EMW

Hey all! Ok, so I know that we sorta had this debate in the "religious debate", but that was about God existing. I think that it would be appropriate for a more specific topic. I know that Brad tried to post this topic, but it never worked (or it was deleted). Lets here everyone's thoughts!

Ok, so i don't know how ya'll feel but I beleive in both. Like, i beleive God created us through the process of evolution. i know in the bible it says the world was made in 7 days but that could have been...man! what's the word i'm looking for?....i dunno just to help us lowly mortals understand how God made our world lol. For all we know it could have taken hundreds of thousands of years to create the universe but it could have felt like just a mere week for God. i hope all of that makes sense! i had some trouble putting my thoughts into words lol

That is a really good opinion, and I hear it a lot. I don't agree with it, but it is interesting. I am guessing you are talking about the one-day-one-year to God thing.

I think that evolution sound very plausible in our textbooks, but if you do a little research, it is preposterous.

Alison wrote:Ok, so i don't know how ya'll feel but I beleive in both. Like, i beleive God created us through the process of evolution. i know in the bible it says the world was made in 7 days but that could have been...man! what's the word i'm looking for?....i dunno just to help us lowly mortals understand how God made our world lol. For all we know it could have taken hundreds of thousands of years to create the universe but it could have felt like just a mere week for God. i hope all of that makes sense! i had some trouble putting my thoughts into words lol

I actually agree with you.

envisageworks wrote:I think that evolution sound very plausible in our textbooks, but if you do a little research, it is preposterous.

How so?

"And on the third day, God created the Remington bolt-action rifle so that Man could fight the dinosaurs...And the homosexuals..."
lol Mean Girls moment!

annnyway, i totally agree with alison and stuff...

and the big bang theory...god said let there be light and BANG! it happened....haha...wow thats an old one..

So far everyone is on the same page, very interesting. Actually, I was hoping to get into a discussion debate from the scientific side. Contrary to popular uninformed belief, the theory of evolution is in direct opposition to all science and related laws, whereas, creation is in complete harmony with the sciences. More and more of the science community are coming around to the realization that the theory of evolution holds no scientific basis. In actuality, one must have a tremendous amount of blind faith to belief in evolution in contrast to those of us who believe in creation who can just open the science books to prove our believe. Evolution is not science, but was theorized by a man, Charles Darwin (he was not the first to think of this, but the one made the idea popular), who had become an atheist and possessed a strond desire to disprove the existence of God.

I did some research in this area, and put together some simple examples of how evolution is in direct oppostion to the sciences as compared to the theory of creation being right in line and supported by the sciences. I have attached a relatively short summary on which I would very much appreciate feedback and discussion.

For this forum, l believe it would be great if we can focus on the scientific proof of these theories. As Christians, we believe in creation, compared to non-believers who would believe in evolution. For the believer to use Scripture to prove their point would be to use a source that is not recognized by the non-believer. However, both the believer and non-believer can find a common ground with which to debate in the realm of true science.

This should be a very interesting debate.

Pleas read the attachment to my message.

I did some research in this area, and put together some simple examples of how evolution is in direct oppostion to the sciences as compared to the theory of creation being right in line and supported by the sciences. I have attached a relatively short summary on which I would very much appreciate feedback and discussion.

Do you have a link to this so we can view it?

And I'm also on the same page. Time is irrelevant to God so that can explain Genesis. And since everything is possible to God, think about this...

What if God created the whole field of science for us to learn and grow closer to Him? Seeing as how science keeps on having to turn back to religion.

i just dont see any other explantion to how this world works..like our whole ecosystems and our bodies and how they function and just the way that everything living works so perfectly together....
how can u look at all this and even think that there is no god?

I think without proper research, it can be very very easy to look at all of it and apply no God. Ok, the attachment thing wasn't working, but thanks to NS, it is fixed now! Brad's document is now attached!

Really please read it. It will not take that long (only 10 minutes), and will totally benefit you more than whatever other activity you where planning on doing that time.

