Creationists...What will it take?

Originally posted by mattison0922
IMO, this is probably a slight overstatement. There is some controversy surrounding how different Neanderthal is from modern humans. But I probably wouldn't say that Neanderthal man is a lie.

Originally posted by dbrandt

NEANDERTHAL MAN

In 1860, about the time that Darwin published his book on evolution, the first few fossil fragments of Neanderthal Man were found in the Neanderthal Valley, in Germany... [deletia]...Neanderthal people looking very human, and about 30 years ago, two scientists published an article about Neanderthal people in which they declared that if Neanderthal Man were given a shave, a haircut, and a bath, put into a business suit, and placed on the New York subway, no one would take a second look!

Hence my statement that there is some controversy surrounding the differences between Neanderthals and Modern Man...

Man is fallible. What is right one day could be wrong 20 years later.

I couldn't agree more.

Originally posted by saint4God
Have I nominated you for 'way above' this month? I don't think I did. Time to try again....

You have voted mattison0922 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Bingo!

A pleasure as always, thanks for setting me straight.

Saint, thanks again for the vote of confidence. I don't think I am a prolific enough poster to be awarded this though... generally, I only post in the topics I feel I can really contribute something... Even then, I am often content to read and shake my head. But thanks anyway.

M.

Originally posted by dbrandt

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs


And yet people beleive the bible as truth......

God inspired the writing of the Bible. Actual men's hands wrote what God had them write. If someone can't accept this then the Bilble will remain meaningless.

[edit on 15-2-2005 by dbrandt]

Exactly.......how can u trust man writing down Gods work???.....

To all of you who maintain that the Bible was divinely inspired, consider this.

Why is it that the entire Bible is not what is currently in circulation? A long time ago, they decided which books to keep and which ones to throw away. Now surely these people who edited the Bible didn't write it as well, so how were they to know that they kept all the divinely-inspired parts? How were they sure that they didn't throw out any of the word of God?

And another thing...if everything the Bible says serves as a guide of our current daily lives, how come it NEVER condemned slavery? It actually told the slaves to OBEY their masters and love them. Look, people, don't take the Good Book too literally.

Originally posted by truthseeka
And another thing...if everything the Bible says serves as a guide of our current daily lives, how come it NEVER condemned slavery? It actually told the slaves to OBEY their masters and love them. Look, people, don't take the Good Book too literally.

It does condemn slavery. When the Israelites were slaves in Egypt and God brought them out He told them to remember what it was like to be a slave and not do this to others. In the NT I believe it was Onesimus who was a slave and Paul told his master(can't think of the name right now) it would be more profitable to let him go especially now that onesimus had accepted Christ. Some of the slave references apply to employer/emplyee relationships.

Remember we are living in a world tainted by sin. So God is letting us see that man with sin in his heart will do wrong things(like slavery). If you happened to be a slave and especially if you followed God you were to realize you were there for a reason and God can use the circumstances you are in for mighty purposes. Joseph is an example of that.

Maybe true, dbrandt.

But, there was never a direct statement like God saying he forbid slavery. Even lying is forbidden, why not slavery?

But enough about that. What about the more important thing I said, the thing about the Bible alterations? Let me know your thoughts on that.

Originally posted by truthseeka
But, there was never a direct statement like God saying he forbid slavery. Even lying is forbidden, why not slavery?

Slavery then in this region was not like slavery in modern times or other regions. From what I understand, it was a way of working off debt which included brothers, family, neighbors, etc. In fact, there were laws in place for people who break their commitment so their owner wasn't judge, jury and executioner. I don't think it was randomly picking up people from there homeland and making them work or else. The Egyptian pharoahs had enslaved the Hebrew people with force and they seemed to have learned from the woes of this oppression. We can take the writtings of Moses to show why this treatment is wrong. In the New Testament, the book of Philemon is one example in this issue (and it's only half a page long). One could even draw a parallel to the abolishment thereof coupled with the things Jesus said about love and forgiveness.


[edit on 16-2-2005 by saint4God]

Again, Saint4God,

What about what I said about the Bible?? I love how people sidestep the most important (and controversial) stuff you say here.

How now, brown cow? What about what I said about the Bible????? Please, anyone, respond.

Originally posted by truthseeka
Maybe true, dbrandt.

But, there was never a direct statement like God saying he forbid slavery.

True from what I understand. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Originally posted by truthseeka
Even lying is forbidden, why not slavery?

Because slavery then wasn't beating people to a bloody pulp because you were better than them. The Bible teaches humility and love. Having someone repay your debt by servitude was legal though later on it was frowned upon.

