There may be hope for us yet...

Message

CNF2002 · #31 Unread post by **CNF2002** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 10:54 am

Ah heck Im just curious...sorry for the second post.

What do you think people have to gain by furthering research of evolution theory and not using creationism? Science is just about finding truth...thats it. We do experiments that we can repeat to learn about the environment, we use it to build tools and things to help people (where would medicine be without science?). There's just nothing pointing to creationism aside from the fact that we dont have the answers, and a creator is the easiest explanation for everything. What does the world have to gain? Do you think there is some massive conspiracy against religion or something? Science searches for truth, and when it doesn't agree with your personal beliefs you attack it, and come up with wild ideas to prove yourself right. I don't get what you have to gain by attacking science.

TechTMW · #32 Unread post by **TechTMW** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 10:55 am

No dogfight intended. I hate that you will not dignify anything I wrote with a concise rebuttal or response, but I guess I'll just have to go on believing it if you can't convince me otherwise.

However, you should know that I'm not a Christian. I simply don't believe the evolutionary theories that I was taught in school. They just don't make sense in the world that I see around me. Hell, half of the time, they don't make sense to the evolutionists. There are technical problems with the age of the earth that evolutionary science can't answer, but a creationist based viewpoint can.

Likewise, I would like to know (hypothetically) why people get all up in arms to defend evolution. I believe it's because they are afraid to question something they've known as 'truth' for so long. Similarly, religious folks hold on to beliefs that may be proven wrong (whether by modern science, simple common sense, or whatever.)

The most striking thing is how similar these viewpoints really are. You were told to believe what was written in this book, they were told to believe what was written in that book. To hold either one as pure and true and unquestionable is pure folly.

There are so many things that would make the world a better place. An open and progressively free-thinking mind is certainly one of them.

#33 Unread post by **cb360** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 11:07 am

TechBMW wrote:
The most striking thing is how similar these viewpoints really are. You were told to believe what was written in this book, they were told to believe what was written in that book. To hold either one as pure and true and unquestionable is pure folly.

There are so many things that would make the world a better place. An open and progressively free-thinking mind is certainly one of them.

Oh, I have an open mind and I thank the lord for that - that's a joke. I was told to believe what was in one book, then I looked in a microscope and saw mitosis and cell structures and damned if it wasn't all true... every single time. Lots of dodo in the one book that I can test and reproduce time and again. The other book told me a bunch of stuff that is unverifiable - fables really, and it had nothing I could apply the scientific method to. So I used my open mind and decided accordingly.

CNF2002 · #34 Unread post by **CNF2002** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 11:12 am

but I guess I'll just have to go on believing it if you can't convince me otherwise.

Well you should...I cant convince you, I shouldnt be able to. Im not an expert, this is a internet board.

Evolution IS a working theory...if something new is discovered that is better I will take it as scientific theory...but I cant just make stuff up and believe in something just 'because'...there's just no reason or evidence in it.

#35 Unread post by **cb360** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 11:23 am

CNF2002 wrote:
but I guess I'll just have to go on believing it if you can't convince me otherwise.
Well you should...I cant convince you, I shouldnt be able to. Im not an expert, this is a internet board.

Evolution IS a working theory...if something new is discovered that is better I will take it as scientific theory...but I cant just make stuff up and believe in something just 'because'...there's just no reason or evidence in it.

The cool thing about science is that it's just as true whether someone believe in it or not. Otherwise the earth would have flattened out a long time ago and the sun would orbit the earth. Unlike religion, science needs no believers.

TechTMW · #36 Unread post by **TechTMW** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 11:52 am

cb360 wrote:So I used my open mind and decided accordingly.

Don't stop exploring and deciding just because you've made a descision!

Here's a bit on the Castenedolo skeletons,
http://www.calarts.edu/~shockley/castenedolo.html

CNF, I don't believe either organized science or organized religion exist solely to search for the truth. There are too many people involved in both. People who have their own personal agendas and who constantly screw the whole thing up for the sake of their careers, egos, or whatever. I don't get what you have to gain by ravenously defending the ideas that some guy wrote about and may or may not be provable.

You act like I've rejected anything and everything related to modern science. Far from it. I simply have yet to see tangible proof of the evolutionary theory Where are the fossils of those proto-penguins (the ones with crazy mutated or changing "ARMS"?) You mention that the divergence from that species to penguin took millions of years. So surely there must be some proof of its existance?

I DO care what you say, or I wouldn't be wasting my time posting this. I am simply sharing what I believe, and I'm telling you why I believe it. You can make fun of what I believe, and that's fine. The original post had to do with clergy saying "the bible is not to be taken literally." OK ... some clergy have been saying that for quite some time now. Nowhere in my posts have I been saying that the Bible SHOULD be taken literally. Nowhere in my posts have I said that the earth was created in Six Days.

To say that anyone who disagrees with the THEORY of evolution also disagrees with anything coming out of modern science is pretty unfair. There are plenty of scientific FACTS that can be embraced by all people. One water molecule is composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. This is Scientific FACT. That macroevolution exists is a THEORY.

It's called a Theory because it cannot be Proven. It is a THEORY. You are espousing a BELIEF. Clue in. To ravenously defend something that cannot be proven is the exact same thing that you are accusing me of doing.

#37 Unread post by **cb360** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 12:08 pm

It's not called a theory becsue it can't be proven. The whole 'theory' vs. 'fact' thing is just misleading semantics. Does anyone doubt gravitational theory? A 'theory' is...

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."

I have no problem with that - seems the perfect word to me. It's kind of like the word 'liberal', political agendas have completely distorted what the word actually means when in fact, the word itself does a great job. We've just distorted it to the point that many of us think it means something else.

