's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

Do creationists support the search for origins of life on Mars?(61 posts)

Do creationists support the search for origins of life on Mars?128
Feb 2, 2004 11:15 AM
How would a creationist view life on Mars? Or aliens?

Assuming some creationists support the space program and it's (NASA's) partial purpose to seek the origins of life on Earth, how do they justify spending billions to see if there are signs of 'our origins' on Mars? When they already know our origins?
There is no life on MarsColnagoFE
Feb 2, 2004 11:23 AM
God only created humans on Earth in his image and we have dominion over all the universe. Oppose these liberal policies that force us to teach our kids "Evilution".
re: Do creationists support the search for origins of life on Mars?lotterypick
Feb 2, 2004 11:27 AM
Thanks for the good questions. I'll speak for me as I'm just one guy who is a Creation guy.

First, it's a giant waste of money. I'd rather the money be spent on solar power on the moon or something that can impact the quality of our lives now and perhaps in the near future.

Let's say they find water on Mars. What does that accomplish except fuel their belief that now one block of life was/is there. So what. It's a giant waste of money and talent.

As for aliens I'll say this. The Bible is a record of the salvation of man by God. It has some history, some science, etc.

Where it speaks to science, time has proven that it has been correct. Like there was a beginning (which was not the thought in previous times) and fossil data has shown that stasis and sudden appearence are still there (after all these years of looking, if that weren't true it wouldn't be the THEORY of evolution would it?)

Therefore, when we speak of aliens, we don't know as Christians. They could be real, they could be false or they could be demons. We don't know, nor does anyone.

How much money did they spend and are spending (privately) to keep the SETI program going. Years and years and millions (billions) of dollars to hear nothing. No wonder they have to have interns doing it, a real person would go mad, listening days, years, decades for a dream and yet hear, nothing. Solar or hydrogen power anyone?
The Bible does not have any science in it. nmBrooks
Feb 2, 2004 2:15 PM
IF you calllotterypick
Feb 2, 2004 3:31 PM
a description of the water cycle, long before it was known, then you would be right.

Let me state it this way, what it states as the workings of things or the rationale for certain things existing have over time been shown to be true.

We now call them facts. By the way, the BIble is full of verified historical facts also.

Are you now going to say that the Bible has no history in it either and run away.
True facts do not equal scienceDwayne Barry
Feb 3, 2004 5:49 AM
People throughout time have been able to observe the world around them and state facts about it that were true, but that doesn't mean they were scientists! Science as a philosophy of exploring and understanding the world didn't come into being really until the 17th century or so and probably not fully until the 19th century when western Europeans were able to escape the threat of death at the hands of the church for saying something that could be construed as contradicting church teachings.

That being said the Bible was written by historical people living at certain points in time therefore it contains history, often times right, sometimes wrong, sometimes internally contradictory (for instance compare what's known of Paul based on his letters and what is reported about his life in Acts). That doesn't mean all the history in the Bible is correct, some of it is known to be wrong. And even some entire stories are probably completely made up or inspired by the Holy Spirit, if you prefer (for instance the birth narratives of Jesus).
You'll have to be specificlotterypick
Feb 3, 2004 8:07 AM
I could easily say, some science is good and some is bad, some is fairy tale and some is not.

Just as that statement, while true, may offend you, in the same way, your statement does nothing but give the uninformed some sense that you are an authority based on high position.

You'll have to give me some examples so that we can see if your take hold water.
An example of what?Dwayne Barry
Feb 3, 2004 9:15 AM
I completely agree with your assessment of science some is good, some is bad, some is fairy tale. The beauty of science is that it is a methodology that allows you to test those assumptions.

