evolution vs creation vs Intelligent Design

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(windstrings @ Apr 18 2006, 06:11 PM) [snapback]241760[/snapback]</div>

My life is worthless because we don't have the same beliefs? Excuse me? Am I hearing this right? Have you any idea how intolerant this is? Life isn't worth living because you're going to die anyway? What utter nonsense.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dsunman @ Apr 17 2006, 08:49 PM) [snapback]241215[/snapback]</div>

This is what I was referring to.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hybridTHEvibe @ Apr 17 2006, 09:54 PM) [snapback]241256[/snapback]</div>

As above

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Apr 18 2006, 07:54 PM) [snapback]241787[/snapback]</div>

Schmika, can you define the word infidel and supply me a dictionary that equals infidel with evil?
I think you are doing the disservice to dsunman as you are implying that Jesus embraced evil and that's not what he said.

Infidel
n : a person who does not acknowledge your God

Therefore you must be evil because you do NOT believe in MY, his God or someone else's God!

Are you for real?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(windstrings @ Apr 18 2006, 04:11 PM) [snapback]241760[/snapback]</div>

Pascal (the same who invented the Triangle - Pascal's Triangle, not Pythagorus's) advanced this argument too. He got the Triangle right, but this argument is a shambles. Call it the cover your nice person argument. It doesn't cost anything to believe, so why risk your nice person? Believe!

The difficulty is: Believe in WHAT?

The atheist could be wrong. No question.

But the theist could be MILES OFF BASE about the nature of the deity believed in.

BOTH could be wrong; BOTH could be believing the wrong thing!

We should have been believingi n the vengeful, jealous, green multi-fanged parsnip turtle from Betelgeuse IX all along, and since no one did, the planet is ^&%$#ed!!

Since the possibilties are infinite as the universe about what "should" be believed in to be "safe," the SMART, INTELLIGENT, THOUGHTFUL person will seek things that can be believed in that can be validated. Here, "gods" and green parsnip turtles and fairies all dissolve into absurdity, and what we learn by SCIENCE has so far proved the safest "belief" yet discovered.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hybridTHEvibe @ Apr 18 2006, 08:01 PM) [snapback]241792[/snapback]</div>

And I said IMPLIED...not STATED. That was my reading of the implication. However, I will now state I did not intend to IMPLY to you that ANYONE who does not believe in God is evil. That was YOUR implication. I repeat, I do NOT believe that mere blindness to God equals evil.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Apr 18 2006, 08:22 PM) [snapback]241809[/snapback]</div>

how did he imply it?
He implied that Jesus embraced everybody, how is that evil?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Apr 18 2006, 07:54 PM) [snapback]241787[/snapback]</div>

Mr Schmika,

With all due respect, can you exactly pinpoint to a word or a phrase that I've indicated that Jesus embraced evil?

Where? Which word?

Please I am eager to find out, you're implying something that I have not connoted and your implication borders on slandering!

:mellow:

 

A friend of mine, who is not an atheist, believes the following:

That the universe was created by something we have never dreamed of, and who's description, nature, desires, intentions, etc., are such that no human has ever dreamed of.

In other words, he believes in something that might be called a god, but that all religions are entirely and absolutely wrong in their notions about that god.

It seems much more likely to me that all religions are wrong, than that one of them is right and all the others are wrong. However, the proof that science works lies in the technology that springs from science. Semiconductors prove that quantum mechanics is an appropriate way to describe the behavior of atoms and electrons; Automobiles and skyscrapers verify the modern scientific understanding of forces and stresses; and the plethora of effective miracle drugs demonstrate that science is on the right track towards understanding how the body works.

Compared to this, what has religion given us that is useful? Well, let's see, there's the crusades, and the inquisition, and.. oh yes, religion has given us school boards that stand in the way of educating our children about science. Hmmm.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 18 2006, 09:39 PM) [snapback]241876[/snapback]</div>

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquistion.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dsunman @ Apr 18 2006, 05:21 AM) [snapback]241409[/snapback]</div>

But you do it so badly. You point out an inconsistency that doesn't exist. Remember the story about the three blind men who touch an elephant for the first time? The one who touched the trunk proclaimed "I know the elephant, and he is long and meaty, like a snake". The one who embraced a leg shouted "No, the elephant is thick like a tree and very strong" but the one who held the tail said "You are both wrong! It is thin like a vine, and it doesn't smell very good either."

