PDA

View Full Version : The best case for God I've seen yet



ABrownLamp
11-04-2008, 01:52 PM
Richard Dawkins is a famous atheist. He is a professor of Evolutionary Biology at Oxford and he espouses what he calls militant atheism. I think he's one of the best speakers on atheism in the country and I love his work.

So Dawkins makes a movie called The Root of All Evil. It's pure atheist propaganda where they have crazy people believing crazy things and Dawkins berating them with questions, so theres no need to watch it if youre religious- it'll just irritate you.

BUT at the end of the movie Richard Dawkins interviews a fellow Oxford collegue Alistair McGrath, who is both a doctor of Molecular Biophysics and professor of Theology at Oxford. What makes this guy so good is that he doesnt simply ignore scientific facts like most of the religious. He understands them, believes in them and still has an extraordinary ability to answer coherently, and completely all of Dawkins questions. If more religious people believed the way this guy believes, it would make it a lot more acceptable to us atheists. Of course only a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the world is as smart as he is.

This one on one conversation/discussion about God is with two unbelievably intelligent men who are extremely cordial w one another in a very even debate. Its about an hour long and if you have time I'd reccommend it to everyone


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6474278760369344626

ABrownLamp
11-04-2008, 01:59 PM
Id also like to add that McGrath answers eloquently many of the questions I, and most other atheists continuously ask about Christianity, faith and God that no one else has ever answered adequately.

Dolphan7
11-04-2008, 01:59 PM
Thanks ABL. I will review it later.

Dolphan7
11-04-2008, 03:07 PM
While you're waiting ABL, you can review this as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlP8SmIqXjk

Dean Kenyon, once a believer in evolution, now a doubter.

ABrownLamp
11-04-2008, 04:04 PM
Ill watch it tomorrow. thanks

Marino613
11-05-2008, 01:17 PM
ABL - Thanks for your post.

I don't know what the majority of religious people actually believe. I tend to be an elitist and think the majority of people are more content with not having to think things through because life is hard and why spend the time? Therefore, more nuanced forms of religious life should be less common.

Still, to oversimplify (as I don't want to speak for anyone else), I am always amazed when I find that both Fundamentalists and Atheists agree wholeheartedly on what religion must be like. Fundamentalists tend to criticize more creative/moderate/interpretive/mystical/etc. strands of religion as being heretical and not truly representative of their faith, and Atheists tend to ignore them as well and claim that all religious people are just like the Fundamentalists.

That being said, I know plenty of religious people who fit the model you are describing, or alternative models that are completely open to scientific inquiry in a way that most atheists would recognize as legitimate, or at least not as disagreeable.

emeraldfin
11-05-2008, 03:50 PM
Have studied the work of Allister McGrath (not by choice :D) briefly at times and I can honestly say that when dealing with any issue in Christianity (mainly Christology) I always end up referring to his work.

Very intelligent and a very good writer

pumpingiron2k
03-24-2009, 09:53 AM
My question for ABL is, as you said "If more religious people believed the way this guy believes, it would make it a lot more acceptable to us atheists", do you believe now?

ABrownLamp
03-25-2009, 01:41 AM
My question for ABL is, as you said "If more religious people believed the way this guy believes, it would make it a lot more acceptable to us atheists", do you believe now?

Oh absolutely not. Not one bit. He makes a good argument is what I am saying. Hes not suggesting that evolution is just a "theory" or that the Earth was created 6000 years ago- hes taking known scientific facts and consolidating them with his religion. What most religious people do is ignore what is known. They ignore common sense for the sake of faith. It's incredible to watch.

I think with the advent of the internet and the age of easily accessible information, the days of generations of people being blind to info will start to die off. Not completely of course, but enough to marginalize them.

Dolphan7
03-25-2009, 11:51 AM
Oh absolutely not. Not one bit. He makes a good argument is what I am saying. Hes not suggesting that evolution is just a "theory" or that the Earth was created 6000 years ago- hes taking known scientific facts and consolidating them with his religion. What most religious people do is ignore what is known. They ignore common sense for the sake of faith. It's incredible to watch.

I think with the advent of the internet and the age of easily accessible information, the days of generations of people being blind to info will start to die off. Not completely of course, but enough to marginalize them.


Is that the goal ABL, to marginalize those who simply disagree with you?

ABrownLamp
03-25-2009, 12:03 PM
Is that the goal ABL, to marginalize those who simply disagree with you?

In regards to science and politics yes, I'd like to see them marginalized. I dont have a personal problem with religious people, I just dont see how Christianity could do anything but harm either category

Dolphan7
03-25-2009, 12:22 PM
In regards to science and politics yes, I'd like to see them marginalized. I dont have a personal problem with religious people, I just dont see how Christianity could do anything but harm either categoryAh yes...the intolerance of the enlightened. Hey at least you come out and put voice to what most non-religious, or fence sitters, actually think of people of faith. Gotta give credit to your honesty.:up:


By the way...in case you haven't noticed.....Science is dominated and controlled by such minds and beliefs as you espouse, so your wish is already granted.

And last time I checked this country has a constitution that won't allow religion to have sway over it's governance.

So you should be on cloud nine right about now huh?:lol:

ABrownLamp
03-25-2009, 03:10 PM
Ah yes...the intolerance of the enlightened. Hey at least you come out and put voice to what most non-religious, or fence sitters, actually think of people of faith. Gotta give credit to your honesty.:up:


By the way...in case you haven't noticed.....Science is dominated and controlled by such minds and beliefs as you espouse, so your wish is already granted.

And last time I checked this country has a constitution that won't allow religion to have sway over it's governance.

So you should be on cloud nine right about now huh?:lol:

I dont have any personal issues with people of faith. I assume most of them are good people. What I have an issue with is religion presupposing everything thats in the Bible is fact, even when common sense alone tells you these things couldnt be true.

In the end, youre right though. The people who need to believe in scientific facts like evolution to advance in science and technology, belive in it. And thats the important thing. When religion takes control of science, we get things like the Dark Ages where for centuries no advances were made. Free thought is important for advanced societies.

Jimi
03-25-2009, 08:08 PM
Very much enjoyed the debate, it was intelectually stimulating for sure.

With that being said, i dont see a winner in the debate. I felt like neither man was able to sufficiently make their point seem strong enough for the other man to not be able to defend.

ABL as an atheist did you feel that Dawkins made and particularly strong points?

pumpingiron2k
03-26-2009, 10:25 AM
I have one point to make though to ABL. If it weren't for "religion" America would not be the country it is today. Think about the first settlers. If you know the story of the pilgrims you would know that they were Christ believing people who wanted to escape and worship freely that's why they came to this land to make their own laws. Once they were here others followed and screwed up the "Utopia" they wanted to create. So if those first God believing people did not take a chance on crossing to this land maybe we'd all be speaking with a British accent and under British rule. Ponder on that for a second. Did you know that most scientific breakthrough were discovered by people of faith, for example Newton, Eistein, Copernicus, to name a few.

American magazine, The Saturday Evening Post, in 1929:
"To what extent are you influenced by Christianity?" "As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene."
"Have you read Emil Ludwig's book on Jesus?"
"Emil Ludwig's Jesus is shallow. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot."
"You accept the historical Jesus?"
"Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life." 7



Interview with Einstein.

A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Dolphan7
03-26-2009, 12:38 PM
Man I would love to spend some time with Richard Dawkins, or Bill Maher. I won't ever happen, but I sure would love the opportunity.

Perfect23
03-26-2009, 12:47 PM
my question about evolution is why arent we still evolving.

Tetragrammaton
03-26-2009, 01:26 PM
my question about evolution is why arent we still evolving.

People have become taller than they were just hundreds of years ago.

jared81
03-26-2009, 01:28 PM
People aren't much taller and stronger than they were just hundreds of years ago?

i would attribute that to diet and medicine. true though, i went to shakesperes house when i was in england, im 6'3 and i had to crawl to get inside.

Dolphan7
03-26-2009, 01:42 PM
People have become taller than they were just hundreds of years ago.There were tall people since the beginning of recorded history. This isn't evolution. It is simply breeding traits in people groups.

Tetragrammaton
03-26-2009, 01:48 PM
i would attribute that to diet and medicine. true though, i went to shakesperes house when i was in england, im 6'3 and i had to crawl to get inside.

Well, that would be part of evolution. The species has changed over time. Just like the amount of sunlight leads to the amount of pigmentation, the food and medicine ingested leads to such a change.

D7, sure there were tall people. But it is fact that the average person is taller now than they were just 200 years ago.

Both of you guys are calling evolution by another name. If "breeding traits" lead to taller people, that is evolution. If what we ingest makes us taller, that is evolution.

Dolphan7
03-26-2009, 02:33 PM
Well, that would be part of evolution. The species has changed over time. Just like the amount of sunlight leads to the amount of pigmentation, the food and medicine ingested leads to such a change.

D7, sure there were tall people. But it is fact that the average person is taller now than they were just 200 years ago.

Both of you guys are calling evolution by another name. If "breeding traits" lead to taller people, that is evolution. If what we ingest makes us taller, that is evolution.No it isn't evolution at all. Evolution demands that new genetic information is created and passed on to to the next generation. Being tall in 2500 bc means that those genes existed then, just as they do today, just more prevalent today due to breeding that gene with matching partners within people groups.

There is no evidence anywhere that there is new genetic information being created, or ever has been in the past. What we see is what we have, minus missing genetic information due to inbreeding, copying errors, or mutations. We actually have less genetic info, not more. This is what they don't teach you in college.

What we see is deformed babies, we see extra arms, feet, heads etc.....that isn't new information...it is the same information but was copied wrong or developed wrong. That isn't evolution.

Show me the new material, new genetic info, new DNA etc......that would be evolution.

ABrownLamp
03-26-2009, 04:16 PM
Very much enjoyed the debate, it was intelectually stimulating for sure.

With that being said, i dont see a winner in the debate. I felt like neither man was able to sufficiently make their point seem strong enough for the other man to not be able to defend.

ABL as an atheist did you feel that Dawkins made and particularly strong points?

Dawkins asked the questions he asked everyone in his movie- the difference here was that he was speaking with what most would call a genius. McGrath had responses for everything Dawkins threw at him. Everytime McGrath would say something I would think of what I would have said in response and then Dawkins would say it, only much more eloquently than I could. I didnt see a winner in the debate either.

I respect McGraths opinion because as a scientist he was able to consolidate common sense, what is known to be factual and his faith to make a strong argument. Hes a prof of molecular biophysics and he's very dismissive of creationism and new earth philosophy proponents. His ultimate argument is that where science ends and conjecture and speculation begins, he believes a creator is more logical. I completely respect that opinion

ABrownLamp
03-26-2009, 04:28 PM
I have one point to make though to ABL. If it weren't for "religion" America would not be the country it is today. Think about the first settlers. If you know the story of the pilgrims you would know that they were Christ believing people who wanted to escape and worship freely that's why they came to this land to make their own laws. Once they were here others followed and screwed up the "Utopia" they wanted to create. So if those first God believing people did not take a chance on crossing to this land maybe we'd all be speaking with a British accent and under British rule. Ponder on that for a second. Did you know that most scientific breakthrough were discovered by people of faith, for example Newton, Eistein, Copernicus, to name a few.

American magazine, The Saturday Evening Post, in 1929:
"To what extent are you influenced by Christianity?" "As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene."
"Have you read Emil Ludwig's book on Jesus?"
"Emil Ludwig's Jesus is shallow. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot."
"You accept the historical Jesus?"
"Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life." 7



Interview with Einstein.

A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

I'm not sure what you're asking me here. I am aware of the history of the US. I am also aware that religion, in addition to the atrocities committed have also created many great things. Not sure what your point is though.

As for the great philosphers and scientists being religious I want to make 2 points. First of all it isnt me who says science and religion cant mix. It's the Biblical literalists. As in the debate I posted in opening of this thread, there are many many great minds out there who are also religious. No problem there.

Second, the is constant quote mining regarding ALbert Einstein and religion. I dont feel like researching the other names you listed but heres a quote from AE "
The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends, which are nevertheless pretty childish,"

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/space/2008/05/was-einstein-religious.html

Just type in einstein and religion in google. Like I said it doesnt change my argument even if he was. My beef is with the literalists.

ABrownLamp
03-26-2009, 04:40 PM
No it isn't evolution at all. Evolution demands that new genetic information is created and passed on to to the next generation. Being tall in 2500 bc means that those genes existed then, just as they do today, just more prevalent today due to breeding that gene with matching partners within people groups.

There is no evidence anywhere that there is new genetic information being created, or ever has been in the past. What we see is what we have, minus missing genetic information due to inbreeding, copying errors, or mutations. We actually have less genetic info, not more. This is what they don't teach you in college.

What we see is deformed babies, we see extra arms, feet, heads etc.....that isn't new information...it is the same information but was copied wrong or developed wrong. That isn't evolution.

Show me the new material, new genetic info, new DNA etc......that would be evolution.

See this is what I'm talking about. Literalists just make up facts.

People who arent scientists in religion just make up scientific names and facts on their own. They just dont care. I mean all you have to do is google evolution and see that what youre saying is totally false. Just the definition youve given of what evolution alone is totally incorrect.

Dolphan7
03-26-2009, 06:23 PM
See this is what I'm talking about. Literalists just make up facts.

People who arent scientists in religion just make up scientific names and facts on their own. They just dont care. I mean all you have to do is google evolution and see that what youre saying is totally false. Just the definition youve given of what evolution alone is totally incorrect.Really? I am not that stupid.

