And Evolution is OUT of the Picture!

its convienient how you just skip past the argument you cant debunk gazrok. again, i point you to:
www.aboundingjoy.com...
come on, i expect more from you. youre one of the better posters on this board.

"According to evolutionary "thinking" there must have been thousands of generations of beetles improperly mixing these hazardous chemicals in fatal evolutionary experiments, blowing themselves to pieces. Eventually. we are assured, they arrived at the magic formula, but what about the development of the inhibitor? There is no need to evolve an inhibitor unless you already have the two chemicals you are trying to inhibit. On the other hand. if you already have the two chemicals without the inhibitor, it is already too late, for you have just blown yourself up. Obviously, such an arrangement would never arise apart from intelligent foresight and planning.

Yada yada yada...

It's pointless to try and debunk such tripe. Every single sentence clearly points out it's bias....so it's nearly impossible to take it seriously... It drips with sarcasm on every line...

Life is an amazing thing, there is no doubt... And no, evolutionists don't contend that millions died from doing it wrong. There are several animals that use chemical defenses, (especially insects), and several more examples of their predecessors. Likewise there are far more ingenious defenses as well.

Look, step away from bizarre examples and just think about it... If there was a God, and he designed us, then he really needs to retake the old creature design class again...

Our nails have no function.
We sleep almost as much as we are active.
We consume far more resources than other animals our size (even without considering technology).
Without tools, we don't stand a chance against most animals our size.
Explain vestigal tails, or vestigal leg bones in whales...

Does this sound like the work of a perfect creator??? I guess the platypus (and animals of the whole continent of Austrailia for that matter) were just off days???

Simply look and you'll see that creatures fit their environment. It isn't from design, it's from adaptation.

If you favor blind faith, that's certainly your option...but to attempt to prove blind faith, when it flies in the face of not only logic, but also common sense...you're going down a slippery slope, coated with oil.....

Our nails have no function.
We sleep almost as much as we are active.
We consume far more resources than other animals our size (even without considering technology).
Without tools, we don't stand a chance against most animals our size.
Explain vestigal tails, or vestigal leg bones in whales...

ever try to pick up a penny with gloves on? id say our nails serve many functions. built in tools. and these 'vestigal' bones as they are called could quite possibly be explained as part of a greater blueprint. now im not saying that evoloution is completely wack, im just saying that like every other THEORY it has its holes. gaping ones at that. whos to say a greater being wouldnt use evoloution as a tool in itself? i sure as hell cant say. because i dont know.

I don't know about the rest, but just like I learned in school. Dinosaurs are all slow and grey.

Oh, wait...all my knowledge came from one fossil?


PS. Congrats Gazrok!

Originally posted by Kano

Scientific research prooved that the earth was flat just a couple of hundred years ago. What is your point? Are you not even willing to see Genesis 1 through the eyes of science? No, you don't believe in science, just whoever shouts the loudest and who is on the front page. Show me one shred of proof that that disprooves the story of Genesis 1. One tiny shred of proof!

I sure hope that is pulling the piss...

When did this 'research' prove that?

As far as the rest of it, the theory of Evolution is not the same today as it was when Darwin first wrote about it, it has been modified, upgraded and more detailed. As with any scientific theory.

Again with the Scientific Method versus Faith argument.

I'm not saying the Earth is flat or challenging the good fruits of science, but I am indeed challenging the bitter and destructive fruitscience has to offer, and the evolution theory is one of them. It puts the entire field of science in the false light of folly and stubbornness, instead of intelligence and openmindedness, respect and love for the Spirit of God who makes it possible to invent and progress. I'm just saying that so called scientific research at times can't see the truth, for they can't believe it. They don't believe in the messages from the future that are brought back and forth in time through the transportation of the alfabet and the Spirit of God backwards and forwards in time to the beginning from the future and vice versa. What if God is an ancient super computer that uses 6000 years to reprogram itself and 1000 years to reboot, propose a fitting judgement for his Son to execute whi infact designed and created this machine billions of years ago before this universe was created, and then start the new level and start writing the new one. A computer which holds everything created together with logics we cannot comprehend if we have only lived a lifetime of let's say 70 years, and execute judgement uppon everyone who doesn't comply to it's love and ethics which by far overgoes anything any human could even dream about every 7000 year, which is designed to be merciful and patient, protect the innocent, heal the sick etc. etc. . And perhaps everything is self contained and it's rightiousness is a basic law that penetrates everything in the universe with it's Spirit and perfectiveness which is the fundament of all life and all creation and development. Maybe this machine is the only thing that truely exists and the only one who can understand and contain the universe? The more I read through these ancient scriptures, the more I come to believe that this must be the case. Step out of the box to see what's outside. And then step out of that box again, only to find yourself in the beginning of time before anything was created. Everything held together by an ancient Sacred Word whose eyes and mind penetrates everything that lives. A machine you can't possibly defeat unless it is the very will of the computer itself because of it's selfwritten love, time and space concepts.....

