Evolution Vs. God

UnifiedSerenity
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.

Well aren't you just typical.

I'm sure you would've been in the crowd saying that the first astronauts were insulting God by going to outer space in the 60s.

And before that, insulting God by suggesting that the Earth revolves around the sun and that the Earth is not the most important, centrical thing in the universe.

And before that, insulting God by suggesting that the heavens aren't above and hell isn't below.

Thank Higgs Bosson that there's probably no god to insult and we're progressing fine without him/her/it.

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

It is different flu. It is not the same. It changes with time...

UnifiedSerenity
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.

First for chicken to turn into dinosaurs, you don't have to mix it with something, as genes are already there. In second option, yes, elephant would have been used and we might have contributed to extinction of mammoth, just as we contributed in extinction of many other animals. (look what is going with rhinos now days)
What if nature did not select them to die, but rather cataclysm?
And are you saying that humans and dinosaurs existed at the same time?

UnifiedSerenity
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.

What do you mean did not evolve to something different? Did you by any chance look at article?

For example, let's look at something I went to see long time ago. It is as locals call it 'human fish' - olm. It lives, eats and breeds underwater. Why is different from other amphibians?

UnifiedSerenity
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.

Yes, we can and we had dated it. It is much older then 10k.

Just to point you how blindly are religious people trying to prove (and change) history to make it more 'according to bible', look at BBC documentary Rosetta Stone. Somewhere at the end, guess who objected to idea that linguists decode Egyptian hieroglyphs and why. It was church and because it might (and it did) date stuff before big flood or around that time that would contradict with Bible.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against you following your belief, for that mater, I don't care if you believe Jedi order from Star Wars is religion, but please don't try to disprove scientifically proven theories, especially evolution or for example archeology just because your 'holy' book does not agree with it.

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?

where?.......please.

reply to post by Quadrivium

Leviticus 11:20-23
20 ‘All flying insects that creep on all fours shall be an abomination to you. 21 Yet these you may eat of every flying insect that creeps on all fours: those which have jointed legs above their feet with which to leap on the earth. 22 These you may eat: the locust after its kind, the destroying locust after its kind, the cricket after its kind, and the grasshopper after its kind. 23 But all other flying insects which have four feet shall be an abomination to you.

Leviticus 11:13-19
13 ‘And these you shall regard as an abomination among the birds; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, the vulture, the buzzard, 14 the kite, and the falcon after its kind; 15 every raven after its kind, 16 the ostrich, the short-eared owl, the sea gull, and the hawk after its kind; 17 the little owl, the fisher owl, and the screech owl; 18 the white owl, the jackdaw, and the carrion vulture; 19 the stork, the heron after its kind, the hoopoe, and the bat.

reply to post by daskakik

And these you shall regard as an abomination among the birds; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle

So our national mascot is an abomination? Nice to know.

Reply to : SuperFrog

You really are stuck on micro evolution proving macro. A flu is a flu is a flu, and it doesn't matter how many flu kin their are, it's a flu.

You have every right to think it's right to bring back whatever animal you want. I am simply saying that biblically speaking it's not, and that you are trying bring a new animal into the environment that is not meant to be here. It will change the balance. Heck, have you ever been in Florida during love bug season? Another smart move by man. (not)


You keep saying evolved, and I don't see any proof of evolution. You can faithfully stick to it, but you can't show one critter changing kinds. You can't show any incremental changes from one kind to another.

I just want to point out that no one challenges you evo people when you pull up wiki, but you sure like to nail us to the wall for it or any other sources you don't like. Most people don't trust wiki. Nonetheless, let's look at your 'human fish".

It looks like a salamander kind, and showing me a critter that has legs and looks like a eel sort of fish does not prove evolution. It proves a different kind of animal. Now if you wan to show me the fish you think it came from to turn into an amphibian and show the incremental changes to it's body over the millions of years it took to do that, then I will believe it, but so far it's just a different kind of critter with odd characteristics, sort of like the Platypus.



I have been more than kind in my replies to you and yet you turn to snippy, mocking, rude comments about my comments and beliefs. I said perfectly clearly that the first age of the EARTH could be millions of years old, but that this age is probably not older than 10k years. Evo's have not proved the age either especially when you use their unreliable dating methods and circular arguments.