Brad,

I only skimmed your research due to time constraints. I read the first two pages, did a quick skim, and read some of the quotes near the end. Particularly, the quote by Sir Arthur Keith. That automatically sent up red flags. There is no way a foreword to a book about evolution would state that evolution is wrong. I immediately googled it, and after weeding through creationist sites that also used this quote, I found this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/ ... ml#quote81

You sound quite intelligent, and you definitely write well, but you used a quote which should have automatically sent up a red flag. Truth is, I don't want to read pages of information in which I doubt the validity of statements because I don't believe the author is researching well enough and parrots other ill-researched sites.

Furthermore, in the "Historical" section, you use the fact that other religions and cultures have stories similar to the Bible. This proves nothing more than the fact that the Bible could be a historical text moreso than proof of a greater being.

In the mathematical section, you state, "Simply put, if time is infinite going back into history, then today is impossible since infinity does not have an end, and “today” would be the end of an infinite time line" (p. 16). This is not a logical statement supported by actual fact, but one concocted by yourself. First of all, the concept of "today" is not a scientific concept, but a cultural one. Secondly, unless "today" is the end of the word, the timeline of the world does not stop at today. But that isn't really relevant to OUR debate because most of us believed God did set the world in motion, but did so via evolution.

Also, in the "Baby Humans are Helpless" section, you state, "Evolution appears to be working backwards in the situation of the helplessness of human babies at their time of birth." (It's 1 am, so forgive me if I don't make sense with this) In evolution, the theory is that we evolve to suit our environment. I wish I had kept my Biology notes, because there was a specific example about a species of bird being separated into another ecosystem. The bird adapted to its new environment accordingly, which is how evolution works. Sociologically speaking, our species could have been one were it was necessary for a child to be born more independent, but that is hardly the case now. Our species is more monogamous and takes care of our children more than our ancestors might have. As a result, our evolution adapted as such.

....I had stated in the Wall-E thread that the concept of the humans losing bone mass because of sedentary habits is plausible because our bones support themselves in areas of stress by secreting liquid bone to build up bones in those areas, and secrete acid to wear down bones in less stressed areas to keep us light. THAT is a perfect example or analogy for evolution. If we get to a place where we sit in mechanized chairs and never exercise, our bones wear themselves down. Our bodies constantly change to suit our environment. That's evolution on a small scale.

I don't know your background or anything...you could be a professor for all I know, but you really have to make sure you research the hell out of facts before using them in a paper. Just that one quote used incorrectly was enough for me to doubt your entire paper, and I am on the same boat with you on some of those points. It's hard, because you find a quote that suits your thesis so unbelievably well, but you need to make sure you are using it correctly before you bank your academic reputation on it. Call it the future professor in me, but that irked me more than the subject matter. Actually, that's what scares me the most about being an academic--someday I'll make a mistake and use a quote incorrectly, or improperly research a fact and my whole reputation will suffer as a result.

But I digress...

**Disclaimer: Because you don't post frequently, I have to give you a bit of a disclaimer. I don't mean any offense, and sometimes come off more harsh than I intend to be. I am by no means an expert, so take what I say with a grain of salt and please do not be offended.

wow thats a first!! we like, all agree on this one! lol what is there to debate if we are all on the same page?

Appreciate the feedback.

Couple of points:
1) The examples you give for "evolution" in relation to species adapting is just that "adaptation", which definitely has occurred in the past and is continuing to occur. However, in your example, a bird is still a bird, and horse is still a horse, a fish is still a fish, and so on. God created us in a miraculous way to adapt to our environment. But your examples are absolutely not "evolution" in which a fish becomes a reptile, and then a reptile becomes bird, or the most ridiculous that a monkey becomes a man. This is a very common error and example given by evolutionists as supposed proof of evolution. As a side note, I would challenge you to try and find fossil evidence of the necessary transitional life forms that we hear so much about in books, but in actuality do not exist. Based on the theory of evolution, the fossil record should have billions of transitional fossils, and one could theorize that there should be more transitional fossils than "final-form" fossils due to the hundreds of millions to billions of years it supposedly takes for life forms to evolve. And I'm not talking about pointing to the cartoon characters in books (anyone can draw cartoons to support their theories), but actually fossil findings.