Go find me anything that shows any new genetic material being created, not re-arranged, or copied. Anything. Trust me I have looked, and looked. I have read all the literature and the new scientific discoveries. Nothing. It is all based on smoke and mirrors Bud. You have been duped. You have been, what is your word....Indoctrinated. :lol:

Here is a web site dedicated to the scientific evidence against evolution, and not a hint of religion in it anywhere. Say hello to Mr. Do-While Jones. I encourage you to email this guy and tell him the same thing you have been taught, prove him wrong. Good luck. The guy has evolutions number.

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/

tylerdolphin
03-26-2009, 09:56 PM
my question about evolution is why arent we still evolving.
Nowhere near as much natural selection I would guess. We aren't hunted and all that anymore...people that would have been weeded out the genetic pool survive and live a full life now.

ABrownLamp
03-27-2009, 01:42 AM
Really? I am not that stupid.

Go find me anything that shows any new genetic material being created, not re-arranged, or copied. Anything. Trust me I have looked, and looked. I have read all the literature and the new scientific discoveries. Nothing. It is all based on smoke and mirrors Bud. You have been duped. You have been, what is your word....Indoctrinated. :lol:

Here is a web site dedicated to the scientific evidence against evolution, and not a hint of religion in it anywhere. Say hello to Mr. Do-While Jones. I encourage you to email this guy and tell him the same thing you have been taught, prove him wrong. Good luck. The guy has evolutions number.

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/

Ok. Did you think I wouldnt go to the link you provided? Are you kidding me with this stuff? Were you being serious? Even looking past the ridiculous layout theres nothing of substance there. Theres no science presented at all. And this Mr. Do-While Jones (LOL)...

"In 1971, Do-While Jones received the degree of Bachelor of Science (with distinction) in Electrical Engineering, from a midwestern university better known for its football team than its engineering school."

"Do-While is best known as the anonymous (?) author of The Breakfast Food Cooker (http://www.ridgenet.net/%7Edo_while/toaster.htm), which has been widely circulated on the Internet"

YOU CANT BE SERIOUS?!?!

Dolphan7
03-27-2009, 03:06 AM
Ok. Did you think I wouldnt go to the link you provided? Are you kidding me with this stuff? Were you being serious? Even looking past the ridiculous layout theres nothing of substance there. Theres no science presented at all. And this Mr. Do-While Jones (LOL)...

"In 1971, Do-While Jones received the degree of Bachelor of Science (with distinction) in Electrical Engineering, from a midwestern university better known for its football team than its engineering school."

"Do-While is best known as the anonymous (?) author of The Breakfast Food Cooker (http://www.ridgenet.net/%7Edo_while/toaster.htm), which has been widely circulated on the Internet"

YOU CANT BE SERIOUS?!?!Typical , when you can't prove your point - attack the person.

Nice job.:up:

This guy may not live up to your required credentials, but he sure as heck destroys evolution on his web page. And I mean destroys.

But hey it's not the answer you want to hear, so I guess you won't be reading anything from "that guy". :lol:

There are tons of books out there too that do the exact same thing, but......you probably wouldn't be interested in those as well right...because ........you know........they're not supporting the same conclusion as you want.

Oh...and by the way.....did you actually read "The Breakfast Food Cooker"?

tylerdolphin
03-27-2009, 11:20 AM
Half the site is devoted to bashing evolution based on the the fact that nobody can prove abiogenesis. That has nothing to do with evolution. God and evolution are not mutually exclusive.

The rest of the site says that since we do not know everything, then evolution is false. It also makes really weird points:



There is no evidence that if apelike creatures sometimes stand upright to see over tall grasses, it will increase the brain size of their children.
There is no evidence that if apelike creatures sometimes stand upright to see over tall grasses, it will make it easier for their children to stand upright.


Thats ridiculous. The author of the site does not understand evolution...it does not happen because of do certain things (like stand up to look over grass). It happens because of random mutations followed by non-random natural selection. The creatures that can see over the grass will survive and their genes will be selected for.

Dolphan7
03-27-2009, 11:41 AM
Half the site is devoted to bashing evolution based on the the fact that nobody can prove abiogenesis. That has nothing to do with evolution. God and evolution are not mutually exclusive.

The rest of the site says that since we do not know everything, then evolution is false. It also makes really weird points:

Thats ridiculous. The author of the site does not understand evolution...it does not happen because of do certain things (like stand up to look over grass). It happens because of random mutations followed by non-random natural selection. The creatures that can see over the grass will survive and their genes will be selected for.Wow! You read the entire site, that has existed since 1996, with hundreds of articles and postings, in 24 hours? That is amazing!


He does poke fun a lot, but he makes great points.

Go read the one he did using the game Scrabble. Hilarious.

The point is...if one believes in evolution.....there is about a 99% chance one will never not believe in evolution, no matter what.

tylerdolphin
03-27-2009, 01:05 PM
Wow! You read the entire site, that has existed since 1996, with hundreds of articles and postings, in 24 hours? That is amazing!


He does poke fun a lot, but he makes great points.

Go read the one he did using the game Scrabble. Hilarious.

The point is...if one believes in evolution.....there is about a 99% chance one will never not believe in evolution, no matter what.
Thats not true at all...I have a very open mind. If someone could give real evidence against evolution I would not believe in it. All of the "evidence" against it I have ever seen has been either saying saying "it has never been observed..." or "Genesis says...".

If ANY other theory had the amount of evidence for it that evolution does, people would accept it readily. The only reason it is doubted is because it goes against a literal translation of Genesis. Scientific theories have vast amounts of evidence to support them and nothing to disprove them. Evolution is a scientific theory.

Dolphan7
03-27-2009, 04:16 PM
Thats not true at all...I have a very open mind. If someone could give real evidence against evolution I would not believe in it. All of the "evidence" against it I have ever seen has been either saying saying "it has never been observed..." or "Genesis says...".

If ANY other theory had the amount of evidence for it that evolution does, people would accept it readily. The only reason it is doubted is because it goes against a literal translation of Genesis. Scientific theories have vast amounts of evidence to support them and nothing to disprove them. Evolution is a scientific theory.The reason Intelligent Design and Creation Science have not been accepted, is because they can't get the air time so to speak. Evolutionist ideology and belief is dominating the sciences and the publications and the peer reviews etc.....We can't get a word in edgewise.

And the evidence is out there. Read some books. Understand the alternative theories. Understand that evolution has not been proven, and there is no evidence to support it. If it were true we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Go find the "new" genetic information that evolution demands in any organism, in order for it to work. There isn't any. If it were true we would be able to see it happening, and it simply doesn't exist. There is no new genetic information being created anywhere, in any creature on this planet. None. What we have is what has already been created. By whom would be the next logical question to ask. The fact is that what we see everywhere we point our microscopes is genetic information that has already been defined, and there isn't any evidence that new genetic info is being created. It really is that simple. Evolution requires this new information to explain all the "evolved" species over time, and it doesn't exist. Why would anyone still believe evolution without that important core piece of evidence is beyond me.

If you take the evolution glasses off for a minute, and study the biblical model, you will see that it fits the best with what we see in microbiology, all the way to geology and the fossil record. Because it isn't taught in the universities, doesn't mean it isn't true. The only reason it isn't taught in college, is because it is not allowed to be taught in college. But it really is the best predictor of the evidence and the data. Don't take my word for it. Check it out yourself.

Oh and the best evidence against evolution is......it really hasn't ever been observed. Ever. Past present or future. That right there should be enough to sway even the most skeptical.

tylerdolphin
03-27-2009, 04:49 PM
The reason Intelligent Design and Creation Science have not been accepted, is because they can't get the air time so to speak. Evolutionist ideology and belief is dominating the sciences and the publications and the peer reviews etc.....We can't get a word in edgewise.

And the evidence is out there. Read some books. Understand the alternative theories. Understand that evolution has not been proven, and there is no evidence to support it. If it were true we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Go find the "new" genetic information that evolution demands in any organism, in order for it to work. There isn't any. If it were true we would be able to see it happening, and it simply doesn't exist. There is no new genetic information being created anywhere, in any creature on this planet. None. What we have is what has already been created. By whom would be the next logical question to ask. The fact is that what we see everywhere we point our microscopes is genetic information that has already been defined, and there isn't any evidence that new genetic info is being created. It really is that simple. Evolution requires this new information to explain all the "evolved" species over time, and it doesn't exist. Why would anyone still believe evolution without that important core piece of evidence is beyond me.

If you take the evolution glasses off for a minute, and study the biblical model, you will see that it fits the best with what we see in microbiology, all the way to geology and the fossil record. Because it isn't taught in the universities, doesn't mean it isn't true. The only reason it isn't taught in college, is because it is not allowed to be taught in college. But it really is the best predictor of the evidence and the data. Don't take my word for it. Check it out yourself.

Oh and the best evidence against evolution is......it really hasn't ever been observed. Ever. Past present or future. That right there should be enough to sway even the most skeptical.
I dont think there is a geologist in the world that believes in a literal translation of Genesis. There really is not one shred of proof that the Earth is young. All the evidence points to it being very old. Any research I do on the subject, I find websites that try to prove a literal young creation account with pseudo-science that is destroyed by other websites.

As for the microbiology aspect of evolution, I honestly do not know enough on the subject to really say anything about it. Geology suggests evolution to be true though...they have fossil records. If I am not mistaken they have full geologic columns in some areas that show increasing complexity of life. To me, it seems to be the theory that makes the most sense considering what science knows. For all I know it could be wrong. I'm not a scientist. But I did take a Biology 1 and 2 in college for whatever thats worth :lol:. Who knows how God got us here. I dont see why he couldnt use evolution to do it and why you would feel this compromises your faith. To me, God and evolution are not mutually exclusive.

Dolphan7
03-27-2009, 06:38 PM
I dont think there is a geologist in the world that believes in a literal translation of Genesis. There really is not one shred of proof that the Earth is young. All the evidence points to it being very old. Any research I do on the subject, I find websites that try to prove a literal young creation account with pseudo-science that is destroyed by other websites. There is lots of evidence for a young earth. The Grand Canyon shows evidence of being laid down or created in rapid succession by fast and deep running water. The living fossil phenomena. And there is so much more I don't have time to write a book on it.


As for the microbiology aspect of evolution, I honestly do not know enough on the subject to really say anything about it. Geology suggests evolution to be true though...they have fossil records. If I am not mistaken they have full geologic columns in some areas that show increasing complexity of life. To me, it seems to be the theory that makes the most sense considering what science knows. For all I know it could be wrong. I'm not a scientist. But I did take a Biology 1 and 2 in college for whatever thats worth :lol:. Actually, there aren't any places on earth where the geologic column is complete from head to toe. There is debate that somewhere in N Dakota it exists, but.....one place on the entire planet? - if true? And.....do you know where the idea of the geologic column came from, the one they paste in textbooks across the continent? From some guys mind. That's right. It doesn't exist anywhere in the world in complete form. It is conceptual, driven by evolutionary theory only, that managed to get translated into fact. Interesting huh? The fossil record does support the results of the sorting effects of ........water.



Who knows how God got us here. I dont see why he couldnt use evolution to do it and why you would feel this compromises your faith. To me, God and evolution are not mutually exclusive.You wouldn't be the first to believe in this type of explanation. It is called Theistic Evolution. There is a group of believers that are called old earth creationists as well. The two groups are not the same, but similar. To the young earth biblical believer, it is mutually exclusive. Evolution contradicts what God tells us in the bible. Evolution says life evolved from the simplest life forms to the most complex life forms of today, and this took billions of years. The bible says God created everything complete, in six days. Just setting aside the age and time debate, there is contradiction in many more areas.

ABrownLamp
03-27-2009, 07:08 PM
Typical , when you can't prove your point - attack the person.

Nice job.:up:

This guy may not live up to your required credentials, but he sure as heck destroys evolution on his web page. And I mean destroys.

But hey it's not the answer you want to hear, so I guess you won't be reading anything from "that guy". :lol:

There are tons of books out there too that do the exact same thing, but......you probably wouldn't be interested in those as well right...because ........you know........they're not supporting the same conclusion as you want.

Oh...and by the way.....did you actually read "The Breakfast Food Cooker"?

Its this type of stuff...youre going to take science lessons and use scientific information from a guy WHO ISNT EVEN A SCIENTIST to prove your point about science?! If thats the type of stuff that convinces you, youre welcome to it, but dont pretend like it strengthens your case. The guy wont even say where he went to school for petes sake.

Pretty ironic that you call me out for only looking for info that supports my conclusion. The very premise of Christian Literalists are that they start with a conclusion and work to find evidence to support it (no where else in life does this benefit you). And science starts with a hypothesis and gathers evidence, and then forms a conclusion.

Of course I didnt read the Breakfast Cooker. No ones even heard of it before. To your point about avoiding your question because I didnt have an answer- I dont even know what your statement was. I was so appauled at that webpage you presented as "evidence" thats all I was thinking about.

ABrownLamp
03-27-2009, 07:21 PM
The reason Intelligent Design and Creation Science have not been accepted, is because they can't get the air time so to speak. Evolutionist ideology and belief is dominating the sciences and the publications and the peer reviews etc.....We can't get a word in edgewise.

