| Hello, Rosa_McGee [ logout ] profile | register | faq | search | forum home (Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 ) << next newest topic | next oldest topic >> Marilyn Manson BBS > Marilyn Manson > To all the openminded I say welcome. The great theology thread has returned! Author Message Mike Sorrow Member 2179 Posts Member since: 10-08-2000 Freegrace, a few more questions if I may... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Do you believe the world was created in a week? If so, where do dinosaurs fit in? How about the Ice Age that humans couldn't have survived? What do you think of proven species like Neanderthal and Cro-magnum man? Did these exist at the same time as man and then die out? Or did they exist before man? Doesn't the lack of their existence today prove survival of the fittest to be true? No rush to answer. Thanks. P.S. This started a new page so don't forget to check out my previous post. - Mike Sorrow - posted 01-17-200102:57 PM freegrace Member 945 Posts Member since: 10-31-2000 Mike Sorrow, Devilmunchkin and Rosa_McGee ------------------------------------------------------------------------ It is so nice to see you all. My time is limited tonight so I am speaking off the top of my head, so my answer is not well thought out. I have learned the hard way that sometimes I may be misquoted if I don't choose my words carefully. Please allow me to retract, reconsider or rephrase my answer at a later time if I feel as though it is inappropriate. Mike Sorrow, I will try to do some research when I can about the fossils you've pointed out. Rosa_McGee, you are correct on the issue of the butterflies. I have heard it before. First on the issue of evolution. My point is this. If evolution is a continual process, which you all seem to suggest it is, my question is why do we not see the results of the previous continuations continuing today? Let's take Mike Sorrow's numbers because they are the most conservative. Let's say that 10000 years ago in 8000 BC there was a species that later became a man (I realize that the neanderthal man was much earlier than this but bear with me). My point is, Why isn't there a species from 6000 BC that will become man in 4000 AD? Or one in 3000 BC that will become man in 7000 AD? If we take Devilmunchkin's point of generations, the time gap becomes even smaller. What you are saying is that once the transition from neanderthal to man took place, there were no longer any more neanderthal's and I am not sure why. There still are apes. There still is bacteria. The only thing that is disappearing is the mutated animals which are the linchpin of the evolutionary argument. However, the only thing existing today is the complete beings. I realize there is interspecies variation but why are there no apes with human skin today? The reason I bring this up is that when I talk to my old roommate he says, "When you show me God on video, I'll believe him." Order in Artificial Chaos said, "Video's not good enough, I've got to see Him." Why, because it requires faith! However, if I turned the tables and said, "Show me an ape with human skin and I'll believe it." The standard is no longer the same. Now, please forgive me because I'm arguing from my mind. Keep in mind that my last science class was my freshman year in College 8 years ago. It was a chemistry class. The last time I studied biology was 11 years ago as a sophomore in high school. Devilmunchkin is a pre-med student and Mike Sorrow I know that is your life so I'll confess that my knowledge is limited. To be honest, I was thankful that I never had to take a science class again and as you can see I am no scientist. Please know that I am asking an honest question. Science is not one of my strong points and I have studied enough about evolution to form an opinion about it (as many of you have studied enough of Christianity to realize it is not for you) but I do not have the benefit of being in a regular college environment where I can interact with professors as you have. Currently, I'm in a private seminary school. So I say all of this realizing that I'm not saying this as a point of argument or debate but because I find that aspect of evolution hard to understand and do not have the faith in evolution to go that far. My dislike of science is working against me and I realize it. Mike, you've had a long time to study this and so hopefully you'll be patient with me as I look into it myself in more detail. I do try to fairly examine everything so if I ever get some spare time, I am willing to look into this. I have talked to several people who have studied evolution very intensely (very few of which are Christian by the way) and some majored in it or done graduate work in it and I have yet to find a single one who has ever questioned the notion that there are transitory animals in the fossil record. You all are the first. I'm not sure if there are some new discoveries I am not aware of or not. Mike, with regard to your question, I subscribe to the mature earth theory. Genesis 1:1-2 says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 And the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters." The word in the Hebrew, bara, does not mean to create from scratch but actually recreate. Genesis speaks only of the earth and not the universe. I believe that after the Satanic conflict in the heavenly realm, Satan was expelled to earth. His presense created a great disorder that left the world in chaos (thus it is described as formless and void). Thus Genesis 1 describes the God's redemption of a chaotic world. Incidentally, he still redeems individuals to this day. I believe that the entire Bible is written to describe God's redemptive work in the entire world. Thus, in the story of Adam and Eve, Adam was not created as an infant but as a mature adult. In the same way, the world could be created with signs of maturity and the appearance of age as well. In addition, I ascribe the view of a literal flood in Genesis 6. If this occurred, this would turn many of our assumptions about dating the earth out of whack. Sediment does not seem to settle as evenly and conveniently when it is being tossed all over the world in a world-wide flood. On the issue of the creation of the world in 4.6 billion years, as you may know Nobel Peace Prize winner Francis Crick tested the probability of one DNA molecule arising spontaneously over the course of the 4.6 billion years that is generally given for the age of the earth. His conclusion was ZERO (not practical). As you may know, after finding this, he postulated the notion of directed panspermia. This is the idea that a race of beings from a far off planet sent off sperm and seeded various planets. Sounds more like Star Wars than science. Intelligent design is a much better option. Hoyle and Crick are no weak scientists. I would be careful before I start dismissing their conclusions. You say that anything is possible in a universe as large as ours. Where is your evidence? Can you validate that statistically? As a scientist, you should not believe it unless it is documented and it seems like your faith in the big bang theory and evolution is overriding the evidence that points to the contrary. It takes a great deal of faith to do that...as much as believing that a God designed it. Also I'm not sure if placing all my faith in a system that can not answer the major questions but can only tear other systems down is a place I would want to rest my life on. Your guy in the boat is handing the guy in the water a book that has a cover that reads, "I know what isn't right but I can't explain what is." Rosa_McGee...I'll stop apologizing now. I just want to make sure you know how bad I feel if I mistreated you in any way. As I mentioned before, my primary objective on this bbs is to show that Christians are loving people and second to show they think logically. In my effort to demonstrate the second, I forgot the first. I'm really glad you're glancing in here from time to time. Mike Sorrow...Well, maybe to use your life boat analogy. A man is sitting in water. A guy comes by to explain the theory of evolution. The man in the boat offers no evidence with the exception of a book and some rumored fossil records. What is the man supposed to do? Exercise faith? See in your opinion, evolution is a given. One would be crazy not to believe in it. You could show me rumored fossils from many years ago and I'll show you historical accounts from many years ago. You show me butterflies and I'll show you human lives that have changed because of Christ. Regarding Christianity, if you want evidence, the greatest evidence is the miraculous world around us. Romans 1:18-23 says, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen." I never saw the answer to my question about the artist. The earth really is a beautiful place except for when man does his best work to hose it up (another argument for man being evil). I'm sorry but beautiful sunsets and picturesque mountainsides don't just happen "by chance" any more than the best music happens "by chance." Imagine you created a beautiful painting and signed your name at the bottom and someone erased your name and put "Anonymous" or "by chance." The humanistic view of the world that eliminates God as creator has done exactly that. On the issue of hell, you said that you agree that man is naturally evil. If you accept that view, I am not sure why you would ever suggest that any evil person should ever be in heaven. Also, God gave more than a book. He gave His one and only Son who lived a perfect life, died and rose again on behalf of our sins. That is what the notion of Savior means. Christianity is not all about rules. I'm not telling people how to wear the life preserver. What I am trying to do is tell them how to get to know the God that provided it for them. Lastly, my prayer is that my life will be more than a book. The life of most Christians is a terrible argument for the reason to believe in Christ but I hope to change that. My dream in life is to be just like Jesus in all I do (No Devilmunchkin, I don't have a WWJD? bracelet or I'm not celebrating passover but you know what I mean). Hopefully my life will be enough to convince that drug dealer who is without hope that there is an answer for the desperation he feels inside. And, if God wills, maybe some of the people on here who go to bed wondering if anyone loves them and if there is any hope in life (I'm not saying that about everybody on here), will remember that crazy Christian who jumped in that lions den and allowed himself to get yelled at, cussed at and laughed at because he did not want a single one of them to live life without realizing that somebody out there loved them and that God does too. And maybe if they hear how I was on the brink of suicide