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.
  • #701
it really bothers me when people have to ADD things to the Bible to justify the flood!
that is wrong!!

"what about insects? were they on the ark?"
"well..the bible doesnt mention them, but lets just assume they were there."

"what about dinosaurs? were they on the ark?"
"well..the bible doesnt mention them..but if they existed, then they were probably there"

"what about trees? how did they survive the flood?"
"well...lets assume.."
etc etc..

you cant ADD things to the Bible that arent there and then use the things you MADE UP as "proof"!
and..God expressly forbids making up biblical "facts"..:

Revelation 22:18-19: "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

you cant make assumptions about what Noah did or did not have on the ark!!
and you cant just make things up!!
its not allowed..from a logic or a biblical standpoint..
God forbids it..He said so.
Scot
 
  • #702
I agree.

I also don't see the point in using science to back up claims about the flood logistics when you have to simultaneously ignore a massive amount of science indicating that it never happened in the first place. We've established science is completely unreliable in this scenario, so why bring it up at all?
 
  • #703
Ok.  Crux of the debate lies here:

"Science & evidence say x, y and z, which contradicts what the Bible says." - Basic sum up of evolutionist.

"Well, God made everything look the way it does, because he's perfect, so the only reason science & evidence say x,y and z is because made it so."
-Young Earth Creationist.  

How the heck does one argue with THAT??
confused.gif


I mean, the flood didn't kill all that stuff AE & others said it would because God makes the rules & didn't want them dead.

The geologic column was laid out the way it is by God.

Everything is the magic man in the sky.


Then you have the Old Earth Creationists, who make a lot more sense. They, at least, aknowledge that evolution occurs. Whether intelligent design or God just said "Go!" to see what happens, things change.
 
  • #704
[b said:
Quote[/b] (schloaty @ Jan. 11 2005,11:28)]I mean, the flood didn't kill all that stuff AE & others said it would because God makes the rules & didn't want them dead.

The geologic column was laid out the way it is by God.

Everything is the magic man in the sky.
Oh, adding stuff to the bible and presuming again?
Where does it say that exactly?
 
  • #705
"The Bible says x, y, x, but we don't accept that, so here is some incomplete evidence from which one might conclude the possibility of our having evolved." Is the basic sum up of the evolutionist.

Never mind how the universe came into existence, never mind that nothing in this world can fully satisfy us, never mind that if we are just organisms that live and then die, we are meaningless.

Peter
 
  • #706
we're just a virus...
Earthquakes, hurricanes, mudslides and tidal waves seem like a good immune system to me.
 
  • #707
personally, I believe we are all direct descendants of the inhabitants of the Golgafrincham B-Ark..
its the theory that makes the most sense..
 
  • #708
[b said:
Quote[/b] ] so here is some incomplete evidence from which one might conclude the possibility of our having evolved."

If you trully beleive this you either a) are unaware (as are most people) of the true extent of the evidence, or b) are just unwilling to except it as evidence.

If a, then if you do a little research, you will see MOUNTAINS of evidence to support evolution. Yes there are gaps, but as time passes more and more of those gaps are filled (recent discovery of hominid fossile from12 to 14 million years ago. We had almost nothing from that time period...another hole filled). The creationist evidence amounts to ONE BOOK.

If b, the I really cannot help you and wish no longer to engage your arguments. If you will not accept mine, I will not accept yours (and I'm rubber and you glue....)
 
  • #709
[b said:
Quote[/b] (schloaty @ Jan. 11 2005,11:28)]How the heck does one argue with THAT??
confused.gif
The last 70 pages should give you a good answer.
 
  • #710
[b said:
Quote[/b] (schloaty @ Jan. 11 2005,11:28)]I mean, the flood didn't kill all that stuff AE & others said it would because God makes the rules & didn't want them dead.

The geologic column was laid out the way it is by God.

Everything is the magic man in the sky.
Of course. Beliving the bible is illogical enough, then creationists try to find logic in what they interpreted from the bible by further saying god didn't kill everything in the ocean when he flooded it. Does it say that in the bible? No. But it's what creationists find logical even though what they getting logic from is already not plausible.
 
  • #711
[b said:
Quote[/b] (schloaty @ Jan. 11 2005,11:28)]Then you have the Old Earth Creationists, who make a lot more sense. They, at least, aknowledge that evolution occurs. Whether intelligent design or God just said "Go!" to see what happens, things change.
You can't fully belive in religion and evolution... maybe parts of both if twisted and blended to the persons liking.. but not both in their entireties.
 
