Creation vs. Evolution

[Hamlet]

"Not can't, won't. If we all knew that God was coming on October 7th, 2012, well, alot of folks would be getting baptized on the 6th, wouldn't they?"

Errr, pardon me for pissing in your pool, but is god not infinetely merciful, and does he also not want as many people as possible to reject Satan and his many ltitle wizards etc ad nauseum in favour of the path to true fulfillment?

Hence, telling people when armageddon was would be nothing short of a damn good thing for god, if we are to go with your explenation of what would happen.

The ability of religion to completely transcend normal concepts of logic completely eludes me.

 

[CurtSibling]

That is one heck of a post philippe!

But a good one!

 

[philippe]

Originally posted by CurtSibling
That is one heck of a post philippe!

But a good one!

iwhen i was done it was 18,000 chars!
Had to shorten it in....

 

[newfangle]

Absolutely awesome philippe. Very eloquent.

But since there is "no engine" to pull the train your ideas are flawed; according to FL2. I'm sure he will be quick to label you as a heretic and have you burnt at the stake for your vile blasphamy.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by philippe
FL2.The man who says the devil cuased WW1 proves himself to be ignorant for the facts again.....
You not even respond of the bacteria you just typ nonsense.This gives me the impression you lost and such you just typ random letters.

In the context where you inserted it, the bacteria was nonsense. It got the treatment it deserved, no more, no less.

Originally posted by philippe
Please give me a break, armageddon.Soon you are going to say your the new Jezus and that there are in heaven poeple with lionheads talking always:amen!
(it says that in the bible!)
I think if you where born in another country with other teachings you would now be screaming:ALL obey vishnu!!!!
God is a myth made up by a tribe to explain natural things.

Once again, your opinions do not carry the same weight in my mind as they do in yours.

Originally posted by philippe
Oh ,But all who has another opinion are fools and idiots he? You believe in the same God who destroyed entire towns with babies,women and animals and who then a few 100 years later says:"love your enemy"?

God killed all but eight people on the earth once to try to give mankind a fresh start. Repeated attempts to rid the world of evil with a God-sized eraser did not work, so God tried something different. Surely someone as invested in evolution as you can appreciate that.

Originally posted by philippe
Evolution makes sense.

To you.

Originally posted by philippe
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
Go read it.

TalkOrigins is a unbiased a source as Jack Chick is, and therefore as valid.

Originally posted by philippe
Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. A gene is a hereditary unit that can be passed on unaltered for many generations. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population.

Faith is the guranteed expectation of things to come. Do you want to continue trading dfefinitions, or do you have anything whatsoever of substance to offer?

Originally posted by philippe
The English moth, Biston betularia, is a frequently cited example of observed evolution. [evolution: a change in the gene pool] *SNIP*So, the change in frequency of dark colored moths represented a change in the gene pool. [gene pool: the set all of genes in a population] This change was, by definition, evolution.

No, that was variation within a species, which Darwinists are now calling microevolution so that they can say that some form of evolution occurs while they billow more smoke at the mirrors.

Originally posted by philippe
Evolution can be divided into microevolution and macroevolution. The kind of evolution documented above is microevolution. Larger changes, such as when a new species is formed, are called macroevolution.

Which simply does not occur. New varieties within the same kinds appear, but no new and uniques species appear.

Originally posted by philippe
Some biologists feel the mechanisms of macroevolution are different from those of microevolutionary change. Others think the distinction between the two is arbitrary -- macroevolution is cumulative microevolution.

The word evolution has a variety of meanings.

All the better to deceive you with, my dear.

Originally posted by philippe
The fact that all organisms are linked via descent to a common ancestor is often called evolution. The theory of how the first living organisms appeared is often called evolution. This should be called abiogenesis. And frequently, people use the word evolution when they really mean natural selection -- one of the many mechanisms of evolution.

Yeah, and the ones doing it are the evolutionists.

Originally posted by philippe
Common Misconceptions about Evolution
Evolution can occur without morphological change;

How does something evolve without changing? Do you realize that this statement is ludicrous?