The metaphor can work on a couple of different levels, but in this case I'm applying it to critics of religion. Without knowing what religions really teach and understanding WHY people believe the way they do, you are like the man at the trunk. For the religious person, your arguments are as non-sensical as the Creationists or ID folks arguments are to scientists. And yet, you proclaim that people shouldn't marginalize or demonize other beliefs, and should try to understand them, but you haven't tried to understand those you disagree with most. For an independent source of info, check out the University of Virginia's "Religious Movements" pages at http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dsunman @ Apr 18 2006, 05:21 AM) [snapback]241409[/snapback]</div>

Actually, I don't think Windstrings demonized anyone. I may have missed it, because I tend to tune out any wholesale listing of Biblical verses ... in order to truly understand them, you have to go and read what context they are made in, and that takes way too much time for a forum such as this. Plus I think its a bad technique; people just tune it out.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dsunman @ Apr 18 2006, 05:21 AM) [snapback]241409[/snapback]</div>

No, I don't know a lot about some religions. I don't criticism them either. I don't say they are inconsistent because of a commandment here, and a statement there. I don't attack Muslims, for instance, with my take on the Quran. I haven't studied it enough to do so. I can engage them and talk about issues, but I know the exercise is for my edification only. I won't change their mind.

I actually do believe that God will toss unbelievers in a literal hell, and they will suffer eternal torment. I *think* I know that some people are assured that won't happen, but I believe it is God alone who decides, and I recognize that our theology could be off a bit on this very important question. You are right that Christianity is one of the few religions in the world that believes this way.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dsunman @ Apr 18 2006, 05:21 AM) [snapback]241409[/snapback]</div>

If you understood their theology, you would understand their fervor.

What if they are right?

Don't object yet ... this is to see if you can understand their point of view.

What if their particular belief is the only way, and you are heading for hell, destined for an eternity of suffering?

Would you want them to downplay the importance of the issue? Smile and pat you on the back, and then shake their heads a little as you descend into the fire? Or would you want them to warn you, point out the danger, and tell you how to avoid it?

You don't have to agree with someone to understand them.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Apr 18 2006, 05:04 PM) [snapback]241796[/snapback]</div>

Pascal's Wager recognizes that (to Pascal) only Christianity is an exclusive religion. So if the God of the universe really is the panentheism of modern Paganism, the Christian is OK. But if the Christians are right, only the Christians are OK and the pantheists are in hot water (or fire, as it were).

I'm not sure about Islam .... I think they recognize all monotheists as being eligible for heaven, even though their political leanings are pretty fundamental. But I do know that judiasm, Wicca, Buddhism, etc. all are not exclusive to the extent Christianity is.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Apr 18 2006, 04:48 PM) [snapback]241781[/snapback]</div>

I never claimed I was tolerant of false beliefs..... Jesus wasn't either.. why should I?

You have a responsibility to recognize the truth and choose it, you do not have right to find a doctrine that fits your lifestyle so you don't have to submit to anyone besides yourself.

(Mat 15:8 KJV) This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
(Mat 15:9 KJV) But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

(1 Tim 4:1 KJV) Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
(1 Tim 4:2 KJV) Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
(1 Tim 4:3 KJV) Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
(1 Tim 4:4 KJV) For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:



When you meet you maker, you will not be given grace because you chose to believe a lie.
You WILL be accountable for what you choose to believe.
Sorry.... I don't make the rules...

(2 Th 2:9 KJV) Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

(2 Th 2:10 KJV) And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

(2 Th 2:11 KJV) And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:


P.S.
If you say your life is worthless, your finally getting your first sliver of wisdom from above..
Unfortunately for you, I know you were only being faciecious...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Apr 18 2006, 05:04 PM) [snapback]241796[/snapback]</div>

Following God has never been "safe", but rather a walk filled with sheer faith and times of extreme trials intermixed with extreme elation and exerberance.

If you play it safe, you will be in the crown that is broad and wide.

(Mat 7:13 KJV) Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
(Mat 7:14 KJV) Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dsunman @ Apr 18 2006, 05:25 PM) [snapback]241812[/snapback]</div>

When he died on the cross, the took upon himself all the evil of the world and all the sin of all generations was imputed to him and he became the sacrificial lamb that removed all the sin of the world for those who walk under that umbrella.

Your aweful cocky for someone who is trying to learn and knows nothing yet?

So tell me, are you asking questions to learn or are you just a heckler?

(Titus 3:9 KJV) But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
(Titus 3:10 KJV) A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject;
(Titus 3:11 KJV) Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

Do you fall into this classification?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 18 2006, 07:39 PM) [snapback]241876[/snapback]</div>

The main problem with science is that it can only track, record, detect, monitor, or relate to the physical realm of matter and possibly antimatter.

Science doesn't have a clue about the spirit realm because it cannot measure and see it, nor can it understand it based on its past assumption about existence.
The spirit ream does not fit in the puzzle that science builds about reality, so scientists rejectsthe spirit realm as real...

