Evolution Vs. God

UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by peter vlar

 

Ah, so you think an animal with a tail a 100 feet long describes something other than a dinosaur?

Ok.

No, I think you need to read Job again. It says he moves his tail like a cedar tree. It doesn't say his tail is as long as a cedar tree. Again, I'll say it...you are inputting your preconceived notions into a biblical text and claiming its true because god wrote it, which god did not.

As to your other criticism of me "crying", call it what you will. I'm going with 'I continue to call out people', whether it's you or Randy, who simply won't refute facts with facts. Instead you harp on one sentence or phrase, take it out of context and poof, you now have proof that everyone but you is wrong. Not true at all I'm afraid. In the instance I believe you are referring to, I was talking about the fact that I had used facts and instead of addressing them, he instead utilized an ad homonym attack against my education as a child. please... spare me your self pious homilies belted out from the pulpit of hypocrisy.

reply to post by peter vlar


You can have your take on it, but to compare an animals tail with a cedar moving seems poignant.

UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by peter vlar

 

You can have your take on it, but to compare an animals tail with a cedar moving seems poignant.

the book of Job is written primarily in the style of prose. the adjectives used to describe the behemoth and leviathan are meant to be metaphorical allegories. it was never meant to be taken literally.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

Well this is a new low. Not only are you trying to use the bible as proof but your even changing what it says to fit your argument. You may as well just write a whole new book and base your arguements on it.

daskakik
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

Well this is a new low. Not only are you trying to use the bible as proof but your even changing what it says to fit your argument. You may as well just write a whole new book and base your arguements on it.

edit on 11-9-2013 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

Isn't that pretty much where this thread is at by now? the ever swinging tides of the creationist argument are going to drown them eventually. they just won't notice it. Or maybe they will and think its heaven because they'll all be under water together.

UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by daskakik
Evolution says they change over millions of years so you don't go from lizard to bird without the inconvenience of non functioning legs.

You obviously under-estimate Evolution (no surprise here, really)...since Evolution will hardly induce anything which causes a hinderance or inconvenience. This would not be E-volution but degeneration, de-volution.

Why should a species find itself in an evolutionary process where, at some point, the appearance of the species would cause a significant DISADVANTAGE? This is what you for some reason assume.

You sound like there is evidence missing for "in-between" or "less perfect" species which evolved from ONE species, say reptiles, to another, like birds.

But there are countless examples for EXACTLY this...including what you presume is "inconvenient" stages in the evolution process:

As someone already pointed out, Archaeopterix was NOT a good flyer.

Early reptiles (sub-trees of them anyway) may have developed feathers since it had an ADVANTAGE, for example those reptiles jumped far distances to escape predators...feathers slowly and gradually helped them to jump farther, say, gliding etc. and to escape predators. BEFORE they even were able to actually "fly".

Even in a "between stage" where, say, feet may have been re-generated and slowly turned into wings, where the species had "less perfect feet" but also "less perfect wings"....the overall change was a POSITIVE and advantageous since (in our example of reptile ---> bird) it may have allowed the animal to jump further or maybe to glide while escaping. So even the IN-BETWEEN STAGE, even before they were able to actively fly, there was a benefit to the species how it was before. (If there wouldn't have been an advantage, why should it have evolved there in the first place? Evolution would not make sense if on the way to "get wings" it would mean to endure a million of years of a serious handicap and problems for life due to feet de-generating...but this is exactly what you state..however you oversee that there was ALWAYS a benefit as compared to earlier, regardless of the stage of the species).

Even Archaeopterix, as one pretty lame and bad flyer had significant advantages over its ancestor.

YOU...need to stop looking for the "imperfect" , dis-functional intermediate stages of species between. You will NEVER find them. Evolution doesn't work that way. But you pick out this simple fact, pointing out there are no imperfect intermediate species and see it as proof that someone created the species. And again you take basic facts of evolution and HOW evolution works..and use it as evidence for religion.

UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by peter vlar

 

You can have your take on it, but to compare an animals tail with a cedar moving seems poignant.

By poignant do you mean pungently pervasive? If so, then yes I agree. If Behemoth is a dinosaur them how is it still alive preparing to battle the Leviathon during the end times? You can't throw Job under the bus and neglect Enoch!

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


Enough about evolution for the moment. Since you're clearly so much smarter than us, how about you explain to us why you think God is a much better answer to all of the questions you've been asking. How is God a realistically more feasible theory than evolution?

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Because it's the truth evidenced by the complex, interdependent world we live in, and I have given many examples of that system. You and I will not agree on this. I respect your right to your views, but they are not backed up by observable scientific facts.

I will not pretend I can display the Creator Himself, but I am sure one day you will meet Him, and I do hope you enjoy the experience.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

Because it's the truth evidenced by the complex, interdependent world we live in

Okay. For those not paying attention, this quote ^ is a direct response to this question from me:

Enough about evolution for the moment. Since you're clearly so much smarter than us, how about you explain to us why you think God is a much better answer to all of the questions you've been asking. How is God a realistically more feasible theory than evolution?

^ That is the question being answered. Now, back to Serenity's response...