By example, I assume you mean historical inaccurancy in the Bible. Well the most (in)famous examples are the birth narratives (which don't even agree with one another on many points and are even contradictory on some points like where Jesus and family went after the birth in Bethlehem). By all accounts Jesus was a man of Nazareth in Galilee, how do you get him to be born in Bethlehem. Luke or Matthew uses the empire-wide census of Augustus to get Jesus' family to Bethlehem for his birth. There are a number of problems, 1st Augustus never conducted an empire wide census, 2nd at the time of Jesus birth Galilee was not a Roman province (but it was by the time the gospels were written) so Jesus' family would not have had to go anywhere anyway for a Roman census. Was there a Census at some point, yes Quirinius (the legate of Syria I believe) conducted a census in 6 AD but then you have the problem of Jesus being born a decade after what is commonly excepted and reported elsewhere that he was born near the end of Herod's reign (probably 3 or 4 BC).
There are number of geographical errors in the Gospels as well, regarding the relationship of the various places in Palestine. One of the many lines of evidence used to argue that none of the synoptic gospels were written by actual witnesses to Jesus' life. Even the tradition that Mark was written according to Peter's first hand account (at Rome in the 60's) is called into question by these errors.

I think if you're looking for historical accuracy or inerracy you're missing the point of the Bible. I don't think anyone but religious right wingers seriously consider the Bible to be error-free in regards to everything!
I guess I'm a religious right wingerlotterypick
Feb 3, 2004 11:25 AM
One of the main problems as you state are certain dates and places and Jesus' birth etc.

I think you've been watching to many PBS documentaries, which are completely based on the assumption that the Bible is wrong.

What you get on those shows is expert authority (Harvard Divinity College et al) who say things like "The Bible says Jesus was born in Bethlehem, my mind I cannot accept that because it was the geo political power base blah blah blah...I believe it was Galilee, because it was all the things I believe...."

It's like the Germans. You read them and they questioned everything, whereas they don't question historical writings about Julius Caesar, even though more is written of Jesus than him.

My uncle is seemingly a lost cause for that very reason. Explain something to him and then the next thing he's talking about another, then another ad naseum. I bet (which has happened) is when I get to the end and have answered all of his issues, he'd say "So what do you think about aliens".

My point is that you still ahve to chose, as there is a Truth, which you and I would certainly agree. Not all roads are true as they conflict, therefore one is right and the rest are wrong. You may have chosen as have I, let's see how it goes, and I do wish you well.
Actually I usually turn-off the TV shows...Dwayne Barry
Feb 3, 2004 11:55 AM
because they oversimplify the issues in favor of soundbites.

I've read several books on the historicity of Jesus, currently reading Raymond Brown's introductory book on the NT. I don't understand why a rational approach, as any biblical scholar takes, is so offensive. Brown clearly believes that Jesus was the son of God, died for humanity's sins, blah, blah, blah, that doesn't prevent him calling bullshit when the bullshit is apparent or pointing clear contradictions. The objections I raised to the birth narratives are not based on what people think but based on conficts between what is know from other historical sources as facts and facts as presented in some of the Gospels (which are clearly influenced by the writers desires to portray Jesus as the fulfillment of OT prophecy). Actually very little is written about Jesus (really only the 4 gospels) people usually sum up what is known about the historical Jesus in a paragraph. We know far more about his teachings than actually about him as a person or his life. I'm sure historians have questioned all kinds of stuff written about Julius Caesar (why wouldn't they?).
Good for you.lotterypick
Feb 3, 2004 12:12 PM
I think that you are on the right path. Meaning, checking things out. If only more people were like that, life for a lot would not be so screwed up.

Let's leave it at this. We agree that Jesus said some amazing things and turned the world on it's head.

If we just live with that wisdom and act on it, life will be good.

I believe that everyone gets a chance and that God actually desires that none perish, therefore I have faith that God is working in your life in one way or another.

You seem like a good person and has facts and thoughts which is great.

I've got to work and we can definately throw barbs another time in fun and growth. By the way, what kind of bike to you have?
Thou Shalt Not Barbecuemohair_chair
Feb 2, 2004 2:21 PM
Hey, as long as you have your bible open, check out this guy, who thinks eating meat is a sin. Here's a teaser:

The Garden of Eden, God's perfect world, was vegetarian (Gen. 1:29-30), and God called this nonexploitative relationship "good" (Gen. 1:31). After Eden there were many, many years of fallen humanity, when people held slaves, waged war, ate animals and committed various other violent acts. But the Old Testament prophets tell us that the final, peaceful Kingdom of God will be nonviolent and vegetarian; even "the lion will lie down with the lamb," according to the prophet Isaiah. That is, even the carnivorous animals will go back to the vegetarian state. I find it empowering that we can begin to live that vision now.
re: The Bible is FICTIONjrm
Feb 2, 2004 2:31 PM
Demons..yeah right..
What makes you say that?lotterypick
Feb 2, 2004 3:34 PM
See you proved my point....
Our god-given intellect compells us to conlclude. . .czardonic
Feb 2, 2004 6:04 PM
. . .that the Bible is a compendium of superstitious fiction. We know that parts were written by different people at different times, so it is ridiculous to hold that because one section holds a shred of truth, the rest must be true too.

