What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Where does everyone stand in regards to...

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #601
Hi Peter,
As you probably already know I am a christian for about 27 years now. Yes the geologic column does indeed contain billions of fossils, but the sediments, folding, faulting, metamorphoses of rock, igneous intrusions etc is not evidence for a single event. I have studied geology at college level and have done field work. What was evident was differing environments displayed by the type of rock, fossils indicating what life was about in those times and of course we had ,extinction events'. On comes to mind near Gloucester, England was the rhaetic bone beds. I was there with my fellow college students and on one layer only was a mass of fossils then covered up by more sediment containing hardly any fossils above it. Here is one paper I found just by doing a google search while typing this:
http://www.jncc.gov.uk/earthheritage/gcrdb/GCRblock.asp?block=91

But a lot of recent creationist thinking is derived from having to believe in a literal translation of Genesis 1. While it is still very important to believe in a creator God which he is, can it be that recent creationists are trying to make geolocical science false?
 
  • #602
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Mike King @ Jan. 07 2005,10:33)]Hi Peter,
   As you probably already know I am a christian for about 27 years now.  Yes the geologic column does indeed contain billions of fossils, but the sediments, folding, faulting, metamorphoses of rock, igneous intrusions etc is not evidence for a single event. I have studied geology at college level and have done field work.


But a lot of recent creationist thinking is derived from having to believe in a literal translation of Genesis 1. While it is still very important to believe in a creator God which he is, can it be that recent creationists are trying to make geolocical science false?
Forgive me.  I can not go back and read all the pages I have missed.  Some of us are very busy, so here I am.  Alpha don't you dare do that "doesn't anyone read the last 60 pages" or I will smack your nose with a newspaper!

Hello Mike,

I to studied Archeology and some Geology in college.  I to am a Christian.  Prior to my college study I believed that science had a good hold of time-line dating, but after study I found that is not true.  There are too many natural, and now, man-made, effects.  Those you state are true. (standing in Grand Canyon and trying to match shifts is mind boggling and fun) Carbon dating is a very in inaccurate means of dating, but it covers a large period of time and is therefore used.  It is also effected by the movement of the soils and plates as well as eruptions, fires and other natural occurrences.

I still love Archeology and continue in self study.  People and civilizations are so interesting.  It is surprising how much we have not changed.

I also agree with your statement about the literal taking of Genisis.  I again will state that we do not know how God acheived this miraculous feat of creation and I do not believe that Gensis is a literal history.  I do not disbelieve entirely in evolution.  It is there.  As a matter of fact I must agree that things evolve.  It did not only happen in the past, but continues to happen now. Evolution as a whole is also not proven, but an educated guess (that is scientific theory).  I think that there is a mis-understanding that a Christian can not believe in evolution.  We just don't believe it as a whole (well some of us).  We disbelieve what takes faith in the theory to believe as they disbelieve what takes faith in God to believe.
 
Part of what seems to be the fight is the time-line, seven days.  But one should remember to God, "One day is a thousand years and a thousand years is one day".  He can not be held to a literal time line.  

Again (to some of you), I will not fight this.  Neither is fully proven, that is that there is God or that there is not God.  I have faith that there is, others have faith that there is not.  Not to different.
 
  • #603
this is encouraging..
we seem to have many Christians here who dont need to be confined by a literal intrepretation of genesis..thats great!

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]But a lot of recent creationist thinking is derived from having to believe in a literal translation of Genesis 1. While it is still very important to believe in a creator God which he is, can it be that recent creationists are trying to make geolocical science false?

no worries there..they can try all they like, but they just get laughed at in the process..they cant MAKE something false just because they want it to be false..
truth is truth..no matter what a very small minority may think..
Scot
 
  • #604
Mike, I won't argue with you on the credibility of geologic columns. But I still stand with recent creationism for several reasons. The Bible contains lineages all the way from Adam and Eve to Noah to Abraham to Jesus. While Genesis might be somewhat poetic, I don't think those lineages were made up, or that Adam and Eve were made up.

Also, I'm sure things were different back then, but what we have now did not just evolve. For example:

Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare [children] to them, the same [became] mighty men which [were] of old, men of renown.

And we have found fossils (or bones) of giants. Also, back then, people used to live a few centuries. I'm not sure how God changed our lifespans - probably through "microevolution". But that happened within a relatively small number of generations, not through millions of years, and it hasn't happened since.