Kinda like they did when they had not way to tell the earth was round! :lol:

Once you understand even a little about the spirit realm, you will understand that it is much much more real than the physical, which is just a compilation of energy in different forms.
The spirit realm is life.... whether cursed or blessed, it is life.

You are in this physical body the same as you are in your prius as it drives down the road.

Don't look out into space for intelligent life.... look in your own bedroom.... they are all around you all the time... both good and bad entities.

The bad entities have no authority or power over you, unless you submit to them and give your power to them.... when you live in sin, you are doing that... because you become sins slave to serve it and its curses and powers can then touch you and influence you.

The tricky thing about evil, is that the personalities of the demons impress themselves upon men unawares and those men start thinking that the feelings, beliefs, and thoughts they are having are thier own, when in reality it is the other entities that is oppressing, obsessing or possessing them.
Therein is the great deception. This is the main mechanism by which men are blinded.

This happens because men play with powers they know not of, and are consumed by them... look in the newspapers.... men that do these hideous crimes hate themselves most of the time and hate what they do, yet they still do them... they are under its power and spell and are lucky if they can even see light long enough to realize what is happening to them, let alone be able to free themselves.

Don't believe for a minute that your thoughts are your own. Many are so tormented that they are lucky to hear thier own thoughts and have to drown out the voices with loud music and distractions to even think clearly at all.
(Mark 7:21 KJV) For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
(Mark 7:22 KJV) Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
(Mark 7:23 KJV) All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

 

No, I was not being facetious. My beliefs are not false, and my life is far from worthless. Your views are highly arrogant, intolerant, and disrespectful; nothing at all like the Christian concept of love.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Apr 18 2006, 10:59 PM) [snapback]241968[/snapback]</div>

Your betting your life that your right.... thats your choice.... but I'm sad for you.....

Sometimes seeds take time to grow and the evidence of thier growth is totally nonapparent until time for them to sprout.... I hope some of what was said and some of what you've heard will spout someday when all your false gods fall through and you find yourself with no one in this whole big world that really gives a damn about you because its everyman for himself in this jungle, and when you need your god the most and he never answers.. maybe you will find the real one......

The reason I have amused your babblings is knowing how powerful Gods word is and that it will not return void, I know it will impact you when you least expect it....

If I didn't have hope for you.. I would have cut you off a long time ago..... I think thats God's feelings too.
I'm pretty sure about this..... just because you give up hope, doesn't men God does.

 

A couple of more points and a few questions I would like to introduce into this discussion.

Points
1) Most atrocities if not all atrocities that are being blamed on religion were caused by a combination of religious and civic/political powers. Very few if any were caused by religious authorities that did not have a civic or political power base.
2) The character of God rejects and the Bible does not support the concept of eternal torment in hell for anyone.

Questions
1) If a leg of a reptile were to evolve into a wing of a bird, would it not become a bad leg long before it became a good wing?
2) Evolution states that variations should accumulate slowly, eventually becoming major categories of organisms. Instead, almost all of today’s plants and animals appear at the base of the fossil record. What’s up with that???


Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(windstrings @ Apr 19 2006, 01:11 AM) [snapback]241972[/snapback]</div>

MY babblings? Good to see you haven't lost your sense of humour.

I don't see life as every one for themselves. Most of us have family, friends and neighbours to count on in times of need and to share our happiness. What have I said to make you think my beliefs are false, or that I've given up hope?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(RonH @ Apr 18 2006, 03:32 PM) [snapback]241742[/snapback]</div>

I stand by statement: and add this.
Many single-celled forms of life exist, but no known forms of animal life have 2, 3, 4, or 5 cells. The forms of life with 6–20 cells are parasites, so they must have a complex animal as a host to provide such functions as digestion and respiration. If macroevolution happened, one should find many transitional forms of life with 2–20 cells—filling the gap between one-celled and many-celled organisms.

The process of which you speak is merely a grouping of single cells or colonies of single cells. Not the same thing of which I speak. Groupings or Colonial forms of life and the degree of differentiation of the cells and the simplest multicellular organism are vast.


Wildkow

http://www.creationscience.com/

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(windstrings @ Apr 19 2006, 01:34 AM) [snapback]241952[/snapback]</div>

What all this has to to do with what Schmika said?

Hardly can anyone learn anything but hate from a cocksure religo-fascist like yourself.

Look in a mirror saint and salute yourself for the job well done as you've repelled me with your teachings.
I guess that's the core of your religion, absolutism.

Sayonara from me on this thread, you may continue with others.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Apr 19 2006, 04:53 AM) [snapback]241986[/snapback]</div>

Everyone should take note of this post. This is exactly how creation "scientists" are successful in convincing a large number of people of their point of view. They ignore the "bigger picture" evidence for evolution and the like and pick on one (likely irrelevant) observation.

