Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2016 15:51:44 GMT -5
Ah it brings back memories from the last time I was on this board. I had a debate with some atheist on here and at the end neither of us convinced the other otherwise. I and my husband was wondering how does atheist and scientist explain how male and female came to be and yes we read what the scientist had to say thus the same version of many atheist.But once again there explanation did not make sense. They said we were a one in all some time ago and then decided to divide for some unknown reason.And "it" also decide that we need some excitement to reproduce in the future  .To far fetched for me. And saying that I know I am going to get slammed by some atheist ,probably the same ones that slammed me last.So be it.I know that He IS and the proof of HIS existence is all around me every day so that if I did not believe there would be NO EXCUSE as simple as that  . And by He I mean the God of the Bible. There seems to be a real intelligent guidance That would direct toward a logical answer. When we get the right answer we look back and discover that in order for us to intelligently think We must have be designed to do so !  ? Yes I agree that we must have been designed by a genius Designer to enable us to think intelligently and for me that is the God of the Bible! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2016 16:05:02 GMT -5
Ah it brings back memories from the last time I was on this board. I had a debate with some atheist on here and at the end neither of us convinced the other otherwise. I and my husband was wondering how does atheist and scientist explain how male and female came to be and yes we read what the scientist had to say thus the same version of many atheist. But once again t here explanation did not make sense. They said we were a one in all some time ago and then decided to divide for some unknown reason.
And "it" also decide that we need some excitement to reproduce in the future . To far fetched for me. And saying that I know I am going to get slammed by some atheist , probably the same ones that slammed me last. So be it. I know that He IS and the proof of HIS existence is all around me every day so that if I did not believe there would be NO EXCUSE as simple as that . And by He I mean the God of the Bible.
No actually I understood what they said but it was not logical. |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 26, 2016 16:44:35 GMT -5
Perhaps the explanation by the scientists did not make sense to you and seemed far fetched because you didn't understand what they were talking about.
No actually I understood what they said but it was not logical.
They seem to be rather strange statements for an evolutionary biologist to make.
"we were a one in all some time ago and then decided to divide for some unknown reason."
"And "it" also decide that we need some excitement to reproduce in the future"
|
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 26, 2016 19:13:01 GMT -5
I don't understand what you mean.
My understanding was that you meant that when "GOD" started resting on the 7th day, HE had been continuing to rest ever since.
It would seem to me that sometime later he must not have been resting when HE supposedly sent the flood.
He rested . Rain is part of what God had already created. The flood was a heavy heavy rain but GOD
Only knows how it happened.
I thought GOD did tell us how it happened!
Genesis chap. 6:17 "And I, behold, I do bring the flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; every thing that is in the earth shall perish." |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 26, 2016 19:23:29 GMT -5
God gives us eternal life when we are born. Human life is a small iota of this eternity The question is not "if" but "where" do you hope your soul goes when it passes this life?
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Jan 26, 2016 19:35:37 GMT -5
He rested . Rain is part of what God had already created. The flood was a heavy heavy rain but GOD
Only knows how it happened.
I thought GOD did tell us how it happened!
Genesis chap. 6:17 "And I, behold, I do bring the flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; every thing that is in the earth shall perish." Floods aren't only caused by the rain I'm not sure how all the flooding happened I though it was primarily from rain but I could be mistaken. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 26, 2016 20:04:12 GMT -5
The question is not "if" but "where" do you hope your soul goes when it passes this life? Since no one has presented any evidence beyond wishful thinking that there is such an entity I have no confidence that a soul exists. It is a question with which I am not concerned. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 26, 2016 20:43:17 GMT -5
No actually I understood what they said but it was not logical. The fact that you would state: They said we were a one in all some time ago and then decided to divide for some unknown reason.
And "it" also decide that we need some excitement to reproduce in the future :) .
makes it very clear that you you either were getting information about evolution from a source that had little or no understanding of the theory or that you did not understand the theory. I can not think of a single person who has an understanding of evolution stating anything remotely close to what you have stated. Along with you, I do not believe that statement you posted either and agree it is illogical. |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 26, 2016 20:50:02 GMT -5
OOPS!