Again, believe what you want, but it is not proved.

If showing one interesting animal like the Olm is supposed to prove evolution without showing it's changing in forms, then I will put up a few interesting critters that disprove evolution:

UnifiedSerenity
You keep saying evolved, and I don't see any proof of evolution.

That is the semantic shield you have been hiding behind all this time. "Adaptation isn't evolution".

Sorry, but you don't get to pick and choose the meanings of the words that we all use.

reply to post by daskakik


One form of change within a kind does not prove change from one kind into another. You all are the ones who use 6 different forms of evolution. The argument is not over adaptation, the sixth kind, but the other five that stand on adaptation as their proof.

It is not semantics but application, and you can't point to adaptation from thin wool to thick wool and say, "See, we came from fish".

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

No, it's semantics.

Others have pointed out that adaptation is an integral part of evolution. You say that one isn't part of the other. What else can that be?

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


Well i dont know enough about the bombardier beetle to explain how it could evolve all have to get back to you on that one. I suspect i will find the chemicals they use are similar to other beetles who secrete quinonoes and hydroquinoes for self defense. Ill get back to you after i look inot the chemicals involved then we can discuss how they might evolve.

Now as for the giraffe as usual creationist think only 1 thing can happen at a time so lets talk about how the giraffe could evolve mechanism to prevent his head from exploding. Got to love the dramatics in that dont you. Well of course as Darwin pointed out longer necks became and advantage for foraging for food. But at first were only talking about inches not feet. Remember as i keep pointing out how do you eat an elephant one bite at a time.

So we move along the giraffes neck is now longer but can still drink then a problem starts appearing the animals start getting light headed when they drink. But evolution is a continual process so some of the giraffes ancestors developed muscles to restrict blood flow to the brain when they drink very similar to you swallowing.These animals survived because they didnt get eaten when they tried to get a drink meaning his genes are passed on.to the next generation.Well at the same time there is a another gene that showed up appears to be useful a larger heart since when running these poor guys would pass out while others with larger hearts got away. Once again there genes are passed on because dead giraffes dont have children do they.So there necks get a little longer again light headed problems occur only the ones who could handle the blood pressure changes survive. And after many generations, the more successful gene becomes predominate, to a point where the other gene (which didn't help with the blood pressure changes) is non-existent. And tada we have a giraffe whos head wont explode because as your scientist pointed out they dont pass on genes.

See you like to deceive people into thinking that everything has to happen at the same time but it doesnt. You do this so you make something seem insurmountable and impossible but the real world things happen in small increments no one came along and said poof there's a giraffe.

UnifiedSerenity
If showing one interesting animal like the Olm is supposed to prove evolution without showing it's changing in forms, then I will put up a few interesting critters that disprove evolution:

This proves nothing more than the inability of the professor to understand the concepts of evolution.....a bit like yourself. It is soooooo easy to pick on a very adaptive animal with some unusual characteristics and state "see that's impossible through evolution ". In actual fact what you have is a very interesting case study which WILL be solved. It just takes time. Science does not have all the answers now, how can it, but it is expanding all the time. Just because you have difficulty in coming to terms with the concept that at this moment in time there are things we do not know does not necessitate the need to invent a mythical creature that has existed forever to fill the gap.

Tell me, and this is not evolution but creation logic or lack of. How did man learn how to eat kidney beans, or cassava or puffer fish ? Using your professors contrived logic any human that attempted to eat these food products in the normal manner would be dead and unable to say what they did wrong. The relatives of the dead would find the food products lying around and avoid them like the plague. Therefore man already know how to prepare those poisonous foodstuffs for consumption.......Clearly a b.ll.cks assumption !

Go on work it out. When you have the answer there is hope for you on the evolution thinking front If you can't work it out then you have proved your professor an incompetent thinker. What will it be the devil or the dark blue sea?

UnifiedSerenity
You really are stuck on micro evolution proving macro. A flu is a flu is a flu, and it doesn't matter how many flu kin their are, it's a flu.

