a case for christ

[GamblinLeaf 0]

To those who have read the origin of the species, what does darwin remark about the development of certain organs such as the human eye?He makes particular reference to it. Check it out.

Details, details. Life is all one big accident.

[Balloon guy 158]

nothing personal, but this is the most BS loaded post i've seen yet here on this subject. virtually everything you said is incorrect or misrepresented.you don't have to repeat evolution to see evidence for it, that's not how science works. in any case we CAN see short time-scale adaptive, selective evolution happening in nature all around us, and can using normal logic extrapolate what is most likely to have happened long-term and in more extreme environmental changes. the fossils are just supporting evidence.i think that's false about space dust on the moon, and even if it were true the orbit of the moon could have shifted (probably has) further out since it broke off from the earth so tidal forces could have been even greater in the past. and also the moon like the earth on a long-term time scale certianly has been absolutely bombarded by meteors and comets probably sending a lot of its mass far enough out to where the earths gravity would capture it.the life cycle of stars is pretty complicated, but to put it simply stars with the mass of our sun have a long relatively stable, balanced period where they don't burn their mass that quickly, about 8 billion years in this case. in another ~4 billion years our sun will relatively quickly lose the balance (lose enough mass to reach a critical point where it can't sustain the gravity it needs for balance) and baloon to a red giant engulfing earth, but for now there is certainly a long-term stable orbital slot for the earth to be in (obviously).scientists use atomic beta-decay and other methods to age both strata and fossils. they only age one based on the other when the age of one is already proven from other methods, typically by multiple methods that give the same result. there is nothing circular about it.what's silly is using arguments like yours to support religeous belief, because you're assuming you have complete information about the subjects, when you're actually dealing with grossly oversimplified creatonist propaganda.

First the evolution debate isn't my proof for my belief in God, but I do use the Biblical model for the creation of the earth as a basis to look at scientific discoveries. I admit I am slanted to believe what I already believe to be true. But to date no human is built different, regardless of what they say so I'm not ashamed to be biased. I think admitting it makes me less likely to be dogmatic though, which most evolutionist are to a high level of arrogance. Nothing personal, but if you want to be treated like you don't have enough brains to program your vcr, tell someone you think that evolution is flawed. Case in point your response.The scientific method does require the ability to see it reproduced. Otherwise there is only subjective conclusions that can be deduced.Since under controlled labratory enviroment, with purpose and effort, you cannot create life from non life, then how can you say that this can happen randomly in a hostile enviroment? You can conjecture, but you cannot prove.To try to say that short term adaptivity of animals is proof of creation of life from non-life is not relative. It's not the same to say that a species made changes, such as a flying squirrel growing extra skin, than to say that a fish grew legs and became a cow.The fossil record is filled with one consistant theme. New species showing up fully developed. The missing links are glaring, so every effort is made to snap the fingers and say look over here, look over here.I ran heavy equipment for 8 years and worked with dozens of Paleontologist and Geologist and the dating methods they used, although later 'verified' by other dating methods, was originally based on circular reasoning. The beginning starts with engineers who were building bridges in Britain and arbitrarily threw numbers at the levels.Dating methods are another faith based method of evolutionist to prove their bias. I am not fluent in all dating methods, but I'll use argon lead as a case in point. Argon decays at a set rate into lead, therefore extrapolate and you can figure age of rock based on lead to argon content. This is based on the conclusion that the rock had zero lead to start when it came from molton lava?, that decay rates have been and always will be the exact same, and enviroment has no impact on decay rates. I agree that this isn't enough to completely ignore the work done that has resulted in consistant levels of decay, thereby supporting the theory. However to try to say that a 20 year study, or at best 100 year study of something is enough to conjecture for a 100 million year time span is reaching.I've had geologist try to tell me that erosion rates are just as accurate and they base age of mountains on this rate. Come on, storms do funny things, volcanos effect weather half way across the earth, to say that mountians erode at exactly 1 inch per year on medium is a guess, not a scientific fact.From your post I will admit you are better educated than me. And I know it is difficult for someone who's been educated to think that maybe they were taught things that weren't really true, you know like brontosaurus. or neandrathal man, or Peking man, or Java man. I would enjoy arguing with you as long as we keep it civil, you can even have some fun, but flaming is boring so you set the tone.For instance:How many evolutionist does it take to screw in a lightbulb?None eventually it will screw itself in.That's funny, I don't care who you are.