I thought GOD did tell us how it happened!
Genesis chap. 6:17 "And I, behold, I do bring the flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; every thing that is in the earth shall perish." Floods aren't only caused by the rain I'm not sure how all the flooding happened I though it was primarily from rain but I could be mistaken.
I would have thought by your posts that you believed what the bible says. |
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Jan 26, 2016 21:50:30 GMT -5
Floods aren't only caused by the rain I'm not sure how all the flooding happened I though it was primarily from rain but I could be mistaken.
I would have thought by your posts that you believed what the bible says.The primary forces of the flood already existed. You're claiming that God was not resting from creation? I'm not sure that I understand what you seem to say that I am suppose to understand Obviously many many details of the flood are not mentioned in Genisis, I am ok with that I do not know everything . |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 26, 2016 22:37:19 GMT -5
BUT, BUT...I just got through telling you what it says in Genesis chap. 6:17 !
I would have thought by your posts that you believed what the bible says. The primary forces of the flood already existed. You're claiming that God was not resting from creation? I'm not sure that I understand what you seem to say that I am suppose to understand Obviously many many details of the flood arenot mentioned in Genisis, I am ok with that I do not know everything .
"....Then God rested on the 7th day, creation Complete.
The last period of time until He returns to see how we prospered while we lived .
It seems the we are still living in the 7th day of creation, and God is resting ..."
So, Yes, -I suppose technically "god" was done with the "creation" process by the 7th day.
However, HE didn't seem to be just sitting around "resting" and waiting, as you said, for "The last period of time until He returns"
It would seem to me that if one believes the bible is accurate as to what "god " did & didn't do, the flood that HE ordered is a good example of the fact HE wasn't "resting."
Hope I have explained it better this time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Jan 26, 2016 23:13:50 GMT -5
The primary forces of the flood already existed. You're claiming that God was not resting from creation? I'm not sure that I understand what you seem to say that I am suppose to understand Obviously many many details of the flood arenot mentioned in Genisis, I am ok with that I do not know everything .
"....Then God rested on the 7th day, creation Complete.
The last period of time until He returns to see how we prospered while we lived .
It seems the we are still living in the 7th day of creation, and God is resting ..."
So, Yes, -I suppose technically "god" was done with the "creation" process by the 7th day.
However, HE didn't seem to be just sitting around "resting" and waiting, as you said, for "The last period of time until He returns"
It would seem to me that if one believes the bible is accurate as to what "god " did t& didn't do, the flood that HE ordered is a good example of the fact HE wasn't "resting."
Hope I have explained it better this time.
[ Flood was not a work of creation |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 26, 2016 23:16:13 GMT -5
? "God is resting?"
"we are still living in the 7th day"
"The last period of time until He returns?"
Was HE resting during the time of the flood?I don't read of the evening of the 7 th day I believe so It is cast in the past tense. During that 7 th day he had rested. The day was in the past. |
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Jan 27, 2016 0:16:47 GMT -5
I don't read of the evening of the 7 th day I believe so It is cast in the past tense. During that 7 th day he had rested. The day was in the past. You may be correct... God rested from his work which he created It did happen along time ago, one could imagine that he is still resting , He created time |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 27, 2016 0:52:13 GMT -5
I was just going by what you said in your post: .
"....Then God rested on the 7th day, creation Complete.
The last period of time until He returns to see how we prospered while we lived .
It seems the we are still living in the 7th day of creation, and God is resting ..."
So, Yes, -I suppose technically "god" was done with the "creation" process by the 7th day.
However, HE didn't seem to be just sitting around "resting" and waiting, as you said, for "The last period of time until He returns"
It would seem to me that if one believes the bible is accurate as to what "god " did t& didn't do, the flood that HE ordered is a good example of the fact HE wasn't "resting."
Hope I have explained it better this time.
