Creation vs Evolution vs Whatever Else

[Stoney McFried]

The bible is hearsay. However, before 4000 BC, there wasn't any paper.So we have cave paintings.And carbon dating.And ritual tools, weapons,pots,etc....all have been found predating 4000 bc. As to why mankind hasn't advanced further...you can thank religion for holding science back.It used to be an offense punishable by death to suggest the world was round.Because religious leaders knew if man really started to understand how nature really worked,he'd realize the god of the bible was nothing more than a boogeyman.

The Bible records the beginning of mankind at about 4,000 B.C., and secular history is eerily silent before 4,000 B.C. If I were an evolutionist, I would be extremely disturbed by this FACT. Please show me any recorded civilization before 4,000 B.C. and I don't mean some pottery shards or cave paintings. I would be very interested in any recorded evidence of civilization prior to 4,000 B.C. It can't be done, and in fact it is difficult to find much recorded history before 2,500 B.C.

I guess the long and short of this dissertation is that Darwin himself contradicted his own theory of natural selection by stating that our own ocular organs could have not occurred through natural selection – thus the entire theory of evolution/natural selection implodes upon itself.
Peace
GWN

 

[Stoney McFried]

Uh...there are other examples, pothead.I don't have to list them all.

How can you take one species and call it evolution,it is a seperate species.Not evolution.That is like picking out the pladipus and calling it a evolutionary animal.OPH

Oh, bullshit, man.Seriously, you think everybody willingly became slaves?Now who's reading only what they want to?No, the man is not the head of the house in marriage,it should be equal.You're just hopelessly behind the times. If you're talking old testament, oh yes indeed,there was slavery.See, the thing is, you don't even know what version of the Bible to cling to, because it's been revised and heavily edited by so many, the original can never be determined.Your god is a boogeyman.Plain and simple.As children, the boogeyman is real to us..until we learn he's only real as long as we believe it.Your religion has been responsible for murder, rape,and the oppression of women,science and advancement of mankind.It's dying a slow death and I'm glad.

Yes Eve sinned,she tempted Adam with the apple,the result of sin(breaking the law)is death.It would have been the same if Adam would have tempted Eve.
Eve sinned,God could not trust Eve because of it.She brought it on herself.don't sin.
Back then a son was a extra hand to help work,a daughter was a extra mouth to feed.
Plese,that verse is about how to raise your daughter and keep her out of trouble.
Men were the head of the house and the church.
Yes women have a period,it it telling men not to have sex with them at this time,whats so wrong with that.It's plain nasty.
The husband was the head of the house,and the wife obeyed her husband.Whether you like it or not it is still that way in a marriage
I am lucky and did marry a vigin,no one wants a daughter who sleeps around.They used to be called all sorts of names and thought of poorly.Now women wear it as a badge of honor,She should have been taught to keep her legs together.
As i said before,the original bible does not have the word slave in it.And people sold themselfs into servantude for food and protection.You are like everyone else,only read what you want to.
The rape was commited not by men of God but by men from Sodom,a place that was known for it's sexual misconduct,you name it they did it.
Yes even back then people sinned,and they had to pay for their actions.
Not one of the verses you copied and pasted said all women are evil or bad.Not one said all women should be hated,it just says like men ,women can be bad.OPH

Because OPH said there was no misogyny in the bible.

what was all this posted for?

 

[jfgordon1]

Oh, bullshit, man.Seriously, you think everybody willingly became slaves?Now who's reading only what they want to?No, the man is not the head of the house in marriage,it should be equal.You're just hopelessly behind the times. If you're talking old testament, oh yes indeed,there was slavery.See, the thing is, you don't even know what version of the Bible to cling to, because it's been revised and heavily edited by so many, the original can never be determined.Your god is a boogeyman.Plain and simple.As children, the boogeyman is real to us..until we learn he's only real as long as we believe it.Your religion has been responsible for murder, rape,and the oppression of women,science and advancement of mankind.It's dying a slow death and I'm glad.

you go girl

 

[blind2reason]

This has turned from a debate to an attack on God. Your tactics are brute force and they are based in anger. Your signature reveals all too plainly that you have a personal vendetta with God, but that is not a just reason to assault others who do believe.

Christians rely heavily on the new testament instead of the old and the majority of the bible quotes you have taken off of your feminist websites and posted here are based from the old testament. Why do you think so many Jews were pissed about Jesus' teachings? He went against almost all of the old practices and traditions in the old testament. But that is all they were, traditions.

