "monkey family tree" right now, bluefete, no matter how much that frustrates you. We're primates. We're closely related to apes. You can't change that fact. The evidence also indicates that all primates share a common ancestry. You can't change that fact either.

- Science is not about arbitrarily "making up your mind", or coming to decisions based on what is pleasing to some, like the religious councils who put together the Bible. It's about finding enough evidence to prove or disprove a point.

- Science's openness to criticism and improvement is a strength, not a weakness. Vastly superior to a wrong-and-strong attitude. If scientists weren't open to improvements you'd be typing your reply to this on a calculus.

- If God was consistent in what he does, he would have sent Jesus to save instead of a flood to destroy the first time. Or he would have sent a flood to destroy instead of Jesus to save the second time. He would have saved Jesus right at the last moment as he did with Isaac. He wouldn't have ordered Joshua to slaughter entire cities right after telling Joshua's people that they should not kill.


- Coincidence or not, the discovery of the archaeopteryx has been independently verified many times over, and it's not subjective or private like "prophecies" and other supposed conversations with God. If you're implying it's some sort of hoax or dishonesty, realise that several other specimens of the same (or a similar) species have been found since then.

So where is the evidence to verify the assumption that we evolved from a "branch" of the monkey family?

You quoted an entire paragraph about the discovery of that evidence two sentences later in your own post.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

bluefete do you think DNA is a hoax too?

even your biased sources like apologeticspress.org and answersingenesis.org agree that we are 95% identical to chimpanzees.

[MG Man]

ouh ouh ouh
aah aah ahh

[nismotrinidappa]

ouh ouh ouh
aah aah ahh

u wah a fig for dat awah

look yuh bredda

[MG Man]

look here fella, doh mek me fling poo at yuh eh

[Sky]

Guy,s this is a serious discussion and you're carrying on with the monkey jokes. Shame on you.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

LOL this was posted on Yahoo Answers

argument for creation: delusion/religious fanaticism, church needs money.

argument for evolution: evidence (lots of it), 99% of world's scientists support it (they stopped debating it 150 years ago)

WINNNN!!!

[Monk BANzai]

umm...so why cant Creation support Evolution?....it hadda start Somewhere...

wait....riiiiiiiiight you mumbskulls think everything "just" happens......

and how come we havent "evolved" since our current state?....i'd hate to think that the Human RAce is all that there is!!! nothing Better?

how come we havent EVOLVED from this stage?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ it can - but the religious texts say otherwise

it's either you believe in Adam & Eve made from dust and a rib respectively some thousands of years ago or you believe in genetic mutation of species through billions of years.

unless you plan to pick and choose from the religious texts and the scientific data what you want.

there are billions of people who believe there is a God, a greater power, a force, the eternal light, the spirit, the creator who made the universe and continues to shape it. they don't however subscribe to religion.

[Monk BANzai]

^ it can - but the religious texts say otherwise

it's either you believe in Adam & Eve made from dust and a rib respectively some thousands of years ago or you believe in genetic mutation of species through billions of years.

unless you plan to pick and choose from the religious texts and the scientific data what you want.

there are billions of people who believe there is a God, a greater power, a force, the eternal light, the spirit, the creator who made the universe and continues to shape it. they don't however subscribe to religion.

i choose to embrace both. and i love your last paragrapgh...Thais me right there. Beleive in God but hate fackin religion. And doh ask meh to prove his existence...the hell all yuh tink it is at all...CXC?

Love the bible and what it stands for...grew up on its teachings and it has me in a good place. But im alsow very objective, and the bible does not cover the explanation of everything..nor does ANY good book.

Only Tuner does that.

what I find dissapointing at best is how you fools try to justify one person's position over another, and not even that, you ALL take it a step further and make fun/picong of each other's positions....

if a man wanna base his faith on being the ONLY one spared in a car accident...then leff him! thais HE choice!!....if you want to spend hours trying to decode the Evolution process...thais YOUR choice!!! go brave!!....buh doh TELL me that becuz i chose to beleive in God that i'm misled!! The fack allyuh tink it is at all?

(wah...ah cyar beleive in God and cuss at the same time?...muslim does smoke when de break fast....de hell....)

forque man....

[Sky]

umm...so why cant Creation support Evolution?....it hadda start Somewhere...

wait....riiiiiiiiight you mumbskulls think everything "just" happens......

and how come we havent "evolved" since our current state?....i'd hate to think that the Human RAce is all that there is!!! nothing Better?

how come we havent EVOLVED from this stage?

At what age did you learn to use a computer. Seen a 4 year old with a computer lately? We are.

[Monk BANzai]

umm...so why cant Creation support Evolution?....it hadda start Somewhere...

wait....riiiiiiiiight you mumbskulls think everything "just" happens......

and how come we havent "evolved" since our current state?....i'd hate to think that the Human RAce is all that there is!!! nothing Better?

how come we havent EVOLVED from this stage?

At what age did you learn to use a computer. Seen a 4 year old with a computer lately? We are.

SO?...that is evolution to you?...really?...so wiat...ALL this TIME the human race evolving?..so if i bul land skeet..my chile go be smarter than me?..off of MY DNA?...waaaaaaaaaaaays....NOW THAT MAKE SENSE SAH!!

DNA NOW = SMARTER DNA LATER... YUP.. IM SOLD!!

(LOL)....

hahahahahahahaha look allyuh take me out ah this ched we...let me go back to laughin at allyuh utterances for the past what.....40 pages?..

yunno this is the first ched i does open on a monring to get meh kix?....

*duneeep......

[Sky]

umm...so why cant Creation support Evolution?....it hadda start Somewhere...

wait....riiiiiiiiight you mumbskulls think everything "just" happens......

and how come we havent "evolved" since our current state?....i'd hate to think that the Human RAce is all that there is!!! nothing Better?

how come we havent EVOLVED from this stage?