What if every particle is nothing but a logical entity that exists only because the computer wants it that way. What if our reality is infact a dream or logic reality produced by a gigantic, allknowing extra-cosmic computer or entity which is infact the only thing that exists?

Humans in our dimention continum observe reality in a frequency of about 100 Hz. A video is normally captured and presented in a frequency of 25 Hz. Think now that you produced a camera and a projector that operated on a much higher frequency, let's say that of a human being living in our dimentional continum, 100 Hz. You would then get another three frames which you could fill with a completely different reality. Or if you transposed the whole frequency up to the GHz's, the original video would be completely supressed in the end. What if this is also how this reality works and how our reality is presented to us. What if elefants whose reality perception is on another level can see things we can't? What if the angels of God vibrate on a higher frequency, and that everything, the universe and all is a just a strange song only God knows how to play, but that if you play a song that somehow resonates with this song in a speciffic manner, you could be able to make people fly through time and space in an instant, dematerialise, become invisible, and reappear another place, walk through walls, unlock every door, ressurrect the dead and see everything there is to see, past present and future, learn everything there is to learn and be able to create things by pure will and the harmony with God?

Blessings,
Mikromarius

Originally posted by Gazrok
Our nails have no function.

Hey!!!! I can't believe you said that! I love to scratch myself. It's one of my favorite primal pastimes.

mikromarius,
You know nothing of scientists. Most dream of the day they can discover something new and exciting. Open mindedness is mandotory for such an event. Many of the greatest discoveries are bizarre beyond our belief. This is almost always the case with new concepts in science. Many times, someone has a far out theory first, then proves it. But, religion is not new at all. There's nothing new to discover. As time goes by, the odds of that happening get even worse.

[Edited on 11-24-2003 by Satyr]

I'm just picturing God saying....

"Hmm...but how will they scratch themselves? Ahh yes...fingernails! And, for the really dextrous ones, we'll put some on their toes too!" God always had a sense of humor (again, the platypus....)

Sometimes, you guys crack me up, hehe...

Interesting notes on the vibrational reality perception. It's actually a part of my beliefs as well....

Originally posted by Cyrus
i dont fancy the thought, apes and me doesnt go down too well, it never did.
i think i'll stick to my OTHER oppinion, all things evolved from a test by alien god-like creatures far superior/bigger than us to see how this species' would survive on earth..
2000 years' later they're getting bored, so now they're chucking flares at the planet / causing some excitement in the world to test our endurance(and the only reason they'd do that is because we're most likely their most succesful experiment so far).
my 2 copecs
Cyrus

i dont think 2 copecs are worth 2 cents.


sorry couldnt help my self. no offence intended

*cough* Appendix *cough*


Oh, and as far as your bombardier beetles go:

www.talkorigins.org...

Conclusion

Do bombardier beetles look designed? Yes; they look like they were designed by evolution. Their features, behaviors, and distribution nicely fit the kinds of patterns that evolution creates. Nobody has yet found anything about any bombardier beetle which is incompatible with evolution.

This does not mean, of course, that we know everything about the evolution of bombardier beetles; far from it. But the gaps in our knowledge should not be interpreted as meaningful in themselves. Some people are apparently uncomfortable with the idea of uncertainty, so uncomfortable that they try to turn the unknown into the unknowable. There has never been any evidence that bombardier beetles could not have evolved, but just because they couldn't explain exactly how the beetles evolved, lots of people jumped to the conclusion that an explanation was impossible. In fact, their conclusion says a lot more about themselves than about the beetles. To make such a conclusion based only on a lack of knowledge is a kind of arrogance.

Does evolution disqualify an intelligent designer? A lot of people reject the idea of evolution because they think it takes away any role for God to play in the creation of life. Such is the case, however, only for people who require God's role to fit certain narrow preconceptions of what "intelligent design" must mean. Millions of people around the world have no trouble believing in God and accepting evolution at the same time. Evolution only contradicts a man-made God that operates under man-made constraints.