We (The United States) used to have the tradition and practice of slavery and only counting women as second class citizens. It took innovation and education to have our views changed. The funny thing is, I do believe in evolution... The evolution of the church.

As we as a people gain a better understanding of our surroundings we amend our beliefs and change our views accordingly. We are not perfect. We do not have all answers. But the answers we do have to offer, if you choose to accept them have provided me with a peace of mind knowing that there will be an afterlife and has given my life structure.

By no means do I intend to push my views on anyone, but I will defend mine. Change the attacks back to debates and lets make this thread enjoyable again.

PS- Why are we sourcing Wikipedia? You all should really know better, that is not a legitimate resource for quotable information.

I'll probably make enemies with this post, but you'll get over it.

-Blind

 

[jfgordon1]

PS- Why are we sourcing Wikipedia? You all should really know better, that is not a legitimate resource for quotable information.

I'll probably make enemies with this post, but you'll get over it.

-Blind

Wikipedia is about as good a source of accurate information as Britannica, the venerable standard-bearer of facts about the world around us, according to a study published this week in the journal Nature.

Wikipedia isn't a bad source at all. it gets a bad wrap. do some research ...
source: http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-accurate-as-Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

and you might want to do some research about the "Bible" too. You might not like what you see. However, i appreciate you not pushing your views on others...

 

[Stoney McFried]

Uh.I'm not attacking anyone.There was no name calling,thank you very much.You have no idea whether I'm angry or not(and I'm not) but I WILL call bullshit when I see it.

I don't care if it's the new or old testament,it's all a farce.And to have a HOLY book which is supposedly the word of "god" revised so heavily,edited, and changed in order to make it more palatable only serves to further discredit it.News flash.The bible was translated from Hebrew to Latin, then to English, etc.So the moment it was translated, mistakes were made.It was further revised by King James, the Gideons, the Mormons, and anyone else who could get their hands on it.Jesus simply didn't exist.Period.There is no evidence of him. None of the people who said they knew him actually lived during his time.The Romans did not record his execution, and Pontius Pilate WAS A ROMAN.Now, please don't bring up Josephus, or the Testimonium Flavianum,
because they have never been proven, and are in fact suspected of being forgeries.

And Wikipedia can be a fine source,but I don't believe I used it here.
One more thing.If you're a Christian using the King James version of the bible, that's exactly what you're using. King James' version.

This has turned from a debate to an attack on God. Your tactics are brute force and they are based in anger. Your signature reveals all too plainly that you have a personal vendetta with God, but that is not a just reason to assault others who do believe.

Christians rely heavily on the new testament instead of the old and the majority of the bible quotes you have taken off of your feminist websites and posted here are based from the old testament. Why do you think so many Jews were pissed about Jesus' teachings? He went against almost all of the old practices and traditions in the old testament. But that is all they were, traditions.

We (The United States) used to have the tradition and practice of slavery and only counting women as second class citizens. It took innovation and education to have our views changed. The funny thing is, I do believe in evolution... The evolution of the church.

As we as a people gain a better understanding of our surroundings we amend our beliefs and change our views accordingly. We are not perfect. We do not have all answers. But the answers we do have to offer, if you choose to accept them have provided me with a peace of mind knowing that there will be an afterlife and has given my life structure.

By no means do I intend to push my views on anyone, but I will defend mine. Change the attacks back to debates and lets make this thread enjoyable again.

PS- Why are we sourcing Wikipedia? You all should really know better, that is not a legitimate resource for quotable information.

I'll probably make enemies with this post, but you'll get over it.

-Blind

 

[phreakygoat]

I think any organized religion is the result of attempting to apply logic to the animal, instinctual spirituality we all share in different degrees. There are obviously faults with every religious book, and within every religious or non-religious person, so why try to define the undefinable while still allowing these faults to dilute the argument? Even if there is a higher power, attempting to approach it as a peer (by making your own assertions about some ancient text) is totally self-canceling. Understand your innate lack of understanding, and be free of the useless quest for rationalization.

 

[Stoney McFried]

A good post. The thing that gets my goat is that Creationists use the Bible as their source of info.If you ask them to prove it,they loop right back to the Bible.