#38 Unread post by **cb360** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 12:25 pm

"To say that anyone who disagrees with the THEORY of evolution also disagrees with anything coming out of modern science is pretty unfair. "

Probably so. I just think it's weird that people would rip out entire chapters of a biology textbook and accept the rest without holding it to the same standards you require for evolution. My old biology textbook has "Animal Organ Systems and Homeostasis" in chapter 26 and "Evolution" in Chapter 36 and "Protists ; Stem Eukaryotes" in chapter 46. There's 59 chapters in the book... something tells me you are cool with all of them but one. Why the hell would you be cool with the other 58 chapters when the same people are bringing you all 59? Who knows... maybe "Binary Fission or "Nonseed Vascular Plants" are a hot button issue with you as well?

#39 Unread post by **ZooTech** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:25 pm

cb360 wrote: I merely thought it was cool that there are thousands of christians - not just christians, but clergy who lead entire congregations in spiritual matters - who see no need to rewrite all the science books in order to reconcile them with the bible.

Evolutionists are the only ones "writing things as they go along" in order to fit their world view. True believers see evolution for what it is...a grand lie that removes a Creator from the picture and opens doors for sinful behavior.

cb360 wrote: The world would be a truly better place if we paid a tenth as much attention to the beatitudes or the sermon on the mount as we did to the freaking evolution controversy from genesis of all places. But the actual teachings of christ get precious little play - we'd all rather fight about something than suffer or forgive or be generous.

Evolution versus Creation is a fundamental battle and cannot be ignored if we (Christians) are going to face liberals like Hillary Clinton who believe it's okay to forceably remove a living human being from a woman's womb simply because "the timing wasn't right". In the absence of a Creator, man becomes his own god. If the only consequence was non-believers going to hell, I'd be quite a bit less active here. However, the views and opinions expressed by non-believers lead to the death of thousands of innocent children every year. So, CB, I stand before you as a representative for those who cannot represent themselves.

CNF2002 wrote:
If a leg evolves into a wing, wouldn't it be a hell of a bad leg for millions of years? Wouldn't this wipe out a species?
Tell that to penguins but...wings evolved out of ARMS not LEGS.

What difference does it make? If evolution is about survival of the fittest, how useful would a transitional appendage be for millions of years?

CNF2002 wrote:
Evolutionists claim language evolved - therefore the early languages should be the least complex. Not true. The most earliest languages are more complex than modern ones.
Since when does evolution mean things have to go from primitive to more complex?

Ummmm....HELLO!!! Amoeba + billions of years = Human Being???? You want to talk about dumb luck! Tell me that very first single-celled critter contained all the necessary genes and DNA to eventually become a human. Evolutionists have yet to demonstrate a mutation that resulted in more information or more complexity. Or would you consider my autistic son a step forward in the evolutionary process?

CNF2002 wrote:
Species are only observed going out of existence. New Species have never been observed coming into existance.
New species are discovered every day...good grief species divergence occurs over millions of years...you dont have one species one generation and a different one the next, species close in generations can mate...stop reading creationist literature on evolution and pick up a real science book and you might learn something.

The pomeranian was bred for the express purpose of being carried around by rich folk so that fleas would stay on the dog and off them. Just one example in a million where selective breeding has used the information already present in a pair of mutts to produce a vastly different animal...but still a dog and still able to mate with any other breed. It didn't take millions of years and it wasn't a step forward, but evolutionists will use this very process as an example of how evolution works...if given enough time.

CNF2002 wrote:
There are Single-celled forms of life, and there are forms of life with 6 or more cells. But none that consist of 2-5 cells. Furthermore, those forms of life with 6-20 cells are classified as parasites (They need complex animal hosts to survive - breathe and digest for them.) If macroevolution occurs, why are there no 2-20 celled organisms that can survive on their own. (Transitional forms of life)
I have no idea what this is supposed to prove, if anything.

Well then you're the one who needs to pick up a "real" science book. If life began with one single-celled critter and evolved into a human being with trillions of cells, how did it make it past the 2-5 cell rule and the parasite phase?

CNF2002 wrote:
Ask an evolutionist to explain the Calveras Skull, the Castenedolo Skeletons, or the Recks skeleton. All are human remains extracted from undisturbed rocks which well predate the beginning of man's supposed evolution. How is this possible?
Never even heard of it...but then I'm not a scientist...this is probably just based on false information anyway.

A rock solid argument if I've ever heard one!

CNF2002 wrote:
Man-made objects (Gold chains, pots, spears, etc) have been found encased in coal. Coal formed hundreds of millions of years before the existance of man - according to evolutionists, of course.
LOL where are you getting this stuff from?

The books you won't allow in public schools.

CNF2002 wrote:
Males and Females must have come into existance at the exact same time, with completely formed and functional reproductive organs and they must have evolved at the same location. Posted: Wed Jan 25, - Physical, Emotional and Chemical Compatibility between the species
- The Reproductive systems must be compatible
- The Fertilized egg must have developed without any problem
- The offspring of that one first fertilized egg must have survived and mated with another ... fully formed and compatible creature.
- This string of events had to have happened "Accidentally" for millions of species
- Or, they were created.
You know nothing about evolution.

Classic evolutionist argument.

#40 Unread post by **cb360** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:34 pm

Wait a minute. So, the rich people of yore carried around their dogs so the dogs started to get small? Well, that makes perfect sense. I thank our stronger ancestors for carrying around their horses and giving us the miracle of the shetland pony.

Hilary Clinton? Abortion? Jesus dude, you are just a walking argument. What the hell do Hilary Clinton and abortion have to do with clergy supporting the teaching of science in schools?