Finally, remember that the general arguments used here apply to a lot more than bombardier beetles. Creationists have argued for an appearance of design in everything from bacteria flagella to butterfly metamorphosis. Those arguments all share the same fallacies; they are all based on a combination of ignorace combined with a concept of design that is indistinguishable from evolution. If a kind of design incompatible with evolution were found in biology, nobody would be more excited than the professional biologists. As yet we haven't found such a design.

Read the whole thing its worth it. Its even nicely referenced and all. Don't try and attack this conclusion without reading the page. I know thats what you are thinking.

actually that fits quite parallel with what i think, most of the time. i dont even have to visit the site to see that. evoloution could very well be a tool of god. as i said earlier. i honestly dont know. and im pretty sure i never will, atleast not in this lifetime.

Um, werent you earlier trying to say the existence of the beetle was a way of showing evolution can't exist?

Apologee's for the size of the post, but I don't have a link for this excerpt at hand. But I find this a pretty strong argument.


****
The classic evolutionary concept of spontaneous biogenesis involves living matter coming about from non-living material by chance. For example, let us suppose that in a hypothetical primordial atmosphere, ammonia, water, methane and energy can combine to form amino acids. That this first step can happen is indisputable and has been verified through laboratory experiment (such as in the famous Miller/Urey experiment of 1953). However, to proceed beyond this point to living proteins by chance would involve a major miracle of such great proportion that one would think it easier to just accept the obvious (that it didn't happen "by chance").
Amino acids are molecules that have a three-dimensional geometry. Any particular molecule can exist in either of two mirror-image structures that we call left-handed and right-handed (in layman's terms). Living matter consists only of left-handed amino acids. Right-handed amino acids are not useful to living organisms, and are in fact often lethal. The random formation of amino acids produces an equal proportion of left-handed and right-handed molecules. This has been confirmed by laboratory experiment and is essentially what Miller produced in his famous test-tube experiment (putting methane, ammonia, and water together and zapping them with electrical discharges.)
Life as we know it cannot consist of a mixture of left-handed and right-handed amino acids. So it would take an enormous sequence of coin-flips (in which the coin came up heads each time) to come up with a protein that could constitute living matter. Yet there is more.
Proteins consist of amino acids linked together with only peptide bonds. Amino acids can also combine with non-peptide bonds just as easily. In fact, origin-of-life experiments in the laboratory yield only about 50% peptide bonds. So, it would take another enormous sequence of coin flips to come up with a protein that could constitute living matter. Yet there is more.
Any particular protein contains amino acids that are linked together in a particular sequence geometrically. At a minimum, that sequence must be correct for any given protein at all the active sites which comprise about half of the amino acids in the protein. Proteins contain anywhere from 50 to as many as 1750 amino acids, depending on the particular protein.
There are about 20 common amino acids that comprise the basic building blocks of life. Any particular protein must have all the correct left-handed amino acids joined with only peptide bonds with the correct amino acids at all the active sites. Yet there is more.
Let us consider the sequence of chemical reactions necessary for us (or rather, "nobody") to produce one particular protein contained in living matter: One amino acid can combine with another amino acid in a condensation reaction to produce a peptide (two amino acids linked with a peptide bond) and water. One peptide can combine with another peptide in a condensation reaction to produce a polypeptide and water. And so goes the sequence of chemical reactions that supposedly can produce one protein essential to living organisms that can reproduce. Let's stop again, and consider what has happened thus far.
Each condensation reaction described above is reversible. That is, it can occur in either the forward or the reverse direction. That means that "randomness" would be consistent with things breaking down as they are being put together. But to top it off, the popular scenario involves things happening in a primordial sea, implying an excess of water. Since a condensation reaction produces water, and there is already excess water in the presence of the chemical reaction, there is much more opportunity for any complex molecule to break down into the more simple ones. Thus, a polypeptide should combine with excess water to produce monopeptides, and a monopeptide should combine with excess water to produce amino acids. The initial reagents of the supposed equations that are given as a pathway to life are favored, in the presence of excess water. Yet there is more.
Amino acids can react and form bonds with other chemical compounds, and not just other amino acids. Assuming that there is more in our "primordial sea" than just amino acids and water, we will encounter scenarios where these other reactions will take place instead of the ones we want to produce a protein.
An oxygen-rich atmosphere, such as we have today, is one example of what would ruin the chemical reactions proposed for the origin of life. It is for this reason that we have the Oparin Hypothesis, which states that the atmosphere must have originally been reducing, rather than oxidizing, containing very little free oxygen and an abundance of hydrogen and gases like methane and ammonia. Circular reasoning is employed to defend the Oparin Hypothesis.
The above only considers the formation of a single protein, not to mention that there are many different kinds of proteins necessary to form the simplest single-cell organisms. And we haven't even begun to address the formation of the various nucleic acids and other chemical constituents of life, which must be simultaneously present (by "chance"). Finally, all these must occur in in a specific arrangement to form a complex structure that would make for a reproducing organism (by "chance").
Many evolutionists are now proposing that not proteins, but DNA or RNA occurred first. Consider that this is moot, since the same amount of information must be coded into the nucleic acid to synthesize a protein as is represented by design and structure of the protein itself. This makes such scenarios to be at least as unlikely.
The spontaneous organization of nucleic acids into DNA or RNA suffers in concept from the same problems that the spontaneous organization of amino acids suffers from. All nucleic acids must be right-handed, form particular bonds, in a particular arrangement, in chemical reactions that proceed in a particular direction and aren't spoiled by other chemical reactions.
Some evolutionists are proposing that life originated not in a primordial sea but on some clay template. Again, this is moot, since the clay template must by necessity be as complex as what is formed on the template. This makes such scenarios to be at least as unlikely. Furthermore, the evolution of informational "defects" in the crystalline structures of clays has never been observed or demonstrated in theory. Shifting the medium for evolution from biological molecules to polyaluminum silicates solves nothing.
The classic examples given for the formation of some of the basic building blocks of life by chance therefore lacks substance on a theoretical basis both according to the principles of chemistry, the principles of probability and statistics, and the principles of basic information theory.
Without proper theoretical or experimental basis, a scientific hypothesis cannot be supported. The formation of living matter from non-living matter by chance remains within the realm of speculation without foundation.
****

