garycahill
Well-Known Member
Fine, point out some actual proof that Jesus or God actually exist.
You seem to have dodged that part of the question in your last post.
You seem to have dodged that part of the question in your last post.
Evidence fish grew legs much earlier than thought
- Thread starter News Bot
- Start date
Help Support Aussie Pythons & Snakes Forum:
- Status
Just_Plain_Nuts
Very Well-Known Member
need to get some sleep but i'll get back to you tomorrow, cheers
garycahill
Well-Known Member
Lol
Firstly Cris , the Bible does indicate to us that the world is round, just doesnt make a big deal about it. See Isaiah 40:22. "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth and its people are like grasshoppers"
Secondly the Theory of Evolution is just that...a THEORY meaning that it has not been proven. Thirdly the whole chimp thing , does it not make sense that all of someones' works share similarities...seeing as they are made by the same person???
Fourthly (if there is such a word?) Concerning Darwin...his theory was conceived in 1859 before electron microscopes etc. A lot has changed since then...and a lot of his theory is falling apart. Lets start here, he said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species
With our modern technology we now discover organisms like the bacterial flagellum which are certainly complex and are not reducible in its complexity. Not to mention Darwin's ideas on the so called simple cell.....which is completely been blown out of the water. I agree that animals can and do evolve, to a degree but not to the extent of the diversity of life in our world. Another interesting fact is the statistical probability of these evolution steps to occur are far beyond absurd. eg for a red blood cell to be formed by chance from the amino acids it consists of are 1 in 10 to the power of 650...for those mathematicians out there will realise the magnitude of such a number. And before I get the "you are blind and ignorant and know nothing of science" retorts , I am very much into science and had studied it my entire life. I got dragged to church but after examining the facts and doing extensive research I have made up my own mind. It is just hard for people to believe anything but evolution because it gets drummed into us from childhood at school. In case you had not gathered by now, I believe in GOD. Anyone one want to argue some more iI welcome it..
When you say you have studied science all your life what do you mean, any particular field? I certainly wouldnt ask a neuroscientist about particle physics even though they would probably have some perspective on it. You say evolution is just a theory, yet as someone who has imersed themselves in science you would surely know what this means. A theory is the highest ranking an explanation of something can get in science. The fact that the earth revolves arround the sun is just a theory. To lay men the word theory should really be read as the word as fact. Evolution by natural selection is a theory and will always be a theory no matter how much proof we can generate for it.
I cant help but think you copied that irreducible complexity argument from some religious website. I dont know if you have read much on it but irreducible complexity is an extremely poor line to follow on trying to debunk natural selection. For starters the evolution of many biological systems that were once considered ireducibly complex have since been better understood. Claiming something is far to complex to ever understand is like limiting ourselves to only things that are blindingly obvious.
I encourage you to take a look into the litterature on the current theories about the evolution of things such as the flagella motor.
"Another interesting fact is the statistical probability of these evolution steps to occur are far beyond absurd. eg for a red blood cell to be formed by chance from the amino acids it consists of are 1 in 10 to the power of 650..."
This is a very interesting point becaus it outlines how you dont actually understand the theory of evolution. The theory of natural selection works on probability but there is a huge component which skews the results. Say the evolution of a red blood cell was like getting 10 000 dice and rolling all 6's. By random chance this seems very unlikely. But what if every generation you got to re roll all the dice except those which were already 6's, you can see how after 2 billion years you might get some pretty interesting results. There is a very interesting book that explains evolution in a way that people who dont understand can learn how it really works. Its called climbing mount improbable.
If you want to claim that you have imersed yourself in science then i encourage you to actually read and understand the principles you are talking about before you discredit them.
naledge
Very Well-Known Member
Interesting point, becaus most of the documentaries i have seen on the topic do not use the bible as a true account of events . Practically all of the old testiment has no supporting evidence for any of the stories written within. Most of the stuff that could be verified in the new testiment has not been. There is very little evidence to accompany any of the bible. All of the new testiment was written atleast 70 yrs after jesus's death by people who never met him. There is not enough supporting evidence for it to be taken as a complete non-fictional account of events on any level.
garycahill
Well-Known Member
That's what I always believed also, but I don't have enough proof or knowledge to argue the fact.
I would also like to know where & how you studied the bible?