2) The mathematical example is purely scientific and not speculation. This example is for those in the audience who are mathematicians. I have a minor in mathematics, and when I was shown this example it rang true immediately. And if you were to show this to any mahematician, they would understand and agree--apologies for directness here, but your argument against this example is completely incorrect. This is pure and true mathematics, and from a science standpoint is not debatable. To argue against this example is to reject science, and to place our faith in the unscientific. I would suggest you find a mathematician and run this example by them.

3) I believe the quote to be true, but I will definitley check the source again. However, to then try to reject all of the other arguments based on this one disagreement is throwing the baby out with the bath water. The examples given are very straight forward, and, in general, do not require much if any trust in me, but can stand on their own merits. I gave this study to a good friend of mine who is a Christian, but still believes in evolution. He found one item in the study with which he disagreed (and even in this case, his logic was incorrect), and then used that to discredit the rest of the study. There may be some specific examples to which one may not agree, but I am sure that most people, i.e. evolutionists, will find enough examples to which they cannot argue, which, if they are truly searching for the truth, will at a minimum cause them to question their beliefs, if not have them realize that evolution is a bogus theory.

I challenge you to give me one scientific proof of evolution. Actually, I hope you can do that since there is a website that has been in existence since the early 90's that offers a significant payment to anyone that can do such a thing. When the offer first was made, the amount was $10,000, and it has now risen to $250,000. The foundation offering the money is headed by one of my favorite speakers, Kent Hovind, and is vey legit.

I would encourage you to not try and find an excuse why not to believe the attached study, but to truly read and digest the examples contained within. If you are fair and open with the facts given, and even to a little of our own research, I know you will come up with the correct conclusion. I would also encourage you to read one of the books mentioned at the end of the study.

Please continue to fire back your arguments. I truly would enjoy the scrutiny, and it will help me to refine the study. As with you, please excuse my directness, but I believe good debate requires such directness. I am writing this with a smile on my face, and enjoyment in the discussion, so please do not take offense.

Look forward to our ongoing debate.

sorry to burst the whole "We finally agree on everything" thing, but I believe fully in evolution.

It seems to me that you all believe in Intelligent Design, which is amazingly portrayed in this video:

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=KdocQHsPCNM



As you probably know, there are two types of evolution. Microevolution and Macroevolution. Microevolution has been proven to exist and work. But what is macroevolution but microevolution on a larger scale?? If germs can evolve to become stronger over time, why can't kiwi birds loose their wings because they don't need them anymore??

And the whole "god is outside of time so the 7 days thing isn't preposterous" argument is bull. Assuming he is real, he would know that 7 days for us is a preposterous amount of time to create a universe and so he would say the time it actually took, unless he is just trying to screw with us like he is with human chromosome 13.

thanx for reading

-sam

Bradley B Schmidt wrote:Appreciate the feedback.

Couple of points:
1) The examples you give for "evolution" in relation to species adapting is just that "adaptation", which definitely has occurred in the past and is continuing to occur. However, in your example, a bird is still a bird, and horse is still a horse, a fish is still a fish, and so on. God created us in a miraculous way to adapt to our environment. But your examples are absolutely not "evolution" in which a fish becomes a reptile, and then a reptile becomes bird, or the most ridiculous that a monkey becomes a man. This is a very common error and example given by evolutionists as supposed proof of evolution. As a side note, I would challenge you to try and find fossil evidence of the necessary transitional life forms that we hear so much about in books, but in actuality do not exist. Based on the theory of evolution, the fossil record should have billions of transitional fossils, and one could theorize that there should be more transitional fossils than "final-form" fossils due to the hundreds of millions to billions of years it supposedly takes for life forms to evolve. And I'm not talking about pointing to the cartoon characters in books (anyone can draw cartoons to support their theories), but actually fossil findings.