The case for religion must evolve beyond the Bible if it is to retain any credibility.
The Vedas are the original holy books....personally, I preferbicyclerepairman
Feb 2, 2004 10:26 PM
the Aborigine's concept of the 'Dreamtime'....
evolution is a human desire. . .lotterypick
Feb 3, 2004 8:11 AM
The bible stands on its own.

Like the person in the other section of this thread. You'll have to state some example which can be discussed.

Your sweeping generality is truly glittering.

I could say that people are fall of crap. And lie often to others but more to themselves. As if they know what is going to happen in the future or what is best for them.

They work from trial and error and believe that whatever has the least error is the truth. I believe the bible states there is a better way.

Know the truth and live the best possible. No trial and error neccessary.

Yet people who cannot stomach the fact that they are full of error and pride must look for some evolving truth (which amazingly happens to match the selfish goals they desire) to move their life forward.

Picking your god doesn't make them real, they just justify your actions for that day.
So how do you know the...Dwayne Barry
Feb 3, 2004 9:22 AM
God you picked is the real one?

Did you even pick him or is merely the contigency of your birth in a Christian society. What if you were born in Saudi Arabia do you still think you would have been a Christian?

And I think you're a making a very fundamental mistake in equating the truth seeking process of science and the truth seeking that is satisfied via religion.
Everyone places their bets, solotterypick
Feb 3, 2004 11:08 AM
yes I do believe that I know God, at least at some basal level.

Here's the question. If you are going to place your bet, and everyone does have to (as they must chose some givens to function in life by), then how do you make that choice.

I believe the best one would be based on facts, which you say the Bible has some of note.

Based on the historical facts as well as prophesy (which the Bible is approximately 25% of and of which a great majority of it has proven (in my view) true), then I have a decent basis to believe that the God of the CHristians is really GOd for who would know the future and scientific data points, before they were known by scientists.

Furthermore, the Bible speaks about people, and their motivations and heart in different aspects of life (I bet you cannot name one rational question you would ask God about life that is not covered in the BIble).

It speaks to the matter so much so that if you read Romans 1 and II, you cannot ignore the reality of what it says and the way our society is going. It's ain't going towards Utopia via humanism that's for sure (as evidenced by the Super Bowl halftime show nd congress meeting now to discuss if the F-bomb can be said on regular TV.).

Back to the point, everyone has to place their bets. You standing on the side lines saying, how can I be sure, is still a bet when you die. I'm betting my life that Jesus is the Man and that He did die for my sins and therefore I can be with a holy God in Heaven based on His goodness covering up my sin, which I could never cover. Let it roll.

And by the way, being a Christian is very functional and powerful in life. Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, selfcontrol are all there, whereas the I don't knows have fear, uncertainty, insecurity, etc. all masked by pride (confidence in their position, even though they have no idea what is real).
"The bible stands on its own". Holy sweeping generalizations!czardonic
Feb 3, 2004 10:35 AM
You could indeed say that people are full of crap, that they lie to others and themselves and can only guess at what the future holds and what the "right" decisions are, and that they often can not stomach their own faults and frailties. So what?

Belief that one knows the true God and his desires smacks of error-prone pride to me.
I'm only relaying what God said.lotterypick
Feb 3, 2004 11:11 AM
It ain't me saying we're full of crap. God does.

And by the way, I agree with it. I'm full of crap, but because of God and His good advice in the Bible I can fight it.

It's a good thing, but you first have to admit that you are full of crap before you can become a Christian. It's says something like, if you want to have life (a good and powerful one), you have to give yours up (the old crappy self). Not that hard a choice logically speaking.
So God favors you with His word?czardonic
Feb 3, 2004 11:22 AM
You are a funny guylotterypick
Feb 3, 2004 11:28 AM
God favors everyone with His Word.