And the evidence is out there. Read some books. Understand the alternative theories. Understand that evolution has not been proven, and there is no evidence to support it. If it were true we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Go find the "new" genetic information that evolution demands in any organism, in order for it to work. There isn't any. If it were true we would be able to see it happening, and it simply doesn't exist. There is no new genetic information being created anywhere, in any creature on this planet. None. What we have is what has already been created. By whom would be the next logical question to ask. The fact is that what we see everywhere we point our microscopes is genetic information that has already been defined, and there isn't any evidence that new genetic info is being created. It really is that simple. Evolution requires this new information to explain all the "evolved" species over time, and it doesn't exist. Why would anyone still believe evolution without that important core piece of evidence is beyond me.

If you take the evolution glasses off for a minute, and study the biblical model, you will see that it fits the best with what we see in microbiology, all the way to geology and the fossil record. Because it isn't taught in the universities, doesn't mean it isn't true. The only reason it isn't taught in college, is because it is not allowed to be taught in college. But it really is the best predictor of the evidence and the data. Don't take my word for it. Check it out yourself.

Oh and the best evidence against evolution is......it really hasn't ever been observed. Ever. Past present or future. That right there should be enough to sway even the most skeptical.


Oh good lord! The reason ID is not accepted in the SCIENCE classroom is because theres no science to it. Honestly, what are they going to say in a science class about ID. What kind of research are they going to present to the students? THERE IS NONE!

And I know youre going to parrot the same ol theres no evidence or experiments conducted with evolution- and thats whats so irritating about dealing with literalists today. I mean you guys pretend you are search for the truth just like science- but it's 2009 and information is one Google click away and you still say horribly ignorant things like there have been no experiments with evolution. I mean just the fact that you say theres been no evidence to support evolution is so silly- honestly, I feel sorry for you. All these scientists, in all these fields. With PhDs from some of the best universities in the world. Virtually all of these experts in agreement about this- and yet- D7 says- nope. no evidence. So weird. I mean really, how can you say something like that and then pretend like youre searching for answers.

Seriously, I mean theres an entire wikipedia page on experiments in evolution. Stop pretending like youve read the information.

jnewmant
03-29-2009, 01:43 AM
ok, i double majored in physics and biochemistry in college so lets see if i can shed a little light on the subject.

Darwinistic Evolution is more or less defined by the introduction of a genetic mutation into a species and said mutation could do one of two things,
1. cause the species to become more successful in the current enviroment and over several generations the breeding with the current members of the species with the increasing number of more successful slightly mutated versions of the species would cause what used to be a mutation to become less of the exception within the species and more of the rule
2. the mutation could have no effect as far as survival is concerned or even adverse effects and therefore the mutation would die off because the animal born with the mutation wouldn't be as successful in it's current environment as the rest of the populus.

With this being said it's not like there are extra chromosomes present, generally in humans there are 46 chromosomes with the exception being chromosomial abnormalities like down syndrome, in which case there are 47 because of the failure of the egg to segregate the 21st chromosome during the inital cell diviosion. Evolution takes place in the genes of the organism, scientists estimate through the human genome project that humans possess around 25000 or so protein coding genes and have yet to label every single one of them so i don't see how anyone could rightly say that the genetic material isn't altering itself every couple of generations. You could look at different races of the human species as an example of evolution. People of Nordic ancestry tend to have wavier hair with helps with the retention of heat while people from warmer climates tend to have hair that is curlier which aids in the evaporation of sweat which aides in the cooling process. Even things this small are evidence of evolution, even if you believe in adam and eve, you can't deny that some people have curly hair and some people have wavy hair. How could such disparity in humans exist if we came from just two people, the gene pool would become pretty shallow pretty quickly, and then become shallow all over again with the flood since it was then noah and his families duty to repopulate, some genetic mutations had to occur somewhere in order for us to not all look exactly the same.

Dolphan7
03-29-2009, 04:31 PM
ok, i double majored in physics and biochemistry in college so lets see if i can shed a little light on the subject.

Darwinistic Evolution is more or less defined by the introduction of a genetic mutation into a species and said mutation could do one of two things,
1. cause the species to become more successful in the current enviroment and over several generations the breeding with the current members of the species with the increasing number of more successful slightly mutated versions of the species would cause what used to be a mutation to become less of the exception within the species and more of the rule
2. the mutation could have no effect as far as survival is concerned or even adverse effects and therefore the mutation would die off because the animal born with the mutation wouldn't be as successful in it's current environment as the rest of the populus.

With this being said it's not like there are extra chromosomes present, generally in humans there are 46 chromosomes with the exception being chromosomial abnormalities like down syndrome, in which case there are 47 because of the failure of the egg to segregate the 21st chromosome during the inital cell diviosion. Evolution takes place in the genes of the organism, scientists estimate through the human genome project that humans possess around 25000 or so protein coding genes and have yet to label every single one of them so i don't see how anyone could rightly say that the genetic material isn't altering itself every couple of generations. You could look at different races of the human species as an example of evolution. People of Nordic ancestry tend to have wavier hair with helps with the retention of heat while people from warmer climates tend to have hair that is curlier which aids in the evaporation of sweat which aides in the cooling process. Even things this small are evidence of evolution, even if you believe in adam and eve, you can't deny that some people have curly hair and some people have wavy hair. How could such disparity in humans exist if we came from just two people, the gene pool would become pretty shallow pretty quickly, and then become shallow all over again with the flood since it was then noah and his families duty to repopulate, some genetic mutations had to occur somewhere in order for us to not all look exactly the same.

Now this is the type of discussion I want to have. You understand how evolution works, or how it is supposed to work - at the cellular level. At conception, when the egg is fertilized and the chromosomes are mathing up, and the DNA is giving instructions to the cell to do whatever the instructions say to do. That is the engine of evolution, if it actually does happen. Mutations has been the vehicle to drive evolution for decades now, but....mutations are just that - a butchering of the "instructions". Mutation cause missing information as you point out causing abnormalities and diseases. They cause copying errors where in you get extra limbs and such.

I have no problem with paragraph 2 above. But paragrpah 1 is simply the explanation of how evolution is thought to occur, yet hasn't actually ever been observed to occur.

There is so much we don't understand about DNA. But what we do know is that is the instruction book for the production and assembly of the life it is supposed to build. It is the blueprint. DNA tells the cells what to do. The instructions are specific. The mutations occur when DNA is copied, or replicated. The copying process that reulsts in a mutation are based in three different areas. One is it simply fails to make the exact copy, so the copy is missing information. The second is it copies information in a re-arranged state. This is where we get our variations and different characteristics. The third is it copies in such an abnormal state that it cannot survive. These are the deadly ones. But nowhere does it copy and "add" information that isn't already in the DNA. That is where evolution fails.

Picture this. In the beginning the DNA code was pure, and 100%. Following the same pattern as the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, it stands to reason that no new information is being created, only copied, transferred, re-arranged...and breaking down over time. We see this all the time. The variation we see isn't new information being created, but was always in the original DNA and through reproduction allowed latent triats and characteristics to emerge depending on partnering, climate and even possibly diet.

Take melanin for instance. This is how we get different skin colors.
Here is a very good explanation of how we get variations within the human people groups.

http://answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/are-there-different-races

jnewmant
03-29-2009, 08:50 PM
Actually information does get added all the time. This has been show many times in the lab and field. An example is when a certain segment of DNA gets copied twice. An example of this happening is when a segment of DNA in centipedes got recopied during meiosis at some point in the past. This gave rise to milipedes. Things like that happen all the time. Life isn't subject to the laws of thermodynamics you speak of because life isn't a closed system energetically. Everyliving thing derives energy from is food and ultimately from the sun. More complex systems can be made when energy flows into a system.

Dolphan7
03-29-2009, 09:28 PM
Actually information does get added all the time. This has been show many times in the lab and field. An example is when a certain segment of DNA gets copied twice. An example of this happening is when a segment of DNA in centipedes got recopied during meiosis at some point in the past. This gave rise to millipedes. Things like that happen all the time. Life isn't subject to the laws of thermodynamics you speak of because life isn't a closed system energetically. Every living thing derives energy from is food and ultimately from the sun. More complex systems can be made when energy flows into a system.This is what I mean when I say that evolution hasn't been proven at the molecular level. Copied twice is not new information, it is information copied two times instead of one. The information is the same. It is a copying error, it isn't an instruction from the DNA. See the difference?

Also, suggesting that centipedes got recopied at some point in the past, without being able to go back in time to prove that actually happened, is speculation, which is fine I understand that that leads to more experimentation and so on. But to say this is proof of evolution is really an inacurrate statement.

But let's go with the suggestion anyway.......what is there that says that the information wasn't already in the DNA to begin with? As I have stated previously, what if the genetic pool was so rich with information in the past, and that breeding and partnering, isolation, as well as climate and possibly diet, the latent characteristics and traits emerge from the gene pool. This is possible as long as the DNA has that information stored for that breed or type of organism - what I call "kinds". It cannot produce a cricket, from the centipede or millipede "kind".

One could say that the earth is a closed system in and of itself. Based on that all energy, and life, is moving in a downward direction - meaning no new energy or life or potential life is being created other than what was created at the beginning. Everything we see in nature and in fossils, we see in it's complete form just as it is today.

It is interesting to note that some are steering away from self-organization of DNA. The problem always exists for evolutionists is where did DNA come from originally? If DNA is what drives new life forms, where did it originate from? That hasn't been answered as of yet.

In any event, what we see happening is variation within certain groups. And it remains within those certain groups. We don't see any evidence of any new DNA being created that moves an organism from one group to another. Things pretty much remain the same no matter what we do, what we see today, or what we see in the fossil record.

jnewmant
03-29-2009, 10:01 PM
d7 i think at this point you're splitting hairs just for the sake of argument. On a molecular level if dna is copied any differantly from it's original coding then it is evolution by definition, it seems to me that this could quickly become an eternal game of you say potato, i say pototo and i'm fine with that. I love a spirited debate. The fact is it's called evolutionary theory for a reason, and that reason is the theory itself hasn't been reconciled 100 percent. I know that and i'm fine with it. The thing that gets me about most anti evolution pundits (which happen to be christians) is while you're correct the centi to millipede for a while was speculation (it can be recreated in labs now) you'll blindly worship a supreme being which is purely based on speculation also. So i guess the question that i ask is if you're so against evolution as an answer to the vast array of species that span the globe, why would you not disagree with christian ideology.

Oh and we as humans recieve new energy from the sun almost constantly so the earth could not be a closed system

Locke
03-29-2009, 11:21 PM
my question about evolution is why arent we still evolving.

That's a simple question. Evolution is based on the idea that organisms have to change in order to adapt to their environment. For example, Giraffes evolved long necks because their primary food is leaves on canopy-style trees. Humans are unique in that we don't have to adapt to the environment anymore, we adapt the environment to us. If we were forced to live in an extremely cold climate, we'd grow much more hair to help insulate ourselves. As it stands, we just manipulate the temperature in our homes to match what we are already adapted to. No need for evolve....

MiggeMadness
03-30-2009, 12:08 AM
It is interesting to note that some are steering away from self-organization of DNA. The problem always exists for evolutionists is where did DNA come from originally? If DNA is what drives new life forms, where did it originate from? That hasn't been answered as of yet.



Oh and the best evidence against evolution is......it really hasn't ever been observed. Ever. Past present or future. That right there should be enough to sway even the most skeptical.



There is no evidence anywhere that there is new genetic information being created, or ever has been in the past.

So you're trying to disprove evolution on the basis that there isn't sufficient evidence that it exists? Where would the world be now if everybody just gave up on their ideas just because it couldn't be proven?

Where would medicine be today if people just said "hey, a surgery has never been done in the past, so it can't work." At one time, people thought that cutting somebody open and draining the 'bad blood' was how diseases were cured. When the person died, it was just because the 'bad blood' was drained soon enough.



Evolution contradicts what God tells us in the bible. Evolution says life evolved from the simplest life forms to the most complex life forms of today, and this took billions of years. The bible says God created everything complete, in six days. Just setting aside the age and time debate, there is contradiction in many more areas.

While we're on the subject of requiring absolute proof before believing in something. Can you provide truth that the Bible is exactly how God intended it? I won't ask for proof of God, I know that is based on faith. I realize that you need to have faith hat he exists, even if there is no proof. That what having faith is about.

But how do I know the Bible is what God tells us? I am supposed to believe that a Catholic church that has done some terrible things to protect their religion, especially in the Dark Ages, left the Bible exactly as it was intended? The Catholic church said alot of BS in the past. What better way to make people believe it than to alter the Bible and tell people that God said it?

For the record, I do believe in God. What I don't believe in is church. And anything that a book tells me is absolutely true, without validity or proven facts to support what it says, I tend to take with a grain of salt.

Dolphan7
03-30-2009, 06:22 PM
d7 i think at this point you're splitting hairs just for the sake of argument. On a molecular level if dna is copied any differantly from it's original coding then it is evolution by definition, it seems to me that this could quickly become an eternal game of you say potato, i say pototo and i'm fine with that. I love a spirited debate. The fact is it's called evolutionary theory for a reason, and that reason is the theory itself hasn't been reconciled 100 percent. I know that and i'm fine with it. The thing that gets me about most anti evolution pundits (which happen to be christians) is while you're correct the centi to millipede for a while was speculation (it can be recreated in labs now) you'll blindly worship a supreme being which is purely based on speculation also. So i guess the question that i ask is if you're so against evolution as an answer to the vast array of species that span the globe, why would you not disagree with christian ideology.

