It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Absolute Power of Christianity!

page: 23
7
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
Perhaps Im sounding a little negative, but what if we just believed anything and everything. If there was any proof at all of God I would believe but to date I have not found any so I will remain Agnostic. You may think I am not looking but if God wanted me to believe wouldn't he/she/it tell me?


A connecting relationship requires movement on the part of both parties involved. It's good to hear you're open for the idea, that in itself is preparation to accept truth when it's presented I think. Did you ask God to let you know He exists? If He does not, nothing lost right? We all have our 'demand for a sign' myself was included in that. My advice though is to keep an open mind and be patient. There's certainly more you can do to facilitate the search, but I think it's a good start. I'd also be willing to provide any more help I can to get you that proof, just let me know if you're interested.


Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
That is the exact opposite of what I'm trying to say. Accusations must be assumed false until proven true. That sounds like innocent until proven guilty to me.


Paradigm I guess. Consider me your neighbor on the other side of the fence.



[edit on 28-6-2005 by saint4God]




posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
Theories are not human, and they do not feel feelings. As a result, innocent until proven guilty should not be applied.


I'm wondering how you have enough energy to make it through the day. The presumption of falseness does two things; first, it places the burdon of proving something onto the person who makes the claim. Since time and effort must be expended to prove things, people will only propose those things that they have a reason to propose. Second, if the burdon is reversed, then an often impossible obligation is put on everyone else of proving a negative.

Note that what's going on here is really the presumption of guilt (that any given hypothesis is false) rather than the presumption of innocence. We can get away with that because as you mentioned, people are not at stake.


Originally posted by junglejake
Many claim evolution is one of those theories. Other, less intellectually honest folk, say it has been proven, though, which is false as well.


"Proof", in the sense it is used in science, is not the same as logical proof. It is merely a preponderance of evidence, much like in court. Are you suggesting that there is not a preponderance of evidence that species evolve?



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 02:58 PM
link   
ok I have a question, if evolution is true, then how do you determine what is right and what is wrong?
and by that I mean, where is the standard?



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by expert999
ok I have a question, if evolution is true, then how do you determine what is right and what is wrong?
and by that I mean, where is the standard?


Evolution has no say in what's right or wrong, merely proposes the idea of how things came to change biologically. Christians typically have two schools of thought on the subject:

1.)God can create life through a natural process such as evolution

or

2.)God's creation came through miracle. That is, science which we've yet to understand that goes beyond the boundries of the laws we know of today.

Which is it? I don't know. After the years of university teaching though, I don't think evolution has a leg to stand on yet. Pun intended. Data gaps and many exceptions to the rule make one wonder if there even is a rule. There's a lot of assuming going on to be considered a science from my observations. Contrary to popular belief, one does not have to bring up God to counter evolution.

[edit on 28-6-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by expert999
ok I have a question, if evolution is true, then how do you determine what is right and what is wrong?
and by that I mean, where is the standard?


From the Indian Vedas of course. The only two possibilities are that evolution is true and morality originates from the Indian Vedas, or evolution is false and morality was handed down to us from aliens.

These are the only two possibilities. If you disagree, it's because you have a different wolrd view, not because there's anything wrong with my reasoning.



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by junglejake
Theories are not human, and they do not feel feelings. As a result, innocent until proven guilty should not be applied.


I'm wondering how you have enough energy to make it through the day. The presumption of falseness does two things; first, it places the burdon of proving something onto the person who makes the claim. Since time and effort must be expended to prove things, people will only propose those things that they have a reason to propose. Second, if the burdon is reversed, then an often impossible obligation is put on everyone else of proving a negative.


Er...I thought that's what I had said. However, y'all got me wondering why you're wondering how I have enought energy to make it through the day. I don't think I've been complaining online about the massive influx of worthless, boring meetings at work the past few weeks...

I will, however, say there's not a preponderance of evidence that species macro evolve.


From the Indian Vedas of course. The only two possibilities are that evolution is true and morality originates from the Indian Vedas, or evolution is false and morality was handed down to us from aliens.

These are the only two possibilities. If you disagree, it's because you have a different wolrd view, not because there's anything wrong with my reasoning.