I'm doing a Bible Study on the Book of Proverbs and you know what. You could pick it up and save yourself a lot of grief in life and have greatness instead.

All that and you don't have to be a Christian. Meaning, God would be favoring you with His Word.

The Bible is straight forward for 90 percent of it. If we did the part we could understand our life, our family and the world would be a much better place (just love others more than yourself is a good start).

God only favors me more, because I trust Him and act on it. That brings good things in life. You could easily have it, your choice. I'm not stopping you.
Pass. I prefer to excercise the intellect that God gave me. . .czardonic
Feb 3, 2004 11:39 AM
. . .and leave to others the mind atrophying conviction that everything man needs to know was written in a book centuries ago.

I think you have been seduced by false prophecies that prey on man's desire for a sense of safety and purpose.
What iflotterypick
Feb 3, 2004 12:05 PM
there is safety and purpose. Maybe people wouldn't commit suicide, which really is the rationale for it. No safety, no purpose.

Certainly the benefits toward keep on keeping on are obvious.

But, what if it were true, then you are spending your life in darkness, willingly with your intellect, Ted Turner and Cyndi Lauper.

Come with us. Ted is a bore and Cyndi is whacked. Come just as you are.... Here the Spirit call.... Come just as you are...
Ted Turner and Cyndi Lauper don't figure into my worldview.czardonic
Feb 3, 2004 12:18 PM
And there is plenty of light without the palliative of religion.
Don't dismiss palliatives so lightly.OldEdScott
Feb 3, 2004 12:42 PM
That's the great value of religion, for millions. Me, I palliate with Bourbon, but to each his own, eh? Her own too.
Perhaps not, but they share it.lotterypick
Feb 3, 2004 12:44 PM
The only thing you don't realize is that they and you are moving society into places where there is nothing of meaning except self.

If you took any religion and broke it into its features you would get different kinds of good people, trying in general to do good for others and be a good steward of whatever they have.

If you took an areligious person and broke down their philsophy, what you would get is a selfish liar and brat.

No society wants that if it thought about it, but that is where we are headed (and by the way the Bible says it too).
Meaning, that despite God's efforts to help mankind in general, many will lead society down that path and rue the day.

THe worst part is they will know that God exists and yet spit in His face.

Humanist truly like to live in darkness and the shadows of what they know humanity is really like. In the mind and in their thoughts.

Thoughts of jealousy, anger, rage, frustration, hopeless, powerless, etc. all masked by the outside view that conforms to society but inside is full of death and hatred.

Humanist only wnat to talk about some issues, but not others, because it shines the light into areas they don't want to address or acknowledge as real. That's sad and not real life.
Aw man, that's just hateful bullshytOldEdScott
Feb 3, 2004 12:53 PM
and captures perfectly why so many people are put off by you religious. This post is just awful. You give religion a terrible name here. As a Christian you should be ashamed and ask forgiveness from your humanist friends here. No kidding.
Feb 3, 2004 1:01 PM
You just have to put away the kid gloves and tell it like it is.

Humanists call it hateful, but I purport that it is the truth. But then again, isn't anything that hurts their little feelings hateful. Call the ACLU on me.
Hypocritical Christian bile does nothingOldEdScott
Feb 3, 2004 1:04 PM
to advance your cause, my friend. I really suggest you work on this hate problem you have. Man. Doubt you'll be gaining any converts with THAT load you're carrying around on your shoulder.
He may well be describing the person <i>he</i> would be. . .czardonic
Feb 3, 2004 1:15 PM
. . .without religion. So your point about palliatives is well taken.
I live in fundamentalist land, andOldEdScott
Feb 3, 2004 1:21 PM
in all honesty I feel for them. Their odd version of Christianity fills some deep and aching need, and who am I to criticize? I've discovered all too often, however, that to lightly scrach a fundamentalist is to reveal a teeth-baring snarl, and in many ways that deep reservoir of hate is unsettling, if not downright scary.
huh?Duane Gran
Feb 4, 2004 7:11 AM
If you took any religion and broke it into its features you would get different kinds of good people, trying in general to do good for others and be a good steward of whatever they have. If you took an areligious person and broke down their philsophy, what you would get is a selfish liar and brat. [emphasis added]

This statement is simply not defensible. There is no shortage of religious persons who have been poor stewards and have done atrocity toward others. The bible even supports this conclusion (by my reckoning) in Romans when it says that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." In addition, there are many examples of atheists who are altruistic. I don't know where you get this conclusion.