Oh and we as humans recieve new energy from the sun almost constantly so the earth could not be a closed systemSplitting hairs? And here I thought we were having a good discussion. Look ...DNA can account for the wide variation we see in species. There is no question about that. Adaptation within species has never been in dispute. But in order for evolution to work, it must be able to add DNA code that isn't already in there somewhere to begin with. This is where the rubber hits the road. This is where evolution sinks or swims, lives or dies. And it dies right there. There is no known mechanism or abservance that created new DNA code. There is no known mechansim or observance of any organism being created outside of it's known genus. I have stated this so many times in here and elsewhere, but it seems to fall on deaf ears.

And I don't accept God on blind faith. Nor does He expect me to. He has provided enough evidence to show that He exists, simply by what we see around us in nature. I used to be Atheist. I used to buy into evolution. I am the biggest skeptic there is/was. The biblical model fits the evidence best. It is the most logical and intellectual answer to our being here.

The incredible amount of complexity and balance we see in nature and in the universe. The person of Jesus Christ and his historocity. The authenticity of the bible. The fullfilled prophesy of the bible. The evidence of biblical events in and on the earth, like the global flood of Noah. The fact that God, through Nature, Jesus Christ, the bible has made himself evident to us, with complete answers for our existance.....this all makes perfect sense....especially when compared to the alternative explanation....which is to deny any supernatural diety or designer or creator....relying instead on life coming from non-life with no xplanation as to how, against all the odds in the universe, everytime it happened, which also says that life evolved for some unknown reason to drive it, from nothing into the vast array of variation and design and complexity, defying the odds everytime - a trillion fold, as an explanation for our origins and our earth.

Does that last part sound logical? Is that the intellectual choice?

God explains things. God makes sense. The biblical model fits the evidence. The evidence fits the biblical model. It fits my common sense. It fits my intellect.

Dolphan7
03-30-2009, 06:35 PM
So you're trying to disprove evolution on the basis that there isn't sufficient evidence that it exists? Where would the world be now if everybody just gave up on their ideas just because it couldn't be proven?

Where would medicine be today if people just said "hey, a surgery has never been done in the past, so it can't work." At one time, people thought that cutting somebody open and draining the 'bad blood' was how diseases were cured. When the person died, it was just because the 'bad blood' was drained soon enough.
People are saying evolution is proven, that it is true, that it is fact. I simply challenge that belief. I don't have to disprove evolution. It should be able to stand on it's own. It doesn't, and that should be a red flag for most people.



While we're on the subject of requiring absolute proof before believing in something. Can you provide truth that the Bible is exactly how God intended it? I won't ask for proof of God, I know that is based on faith. I realize that you need to have faith hat he exists, even if there is no proof. That what having faith is about. Faith in God does not have to be without proof. Jesus Christ lived and died....and lived again... as all the proof anyone should need. Faith isn't about believing without knowing, but trusting that God is who he says he is and will do what he says he will do.


But how do I know the Bible is what God tells us? I am supposed to believe that a Catholic church that has done some terrible things to protect their religion, especially in the Dark Ages, left the Bible exactly as it was intended? The Catholic church said alot of BS in the past. What better way to make people believe it than to alter the Bible and tell people that God said it?Because the bible was completed 300 years before the Catholic church came into existence. If they wanted to change it to match their unbiblical doctrine, the would have done so, but they didn't.


For the record, I do believe in God. What I don't believe in is church. And anything that a book tells me is absolutely true, without validity or proven facts to support what it says, I tend to take with a grain of salt.Well....which God do you believe in then? If you say the Christian God of the bible, then how do you know anything about that God, because the bible is what tells us who God is, what His character is, what His attributes are. If you don't believe the bible, then how can you believe in it's God?

MiggeMadness
03-31-2009, 12:38 AM
People are saying evolution is proven, that it is true, that it is fact. I simply challenge that belief. I don't have to disprove evolution. It should be able to stand on it's own. It doesn't, and that should be a red flag for most people.

Again, where would we be if people gave up on theories just because there isn't enough proof that it is true? To me, evolution sounds like common sense. If a certain trait makes one person less likely to survive than another, that trait is eventually going to disappear from a species. It may take thousands of years, because even if the people with that trait are less likely to survive, they will still reproduce. Over the years, there are going to be less people with that trait though.

Hell, look at diseases if you want a good example. Viruses are becoming more powerful all the time. Anti-bacterial soap that kills of 99.9% of germs, leave the .1% that are the strongest and most resistant. Those resistant germs multiply. They might create some weaker germs, but overall, there will be a larger percentage of resistant germs. When the weak ones are killed again, a larger percentage of the existing germs wil be resistant. Until eventually, all that's left are the ones that are resistant to what was being used to kill them.

Tuberculosis used to be a huge problem. Now there are drugs to kill it. When the strongest ones were left alive to multiply, drug-resistant TB came around. Then stronger drugs could kill most of that. Then there was MULTI-drug-resistant TB. And if that isn't bad enough, there is now Extensively-drug-resistant TB.



Because the bible was completed 300 years before the Catholic church came into existence. If they wanted to change it to match their unbiblical doctrine, the would have done so, but they didn't.

Again, is there proof that what is in the Bible, was ALWAYS in the Bible? That nothing in it was ever altered? How can I know for sure that God said what is in the Bible? You want ABSOLUTE proof that evolution exists before you believe it. Can you Give me ABSOLUTE proof that the Bible was never altered before it was mass produced in the 1400s?

You have faith in God, do you also have faith in the people that said these...stories....are what God has said? Unless God handed you a Bible and told you 'This is what I said," you're just taking people's word for it.



Well....which God do you believe in then? If you say the Christian God of the bible, then how do you know anything about that God, because the bible is what tells us who God is, what His character is, what His attributes are. If you don't believe the bible, then how can you believe in it's God?

I believe in God. I don't need a book to tell me what God is like. It's a relationship between me and Him. What does a book have to do with that? Do I have to read words that were written down by man in order for me to believe in God?

garcia420
03-31-2009, 01:38 AM
and this is my favorite part

"Faith in God does not have to be without proof. Jesus Christ lived and died....and lived again... "

yeah right! You people crack me up that you actually believe this s..t! More power to you bro....

Dolphan7
03-31-2009, 12:19 PM
Again, where would we be if people gave up on theories just because there isn't enough proof that it is true? To me, evolution sounds like common sense. If a certain trait makes one person less likely to survive than another, that trait is eventually going to disappear from a species. It may take thousands of years, because even if the people with that trait are less likely to survive, they will still reproduce. Over the years, there are going to be less people with that trait though.

Hell, look at diseases if you want a good example. Viruses are becoming more powerful all the time. Anti-bacterial soap that kills of 99.9% of germs, leave the .1% that are the strongest and most resistant. Those resistant germs multiply. They might create some weaker germs, but overall, there will be a larger percentage of resistant germs. When the weak ones are killed again, a larger percentage of the existing germs wil be resistant. Until eventually, all that's left are the ones that are resistant to what was being used to kill them.

Tuberculosis used to be a huge problem. Now there are drugs to kill it. When the strongest ones were left alive to multiply, drug-resistant TB came around. Then stronger drugs could kill most of that. Then there was MULTI-drug-resistant TB. And if that isn't bad enough, there is now Extensively-drug-resistant TB.Science has made many wonderful discoveries due to due diligence, no doubt. I am not knocking science or discovery. What I oppose is the belief system of evolution, which is a belief system based on speculation and conjecture, but taught as fact. It hasn't been proven, yet we teach our children that it is the truth. It takes away from the reality of the one true being that really did create everything we see. Science has made wonderful strides in the field of medicine and with learning and understanding how the immune system fights off diseases. But this isn't evolution, not Darwinian Macro Evolution. It is mere adaptation within species and within each body. If macro evolution were true, we should be able to make all sorts of interesting creatures in the lab by splicing DNA together, creatures that jump from one genus to another. WE haven't, because we can't. It isn't in the DNA to do so. And besides, even if we were to replicate some sort of macro evolution in the lab, it robs from the theory because the theory is based on it happening in nature - without any help at all.




Again, is there proof that what is in the Bible, was ALWAYS in the Bible? That nothing in it was ever altered? How can I know for sure that God said what is in the Bible? You want ABSOLUTE proof that evolution exists before you believe it. Can you Give me ABSOLUTE proof that the Bible was never altered before it was mass produced in the 1400s?I can only share with you why scholars and biblical experts agree that what we have today is what was written down centuries ago. We have the Dead Sea Scrolls which confirm biblical accuracy back 1000 years before we thought at the time. The OT quality control system is second to none when copying texts. The fact that even though we can date many of the texts to different times, different authors, who wrote in different moods, oocupations, rich and poor, in many different countries, yet they all write about the same thing. The bible speaks to hundreds of different issues and doctrines - in harmony. Biblical prophesy fullfilled, just in the 300 or so of Jesus alone. Then there is the authenticity and historocity of Jesus. You tell me how mere men could pull all this off without divine intervention. You say you believe in God, yet you suggest that he could allow His word to be butchered into something He didn't mean it to say? Does that make sense to you? Picture an all mighty God, Omnipresent, Omnipotent, Omniscient, who sits idly by while His word gets messed up...and does nothing about it? I tell you what, I wouldn't want to believe in a God that foolish, and impotent.


You have faith in God, do you also have faith in the people that said these...stories....are what God has said? Unless God handed you a Bible and told you 'This is what I said," you're just taking people's word for it. Simple answer - Yes.




I believe in God. I don't need a book to tell me what God is like. It's a relationship between me and Him. What does a book have to do with that? Do I have to read words that were written down by man in order for me to believe in God?This is why I asked the question of which God. If it is the God of the bible that you believe in, then you are missing the most important part of His relationship with you - Salvation through Jesus Christ. Believing in God is not salvation, even Satan believes in God. God gave His only son to die for our sins, yours and mine, and everyone else, so that we can re-connect with God. The only way to know about this Savior is through the bible. Rejecting the bible and the Gospel of Jesus Christ, is rejecting God's gift to you, and thus rejecting your own salvation. Now if this God you believe in isn't the God of the bible then all this means nothing, and you can go on believing in "your" God in any way you feel is appropriate. But if it is....you may want to reconsider your thoughts on the Bible, and Jesus. I suggest some Christian apologetics that explain that your faith doesn't have to be blind, that there is much evidence to support your faith, and there are hundreds of books about the authenticity of scripture and of intelligent design, and the truth of evolution. I have a unique background as I was once an Atheist and an Evolutionist, and now I am a firm believer in an Almighty God that made the universe and the earth and all life on it. I am the biggest skeptic there is...and I believe in the God of the Bible, Jesus is our savior and the Bible is God's word to us. Now you can take my testimony and do one of two things. You can say "This guy is an idiot", which is your prerogative, or....you can say "If this guy went from Atheist to Believer, maybe there is something to this God of the bible thing."

Your choice.

MiggeMadness
03-31-2009, 01:14 PM
You say you believe in God, yet you suggest that he could allow His word to be butchered into something He didn't mean it to say? Does that make sense to you? Picture an all mighty God, Omnipresent, Omnipotent, Omniscient, who sits idly by while His word gets messed up...and does nothing about it? I tell you what, I wouldn't want to believe in a God that foolish, and impotent.

Ok. So now the next question is, what are your thoughts on free will? Do you believe God has given man free will? How can stop people from changing the Bible unless he takes away free will?

If God would use his power to prevent his word from being butchered, then why didn't he interfere with free will again to prevent the Catholics from KILLING in His name? If he is willing to interfere with free will, I think that would have been a good time to do it. Something like that could have destroyed the religion.

Dolphan7
03-31-2009, 02:49 PM
Ok. So now the next question is, what are your thoughts on free will? Do you believe God has given man free will? How can stop people from changing the Bible unless he takes away free will?Free will is the choice everyone has - to accept or reject God. Those who have decided to follow God, He uses to accomplish His will. He doesn't interfere with anyone's free will. But he does work within the lives of those who believe in Him and follow His word. Those who wrote the bible were already believers, hard core believers to be exact, and the spirit of God worked within them to write God's words down on paper. He certainly wouldn't have forced anyone to do something against their will.


If God would use his power to prevent his word from being butchered, then why didn't he interfere with free will again to prevent the Catholics from KILLING in His name? If he is willing to interfere with free will, I think that would have been a good time to do it. Something like that could have destroyed the religion.Why did God allow the Catholic Church to commit those atrocities? Why do bad things happen at all then would be a better question.

First off, the Catholic Church is not God's Church. Just like the Mormon church and the WatchTower Society are not God's Churches, and Islam and Hinduism and Buddhism aren't His churches either etc....Manmade religion are just that, manmade and subsequently do manmde things, many times bad things.

Secondly why does God allow bad things to happen? Answer - because we live in a sinful world, that we allowed to happen (Adam and Eve chose to sin over obeying God). This world is under a temporary ruler....called Satan. Although God does work in and within peoples lives, he doesn't direct the day to day goings on of this world, not yet anyway. That is what Satan does, doing everything in his power to turn people away from the truth and knowledge of God. And he is becoming very successful at it, just look around this country alone and compare how Christianity is viewed today compared to just 70 years ago. You see when we allowed sin into the world, we tied God's hands so to speak. He can't kiss it and make it all better. That would be interfering with free will. He must allow the consequences of that sin, the result of our free will, as he told us what would happen. Not allowing it to happen makes him out to be a liar, and we know God can't lie.

emeraldfin
04-01-2009, 07:50 AM
Why did God allow the Catholic Church to commit those atrocities? Why do bad things happen at all then would be a better question.

