the death of Christianity

[Clint]

All of that is very debatable lol. Where you see men vs. women and their strengths weaknesses I don't see that same set of strengths/ weaknesses. We'll find out how well a woman can lead once Hilary wins this next election


Jeremy, have you heard of intelligent falling?

IF proposes that the scientific explanation of gravitational force cannot explain all aspects of the phenomenon, so credence should be given to the idea that things fall because a higher intelligence is moving them. Furthermore, IF asserts that theories explaining gravity are not internally consistent nor mathematically reconcilable with quantum mechanics, making gravity a "theory in crisis". Pretended IF apologists advocate that IF should be taught in school along with the theory of gravity so that students can make "an informed decision" on the subject in accordance with demands to "teach the controversy".

Similarly, somewhat peculiarly in a picture taken by The Onion, Intelligent falling suggests that the ratio of the rate of change in the horizontal component with regards to time is equal to Corinthians 1 1:10
? = dr/dt = 1 Cor1:10

 

[Outsiders71]

Alright, so similarities in embryos doesn't convince you, what about all the fossil evidence? How about the fact that the process has been observed in lab experiments and also in nature?

To be honest, I think you'd deny gravity if it conflicted with your religious beleifs.

Sigh...fossil evidence is incomplete. The evolution of a one celled organism in a body of water, eventually evolving into a human being has been conducted in lab experiments?

 

[buster1]

I may be stupid, but I'm not quite sure what the actual arguement here is about. If it is about evolution not existing how would one explain a single virus mutating into several strains? (evolution = an organism changing over a period of time - and we have witnessed it occuring: multiple strains of HIV, TB, etc). If it is about how Earth and life on Earth originated - that has nothing to do with evolution at all - again evolution deals with organisms changing not how they originated. If it is about the conflict between creationism and evolution again they are not mutually exclusive and deal with two differing concepts. If its about the controlling aspects of organized religions - that deals with church doctrine and has little to do with scientific theories. As I've said I've seen all of these come up in this thread so am a little confused. Is it safe to assume that nobody is really paying much attention to what the others are argueing about and this is a free for all?

 

[Clint]

That's microevolution. This is about macroevolution. Most creationists (almost all really) accept microevolution.

We really have 2 or 3 topics going on simultaneously and these are the threads I like! We are discussing sexism in the Bible and in Arabic/middle eastern culture, evolution (macro), origins of life, and liberal versus fundamental interpretation of the Bible.

I guess since the original topic was so broad we can be considered on topic.

 

[buster1]

"Most creationists (almost all really) accept microevolution."

Apparently you haven't been to this part of Florida! I teach biology and every year get dozens of students who tell me that the concept is all lies (microevolution), there is no such thing as genetic mutation, and god determines what we look like not genetics. Before the end of this school year I had a student come up to me with the usual quota of bible verses and explain to me that there were no such things as dinosaurs (fake fossils from satanists to "put christians on the wrong path", the earth was 6,400 years old, ecology was ridiculous since all animals and plants were put here only for the use of man, and why my teaching certificate should be revoked for spreading lies. BTW it is extremely difficult to keep a straight face under these circumstances.

 

[Clint]

Oh my mistake. It seems people are far, far more stupid than I thought. I get tired of being PC all the time. Sue me.

Sometimes I just want to smack some since into people. You know I live in north Georgia and even the kids here aren't like the ones you talk about, which is totally opposite of what I'd expect.

 

[ktulu]

What about Sura 4:34? What happens to women who don't cover their whole body, including face and hair? Is that political?

This Sura is a perfect example of why true Muslims must learn Arabic as it is often translated very poorly. This article deals with the mistranslation quite well so I will not repeat it all. http://www.ruqaiyyah.karoo.net/articles/beating.htm

Also covering their bodies, face and hair is not actully in the Qu'ran only that women should cover their bosoms and that both men and women need to dress modestly. This does not require any form of dress. Though I can tell you from personal experience in the Middle East having as little skin as possible exposed helps to keep you cool in the desert sun. Look even the men cover much of their bodies when wearing traditional dress.

 

[Capslock]

There is no micro or macro evolution. There is just evolution. Micro and macro are just different time scales. Micro over millions of years = macro. The terms are almost exclusively used by creationists, not biologists.

Capslock

 

[Clint]

Right but it seems OK to use it in a debate on creation vs. evolution.

 

[rubrarubra]

Yay, evolution again. I think we decided over the course of the last debate that if all of life evolved from single-celled organisms, then evolution must have taken place in cycles. The gene pool would suddenly diversify, followed by a period of relative stability. Since a specialized plant such as the fly trap requires a number of unique adaptations in order to effectively fill a niche, those adaptations would have materialize within just a few generations. Once that niche is filled through macroevolution, the organism thrives in its new role in the ecosystem, with little or no change from generation to generation. Thus microevolution is the natural order. New forms appear only when the natural order is disturbed and there are new niches to be filled. Maybe we'll see some macroevolution ourselves once global warming stirs things up.

Now here's the question of the day: If organisms only become more specialized with evolution, and the genepool shrinks much faster than mutations appear, how did the original single celled organism develop all this genetic potential?

Peter

 

[jimscott]

Again, it boils down to whom you beleive to be the author of life - God or chance. 'How' isn't important. 'Who' is.

 

[Outsiders71]

I may be stupid, but I'm not quite sure what the actual arguement here is about. If it is about evolution not existing how would one explain a single virus mutating into several strains? (evolution = an organism changing over a period of time - and we have witnessed it occuring: multiple strains of HIV, TB, etc). If it is about how Earth and life on Earth originated - that has nothing to do with evolution at all - again evolution deals with organisms changing not how they originated.

EXACTLY!