Can you justify that? I have no idea what you're talking about, largely because I have no idea what the Indian Vedas is, but I'm guessing its a religious text.

Also, for someone who seems really upset at willing ignorance, you certainly make a point of discounting any possibility of God. After all, it's either the Indian Vedas with evolution or it's aliens, only two options, no space for God. Is it not possible, just possible, that you could be wrong in your assumption that there is no God figure?



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Saint, I will always have an open mind for God, but I doubt you will suddenly change my mind. Even if everything in the Bible is true it could easily be attributed to Aliens. I'm not even saying God doesn't exist, just that maybe we haven't met it yet.

I hope you have an open mind towards evolution, or The Big Bang. I will continue to learn as much as I can, and hope you do. Maybe sometime within my lifetime we will find bacteria on Mars, to change my beliefs completely.

If you wish to share your proof, then by all means do.



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
Er...I thought that's what I had said. However, y'all got me wondering why you're wondering how I have enought energy to make it through the day. I don't think I've been complaining online about the massive influx of worthless, boring meetings at work the past few weeks...


Sorry I guess I misunderstood. I thought you were saying that hypotheses should not be assumed false by default.


Originally posted by junglejake
I will, however, say there's not a preponderance of evidence that species macro evolve.


What do you mean by 'macro' evolve?


Originally posted by junglejake
Can you justify that? I have no idea what you're talking about, largely because I have no idea what the Indian Vedas is, but I'm guessing its a religious text.


Of course I can't justify it. But why should I have to?


Originally posted by junglejake
Also, for someone who seems really upset at willing ignorance, you certainly make a point of discounting any possibility of God. After all, it's either the Indian Vedas with evolution or it's aliens, only two options, no space for God. Is it not possible, just possible, that you could be wrong in your assumption that there is no God figure?


According to my world view, I'm right by definition, so no, I don't allow for the possibility that I'm wrong. It's a wonderfully consistent position that you can't possibly argue me out of since to do so violates the fundamental premise of "I'm always right".



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
Saint, I will always have an open mind for God, but I doubt you will suddenly change my mind.


I know I can't change your mind, but can hope and pray that you'd get the proof you need soon. In the meanwhile, I'll offer to help you get connected. Just let me know what you need. If you're not sure what you need, a good place to start is by trying to identify what obstacles are in the way.


Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
Even if everything in the Bible is true it could easily be attributed to Aliens.


I think it best then to do a side-by-side comparrison of what we know as aliens and what we know as God. So far, there seems to be an incredible mis-match but I can say God is probably 'alien' to a lot of what we know. He Himself says His thoughts are not our thoughts, etc. On the other hand, He does exhibit a lot of qualities we know as humans too. Love, conversation, planning, etc. So my conclusion would be that we a bit like Him and there are some 'alien' qualities we've yet to uncover.


Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
I'm not even saying God doesn't exist, just that maybe we haven't met it yet.


That's a fair, open-minded statement in my opinion. Again, I'm here to try to help establish that link. I've talked with Him, felt him, come to know a lot, and heard him (but not through the ears). The rest is faith. Looking forward to meeting in person.


Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
I hope you have an open mind towards evolution, or The Big Bang. I will continue to learn as much as I can, and hope you do. Maybe sometime within my lifetime we will find bacteria on Mars, to change my beliefs completely.

If you wish to share your proof, then by all means do.


I have an open mind towards evolution and The Big Bang. Too gappy for me to be convinced of evolution and was a supporter of The Big Bang until recent info stating red-shift spectroscopy is showing that the universe is not expanding from an epicenter. Whooboy, rock my scientific world baby! So now what?

Funny you should mention bacteria on Mars, I did a research paper on it my junior year at the university. Fascinating topic. Based on that, I'll say there is a good probability that bacteria exists or existed in either the ice caps or salt deposits there. Let's go get 'em. Er...how would that change your beliefs completely?

Pray, train, study,
God bless.