Flood was not a work of creation
However, my impression (correct me if I'm wrong) is that you believe "we are still living in the 7th day of creation and God is resting ..." when it seems that if one believes the bible to be an accurate account "god" was quite active in the more than just causing a flood such as when HE ordered "HIS" people to kill everyone of certain tribes like the Amalekites |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 27, 2016 1:00:40 GMT -5
Genesis 2:3And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.It is cast in the past tense. During that 7 th day he had rested. The day was in the past. You may be correct... God rested from his work which he created Perhaps he was tired after all of the creation work and that is why the first round went so horribly wrong that god felt the need to kill everything. You would have thought an omniscient being would have seen that coming. Sounds like you believe in a god that created everything. Seems like it would have been a good idea had he skipped creating evil. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2016 7:59:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 27, 2016 10:38:12 GMT -5
First let's address the information that you posted. It is a publication of the people who run www.AnswersInGenesis.org, former members of the Institute for Creation Research. Their mission statement is: Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation, spanning approximately 4,000 years from creation to Christ. The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of creation. The Noachian Flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.
Their outlook on science is summed up as: Science has been hijacked by those with a materialistic worldview and exalted as the ultimate means of obtaining knowledge about the world. Proverbs tells us that the fear of God, not science, is the beginning of knowledge. In a biblical worldview, scientific observations are interpreted in light of the truth that is found in the Bible. If conclusions contradict the truth revealed in Scripture, the conclusions are rejected. The same thing happens in naturalistic science. Any conclusion that does not have a naturalistic explanation is rejected. The evidence points to the fact that the the age of the earth is measured in billions of years and not thousands. As their statement says, the conclusions reached by looking at the data available contradicts what they believe the bible states so it is rejected. The belief of a 6,000 year old earth is supported only by faith. I mention this because the age of the earth and the amount of time that organisms have been evolving factors factors that Ken Ham et al. reject. If the data available did show that the age of the earth was 6,000 years there would be no theory of evolution. Going through the document you presented takes a fair amount of work. The problem is that the authors have no respect for the truth. As an example the article states: In a speech presented at Hobart College several years ago, the late Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould spoke out in a somewhat militant fashion about the subject when he said:
‘A mutation doesn’t produce major new raw material. You don’t make a new species by mutating the species.... That’s a common idea people have; that evolution is due to random mutations. A mutation is not the cause of evolutionary change.’[41] Reference #41 states: [41] Gould, Stephen Jay, Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?, speech presented at Hobart College, February 14, 1980; as quoted in Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma, Master Books, San Diego, CA, 1984. The complete text can be found here.Oddly enough the quote is not found in the text. In fact Gould states: The subspecies do not merge into the species either actually or ideally . . . . Micro-evolution by accumulation of micromutations—we may also say neo-Darwinian evolution—is a process which leads to diversification strictly within the species, usually, if not exclusively, for the sake of adaptation of the species to specific conditions within the area which it is able to occupy. . . . Subspecies are actually, therefore, neither incipient species nor models for the origin of species. Looking at all of the material presented in the article you presented takes time. But where they are coming from is stated on the various sites. It is a matter of belief but setting up strawmen to argue against doesn't amount to anything. I also do not have the time nor energy to lay out an explanation of the current theory of evolution. It is possible to narrow the focus to the evolution of male and female sexes but that also requires the understanding of the possibility that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old and that life has been evolving for about 4.1 billion years. You can look at the current theory of evolution here and get a very different story than provided by fundamentalists/creationist sites. If you want to continue it could be interesting. I would suggest short & pointed questions and answers. (some people can get wordy!) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2016 15:12:03 GMT -5
First let's address the information that you posted. It is a publication of the people who run www.AnswersInGenesis.org, former members of the Institute for Creation Research. Their mission statement is: Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation, spanning approximately 4,000 years from creation to Christ. The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of creation. The Noachian Flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.