I think any organized religion is the result of attempting to apply logic to the animal, instinctual spirituality we all share in different degrees. There are obviously faults with every religious book, and within every religious or non-religious person, so why try to define the undefinable while still allowing these faults to dilute the argument? Even if there is a higher power, attempting to approach it as a peer (by making your own assertions about some ancient text) is totally self-canceling. Understand your innate lack of understanding, and be free of the useless quest for rationalization.

 

[blind2reason]

lets be mature here just explain how you believe the world came to be and well....weed where did it come from and why is it here? was it created, evolved, planted by space aliens, really what do you think?

That is the topic of this thread, we are here to discuss what it is we believe in regards to how the world came to be, not the credibility of the bible, that has never been the argument. The only reference to the bible I made was to point out that all of your references in regards to the maltreatment of women came from the old testament. Your remarks about the Bible's credibility is irrelevant to this thread.

Uh.I'm not attacking anyone.

Hmm...

Jesus simply didn't exist.Period.

I think you misinterpreted what I meant by attacking. Call me every name in the book if you want to, that's called flaming not attacking. Your statement is challenging my belief. The whole point of beliefs is that they are what you believe and for you to challenge that is an attack on my faith.

I don't have a problem with people not believing in Jesus Christ, to each their own. I do have a problem with people bashing my faith because they did not reach the same conclusion I did.

You are more than welcome to your opinion, you can even say you don't believe in Jesus Christ, but you do not have anything substantial enough to discredit his existence so saying that he never was is neither based on faith or fact.

The Wikipedia comment was not directed at you, I was looking at the posts of others and saw a lot of people referencing it. I dunno, information that can be edited and changed by anyone... I was always taught from college on down to never use Wikipedia as a source.

What it all comes down to in the end is morality and morality is not constrained by religious beliefs (or lack there of)... Now I'm off topic.

So here is what I believe.

I believe in Creation. I believe there is a greater being that is responsible for everything that was and is. I believe he made everything that is both good and bad. I believe that natural selection has played a major role in the development of each species, although not to the extent of evolving from a fish. The way I perceive it is that desired characteristics were kept and strengthened and the non desired characteristics were discarded and weakened. I do believe there could be other life out there in the universe, but I don't think we were put here by aliens.

Where did weed come from... well let me quote the bible here.

On the seventh day God saw all that he had created and needed to rest, so God invented weed, and it was good weed, like really good weed. God proceeded to eat everything in the Garden of Eden leaving only the forbidden fruit for Adam and Eve.

-The Gospel of Blind

 

[blind2reason]

Sorry for this addtional post. It's the only way I can figure out to subscribe to this thread. I truly am enjoying this discussion and think you all are great people despite our differences.

 

[rev3la7ion]

I will not dispute the occurrence of minute changes (aka evolving) that many life forms exhibit, however even the irrefutable proof of natural selection under the glare of modern day science wanes into speculation or an academic guessing game at best. I still have yet to see an alligator with a single feather, or any other proof that one species can "evolve" into another. If there is one out there that I’m unaware of please set me straight.

You really need to go to http://www.talkorigins.org/

The Bible records the beginning of mankind at about 4,000 B.C., and secular history is eerily silent before 4,000 B.C. If I were an evolutionist, I would be extremely disturbed by this FACT. Please show me any recorded civilization before 4,000 B.C. and I don't mean some pottery shards or cave paintings. I would be very interested in any recorded evidence of civilization prior to 4,000 B.C. It can't be done, and in fact it is difficult to find much recorded history before 2,500 B.C.
These facts absolutely scream discrepancy - I would be floored to find that humans only learned to communicate/write less than 4000 years ago and now we are sending super computers the size of a pack of cigarettes into space? I find that less than a compelling argument. There were NO planes, cars, computers, refrigerators, electricity, lights, gas, powered-equipment, telephones, recording devices, CD players, MP3 players, electric razors, televisions, record players, movie cameras, or a million other modern technological inventions--just a mere 170 years ago. Civilization has advanced from utter primitiveness to incredible mind-boggling achievements in just a little over 100 years. So why didn't mankind discover any of this stuff 100,000,000 years ago, or 100,000 years ago for that matter?

Once again, you show your ignorance on the entire subject. Over 10,000 years ago we have hieroglyphs etched in pyramid walls. When we use radioactive dating we find that the few "dates" we find generally coincide with what we test.