[edit on 29-6-2005 by saint4God]

[edit on 29-6-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 12:39 PM
link   


What do you mean by 'macro' evolve?


macro evoution would be the change from one KIND of animal or plant to a different KIND of animal or plant.

micro evolution is in fact scientific. there are different species of the same kind. in other words a variety of the same kind. kinda like small dog big dog, different types of dogs but they are all the same KIND of animal.

people have seen a certain dog give birth to a litter of puppies and have one or so of those puppies be a different kind of dog. like a golden retriever mated with a chocolate lab and got all black labs.

this is an example of micro evolution. why they call it that, I dont know. its just a variation within the KIND of animal. they are still dogs, the only thing that changed was the color of their fur. thats all. there are white people and black people but they are of the same blood.



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by expert999
micro evolution is in fact scientific. there are different species of the same kind. in other words a variety of the same kind. kinda like small dog big dog, different types of dogs but they are all the same KIND of animal.


Hey, that's a clever example!


I just wanted to flesh out my comment about macro evolution. There is tons of experimental data showing microevolution taking place. Fruit flies are fantastic for this kind of research because you get a new generation every day and can simulate thousands of generations in a very brief amount of time. Various traits can be added or taken away simply by changing the environment or seporating individual insects for breeding to bring out the trait looked for. There was even a study recently where scientists were able to breed gay fruitflies...They didn't last too long after that, though


Yet, with all those experiments, all those millions of generations being put through the ropes forcing evolution, never, I repeat, never has a friut fly ever given birth to anything but another fruit fly.

Because I'm a conservative, I'll use conservative figures in the following example (totally unrelated, but that statement amused me so I put it to words
)

Let's just take a small subset of this research, and say there have been many experiments with fruit flies which have generated over 1000 generations. In those 1000 generations, never was another species generated. So in 1000 generations there was no instance of macro evolution. Let's apply that to some of the higher animals.

The Jaguar has a lifespan of 11 years in the wild, begins mating around the age of 2, and it takes about 6 months for the little buddy to be born. If we take the one day generations from fruit flies and apply it to the Jaguar, it would take, under optimal conditions, 730,000 years to have 1000 generations of Jaguars. As I said, very many experiments were done, many of which extended beyond 1000 generations. Humans take quite a bit longer to reach 1000 years, figuring a new generation every 20 years. In 7,300,000 years, humanity will have 1000 generations. Yet, according to the current old-earth geologic model, humans as we know them have only been around for about 100,000 years, mutation from chimps taking roughly 1.73 million years. Yet, it has experimentally been shown that, even under conditions forcing evolution, a species will not transition to a new species in 1000 generations. Heck, we could even extend human development into the Piacenzian era and it still wouldn't account for the 7.3 million years. Also note, 1000 generations isn't the point where you achieve macro evolution. 1000 generations have been consistantly proven through experimentation to not be enough generations to create a new species.

That's what I meant by macro evolution, and it's things like what I just stated that prevent me from buying into the macro evolution theory.



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by expert999



What do you mean by 'macro' evolve?


macro evoution would be the change from one KIND of animal or plant to a different KIND of animal or plant.


By KIND, do you mean species?



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
Yet, with all those experiments, all those millions of generations being put through the ropes forcing evolution, never, I repeat, never has a friut fly ever given birth to anything but another fruit fly.


Although what you're saying is probably true, the mechanism you are speaking of with regard to fruit flies is not the only mechanism proposed for evolution.

However, groups of fruit flies have become gradually distinct enough that they can no longer reproduce with other groups, thus classifying them as new species of fruit flies.

You seem to be implying that species are quantized, when in reality there is quite a bit of fuzziness in the distinction between species. Small changes do not generally prohibit reproduction, but an accumulation of small changes can - as in the case of fruit flies.

Generally, one specimen does not spawn a new specimen of a different species, yet a new species can arrise all the same.

Much more dramatic changes have been directly observed with plants than fruit flies.

If you want to see how much slop there is in the reproductive process, breed a horse with a donkey. Horses and donkeys are certainly related, but by no means could you consider them the same species, yet they can still reproduce together. Not only that, but the resulting mule is on very rare occasion fertile!

Even within humans, people born with trisomy disorders (an extra chromosome) are sometimes fertile.

Another example are various ring species. These are species, let's call them A, B, and C, where A and B are close enough to inter breed, and B and C are close enough to inter breed, but A and C can not.