[solderz 0]

After those last two posts, i nominate Balloon guy for biggest douche in the universe.will anyone second the motion?

[Balloon guy 158]

After those last two posts, i nominate Balloon guy for biggest douche in the universe.will anyone second the motion?

I second it.

[crowTrobot 2]

but I do use the Biblical model for the creation of the earth as a basis to look at scientific discoveries

that's the essential difference. science is objective, religeous belief isn't.

[Balloon guy 158]

but I do use the Biblical model for the creation of the earth as a basis to look at scientific discoveries

that's the essential difference. science is objective, religeous belief isn't.

I agree, religious belief is dogmatic, if it wasn't true than it shouldn't be given any thought. That's why the Bible isn't rewritten, if any part is false, than it all comes to question. I also conceed that creationism will always be a theory that can't be proven with science.I know why some of the things I said don't jibe with scientific views of today, and that's make me look like a head in the sand follower, but I have spent time looking and feel there are enough honest questions that can be asked that put a serious flaw in the view of evolution.People like solderz may find it cute and ignore it, but his silly flame is just from youth, and because I'm not in the room with him.My point is that evolution is flawed and it isn't a bullet-proof belief. That doesn't therefore mean that the Bible is true, just that the Bible doesn't commit scientific suicide like the Hindu scriptures does when it says the earth sits on the back of an elephant standing on the back of a turtle which is swimming in a sea of milk.

[crowTrobot 2]

evolution isn't a belief, it's a theory with a lot of supporting evidencefrom a modern scientific standpoint a literal interpretation of genesis is just as silly as any eastern view

[UglyJimStudly 0]

Sorry to jump into your debate, but evolution vs creation is my favorite debate.

Hmm, that's odd, because you don't appear to know very much about it.

The scientific method requires one important thing, repeating the experiment, which is impossible with evolution.

Er, no, on both counts. It requires that observations be consistently repeatable, and they are. For example, the theory of evolution predicts that Tyrannosaurus Rex fossils will always be found in particular spots in the geologic column, and they are. Should a T. Rex fossil be found out of place, that'd represent a significant problem for evolution, but so far every new observation has supported the theory. Multiply that by the hundreds of thousands of other species found at well-defined points in the geologic column, and you get a pretty impressive weight of evidence.

Laws of thermodynamics prove entropy, things fall into a state of disorganization, not higher organization.

In a closed system, yes. The Earth is not a closed system. Misapplication of the second law of thermodynamics is one of the most common creationist errors.

Space dust is a known fact...we calculate it's weight on the space station, etc.Space dust falling on moon for millions of years would change mass of moon, over large scale time, larger moon.

Just so's you know, Answers in Genesis (a young-earth creationist web site) has put the various moon dust theories on their list of "arguments creationists definitely should not use", because they've been so thoroughly discredited. The readers digest version as to why this is so is because the initial rates of meteoric dust inflow used by creationists have been shown to be wrong, and current observed rates are fully compatible with the multi-billion year history of the earth-moon system.

Sun is expelling energy i.e. light heat etc.energy comes from mass being changed..Einsteintherfore, sun used to have more mass.

Indeed it did. And again, the rate of the sun's reactions are fully consistent with the multi-billion year history of the solar system.

3rdShana HiattCan anyone look at her and not think that there is a God?

Probably a greek god - they were big on perfection of the human form. Are you going to kill a sheep for Aphrodite now?

Last point, do you know how Paleontologist determine the age of the fossils they find? The rock strata layers give them a date that they can base the fossil's age on.

That's one method. They also use a variety of radiological and chemical methods, depending on the age of the sample.

Do you know how Geologist determine the age of the strata of rocks? Trace fossils.

Again, that's one method, and again not the only one. Scientists like to have multiple methods to check because then they can see if each one is in agreement - repeatability of observations, as mentioned at the start. When you get a bunch of different methods that all give the same answer, that's a good indication that you're observing a real phenomenon.If you are going to pass of discredited creationist propaganda as "debate", then I'd advise you at least check out which ones even creationists such as answersingenesis.org aren't dishonest enough to use. Of course, if you actually want to pull your knowledge of the topic to somewhere within sight of late-20th/early-21st century current knowledge, then you'd be best advised to read some biology textbooks, or at least surf around talkorigins.org. Have a good day.