Peter
 
  • #605
I'm curious. Has anyone changed their mind on the basis of what they've read in these 60+ pages?
 
  • #607
Probably not, but at least we understand the other side better!
 
  • #608
bugweed might me a possible exeption
 
  • #609
I don't think bugweed changed his mind more than he "opened" it up to new information.

This thread has gotten a little... uhh.. longer than i uhh... expect
confused.gif
There's alot of information here. I suggest (whoever is reading this) wether you are a creationist or an evolutionist read through and if you see a topic thats interesting.. research it some more. Keep your mind open to new info, you might learn something you didnt know.
 
  • #610
um if organimsms didnt evolve then the prospects of life outside of our control ,to me, is bleak- meaning that as we continue to change, organimsms will one by one be wiped from existance, and if they dissapeir, then theres no way that something else can take its place in time. ther will be voids of possible new ecosystems and completely destroyed ones aswell. we would completely and permenantly deface our planet, and destroy the prospects of life outside the tattered remenents of nature (with the exeption of species that are flexible enough to eek out, and even thrive in our modified land. still, thats not much and we would be at a great loss of diversity)> through evolution, organisms can develop many new ways to survive and prosper alongside and against us, where as the other way  there will always be a permenent and unchanging few. Victorians beleived orchids were desinged by god to please humans... and that all organisms are lesser... how depressing, that they tried to find a way to justify humans vanity over other forms of life. are not humans one species amoung many? In my veiw, the creationist veiwpoint would be depressing.
 
  • #611
On the subject of junk DNA:
I was reading through scientific american (i think it was) and it was talking about how scientists think that what we refer to as "junk" DNA may be the reason that we are so complex. Based on a study they found that the more complex the organism the more junk DNA they had. I totally forgot the details so make sure that this is dully noted. If i find the article i will post it for you guys to see.
 
  • #612
huh
 
  • #613
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Scientists don't include the "great flood".
that's because scientifically the great flood is IMPOSSIBLE. You can only believe the great flood if you believe that god twisted natural laws.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]They don't include an explanation for why the earths population is what it is today, if people have been reproducing since hundreds of thousand if not millions of years ago.
volcanoes, tsunamis, earthquakes, floods, disease, war, supervolcanoes, hurricanes, .... what's your point? I'm sorry but it's completely stupid to think that human reprdoduction and survival has been constant throughout our existance and that there are no outside factors.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]In they lab the provided electric sparks for a week.  By your logic, this means that in nature, there must have been gentle steady lightning hitting the earth before life developed.
well I don't know but there are amino acids in meteorites so obviously it is possible and that analogy is still completely wrong.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]So much for the punctuated equlibrium theory
the fact that evolution is gradual doesn't mean it occurs at the same speed all the time. You don't just have a gecko and then it turns into an ostrich.
gradual: proceeding by steps or degrees
2 : moving, changing, or developing by fine or often imperceptible degrees
that does not mean it is always constant nor that it is slow.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Evolution of life is simply not a hypothesis or a guess or belief: it is a theory.  This is what many people don't get:
and creationism doesn't even reach being a hypothesis. More like SPECULATION (right bugweed?)
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Well so much for the Cambrian Explosion. I guess that fossil evedince was planted by creationists. Yes I realize that there were orginisms present before that but where is the link?
I never said evolution happens at a constant speed and that that speed is slow. There's not much evidence (as far as I know... and I dont' know much about paleontology) because they evolved from soft bodied animals that don't fossilize!
... and what stiffler said :p
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Alpha don't you dare do that "doesn't anyone read the last 60 pages" or I will smack your nose with a newspaper!
LOL
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]It is surprising how much we have not changed.
not really. We have a good design and are able to reproduce and have many offspring.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Evolution as a whole is also not proven, but an educated guess (that is scientific theory).
!@#$%#@!@#$%$#@#$%$#@!!!!!!!!!!
I believe those of you who are actually here know by now what I would say (YOU BETTER!) so I'm not going to say anything here.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]try all they like, but they just get laughed at in the process
lol.
 
  • #614
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Finch @ Jan. 07 2005,9:27)]huh
lol... for example the majority of our genome is regarded to as junk DNA and we are regarded to as very complex organisms. on the other hand most bacteria genome are 100% coding DNA and they are much simpler. Scientists think there is correlation between how much junk DNA an organism has and how complex they are. The correlation? - more "junk", more complex... less "junk", less complex.
 