Because it's the truth evidenced by the complex, interdependent world we live in, and I have given many examples of that system. You and I will not agree on this. I respect your right to your views, but they are not backed up by observable scientific facts.

And God is? Okay, now it's your turn to post your version of god theory and let us chew it over. You've spent enough time on the offensive, let's turn the tables a bit.

I will not pretend I can display the Creator Himself, but I am sure one day you will meet Him, and I do hope you enjoy the experience.

I might, but I'm not sure he would.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

32 pages to finally accept that it is nothing more than opinion with no way to prove it.

Oh well.

UnifiedSerenity

 

Ok, lots to address in your short post. 1. Scientists manipulating things is intelligence.

You are talking about flu bacteria? No, scientists are not manipulating it, it is evolving and trying to survive... Scientists are actually trying to kill it. Do you get flu shot?

UnifiedSerenity

 

2. show me the chicken turning into a dino.

If you followed the link and watched Ted Talk video, you will see that they are working on it. Now question for you, do you think it is moral if they can revive some of dinosaurs or for example elephant close cousin mammoth? Guess who is first to object to this kind of researches, and guess why.

UnifiedSerenity

 

3. show me life evolving anywhere and not just speculating some meteor did it. I mean according to Darwin you and a banana are related.

Sure, check this article. Not how isolated life evolved separately from the rest of planet. Wonder what is going to be your response.

And single question to you - how old is Earth? Let's start from simple things...

UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

Because it's the truth evidenced by the complex, interdependent world we live in, and I have given many examples of that system. You and I will not agree on this. I respect your right to your views, but they are not backed up by observable scientific facts.

I will not pretend I can display the Creator Himself, but I am sure one day you will meet Him, and I do hope you enjoy the experience.

So you lose the argument and condemn him to hell your funny. As ive told you many times complexity doesnt prove the existence of god. Lets discuss the tactics you have been using for a minute. You make assertions with no basis in facts and you believe if you prove science wrong somehow this proves god did it. First even if you proved evolution wrong 2 things would happen one you would get a Nobel prize and second you would show science needs to reevaluate its conclusion. However you wouldnt prove there was a god. Do you know why no one can disprove god exists? The problem is hes undefined and no matter what we prove like he doesnt make the sun rise etc the goal posts just move.

It is not possible to prove that God does not exist, if “God” is a thing that has no definition, no characteristics, and no location.So in effect you cant prove a mythical creature doesnt exist but on the flip side takes proof to show they do. So where is your proof god exists,you quote the bible to prove he exists you realize i can use this same logic to prove Thor exists. For that matter i can prove unicorns exist there is plenty of historical references to them. So from know on before you post anything if unicorn works equally as well its probably not proof. Heres an example DNA is very complex has a code and requires intelligence to create it there fore it must be made by a unicorn. See not proof bye for now night all.

daskakik
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

Well this is a new low. Not only are you trying to use the bible as proof but your even changing what it says to fit your argument. You may as well just write a whole new book and base your arguements on it.

edit on 11-9-2013 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

isnt that what christers have done from the beginning? change it to fit their view point?

take the law. jesus says the law is in effect till heaven and earth pass away. then saul/paul, who never even met jesus, says the law is not in effect, contradicting the words of jesus. not only that, but jesus condemned the pharisees for following and changing tradition, rather than keeping the law, which is what chistians do today.

the catholics created the bible. they collected and kept all religious material for nearly a thousand years, then martin luther came along and threw 7 books away. what was that in revelations about "do not add or subtract" from the bible?

then you have the kjv rewrite, the mormon rewrite, the jehovahs witness rewrite, etc.

shouldnt the "one true religion" be slightly more uniform, without so many different flavors?

reply to post by stormson


First of all, my take on it is not unusual. Secondly, I don't believe Paul was even an Apostle, but a fifth column insert, and there are many ancient texts that prove the bible has been very well preserved through time, though the RCC certainly has put in their changes which are evident if one compares a Jewish bible to an RCC bible.

You can be as snide and assuming of me as you want, but you really don't have a clue as to what I believe. I am not changing the texts, I am simply pointing to one that shows a comparison of an animals tail to a cedar tree. If you want to pretend that does not indicate long length because it says movement, fine. I think it's rather telling its a cedar tree that is very long and sways.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity





the bible says that insects have 4 legs and that bats are birds. can you really use it for science with such glaring inaccuracies?

UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by stormson

 

First of all, my take on it is not unusual. Secondly, I don't believe Paul was even an Apostle, but a fifth column insert, and there are many ancient texts that prove the bible has been very well preserved through time, though the RCC certainly has put in their changes which are evident if one compares a Jewish bible to an RCC bible.

You can be as snide and assuming of me as you want, but you really don't have a clue as to what I believe. I am not changing the texts, I am simply pointing to one that shows a comparison of an animals tail to a cedar tree. If you want to pretend that does not indicate long length because it says movement, fine. I think it's rather telling its a cedar tree that is very long and sways.