[Balloon guy 158]

[

quote="UglyJimStudlyIf you are going to pass of discredited creationist propaganda as "debate", then I'd advise you at least check out which ones even creationists such as answersingenesis.org aren't dishonest enough to use. Of course, if you actually want to pull your knowledge of the topic to somewhere within sight of late-20th/early-21st century current knowledge, then you'd be best advised to read some biology textbooks, or at least surf around talkorigins.org. Have a good day.

I stand corrected for things I am understudied on. I admit I am a poor apologeist for the creation debate. Mainly through lack of formal education. I am not completely admitting that I was wrong, but that I am too understudied to use the forementioned arguments to be the foundation of my belief in creation.That said I am no different than many on the evolutionist side who use poor logic to fit data into their own worldview, such as crowtrobot's quick dismissal of the moon dust theory, with flawed conclusions to say why the dust couldn't be that big of a deal. Whether you feel he was right, it was a point made without facts to explain why one worldview was right, and another wrong. I admit I am equally guilty at times.I will reduce my point to the arguement that non-life does not become life based on chance and time. That without a creative influence, matter will stay 'dead'. The creation equals a Creator.Most of my study of this comes from A.E Wilder-Smith who honestly writes above my head in most of his books, but the stuff for laymen strengthens my beliefs.I admit that I do not take the time to understand the terminology nor the science behind DNA, RNA, and other building blocks. So I put my faith in people who I feel/want to be correct.I also hire lawyers, insurance people and an accountant to handle those area of my life that I don't feel the need to exert considerable effort to 'understand'.I hope my failings in knowing details doesn't completely disqualify me in having a worldview that is supported by men better then I.Having been smacked I will leave it to you to decide if I should drop the subject and continue instead on my equally inept knowledge of poker.Although the T.Rex example does leave the question that since so many fossils of T.Rex are being found, shouldn't the transitional species also be found with regularity in 'higher' strata? A lack of transitional fossils is more damning to evolution than a consistancy of same species fossils.And the sun, while being an efficient fisson device, still creates a time frame when it can 'support' the earth, too early in the sun's life, not compatible, and too late, and life doesn't have a chance to start. The evolution theory is based on time, and the answers to problems for evolution is to always add more time to allow for chance to work. I believe that it requires more blind faith to believe in random chance and time needed to create life than to believe in a Creator.See even when I'm smacked down I still like to argue. Must be a character flaw.

[crowTrobot 2]

That said I am no different than many on the evolutionist side who use poor logic to fit data into their own worldview, such as crowtrobot's quick dismissal of the moon dust theory, with flawed conclusions to say why the dust couldn't be that big of a deal. Whether you feel he was right, it was a point made without facts to explain why one worldview was right, and another wrong.

wrong. i wasn't trying to prove anything using lack of dust on the moon - you were. i just provided a few complications you would need to refute to support your claim, to point out how oversimplified the creationist argument is.btw there are numerous examples of transitional fossil records. pre-humans will potentially be one of the best once the side branches are worked out, but there is also a remarkable documented sequence of fossils from wolf-like shore-dwelling mammals to whales. and of course the transitional fossil record from certain small dinosaurs into proto-birds has been building steadily the last two decades.

[greatwhite 0]

I'm hungry.

[UglyJimStudly 0]

I will reduce my point to the arguement that non-life does not become life based on chance and time. That without a creative influence, matter will stay 'dead'. The creation equals a Creator.

Two points, then:1) Evolution says nothing about the origin of life, just what happens once it starts. The theory you're looking for is Abiogenesis. Lots of Christians believe that God created life 3.5 billion years ago, and then let evolution occur to bring about humanity (since God, being omniscient, knew that it'd happen). And there's even lots of young-earth creationists who believe that Noah had a relatively small number of animals with him on the ark, and in the last 6000 years some kind of hyper-evolution has occurred to bring about the diversity we see today (this "theory" was concocted to overcome the problem of their being far too many species to fit on anything like the ark's given dimensions). Evolution is not abiogenesis, it works regardless of how life got started.2) Defining life is hard. Biologists generally don't recognize any particular moment at which point matter passes from "dead" to "live", instead there's a boundary area in which various phenomena display properties commonly associated with living creatures, and some creatures generally considered to be alive (like viruses) lack some of those same properties. There is no agreed upon moment at which something becomes alive.

Although the T.Rex example does leave the question that since so many fossils of T.Rex are being found, shouldn't the transitional species also be found with regularity in 'higher' strata? A lack of transitional fossils is more damning to evolution than a consistancy of same species fossils.