Their outlook on science is summed up as: Science has been hijacked by those with a materialistic worldview and exalted as the ultimate means of obtaining knowledge about the world. Proverbs tells us that the fear of God, not science, is the beginning of knowledge. In a biblical worldview, scientific observations are interpreted in light of the truth that is found in the Bible. If conclusions contradict the truth revealed in Scripture, the conclusions are rejected. The same thing happens in naturalistic science. Any conclusion that does not have a naturalistic explanation is rejected. The evidence points to the fact that the the age of the earth is measured in billions of years and not thousands. As their statement says, the conclusions reached by looking at the data available contradicts what they believe the bible states so it is rejected. The belief of a 6,000 year old earth is supported only by faith. I mention this because the age of the earth and the amount of time that organisms have been evolving factors factors that Ken Ham et al. reject. If the data available did show that the age of the earth was 6,000 years there would be no theory of evolution. Going through the document you presented takes a fair amount of work. The problem is that the authors have no respect for the truth. As an example the article states: In a speech presented at Hobart College several years ago, the late Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould spoke out in a somewhat militant fashion about the subject when he said:
‘A mutation doesn’t produce major new raw material. You don’t make a new species by mutating the species.... That’s a common idea people have; that evolution is due to random mutations. A mutation is not the cause of evolutionary change.’[41] Reference #41 states: [41] Gould, Stephen Jay, Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?, speech presented at Hobart College, February 14, 1980; as quoted in Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma, Master Books, San Diego, CA, 1984. The complete text can be found here.Oddly enough the quote is not found in the text. In fact Gould states: The subspecies do not merge into the species either actually or ideally . . . . Micro-evolution by accumulation of micromutations—we may also say neo-Darwinian evolution—is a process which leads to diversification strictly within the species, usually, if not exclusively, for the sake of adaptation of the species to specific conditions within the area which it is able to occupy. . . . Subspecies are actually, therefore, neither incipient species nor models for the origin of species. Looking at all of the material presented in the article you presented takes time. But where they are coming from is stated on the various sites. It is a matter of belief but setting up strawmen to argue against doesn't amount to anything. I also do not have the time nor energy to lay out an explanation of the current theory of evolution. It is possible to narrow the focus to the evolution of male and female sexes but that also requires the understanding of the possibility that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old and that life has been evolving for about 4.1 billion years. You can look at the current theory of evolution here and get a very different story than provided by fundamentalists/creationist sites. If you want to continue it could be interesting. I would suggest short & pointed questions and answers. (some people can get wordy!)Rational at this point I truly don't have time to even go and read the articles that you have mentioned or get into a lengthy discussion about it. And true I don't know much about evolution. I do know I have peace in what I believe and that is most important. A) Rational,do you believe 100% what the scientist tells you are true ? B) Are you at peace being a atheist ? C) How much % wise of what the scientist say's about evolution is based on facts and how much is based on theory ? D) How sure are you in yourself that we are here by luck or freak or whatever you want to call it ? I must say that there would be a better chance of me winning the lottery then of me and you being here by pure luck.I don't want you to answer my questions immediately ,think about it for a day or two and then come back and honestly answer me. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 27, 2016 17:49:04 GMT -5
Rational at this point I truly don't have time to even go and read the articles that you have mentioned or get into a lengthy discussion about it. And true I don't know much about evolution. I do know I have peace in what I believe and that is most important. A) Rational,do you believe 100% what the scientist tells you are true ? No. The story put out by Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann looked good but when no one could reproduce or verify their claims it was discarded. There are, for example, many weight loss, skin care, etc.claims made by people who claim they are scientists that simply are false. I follow the Sagan quote - Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. When claims look too good to be true I pay much more attention. I am at peace being me (well as much as a human can be). I don't have any choice regarding my belief in a deity or deities. The current theory is supported by the known facts. If data comes to light that does not support the theory the theory is changed to explain the new information. Theories, like the theory of evolution, the theory of gravity, the atomic theory, are the best explanation of the subject. Theories can be used to make predictions, and if the prediction is true, it serves to strengthen the understanding of the topic. The atomic theory predicted the outcome of smashing two chunks of uranium together and holding them in place for a split second. The mushroom cloud rising over the trinity site proved that part of the theory was correct. By evolutionary process. 100%. That is because you are looking at the evolutionary process as being directed toward a goal. The only goal of evolution is to produce new individuals to prevent the species from becoming extinct. However, this is not always successful. It is estimated that there have been over a billion species and that 99.99% of them are extinct. Think of it this way - I am going to type a series of numbers. 