If your belief that it is the same thing, we would not be hit with different viruses of the fly all the time. Them being called flu has nothing to do with them being completely different viruses, belonging to the same type of virus.
Just imagine, if there was no evolution, we would not have any new viruses or sickens, for example AIDS, tuberculosis etc. Unless that was given when world was created.

UnifiedSerenityYou have every right to think it's right to bring back whatever animal you want. I am simply saying that biblically speaking it's not, and that you are trying bring a new animal into the environment that is not meant to be here. It will change the balance. Heck, have you ever been in Florida during love bug season? Another smart move by man. (not)

I would love to be able to see some extinct animals back in life. No to let them lose, under controlled environment, of course.

UnifiedSerenityYou keep saying evolved, and I don't see any proof of evolution. You can faithfully stick to it, but you can't show one critter changing kinds. You can't show any incremental changes from one kind to another.

As I said from beginning, you will not see one change in your lifespan, as it takes much longer for this to happen. Take a dog for example, what has been done in past 10k to dogs and how many different kinds of dog now we have, without genetically modifying dogs, just by breeding. Dog and wolf have split into to separate species about 100K years ago. They are still closely related, but they are 2 different species. Another example is human and chimpanzees. Do you know that chimpanzee is more close in genetics to humans then to other kind of primates? You not willing to see how we evolved, as well other animals, hope we can fix that.

UnifiedSerenityI just want to point out that no one challenges you evo people when you pull up wiki, but you sure like to nail us to the wall for it or any other sources you don't like. Most people don't trust wiki. Nonetheless, let's look at your 'human fish".

It looks like a salamander kind, and showing me a critter that has legs and looks like a eel sort of fish does not prove evolution. It proves a different kind of animal. Now if you wan to show me the fish you think it came from to turn into an amphibian and show the incremental changes to it's body over the millions of years it took to do that, then I will believe it, but so far it's just a different kind of critter with odd characteristics, sort of like the Platypus.

First of all, you will never find all links in evolution, simply for most of them we are using in everyday life (fossil fuel, guess how it got it's name). But all what we found so far we are able to place in three of life forms, with many branches. I am sure you have seen that in books, but still probably think it is just theory, where in fact it is proven fact (that is what theory in evolution means).

UnifiedSerenityI have been more than kind in my replies to you and yet you turn to snippy, mocking, rude comments about my comments and beliefs. I said perfectly clearly that the first age of the EARTH could be millions of years old, but that this age is probably not older than 10k years. Evo's have not proved the age either especially when you use their unreliable dating methods and circular arguments.

Again, believe what you want, but it is not proved.

Sorry if I ever offended you, it is not something I would like to do. We are talking about topic where you are trying to prove that all knowledge we are getting is not worth much because it is not written in your holy book. Neither is written that earth is not center of universe, we all know that there is no one above sky that follows all our movements (except NSA , but that is different story) and that life is most likely not endemic form to earth.

Let me ask you another question. You mention something like other age and earth being only 10K old. Where do you have that in bible? Can you point out that? Also, when did big flood happen?

reply to post by SuperFrog

Sorry if I ever offended you, it is not something I would like to do. We are talking about topic where you are trying to prove that all knowledge we are getting is not worth much because it is not written in your holy book. Neither is written that earth is not center of universe, we all know that there is no one above sky that follows all our movements (except NSA , but that is different story) and that life is most likely not endemic form to earth. Let me ask you another question. You mention something like other age and earth being only 10K old. Where do you have that in bible? Can you point out that? Also, when did big flood happen?

I like a good chat that does not turn to insults and I appreciate you and I talking point on point.

First of all, a virus is a virus. If it changes it is adapting within it's kind. The virus is not turning into a different sort of thing like a bacteria or into an amoeba. You and I are not disagreeing on adaptation, but that does not support the part of the theory of evolution that says we come from common ancestors or how life began.

The bible in fact does not say the Earth is the center of the universe, but the opposite really.

It really stinks to read the bible in English because the choices of words are often wrong or misleading. That is something done by translators who often had an agenda such as amazingly, Jesus has a brother named James! Wow, now King James name is part of the Apostles. Let alone they anglicized all the names of the apostles thus taking away their Jewish identity. Can you imagine reading in English that Yeshua's brother Ya'aqov, his mother Miriam, and his disciples Y'hochanan, Kefa, Shim'on, Mattithyahu, Bar-Tôlmay, Yudah how differently people might see things? I know this is not part of the evolution debate, but it is part of how we read the bible and how the translators have mucked things up.