Transitional fossils should be - and are - found. Claiming a lack of transitional fossils is another of the arguments Answers in Genesis recommends creationists not use, because it's simply wrong and merely shows that the person making that argument is more than fifty years out of date on the topic.

The evolution theory is based on time, and the answers to problems for evolution is to always add more time to allow for chance to work.

No. The answer to problems in evolution is to do science - make observations, form hypotheses, test those hypotheses with further observations, and repeat. Nobody sat around and said "you know, I think life has been here 3.5 billion years, let's make stuff up that fits that timeframe" - science doesn't work that way. Only religion starts with the answer and then twists the questions to make them fit.

[Balloon guy 158]

I knew I should have taken my lumps and let it go. Both Crow and Jim are beyond my eductation level on this subject. I will fold my hand, acknowleding that you both have more study into this subject.I'm glad to see there are educated people here, and will not use these arguments again in my defense of creation. Sucks to eat crow

[timwakefield 68]

That said I am no different than many on the evolutionist side who use poor logic to fit data into their own worldview, such as crowtrobot's quick dismissal of the moon dust theory, with flawed conclusions to say why the dust couldn't be that big of a deal. Whether you feel he was right, it was a point made without facts to explain why one worldview was right, and another wrong. I admit I am equally guilty at times.

The moon was created billions of years ago when an enormous mini-planet collided with earth. The mini-planet combined with earth, and the huge amount of debris set loose by the collision began orbiting the new earth. Slowly, gravity formed this debris into the moon, much in the same way all of the other solid planets were formed. When it was young, the moon was much much closer to the earth. Tidal effects were enormous. The moon is now moving at approximately 2 inches per year away from the earth. This has been observed by scientists.

[timwakefield 68]

I will reduce my point to the arguement that non-life does not become life based on chance and time. That without a creative influence, matter will stay 'dead'. The creation equals a Creator.

Two points, then:1) Evolution says nothing about the origin of life, just what happens once it starts. The theory you're looking for is Abiogenesis. Lots of Christians believe that God created life 3.5 billion years ago, and then let evolution occur to bring about humanity (since God, being omniscient, knew that it'd happen). And there's even lots of young-earth creationists who believe that Noah had a relatively small number of animals with him on the ark, and in the last 6000 years some kind of hyper-evolution has occurred to bring about the diversity we see today (this "theory" was concocted to overcome the problem of their being far too many species to fit on anything like the ark's given dimensions). Evolution is not abiogenesis, it works regardless of how life got started.

"When we combine quantum mechanics with general relativity, there seems to be a new possibility that did not arrise before: that space and time together might form a finite, four-dimensional space without singularities or boundaries, like the surface of the earth but with more dimensions. It seems that this idea could explain many of the observed features of the universe, such as its large-scale uniformity and also the smaller-scale departures from homogeneity, like galaxies, stars, and even human beings. It could even account for the arrow of time that we observe [the arrow of time is discussed as 'something that distinguishes the past from the future']. But if the universe is completely self-contained, with no singularities or boundares, and completely described by a unified therory, that has profound implications for the role of God as Creator. "Einstein once asked the question: 'How much choice did God have in constructing the universe?' If the no boundary proposal is correct, he had no freedom at all to choose initial conditions. He would, of course, still have had the freedom to choose the laws that the universe obeyed. This, however, may not really have been all that much of a choice; there may well be only one, or a small number, of completely unified theories, such as the heterotic string theory, that are self-consistent and allow the existence of structures as complicated as human beings who can investigate the laws of the universe and ask about the nature of God." - Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time"If the universe (perhaps) has no need for a Creator God, it seems unlikely that one exists. This is not to deny His existence, only to question His role in creation (both of the entire universe, and life on earth). Anyways, I thought I should share the views of probably the smartest man on earth. He also ends the book with this: "However, if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad princible by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all...be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God."To say that the process of evolution was started or created by God is pretty well a moot point, since it exists exactly the same whether it was created or not. Evolution happened, is still happening, and asking whether a spiritual force caused it to happen or not is a separate debate. Evolution itself really is not in question.

[greatwhite 0]

As people have noticed maybe, I've posted many random posts on here for the reason that a discussion of God doesn't mix on a poker forum. There is no case for Christ, get over it people.