Ok using the bible i can prove job wasnt referring to a dinosaur, first there were no people around when dinosaurs existed. But as i said the bible itself tells us about this behemoth it said it eats grass like an ox. Well this presents a problem dinosaurs jaws made it incapable of eating grass like an ox there jaws only move up and down like a crocodile.Ever watch a cow eat grass its jaws are capable of a circular motion much like ours. There where dinosaurs that were herbivores but what your fellow creationists arent telling you is do to there jaws only moving up and down they would rake leaves off branches, then swallow the leaves whole no chewing involved. Does that sound like an ox eating grass they chew there food because they have a jaw capable of circular motion.

Since apparently you have been learning alot about dinosaurs you didnt know lately ill explain how dinosaurs processed vegetation. As i said there teeth were like a rake stripping leaves off the branches,then they would swallow these leaves. In order to "chew" the food they swallowed, they had to swallow stones (called "gastroliths") that traveled through the necks and into the gizzard area. There, the stones help to grind their food by mashing plant matter into a digestible pulp with the help of special muscles found inside of the gizzards.Amazingly who else has gizzards oh yeah birds because they cant chew there food either.

So in conclusion what ever animal job was describing it wasnt a dinosaur.So apparently since creation they didnt exist we have no mention of them. You think they would at least be mentioned by Noah wouldnt you. I guess they didnt get the invitation but wait didnt god say two of each species hmmmm very confusing.

UnifiedSerenity, why did you not answer my question?

How old is planed we all call home?

In the time of great scientific breakthroughs, you, who call your self christian just because you were born at given place and time (you would be Muslim if you were born in Arabia or Hindu if you were born in India) are trying to prove your old 'all knowing' book has all answers.

But do you know that old testament, if you referring to original and unchanged bible orders you to kill you neighbor if he works on Sunday? Do you know that book you keep so close to 'book of everything' has detailed instruction how to keep slaves? And you base your morality on it?!

SuperFrog

You are talking about flu bacteria? No, scientists are not manipulating it, it is evolving and trying to survive... Scientists are actually trying to kill it. Do you get flu shot?

A. It's still a flu
B. I never get a flu shot and I haven't gotten a flu in years.

If you followed the link and watched Ted Talk video, you will see that they are working on it. Now question for you, do you think it is moral if they can revive some of dinosaurs or for example elephant close cousin mammoth? Guess who is first to object to this kind of researches, and guess why.

You mean mix their dna with something alive and try to "clone" it? Yes, I do have a problem with it from a biblical point of view. I would think that science that believes in natural selection would respect that because since man didn't wipe them out according to you guys, then nature selected them to die off. They are not meant to be here.

Sure, check this article. Not how isolated life evolved separately from the rest of planet. Wonder what is going to be your response.

Life did not evolve there, it just got "sealed" in and hasn't gotten out to adapt to our present world. There is zero proof of macro-evolution. I do think it might be interesting to study the differences in that life, but it does not prove evolution.

And single question to you - how old is Earth? Let's start from simple things...

Well, I don't think we really can date it. There have been at least two ages which is spoken of in Genesis 1:1-2. This age is probably around not older than 10k. The age before that though could be millions of years. That time was utterly destroyed, it became without form and was made void and God put this current age in place.

stormson
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

the bible says that insects have 4 legs and that bats are birds. can you really use it for science with such glaring inaccuracies?

It is very precise when describing insects, and using the phrase "on all fours" is reference to 'walking around' vs jumping, such as grasshoppers, whose 2 large hind legs are different in appearance, size, and function from the front four legs. Their front legs are used for "crawling, clinging, and climbing," while their back legs rest "above" their front legs and feet, and are used for "jumping." The Biblical description turns out to be exactly anatomically correct!

Note this verse:

Lev 11:21 except that of all winged swarming creatures that go on all fours, you may eat those that have jointed legs above their feet, enabling them to jump off the ground.
Lev 11:22 Specifically, of these you may eat the various kinds of locusts, grasshoppers, katydids and crickets.


The various animal kinds had not been "scientifically" separated when the bible was written. The verse:

Deu 14:11 "You may eat any clean bird;

Let's start with the simple answer. Obviously, Linnean classification was not available in the time of the writing of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and the scientific definition of what a "bird" was did not exist either.

Classification of animals and things was made by different means: function or form. In this case, the word we render birds means simply "owner of a wing", the word being 'owph, which comes from a root word which means to cover or to fly.

The category of 'owph includes birds, bats, and certain insects. It would also have included pterosaurs, if they had been around. Even modern ecologists classify water-dwelling life in a very similar way according to their mode of living: plankton (floaters/drifters), nekton (swimmers) and benthos (bottom-dwellers).

A reader added this point: Bible critics think so much about the Class level that they forget that according to their own Scientific Classification chart, animals must be grouped by Phylum first. Thus:

Phylum: Chordata: (11:13-19) / Phylum: Arthropoda (11:20-23)

The above (13-19) is the logical, taxonomic grouping of the bat with the bird. Now, we divide by Class:

Class: Reptilia (13-19-) / Class: Mammalia (-19)

With regards to this, Leviticus is in accordance with the Scientific Classification chart.

source