Which is why I said "evolution on a small scale." Evolution is adaptation over millions of years.

2) The mathematical example is purely scientific and not speculation. This example is for those in the audience who are mathematicians. I have a minor in mathematics, and when I was shown this example it rang true immediately. And if you were to show this to any mahematician, they would understand and agree--apologies for directness here, but your argument against this example is completely incorrect. This is pure and true mathematics, and from a science standpoint is not debatable. To argue against this example is to reject science, and to place our faith in the unscientific. I would suggest you find a mathematician and run this example by them.

I'll be the first to say that I am abysmal at math, so I can't say that I am correct by any means, but having the term "today" be a stopping point for time does not make sense to me in terms of science and math. I will see if I can wrangle up a physics teacher or two next time I'm on campus and see what they say. Or just email one...

3) I believe the quote to be true, but I will definitley check the source again. However, to then try to reject all of the other arguments based on this one disagreement is throwing the baby out with the bath water. The examples given are very straight forward, and, in general, do not require much if any trust in me, but can stand on their own merits. I gave this study to a good friend of mine who is a Christian, but still believes in evolution. He found one item in the study with which he disagreed (and even in this case, his logic was incorrect), and then used that to discredit the rest of the study. There may be some specific examples to which one may not agree, but I am sure that most people, i.e. evolutionists, will find enough examples to which they cannot argue, which, if they are truly searching for the truth, will at a minimum cause them to question their beliefs, if not have them realize that evolution is a bogus theory.

There is no proof that the quote is true other than the fact that it has been "quoted" by tons of Christian sites. Not at least in my brief research online. I didn't mean your whole paper was wrong. I meant that I want to read your paper and not have to google things to make sure they are used correctly. I'm not trying to discredit your paper in the least.

I challenge you to give me one scientific proof of evolution. Actually, I hope you can do that since there is a website that has been in existence since the early 90's that offers a significant payment to anyone that can do such a thing. When the offer first was made, the amount was $10,000, and it has now risen to $250,000. The foundation offering the money is headed by one of my favorite speakers, Kent Hovind, and is vey legit.

I can't due to lack of education on the subject and a touch of laziness.
But then again, no one can scientifically prove the existence of God, either.

I would encourage you to not try and find an excuse why not to believe the attached study, but to truly read and digest the examples contained within. If you are fair and open with the facts given, and even to a little of our own research, I know you will come up with the correct conclusion. I would also encourage you to read one of the books mentioned at the end of the study.

I'm completely open with the facts. I'm definitely not one of those closed minded people that believe it's their way or no way. I take great pains to research topics so I am completely knowledgeable and know multiple angles.

What are your credentials, if you don't mind me asking?

Please continue to fire back your arguments. I truly would enjoy the scrutiny, and it will help me to refine the study. As with you, please excuse my directness, but I believe good debate requires such directness. I am writing this with a smile on my face, and enjoyment in the discussion, so please do not take offense.

Look forward to our ongoing debate.

You are my favorite type of person to debate with; debates that are slightly below yelling due to passion, but right afterward you can go have dinner with your opponent. Not many people understand that dynamic. Whenever we have family gatherings, my aunt and I have those direct debates with our voices raised out of passion, and the rest of our family think we are fighting. But we aren't. It's just passionate.

And the whole "god is outside of time so the 7 days thing isn't preposterous" argument is bull. Assuming he is real, he would know that 7 days for us is a preposterous amount of time to create a universe and so he would say the time it actually took, unless he is just trying to screw with us like he is with human chromosome 13.

No it isn't. Back when Genesis was written, people believed the world to be 5000 years old at most. People wouldn't be able to comprehend the amount of time it would take. If we can't comprehend the amount of time it takes to do something, then there's no point in someone telling us about the measurement.

It's all about symbolism and making things easier to understand. Why would God say it took Him 3 billion years to make something if we didn't even know what the number meant?