Originally posted by truthseeka
To all of you who maintain that the Bible was divinely inspired, consider this.

Why is it that the entire Bible is not what is currently in circulation? A long time ago, they decided which books to keep and which ones to throw away. Now surely these people who edited the Bible didn't write it as well, so how were they to know that they kept all the divinely-inspired parts? How were they sure that they didn't throw out any of the word of God?

The council met to discuss consistencies and to put these consistencies together. Non-essential, non-helpful, unverified information was excluded. Sure, one could read the omitted books but I haven't seen anything beneficial or inconsistent. This is a very broad, generalized explanation. I'm certain there are those here who are better advised of this history. I can tell you though that this council was thorough and careful, after all, would you want to be the one responsible for messing up God's word?

[edit on 19-2-2005 by saint4God]

Back to the evolution topic (just ignore me if you don't want to talk about that anymore--I'll get the idea), it must be realized that the scientific community is biased in its presentation of the "evidence." It is important to understand that scientists won't get grants and funding if they question evolution--they'll get criticised. And scientists/anthropologists want to find evidence that supports evolution because that is what is considered important; they look for evidence that that COULD fit into the accepted theory; if they find something that doesn't "fit", then it'll be explained as a hoax or as misplaced because it doesn't fit with their presuppositions. They have the idea that evolution really happened, so how can they unbiasedly(is that even a real word:puz look at the evidence?

Originally posted by Biegacz
Back to the evolution topic (just ignore me if you don't want to talk about that anymore--I'll get the idea), it must be realized that the scientific community is biased in its presentation of the "evidence." It is important to understand that scientists won't get grants and funding if they question evolution--they'll get criticised. And scientists/anthropologists want to find evidence that supports evolution because that is what is considered important; they look for evidence that that COULD fit into the accepted theory; if they find something that doesn't "fit", then it'll be explained as a hoax or as misplaced because it doesn't fit with their presuppositions. They have the idea that evolution really happened, so how can they unbiasedly(is that even a real word???) look at the evidence?

Originally posted by Biegacz
Back to the evolution topic (just ignore me if you don't want to talk about that anymore--I'll get the idea), it must be realized that the scientific community is biased in its presentation of the "evidence." It is important to understand that scientists won't get grants and funding if they question evolution--they'll get criticised. And scientists/anthropologists want to find evidence that supports evolution because that is what is considered important; they look for evidence that that COULD fit into the accepted theory; if they find something that doesn't "fit", then it'll be explained as a hoax or as misplaced because it doesn't fit with their presuppositions. They have the idea that evolution really happened, so how can they unbiasedly(is that even a real word:puz

look at the evidence?

If this were true, then wouldnt we be sidelining what science is all about. Science isnt about finding direct evidence to a theory, but rather falsifiability. You get evidence/support for a theory when it undergoes a test/experiment to try and prove it false. If that test, to prove it's false, fails, then you have support for that theory. Am I right or i am i missing something critical when it comes to science and how theories are proven? Isnt science all about try to prove a theory wrong through experiments?

As for Evolution and Creation, I'm about 60/40. I can't deny the existence of evolution, but that doesn't mean that there was no creation. I think they possibly go hand in hand. I tend to lean more towards evolution simply because of all the mounting evidence we have leaning towards it. You know I even read that they found signatures of life on Mars, what do you relgious fanatics have to say about that huh? When they find life forms there will you believe them to be pagan demons?

Anyway, my only problem with evolution is the "Big Bang" and the whole beginning, how all this material could just suddenly be there. Then again if there was a Creator, where did he come from? Still no one has answered the question: If the Creator does not need a Creator (he was just there), then why does our universe and life need to have a Creator?

Anyway, I am unconvinced either way still, but what I do know is one thing. I might be able to accept the fact of an all-powerful Creator, but when you toss religion into the mix that just ruins everything. Talking about the one, "true" god. What about all the other religions that believe in other Gods? They're just completely wrong, like evolutionists right?

Creation may very well be real, I'll give you that. But Religion is nothing more than a tool fabricated by the powerful. It was implemented so that the powerful could exploit the peasants and keep them in line. It kept (and still keeps) people fearful, in place, peaceful (yeah right!!! ) and subserviant. Creation might be real, but Religion is a mass hallucination followed by people that are insecure and need the "unconditional love."