and addicted to alcohol, that they will have hope that anyone can change. That is why I love Adolph so much. You all may not have caught it on the other thread but I'm so excited to hear that he made the decision to deal with his drug problem. Rictus, where have you been man? I'm sure that once you get to this thread you'll be shocked at all the responses. It is nice to have so many people around. Well, I'm sorry this answer is probably inadequate for many of the exceptional points you raised. If it is any consolation, it did take me over an hour to write it (actually that probably shows how inept I am). I wish I had more scientific facts to offer, but I'll try to look into it when I get some free time (I should say if I get some free time). Nevertheless, it has been great speaking with you all and I hope you all never forget how much I truly do love you. It is an absolute pleasure discussing all of this with you. I only wish I had more time. Have a great day tomorrow! Your friend, Freegrace God is crazy about you. If God had a refrigerator, your picture would be on it. If He had a wallet, your photo would be in it. He sends you flowers every spring. He sends you a sunrise every morning. Whenever you want to talk, He listens. He can live anywhere in the universe, yet He chooses your heart. Face it, friend-He is crazy about you! posted 01-17-200110:29 PM _BooTMonsteR_ Junior Member 59 Posts Member since: 01-14-2001 freespace ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hmm.....Looks like the bbs is gunna run out of space after you post. LoL thats alot of crap. posted 01-17-200110:32 PM freegrace Member 945 Posts Member since: 10-31-2000 BooTMonsteR ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thanks for proving my point. I love you anyway...freegrace Matthew 5:"11 "Blessed are you when men cast insults at you, and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely, on account of Me. 12 "Rejoice, and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you." [This message was edited by freegrace on 01-17-2001 at 11:09 PM.] posted 01-17-200111:03 PM Mike Sorrow Member 2179 Posts Member since: 10-08-2000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Freegrace, as always it's a pleasure to discuss these matters with you. You mentioned "rumored fossil". The specimen that I mentioned are proven fossils and can be seen in museums. Are you denying the validity of these fossils as genuine? The reason that there are still apes is because of the idea of a niche. In environmental sciences, a niche is a gap to be filled in nature. Neanderthals were genetic mutations that were weeded out in nature. Apes were not weeded out because they still had niches to fill. A niche describes feeding, breeding, and other activities of an animal. If that animal is removed, other niches can be affected. If you need validation for the existence of niches in the environment, look to Florida Everglades. The alligator mandates the populations of its prey and also digs holes into the ground that provide shelter for other animals. If it were removed, some animals would over-populate and others would lose shelter. That is one reason why people try to conserve the Everglades and other natural habitats for endangered animals. If the ape is removed, it would've drastically affected nature. On the otherhand, there were no niches to be filled by genetic mutations such as the Neanderthal. If bacteria was removed, there would be a buildup of waste material that bacteria decomposes. The reason why the tables cannot be turned is because fossils, whose existence cannot be denied, are much more conclusive than a book. You mentioned how other proof for Christianity included Christ, himself ("Also, God gave more than a book. He gave His one and only Son who lived a perfect life, died and rose again on behalf of our sins"). In debate terms, that is circular reasoning. You are using a biblical figure as an example of proof for the Bible. As you know, one is innocent until proven guilty. That is called the burden of proof. Religion is like the Salem Witch trials in that sense. They offer no real evidence, with the exception of religious text, but everyone takes it for granted. Science also succumbs to the burden of proof. The difference being that science admits this, and while there are many "theories", science is able to provide concrete evidence toward the PROBABILITY that these are true. That brings me to my next point. You mentioned how it is risky to rely on science because it can only disprove, and not prove. The quote goes, "Science cannot prove anything..." It may be to my fault that I didn't bring up another point of reason for why scientists say that. They say that because science is based on PROBABILITY. Science can offer proof that something is probable. Science can even offer proof if something is very probable, but there will always be an x-factor, and that is why scientists cannot offer 100% proof of anything. They can, however, offer 99.99% proof. Although science cannot offer guaranteed proof, I remain confident in science because it can offer near-guaranteed proof. As I previously stated, science does require faith, just less faith. As for your artist argument, I'm sorry, but I passed that intentionally. It is a very subjective argument. You say that something this beautiful cannot happen by chance. I say it can happen by chance because there may be something more beautiful that didn't happen by chance. That means that as beautiful as a sunset is now, there could've been something 10 times more beautiful if a different formation occurred in the Earth. As for Crick, his studies weren't "ZERO". They were almost zero. That is a big difference. You said: quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ You say that anything is possible in a universe as large as ours. Where is your evidence? Can you validate that statistically? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Statistically, in any infinite space, no matter what the probability, a certain act will likely occur. Perhaps, somewhere else in the universe there were 50 million planets just like ours, except ours was the one that received the chance of the DNA molecule. Infinite is never-ending. No matter how many zeros pass the decimel point, as long as there is a number other than zero, there is a chance in a universe of INFINITE possibilities. You also said: quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ You could show me rumored fossils from many years ago and I'll show you historical accounts from many years ago. You show me butterflies and I'll show you human lives that have changed because of Christ. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ First, as I mentioned, the fossils are documented. Next, your "historical accounts" come from the Bible. Given that you call the Bible the "Word of God", how can you then use the Bible as historical accounts that prove the Bible? It's the common fallacy of circular reasoning. Much like I can't say that Big Brother is real because of the "historical accounts" in 1984. Also, I show you butterflies because they are evidence towards the ideas of survival of the fittest. You don't actually show me lives that have changed because of Christ. In actuality, you are showing me lives that have changed because of belief in Christ. That uplifting belief is what still drives religions to this day. Ok, I was rereading your reply, and I missed this the first time, so I am backtracking to the subject of evolution. You said: quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Why isn't there a species from 6000 BC that will become man in 4000 AD? Or one in 3000 BC that will become man in 7000 AD? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ That reason is simple. The species that were to become human were a genetic mutation. Because of their numbers, they needed to survive. In order to survive, they needed to evolve. The matter arose that the mutated species would either evolve or die off. Those that evolved continued to do so. Those that didn't evolve died. There would need to have been another genetic mishaps in 3000 B.C. to start over the process of evolution, especially because there were no niches for the mutation to fill. Ok, back to the man in the boat. (hey, we really like this guy! ) You said: quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ What is the man supposed to do? Exercise faith? See in your opinion, evolution is a given. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ In my example, evolution was not a given. In my boat example, I was explaining that religion does have the burden of proof to deal with. It doesn't offer adequate proof. Its only arguments come from religious text. Among any lawyer, politician, or debate analyst, using a book to prove the contents of the book is a fallacy. Nowhere in my boat example did I even mention evolution. As for "a given", nothing should be a given. Not religion. Not evolution. In your new boat example, I agree with what you said. The man does have to have faith. However, your boat example was flawed. The fossils aren't rumored; they are proven. And evolution offers more than a book. It offers extensive studies, microscopic perspectives, computer generated images of atom structure and DNA strands, along with other devices. That is definitely more than a book. To prove that such devices are accurate, I offer the example of the efficiency of DNA tests. By now, my wrists hurt. Also, if Boot Monster thought your post was long, he's in for a whopper. As always, it's a pleasure talking with you. - Mike Sorrow - posted 01-18-200111:10 AM freegrace Member 945 Posts Member since: 10-31-2000 Mike Sorrow ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Great post. I'm on my way out to a meeting. I'll get to this eventually...Maybe not today...freegrace God is crazy about you. If God had a refrigerator, your picture would be on it. If He had a wallet, your photo would be in it. He sends you flowers every spring. He sends you a sunrise every morning. Whenever you want to talk, He listens. He can live anywhere in the universe, yet He chooses your heart. Face it, friend-He is crazy about you! posted 01-18-200112:09 PM devilmunchkin Member 3003 Posts Member since: 08-19-2000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ i would like to add this as well to Mike Sorrows argument: free grace, you were asking about why man ended up as he is and why others arn't as well. Well, for starters, man isn't a finished product...there is always a beginning in this....but never an end until all life is destroyed. I also brought up the evidence found in humanity that shows it continues today (i guess you just forgot ). Fossils have been found and documented of human. From Biblical times to present