Originally posted by philippe
and morphological change can occur without evolution.

Of course it can, since evolution is bunk.

Originally posted by philippe
*SNIP*

Evolution is not progress. Populations simply adapt to their current surroundings. They do not necessarily become better in any absolute sense over time. A trait or strategy that is successful at one time may be unsuccessful at another. Paquin and Adams demonstrated this experimentally. *SNIP* Evolution can be like a game of paper/scissors/rock.

Proving what, exactly? That evolution is irrelevant?

Originally posted by philippe
*SNIP*Evolution requires genetic variation. If there were no dark moths, the population could not have evolved from mostly light to mostly dark.

Huh? Are you saying that mutation could not supply dark moths?

Originally posted by philippe
*SNIP of pointless heredity lesson*
More Evolution Q&A

Q. What is the most widely recognized ancestor to humans (Homo sapiens sapiens)? (Brandon, Fayetteville High School)

A. *SNIP of smoke and mirrors used to dress up old, out-of-date, and no longer correct data*The branch that gave rise to humans is called the hominid family. This family also contains at least four other groups of upright walkers that are closely related to humans but are now extinct. These now-extinct “close cousins” of ours have such funny names as Australopithecus,

Now known to be a chimp ancestor, not human.

Originally posted by philippe
Paranthropus, Kenyanthropus, and Ardipithecus. We know of them from fossil skeletons that have been found in Africa.

Fossil teeth mostly. They left that part out. Left out the part about how someone constructed an entire 'human ancestor' out of a few pig teeth too.

Originally posted by philippe
One of the five lines of these hominids (we don’t know exactly which one yet)

Isn't that odd?

Originally posted by philippe
eventually gave rise to us Homo sapiens 200,000 years ago. All of the other hominids went extinct for reasons that we still do not understand.

Mmm, hmm, do tell.

Originally posted by philippe
Perhaps they were unable to adjust to changing climates, perhaps they were not as intelligent as Homo sapiens, or perhaps they succumbed to disease.

Or perhaps they only ever existed in the fevered imagining of some evolutionists looking to publish? Naaah, no one would EVER create a hoax (cough)Piltdown Man (cough).

Originally posted by philippe
We may never know for sure.

Because we'll never admit we're just plain wrong.

Originally posted by philippe
Because all of these closer relatives are now gone, our closest living relative--the one we separated from 6 million years ago--is the chimp. We share 99% of our DNA with the chimp.

A factoid that should impress no one. All life on earth uses mRNA and DNA to encode its genes for reproduction and usage. Is it then, of any consequence, let alone significance, that two similar life forms will have similar DNA? Of course not. But it looks good on paper, doesn't it?

Originally posted by philippe
I rest my case

Good. NEXT!

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Hamlet
"Not can't, won't. If we all knew that God was coming on October 7th, 2012, well, alot of folks would be getting baptized on the 6th, wouldn't they?"

Errr, pardon me for pissing in your pool, but is god not infinetely merciful, and does he also not want as many people as possible to reject Satan and his many ltitle wizards etc ad nauseum in favour of the path to true fulfillment?

Hence, telling people when armageddon was would be nothing short of a damn good thing for god, if we are to go with your explenation of what would happen.

The ability of religion to completely transcend normal concepts of logic completely eludes me.

Do you consider it remotely reasonable to expect to be treated as a good person when you are only good when anyone is watching you? Do you honestly think that a man that has lied, cheated, and stolen all his life, except on the last day, deserves anything from God but a quick death when compared to a man who has been kind and faithful his whole life, even though both knew that the day of reckoning was on a particular day?

 

[CurtSibling]

And don't tell me FL2, you are better than us because you have never fallen from grace.

The one thing that bugs me about the human interpretation of religion is the arrogance.

I suspect it makes a the person feel he is better than us heathens, an ego buzz, no less.

I cannot see how one can brand the whole of humanity as so-called sinners...
Have I killed a human?...no,
Committed adultery...no.
Stolen anything before?...no.