At what age did you learn to use a computer. Seen a 4 year old with a computer lately? We are.

SO?...that is evolution to you?...really?...so wiat...ALL this TIME the human race evolving?..so if i bul land skeet..my chile go be smarter than me?..off of MY DNA?...waaaaaaaaaaaays....NOW THAT MAKE SENSE SAH!!

DNA NOW = SMARTER DNA LATER... YUP.. IM SOLD!!

(LOL)....

hahahahahahahaha look allyuh take me out ah this ched we...let me go back to laughin at allyuh utterances for the past what.....40 pages?..

yunno this is the first ched i does open on a monring to get meh kix?....

*duneeep......

Evolution is from necessity. Giraffe getting a longer neck to eat higher bush etc. All we were exercising for the past few hundred years were our brains. So yea, we adapt to newer stuff faster as time goes on. Evolution isn't constrained to major physical attributes only. It's simply adapting as time goes by.

[Monk BANzai]

umm...so why cant Creation support Evolution?....it hadda start Somewhere...

wait....riiiiiiiiight you mumbskulls think everything "just" happens......

and how come we havent "evolved" since our current state?....i'd hate to think that the Human RAce is all that there is!!! nothing Better?

how come we havent EVOLVED from this stage?

At what age did you learn to use a computer. Seen a 4 year old with a computer lately? We are.

SO?...that is evolution to you?...really?...so wiat...ALL this TIME the human race evolving?..so if i bul land skeet..my chile go be smarter than me?..off of MY DNA?...waaaaaaaaaaaays....NOW THAT MAKE SENSE SAH!!

DNA NOW = SMARTER DNA LATER... YUP.. IM SOLD!!

(LOL)....

hahahahahahahaha look allyuh take me out ah this ched we...let me go back to laughin at allyuh utterances for the past what.....40 pages?..

yunno this is the first ched i does open on a monring to get meh kix?....

*duneeep......

Evolution is from necessity. Giraffe getting a longer neck to eat higher bush etc. All we were exercising for the past few hundred years were our brains. So yea, we adapt to newer stuff faster as time goes on. Evolution isn't constrained to major physical attributes only. It's simply adapting as time goes by.

so why other species dont evolve? ...aye I not bantering with allyuh "smart" types nah.....i good..will relax and read...

carry on.

[Sky]

Cuz dey reach
look here, bobo, go back in yuh honda ched

[bigga514]

umm...so why cant Creation support Evolution?....it hadda start Somewhere...

wait....riiiiiiiiight you mumbskulls think everything "just" happens......

and how come we havent "evolved" since our current state?....i'd hate to think that the Human RAce is all that there is!!! nothing Better?

how come we havent EVOLVED from this stage?

At what age did you learn to use a computer. Seen a 4 year old with a computer lately? We are.

SO?...that is evolution to you?...really?...so wiat...ALL this TIME the human race evolving?..so if i bul land skeet..my chile go be smarter than me?..off of MY DNA?...waaaaaaaaaaaays....NOW THAT MAKE SENSE SAH!!

DNA NOW = SMARTER DNA LATER... YUP.. IM SOLD!!

(LOL)....

hahahahahahahaha look allyuh take me out ah this ched we...let me go back to laughin at allyuh utterances for the past what.....40 pages?..

yunno this is the first ched i does open on a monring to get meh kix?....

*duneeep......

Evolution is from necessity. Giraffe getting a longer neck to eat higher bush etc. All we were exercising for the past few hundred years were our brains. So yea, we adapt to newer stuff faster as time goes on. Evolution isn't constrained to major physical attributes only. It's simply adapting as time goes by.

so why other species dont evolve? ...aye I not bantering with allyuh "smart" types nah.....i good..will relax and read...

carry on.

look around pg 35+ i posted quite a few articles on evolution including human evolution bluefete couldn't answer about and switch topic after lol

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... ution.html
thats the one on 3 groups of humans that evolved differently to live in high atmosphere with thin oxygen good read... i gave up on the fanatics they basically admit there afraid to acknowledge when there wrong.

[DFC]

[Oleander]

Waking up everyday. A daily act of God.

Amen.

[bluefete]

"When fossilized shark teeth were first discovered embedded in terrestrial rocks - sometimes high up mountainsides and far from the sea - their origin was a complete enigma." - And rightfully so because science didnt understand how the geology of the earth changed.

Here we go again:

"In the six hundreth 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.

And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered." (Genesis 7:11, 19-20)

Duane- Again , a simple, rational explanation provided by God which the scientists deliberately ignored.

The flood was a catastrophic event that changed the total geology of the earth.

The flood was also a global event and although it took a while for the waters to run off, it is possible that some of it may have gone so quickly that some sea creatures, including sharks, were left stranded on mountains.

[bluefete]

"Since the discovery of Archaeopteryx, there have been many other crucial evolutionary gaps filled in the fossil record. Perhaps, the most important one, from our human perspective, was that between apes and our own species. Since the 1920's, there have been literally hundreds of well dated intermediate fossils found in Africa that were transitional species leading from apes to humans over the last 6-7 million years"

So, answer me plainly - Did we evolve from the monkey family tree/branch or not?

boy u hadda be the biggest tuntun in modern times if u cannot read and understand that

MG - People keep flip flopping on this issue.

If you and all the other logicalists could look in the mirror everyday and see a monkey resemblance, hats off to you.

The God that created you (even though you deny him) and I, clearly did not do it that way.

Man was created from the dust of the earth NOT from the rib of a monkey.

The first man, Adam, was created as a fully grown man. He did not go through the baby stages as we did.