28471005994738827366129488265410347283499 Had you previously written that number down the chances of me typing it would be close to 0. Consider man to be your preconceived number. The chances of a blue-green algae evolving into a predefined organism (human) would be close to 0. But, like the number I typed, there was no predetermined target. Things have evolved and, at this point, evolution has produced a human. 2,000,000 years ago that was not true. And best guess in 2,000,000 more years there will be a new species descended from Homo sapiens. Too late. I started responding from the top down. These are not new questions for me. And, so far, there has been little change in my responses. Did you think a rapid response would not be honest nor well thought out? Speaking of overwhelming odds (huge from an evolutionary outlook but it works with simple reproduction as well) - From the first division of a single cell organism the series had to continue, unbroken, for millions of years in order for you to be here. Just looking at the human end of the chain. You parents had to mate to produce you. But their parents must have done the same. And the parents before them. For 10 of thousands of years specific couples had to be attracted to each other in the exact sequence or you would not be you. Had your great, great, great grandmother picked up that man at the end of the bar....no you. The fact that you are here against what look like insurmountable odds proves that it is possible. When your great, great, great, great, great, great grandparents mated they did not do so with the goal of producing you - brown hair, brown eyes, button nose, and dimples! |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 27, 2016 18:28:07 GMT -5
Most of your reference sites have been denounced as religious & NOT scientific. Intelligent Design (ID) Organizations The Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture (CRSC), featuring work by a broad range of leading scholars and scientists, including (but not limited to) Behe, Bohlin, Berlinski, Craig, Dembski, Denton, Kenyon, Moreland, Pearcey, Thaxton, and Wells. Access Research Network Featuring Origins & Design, a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary journal and contribuutors including (but not limited to) Michael Behe, William Dembski, Phillip Johnson, Stephen Meyer, Nancy Pearcey, and Jonathan Wells. When they speak of a "broad range of leading scholars and scientists" and "a peer-reviewed" material they are simply propagating false information.
When they speak of "peer-reviewed " articles they are ONLY "peer-reviewed " amongst themselves and not with the scientific community
There have been many court cases about the teaching of "creationism" in public schools.
Here is just one case:
On December 20, 2005, in Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover, U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III ordered the Dover Area School Board to refrain from maintaining an Intelligent Design Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District.
The ID policy included a statement in the science curriculum that "students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin's Theory and other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design."
Teachers were also required to announce to their biology classes that "Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view.
The reference book Of Pandas and People is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.
As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind".
In his 139-page ruling, Judge Jones wrote it was "abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause". Furthermore, Judge Jones ruled that that "ID" cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents".
In reference to whether Intelligent Design is science Judge Jones wrote ID "is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community". This was the first challenge to the constitutionality of teaching "intelligent design" in the public school science classroom. (Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., Case No. 04cv2688)
So there goes Creationism's claim as false when they say their research is the results of "leading scholars and scientists" and are "peer-reviewed" articles.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2016 8:04:07 GMT -5
Most of your reference sites have been denounced as religious & NOT scientific. Intelligent Design (ID) Organizations The Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture (CRSC), featuring work by a broad range of leading scholars and scientists, including (but not limited to) Behe, Bohlin, Berlinski, Craig, Dembski, Denton, Kenyon, Moreland, Pearcey, Thaxton, and Wells. Access Research Network Featuring Origins & Design, a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary journal and contribuutors including (but not limited to) Michael Behe, William Dembski, Phillip Johnson, Stephen Meyer, Nancy Pearcey, and Jonathan Wells. When they speak of a "broad range of leading scholars and scientists" and "a peer-reviewed" material they are simply propagating false information.
When they speak of "peer-reviewed " articles they are ONLY "peer-reviewed " amongst themselves and not with the scientific community
There have been many court cases about the teaching of "creationism" in public schools.
Here is just one case:
On December 20, 2005, in Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover, U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III ordered the Dover Area School Board to refrain from maintaining an Intelligent Design Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District.
The ID policy included a statement in the science curriculum that "students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin's Theory and other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design."
Teachers were also required to announce to their biology classes that "Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view.
The reference book Of Pandas and People is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.
As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind".
In his 139-page ruling, Judge Jones wrote it was "abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause". Furthermore, Judge Jones ruled that that "ID" cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents".