But I am still a sinner...supposedly. I think not.

Regardless I respect your faith, for I am a man of liberty.
And I care not for ego or putting down other poster's views.

 

[philippe]

I can kill the whole creatism thoery with this argument supplied by FL2:

God killed all but eight people on the earth once to try to give mankind a fresh start. Repeated attempts to rid the world of evil with a God-sized eraser did not work, so God tried something different. Surely someone as invested in evolution as you can appreciate that.

Ok FL2 if this "really happened" we would all have been inbreds.
http://pub7.ezboard.com/fcbbbbibleproblems.showMessage?topicID=51.topic
This may or may not have been said (I'm new here) but I pity the poor women. I'm not sure how many are on the ark, but I think it's about 4. Poor poor women... if the Bible flood is true, as well as the dates, they would have had a helluva lot of children. Image having to repopulate the Earth, with over a million descendants in less than a thousand years. Ouch. That and if it was Noah and his -family- they must have been pretty inbred. 4 men related, 4 women non-related. Every child would have been either a half sibling or sibling. Actually.... how did the dove find an olive leaf? everything was buried for months under hundreds of tons of water.. cute symbolism, but don't take it seriously...

On a related note, it's thought that cheetahs may have nearly been wiped out, less than 2 dozen ancestors. Cheetahs have a very low fertiliy rate, 1/6 the viable sperm of a regular housecat, and a bunch of genetic problems. If there was a flood, this problem should be even worse for every species on Earth.

If religion did make a difference there would be less Christians killed. They would miraculously recover from cancer, survive airplane crashes and generally luck out. But they don't. They die in the same proportions, from the same events as everyone else.

Not to mention anything based on a 2000 year old book is probably not too accurate...




But for you FL2 inbred doesnt count he?
Go look by inbred by cheetahs..
if there is a cheeta group of 8 women and 8 male
after 2-3 generation they are all almost inbred...
But for you FL2 God and the bible will ignore that he?

 

[MrPresident]

the Bible flood is true

I heard that is was true but only affected a small part of the world, where the people who wrote that part of the bible were presumely. I doubt there is anyone who actually believes that the entire world flooded and if anyone does then why was Noah the only one with a boat. Surely someone else in the world would have been in a boat or built a boat when they realised the world was flooding, I sure would have. Anyway...

Not to mention anything based on a 2000 year old book is probably not too accurate

Considering that Tacitus (a famous Roman historian) wrote a book in around 90AD which is not considered that accurate why would the Bible be any different? There are people who not only claim slight incorrections in Tacitus' book but actually claim a whole battle didn't occur, not a small battle but quite a large one. Why would the bible, considering it was written by a large number of writers some of them writing well after the event in a time when history was little more than entertainment, write a higly accurate book that can be completely relied upon as fact.

Do you honestly think that a man that has lied, cheated, and stolen all his life, except on the last day, deserves anything from God but a quick death when compared to a man who has been kind and faithful his whole life, even though both knew that the day of reckoning was on a particular day?

If the guy was really really sorry.....

I will never serve in the military.

Not even if your family was threatened? I think you should have been in Britain during WWII and then say that.

Why can't god give us a date for armageddon?

Because we keep changing our calender, personally I want to go back to the Roman one and created a month named after me.

they'll still face judgement after Armageddon.

You don't mean the film do you? Coz my judgement was that it wasn't that bad but as usual focused to much on the Americans (a la Independence Day).

Spaffle dibble norf gloip? Perm spivven nable klim?

I am glad you had respect to answer question. It was however a serious question as I am not sure is bacteria a plant or an animal?

 

[Zwelgje]

Originally posted by MrPresident
I am glad you had respect to answer question. It was however a serious question as I am not sure is bacteria a plant or an animal?

Shall I answer that question then?
Bacteria and funghi are considered plant nor animal (at least not the last time I checked a biology book). They have their own part in the classification-system, there are animals, plants, bacteria and funghi.