day, scientists have found that humans have grown in size by about a foot.....this also shows how evolution is sllllloooow. It took us a couple 1000 years to grow a foot. Skeletons of Hebrews back in Davids time are around 5 feet..and those are the male skeletons. Today, 6 feet is common. THROUGH ME YOU GO INTO PAIN THAT IS ETERNAL, THROUGH ME YOU GO AMONG PEOPLE LOST. JUSTICE MOVED MY EXALTED CREATOR: THE DIVINE POWER MADE ME, THE SUPREME WISDOM AND THE PRIMA LOVE. BEFORE ME ALL CREATED THINGS WERE ETERNAL, AND ETERNAL WILL LAST. ABANDON EVERY HOPE YOU WHO ENTER HERE. Dante's Inferno, Canto III posted 01-18-200112:42 PM Plastic Jesus Member 2733 Posts Member since: 06-19-2000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Oh god....so many replies in few days. I'm not even trying to read all those other posts so I'm just gonna continue my conversation with freegrace, though ofcourse everyone else is free to comment, too. So, freegrace, you asked about my name. Well, let me try to explain it. To me my name symbolizes everything I hate (or maybe that's too strong of a word) in our society. First of all the plastic things we're so much in love with, the soap opera lifestyle. And then christianity limiting us, adding the double standards to the MTV population. This is what controls us. That little plastic jesus standing on people's dashboards symbolizes our society (and especially america) more than anything else. So that's why I chose that name, to remind myself of what I'm trying to fight against. You asked what contradictions did I mean. Well, here are a few examples: Is God allmighty? From Matthew 19:26: "... with God all things are possible." BUT, from Judges 1:19 "...The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." And another example could be the contradiction between "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" and turning your other cheek. And there are more. (And yes I admit taking those from a website. But I still have read the bible, well most of it. So I think that can be forgiven). And not only contradictions, but the Bible also has alot of impossible and illogical things and things that just aren't true. The Bible says King Salomon sacrificed 22 000 bulls and 120 000 sheep in one week. This means he slaughtered over 845 animals in one hour, 14 animals per minute. All day and night. The Bible also says snakes eat dust. And why does the bible say Jesus was crusified with two robbers? At that time robbers never were crusified. And then there's the hostility towards homosexuals and all the other cruelties. I could go on forever but I guess I made my point already clear. So, if God wrote the Bible, why did he/she/it leave so many mistakes in it? Not all of this can be explained with bad translation. An allmighty God doesn't make mistakes. So why is the Bible like this? Maybe 'cause it's supposed to be taken symbolically, not literally. It was originally collected from over 60 books anyway. And about what you said about atheists being like lost kids in a mall. That's a good comparison but I dont think I fit there. I mean, I've been there with dad but I ran away. And, unlike many Manson-fans, it wasn't because of rebelling. I had hard times and I used to pray for God alot. but slowly I started to realize that praying wont help me, I have to do something to it myself. And then I started doing it and as my faith disappeared, better days came. So here's question for you: Why did god allow this to happen? Why did god let me suffer when I believed and ended it when I stopped believing?What was the point? Was that all? I still have alot to say but I'll say my opinion about creating a god to suit your needs later. I really hope my views aren't insulting you too much, I wish not to do that. But I wish to provoke you, and everyone else including myself, to think. Again, feel free to comment and please ask any questions you want. ---------------------- "Don't make your kids stupid!" -Jello Biafra The Plastic Jesus Cult plastic.jesus@antisocial.com Official Naked Runners Club: no.6 posted 01-18-200112:54 PM Plastic Jesus Member 2733 Posts Member since: 06-19-2000 a bit more... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I found this older piece of text I had written and was supposed to post it back when you had the old conversation going but I never finished it. Anyway, it would be a waste not to post it so here it is (a part of it anyway). I might differ a bit from your average Marilyn Manson fan in a way that my anti-Christian opinions have nothing to do with rebelling. I'm not going through a phrase. I'd say I "evolved" to this. I believed once, too. But slowly it started to fade away as I started appreciating facts more and more. Nowadays facts are someting I demand, things have to be proved or at least assured very throughoutly. And I don't think Christianity does this. There are no facts or evidence that the Bible is the word of God or that it even has anything to do with it. I demand grounds and Christianity lacks much of it. Christianity, however, is someting that interests me alot. I've been doing my own personal investigation for quite a while now. And, sadly, the more I see the more I get saddended by it. It's sometimes hard for me to understand that this is something so many of us believe. I hope I'm not offending you with my opinions since that's not my point. I'm just glad I come across a Christian who actually can discuss his belief without being overly aggressing. You remind me of one of my favourite sites in the internet. You should take a loot at it. http://elroy.com/ehr/ ...that was it. I'll be coming back. ---------------------- "Don't make your kids stupid!" -Jello Biafra The Plastic Jesus Cult plastic.jesus@antisocial.com Official Naked Runners Club: no.6 posted 01-18-200101:08 PM Rosa_McGee Member 841 Posts Member since: 08-16-2000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ @ mike sorrow... as i said, i'm no natural scientist, i'm just trying to remember some things from school & apologise for all factual mistakes in advance (& while i'm at it, for wrong use of scientific terms as well, but i'm not always sure about the correct translation & too lazy to check every single word...)...., however i didn't mean that fossiles are irrelevant... but similarities & differences in the genetic code seem to me very much a prove of evolution, too.. however, the following comes from my sister, who studied agriculture & had to take a lot of biology, chemistry.... whatever, courses: the principle of evolution is not that man did develop a larger brain, because he needed it, it is that some individuals of the human species through totally random genetic mutations had a larger brain, or some other faculties which in this specific situation gave them some kind of advantage, (developing better hunting techniques, more sucess with the females...) - they survived, probably were healthier, had more children & passed their genes on to them.... it's not a matter of need, or will... the same mutation in different circumstances might have determined their extinction, or have been totally irrelevant... however, i think we need some chronology here... we're not talking about 10.000 yrs, or so.. (i did a little internet research on the following, but i used scientific sites, so the facts should be reasonably correct, even if i simplified them a bit....) i'll skip the early part, because much of this obviously is hypothesis... but: bacteria & algae started evolving about ca. 4 to 1 billion (!) yrs ago, more complex life forms (sponges, worms, brachiopods, trilobites, first plants) 600 - 500 million yrs; first vertebrate, fish, reptiles, insects: 400 - 350 million yrs; dinosaurs: 230 - 67 million yrs., first mammals 180 million yrs., birds a bit later; beginning of the age of the mammals: 67 million yrs ago after the extinction of the dinosaurs... animal as we know them were pretty much evolved at about 2 million to 600.000 yrs. ago the split beween humans and apes is supposed to have happened 15-20, maybe even 30-40 million (!) yrs ago, the australopithecus existed 4 - 2 million yrs ago, the homo erectus 1.8 million - 300,000 yrs ago, the homo sapiens 500.000 yrs, the neanderthal man 230,000 and 30,000 yrs., the homo sapiens sapiens (modern man) evolved about 120.000 yrs. ago i know that's a lot of bring numbers, but i felt we (me included) should know what spans of time we're talking about... it puts our history ( fortified settlements were created in the 8th millenium (jericho, catal hÃ1?4yÃ1?4k) the sumerian culture starts in the 4th millenium, egyptian history about 3000 b.c., ) in a more objective perspective... as for the question why there's no continous evolution which turns every bacteria into a human life form sooner or later... (those are my thoughts, based on what little i know, so please correct me, if i'm wrong.... it's a matter of totally random mutations within the dna... the possibilities here are countless, multiply this by the probability that the change is in any way relevant to the species in its current situation, that it leads to better adaption rather than to extinction, that the individum, or species in question isn't killed before it can pass on it's genes, that the next generation survives, that this particular change is still relevant, say 100 yrs. in the future, by which time conditions might have changed again ... there are so much more variables than e.g., in mendel's laws, the factors not only being the genetic changes themselves, but these changes in relation to their surrondings... i couln't even start calculating... here i go....*g*.. freegrace, i bet you'll soon wish i'd glance, but post less..... o.k., last thought... beauty is entirely in the eye of the beholder, it's a human concept but no objective creterium whatsoever... if you want to prove god i think it should be in the laws of nature which make the world what it is... they exist with or without humans to see or understand them.... *hits herself & tells herself firmly finally to hit post button & stop bothering everyone else* [This message was edited by Rosa_McGee on 01-18-2001 at 01:56 PM.] posted 01-18-200101:44 PM Queen Mab Junior Member 93 Posts Member since: 01-13-2001 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ good day. *its not the dead i fear, the living is the only threat* posted 01-18-200101:45 PM freegrace Member 945 Posts Member since: 10-31-2000 Wow! A lot of great responses! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ If I don't get to each one of these in the next few days it is not for lack of consideration. Some, like those of Mike Sorrow, Devilmunchkin and Rosa's will require some research on my part since I have not studied biology in a while. For now, I will leave my answer as "Great question. I don't know" until I can get further clarification. The biblical issues that Plastic Jesus can be addressed as well and they are good issues. Rosa_McGee...glance and post. I still think it is great to have you here. My point on the beauty is that although it is a subjective matter, anything beautiful requires work. It does not happen by chance. Manson did not come up with the music he plays (personally, I like it but some would differ on this definition of beauty) by picking up a guitar he never played. I couldn't decide to become a rock star right now even if I wanted to unless I was willing to take the time and energy reqiured to do art. Even if one might not think Manson's work was beautiful, it is easy to see that it did not happen by chance and that a great deal of effort. The way the earth is so intimately designed is not something that occurred by chance. On the one hand, Mike Sorrow argues that he can give 99.9% certainty about something while arguing for two things that have zero certainty. I think that is what George W Bush calls funny math. If science is about probabilities, why argue for something that has zero probability as calculated by scientists. The statistic I stated was for one DNA molecule arising spontaneously over a course of 4.6 billion years was zero. The body has over a trillion DNA molecules and there is a zero possibility of one occuring spontaneously, yet evolutionary theory rests on the assumption that this is normative. The other statistic I stated by Hoyle was on one cell originating spontaneously when the universe is full of them. Mike, we cannot underestimate the fact that Hoyle and Crick were no dummies. And their goal was to determine if these things could happen anywhere and they both reached the same conclusion. I am sure they were well aware of the size and possibilities of our universe. However you are not only arguing for the impossible to happen once but normatively. This requires a great deal of faith. I'd rather place my faith in Jesus raising from the dead once. It is much more probable. What is most amazing is that all of these impossible factors combined in the creation of our earth and the sustenance of life. We are willing to ascribe to chaos in the large things (e.g. the development of the world) when we cannot see this action occuring in the small things (the development of music or a car--i.e. my Yugo illustration). Rosa, regarding the Butterflies. I believe in a God that cares so much for His creation that He would allow them to change colors. You see it as an argument for evolution, I see it as an argument for God. Mike Sorrow, I'll have to look into the fossils issue more. This will require a great deal of research. As I said, you have a far greater knowledge about this than I do. Be patient with me on this one. From what I understand, scientists have gone to great lengths to make many of the fossils used to justify their views. That is what I meant by reported. The fossil used to describe neanderthal man is supposedly only a small portion of a face and I'd be curious to see some of the others. When you are looking for proof, you will find it, even if you have to manipulate it a little. There are many scientists who are looking all over the world for these fossils, yet if it so normative there should be millions of them. My point still stands that if the basic assumptions of evolution are wrong, than that should at least require a little bit of introspection. On the issue of circular reasoning, this previous discussion thread began with a discussion entitled Was Jesus a Myth. More than the Bible testifies about him. I really don't want to rehash this argument but I will quote the following: quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ As for your other question, the works of Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Epictetus, Lucian, Aristides, Galenus, Lampridius, Dio Cassius, Emeritus, Annianus, Marcellinus, Eunapius and Zosimus talk about Christ. None of these are Christian writers. Some, like Lucian, Celsius, Porphyry, Hieracles and Julian wrote entire works about Christ. Who is more likely to testify whether Jesus existed or not, people that lived in his time or people that live in the 21st century and have no idea except for what they read? Once again, what proof do you need that wouldn't also be used to defend the existence of Plato, Socrates, or even William Shakespeare? The burden of proof is on the doubter not the person that argues that Christ existed. I would wager that virtually no historian in the world today would put his reputation on the line by stating that Jesus is not a myth because the evidence of his existence is so overwhelming. Would you? What proof do you or anyone else have that He IS a myth? Most of what I've seen so far is pretty weak in comparison to the loads of historical information verifying the existence of Christ. That is neither here nor there. My purpose here is not to argue but to let a generation know that they are loved and not forgotten and to disprove the classic Christian stereotypes. My bet is that many of the people that feel the most pain of rejection are right here and that is why I write.With love...Free Grace ------------------------------------------------------------------------ If you want to follow any other points, they were all in this thread: http://marilynmansonbbs.artistdirect.com/1/OpenTopic?q=Y&a=tpc&s=10019&f=371193081&m=999196553&p=5 On the issue of Evolution and Alleged bible contradictions I think that the likelihood of changing minds is always slim. However, I am always willing to answer questions and respond to all of your comments. This weekend I'll be in school so if I don't check back for a few days that is why...freegrace God is crazy about you. If God had a refrigerator, your picture would be on it. If He had a wallet, your photo would be in it. He sends you flowers every spring. He sends you a sunrise every morning. Whenever you want to talk, He listens. He can live anywhere in the universe, yet He chooses your heart. Face it, friend-He is crazy about you! posted 01-18-200103:27 PM Mike Sorrow Member 2179 Posts Member since: 10-08-2000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thanks, Freegrace. I await your reply with patience. Rosa McGee, as I mentioned at the time that I posted it, the figure was from the top of my head, so I apologize for the number 10,000. I did mention it was for Neanderthals which you said were 230,000 - 30,000 years ago. Thank you for the time line. It will definitely help with all of the evolution talk in this thread. Also, I do agree with your sister. What she describes is survival of the fittest, which I mentioned earlier that I agreed with. Evolution out of necessity is just another way to look at it because of the randomness of mutations. The best example of necessity that I can offer is an animal's primal instinct changing based on the food supply around it, so that the animal can get another food to survive. While I do believe in natural selection, I also believe in evolution out of necessity because the argument reduces the amount of chance involved in evolution because there is already enough chance to go around. You are right about the many possibilities when it comes to evolution. Because mutations are spontaneous mishaps, there are a number of combinations that could occur within a species. And don't apologize for not knowing the various science terms. I don't expect anyone to waste as much of their free time pondering science as I do. Also, anything you can add to my argument for evolution is good for me. As for posting less, I wish you'd post more. Then, maybe I wouldn't have to spend so much time on my replies to Freegrace. I enjoy your posts and am grateful for another pro-evolutionary on this thread. Plastic Jesus, thanks for joining back in. Great name. Good day to you too, Mab. - Mike Sorrow - posted 01-18-200103:39 PM Mike Sorrow Member 2179 Posts Member since: 10-08-2000 Freegrace... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ok, I guess I didn't need patience. You said: quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On the one hand, Mike Sorrow argues that he can give 99.9% certainty about something while arguing for two things that have zero certainty. I think that is what George W Bush calls funny math. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I'm sorry, but you keep misquoting this experiment. Crick did not argue for an ABSOLUTE ZERO certainty. He argued that it was so minute, it should be considered zero, when in actuality, it wasn't zero. Almost zero is not equal to zero. As for George W. Bush, well... quite frankly, he's an idiot. Also, you said: quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The other statistic I stated by Hoyle was on one cell originating spontaneously when the universe is full of them. Mike, we cannot underestimate the fact that Hoyle and Crick were no dummies ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Actually, in respect to Hoyle and Crick, I feel I was being very respective to their views. I did not try to disprove or even discredit their experiments. As a matter of fact, I even took much of their research for granted when making my points. Also, upon doing more research of my own, I have discovered that Hoyle and Crick were merely pointing out the mathematical improbabilities of something spontaneously generating randomly. Here is another point that I will make after having done more research: While Crick and Hoyle argued against the probability of spontaneous generation, one factor that was omitted is that the organic material and necessary processes, such as lightning, WERE ALREADY PRESENT ON EARTH. Thus, making it not mere spontaneous generation of a cell, but, instead, it is a combination of the factors in our planet and our universe that led to this creation. The important thing to note is that it IS NOT SPONTANEOUS GENERATION, but instead, it IS A COMBINATION OF BIOTIC AND ABIOTIC FACTORS THAT ALREADY EXISTED. You said: quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ However you are not only arguing for the impossible to happen once but normatively. This requires a great deal of faith. I'd rather place my faith in Jesus raising from the dead once. It is much more probable. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ With my last few arguments, I showed how it is possible in an infinite space to reach a number that is almost zero and how it isn't random, but instead a combination of predetermined factors. As for the probability of the Resurrection, what are you using to determine its probability? While evidence has been offered towards the creation of a cell from organic matter that has already existed on Earth, there is no evidence or mathematical probability in favor of a dead guy returning to life. As for your burden of proof arguments, I will have to do some research on the historians that you mentioned that wrote on Jesus Christ. I am well aware that others wrote about Chrestus, which was another messiah figure at the time of Christianity's becoming of a religion. These messiahs could easily be mistaken for one another, but I have not done enough research on the subject. As for the actual burden of proof, even if I concede that Christ did in actuality exist (which I don't), religion still has the burden of proof to prove that his existence was in fact that of the messiah. That is evidence. And that is something you won't find from non-Christian texts. So, you may be able to offer good proof to his existence, but you will not find accurate "historical accounts" that he was indeed the son of God or that there was a God. That is missing evidence whose only point of reference is religious text. I implore you to find non-partisan, secular research that offers conclusive evidence towards the existence of God. You cannot because the Bible is the only point of evidence. You said: quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The burden of proof is on the doubter ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The burden of proof is not on the doubter. If I say someone is a witch, the burden of proof is not on the person who doubts me. The burden of proof is on me. Much like if you say there is a god, the burden of proof is not on the person who doubts you. Instead, the burden of proof is on the person who made the initial claim. If I say that evolution is true, I made the initial claim, so may the burden of proof lie on me for that claim. As the burden for proving evolution lies on my shoulders, the burden for proving religion is on yours. You said: quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ God that cares so much for His creation that He would allow them to change colors. You see it as an argument for evolution, I see it as an argument for God. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Even if a god allows them to change, wouldn't the fact that they are changing in response to their environment be classified as evolution. In essence, you are stating that God allows them to evolve. How can one not see this as an argument for evolution? Evolution is a theory that things change in response to environment. Would the changing of colors be classified as change in response to environment? Even if I concede that God exists (which I don't), wouldn't God letting them change colors still constitute evolution? Why not? As for changing minds, I look not to change your mind. I only provide facts that may or may not make you question yourself. Also, this is for anyone who teeters on the fence of belief systems. I offer arguments for that person to fall on my side of the fence. I would also love to read your responses to the Bible contradictions that Plastic Jesus brought up. As always, it's a pleasure, and I await your return. - Mike Sorrow - posted 01-18-200105:00 PM Rosa_McGee Member 841 Posts Member since: 08-16-2000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ @ mike sorrow.. by posting those dates i wasn't implying you made any mistake, rather it was supposed to be an argument in favour of evolution & why it doesn't happen while we're watching... problem is, my first language is german, plus i'm an archaeologist, not a natural scientist... so i'm not quite sure sometimes how coherent i'm on this issue... if you looked into the older threads, you'll see i've already argued with freegrace a lot (i was atossa there) starting on the 'was jesus a myth' topic, which resulted in me getting rather exasperated & a bit angry in the end... much as i appreciate his kindness, esp when i was really feeling fucked up on new year's eve & his willingness to discuss this issues with us, i do have difficulties with his views because they are so very far removed from my own... i've had a rather religious phase from 14 till about 18 yrs, too, but even then i'd never have taken the bible literary... no one would even have suggested that, even at school we were taught to interpret it.... & i never even managed to move his opinions even a little bit, which is slightly frustrating, too... i'm only human after all... it always comes down to either you believe it, or you don't ..... so you'll probably not get me to post more on the faith issue, because basically i've said it all & to no avail... (like you in your last post, i had pointed out that while there may well have been a historical figure called jesus that doesn't necessarily mean he was the son of god, and that all the myths later created around him have to be true) (@ freegrace, i hope this doesn't offend you...) quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ My point on the beauty is that although it is a subjective matter, anything beautiful requires work. It does not happen by chance ------------------------------------------------------------------------ you misunderstood me here... i wasn't even trying to prove or disprove god, but maybe even trying to give you a sounder argument for your case, moving it from a purely subjective to a more objective level... kinda philosophical.... posted 01-18-200105:43 PM freegrace Member 945 Posts Member since: 10-31-2000 Thanks All ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I will address Plastic Jesus' Arguments. I haven't forgotten them and I do not plan on neglecting them. While you are on the internet, you might find this interesting. This is what I meant by "supposed fossils." The Bible is often eliminated as evidence because the people wrote were not impartial in trying to prove Christ's identity. Could the same be said of evolution? Possibly. The great motive of the humanistic movement is to eliminate God as creator and I'm not so sure about the scientific objectivity and impartiality of this endeavor. Also Mike Sorrow, I'd have to check it out but I thought that Hoyle was practical zero and that Crick was zero but I may be wrong. As for the evidence on Jesus' existence, we hit that topic pretty hard on the Was Jesus A Myth? Like Rosa, I'd probably rather not revisit it again. quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Uncertainties of Homo Erectus We have all seen the series of extinct creatures that lead from ape to man. Evolutionists confidently declare that while there may be a lot of details missing from the story, the basic outline is fairly complete. This all seems rather impressive. In his recent book, Bones of Contention (Baker, 1992, p. 21), creationist Marvin Lubenow, offers an important observation: What is not generally known is that this sequence, impressive as it seems, is a very artificial and arbitrary arrangement because 1) some fossils are selectively excluded if they do not fit well into the evolutionary scheme; 2) some human fossils are arbitrarily downgraded to make them appear to be evolutionary ancestors when they are in fact true humans; and 3) some non-human fossils are upgraded to make them appear to be human ancestors. The australopithecines are a good example of Lubenow's third point. These extinct apes are trumpeted as human ancestors because of their crude bipedal walking ability. But nearly everything else about them is ape-like. The origin of their bipedality would be no small evolutionary task. Even Richard Leakey admits as much in his book with Roger Lewin, Origins Reconsidered (pp. 83-84), when he says that the change from walking on four legs to walking on two legs ...would have required an extensive remodeling of the ape's bone and muscle architecture and of the overall proportion in the lower half of the body. Mechanisms of gait are different, mechanics of balance are different, functions of major muscles are different--an entire functional complex had to be transformed for efficient bipedalism to be possible. Yet these immense changes are not documented from the fossil record. A good example of Lubenow's second point, the arbitrary downgrading of human fossils to make them appear to be our ancestors, is Homo erectus. Homo erectus is said to span the time from around 1.7 million years ago to nearly 400,000 years ago. From its first appearance, erectus is admitted to have a fully human post-cranial skeleton (that means everything but the head). But the brain size is given an evolutionary twist by saying that it only approaches the average for modern humans. In reality, Homo erectus brain size is within the range of modern humans. Throughout the course of their book, Origins Reconsidered, Leakey and Lewin document an impressive array of characteristics that distinguish the ape-like qualities of australopithecines from the human qualities of Homo erectus. Australopithecines are small in stature, only 3-4 feet tall, and the males are twice the size of females. In humans and Homo erectus, the males are only 15-20% larger than females, and a juvenile erectus fossil is estimated to have grown to a height of six feet if he had lived. In Homo erectus, all of the following characteristics display the human pattern, while in australopithecines, the ape pattern is evident: growth pattern, dental structure and development, facial structure and development, brain morphology, height to weight ratio, probable position of larynx based on the contours of the base of the skull making speech possible, and the size of the birth canal relative to the size of the adult brain. Where some Homo erectus fossils differ from humans can be explained by the effects of inbreeding, dietary restrictions, and a harsh environment. But evolutionists need an intermediate, and Homo erectusis the only option available. Neanderthals and the Paleontologists In the field of paleoanthropology, the study of human fossils, one must approach the data and interpretations of the scientists involved with a careful and skeptical eye. There are a number of obvious reasons for this healthy skepticism. The most important reason being that they are looking for man's evolutionary ancestors. If that is what you are looking for, then that is likely what you will report to have found. That is just human nature. A second reason, is that there is a great deal of competitiveness among anthropologists. They are involved in a race to be the one to discover the missing link which will mean immense notoriety and financial gain. The temptation to exaggerate the importance of their findings at the expense of others is very great. Another reason for skepticism is that all anthropologists compare only plaster casts of the fossils or measurements available in the literature and not the fossils themselves. The actual fossils are understandably considered too delicate, fragile, and valuable to be handled directly all the time. However, plaster