I will, however say, that I have seen Christianity to be a positive influence on many people. Without a belief in God one is left only to the tenet of reciprocity as an incentive for common tenants of morality, like honesty and fairness. Although it isn't impossible to be a good and moral person without God, I think it helps.

Of course, from the Christian perspective (as I understand it) the goal is not to be a good person, but rather to accept and acknowledge the salvation offered through Jesus. Living the good life is considered a probably consequence of walking the path.
You are rightlotterypick
Feb 4, 2004 9:10 AM
And you sound like you know exactly what I'm talking about and the walking the path is merely a response to salvation.

I was trying to say that self governing and self determination is inherently selfish.
And another thing...Dwayne Barry
Feb 3, 2004 6:30 AM
to try to use Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium (stasis followed by rapid speciation events followed by stasis, etc.) to say evolution is just a "theory" is a gross misunderstanding of both the "theory" of evolution and punctuated equilibrium.

Punctuated equilibrium is a theory regarding how speciation occurs (as opposed to the one Darwin proposed of slow and steady), it in no way whatsoever contradicts the theory of evolution. Furthermore we are talking about change over geological time (millions of years). As Gould has shown himself (using snails, I believe) with a sufficiently well recorded geological record you can demonstrate speciation events. Except in his theory the speciation event only takes 10's of thousands of years (with a lot of stasis in between) and not slow steady changes over millions of years (as Darwin proposed). If you don't have the well defined record of the 10k years that the speciation event occured but a geological "snapshot" of the snail species in a given area from 10k years before and after the event you would conclude the speciation was "sudden" (and it was in a geological sense), but that doesn't mean that the basic mechanisms of speciation didn't occur in that "sudden" event.
Here's a science questionlotterypick
Feb 3, 2004 11:16 AM
If you don't see something (like evolution) in any factual evidence, would you say that there is a possibility it never happened.

Humanism wants there to be evolution. Slow, fast whatever. Any admission that evolution didn't occur, infers that it was made (by God).

It's funny to me that you stand by Gould or Darwin (Dawkins), they have opposite theories of the events and yet neither has any proof (which is why they can both exist)...yet you scoff if anyone says, maybe it didn't happen.

I'll stand with the facts and data and they support my belief that it didn't happen and that therefore it was created as is and God is real.
The absense of evolution wouldn't prove the existence of God.czardonic
Feb 3, 2004 11:28 AM
False dilema. (Added to the pile of other fallacies your POV rests on.)
Forgiving spelling, you are right however,lotterypick
Feb 3, 2004 12:02 PM
The mechanism that Darwin gave to evolution (as it did exist in a wishful form prior without one) was the key to validating it (especially because the fossil record didn't support it).

The absence of evolution would correctly point the middle grounders to think about other options if available, rather than blankly stating "evolution is a fact, Assimov and Sagan told me so".

Putting evolution in the light it deserves, rather than as "fact yet unproven" would be better and potentially allow real science the ability to make discoveries into real life that are ignored because it doesn't jibe with evolution science.

Ever read the Skeptical Environmentalist. Talks about science, scientist and those who motivate and paint things to suit their beliefs. File drawer science comes to mind.

The truth didn't match the belief so it got drawered. Only when the lie was unveiled, did the filed data become allowable.
What you fail to understand. . .czardonic
Feb 3, 2004 12:13 PM
. . .is that evolution is not considered a "fact yet unproven". That is a straw-man conjured by folks like you. Science does not posit the "facts" and then proceed to either prove them or find excuses for the lack of proof.

The fundamental flaw in your argument is the assumption that Science is another kind of Religion, and is thus motivated by a similarly dogmatic logic.
Pardon me, it is much more apt to say that GodOldEdScott
Feb 3, 2004 12:20 PM
is a fact not yet proven. Unless you've been bathed in the blood of the Lamb, or taken acid.
I've taken...Dwayne Barry
Feb 3, 2004 12:31 PM
acid and had ecstatic religious-like experiences and I still don't believe in God so that pretty much leaves being bathed in the blood of the Lamb (is that religious mumbo-jumbo for hitting rock bottom?)
You didn't take enough, in the right spotOldEdScott
Feb 3, 2004 12:40 PM
1,000 micrograms on China Beach at midnight. You'll believe in God all right.