First off, the Catholic Church is not God's Church. Just like the Mormon church and the WatchTower Society are not God's Churches, and Islam and Hinduism and Buddhism aren't His churches either etc....Manmade religion are just that, manmade and subsequently do manmde things, many times bad things.



All religions are manmade, there are no exclusions. The Bible was written by men, not God, so therefore any Christian religion is based on the works of men.

Dolphan7
04-01-2009, 02:02 PM
All religions are manmade, there are no exclusions. The Bible was written by men, not God, so therefore any Christian religion is based on the works of men.Aren't you a Catholic?

Jimi
04-01-2009, 10:10 PM
Typing "Scientists presents Proof of Intelligent Design ! Charles Darwin - Origin of Species - Evolution Disproved, Refuted by Biologist" into youtube also gives some very good information. Its 7 parts, but a good watch.

emeraldfin
04-02-2009, 08:36 AM
Aren't you a Catholic?

Nope, dont see how that would matter anyway.

Dolphan7
04-02-2009, 12:24 PM
Nope, dont see how that would matter anyway.
If you were a Catholic, it sure would matter as you said the bible isn't from God, which pulls the rug out from under the foundation of the Catholic faith.

But since you aren't Catholic, it is moot.

PhinPhan1227
04-03-2009, 10:04 AM
All religions are manmade, there are no exclusions. The Bible was written by men, not God, so therefore any Christian religion is based on the works of men.

Depends on what you mean by "based". I would agree that all religious texts are written, translated, and compiled by men. They are therefore subject to flaws. But the inspiration for those texts could certainly have come from divine inspiration. I believe that God allows us to make mistakes, but that doesn't mean that he couldn't or didn't show people the way and then let them make their own choices.

Personally, I take a "learn the message, not the minutiae" view of the Bible. D7 and I clash on it all the time.

Dolphan7
04-03-2009, 11:16 AM
Clash. I like that word. Clash.

PhinPhan1227
04-03-2009, 12:45 PM
Clash. I like that word. Clash.

Well...."locked in a death embrace" seemed a bit over the top to me. "Clash" implies that we butt heads when we come up against it, but otherwise co-exist pretty well. Hey, at least we both believe that eventually we will both discover which of us was right. :)

tylerdolphin
04-03-2009, 03:33 PM
Typing "Scientists presents Proof of Intelligent Design ! Charles Darwin - Origin of Species - Evolution Disproved, Refuted by Biologist" into youtube also gives some very good information. Its 7 parts, but a good watch.
Im sure you can find videos with evidence that the Earth is flat.

Jimi
04-08-2009, 07:54 AM
Im sure you can find videos with evidence that the Earth is flat.


...No i think not. If you can find it i guarantee its not real evidence.

Did you watch the movie? Give it a try, just keep an open mind. I dont blindly take it as truth, i know they are subject to human error. None the less its a group of brilliant minds bringing forth some really good information that looks hard to refute.

tylerdolphin
04-08-2009, 10:02 AM
...No i think not. If you can find it i guarantee its not real evidence.

Did you watch the movie? Give it a try, just keep an open mind. I dont blindly take it as truth, i know they are subject to human error. None the less its a group of brilliant minds bringing forth some really good information that looks hard to refute.
It would be evidence in much the same way young Earthers present evidence. Warped to someones preconcieved idea. Im sure I can find SOMETHING that may suggest a flat Earth and keep pounding it.

Ill watch it, but I'm not expecting to find anything irrefutable. Evolution wouldn't be a theory in the scientific sense if there was even one piece of irrefutable evidence for a young Earth. All young Earth has to stand on is scripture.

Jimi
04-08-2009, 12:07 PM
It would be evidence in much the same way young Earthers present evidence. Warped to someones preconcieved idea. Im sure I can find SOMETHING that may suggest a flat Earth and keep pounding it.

Ill watch it, but I'm not expecting to find anything irrefutable. Evolution wouldn't be a theory in the scientific sense if there was even one piece of irrefutable evidence for a young Earth. All young Earth has to stand on is scripture.

It would be evidence that would be easy to refute however. This evidence i think is different.

Im not that strong on the young Earth stand, i simply do not have the knowledge to speak on it. Its the evolution being the origin of our species that i call into question. I believe no doubt evolution happens, just not in the way that is generally accepted. I dont think we evolved from monkeys.

No one has anything concrete to stand on when it comes to origins. Science hasnt shown me enough in that regard.

Dolphan7
04-08-2009, 01:48 PM
It would be evidence that would be easy to refute however. This evidence i think is different.

Im not that strong on the young Earth stand, i simply do not have the knowledge to speak on it. Its the evolution being the origin of our species that i call into question. I believe no doubt evolution happens, just not in the way that is generally accepted. I dont think we evolved from monkeys.

No one has anything concrete to stand on when it comes to origins. Science hasnt shown me enough in that regard.
Um......Jimi.......you have the Bible as an explanation of our Origins. It doesn't get anymore concrete than that my friend.

PhinPhan1227
04-08-2009, 11:27 PM
It would be evidence that would be easy to refute however. This evidence i think is different.

Im not that strong on the young Earth stand, i simply do not have the knowledge to speak on it. Its the evolution being the origin of our species that i call into question. I believe no doubt evolution happens, just not in the way that is generally accepted. I dont think we evolved from monkeys.

No one has anything concrete to stand on when it comes to origins. Science hasnt shown me enough in that regard.


Do you think God doesn't have the capacity to evolve us from apes? When he goes through the effort to put such an amazing system of evolution in place, why not use it in the creation of man? When you read the Bible, God performs miracles, but only to demonstrate a point to man. There weren't any men on earth to impress, so why circumvent the system of nature he put in place in order to "poof" the earth and man into existence?

Jimi
04-09-2009, 01:49 AM
Um......Jimi.......you have the Bible as an explanation of our Origins. It doesn't get anymore concrete than that my friend.

I agree with you D7, a lot dont though. Thats why its called faith though right, because you cant prove or disprove it with 100% certainty by any human means we have avialable.

tylerdolphin
04-09-2009, 02:00 AM
I agree with you D7, a lot dont though. Thats why its called faith though right, because you cant prove or disprove it with 100% certainty by any human means we have avialable.
I honestly think that eventually a literal Genesis will not even be accepted by the Church. Christianity on the whole though is here to stay. Jesus' message will never be disproven. I flip-flop between what I think Jesus was to be honest. I don't doubt that Jesus could have been who he claimed. Maybe one day Ill have a clearer belief on that in my own mind.

Dolphan7
04-09-2009, 01:19 PM
I honestly think that eventually a literal Genesis will not even be accepted by the Church. Christianity on the whole though is here to stay. Jesus' message will never be disproven. I flip-flop between what I think Jesus was to be honest. I don't doubt that Jesus could have been who he claimed. Maybe one day Ill have a clearer belief on that in my own mind.
Well.... the Catholic Church teaches Evolution in it's schools. So you are right about that part. But that doesn't mean Genesis 1 isn't literal. It simply means that Churches will become apostate in the end times, as the bible predicts. Same with mainstream protestant churches allowing homosexual clergy and marriages. Sign of the times.

Dolphan7
04-09-2009, 03:39 PM
Do you think God doesn't have the capacity to evolve us from apes? When he goes through the effort to put such an amazing system of evolution in place, why not use it in the creation of man? When you read the Bible, God performs miracles, but only to demonstrate a point to man. There weren't any men on earth to impress, so why circumvent the system of nature he put in place in order to "poof" the earth and man into existence?The bible tells us that through Adam, sin entered the world. Sin is the breakdown of what is good, what God created and said "it is good". Sin is the death and destruction and suffering and bad things that happen in life. If God created the animals eons before the first man, then sin entered the world though the animals and not through Man as Genesis says. You have a theological problem with that. Because Adam sinned, bringing the fall of man, there became a need for salvation FOR man, that came in the form of the Messiah, Jesus Christ. Jesus referred to the first man, and woman. It doesn't appear that Jesus is referring to long ages of evolution does it?


MT 19:4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,
Here is more info on Theistic Evolution, which appears you subscribe to.

http://www.carm.org/secular-movements/evolution/theistic-evolution

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/theistic_evolution.asp

fsuhunter
04-18-2009, 10:06 AM
I think the burden of proof should be on anyone making the claim. By claiming a god exists (or by extension the sun revolves around the earth or the earth was created in only 6 days), the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. What evidence is there of a God? None, nada, zilch! Since Christians, or any other religion claiming a god exists have not provided one single shred of falsifiable evidence, their claims can and should be dismissed as easily as the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus.
If the religious people here only go as far as saying they believe in God, I am ok with that. But to claim they know God exists (or the sun revolves around the earth, etc.) is intellectually dishonest or complete ignorance.

By the way Dolphan7, the Mormons, Muslims and Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster all have their own books claiming ultimate truths recorded by someone who spoke with God. What makes the Christian bible any more credible then theirs?

Jimi
04-21-2009, 03:40 AM
Do you think God doesn't have the capacity to evolve us from apes? When he goes through the effort to put such an amazing system of evolution in place, why not use it in the creation of man? When you read the Bible, God performs miracles, but only to demonstrate a point to man. There weren't any men on earth to impress, so why circumvent the system of nature he put in place in order to "poof" the earth and man into existence?

The thing is, Christianity is about living in Jesus' word. Dont you think if Genesis wasnt true and Christ was still everything he said he was at some point he would have mentioned something about its inaccuracies?

Untill someone can prove to me that i evolved from a monkey, i will continue to believe i evolved from Adam.

rev kev
07-16-2009, 12:38 AM
Well I'm simply not that bright but kudos to the brainy - the Gospel records are for everyone - thank God - Jesus credited the children for believing in him blindly - Adults build walls and reasons not to believe, children want to believe

rev kev
07-16-2009, 12:42 AM
I think the burden of proof should be on anyone making the claim. By claiming a god exists (or by extension the sun revolves around the earth or the earth was created in only 6 days), the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. What evidence is there of a God? None, nada, zilch! Since Christians, or any other religion claiming a god exists have not provided one single shred of falsifiable evidence, their claims can and should be dismissed as easily as the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus.
If the religious people here only go as far as saying they believe in God, I am ok with that. But to claim they know God exists (or the sun revolves around the earth, etc.) is intellectually dishonest or complete ignorance.

By the way Dolphan7, the Mormons, Muslims and Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster all have their own books claiming ultimate truths recorded by someone who spoke with God. What makes the Christian bible any more credible then theirs?

Christians have a collection of 66 books all god breathed - inspired by God but written by a number of authors who all claimed to have some personal connection with God... not just one book my friend...

aesop
08-14-2009, 12:42 PM
Jesus credited the children for believing in him blindly - Adults build walls and reasons not to believe, children want to believeThank Jesus for discovering the impressionable mind of a child and thank the church for exploiting this.. Yeah, adults build walls of reasonable arguments not to believe, children want to believe in anything that seems magical. Ever taken a little kid to see Toy Story? They'll believe their toys are alive for a good 3 years. That's why religion is shoved into kids' mouths at such a young age.

Dolphan7
09-06-2009, 12:22 AM
Getting back to the original topic.

Here is a logical step by step process in support of the existence of God.
http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=137&Itemid=0

A Logical Argument For God's Existence
By Charlie H. Campbell*
1. Something exists.

That seems pretty simple, right? Can we all agree that this is true? Even the atheist will agree that this is true. This seems to be undeniably true. Anybody who would say that “nothing exists” would have to exist to in order to say that in which case he would be defeating his own statement.

My second premise is this:

2. Nothing does not produce something.

This statement is of course true as well. Think about it. It would be absurd to say that nothing could create or produce something.

Nothing is no-thing. Nothing does not have the power to do anything at all, does it! Even David Hume one of the most zealous skeptics of Christianity ever agreed to the truth of this second premise. He said, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause.” (Feb. 1754).

To propose that nothing could do anything at all sounds utterly foolish. A basic law of physics (and if you ever had a physics class you’ll recall this) is called the Law of Conservation. It states: “From nothing, comes nothing.”

This supports our second premise as well. So if the first two premises are true, that 1. Something exists and 2. Nothing does not produce something, then a rather astounding conclusion logically follows...

3. Something must have always existed.

Why’s that? Okay, well, let’s walk back through this. Something now exists. Nothing does not produce something, then something must have always existed.

Why must something have always existed? To have brought the “something” that now exists (in No.1) into existence. Why? Because premise number two is true (Nothing does not produce something). But the critic asks, “Why does that something have to be eternal? Aren’t you just assuming the eternality of that something that brought into existence the something that now exists (no.1)?"

Not at all. Stay with me on this. There is a reason why that something (no. 3) must be eternal. To say that that something (in premise no. 3) did not always exist would be to say that it was finite. Right?
If that something (in premise no. 3) was finite, that means it had a beginning. If that something had a beginning we are back at our start. How did that something (premise no. 3) begin? Did nothing create something? No, that’s impossible. Nothing can’t do anything.

Anything that begins to exist must have a cause. If we deny this we are saying that nothing produced something from nothing and by nothing. But this is absurd. So we are left with the only other option and that is that something in no. 3 must have always existed.

Do you understand why premise 3 must be true?