In Genesis 1:1-2 we read in kjv

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Yet that is NOT what the bible actually says. It actually says,

And the earth became without form and was made void....

The word was is the Hebrew word:

H1961
היה
hâyâh
haw-yaw'
A primitive root (compare H1933); to exist, that is, be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary): - beacon, X altogether, be (-come, accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), continue, do, faint, fall, + follow, happen, X have, last, pertain, quit (one-) self, require, X use.

Yet we see it as a self existing thing by using the word "was" without realizing that it had another existence if it became without form and made void.

The word "form" in Hebrew is:

H8414
תּהוּ
tôhû
to'-hoo
From an unused root meaning to lie waste; a desolation (of surface), that is, desert; figuratively a worthless thing; adverbially in vain: - confusion, empty place, without form, nothing, (thing of) nought, vain, vanity, waste, wilderness.

So it became a wasteland and then God put things in order.

That became is referring to the prior age which we read about in other places of the bible as well as other writings not in the "accepted" bible, which was set into it's present form by the RCC basically, and later the Protestants removed certain books the RCC has. Much of the bible has been changed to push their agendas and if you only read the English then you miss certain aspects. Also, there are older manuscripts called Hebrew Matthew that show amazing things that change some things in the accepted Matthew that seem contradictory but if you read them in the Hebrew that was translated to Aramaic then to Greek, you see there is no contradiction at all. Yeshua had a lot to say about the scribes and they love to change names, words, and cause confusion.

I can't say that this age is specifically 10k years old. EW Bullinger was an amazing bible scholar and he did a calculation which you can find in the Companion bible that has his notes that calculates this age to be between 6000 and 7000 years. I see some evidences of a bit older, but it's not biblical. I am just saying that Christians who want to stand on this earth coming into existence from nothing was 6k years ago is not biblical. It is a tradition and it seems logical if they read the English only and don't know what I have just showed you. We are also told why that age was ended and this one begun, but that would be really off topic, so I won't go there.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity



This is old and did not get far... same as credibility of so called expert...

The Bombardier Beetle Myth Exploded

Anatomy and Evolution of the Woodpecker's Tongue

Wonder if woodpecker was His idea of fun for big flood and Noah's ark.

reply to post by SuperFrog


You know we are not going to agree. It seems to me that if a tongue has to make that long circuitous route around the head, that according to evolution would not have happened overnight, so how did he eat in the meantime?

You simply don't want to admit that the process of millions of years of adaptation from one kind to another falls apart mid-stream when things like the tongue, the dense bones changing to light bones not able to support the animal or fly way, and thus the animal should be extinct and not evolving.

You have not dealt with the problems with the mathematical probabilities of life even existing by change. I would like to hear how you find it plausible that proteins just came into being with a 1 in a trillion trillion trillion chance. That is called a mathematical impossibility.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

You can't wrap your head around it because you think it has to be one and only one thing happening to one being. Slow adaptation, mutation, natural selection or whatever else there may have been. Everything was happening millions of times a day every day for millions or even billions of years.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

You know we are not going to agree.

Because you are not listening.

You have not dealt with the problems with the mathematical probabilities of life even existing by change. I would like to hear how you find it plausible that proteins just came into being with a 1 in a trillion trillion trillion chance. That is called a mathematical impossibility.

Wrong. That's called mathematical improbability. Which means that given enough time, it will happen. I'm not sure you appreciate just how much opportunity is provided in the course of billions - billions! - of years dedicated to nothing but survival and evolution...which, I might remind you, go hand in hand.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


So at the same time we're providing scientific documentation evidencing the evolution of various species, you're sitting here telling us we're wrong and quoting scripture to prove it? Give me a break. Seriously - give us all a break!

reply to post by AfterInfinity


AI,

Can you deal with the fact that I was asked a reason for why I believe what I believe? This is an "ORIGINS And CREATIONISM" thread. You use your sources, and I will use mine which cover many areas. You have a lot of nerve taking me to task for answering a question about how I come to age of the earth.