I dunno about the other. The only time I got bathed in lamb's blood was when I was a boy and my daddy had a notion for lamb fries.
Maybe bathed in that murky tofu water. (nm)czardonic
Feb 3, 2004 12:36 PM
Nah, then you see Siddhartha, not the Lamb, nmOldEdScott
Feb 3, 2004 1:00 PM
Feb 3, 2004 12:50 PM
Science is not a religion, but humanist scientist are priests of humanist bend scientific belief.

Taking the real and then jumping off the cliff into fairy tale.

I'll give you an example. Crocodile Steve is looking at a rattlesnake. He says ooooh look at that beauty. slender body, fast, sharp fangs that inject poison into their prey. and look at that rattle....million of years ago that wasn't there.

Did you catch it. He went from science fact to fairy tale. A common error that too few see through or even think about.

You talk about dogmatic. These people watching are being indoctrinated right before your eyes everyday and virtually in every science or astronomy show.

Do give me your high horse holier than thou attacks and ignore that your ilk does more lying and false passing in a day in schools and TV than any religous group in a year.

Shine your light on that one.
Projection. Paranoia. Poison.czardonic
Feb 3, 2004 1:19 PM
God is doing wonders for you with His wisdom.
First of all...Dwayne Barry
Feb 3, 2004 12:22 PM
have you really examined the evidence? Second of all, of course evolution may not have occured but the evidence for it is so overwhelming at this point that evolution could rightly be called a fact, in the same vain as one would say the existence of the Roman Empire is a fact.

As czardonic points out your logic is completely flawed, a refutation of evolution is not a proof of creation by God. Again, Gould and Darwin propose different theories about the pace of speciation (both with evidence) they do not contradict one another regarding the basic theory of evolution. And of course it's completely possible that both were right depending on the species examined.

What exactly are the facts that support a creation of species "as is", and on top of that how do you know God was responsible instead of aliens who planted the species here from spaceships?

Evolutionary theory has absolutely nothing to say about God, but when theology states something that is patently contradicted by the evidence such as that modern species were created "as is" and there has been no evolution well then scientists can not remain silent. Exactly what do you think all those fossils are? How come we don't find any anatomically modern humans before about 100k years ago? Where are those small-brained bipedal apes that were walking around 5 million years ago? How come dolphins and whales breath air, feed their off-spring with milk, have hair, have atrophied rear limbs often, what did God not like the whole fish thing so he thought I know I'll take some land mammals and try the whole aquatic thing again?
So much evolution garbage it's replusive.lotterypick
Feb 3, 2004 12:59 PM
What statement of fact, your words not mine, isn't a load of it.

I don't have time for the Bible lesson.

Let me say that just because they find a bone of a prehistoric man (and that'd be part of a leg or part of a jaw as that's the typical for evolution proving need) that the guy looked or walked anything like that.

Or for that matter that dinosaurs looked anything like we see them depicted in books or movies.

You do realize that those landscapes, looks, eating habits, etc. are all made up by a person or group that paints the thing the way they want it to look.

I can assure you that if you go to a subway in NY you'll find guys who could pass for your prehistoric man if you took him, buried him and found him claiming he was 500 thousand years old.

I think you get my jist, but for my edification, what's the breakdown of how a whale came to be. If you believe that load then you are lost.
I really doubt your sincerity and it's...Dwayne Barry
Feb 3, 2004 2:50 PM
obvious your ignorance on the subject of evolution is profound.

But if you really want to educate yourself on the subject Darwin's Origen of Species is the perfect place to start. It afterall did convince a highly biased world on the validity of evolution. As for whale evolution here's the thing for you:

P.S. you obviosly don't know paleontolgy or you'd know even jawbones and leg bones are rare it's mostly teeth :)

And I'm well aware of the nature of visual reconstructions of prehistoric scenes. You'd be surprised what you can infer from anatomy, no one would ever mistake the leg bones of a bipedal ape for those of a quadripedal ape, function follows form so to speak.