Now, there are only two options as to what that “something (No.3) [that] always existed” might be:
A. The universe, or

B. Something outside the universe

The fourth premise in my argument is this:

4. The universe has not always existed.

In 1948, a theory known as The Steady State Theory, was set forth, that proposed that the universe was eternal (William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, p. 102). It stated that the universe has always been. “If this theory is correct” the critics of Christianity said, “there is no need for a Creator.” Well, the theory sounded good on paper for the atheist, for a while but the scientific evidence against it has since demolished the theory.

Numerous evidences from the field of astronomy now overwhelmingly point to the fact that the universe actually began to exist a finite time ago in an event when all the physical space, time, matter, and energy
in the universe came into being.

And that is exactly what the Bible affirms, that the universe had a beginning. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1).

Let me share with you just 2 facts of science that deal a fatal deathblow to the theory of an eternal universe. The first blow to this theory that universe is eternal is…

A. THE MOTION OF THE GALAXIES

Prior to the 1920’s, scientists had always assumed that the universe as a whole was stationary. [Of course they acknowledged that there was movement of planets in solar systems, etc.]

But in 1929 an alarming thing happened. An astronomer named Edwin Hubble discovered that the light from distant galaxies appeared to be redder than it should. The startling conclusion to which Hubble was led was that the light is redder because the universe is growing apart; it is expanding! When the source of incoming light is moving away from an object the light that you see is shifted toward the red end of the spectrum. The light of the galaxies was redder because they are moving away from us. But here is the interesting part: Hubble not only showed that the universe is expanding, but that it is expanding the same in all directions. Scientists have concluded that the galaxies in the universe are not stationary but are expanding further and further away from each other from what appears to be some stationary point.

Imagine that I was to draw a bunch of dots on a balloon that represented galaxies and then blow up the balloon. If you were to suck the air back out, or let’s say rewind the film, go back in time—what would happen? The dots would converge, i.e. get closer to one another. The same is true with our universe. If you go back in time scientists say that the stars would converge into a singular space, where they exploded into being:

This explosion or beginning of the universe is often referred to as, you know the name:

“THE BIG BANG." We call it Genesis 1:1!! It’s incredible that the scientific evidence that helps establish Big Bang theory also helps verify what the Christian theist has always believed: That the universe actually had a beginning!!

Genesis 1:1
“In the beginning, God created the heavens..."

A second blow to the theory that the universe is eternal comes from the facts behind...

B. THE SECOND LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS

[The first law says that the actual amount of energy in the universe remains constant—it doesn’t change.]

The Second Law of Thermodynamics, is one of the best, most established laws in all of science. In fact, there is no recorded experiment in the history of science that contradicts it. It states that: the amount of useable energy in any closed system (which the universe is) is decreasing. In other words, the useable energy in the universe is dying out like the batteries in a flashlight.

Scientists acknowledge that the sun can not burn forever, and that even our galaxy itself will one day, if left to itself, burn up and die out. So we reason that if the Second Law of Thermodynamics is true for all closed systems, and it is, then it is true for the universe as a whole. The universe according to the atheist is a gigantic closed system, since to them it is all there is and there is nothing outside it. This means that the universe is currently running out of useable energy.

If it is running out of useable energy, then it cannot be eternal, for a finite amount of energy (no matter how large the quantity.) could never have brought the universe through an eternity of time.

Flashlight Illustration: Let's say you stumbled upon this flashlight and you’re curious how long it has been burning. So you do a little investigation. Through your investigation you discover that the batteries are going down hill. They are running out of energy. You turn to a scientist standing nearby and ask him: “How long do you think the flashlight’s been burning?” Now, what if he was to tell you: “It’s always been on. It’s been lit like this and burning like this forever.”

Hunh? Would you believe that? Of course not. There’s a problem with that isn’t there?

Batteries with a finite amount of energy (seen in the fact that they are steadily running out of energy) could never have kept the light burning for an eternal amount of time. It would have run out of batteries trillions of years ago!! So it is with the universe. The amount of useable energy is steadily decreasing, thus proving it impossible that it has been burning for all eternity. So, it is scientific discoveries like…

1. The Motion of the Galaxies

2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics

(and other discoveries like the background radiation echo discovered by Penzias and Wilson)

...that have blown the Steady State Theory into smithereens.

Now, if my premises are all true:
1. Something exists.

2. Nothing does not produce something.

3. Something must have always existed.

4. The universe has not always existed

...then a conclusion can be validly drawn from these premises.

5. There must be an eternal power beyond the universe that caused the universe to come into existence.

Do you think this is a sound argument thus far? I believe it is! The whole argument could come crashing down, if even just one of the premises could be proven to be false. Causing the argument to crash wouldn’t prove that God doesn’t exist, it would just prove that the argument is not valid. Let’s take it a bit further.

6. Intelligent life exists in the universe.

I take that to be self-evident. This also seems to be undeniable. Anybody who would say that there is not intelligent life in the universe would be uttering an intelligent statement from an intelligent being.
To understand any of this study this far (even if you disagreed with what I was saying) would prove that this sixth premise is true...for it has taken a great degree of intelligence to understand the thousands of combinations of syllables that I have been uttering.

So this premise is undeniably true as well.

Let’s take it further.

7. It takes an intelligent living being to create an intelligent living being.

How could a material, inanimate, unintelligent, unconscious force produce on intelligent living, breathing being? It takes a living, intelligent being to create a living, intelligent being. Non-life does not produce life. You could leave the barren side of a mountain exposed to...

--wind

--rain

--the forces of nature

--chance

--and millions of years of time and you would never get a Mount Rushmore, let alone a living, breathing human being. Why? It takes intelligence. You need intelligent intervention.

It would take great intelligence to create a robot that operates like a human, and even more so, it takes intelligence to create a real human being.


8. Therefore there must be an intelligent, living, eternal power, beyond the universe, that created the universe.

That intelligent, living, eternal power, beyond the universe that created the universe is God.

*The major premises above have been adopted from a debate I heard on the existence of God by Norman Geisler.

aesop
09-06-2009, 01:18 PM
This guy makes very vague points with little to no scientific facts presented.

Funny, also, how you get on people for links provided that you deem to be 'biased' and agenda ridden. The web site linked is an obvious religious backed site. The author also has a book out called "One Minute Answers to Skeptics".. Hmm, no agenda at all. I don't think I've ever heard a legitimate, well thought out theory presented in a minute for that matter.

This guy proves his points by saying things such as "I believe it is!".. "Huh? Would you believe that? Of course not.." He loosely interprets vague verses to fit into new scientific discoveries. Not one thing presented here proves anything other than that we, as humans, don't know anything about the universe. We know almost as little about our own planet. How can humans be so naive as to think, even if we don't understand everything around us, we could understand what created us or how this all came to be? We don't even understand why 95% of the things on this earth happen.

Dolphan7
09-06-2009, 03:06 PM
This guy makes very vague points with little to no scientific facts presented.

Funny, also, how you get on people for links provided that you deem to be 'biased' and agenda ridden. The web site linked is an obvious religious backed site. The author also has a book out called "One Minute Answers to Skeptics".. Hmm, no agenda at all. I don't think I've ever heard a legitimate, well thought out theory presented in a minute for that matter.

This guy proves his points by saying things such as "I believe it is!".. "Huh? Would you believe that? Of course not.." He loosely interprets vague verses to fit into new scientific discoveries. Not one thing presented here proves anything other than that we, as humans, don't know anything about the universe. We know almost as little about our own planet. How can humans be so naive as to think, even if we don't understand everything around us, we could understand what created us or how this all came to be? We don't even understand why 95% of the things on this earth happen.LOL. The title of the article is "A logical argument for God's existence".......of course it is biased. The guy is trying to demonstrate a logical case for God! I wouldn't expect an atheist to present such an argument.

Obviously you don't like the points he is making. Follow the logic, it is fairly easy. You may not like the conclusions, but you can't argue the conclusions aren't valid, or not logical....well ....maybe you could. But others may find the info useful, and that is why I posted it.

aesop
09-06-2009, 04:00 PM
It is not 'logic'. It is trying to stretch vague statements into science we now have discovered.

I'd rather hear thoughts from an objective view point on the matter rather than from someone who stands to profit from their 'findings'. This guy runs that site and also is an author, as well as someone who goes from church to church promoting himself. I question his intent. Is he trying to get his name out there to sell more books or is he really concerned about others coming to a conclusion that will benefit them.

Either way, the points he makes are huge reaches and he does not fill in the gaps between science and his opinion that it could possibly, not definitively, connect with the bible.

Dolphan7
09-06-2009, 04:38 PM
It is not 'logic'. It is trying to stretch vague statements into science we now have discovered.

I'd rather hear thoughts from an objective view point on the matter rather than from someone who stands to profit from their 'findings'. This guy runs that site and also is an author, as well as someone who goes from church to church promoting himself. I question his intent. Is he trying to get his name out there to sell more books or is he really concerned about others coming to a conclusion that will benefit them.

Either way, the points he makes are huge reaches and he does not fill in the gaps between science and his opinion that it could possibly, not definitively, connect with the bible.

You seem to be hung up on the science.... based on your comments. Ok lets take science. IF God exists, and is this eternal omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent diety.....do you think science can get it's arms around such a being? Wouldn't it be logical to think that such a being would be outside the realms of science?

I mean......you can't put God in a test tube and say....There is God.

EvilDylan
09-06-2009, 09:42 PM
D7, I think you need to take a step back and educate yourself a little more thoroughly on genetics. Judging by your posts it doesn't seem like you have 100% of the understanding of what DNA is composed of and what our chromosomes and genes do.

DNA is like a recipe, it has ingredients that need to be added at a certain time to create some sort of food item. If you change the order of the recipe or the ingredients then you get a different food item. The ingredients being the 4 nucleotides that make up DNA.

You keep asking for "new" genetic information and that it doesn't exist and not one single organism on the planet is evolving or creating new genetic information. how do you know this? Do you know what percentage of the organisms on earth genome has been sequenced? Recently in my genetics lab we sequenced the genetic code of several plants, and out of 10 students 3 of the plants genome had not been sequenced yet.

There are so many examples of evolution around us it's an act of complete ignorance to disregard them. Antibiotic resistance is one, sickle-cell anemia is another. These examples are just a few of the obvious. They give said organism a leg up on the rest of their kind, they are the same as their brothers and sisters but they are also different.

Dolphan7
09-06-2009, 10:07 PM
D7, I think you need to take a step back and educate yourself a little more thoroughly on genetics. Judging by your posts it doesn't seem like you have 100% of the understanding of what DNA is composed of and what our chromosomes and genes do.

DNA is like a recipe, it has ingredients that need to be added at a certain time to create some sort of food item. If you change the order of the recipe or the ingredients then you get a different food item. The ingredients being the 4 nucleotides that make up DNA.

You keep asking for "new" genetic information and that it doesn't exist and not one single organism on the planet is evolving or creating new genetic information. how do you know this? Do you know what percentage of the organisms on earth genome has been sequenced? Recently in my genetics lab we sequenced the genetic code of several plants, and out of 10 students 3 of the plants genome had not been sequenced yet.

There are so many examples of evolution around us it's an act of complete ignorance to disregard them. Antibiotic resistance is one, sickle-cell anemia is another. These examples are just a few of the obvious. They give said organism a leg up on the rest of their kind, they are the same as their brothers and sisters but they are also different.Actually Dylan....I think you should stay in school a little longer. At some point in time you will discover that re-arranging, copying, missing, and mutated DNA sequences is not the same as new information being created...only .......re-arranging, copying, missing and mutated (deformed). I don't care how many quadrillion times you re-sequence a fruitfly's DNA....it will always be a fruitfly.

Evidence of evolution always ends up being micro-evolution, which I have no argument with. None whatsoever - because all micro-evolution is is adaptation within a species or genome, of which is very biblical and we see it all the time. This isn't the macro-evolution that must be in place in order for a species to evolve out of it's genome into another. This requires new genetic information, not re-arranging, copying, missing or mutated (deformed) information. So far there is zero evidence of any new genetic information being created anywhere in any organism, not even in a controlled lab. All we can do is manipulate the existing info.

EvilDylan
09-06-2009, 10:13 PM
Actually Dylan....I think you should stay in school a little longer. At some point in time you will discover that re-arranging, copying, missing, and mutated DNA sequences is not the same as new information being created...only .......re-arranging, copying, missing and mutated (deformed). I don't care how many quadrillion times you re-sequence a fruitfly's DNA....it will always be a fruitfly.

I don't think you know how completely and absolutely wrong you are in this statement.

The sequence of nucleotides being in the correct order is imperative to the existence of the fruit fly. There are some things that can be altered such as red eyes, no wings, grow a leg out of the head whatever, but if you took the nucleotide sequence and randomly jumbled them around you would most definitely have a fruit fly anymore. you would have something that would probably never be able to exist.

This is why I say you really don't have a grasp on genetics.

EvilDylan
09-06-2009, 10:20 PM
Evidence of evolution always ends up being micro-evolution, which I have no argument with. None whatsoever - because all micro-evolution is is adaptation within a species or genome, of which is very biblical and we see it all the time. This isn't the macro-evolution that must be in place in order for a species to evolve out of it's genome into another. This requires new genetic information, not re-arranging, copying, missing or mutated (deformed) information. So far there is zero evidence of any new genetic information being created anywhere in any organism, not even in a controlled lab. All we can do is manipulate the existing info.