Do I find it interesting that there are no 2-5 celled organisms? Yes. Am I able to explain it? No (although I'm not an evolutionary biologist). Does this mean that I throw out the entire scientific framework of evolution, which is based on hundreds (if not thousands) of other pieces of evidence that have been assembled through the hard work of hundreds/thousands of scientists? Well, I'll let you take a guess.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Betelgeuse @ Apr 19 2006, 04:49 AM) [snapback]242005[/snapback]</div>

Hmmmm, What a silly statement! The premise of evolution is that life started in a simple state, i.e. single cell organism from a pool of primordial ooze most probably struck by lighting into the fantastic complexity of life as we know it today. Correct me if I’m wrong. Therefore, if that single celled organism was to evolve into a more complex life form logic says that there should be evidence of 2-3-4-5 celled forms of life. There is not and since there is overwhelming evidence of single celled and multi-celled forms of life in the fossil record why is there not evidence of the 2-3-4-5 etc. forms of life.

Okay here are some more. . .

The earth’s sedimentary layers are typically parallel to adjacent layers. Such uniform layers are seen, for example, in the Grand Canyon and in road cuts in mountainous terrain. Had these parallel layers been deposited slowly over thousands of years, erosion would have cut many channels in the topmost layers. Their later burial by other sediments would produce nonparallel patterns. Because parallel layers are the general rule, and the earth’s surface erodes rapidly, one can conclude that almost all sedimentary layers were deposited rapidly relative to the local erosion rate—not over long periods of time.

The evolutionary tree has no trunk. In the earliest part of the fossil record (generally the lowest sedimentary layers of Cambrian rock), life appears suddenly, full-blown, complex, diversified, and dispersed—worldwide. Evolution predicts that minor variations should slowly accumulate, eventually becoming major categories of organisms. Instead, the opposite is found. Virtually all of today’s plant and animal phyla—including flowering plants, vascular plants, and vertebrates—appear at the base of the fossil record. In fact, many more phyla are found in the Cambrian than exist today. Complex species, such as fish, worms, corals, trilobites, jellyfish,sponges, mollusks, and brachiopods appear suddenly, with no sign anywhere on earth of gradual development from simpler forms. Insects, a class comprising four-fifths of all known animals (living and extinct), have no evolutionary ancestors.i The fossil record does not support evolution.

No theory has been able to explain why earth’s atmosphere has so much oxygen. Too many chemical processes should have absorbed oxygen on an evolving earth. Besides, if the early earth had oxygen in its atmosphere, compounds (called amino acids) needed for life to evolve would have been destroyed by oxidation. But if there had been no oxygen, there would have been no ozone (a form of oxygen) in the upper atmosphere. Without ozone to shield the earth, the sun’s ultraviolet radiation would quickly destroy life. The only known way for both ozone and life to be here is for both to come into existence simultaneously—in other words, by creation.

Living matter is composed largely of proteins, which are long chains of amino acids. Since 1930, it has been known that amino acids cannot link together if oxygen is present. That is, proteins could not have evolved from chance chemical reactions if the atmosphere contained oxygen. However, the chemistry of the earth’s rocks, both on land and below ancient seas, shows that the earth had oxygen before the earliest fossils formed.a Even earlier, solar radiation would have broken water vapor into oxygen and hydrogen. Some hydrogen, the lightest of all chemical elements, would then have escaped into outer space, leaving behind excess oxygen.b
To form proteins, amino acids must also be highly concentrated in an extremely pure liquid.c However, the early oceans or ponds would have been far from pure and would have diluted amino acids, so the required collisions between amino acids would rarely occur.d Besides, amino acids do not naturally link up to form proteins. Instead, proteins tend to break down into amino acids.e Furthermore, the proposed energy sources for forming proteins (earth’s heat, electrical discharges, or solar radiation) destroy the protein products thousands of times faster than they could have formed.f The many attempts to show how life might have arrived on earth have instead shown the futility of that effort, the immense complexity of even the simplest life, and the need for a vast intelligence to precede life.

DNA cannot function without at least 75 preexisting proteins, but proteins are produced only at the direction of DNA. Because each needs the other, a satisfactory explanation for the origin of one must also explain the origin of the other. The components of these manufacturing systems must have come into existence simultaneously. This implies creation.

When a cell divides, its DNA is copied, sometimes with errors. Each animal and plant has machinery that identifies and corrects most errors; if it did not, the organism would deteriorate and become extinct. If evolution happened, which evolved first, DNA or its repair mechanism? Each requires the other.


I got more if ya want’em. But for now why don’t you share some of that Big Picture with me?
This is fun kinda like popping bubble wrap.


Wildkow