If you can point me to a scientific theory that better explains the fossil record or modern relationships from genetics than evolution I'd be happy to consider it. Afterall, you do believe in science as a legitimate and effective method to gain knowledge don't you?

I mean you're not taking your kid to a faith healer to remove the demon causing his illness or to forgive him (or yourself) of the sin causing the illness? Jesus and the early christians clearly believed sin and demonic possesion resulted in sickness. Amazing how far medicine has progressed since the application of scientific methodolgy to treat illness rather than superstition. And what do all the new strains of antibiotic resistant germs in hospitals say about natural selection, nothing right?

I truly am a lost cause because I belive in rational treatment of subjects.
I can assure you that great scientist past and presentlotterypick
Feb 3, 2004 4:00 PM
were and are Christians. Meaning, you don't have to believe or accept evolutionary garbage as foundational to any discovery in science or medicine or technology.

Since I graduated at UCLA as a Biology major I can assure you that I'm more well versed in evolutionary dogma than the typical person.

As for my comments, I'm rather tired of rehashing the same old discussions only to have them break down to name calling or as you say superstition belief, which isn't a positive way to carry on a scientific discussion.

In fact, I've been in tons of these discussions at all levels and the breakdown ends up. You are a BIble believing right wing fundamentalist wacko, when in reality all I was talking about was science.

By the way, most hospitals and colleges were started by Christians, and only recently overtaken by humanists and the ACLU. Just correcting your understanding of who's got the knowleddge and the heart to get things done in this world.

And most community service and rescue and care organizations are again Christian based, but people often ignore that also.

Whale evolution is a crock. THe physical weight and huge changes in the functional structures is overwhelming, but then again if you believe in evolution you beleive in miracles even more than me (as if long periods of time justifies that ANYTHING can happen, which is not true).

From the Big Bang until now, evolution is filled with events that break scientific laws and repeatable observations but happened once a long time ago (under different and unique circumstances that allow such things) and are even occuring now, you just can't see it, nor is there proof.

I'd rather not debate it. There is really no proof in either case, if we were honest. There is only data points and interpretation of that data. So we would never arrive at a logical winner. Minds greater than you and I have done it and if we went to websites pro or con, we'd find guys swearing it was one way or the other.

In short, we should stop. Not because we can't talk, but because we need to (or you can explain it to me) have a clear goal. One that we can both walk away from and respect each other.

Me and Czardo or whatever his name is, don't get along as he's humanist for such and as such we are on the far edges in opposition to each other.

Me for GOd, him for the Devil (ha ha ha). Talk to you soon.
Mr. "Evolution is Garbage" has seen countless discussions. . .czardonic
Feb 3, 2004 4:02 PM
. . .devolve into name calling. Big surprise.
You misunderstood my post...Dwayne Barry
Feb 3, 2004 5:50 PM
if you think I was saying that science and christianity don't mix or that Christianity isn't responsible for good things. I was merely pointing out that science works (as evidenced by modern medicine amongst numerous fields) why not have "faith" that it works in elucidating and explaing the history of life on earth. Many evolutionists even are Christians, nor did I call christianity a superstition (it is simply based on faith rather than observational facts as science is).

I'm surprised you were a biology major because you seem to lack even the most fundamental understanding of evolutionary theory.

You've yet to account for the fossil record (or modern genetics) via a theory that has stronger support than evolutionary theory. I really don't even know of any serious alternatives. There are some interesting situations where darwinian evolution by natural selection runs into problems (such as fungal species where individuals don't really exist as they do in the animal and plant world) that perhaps require an alternative to darwian theory.

"THe physical weight and huge changes in the functional structures is overwhelming (as if long periods of time justifies that ANYTHING can happen, which is not true)."

Where is your evidence to support this, the fossil record directly refutes this statement. Remember we're talking science, you can't just make a statement without the evidence to support it and a theory has to explain the observed facts.