I would like to comment on this by pointing you in the direction of plasmid DNA. A bacterium that did not have antibiotic resistance can have ADDITIONAL DNA passed to it by another bacterium giving it the antibiotic resistance gene. Tell me where new DNA is not created and added to an organism now.

Macro evolution is hard to observe because drastic changes take thousands and thousands of years of micro mutations and evolutionary advantages to eventually bee seen as a large evolutionary step. Scientific documentation has not been around long enough to record a macro evolutionary step. Maybe in thousands of years, if humans are still around, there will be documentation. The earth is also changing less which does not force a species to mutate or evolve to the point of having an environmental advantage.

Dolphan7
09-06-2009, 10:28 PM
I don't think you know how completely and absolutely wrong you are in this statement.

The sequence of nucleotides being in the correct order is imperative to the existence of the fruit fly. There are some things that can be altered such as red eyes, no wings, grow a leg out of the head whatever, but if you took the nucleotide sequence and randomly jumbled them around you would most definitely have a fruit fly anymore. you would have something that would probably never be able to exist.

This is why I say you really don't have a grasp on genetics.You just defeated your own argument. LOL


Fact - you would not have any new information, just a jumbled mix of stuff that couldn't survive.

And this process is supposed to happen in nature with remarkable results?

I don't know as much as I should know, but for the sake of argument go ask your teacher if there are any cases in the world of any new genetic information being created all by itself in any organism in the world, in a natural setting.

I'll save you the time.

No.

That is the point I am trying to make. All you are referring to is minor changes to an organism using existing DNA, to make minor changes....not wholesale changes that would allow the organism to change it's genus.

What you are seeing in your class isn't new genetic information, but existing information being re-sorted, copied, mutated or in many cases missing. This isn't evolution. I am sorry but it isn't.

I may not have a piece of paper on my wall stating my scientific acumen..but I know enough to call BS.


Go talk to your teacher.

Dolphan7
09-06-2009, 10:34 PM
I would like to comment on this by pointing you in the direction of plasmid DNA. A bacterium that did not have antibiotic resistance can have ADDITIONAL DNA passed to it by another bacterium giving it the antibiotic resistance gene. Tell me where new DNA is not created and added to an organism now.

Macro evolution is hard to observe because drastic changes take thousands and thousands of years of micro mutations and evolutionary advantages to eventually bee seen as a large evolutionary step. Scientific documentation has not been around long enough to record a macro evolutionary step. Maybe in thousands of years, if humans are still around, there will be documentation. The earth is also changing less which does not force a species to mutate or evolve to the point of having an environmental advantage.
Ah....yes...the old "bacteria is proof of evolution" argument. How many times has that been posted and debunked in this forum over the years.

First off is bacteria even considered life?

Second - we have immune system in our own bodies that have the ability to "adapt" to fight off invasive cells and viruses and bacterium. That doesn't mean we are someday going to evolve into .....hyper-hominoid. What you have provided is a simple "copy" of genetic material from one to another.

Third - this was done in a laboratory? Under the manipulation of a lab tech? Need I go on?

EvilDylan
09-06-2009, 10:36 PM
Tell me this, is this number 253450 the same as this number? 025345

no they are completely different but with rearranged patterns. One number has added value, this is a NEW value, but it is a NEW value with the same numbers.

How did I defeat my own argument?

It's fine, you will never understand genetics because you don't want to. You can tell me to stay in school or go talk to my teacher, try and insult my intelligence or whatever. I am basing my arguments on fact, not fiction, not because I was told so by a book that cam from a man in the sky. I base my arguments on observable facts, things that I have observed in the laboratory which you choose to ignore. You don't want to hear anything other than what you want to hear. You found god because you needed to find god, and that's fine for you. But don't insult my intelligence because I don't agree with you or because I am pointing out inaccuracies in your argument.

EvilDylan
09-06-2009, 10:47 PM
Ah....yes...the old "bacteria is proof of evolution" argument. How many times has that been posted and debunked in this forum over the years.

First off is bacteria even considered life?

Second - we have immune system in our own bodies that have the ability to "adapt" to fight off invasive cells and viruses and bacterium. That doesn't mean we are someday going to evolve into .....hyper-hominoid. What you have provided is a simple "copy" of genetic material from one to another.

Third - this was done in a laboratory? Under the manipulation of a lab tech? Need I go on?

LOL bacteria isn't proof of evolution has been debunked on a football forum, therefore lets throw this argument out...I'm rolling my eyes right now.

Are you seriously asking if bacteria is even considered life? You do realize that bacteria consumes and metabolizes energy, reproduces, adapts to its environment, is made of cells, responds to stimuli, oh and most importantly HAS DNA. And you are questioning if it's actually considered life?

We aren't going to evolve into a hyper hominid? How do you know? Can you tell the future? Can you prove that it wont happen?

Yes it was done in a laboratory, it was duplicated AFTER it was found to have happened naturally, plasmid DNA somehow appeared in a bacterium and hence it EVOLVED the ability to resist certain antibiotics by adding NEW DNA.

Dolphan7
09-06-2009, 10:57 PM
Tell me this, is this number 253450 the same as this number? 025345

no they are completely different but with rearranged patterns. One number has added value, this is a NEW value, but it is a NEW value with the same numbers.

How did I defeat my own argument?

It's fine, you will never understand genetics because you don't want to. You can tell me to stay in school or go talk to my teacher, try and insult my intelligence or whatever. I am basing my arguments on fact, not fiction, not because I was told so by a book that cam from a man in the sky. I base my arguments on observable facts, things that I have observed in the laboratory which you choose to ignore. You don't want to hear anything other than what you want to hear. You found god because you needed to find god, and that's fine for you. But don't insult my intelligence because I don't agree with you or because I am pointing out inaccuracies in your argument.LOL - your comment:


D7, I think you need to take a step back and educate yourself a little more thoroughly on genetics. Judging by your posts it doesn't seem like you have 100% of the understanding of what DNA is composed of and what our chromosomes and genes do.

And you feel insulted?

EvilDylan
09-06-2009, 11:00 PM
If I got in on a discussion about brain surgery, and someone told me that I didn't have a full grasp I would accept it because I know I don't have a full grasp on it. Especially when they pointed out to me where I was incorrect.

You have not shown me anywhere where I was incorrect or lacking in my knowledge of genetics and the properties of DNA. If you can feel free to do so, but don't randomly insult me for baseless reasons. I am sorry if you disagree with me but that is the nature of discussion. If everyone agreed every discussion would be pretty boring.

Dolphan7
09-06-2009, 11:17 PM
Tell me this, is this number 253450 the same as this number? 025345

no they are completely different but with rearranged patterns. One number has added value, this is a NEW value, but it is a NEW value with the same numbers.

How did I defeat my own argument?

It's fine, you will never understand genetics because you don't want to. You can tell me to stay in school or go talk to my teacher, try and insult my intelligence or whatever. I am basing my arguments on fact, not fiction, not because I was told so by a book that cam from a man in the sky. I base my arguments on observable facts, things that I have observed in the laboratory which you choose to ignore. You don't want to hear anything other than what you want to hear. You found god because you needed to find god, and that's fine for you. But don't insult my intelligence because I don't agree with you or because I am pointing out inaccuracies in your argument.
You are proving my point fabulously.

253450 = 025345 = micro-evolution. No new material. They are the same 6 numbers re-arranged.

253450 = 025346 = macro-evolution. The new material is the number 6. This hasnt' been observed in nature.

That is the whole point.

EvilDylan
09-06-2009, 11:21 PM
You are proving my point fabulously.

253450 = 025345 = micro-evolution. No new material. They are the same 6 numbers re-arranged.

253450 = 025346 = macro-evolution. The new material is the number 6. This hasnt' been observed in nature.

That is the whole point.


LOL wrong, I'm sorry but if you can't see the difference between the number 025345 and the number 253450 I don't really think we can carry this conversation much farther.

One number is 25,345 the other is 253,450....by your statement they are the same number with the same value, with only rearranged placement. I don't see how you can say they are the same.

Dolphan7
09-06-2009, 11:33 PM
If I got in on a discussion about brain surgery, and someone told me that I didn't have a full grasp I would accept it because I know I don't have a full grasp on it. Especially when they pointed out to me where I was incorrect.

You have not shown me anywhere where I was incorrect or lacking in my knowledge of genetics and the properties of DNA. If you can feel free to do so, but don't randomly insult me for baseless reasons. I am sorry if you disagree with me but that is the nature of discussion. If everyone agreed every discussion would be pretty boring.

I am not saying anything about you...I am sure you are an intelligent guy...what I am saying is that evolution demands the addition of new genetic material in order for it to evolve an organism from one genus to another. I am also telling you that this has not occured in nature. Even your example of plasmid dna falls far short of it's intended claim.

You are the one making the claim that evolution is true. I am simply challenging you on that.

Dolphan7
09-06-2009, 11:37 PM
LOL wrong, I'm sorry but if you can't see the difference between the number 025345 and the number 253450 I don't really think we can carry this conversation much farther.

One number is 25,345 the other is 253,450....by your statement they are the same number with the same value, with only rearranged placement. I don't see how you can say they are the same.I didn't say that it is the same number. I said the 6 numbers represented are the same in both examples, which means that no matter how much you re-arrange them, it is the same 6 numbers. Re-arranging dna sequences doesn't create new dna, only re-arranges them as you have expertly demonstrated here. Thank You!

EvilDylan
09-06-2009, 11:43 PM
Please read this.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

Dolphan7
09-07-2009, 12:40 AM
Please read this.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

Oh good another talk origin link. Fascinating. Lets take a look shall we?

From section 1 - definitions of information



increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991) increased variety is expected in pair sexing, it has nothing to do with new information, but a mixing of information that already exists in the genome, brought about by reproduction within a population.
increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)

The Iberian minnow Leuciscus alburnoides represents a complex of diploid and polyploid forms with altered modes of reproduction. In the present paper, we review the recent data on the origin, reproductive modes, and inter-relationships of the various forms of the complex, in order to predict its evolutionary potential. The complex follows the hybrid-origin model suggested for most other asexual vertebrates. Diploid and triploid females from the southern river basins exhibit reproductive modes that cannot be conveniently placed into the categories generally recognised for these vertebrate complexes, which imply continuous shifting between forms, where genomes derived from both parental ancestors are cyclically lost, gained or replaced. Replacement of nuclear genomes allow the introduction of novel genetic material, that may compensate for the disadvantages of asexual reproduction. Contrasting with most other vertebrate complexes, L. alburnoides males are fertile and play an important role in the dynamics of the complex. Moreover, diploid hybrid males may have initiated a tetraploidization process, when a diploid clonal sperm fertilised a diploid egg. This direct route to tetraploidy by originating fish with the right constitution for normal meiosis (symmetric), may eventually lead to a new sexually reproducing polyploid species. This case-study reinforces the significance of hybridisation and polyploidy in evolution and diversification of vertebrates. I love the lack of confidence in these articles when they use words like "may", instead of definitely. By the way this was done in a lab, or had the help of a human in making this happen.


novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)Bacteria again. The problem with mutating bacteria is - it is still bacteria. Done in a lab.

novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)This is an experiment in a lab to support abiogenesis.

Section 2.

A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example:

Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000).In a lab
RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002) No indication that the mutation added new material, only that it was copied, anda mutation occurred that was beneficial. This happens all the time when mutations actually lose genetic information - like the HIV resistance in northern europeans. Oh and done in a lab.
Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)In a lab again, and again no indication the mutation added any new genetic material.

We can do this all day long - and I have done this many times before. Every time some new guy brings in all this evidence of macro-evolution....it always turns out to be micro-evolution as is the case above. Micro-evolution is not in question. Lots of micro-evolution over time does not equate to macro-evolution, not without a naturalistic mechanism to spontaneously create new genetic information....that won't get wiped out in the copying process of the reproductive cycle.......oh and this all has to happen in nature - real key point here. We can make micro-evolution happen in a lab no problem, but we can't make Darwinian macro-evolution happen even in a lab, yet they claim that it happens in nature?

EvilDylan
09-07-2009, 01:16 AM
So if it happens in a lab it can't happen in nature?

Do you not understand that the lab experiments are necessary to PROVE a scientific point that can be observed? This is to show step by step how said mutations happen, and where new genetic information was added. Lab work is done to reinforce and prove a theory, it is also widely accepted by the scientific community. However since it was done in a lab YOU discard it and therefore it is not a valid argument to be brought up.

I guess since I can make a broth with E.coli in it and watch them reproduce in a test tube, it can't really happen in nature because it was done in a lab with the help of a human?

These experiments are done to speed up the process that we cannot really see very well because of time. BUT since it was done in a lab, it can't be done in nature. Do you see the ridiculousness of your arguments?

Dolphan7
09-07-2009, 01:23 AM
So if it happens in a lab it can't happen in nature?

Do you not understand that the lab experiments are necessary to PROVE a scientific point that can be observed? This is to show step by step how said mutations happen, and where new genetic information was added. Lab work is done to reinforce and prove a theory, it is also widely accepted by the scientific community. However since it was done in a lab YOU discard it and therefore it is not a valid argument to be brought up.

I guess since I can make a broth with E.coli in it and watch them reproduce in a test tube, it can't really happen in nature because it was done in a lab with the help of a human?

These experiments are done to speed up the process that we cannot really see very well because of time. BUT since it was done in a lab, it can't be done in nature. Do you see the ridiculousness of your arguments?Precisely!! Key words you used - with the help of a human. Providing just the right food, ingredients, temperature, light etc........depending on the experiment.