casts are sadly unable to accurately reproduce many of the details needed for proper study. In 1984, the largest collection of actual fossils was gathered from around the world at the American Museum of Natural History for the opening of the "Ancestors" exhibit. It was a unique opportunity for side by side comparisons that took much persuasion to pull off. The mounts for each skull or fragment were individually prepared using a cast of the original fossil. Unfortunately, when the real fossils showed up, most of them did not fit! It is a myth to think that those who teach and write on human origins have actually held in their hands even a fraction of the original material. Evolutionists have been embarrassed on more than one occasion when their evolutionary bias, competitiveness, and lack of familiarity with the original fossils were not considered. A good example is the misinterpretation of neanderthals. Though there is still much dispute whether neanderthals are a sub-species of humans or a completely different species, in the early part of this century, there was unanimity in the belief that neanderthals were brutish, stooped creatures who were more closely related to apes than to humans. This impression stood for over forty years. One of the first complete neanderthal skeletons was found in a cave in France in 1908. It was given to the French paleontologist, Marcellin Boule to reconstruct. From other fragmentary fossils, Boule had already formed an evolutionary bias that neanderthals were not related to humans. Boule saw only the "primitive" traits of neanderthals and ignored clear evidence of arthritis and rickets in the skeleton. Boule reconstructed the skeleton without the curves in the spine that allow humans to walk upright. He also placed the skull far forward so that it would have been difficult to even look up as we do. Other miscues produced an individual who was little more than a shuffling hunchback. Because of his reputation, this reconstruction stood until 1957, when two scientists re-examined the reconstruction and found Boule's prejudicial mistakes. Their study concluded that neanderthals, when healthy, stood erect, and walked normally. Neanderthals were simply stronger, stockier members of the human family. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Allowing the Facts to Speak It is interesting to observe certain pieces of the fossil evidence for human evolution either ignored or stretched in order to not upset the accepted picture of human evolution. Creationist Marvin Lubenow, in his recent book, Bones of Contention, gives numerous examples of this kind of manipulation, and I'd like to discuss three of the most glaring incidents. First is a bone fragment of the lower end of the upper arm, near the elbow, that was found near Kanapoi, Kenya, in 1965 and is given the designation, KP 271. What is unusual about this discovery is the date of around 4.5 million years--unusual because it appears for all intents and purposes to be human. Humans are not supposed to have been around 4.5 million years ago. Consequently, this small piece of humerus is usually designated as Australopithecus because that is the only hominid species known to be available at that time. Lubenow quotes Harvard anthropologist William Howells in a stunning admission, The humeral fragment from Kanapoi, with a date of about 4.4 million, could not be distinguished from Homo sapiens morphologically or by multivariate analysis by Patterson and myself in 1967. . . . We suggested that it might represent Australopithecus because at that time allocation to Homo seemed preposterous, although it would be the correct one without the time element. (pp. 56-57). The only reason KP 271 is not listed as human is because it can't be, according to evolution. Second, many have heard of a series of footprints found by Mary Leakey near Laetoli, Tanzania. Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin, however, just gloss over them by calling them hominid footprints (Origins Reconsidered, p. 103). But Lubenow documents that these footprints are identical to those made today by humans that always walk barefoot. Yet these footprints are routinely classified as Australopithecine. William Howells refers to the conclusions of Russell Tuttle from the University of Chicago and a leading expert on hominoid gates and limbs as saying that the footprints are nearly identical to modern humans and that australopithecine feet are significantly different. Tuttle suggests an undiscovered species made these prints. But he can't say that a human made them because humans aren't supposed to exist yet. In the words of evolutionist William Howells, "Here is something of an enigma" (Getting Here: The Story of Human Evolution, p. 79). Indeed! Finally, Lubenow documents the incredible saga of determining the date for Skull 1470. Skull 1470 was very modern in its appearance but was found in rock previously dated at 2.9 million years--much too old for a modern skull. So some scientists set out to determine a much younger date. Lubenow recounts the back and forth wrangling over the issue. Several radioactive methods and paleomagnetism mainly pointed to 2.9 million years, but a few were found contradictory. Ultimately the radioactive dates were tossed aside in favor of a date of 1.9 million years, a date that fit the human evolution better, based on the certainty of the dates of pig evolution. Yes, pig evolution. To quote Lubenow, "The pigs won. . . . The pigs took it all. But in reality, it wasn't the pigs that won. It was evolution that won. In the dating game, evolution always wins" (p. 266)...The most obvious first step is to recognize that Homo erectus, archaic Homo sapiens, neanderthals, and Homo sapiens form a continuum of the human family. The different forms represent genetic variation within a species and not distinct species. Many evolutionists themselves have difficulty drawing the line between these four different labels. A group of human fossils from Kow Swamp, Australia, are no more than 13,000 years old yet contain may of the skull characteristics of Homo erectus. Some of the explanations for this involve cultural modifications and not genetic differences. In other words, many of the characteristics of Homo erectus can be achieved in modern humans by lifestyle changes. These could include deliberate forehead compression, deformation due to inbreeding, modifications due to dietary deficiencies and peculiarities. The late Arthur Custance documents differences in the modern skulls of Eskimos due to the massive jaw muscles that are developed because of their diet (Genesis and Early Man, 1975). Many of these changes would be labeled as primitive if dug up in some ancient river bed, yet they exist in fully modern humans today. Marvin Lubenow offers the interesting suggestion that many of these ancient humans are the remains of individuals within the first millennia after the flood of Noah (Bones of Contention, pp. 144-156). Effects of the ice age, constant cloud cover (preventing Vitamin D formation leading to rickets), largely vegetarian and uncooked diet, and expression of local genetic variation could readily account for the many different, yet anatomically related human forms. Are these ancient humans former ape-like creatures that are evolving towards humans, or are they humans caught in a unique and harsh world that brought about numerous interspecies variants? Evolutionists never bother to ask the latter question. A creationist perspective, in this case, may lead to questions that evolutionists may never ask. That is the value, in science, of a different perspective. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Complete article: http://www.origins.org/orgs/probe/docs/hufossil.html God is crazy about you. If God had a refrigerator, your picture would be on it. If He had a wallet, your photo would be in it. He sends you flowers every spring. He sends you a sunrise every morning. Whenever you want to talk, He listens. He can live anywhere in the universe, yet He chooses your heart. Face it, friend-He is crazy about you! posted 01-18-200106:00 PM Mike Sorrow Member 2179 Posts Member since: 10-08-2000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Freegrace, thanks for responding, but I find many inherent flaws on your subject of "rumored fossil records". While it is true that a few fossils have been fake, they are generally discovered as a hoax. Fossils go through many numerous tests, especially as we learn more with new technology. Lubenow is a creationist who is simply offering a suggestion that scientists are not credible because they can tamper with the evidence. This is the fallacy called "poisoning the well" (hey, I can do legal jargon as well as science ). It is unfair because the argument does nothing except to discredit scientists as a whole. Unfortunately, despite Lubenow's heavy bias, scientists main goal is to seek the truth. If it wasn't, every new theory wouldn't be called "theory" it would be called law. Instead, scientists continue to question themselves, retract incorrect equations, and revise theories. If these fossils have passed through numerous tests, both by scientists and technology, do you honestly believe that it is a giant cover-up conspiracy by scientists to make the public buy into evolutionary theory? Or is it that under the biased eye of Lubenow and a handful of creationists, the facts become distorted? I'm sure Lubenow would have also tried to discredit Isaac Newton's laws of gravity because he was a scientist. Unless, of course you are taking Lubenow's standpoint of discrediting science as whole. In which case, I bring up the proof of anything scientific, such as DNA in blood, medicine, the Earth being round, gravity, et. al. Also, the article you quoted is not mere research. It is subjective material from a Christian website with a vested interest in how the material pans out. However, scientists have no such vested interest, as it is their job to create theories and then disprove their own research. Here is a quote from your research: quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Probe Ministries is a non-profit corporation whose mission is to reclaim the primacy of Christian thought and values in Western culture through media, education, and literature. In seeking to accomplish this mission, Probe provides perspective on the integration of the academic disciplines and historic Christianity. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The point I'm trying to make is that things like Boule's predjudice have been caught. Fossils and reconstructions pass numerous tests. The Bible doesn't. Fossils are offer physical specimen to research. The Bible is a book. Also, one of your main responses is something to the effect of "Good question. I'll go find the answer." The fault in that is that instead of trying to understand the other viewpoint, you immediately assume there is an answer to be found. I guarantee you that much of the questions for which you seek answers have no such answers. That is where my doubt in religion arises. As for whether Jesus was a myth, all I'll say is that he very well may have existed, BUT every single piece of evidence that he was the son of God, or that there is indeed a God, lies in the Bible. That is plain circular reasoning. There is no alternate proof. That goes back to my main point of a large leap of faith from the Bible and religion to fossils and disbelief. Other examples of things that back science include fossils, quantum physics, DNA, and strings. All of those components do not prove nor disprove religion without research. They are secular. On the contrary, religion offers no secular proof of its belief system. There is no evidence in favor of religion that is separated from the religious institution, itself. I am going to close with some questions that I would appreciate answers for: You said: quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ God that cares so much for His creation that He would allow them to change colors. You see it as an argument for evolution, I see it as an argument for God. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ About that, I asked: quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Even if a god allows [the butterflies] to change, wouldn't the fact that they are changing in response to their environment be classified as evolution. In essence, you are stating that God allows them to evolve. How can one not see this as an argument for evolution? Evolution is a theory that things change in response to environment. Would the changing of colors be classified as change in response to environment? Even if I concede that God exists (which I don't), wouldn't God letting them change colors still constitute evolution? Why not? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Also, about the burden of proof, do you agree that we both have to prove our separate view points? Is it true that both religion and evolution have the burden of proof? I believe so. You said, "The burden of proof is on the doubter", but, in fact, the burden of proof lies on the one making the initial claim. Otherwise, one may cry "witch" to a guilty verdict. I feel that Hoyle and Crick's experiments are out of context here. You mentioned that they tested the possibility of a strand of DNA spontaneously appearing. That possibility was close to zero, true, BUT they did not take into account the factors in the Earth at the time that that DNA strand would've been created. That is why I said: quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The important thing to note is that it IS NOT SPONTANEOUS GENERATION, but instead, it IS A COMBINATION OF BIOTIC AND ABIOTIC FACTORS THAT ALREADY EXISTED ------------------------------------------------------------------------ That being said, are you denying the biotic and abiotic factors that were present at the time of the beginning of life? The fact that there was carbon, sulfur, and lightning present made this not an issue of spontaneous generation, but, instead, one of creation based on controlled surrounding factors. Therefore, while the probability of DNA magically appearing is near zero, the probability of DNA appearing in a volcanic, stormy environment with certain elements present makes it much, much more probable. This was not taken into account when you were citing Hoyle and Crick. I really do appreciate the intelligent discussion. It's rare in this world of rebellious teen atheists and Christian conservatives. Talk to you later. Rosa McGee, it was my fault. I WAS wrong about the Neanderthal dates. I recalled them from memory. I honestly do appreciate the time line. Are you going to stop posting on this thread or just stop posting about the Jesus/myth subject? I hope you don't give up on this thread. - Mike Sorrow - posted 01-18-200108:52 PM Rictus Member 3203 Posts Member since: 06-05-2000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hi guys! Wow, I feel quite overwhelmed! This is some very hot stuff. Thankyou to all participents, for your time, thought, and your mutual respect. I find myself totally overwhelmed by the evoloution argument, and a little out of my depth, so I hope you will all forgive me if I steer clear of despalying my colosal ingnorence on the subject, but I am facinated by the debate, and follow it with interest. @Freegrace: Well, I'm feeling overwhelmed, so I can only imagine your feelings right now!!! Thanks for continuing to hang in here. I appreciate your time. So, it's only fair that I reply to your last post (appologies to all who feel this is 'off topic' some, but hey! We all have our specialities!) "Do you agree that the nature of truth is exclusive?" haha. Define 'truth'. Sorry, but I need clarification first. In terms of science? possibly. In terms of spirituality, I think truth is personal. "In terms of your prayer, Martin Buber argues that the relationship with God is an I-thou relationship. However, it appears that the concept you are expressing is as much I-I as I thou. If you are part of God, what is the point of prayer?" This planet is a giant super-organism, of which I am a small part. Therefore, if God=everything, I am but a small part (a shard of perfection ). I am not God. I'm maybe a tiny neuron in the brain of God. I have no conciousness of my perpose, just as the impulse that tells you to scratch your nose has no awareness. The point is, in order for me to best serve whatever perpose I have is to communicate with 'God' or everything. My part in the world is miniscule, and I am reliant on many outside forces to servive. Without sunlight, I die. Without rain, I will die. I have no control over these factors, they are parts of the all that I am beholden to. So to be thankful to these things makes sence to me. Prayer serves a very important part in this case. In order to understand my part in the world, I must open my soul to the voice of God. It is a relationship with outside forces, and it is a personal relationship, it has to be, I am unique, and so is my place. To better understand that place, prayer is essential. "I believe that every religion should be able to address the following issues: 1. Origin of man 2. Condition of man 3. Salvation of man 4. Destiny of man How do you believe that your view answers these questions?" OK, first of all, I have no religion. I have sypathies with some 'new age' religions, such as Tao-ism, Zen philosophy, Voodoo, Aborigonal and Naive American spirituality. I have learned much form these religions, as well as Islam and yes, thanks to you and my continuing bible studies, christianity as well. None of these define my beliefs however. I have stated before that I have no issue with the gosbel. i think that 'love thy neighbour' is a fine ideal, and I realise that all world peace would need to exist would be for people to live by that tenement. My current rules for existance are these. Take no action that harms anouther. Do not use initiary force. Simple and effective. my beliefs are not a religion because they are non-secular, totally personal, based souly on personal experiance and thought, and I do not preach them. I am happy to accept that my beliefs would not 'work' for all, and I have no problem with others having spiritual beliefs contry to my own, because we all have to find out place, our own route to peace, whatever that may be. Second, these are your criteria, not mine. My spirituality has to face just one test: Me. If I find it to be enriching and of value, I believe it. That said, I'll do my best to answer your queries. 1. The origin of man. I don't attemt to expaain it. It is. Why does it matter? in the current debate I see faith on both sides. Whatever makes you comfotable is fine. I lean towards evoloution at the moment, but I feel it's far from proven. 2. Condition of Man. My beliefs center around the fact that man is inherrently good, or at least innocent, but our society teaches us many of the wrong lessons about behaviour. We learn by example, not by words. We copy what we see, from our parents and peers. Much of what we take to be inherrent to our wicked nature is, I believe, learned behaviour. jealousy, greed, hatred in particular are examples of feelings which are supposedly inherrent to the human condition. yet I believe thay are not, but we learn them. I also believ they can be unlearned. Which leads nicely to 3. salvation of man. Because such behavoiur is learned, not instinctive, not inherrent, we have the power to reject it, to live without these constraints upon our souls. I myself have proven this to myself, with the defeat of jealousy. I no longer feel it, in any respect. Others have asked my how I am motivated, without the jealousy of wanting to 'beat' others. I am now motivated instead by love, and the persuit of pleasure, without the need to compete. I can't teel you how much better I feel as a result. I'm not perfect, and often find myself reaciting in pre-programmed manner, even though I no longer feel the accompanying negitivity!! It's odd, like I'm playing a role. But I'm learning to remove that too, and I'm confident that I shall soon be rid of that too. In short, we are all equiped to give ourselves salvation, if we can just believe in our own awsome power, and learn to harness that power for the good of ourselves and others. 4. The destiny of man... ...is in our hands. We can choose to live in paradise, or we can turn the world into our hell. That is our choise, one we each make every day. I'm on the side of the angles, and I'll tell you why. A wise woman once told me 'God never sends you anything you can't deal with'. I believe that. "Ravi Zacharias, who is one of my favorite philosophers, argues for the following presuppositions of New Age (I realize that you are not necessarily New Age, but your views are similar): 1. New Age is the most powerful expression of Western man's realization that secularism leads to emptiness. **Incidentally, I think that there is no greater expression than what is often found here on the bbs. Look at how many suicide post topics come up every night. I know that Devilmunchkin is an existentialist. Have you seen the biographies of Sart, Camu and many others? Not exactly happy stories. 2. Man knows that he needs a transcendent view of things. **I think that many are realizing that science alone does not provide all the answers. 