But anyone who is seriously looking at the science already knows these things.



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
I know I can't change your mind, but can hope and pray that you'd get the proof you need soon. In the meanwhile, I'll offer to help you get connected. Just let me know what you need. If you're not sure what you need, a good place to start is by trying to identify what obstacles are in the way.

Maybe if you told me why you believe(I know its not that simple) it could give me a different perpspective. Could you tell me why you hope it happens soon?




I've talked with Him, felt him, come to know a lot, and heard him (but not through the ears).


When you talk to God that is perfectly normal, but when he talks back people call you crazy. Do you think God told Adolph Hitler to slaughter millions of jews?


I have an open mind towards evolution and The Big Bang. Too gappy for me to be convinced of evolution and was a supporter of The Big Bang until recent info stating red-shift spectroscopy is showing that the universe is not expanding from an epicenter. Whooboy, rock my scientific world baby! So now what?

Even if the Big Bang is totally and completely false, when we discover new information a new theory will build upon the throey of The Big Bang in a way that makes sense. In that way I see that science can never be wrong because it is always changing.



Er...how would that change your beliefs completely?

Well maybe not my beliefs but I would view, or do things very differently. Just think about how it would affect humanity. Even if it is only bacteria, then "little green men" would be taken more seriously. Maybe we would feel more united as mankind and stop foolishly fighting countless wars that accomplish nothing.



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 04:10 PM
link   
I don't know about the groups of fruit flies being categorized as a new species because they could not reproduce with other groups of fruit flies, so I'm not going to address that before getting some research in.

In a lab where evolutionary testing is being done on fruit flies, the conditions are ideal. In the one study I mentioned where they were breeding gay fruit flies, the scientists actually modified the genetic code, thereby forcing a mutation on the fruit fly's very building blocks, its DNA. Other tests involve various environments, from extreme heat, cold, wet, dry, oxygen rich environment, oxygen poor environment, simulated altitudes, various vegetation, various predators introduced into the closed environment, etc. Still other tests simply segregate the flies based on physical or anatomical characteristics and breed them in that manner. There are also tests which combine all these factors.

On top of all this, they also have a control group, a family of fruit flies not effected by these induced stimuli. It's interesting to note that these control groups generally stay diversely uniform.

From what I understand, these are the three key factors in evolution: environment, random mutation, and breeding patterns. All have been simulated for millions of generations of fruit flies, yet never, be it gradual or spontaneous, have the fruit flies become something else. They never developed a digestive system and mouth to extend their lives. They never consistently developed a mutation such as 4 wings instead of two. Eye color has changed, size has changed, sexual preference has changed, but the taxonomical traits remain unchanged. Even if some groups couldn't mate with other groups, you said it yourself: some groups of fruit flies were unable to mate effectively with other groups of fruit flies. (Had to paraphrase, thread's too long for me to scroll down and snag your exact words).



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
They never developed a digestive system and mouth to extend their lives. They never consistently developed a mutation such as 4 wings instead of two....


If such changes were observed, would that then convince you?

Also, must such an observation apply to fruit flies specifically, or would such changes in another species be acceptable?



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 04:40 PM
link   
I want to start out by saying I am not a taxonomist, so I couldn't make the determination of micro vs. macro based on differences in an animal's biology.

What would convince me marco evolution can and does happen is if a new species, classified by a reliable taxonomist (multiple would be prefered), in a lab environment where its generation had been recorded, were to develop from another species. I don't mean circle A mating with circle B creating D, for example the horse, donkey and mule.

It doesn't have to be fruit flies, I would just expect that fruit flies would be the most likely to display such change considering the length of each generation and how quickly they can mix it up with their gene pool.

Also, I'm not talking about mutants. I'm talking about a new species which is fully capable of breeding and propogating its own species. Not the chance mermaid baby or anything. Reproducable.