In reference to whether Intelligent Design is science Judge Jones wrote ID "is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community". This was the first challenge to the constitutionality of teaching "intelligent design" in the public school science classroom. (Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., Case No. 04cv2688)
So there goes Creationism's claim as false when they say their research is the results of "leading scholars and scientists" and are "peer-reviewed" articles.
Refer to my last post to Rational on this subject and maybe you can if you wish also answer the questions I posed to Rational but not immediately give yourself a day or two or more and then come back and honestly answer them. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2016 14:07:19 GMT -5
Rational at this point I truly don't have time to even go and read the articles that you have mentioned or get into a lengthy discussion about it. And true I don't know much about evolution. I do know I have peace in what I believe and that is most important. A) Rational,do you believe 100% what the scientist tells you are true ? No. The story put out by Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann looked good but when no one could reproduce or verify their claims it was discarded. There are, for example, many weight loss, skin care, etc.claims made by people who claim they are scientists that simply are false. I follow the Sagan quote - Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. When claims look too good to be true I pay much more attention. I am at peace being me (well as much as a human can be). I don't have any choice regarding my belief in a deity or deities. Umfolozi said:The beauty of being a human is that we can reason and therefore have a choice. But I am glad that you say you are at peace.The current theory is supported by the known facts. If data comes to light that does not support the theory the theory is changed to explain the new information. Theories, like the theory of evolution, the theory of gravity, the atomic theory, are the best explanation of the subject. Theories can be used to make predictions, and if the prediction is true, it serves to strengthen the understanding of the topic. The atomic theory predicted the outcome of smashing two chunks of uranium together and holding them in place for a split second. The mushroom cloud rising over the trinity site proved that part of the theory was correct. By evolutionary process. 100%. Umfolozi said: If evolution is not the product of a higher intelligence behind it,it would be = unimaginable luck.
I don't discredit evolution were there is concrete facts supporting it but their theories will remain theories until they find concrete facts for ALL of them.The beauty is : If we as Christians are wrong then we will never know it but if scientist,atheist and yourself are wrong then you will know about it after death. I would rather stand this side of the fence,thank you.
That is because you are looking at the evolutionary process as being directed toward a goal. The only goal of evolution is to produce new individuals to prevent the species from becoming extinct. However, this is not always successful. It is estimated that there have been over a billion species and that 99.99% of them are extinct. Think of it this way - I am going to type a series of numbers. 28471005994738827366129488265410347283499 Had you previously written that number down the chances of me typing it would be close to 0. Consider man to be your preconceived number. The chances of a blue-green algae evolving into a predefined organism (human) would be close to 0. But, like the number I typed, there was no predetermined target. Things have evolved and, at this point, evolution has produced a human. 2,000,000 years ago that was not true. And best guess in 2,000,000 more years there will be a new species descended from Homo sapiens. Umfolozi said:I have tried to see the beauty and diversity of the natural world through the eyes of an atheist today.And I must say I struggled to do so,I could not imagine that what I saw was done without an intelligent Designer behind it, to me believing this would be more of a miracle then having a Christian belief that God did it.A intellectual Designer would be a rational thought to me since I have never seen anything been created by pure luck without intelligence been part of it.Too late. I started responding from the top down. These are not new questions for me. And, so far, there has been little change in my responses. Did you think a rapid response would not be honest nor well thought out? Speaking of overwhelming odds (huge from an evolutionary outlook but it works with simple reproduction as well) - From the first division of a single cell organism the series had to continue, unbroken, for millions of years in order for you to be here. Just looking at the human end of the chain. You parents had to mate to produce you. But their parents must have done the same. And the parents before them. For 10 of thousands of years specific couples had to be attracted to each other in the exact sequence or you would not be you. Had your great, great, great grandmother picked up that man at the end of the bar....no you. The fact that you are here against what look like insurmountable odds proves that it is possible. When your great, great, great, great, great, great grandparents mated they did not do so with the goal of producing you - brown hair, brown eyes, button nose, and dimples! Umfolozi said :So lets agree to disagree,cause we are sure not going to agree on this topic.And maybe when I am retired and me and you are still around we can debate it further . |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 28, 2016 14:20:23 GMT -5
So lets agree to disagree,cause we are sure not going to convince each other. I wasn't trying to convince you. I was just presenting the actual theory of evolution instead of the mythical theory of evolution found on sites like you referenced. |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 28, 2016 20:57:22 GMT -5
Most of your reference sites have been denounced as religious & NOT scientific. Intelligent Design (ID) Organizations The Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture (CRSC), featuring work by a broad range of leading scholars and scientists, including (but not limited to) Behe, Bohlin, Berlinski, Craig, Dembski, Denton, Kenyon, Moreland, Pearcey, Thaxton, and Wells. Access Research Network Featuring Origins & Design, a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary journal and contribuutors including (but not limited to) Michael Behe, William Dembski, Phillip Johnson, Stephen Meyer, Nancy Pearcey, and Jonathan Wells. When they speak of a "broad range of leading scholars and scientists" and "a peer-reviewed" material they are simply propagating false information.