Furthermore, I would argue there is a logical winner, science as a self-correcting methodology for acquiring knowledge works (which you apparently agree with, no?) why do you think it is so wrong in this instance? Darwinian evolution as the paradigm of the biological sciences has now been with us for 150+ years without serious challenge. How is it that someone in China or elsewhere, unencumbered by either creationist bias or anti-creationist bias has looked at the facts and said no you guys got it all wrong my theory explains it better and this is it and this is the evidence in support of it?
You misunderstood my post...lotterypick
Feb 4, 2004 7:45 AM
Creation is based on miracle, therefore it is not scientifically provable. However, when you mention the fossil record as supporting your beliefs, I would beg to differ.

The fossil record shows variation within a kind. Cows beget cows, although by variation in environment the cow can be bigger or smaller or white or black etc.

Genetics allows variation, however most mutation is lethal and the ones that are not are a degradation of information on an increase.

Evolution per se relies on an accumlation of information. Meaning usable DNA increases and begets usable outcomes that prepetuate because they are useful.

That sounds good except where in the world is a good example of a system that builds itself in complexity without input from more intelligence. Meaning, show me a building that came from nothing. Or a car that increased in capabilities all by itself.

You know that is ridiculous, yet you believe that the universe and in the beginner of life (which no one has ever seen) was capable of it.

You are talking order from chaos. Where in the world or universe do we ever see order from chaos and then that order increases all by itself into something that can move and breathe and replicate and have a mind and dream and sing and share ideas. Pure fantasy.

I'll give you a question to start with and you can share with me how it came to pass (I won't even get into systems which look like they must have been pully functional e.g. bombardier beatle, the eye, a single celled animal, wings, giraffes neck, etc.)

Answer me this.

The universe was said to come from a super dense single mass, which was floating around and then exploded. That explosion sent pieces flying all over the universe which did this and that and from that chaotic event, virutally all order in the universe arose. There we have it great order from chaos.

The question is this: How did that happen?

You have an object at a certain level of energy (below explosion) then it explodes. What caused it to increase in energy enough to overcome it's stability threshold and blow up.

Then another problem is that a blackhole, which nothing can escape from is said to be a collapsed star. The density of this collapsed star is such that nothing can escape it, not even light itself.

How is it that nothing can escape a blackhole, yet when all the universe matter was a single mass, it escaped itself in an explosion. Surely, it was more dense than a blackhole, as the theory goes.

I won't accept its at the fringe of our knowledge, because what that means is that you accept this given by faith.
You misunderstand the "theory" part...Tri_Rich
Feb 4, 2004 12:52 PM
The theory of evolution is similar to the theory of gravity. Scienctist do not know the exact mechanism of either but they are real phenomena. Just because we only have a theory of gravity does not prevent you from falling down.
You misunderstand the similarity in your example.lotterypick
Feb 4, 2004 3:22 PM
There isn't one.

Gravity is testable and observable. Evolution is not.

You can squint and bend the data and wish all you want but no one has SEEN evolution nor tested it, whereas gravity is tested and observed every day.

Next time you try to be an expert, at least get your point correct or near it.
Would you prefer these....Tri_Rich
Feb 5, 2004 6:41 AM
Atomic theory
Quantum theory
Germ theory

All are theories in the same way evolution is.

Unless you can disprove the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, you must admit evolution occurs.
Please don't write anymorelotterypick
Feb 5, 2004 8:53 AM
as I won't respond. Again, you list things that can be tested now versus evolution which cannot.

Now we are talking evolution one animal turning into a new type.

Your example, which again is skewed, of the Hardy-Weinberg has them changing the definition of evolution. They are saying that any change in the gene pool frequency by a population is evolution.

They don't have to result in a new thing growing, it's just that now you have more white moths than black ones. It's dumb anyway, because in the population you will have both types and the pressures will cause fluxuation within the gene pool. THERE IS NO NEW INFORMATION.

YOU HAVE A and a, in different amounts. A doesn't turn into b or c, or d. Rats and flies, rats and flies, they always beget rats and flies, what's so hard about that.

Please don't write as I won't respond.
What exactly do you think evolution means...Tri_Rich
Feb 5, 2004 9:42 AM
if not a change in the genetics of a poulation.
He thinks it is a secular humanist heresy. (nm)czardonic
Feb 5, 2004 11:15 AM
Fossils and aliens put there by Satan.Turtleherder
Feb 2, 2004 1:38 PM
Happy opposites day!