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 05:31 PM
link   
for those who dont know what a KIND is, its kinda hard to put it in words, but its like a horse and a zebra. they are the same kind of animal, but different species.
a dog and a wolf are two of the same KIND but two different species.
if they are in the same KIND then they can bring forth and produce offspring.

like a dog and a wolf can bring forth.
and dog and a horse cannot
a dog and a cat cannot.

now I dont know if a dog and fox can bring forth, but if they can then they are of the same kind. humans and apes seem pretty close according to the DNA, very close.
but if a guy with a sick mind were to get jiggy with an ape, he would not get a baby tarzan or a baby ape, or a baby that is half nam half ape.
it wont happen. there would be no offspring...

animals within a kind can bring forth. different species withing a kind can bring forth.

you cannot take two KINDS of animals and get offspring.

a KIND is simply

a horse and a zebra is the best example I can think of.



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
Maybe if you told me why you believe(I know its not that simple) it could give me a different perpspective. Could you tell me why you hope it happens soon?


I can give you a short version and offer to e-mail the descriptive version on word .doc . I'd gone through a lengthy depression because of the conclussion that when we die, we cease to exist. Okay, fine, that sucks and so planned to end it early to find out. Not knowing was tearing me apart. But, what if killing myself was the wrong thing to do and there was some kind of supernatural power? At the time, I was frustrated with Christianity, having stopped going to Sunday School and Church out of boredom and other factors years ago. I didn't really go long or consistently anyhow. I was fascinated with mythology and the appeal of many gods I thought was pretty cool. Still, I saw none of it and became angry. I did an incredibly stupid thing to do that I hope no-one repeats. I'd challenged anything that existed beyond the human realm to show itself and I would believe. Well, seems someone took up the offer and spent the next few weeks trying to get away. A pastor took notice and asked what was wrong. I thought, what the @#$* and told him what was going on. I got into desperate circumstances again and did as he said (similar to what's in my signature line). The change is indescribable. I can't even begin. There's a whole lot more to it, but that's the pre-cursor and the event. Afterwards was validations, communications, and miraculous 'coincidences'.



When you talk to God that is perfectly normal, but when he talks back people call you crazy. Do you think God told Adolph Hitler to slaughter millions of jews?


Hehe, yeah, when God 'says' something I stand there with a blank look going "what the?" Anywho, sure, I'm crazy whatever. What I do know is what I hear is also already written down in that Book so don't think I'm going off on my own here. Also, there must be a lot of 'crazies' like me who can describe these things letter-by-letter and talk of similar experiences. Sometimes the message is clear as a bell, sometimes it takes a few days to figure out. The longest one I couldn't figure out on my own so I went around saying "if someone said to you (this), what do you think it means?" Blammo, got the answer, it fits, it makes sense, and thankfully can apply it now. Life is easier when you're getting info on what you're supposed to be doing. I'm starting to carry on here. If you want to know specifically what was said, I can quote it to you on a U2U. I don't want to throw myself in-front of the butcher knives here. Nothing earth-shattering for mankind, but very very important for me and those around me.



Even if the Big Bang is totally and completely false, when we discover new information a new theory will build upon the throey of The Big Bang in a way that makes sense. In that way I see that science can never be wrong because it is always changing.


Sometimes you just have to scrap the whole fraekin' thing and start over. Why are scientists so bent on the idea that you can't change the fundamentals. Panspermia, lead to gold, phlogiston, geocentric universe, fever vs. cold, etc. C'mon, for crying out loud science prides itself on being right so why hold on to bad foundations?



Well maybe not my beliefs but I would view, or do things very differently. Just think about how it would affect humanity. Even if it is only bacteria, then "little green men" would be taken more seriously. Maybe we would feel more united as mankind and stop foolishly fighting countless wars that accomplish nothing.


I don't understand. I'm not sure how life on Mars changes anything. I guess because I've never written the chapter in my book as to what's there so all I have to do is pen it in. *shrug*

I think it'd be kinda cool if God created a bunch of other planets and interacted with them in His way then eventually invites them in on a meeting whether by 'chance' or His arrangement. We'll find out I guess.



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by expert999

you cannot take two KINDS of animals and get offspring.



That seems like a concrete definition that's applicable for organisms that reproduce sexually.

If there are cases of such a high degree of speciation happening under a witnessed scenario (lab or nature) that interbreeding is no longer fruitfull, would that be enough to establish the principle of kind evolving from kind?



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join