It wasn't by any chance as part of a church group? Or was it part of an impartial scientific study?
I have also studied the bible, for 6 years! At school, although I did do quite a lot of sleeping.
What documents provide proof to the bible & which ancient historians used the bible as their first port of call?
This also needs to be taken into context as religion as a whole was view very differently before science progressed.
Churches are guilty of trying to prevent science of progressing, for what seems to be self preservation.
After all, thousands were murdered & raped all around the globe in the name of Christianity.
They had it blessed by the church before they set out & called it the crusades!
I would also like to know where & how you studied the bible?
It wasn't by any chance as part of a church group? Or was it part of an impartial scientific study?
I have also studied the bible, for 6 years! At school, although I did do quite a lot of sleeping.
What documents provide proof to the bible & which ancient historians used the bible as their first port of call?
This also needs to be taken into context as religion as a whole was view very differently before science progressed.
Churches are guilty of trying to prevent science of progressing, for what seems to be self preservation.
After all, thousands were murdered & raped all around the globe in the name of Christianity.
They had it blessed by the church before they set out & called it the crusades!
I went to Christian schools, involving not only daily attempted brainwashing, but also religious education on Christianity and other popular superstitions. This made it impossible for me to be anything other than an atheist, im yet to see a religion with any credibility. I have always wondered why religious schools teach science as its in direct and incompatible conflict with the blind faith of any religion. In a hypothetical situation you could raise humans in a controlled environemnt wiothout any contact to previous religions and they would simply make up a new one. I could go on but it may start becoming offensive to religious types.
well I have to get on the "the world has a creator side" in this argument lol...
and I have many many reasons and I don't care much of what people think of my opinions... cause all opinions stink.
By far the biggest question is.... us? How did we get here? well Darwin thought he was smart and said "Monkeys" lol.... ok Darwin, I'll byte lol, where's your proof? Darwin:"um, there's a missing link"... Oh I see, well lets go digging.....Darwin the old boy died and till this day no link (or links) which is weird... cause if we evolved from monkeys then there must be thousands of links to show our evolutionary road here right? well i guess we can keep digging lol.
my second question is, the universe and all life in general... How did that get here? You look at nature and it's complicated... even our non living galaxy is complicated... one living cell (even a so called simple cell) is more complicated then any technology we can yet imagine. In fact, scientists cant figure out how these "simple" cells came to be... "Oh it was a coincidence".... Oh was it? ok, well here is a clock... i'm going to take this apart, piece by piece and put in a box... now i will shake the box for millions of years... ok to be fair, billions... when I stop shaking, according to this theory of coincidence, a working clock will fall out...
Scientists/science understands sooo much of our universe... all 5% of it (actually it's 4%, but lets not get technical)
Is there a creator? well um, I dont know... maybe it was all a coincidence, or maybe there is something in the rest of the universe (96% of it) that created life...
lol life is a joke kids, lets all die laughing
and I have many many reasons and I don't care much of what people think of my opinions... cause all opinions stink.
By far the biggest question is.... us? How did we get here? well Darwin thought he was smart and said "Monkeys" lol.... ok Darwin, I'll byte lol, where's your proof? Darwin:"um, there's a missing link"... Oh I see, well lets go digging.....Darwin the old boy died and till this day no link (or links) which is weird... cause if we evolved from monkeys then there must be thousands of links to show our evolutionary road here right? well i guess we can keep digging lol.
my second question is, the universe and all life in general... How did that get here? You look at nature and it's complicated... even our non living galaxy is complicated... one living cell (even a so called simple cell) is more complicated then any technology we can yet imagine. In fact, scientists cant figure out how these "simple" cells came to be... "Oh it was a coincidence".... Oh was it? ok, well here is a clock... i'm going to take this apart, piece by piece and put in a box... now i will shake the box for millions of years... ok to be fair, billions... when I stop shaking, according to this theory of coincidence, a working clock will fall out...
Scientists/science understands sooo much of our universe... all 5% of it (actually it's 4%, but lets not get technical)
Is there a creator? well um, I dont know... maybe it was all a coincidence, or maybe there is something in the rest of the universe (96% of it) that created life...
lol life is a joke kids, lets all die laughing
garycahill
Well-Known Member
Science has been able to create life in the lab for some time now.
By create I mean from gasses that are found in the atmosphere & space, not fertilising an embryo.