Doesn't mean we can't learn anything from experimentation, that isn't what I am saying...but the theory states that evolution happens in nature, not in controlled laboratories.

Dolphan7
09-07-2009, 01:24 AM
I am done for the night. Good discussion.

Good night Dylan!

EvilDylan
09-07-2009, 01:30 AM
Interesting tidbit on evolution. I don't think you can argue these tested and testable genetic facts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA_UFImmulY&feature=related

EvilDylan
09-07-2009, 01:37 AM
This one is even better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI&feature=related

aesop
09-07-2009, 11:42 AM
Precisely!! Key words you used - with the help of a human. Providing just the right food, ingredients, temperature, light etc........depending on the experiment.Everything on this earth has come from nature. If it can happen in a laboratory, it obviously could happen in other places. Your logic is always skewed.

EvilDylan
09-08-2009, 07:11 PM
So is there anyone who can refute the evidence in the videos I posted? I don't think there's any argument against Endogenous Retroviruses being in the exact same spot in 16 instances on both humans and primates. Or the evidence of 2 fused chromosomes that shows how humans have 23 pairs and the great apes have 24. Can't forget transitional fossils. Or Macro evolution in the Rhagoletis fly.

EvilDylan
09-10-2009, 11:01 AM
Anyone? Bueller......Bueller......

Dolphan7
09-10-2009, 06:40 PM
Sorry for the delay Dylan. I have been away from this forum for a few days. Now I must say that in order to provide a response to your .....err....ahem...."evidence"...I will have to invest my time and energy watching the videos you posted and research the info you mentioned. I am reluctant to do so as .....

1. I have done this dozens of times over the years and it gets old to have to invest the time over and over again for all the new comers.

2. It won't change a thing. Minds won't be changed, at least not yours or mine. Maybe others will be swayed one way or the other I don't know.

But I tell you what...I will take the time and review this info, provide a response to you....on one condition....

...if you would be so kind as to take the time to review the you tube videos I provide and research the info I suggest.

Fair?

EvilDylan
09-10-2009, 07:39 PM
That's fine with me, as a scientist I enjoy reviewing any and all data. As long as the videos you point me towards aren't made by venomfangx lol. If you don't know who he is, I suggest looking up the creationist vs evolution debate war that went on between him and thinderf00t. Great stuff.

Dolphan7
09-11-2009, 03:25 AM
That's fine with me, as a scientist I enjoy reviewing any and all data. As long as the videos you point me towards aren't made by venomfangx lol. If you don't know who he is, I suggest looking up the creationist vs evolution debate war that went on between him and thinderf00t. Great stuff.I watched the videos part II and III, I also watched part I as well as I wanted to get the complete context and continuity of the presentation...and what a presentation it was!!! I must say who ever did that put an awful lot of work into the video portion, but accomplished little as far as real evidence.

Of course the data presented can be deemed to "support" evolution as it clearly states in the very beginning. Support.....key word. But it can also support a design and a designer just as well, it just depends on your pre-suppositions - or bias. Creation or Intelligent Design would predict that we would see commonality in similar species within the genome. And that includes ERV's and Herv's as well. It was thought that these were left overs from past mutations but it appears that these may also have had a certain function once upon a time. The evidence isn't definite. Creation or ID would predict that the genome would at one point in time be completely intact and error free, and over time, due to sin and the after effects of the great flood, would deteriorate. Whatever their function was, is now obsolete or not necessary. We just don't know. But the entire subject of these ERV's still follow my original premise that there is no new information being created....and these ERV's and HERV's do not add information, but are mutations themselves which create copying errors, delete info and deform info. They do not create new information as Macro-evolution demands.

Here is a general summary site that talks about ERV's and HERV's.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2006/12/19/human-endogenous-retroviruses

Here is a site that actually raises many questions and lists several citations of research. If you like reading be prepared to spend some time on this one.

http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/endogenous_retroviruses.html

Dolphan7
09-11-2009, 04:02 AM
Now here is a video presentation done in much the same way as cdk007, only this one has real scientists talking about Intelligent Design.

I don't know how anyone can believe (yes it is a belief) that life... being so complex at the smallest of levels......could have not only originated all by itself, but "evolved" all by itself.


I would love to be an Atheist - but I just don't have the faith.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cymBsa6u3BU&feature=related

Dolphan7
09-11-2009, 04:13 AM
And here is one I think you'll all like.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33C8dYcKOXs&NR=1

EvilDylan
09-11-2009, 02:12 PM
This is a bit on the whoisyourcreator website. I haven't gotten to the videos I'm about to though.

Scroll to:
"How is it that ERVS are Considered Copies of Disease Producing Exogenous Retroviruses but None Have Been Proven to Directly Cause Disease?"

Ok, it's complete fiction; in the event you are unfamiliar with multiple sclerosis, I suggest reading up on it. Also, we would expect HERVs to lose functionality if those humans are to survive, if they are completely functional and cause disease, person dies, ERV goes away.

"By Chance, What Made ERVS Evolve into "The Cure," Instead of Remaining Disease Related Viruses?"

As stated previously, ERVs with (notice the last "s" is in lower case?) beneficial effects are kept, those with extremely deleterious or no effects undergo much more mutation.


"By Chance, What Made ERV Elements Change From Viral Activities to Cellular Activities and Create New Essential Genes?"

In the event you still don't get the effect selection plays on the survival of genes, perhaps you should take a few remedial courses in biology; ERVs seem to be far out of your league...



"ERVS Created the Specie-Specific Regulatory Network that Controls the Expression of Cells in a Collective Manner. What Came First � the Host or the Regulatory Network?"

This is a false dichotomy; neither came first, retrovirus invades germ cell-->germ cell produces gamete-->infected gamete forms zygote which grows up to be adult (if virus doesn't kill it)-->virus loses some functionality due to mutations-->genome adapts to include ERV as functional element or ERV slowly disappears... I know, that's really simplified, but I figured I wouldn't make your brain explode just yet...



"By Chance, What Made ERV LTRS Immediately Turn into Essential Gene Regulators Upon Insertion?"

In the event you don't know what an LTR is, it is a "Long terminal repeat" which is used for insertion into the host DNA; now, what happens is after dsDNA is formed, LTR-specific integrases put the DNA into the genome. Now, they are presenting evidence that the TF binding site was present in the consensus sequence of the original retrovirus, it didn't "turn into" anything, it just happened to contain the consensus sequence for the TF in the original consensus sequence of the retroviral integrase because it is present in many related species... no magic...



"By Chance, What Made LTRS Gain Transciptional Abilities for Essential Genes?"

As the lovely lady over at ERV already said, "Its possible that a retrovirus plops down next to a gene, and the genes like 'Whoa! Ur a better promoter! I keepsies you!!'" Neat, huh?

"Misc. Examples of biased and inaccurate research and publications:"

EvilDylan
09-11-2009, 02:35 PM
Posting as I'm watching, and the introduction already throws me a red flag. Claiming that Darwin could have never understood the intricacies of the inner workings of a cell. Yes this is true, and Darwin never claimed to be an expert of cellular components, he merely came up with his idea of how one species changes to another.

The bit on "Irreducible Complexity" the phrased coined by Michael Behe......Michael Behe believes in evolution, he also believes in humans and the great apes having a common ancestor. A quote from Behe himself.

"For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world. Although Darwin's mechanism--natural selection working on variation--might explain many things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular life."

And most evolution supporters agree with that point, Darwin does NOT explain molecular life, nor has it ever been claimed to except by those that don't understand what Darwin was saying.

Scott Minnich, one of the scientists who was in the video. Employed by the discovery institute. The Discovery institute is widely known for trying to push intelligent design, and creationism on the masses for years. As objective as they may claim to be, they have an agenda, and it's obvious. It isn't known if they actually support those ideas though judging by the showing, or lack thereof, in the Dover trial. Where three DI "scientists" were asked to appear on trial to testify for ID. They never even showed up and ID was said by the federal court to "not be science".

EvilDylan
09-11-2009, 02:40 PM
LOL @ that girl.

Dolphan7
09-11-2009, 03:25 PM
This is a bit on the whoisyourcreator website. I haven't gotten to the videos I'm about to though.

Scroll to:
"How is it that ERVS are Considered Copies of Disease Producing Exogenous Retroviruses but None Have Been Proven to Directly Cause Disease?"

Ok, it's complete fiction; in the event you are unfamiliar with multiple sclerosis, I suggest reading up on it. Also, we would expect HERVs to lose functionality if those humans are to survive, if they are completely functional and cause disease, person dies, ERV goes away.

"By Chance, What Made ERVS Evolve into "The Cure," Instead of Remaining Disease Related Viruses?"

As stated previously, ERVs with (notice the last "s" is in lower case?) beneficial effects are kept, those with extremely deleterious or no effects undergo much more mutation.


"By Chance, What Made ERV Elements Change From Viral Activities to Cellular Activities and Create New Essential Genes?"

In the event you still don't get the effect selection plays on the survival of genes, perhaps you should take a few remedial courses in biology; ERVs seem to be far out of your league...



"ERVS Created the Specie-Specific Regulatory Network that Controls the Expression of Cells in a Collective Manner. What Came First � the Host or the Regulatory Network?"

This is a false dichotomy; neither came first, retrovirus invades germ cell-->germ cell produces gamete-->infected gamete forms zygote which grows up to be adult (if virus doesn't kill it)-->virus loses some functionality due to mutations-->genome adapts to include ERV as functional element or ERV slowly disappears... I know, that's really simplified, but I figured I wouldn't make your brain explode just yet...



"By Chance, What Made ERV LTRS Immediately Turn into Essential Gene Regulators Upon Insertion?"

In the event you don't know what an LTR is, it is a "Long terminal repeat" which is used for insertion into the host DNA; now, what happens is after dsDNA is formed, LTR-specific integrases put the DNA into the genome. Now, they are presenting evidence that the TF binding site was present in the consensus sequence of the original retrovirus, it didn't "turn into" anything, it just happened to contain the consensus sequence for the TF in the original consensus sequence of the retroviral integrase because it is present in many related species... no magic...



"By Chance, What Made LTRS Gain Transciptional Abilities for Essential Genes?"

As the lovely lady over at ERV already said, "Its possible that a retrovirus plops down next to a gene, and the genes like 'Whoa! Ur a better promoter! I keepsies you!!'" Neat, huh?

"Misc. Examples of biased and inaccurate research and publications:"It just goes to show you that there is much we don't know and understand. While ERv's do support evolutionary theory, they don't "prove" it. It just raises more questions then there are answers. Even creationists don't entirely understand the intricate works of their creator, it is an ongoing study. It really all boils down to what bias you come to the table with. That will direct how you look at the data, and how you interpret the data.

Dolphan7
09-11-2009, 03:30 PM
Posting as I'm watching, and the introduction already throws me a red flag. Claiming that Darwin could have never understood the intricacies of the inner workings of a cell. Yes this is true, and Darwin never claimed to be an expert of cellular components, he merely came up with his idea of how one species changes to another.

The bit on "Irreducible Complexity" the phrased coined by Michael Behe......Michael Behe believes in evolution, he also believes in humans and the great apes having a common ancestor. A quote from Behe himself.

"For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world. Although Darwin's mechanism--natural selection working on variation--might explain many things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular life."

And most evolution supporters agree with that point, Darwin does NOT explain molecular life, nor has it ever been claimed to except by those that don't understand what Darwin was saying.

Scott Minnich, one of the scientists who was in the video. Employed by the discovery institute. The Discovery institute is widely known for trying to push intelligent design, and creationism on the masses for years. As objective as they may claim to be, they have an agenda, and it's obvious. It isn't known if they actually support those ideas though judging by the showing, or lack thereof, in the Dover trial. Where three DI "scientists" were asked to appear on trial to testify for ID. They never even showed up and ID was said by the federal court to "not be science".I really don't care what they believe to be honest. Even Kenyon still believes in evolutionary theory. He is by no means a creationist. But as scientists they aren't "afraid" to look at the data and create different predictions.

I still don't get how someone could look at the amazing complexity of life on this planet, down to the cellular and molecular level, and think that this all happened without any known cause, all by itself. Makes no sense to me - forget about the religious aspect for a moment. Just apply common sense. To believe this happened by chance takes a lot more faith than I have to believe in an almighty creator. But that is just me.

EvilDylan
09-11-2009, 03:48 PM
I really don't care what they believe to be honest. Even Kenyon still believes in evolutionary theory. He is by no means a creationist. But as scientists they aren't "afraid" to look at the data and create different predictions.

I still don't get how someone could look at the amazing complexity of life on this planet, down to the cellular and molecular level, and think that this all happened without any known cause, all by itself. Makes no sense to me - forget about the religious aspect for a moment. Just apply common sense. To believe this happened by chance takes a lot more faith than I have to believe in an almighty creator. But that is just me.

You want to see something complex, look at a microscopic view of an ice crystal forming. There is a perfect scientific reason for why it happens, it is INCREDIBLY complex, and completely random at the same time.

Dolphan7
09-11-2009, 05:15 PM
You want to see something complex, look at a microscopic view of an ice crystal forming. There is a perfect scientific reason for why it happens, it is INCREDIBLY complex, and completely random at the same time.
They are fascinating and beautiful at the same time - and aren't alive.

HansMojo
09-12-2009, 03:00 AM
They are fascinating and beautiful at the same time - and aren't alive.
:ponder: Prove it!