Secondly, did you know that we recently uncovered an ancient battery? It was a clay pot with a core that could store a charge. This was found over in the middle east.

In his pivotal opus Origin of Species (1859) Darwin presented various evidences for proof of evolution. Among these he sited domestic breeding, anatomical similarities among species (“homology”), the sequential order of fossils, the presence of “vestigial” organs, and the natural phenomenon which he dubbed “natural selection.”

In the century-and-a-half since Darwin published his work, advances in science have made some of these various evidences for evolution dubious. For example, in Darwin’s day it was believed that there were dozens of vestigial organs in the human body. Estimates have ranged from 80 to 200. Scientists at the time did not know what purpose these organs served so they assumed that they were useless vestiges from our evolutionary past. One-hundred fifty years later, only a handful of so-called vestigial organs remain. Scientists have discovered biological functions for the rest. Moreover, critics of Darwin’s theory point out that if vestigial organs are truly useless, the progression is towards a loss of function, not new function. Darwinian evolution requires biological innovation.

And therein lies the beauty of science. It's always correcting itself when presented with new data. Just because scientists could not explain what certain organs did at the time doesn't mean they didn't have a purpose. Hence the reason they called them vestigial. And just like you said, in light of more information that has been gathered over time, we now know pretty much what everything in our body does now. We can determine what is vestigial and what isn't now that we're that much closer to the complete picture.

Advances in genetics have also shown new light upon the dynamics of homology (anatomical similarities among species) and domestic breeding (the ability of breeders to produce dramatic changes in domestic animal populations by selecting individuals to breed, thereby suppressing and emphasizing traits gradually over time). It is now known that structural similarities do not necessary equal genetic relationship and there appear to be genetic limits to the potential for biological change. A bird can adapt to its environment to a certain degree but it is extremely doubtful that it could cross genetic boundaries to evolve into a reptile, for example.

Honestly, this is getting old so I'm going to let you read up on this at talkorigins.org

Advocates for Darwinian evolution believe that genetics have provided a new mechanism for biological innovation in the form of genetic mutation. The incorporation of genetics into Darwinian evolution has produced what is now known as the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis. Nevertheless, the debate rages on whether or not mutations simply destroy existing genetic structure or whether they can provide new genetic information, which Darwinian evolution requires. While Darwinian evolution remains the dominant biological paradigm, there is a growing minority of scientists who “are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” (From A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, signed by over 680 Ph.D. scientists.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - The Premise
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related. Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature).
Darwin's Theory of Evolution - Natural Selection
While Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a relatively young archetype, the evolutionary worldview itself is as old as antiquity. Ancient Greek philosophers such as Anaximander postulated the development of life from non-life and the evolutionary descent of man from animal. Charles Darwin simply brought something new to the old philosophy -- a plausible mechanism called "natural selection." Natural selection acts to preserve and accumulate minor advantageous genetic mutations. Suppose a member of a species developed a functional advantage (it grew wings and learned to fly). Its offspring would inherit that advantage and pass it on to their offspring. The inferior (disadvantaged) members of the same species would gradually die out, leaving only the superior (advantaged) members of the species. Natural selection is the preservation of a functional advantage that enables a species to compete better in the wild. Natural selection is the naturalistic equivalent to domestic breeding. Over the centuries, human breeders have produced dramatic changes in domestic animal populations by selecting individuals to breed. Breeders eliminate undesirable traits gradually over time. Similarly, natural selection eliminates inferior species gradually over time.
Darwin's Theory of Evolution - Slowly But Surely...
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a slow gradual process. Darwin wrote, "…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps. Darwin conceded that, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Such a complex organ would be known as an "irreducibly complex system". An irreducibly complex system is one composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system to function. If even one part is missing, the entire system will fail to function. Every individual part is integral. Thus, such a system could not have evolved slowly, piece by piece. The common mousetrap is an everyday non-biological example of irreducible complexity. It is composed of five basic parts: a catch (to hold the bait), a powerful spring, a thin rod called "the hammer," a holding bar to secure the hammer in place, and a platform to mount the trap. If any one of these parts is missing, the mechanism will not work. Each individual part is integral. The mousetrap is irreducibly complex.

This a VERY over-simplified explanation of evolution.

And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "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 degree."