By create I mean from gasses that are found in the atmosphere & space, not fertilising an embryo.
The best question for any believer in creationism, is who created the creator of the creators creationists, creators creator? Then when you answer that ask the same question again about who made that creator.
Thousands of missing links have been found... why dont you google the evolution of man, you will see that many of intermediate stages between the ancestors we share with chimpanzees and ourselves have been identified and reconstructed.
The other thing is evolution by natural selection is not about random chance, we dont think all of the parts just fell together after being shaken. Whenever somthing went right it was copied millions of times, when something went wrong it wasnt copied. Its like your clock analogy but whenever a piece did fall into the right place it was glued into position. you can see how with lots of shaking and lots of glueing you could get a clock that works.
Ofcourse these analogies can only take you so far, if you want to actually understand them you need to read some of the writing on the topic.
garycahill
Well-Known Member
That contradicts what I have read. Where did you find that information?
As far as not having found the missing link, it is more than possible that it is in the fuel tank of your car!
Carbon based life forms make up crude oil.
Another interesting fact is how long ago was it when the missing link should have been around?
I don't find it hard to believe that no-one can find it, I generally can't find my car keys after a night at the pub.
I they havnt created life yet it wont be long before they do. Here is an article on the topic.
Life to order: Man-made organisms will be here in four months, say biologists | Mail Online
Life to order: Man-made organisms will be here in four months, say biologists | Mail Online
Well I read lots of science mags, i love them, and one of the top guys (can't be bothered getting it out) said that how the first micro organism were formed is still a mystery...
aaand the clock analogy was not for evolution but for the appearance of the first cell... again... I can shake the atoms needed and nothing will happen, maybe gas will come out...
and here we have another problem.... Theory, evolution is a theory... anyone want to look up a dictionary?
Excuse My French emotion, but it seems that theres a herd of evolutionist attacking the creationists... I'm not even bring up the bible, no need... science is great don't get me wrong, but sometimes big adults have to admit that they don't understand everything
1:" Scientists are only months away from creating artificial life, it was claimed yesterday." haa, they haven't done it yet...
2:"The pioneering 'gene swap' was performed on a simple species of bacteria called Mycoplasma mycoides.
Carole Lartigue and colleagues removed the bacteria's entire genome and inserted it into the yeast - an organism that is distant from bacteria on the tree of life.
Yeast is easier to manipulate in the lab and this process allowed the team to alter the genes - in this case, deleting one gene not necessary for bacteria to live." well they seem to be manipulating what was already made... thats not creating a cell from dirt is it?
Lol so now we are talking about shaking atoms? I thought you were using an analogy to explain a complex problem. I dont think there was any shaking involved in the generation of the first 'living thing'. Life could have begun in our oceans and maybe didnt consist of the molecules we see in living things today but maybe it did. Google abiogenesis, in the library at uni there is a whole wall of books on the topic.
The origin of life is a mystery and to some it always will be, trying to understand what happened 3 billion years ago is pretty difficult but that is one reason why it is so facinating. Admiting that we dont know everything is the first step in trying to understand somthing, if natural selection was found to be insufficient to explain the evolution of life we wouldnt turn to creation, we would turn to the data and try to find another explanation. If the evidence supported the idea of creation science would be happy to move in that direction.
Creation was there for so long, science ignored it because humans cannot take the fact the is a more powerful being out there, science is not science, it's an orthodox religion... anyone remember when it was first suggested that the world was round to the scientists of the time?(even tho the bible some how already knew) or even now, it was proven that the world has grown to what it is now.... the continents didn't move around like if it was skating on ice... (yet that teaching has been scrapped) As a child I loved the brontosaurus, but wait, it never existed, it was just a head put on another dinosaurs body, yet, even though it was proven wrong, it is still taught to children as a scientific fact that the Brontosaurus roamed the land billions of years ago...
How can one take science seriously, if when ever it is proven wrong it shakes it's head, covering it's ears yelling "NEVER MORE".
How did life begin? how come beauty is all around us, when beauty is not necessary for life to exist? How come there are intelligent mathematical equations in creations... How come we feel emotions when, if we were to look at survival of the fittest or evolution, there is no need for it to survive is life. How come we our selves create when we don't need too? Simple questions that make life what it is now have not been answered by science... because science does not have all the answers, because it wont listen.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