3. Man recognizes the necessity of moral order and spiritual sustenance. **Rosa, on the previous thread, I think you agreed on the need for a moral law. What do you base that on? We know that the minute we give up a moral law or make that relative, we open ourselves to anarchy but few people want a moral law that controls them but wish instead others would adhere to their law. Is anything wrong with anything? How do we define right and wrong objectively (Rictus, I'm saying to go beyond the notion of getting in touch with our instincts). 4. He finds Christianity too costly and threatening a way. 5. New age is a way for him to have his spiritual cake and physical fulfillment too." "Do you agree with this portrayal of your views by Dr. Zacharias. If not, what do you agree with and disagree with?" In some ways. I do believe that most morality is instinctive, for reasons I've stated before (mans instinct being servival of the species first, servival of personl genetic contribution (children) second, himself third). I think that living by those, most morality needed is set. I would also repeat that my beliefs alow me to find spiritual fulfilment almost anywere, be that a church, temple, down on the beach or at stonehenge itself. The one thing I am intollerant is intollerence, so anywere that orders me to behave other than to my nature I have no interest in. Other that that, anything goes. I do believe that people should write their own moral codes though, listening to their instincts and their own uniqueness. We all have a part to play. I'm tired now, and realise this is incomplete, but it's the best I can do for now. Hope it helps understanding, and I welcome comments from any and all. Thankyou once more, all of you. I feel really touched by your continuing niteraction here, and value it highly. Stay well, friends. Rictus. "All the drugs in this world Won't save her from herself..." "Kill The Cheese!!!" - Eliza (who I love) "No one is a nigger" - Order in an Artificial Chaos posted 01-19-200102:37 PM fregrace Member 945 Posts Member since: 10-31-2000 Mike Sorrow ------------------------------------------------------------------------ My time is limited today, so I will try to address some of your points. 1. Even if a god allows [the butterflies] to change, wouldn't the fact that they are changing in response to their environment be classified as evolution. In essence, you are stating that God allows them to evolve. How can one not see this as an argument for evolution? Evolution is a theory that things change in response to environment. Would the changing of colors be classified as change in response to environment? Even if I concede that God exists (which I don't), wouldn't God letting them change colors still constitute evolution? Why not? My point regarding the butterflies was that God could have anticipated the changing environment and created butterflies that change. I have no qualms with variation within species but I do have questions about changes that exist from species to species. With regards to Devilmunchkin's point about humans getting taller, I have no problem with changes within a species. However, I have questions about a species turning into something else. Nature is much more complex than man makes it out to be. The change within species seems to me to be a big stretch from changes that occur within the same species. 2. On the issue of the website I posted. I find it ironic that you would laud Plastic Jesus for going on a website to find supposed bible contradictions (which I intend to address and I haven't forgotten about) yet you would criticize me for choosing a website that argues for creationism. Although Plastic Jesus read the Bible he couldn't describe many contradictions on his own, so he went to a website. The reason I asked specifically for the contradictions he spoke of was that I often here that argument but when I press someone for one contradiction they cannot state it on their own. quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ruse, a professor of zoology and philosophy of science at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada, was a key speaker at a seminar convened to debunk "The New Creationism." Ruse had specifically been asked to "refute Phillip Johnson's book, Darwin on Trial." (Intervarsity Press, 1991.) Instead, he shocked his colleagues by endorsing one of its key points: that Darwinian doctrines are ultimately based as much on "philosophical assumptions" as on scientific evidence. Assuring his audience, "I'm no less of an evolutionist now than I ever was," Ruse nevertheless explained that he had given fresh consideration to Johnson's thesis that Ruse himself, as "an evolutionist, is metaphysically based at some level just as much as . . . some creationist. . . . I must confess, in the ten years since I . . . appeared in the Creationism Trial in Arkansas . . . I've been coming to this kind of position myself." Ruse was referring to McLean v. Arkansas, in which Federal Judge William Overton ruled that Arkansas' "Balanced Treatment Act" was unconstitutional. At the trial, Ruse had testified that creation-science is not science at all. Invoking the fact/faith dichotomy, Ruse claimed that Darwinism was scientific because establishing its validity required no philosophical assumptions. All other views, he claimed, required such assumptions and were therefore unscientific. His testimony became the centerpiece of Judge Overton's ruling. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ In my opinion, Evolution is as much of a philosophy as it is science. I would not say in any way that scientists are impartial in that the basic assumption of evolutionary theory is a humanistic way of answering the question of origin without God. Therefore, I find it ironic that anything a Christian says is often considered to be based on biased sources while atheists can say almost anything without being accused of being impartial. Their are Christians who study evolutionary science and many of thier studies have raised some important questions about evolution. Incidentally, I do not believe that evolution is a theory but a hypothesis. A theory in science requires a great deal of proof that has not been established by the scientific community beyond the shadow of a doubt. They can point to certain factors but have little success in how things happen. On the issue of Crick and Hoyle, ask them why they "misapplied" these factors when they were devout evolutionists themselves. I still stand to reason that many of the factors you are stating were very likely taken into consideration by Nobel Prize winning scientists. Are there any other scientists that corroborate with your analysis of their works? 3. On the issue of the burden of proof. My point was that the historicity of Jesus can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. I offered my proof. It is well established and anyone who questions it should present proof to the contrary. My point was that I was repeatedly asked to provide more proof when I couldn't find one shred of evidence that he did not exist. The type of evidence they were requiring was far greater than any ancient person. How many posts have you seen that say, "Cleopatra was a myth." "Caeser was a myth." The proof that he did exist far outweighs the proof that he did not. The notion of faith is not often as easy to prove by the five senses. I accept the fact that evolution takes time and I cannot see it, but my main point is for scientists to admit that it requires a great deal of faith to believe in. See above quote by Ruse regarding the lack of fact/faith dichotomy with regard to evolutionary science. I hope this helps...freegrace God is crazy about you. If God had a refrigerator, your picture would be on it. If He had a wallet, your photo would be in it. He sends you flowers every spring. He sends you a sunrise every morning. Whenever you want to talk, He listens. He can live anywhere in the universe, yet He chooses your heart. Face it, friend-He is crazy about you! posted 01-19-200104:02 PM freegrace Member 945 Posts Member since: 10-31-2000 Rictus...Welcome back ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rictus...Great post. A really interesting perspective. Since our purpose is not to debate, I will not try to counteract many of your views. This may appear as weakness on my part, but I do not trust myself or others enough to believe that we have some inherent power to make ourselves exceptionally moral beings. That is not to say, however, that we shouldn't try to be. On the issue of instincts, what of laws that would prevent us from doing that which we would instinctually want to do? I don't know about you, but I have a hard time driving slowly on the freeway (I don't know what the laws are like in England but I wished I drove on the autoban...probably spelled incorrectly) but I obey the laws that go against my instinct to drive slowly. I am surprised that you don't see more inherent selfishness in man. I think that we are naturally selfish and that prevents us from being able to love and be loved to our fullest potential. Isn't part of preservation of the species in some sense related to competition and in some senses jealousy? I am not sure how you can argue for both points. ***By the way, Mike Sorrow, if you are reading. The reason I do not argue for survival of the fittest in a social context is that I believe that the ideal situation is to put ourselves last and others first. The Bible argues that the last shall be first and in 1 Corinthians 12:10 "Therefore I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ's sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong." God's strength is perfected in weakness and dependence upon him in my view*** On the issue of origin, I think it is very important. Not from a biological perspective but a theological one. If one does believe in God, what role if any did God play in the creation of the universe? On the topic of angels, I believe in them but I do not believe they are to be worshipped as some do. I believe that God does as much to interact with the lives of his creation as angels. Do you? Are all angels part of God? They are not matter per say. On the previous thread you asked what I meant by spirits. Would an angel not constitute a spirit? Food for thought. Good to have you and Rosa back. As you can see, I'm not to skilled in discussing science, but I love to talk philosophy. God Bless my friend...freegrace God is crazy about you. If God had a refrigerator, your picture would be on it. If He had a wallet, your photo would be in it. He sends you flowers every spring. He sends you a sunrise every morning. Whenever you want to talk, He listens. He can live anywhere in the universe, yet He chooses your heart. Face it, friend-He is crazy about you! [This message was edited by freegrace on 01-19-2001 at 05:07 PM.] posted 01-19-200104:05 PM All times are PST . << next newest topic | next oldest topic >> | Page:Next Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 |