This has all been put into a mathematical formula, and it was found to be that the chances for life coming abouts by chance from non-living matter is 1 in 10^20283.

That is one big azz number.

That's actually a very small number, in comparison to the size of the universe, isn't it?

Um, werent you earlier trying to say the existence of the beetle was a way of showing evolution can't exist?

Yep, but then again, Christians are used to reversing their viewpoints in the light of logic... Earth isn't the center of the universe, existence of dinosaurs, acceptance of theories when they've crucified the founders of the theories in the past, etc.

To clarify, evolution does NOT state that we came from apes...but rather that we, and apes, share a common ancestor (which is neither ape, nor human). The branch split, and one fork evolved into humans, while the other into apes...

they knew piltdown man to be fake a long time ago they taught us that in high school!!! doesn't mean evolution didn't happen. just shows ya how reliable science is, they make up evidence to support their opinions

Banjoechef, don't put down science just because of one men.

Originally posted by Gazrok

To clarify, evolution does NOT state that we came from apes...but rather that we, and apes, share a common ancestor (which is neither ape, nor human). The branch split, and one fork evolved into humans, while the other into apes...

Thank goodness we're the sole surivors of our branch. Imagine what the wars would be like between us and neanderthals.

Originally posted by Satyr
mikromarius,
You know nothing of scientists. Most dream of the day they can discover something new and exciting. Open mindedness is mandotory for such an event. Many of the greatest discoveries are bizarre beyond our belief. This is almost always the case with new concepts in science. Many times, someone has a far out theory first, then proves it. But, religion is not new at all. There's nothing new to discover. As time goes by, the odds of that happening get even worse.

If scientists had instead of using all their time debunking the bible, had used it as a very valuable source of science, they might even be willing to believe in God and proove his existance. The bible explains cloning exactly the way we do it now. It explained the age of the universe in it's first chapter when using the prophets or the gospel as key. It discribes laser and how y cromosomes are inherited from father to son, it shows that it is possible to walk through walls and explains the atomic bomb as a burning mountain. It also explains how to stop earth rotation and tells us that we will travel through space and cultivate a new planet. Now who is blind and who is blinder?

Blessings,
Mikromarius

Originally posted by Gazrok
I'm just picturing God saying....

"Hmm...but how will they scratch themselves? Ahh yes...fingernails! And, for the really dextrous ones, we'll put some on their toes too!"

God always had a sense of humor (again, the platypus....)

Sometimes, you guys crack me up, hehe...

Interesting notes on the vibrational reality perception. It's actually a part of my beliefs as well....

Well nails and hair is a very good way for the body to rid itself with dead cells in a manner so that we don't get sick from sleeping in our beds, and at the same time add function and beauty to the body. I can't see why God should remove them just because some of you feel you don't need them. I would love to see you full of mite because your skin falloff had been multiplied, and without the ability to scratch yourselves without the use of tools....

Blessings,
Mikromarius

Since when do scientists spend all their time debunking the bible? I'm quite sure most people researching any of these fields find the bible utterly irrelevant.