When they speak of "peer-reviewed " articles they are ONLY "peer-reviewed " amongst themselves and not with the scientific community
There have been many court cases about the teaching of "creationism" in public schools.
Here is just one case:
On December 20, 2005, in Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover, U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III ordered the Dover Area School Board to refrain from maintaining an Intelligent Design Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District.
The ID policy included a statement in the science curriculum that "students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin's Theory and other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design."
Teachers were also required to announce to their biology classes that "Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view.
The reference book Of Pandas and People is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.
As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind".
In his 139-page ruling, Judge Jones wrote it was "abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause". Furthermore, Judge Jones ruled that that "ID" cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents".
In reference to whether Intelligent Design is science Judge Jones wrote ID "is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community". This was the first challenge to the constitutionality of teaching "intelligent design" in the public school science classroom. (Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., Case No. 04cv2688)
So there goes Creationism's claim as false when they say their research is the results of "leading scholars and scientists" and are "peer-reviewed" articles.
Refer to my last post to Rational on this subject and maybe you can if you wish also answer the questions I posed to Rational but not immediately give yourself a day or two or more and then come back and honestly answer them.
Though won't take a "day or two" to consider!
(I always "honestly" answer, -don't you?)
Question:
A) ---, do you believe 100% what the scientist tells you are true ?
Answer: It isn't about any % being true, it is the scientific method* of ascertaining knowledge that I trust.
When one looks at the religious method* of trying to determine reality, you have so many different gods & so many differing assertions of what is suppose to be true.
Each religious person thinks it is they who know the truth, but scientists work together & build on what they collectively find through their research.
Question:
B) Are you at peace being a atheist ?
Answer: I'm not sure how this question is even relevant to the topic, however, Yes, I am at "peace."
Trying to determine which "religious" belief was true certainly use to undermine my "peace" of mind .
Question:
C) How much % wise of what the scientist say's about evolution is based on facts and how much is based on theory?
Answer: I don't think that you understand what "theory" means in scientific terms. Evidence for evolution is constantly coming to the fore. Science is now studying evolution of life on a cellular level.
Question:
D) How sure are you in yourself that we are here by luck or freak or whatever you want to call it?
Answer: "luck and freak" aren't terms I would use as to why I am here and aren't used in evolutionary science.
If you mean why are we as a species here, it is because we survived as our environment changed unlike the Neanderthals who became extinct 10,000 years ago.
foot notes
*Scientific method:
"Observation and description of a phenomenon. The observations are made visually or with the aid of scientific equipment.
Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomenon in the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
Test the hypothesis by analyzing the results of observations or by predicting and observing the existence of new phenomena that follow from the hypothesis.
If experiments do not confirm the hypothesis, the hypothesis must be rejected or modified (Go back to Step 2).
Establish a theory based on repeated verification of the results."