[timwakefield 68]

As people have noticed maybe, I've posted many random posts on here for the reason that a discussion of God doesn't mix on a poker forum. There is no case for Christ, get over it people.

That's why it's in the off topic discussions buddy. Anyways, Daniel started this thread, and it's his website. Obviously there are a bunch of interesting discussions throughout the thread.

[guinevar 0]

So no one who has read the Origin of the Species has any recollection about what Darwin said concerning complex organs such as the human eye?Seriously people. Look into it. Don't just accept evolution cause the secular scientists say to. That logic had people hiding from a nuclear explosion under a picnic blanket with their cartoon turtle friend.The picnic blanket and the cartoon turtle are just as helpful describing the creation of man as evolution is.

[timwakefield 68]

So no one who has read the Origin of the Species has any recollection about what Darwin said concerning complex organs such as the human eye?Seriously people. Look into it. Don't just accept evolution cause the secular scientists say to. That logic had people hiding from a nuclear explosion under a picnic blanket with their cartoon turtle friend.The picnic blanket and the cartoon turtle are just as helpful describing the creation of man as evolution is.

Why don't you just end the mystery. I'm not gonna wade through 300 pages so I can see that Darwin said the eye is extremely complex and fashioned by God, or whatever it is he said. But I'm sure that he didn't refute his own theories, so using Darwin to argue against evolution is pretty naive if you ask me. And as far as evolution being a poor method for describing the creation of man? Well that just doesn't make a bit of sense at all. Evolution describes quite well how homo sapiens evolved over millions of years. Just what are you trying to get at anyways???? Just come out and say whatever it is.

[guinevar 0]

Tim,If using Darwin to discount evolution seems naive to you, then why won't you find what Darwin says about human eyes and other such organs?

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.

There is a lot of information out there that is contrast to evolution, however I find it unlikely you'll take my word for it. The point of me telling you to go find this was that maybe you could take some initiative about what you believe.Go find the truth, not polarizing empty dogma.-Neal

[timwakefield 68]

Tim,If using Darwin to discount evolution seems naive to you, then why won't you find what Darwin says about human eyes and other such organs?

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.

There is a lot of information out there that is contrast to evolution, however I find it unlikely you'll take my word for it. The point of me telling you to go find this was that maybe you could take some initiative about what you believe.Go find the truth, not polarizing empty dogma.-Neal

Neal - re-read that quote from Darwin. He says that these amazingly complex features of the eye make the idea that it was formed by natural selection SEEM absurd. Why don't you give us the next sentence. I'm sure it starts with the word 'But.' In other words it seems absurd, but there is no other explanation.Another point worth mentioning is this: evolutionary biology has taken huge strides since Darwin wrote 'Origin of Species.' For example, Darwin didn't know about genes, he only knew that there must be some type of method for parents passing traits to their offspring. If one sentence taken out of context is your whole argument against Darwinian evolution, maybe you should be the one who is doing the reading.

[Sluggo 0]

I find it sad when science is misused on both sides.Evolution happened. Get over it.Natural selection might be wrong, but evolution certainly isn't.God may have created life, but evolution still occurred after it.Evolution != Natural Selection OR Origin Of Life

[guinevar 0]

Tim,If using Darwin to discount evolution seems naive to you, then why won't you find what Darwin says about human eyes and other such organs?

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.

There is a lot of information out there that is contrast to evolution, however I find it unlikely you'll take my word for it. The point of me telling you to go find this was that maybe you could take some initiative about what you believe.Go find the truth, not polarizing empty dogma.-Neal

Neal - re-read that quote from Darwin. He says that these amazingly complex features of the eye make the idea that it was formed by natural selection SEEM absurd. Why don't you give us the next sentence. I'm sure it starts with the word 'But.' In other words it seems absurd, but there is no other explanation.

There is another explanation. Go and find it. Don't find stuff that simply fits what you believe already.Find the truth.

[greatwhite 0]

I bet all of you still believe in Santa too.

[timwakefield 68]

Yes Neal, the other explanation being that God created all life? Adam and Eve? Or that God created evolution? Why don't you tell us what you think, instead of telling me to find "the truth," because I have read extensively about it, and I haven't found any rational argument against evolution. Darwin didn't come up with natural selection out of thin air, and then try to find a scientific basis for it. It happened the other way. Evolution isn't something scientists made up because they are atheists; it is what they have discovered, through scientific method, to be the way of the world.