[edit on 22-2-2005 by Ajax]

This is because biblical text often contains about 20% factual material and 80 % bull# and so does evolution. The problem with evolution is it attacks the one thing you cannot GOD. All else in the bible is probable part or whole lies and fair game. You want proof, sure the only proof you will need is to die. But how will you backup evolution? I can debunk every single article based upon evolution, so try me. I'll I asking is for you to died is that too unreasonable? Okay so, look at the original amino acids and how they were formed in a lab. 1 there was no oxygen present inside the beaker. 2 the only way for the lab beaker to occur in a primitive fiery primal earth was in a pocket of ground covered in conductive metals. And it had to have a metal rod pointing up to allow for a bolt of lightning to hit it. 3 primal earth without oxygen present means no ozone layer therefore any amino acids that could form would be ultra violently destroyed. 4 only 2 or three amino acids of the 20 something essential to even single celled organisms were created in the beaker. 5 lightning tend to come in a lot more volts for a very short duration unlike laboratory battery hookups. 6 if oxygen is introduced into the beaker exsperiment no, amino acids will form. Therefore your belief has no footing. My believe is in a creator but I understand not like many others that I have know or meet.

EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GOD. IT DOESNT DIS-CREDIT A GOD. IT MAKES NO MENTION OF IT, BECAUSE IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE.

Originally posted by Canopene
I can debunk every single article based upon evolution, so try me.

While this isn't normally my genre in the evolution threads, statements like this are just too good to pass up. Since you've set the bar so high for yourself, take a crack at this one: After multiple generations of exposure to xenobiotic compounds such as waste from nylon production, etc., certain varieties of bacteria have 'evolved' the ability to degrade compounds to which they've no previous exposure. The 'nylonase' enzymes in particular represent a great example of this. The origin of these enzymes is reasonably well known, and doesn't represent a 'loss of function' as is typically used to dismiss something like this as not being an example of evolution. This appears to be 'evolution,' by the stringent definition I restrict myself to: genuine 'creation' of new and useful genetic information. The bacteria that posses the ability to degrade nylon can use this as a sole source of carbon and nitrogen; perhaps you can describe how the input of new useful genetic information isn't an example of evolution.

Your other concerns deal with abiogenesis and not evolution.

[edit on 22-2-2005 by mattison0922]

[edit on 22-2-2005 by mattison0922]

Originally posted by mattison0922
After multiple generations of exposure to xenobiotic compounds such as waste from nylon production, etc., certain varieties of bacteria have 'evolved' the ability to degrade compounds to which they've no previous exposure.... This appears to be 'evolution,' by the stringent definition I restrict myself to: genuine 'creation' of new and useful genetic information. The bacteria that posses the ability to degrade nylon can use this as a sole source of carbon and nitrogen; perhaps you can describe how the input of new useful genetic information isn't an example of evolution.

But...but...how do we know it's new and not a 'sleeping' capability of the organism? Are you saying in no way could nylon ever be produced naturally? Wouldn't this be adaptation since it's not re-classifying itself as an organism?

Originally posted by saint4God
But...but...how do we know it's new and not a 'sleeping' capability of the organism? Are you saying in no way could nylon ever be produced naturally? Wouldn't this be adaptation since it's not re-classifying itself as an organism?

Hi Saint. Okay... a couple of different issues: 1. We are not talking about organisms producing nylon, only breaking down the waste products of nylon. 2. We know, or can speculate about the origin of the protein based on the DNA sequence. The origin of the protein, IMO, is reasonably well established. It seems to have arisen from a recombination event, the details of which, I don't believe are entirely relevant here in this thread. Your question about adaptation isn't unreasonable. I would tend to agree with you about this. I was going to withold my opinion and give.... whoever it was that made that statement about refuting every evolution article a chance to respond, but I don' t think that's going to happen. While this is an interesting an intriguing adaptation, and seemingly does represent an input of new and useful genetic information, this protein would be lost without other pre-existing pathways. The 'nylonase' adaptation confers the ability to use nylon waste as a sole carbon and nitrogen source, but does so only in the context of existing carbon and nitrogen assimilation pathways. This type of 'evolution' also is carried out via a mechanism not relevant in multi-cellular organisms... that is via lateral gene transfer. By lateral I mean within the same generation. It would be the equivalent of my forwarding you a copy of my eyesight gene to improve your vision. This type of gene transfer only occurs in microorganisms, and isn't relevant when talking about 'higher' multicellular species.

Originally posted by mattison0922
This type of gene transfer only occurs in microorganisms, and isn't relevant when talking about 'higher' multicellular species.

Which...kinda led me to another question. Could one consider bacteria to be alive? I know there's some debate on viruses but don't know of recent conclussions.

Thanks for the education as always.