*Religious method:
The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2016 12:16:27 GMT -5
No. The story put out by Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann looked good but when no one could reproduce or verify their claims it was discarded. There are, for example, many weight loss, skin care, etc.claims made by people who claim they are scientists that simply are false. I follow the Sagan quote - Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. When claims look too good to be true I pay much more attention. I am at peace being me (well as much as a human can be). I don't have any choice regarding my belief in a deity or deities. Umfolozi said:The beauty of being a human is that we can reason and therefore have a choice. But I am glad that you say you are at peace.The current theory is supported by the known facts. If data comes to light that does not support the theory the theory is changed to explain the new information. Theories, like the theory of evolution, the theory of gravity, the atomic theory, are the best explanation of the subject. Theories can be used to make predictions, and if the prediction is true, it serves to strengthen the understanding of the topic. The atomic theory predicted the outcome of smashing two chunks of uranium together and holding them in place for a split second. The mushroom cloud rising over the trinity site proved that part of the theory was correct. By evolutionary process. 100%. Umfolozi said: If evolution is not the product of a higher intelligence behind it,it would be = unimaginable luck.
I don't discredit evolution were there is concrete facts supporting it but their theories will remain theories until they find concrete facts for ALL of them.The beauty is : If we as Christians are wrong then we will never know it but if scientist,atheist and yourself are wrong then you will know about it after death. I would rather stand this side of the fence,thank you.
That is because you are looking at the evolutionary process as being directed toward a goal. The only goal of evolution is to produce new individuals to prevent the species from becoming extinct. However, this is not always successful. It is estimated that there have been over a billion species and that 99.99% of them are extinct. Think of it this way - I am going to type a series of numbers. 28471005994738827366129488265410347283499 Had you previously written that number down the chances of me typing it would be close to 0. Consider man to be your preconceived number. The chances of a blue-green algae evolving into a predefined organism (human) would be close to 0. But, like the number I typed, there was no predetermined target. Things have evolved and, at this point, evolution has produced a human. 2,000,000 years ago that was not true. And best guess in 2,000,000 more years there will be a new species descended from Homo sapiens. Umfolozi said:I have tried to see the beauty and diversity of the natural world through the eyes of an atheist today.And I must say I struggled to do so,I could not imagine that what I saw was done without an intelligent Designer behind it, to me believing this would be more of a miracle then having a Christian belief that God did it.A intellectual Designer would be a rational thought to me since I have never seen anything been created by pure luck without intelligence been part of it.Too late. I started responding from the top down. These are not new questions for me. And, so far, there has been little change in my responses. Did you think a rapid response would not be honest nor well thought out? Speaking of overwhelming odds (huge from an evolutionary outlook but it works with simple reproduction as well) - From the first division of a single cell organism the series had to continue, unbroken, for millions of years in order for you to be here. Just looking at the human end of the chain. You parents had to mate to produce you. But their parents must have done the same. And the parents before them. For 10 of thousands of years specific couples had to be attracted to each other in the exact sequence or you would not be you. Had your great, great, great grandmother picked up that man at the end of the bar....no you. The fact that you are here against what look like insurmountable odds proves that it is possible. When your great, great, great, great, great, great grandparents mated they did not do so with the goal of producing you - brown hair, brown eyes, button nose, and dimples! Umfolozi said :So lets agree to disagree,cause we are sure not going to agree on this topic.And maybe when I am retired and me and you are still around we can debate it further .Rational, you might have missed some of my answers before since they have blended in with yours so I have modified them. |
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Jan 29, 2016 23:31:29 GMT -5
Where do we come from ? Well my opinion evolution is based on theories lies and gaping holes (insurmountable gaps and misleading data) Intelligent design is based on common sense , truth, and zero gaps! Jmho. ? |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 29, 2016 23:49:30 GMT -5
Where do we come from ? Well my opinion evolution is based on theories lies and gaping holes (insurmountable gaps and misleading data) Intelligent design is based on common sense , truth, and zero gaps! Jmho. ?
I also think that if you were to become ill that you would no doubt go to a modern physician and hospital where the care is based on science which is also based on evolution.
Perhaps I'm wrong. Maybe you would go a witch doctor instead. |
|
.To far fetched for me. And saying that I know I am going to get slammed by some atheist ,probably the same ones that slammed me last.So be it.I know that He IS and the proof of HIS existence is all around me every day so that if I did not believe there would be NO EXCUSE as simple as that 
. And by He I mean the God of the Bible.
?