Read the rest of the quote. Most people don't think so but it's completely taken out of context. For time's sake, here it is:

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound. (Darwin 1872, 143-144) [/FONT]

I guess the long and short of this dissertation is that Darwin himself contradicted his own theory of natural selection by stating that our own ocular organs could have not occurred through natural selection – thus the entire theory of evolution/natural selection implodes upon itself.
Peace
GWN

Way to go.

 

[Stoney McFried]

No, it's not irrelevant, because the whole theory of creationism is pushed by evangelical Christians.The Bible is what they base it all on.You don't see Wiccans and Buddhists yelling for creationism to be taught, do you?

That is the topic of this thread, we are here to discuss what it is we believe in regards to how the world came to be, not the credibility of the bible, that has never been the argument. The only reference to the bible I made was to point out that all of your references in regards to the maltreatment of women came from the old testament. Your remarks about the Bible's credibility is irrelevant to this thread.

Well, if you didn't have a problem, why must it be taught in schools?This thread is for the debate of creationism and evolution.It's gonna get heated.As long as there are no personal attacks, it's within the rules.So put on your debate panties and prepare to be disagreed with. And no, he didn't exist.There is no verifiable historical record of him.I don't need to make anything up,it's all out there.

Hmm...


I think you misinterpreted what I meant by attacking. Call me every name in the book if you want to, that's called flaming not attacking. Your statement is challenging my belief. The whole point of beliefs is that they are what you believe and for you to challenge that is an attack on my faith.

I don't have a problem with people not believing in Jesus Christ, to each their own. I do have a problem with people bashing my faith because they did not reach the same conclusion I did.

You are more than welcome to your opinion, you can even say you don't believe in Jesus Christ, but you do not have anything substantial enough to discredit his existence so saying that he never was is neither based on faith or fact.

It's fine to believe what you believe.It's when people try to tell me something absolutely IS when it's clear to me it ISN'T, that I explain exactly why I think they're wrong.That's what you do in a debate.You nullify the opposition's arguments and present your own.

The Wikipedia comment was not directed at you, I was looking at the posts of others and saw a lot of people referencing it. I dunno, information that can be edited and changed by anyone... I was always taught from college on down to never use Wikipedia as a source.

What it all comes down to in the end is morality and morality is not constrained by religious beliefs (or lack there of)... Now I'm off topic.

So here is what I believe.

I believe in Creation. I believe there is a greater being that is responsible for everything that was and is. I believe he made everything that is both good and bad. I believe that natural selection has played a major role in the development of each species, although not to the extent of evolving from a fish. The way I perceive it is that desired characteristics were kept and strengthened and the non desired characteristics were discarded and weakened. I do believe there could be other life out there in the universe, but I don't think we were put here by aliens.

Where did weed come from... well let me quote the bible here.

On the seventh day God saw all that he had created and needed to rest, so God invented weed, and it was good weed, like really good weed. God proceeded to eat everything in the Garden of Eden leaving only the forbidden fruit for Adam and Eve.

-The Gospel of Blind

 

[phreakygoat]

ech, it pains me to see people quoting or referencing Darwin as though we haven't moved way the fuck past his original theories (within the science of evolution). He's old business, the future is now, lol. Stoney, you hit the nail on the head beautifully otherwise, as Knowm would say, iloveyou.

 

[monstrgonja]

look up sumarians and the annunaki on you tube. its pretty interesting.

 

[bicycle racer]

umm what? the eye started as a light sensing organ and improved from there to the state its in. there are many organisms who have 'eyes' to varying degrees of biological development. let me repeat im not an atheist i feel they cant see the forest for the trees. but use your head the bibles explanation are 1000s of years out of date.

 

[poplars]

cannabinoid receptors and cannabis are direct evidence of evolution .

 

[bicycle racer]

evolution has its holes and flaws but its a step towards understanding things in a manner beyond blind faith.

 

[bicycle racer]

i only referenced darwin to point out the studies of the finches and tortoises of the galapagos chain its a good simple example anyone can understand of evolution in action.

 

[phreakygoat]

nah, I didn't really mean it was dumb using him as a reference, moreso that others like to disprove darwin to attempt to disprove evolution. his work is still exhilerating and inspirational. srry for the misclarification

 

[bicycle racer]

i get what your saying any little discrepancy with these theory's and the religious people will launch an uneducated blind attack. its funny though because there whole faith is based on blatant discrepancy's misinformation and lies based on controlling people.