 

[FredLC]

I also knew that, civ1-addict. But the REAL question is a little more phylosophical than that. It's not about how we humans classify bacteria and funghi, but it's the fact that FL2 claimed that the bible description of creation was right because it said that God created the plants than the animals.

Well, if all lifeforms fits in that, which of those contains bacteria? And funghi too, since you have brought it to the discussion?

FL2, ball is with you. And, indeed, it IS a serious question.

 

[newfangle]

FL2, I am impressed with your knowledge on theoretical physics. "Know thy enemy" I suppose.

However, a complete understanding of some sort of m-theory would require a particle accelerator the size of the known universe. Congress has yet to approve the budget for such a device.

You are so certain of God's existance (your psychosomatic behavior is off the charts), yet you have no evidence, ever, to support such a belief (which is all that it is).

You are very, very good at refuting evidence thrown at you, I give you that. Now, would you mind presenting some REAL evidence to support your own claims.

Turn that stone into bread.

 

[newfangle]

Don't forget viruses and protozoa.

 

[newfangle]

Judge: Has the jury reached a verdict?
Foreperson: We have your honour.
Judge: What say you?
Foreperson: Bacteria, fungi, protozoa, and viruses are neither plant nor animal. Therefore there is no god.

 

[Pongui]

It would be a shame for your fine mind, FearlessLeader2, to be wasted arguing against the few branches of science that are contrary to your religious beliefs. All the JW's I've known have an uncanny ability to support their bible interpretation, and you're clearly no exception. I'm not out to break your beliefs.

I'm concerned, though, that spending all this energy to defend your bible makes you dumb to some very useful information to be gained from science - even from that awful branch evoloution. Evolution is the most popular interpretation of God's living creations, and surely contains some insights for us humans. It would appear that God made man to share qualities with animals. He made us mammals for a reason. He made us practically identical to primates. Maybe He hopes we can learn from animals by thinking of them as primative versions of ourselves. Perhaps you can make a truce with evolution, and learn from it without losing faith.

 

[FredLC]

Forget it, Sean. I already tryed that approach, as you can see here.

No use.

 

[Switch625]

Originally posted by newfangle
You are very, very good at refuting evidence thrown at you, I give you that. Now, would you mind presenting some REAL evidence to support your own claims.

There is no evidence to show you. God doesn't provide evidence of his existence. You either believe or you don't. He obviously does. You obviously don't. Never the twain shall meet. Why continue beating this dead horse?

 

[ozscott75]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2

TalkOrigins is a unbiased a source as Jack Chick is, and therefore as valid.

As biased a source as your bible?

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2

Originally posted by philippe

Common Misconceptions about Evolution
Evolution can occur without morphological change;

How does something evolve without changing? Do you realize that this statement is ludicrous?

You do realise that the statement was about common misconceptions.

FL2, it is great to see your unwavering faith, in this day and age it is a rare thing indeed. However, you will not win over the 'Evolutionists' to your cause, just as they will not sway you.

I do find it strange that if your god is all forgiving and is omnipresent, why is it necessary for me to live my life in a specific way, including frequent visits to specific places to worship. Should it not be enough that I am good in my heart and live my life without causing hurt or harm to anybody else? Why is it that I must display my love for god to all?

 

[CurtSibling]

I find it weird how humans who are quick to point out their love for a god can speak of kindness and forgiveness,
but also display great smugness, pride and outright hostility to people who challenge their viewpoint.

This to me is a paradox.

And also reminds us that being religious in any way is meant to be about
self-improvement, spiritual growth and controlling the human urges that rule most people.

I feel there are few religious people, or people at all, who measure up to what their religion requires.

But for religious people, a bit of humility is a start.

 

[CrazyScientist]

My favorite part is how this fellow (FL2) has said specifically that he accepts that genetic change can occur within a species, and accepts that similar species are similar genetically, yet despite all the evidence, refuses to make the logical leap that if enough genetic change accumulates within a species it becomes a different species than it was before.