  • #615
it was ment to end with a piriod. huh. oh alpha, remind me soon to sent u a pm on society and evolution im writing cause ii have some built up in a backlog for other people who arnt here anymore
 
  • #616
from I forgot who's site:
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]It is a belief passionately defended by the scientific establishment, despite the lack of any observable scientific evidence for macroevolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another).
shows how much they know (or their top-down thinking)... speciation (one species turning into another) has been observed... not to mention fossils and DNA (can trace back lineages), structures (homologous, analogous, vestigial), etc.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe.
again, in what world are you living in? (lala land? LOL)
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear—and apparently—unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution.
LOL. what the HECK is "vertical" and "horizontal" evolution? evolution is evolution and that's that. trasnitional organisms like they're talking about are rare because both dogs and cats evolved from the same ancestor a long time ago. Just look at fossils.
and how about algae? They're between protists and plants. People argue over where to put them (british people say they're plants, americans they they're too simple to be plants and are therefore protists) same as many other things.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new "basic kind."
again, speciation HAS been observed... the thing with fruit flies is that most of the time there's no natural selection.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]There ought, therefore, to be a considerable number of true transitional structures preserved in the fossils (after all, there are billions of non-transitional structures there!). But (with the exception of a few very doubtful creatures such as the controversial feathered dinosaurs and the alleged walking whales)
there are. They're controversial because people don't want to admit there are transitional fossils that prove evolution.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]The entire history of evolution from the evolution of life from non-life to the evolution of vertebrates from invertebrates to the evolution of man from the ape is strikingly devoid of intermediates: the links are all missing in the fossil record, just as they are in the present world.
there are even transitional species between vertebrates and invertebrates. lancets (is that right?) are one. They don't have a true backbone but instead have a notochord (darn... I'm bringing up OLD stuff from biology... are the names right?)
and humans ARE apes. so of course there's not going to be anything from apes to humans because humans are apes! LOL
smile_n_32.gif

no seriously... as it has been adressed before, there's controversy if homo erectus is human or not so how more intermediate CAN you get?

the "scientific case against evolution" doesn't seem to be very scientific... and I haven't even read the whole article! every single point they've made... wrong wrong wrong.
 
  • #617
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Finch @ Jan. 07 2005,9:48)]it was ment to end with a piriod. huh.
Oh well.. in case someone has a real "huh" with no period, their covered.
 
  • #618
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Finch @ Jan. 05 2005,10:27)]hey alpha, you havent gone into muct detail (akak rant) about sexual selection yet. it would further back up our argument for evolution
I take it you mean natural selection?
 
  • #619
homo erectus is clearly a hominoid and far more closely related to us than to the transitional form between the human and ape groups....
 
  • #620
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]alpha, remind me soon to sent u a pm on society and evolution im writing cause ii have some built up in a backlog for other people who arnt here anymore
*reminds you*... soon enough? lol.
continued from above...
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]With respect to the origin of life, a leading researcher in this field, Leslie Orgel, has said after noting that neither proteins nor nucleic acids could have arisen without the other, concludes

And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.5
THE ORIGINS OF LIFE HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION!!! why can't they get that? dang!
as for it not being able to have originated by chemical means... I'm no chemisist so I don't know if they don't include electricity (lightning) as "chemical means"... but anyway it HAS been proven it could have happened naturally. I don't know if by chemical means... but naturally it could have.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Translation: "There is no known way by which life could have arisen naturalistically."
they sure are horrible translators!!! I could translate macaw to dog better than they can translate that LOL
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Unfortunately, such experiments have not progressed much further than the original prototype, leaving us with a sour aftertaste from the primordial soup.7
can you say LALA LAND (LOL I love saying that)? I was reading an article (I might just ask my teacher for it again) and they have made self-replicating RNA, cell membranes, etc so we HAVE progressed much further.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Equally puzzling, however, is how some invertebrate creature in the ancient ocean, with all its "hard parts" on the outside, managed to evolve into the first vertebrate—that is, the first fish—with its hard parts all on the inside.
they didn't. echinoderms have an internal skeleton and they evolved into chordates like lancets which then evolved into vertebrates.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]As far as ape/human intermediates are concerned, the same is true, although anthropologists have been eagerly searching for them for many years. Many have been proposed, but each has been rejected in turn.
darn.... do I HAVE to keep going? so far every point they've made ( http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-330.htm ) has been a stupid point... why do you tourture me with this pseudoscience???!!! (pseudo= false/fake science=sience)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top