  • #712
Okay, enough of this dissing creationists. Obviously this stuff isn't likely. Obviously it wouldn't just happen by itself. But guess, what - things don't always happen the way we expect them to.
Evolution is no more likely than creation. Carnivorous plants are a living proof of that. For example, why would a whole genus of nepenthes evolve, with simple ones like mirabilis at the same time as the more complex hamata, and yet there is no plant that has experimental formations sticking out of its petioles?

Peter
 
  • #713
I don't doubt that a whole genus of nepenthes could have evolved from just a species or two, but how did those come into existence?
 
  • #714
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Rubra @ Jan. 11 2005,6:15)]I don't doubt that a whole genus of nepenthes could have evolved from just a species or two, but how did those come into existence?
You can ask that question about everything with the same answer - a common ancestor. Everything comes from a common ancestor. Ancestors can be trace to back to each other. So nepenthes came from something and that something came from something etc. Basic evolution. Ever seen a cladogram?
 
  • #715
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Amateur_Expert @ Jan. 11 2005,11:12)]You can't fully belive in religion and evolution... maybe parts of both if twisted and blended to the persons liking.. but not both in their entireties.
Why not, i am yet to see anything that excludes all religion in evolution or vice versa, some religions say that you cant believe in evolution, and some religions believe things that conflict with evolution but not all religions and evolution clash
 
  • #716
Heres a simple cladogram:
cladogram.gif

That's just a piece of a big cladogram scientists have constructed linking everyone to everything down to one common ancestor. Its very simple to read. Everywhere there is a branching point is where a new identifyable feature is therein divided. The closer the organism is on the cladogram the more similar it is to the other.
 
  • #717
[b said:
Quote[/b] (ktulu @ Jan. 11 2005,6:51)]
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Amateur_Expert @ Jan. 11 2005,11:12)]You can't fully belive in religion and evolution... maybe parts of both if twisted and blended to the persons liking.. but not both in their entireties.
Why not, i am yet to see anything that excludes all religion in evolution or vice versa, some religions say that you cant believe in evolution, and some religions believe things that conflict with evolution but not all religions and evolution clash
You cannot fully belive both. Some parts of evolution contradict creationism and visa versa.
 
  • #719
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I also don't see the point in using science to back up claims about the flood logistics when you have to simultaneously ignore a massive amount of science indicating that it never happened in the first place.
not to mention it is IMPOSSIBLE.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]"The Bible says x, y, x, but we don't accept that, so here is some incomplete evidence from which one might conclude  the possibility of our having evolved."  Is the basic sum up of the evolutionist.
since we're stereotyping here, (many christians believe in evolution... just because most of the talking here was done by people who don't believe the bible doesn't mean people believe both evolution and the bible... I don't see how... but that's irrelevant)
here's your typical creationist (TYPICAL... at least I don't stereotype EVERYONE)
"I know nothing of evolution but OF COURSE it is impossible. oh, all that proof? that's no proof. it's speculation. what about this? oh... and this? oh... and this? oh... ok I give up, I can't find anything wrong with evolution so I'll just talk about the bible. I'd rather believe no proof at all than mountains of proof"
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Evolution is no more likely than creation
HA!!!
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Carnivorous plants are a living proof of that. For example, why would a whole genus of nepenthes evolve, with simple ones like mirabilis at the same time as the more complex hamata, and yet there is no plant that has experimental formations sticking out of its petioles?
I really don't understand your question...
 
  • #720
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I don't doubt that a whole genus of nepenthes could have evolved from just a species or two, but how did those come into existence?

 Ok, let us take a quick step back and look at it as a whole.  Carnivorous plants, we know them, we love them, why on Earth do they exist?  Well, let's see, what makes them unique?  I think that we all know.  Carnivorous plants evolved so that they could fill a niche, in this case especially bogs.  Over a period of time, natural selection gave pre-carnivorous plants an edge, that is, they could survive in bogs where they could grow fairly uncontested because other plants couldn't grow there, from there they've continued to expand in to the different forms we know today. The carnivory part is a trade off for being able to live in nitrogen-poor areas.  Really, it's just a matter of life trying to fill every little crack.  Here's why it happens, because when two organisms compete for a limited resource two things can happen.  A) The superior will locally kill off the competition or B) one of them will evolve to rely on an alternative.  Think, wouldn't it make your life a heck of a lot easier if instead of having to go out and buy food you could just go eat some dirt or soemthing??  Ok, so that last part was a bit silly, I just have this thing for dirt
smile_n_32.gif

 Ok, if you want an even broader example, we have The Cambrian Explosion.  I believe that it's been mentioned before, but oh well, still fits.  My reference is to a wikipedia article, you can feel free to google it yourself some more.  

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]and yet there is no plant that has experimental formations sticking out of its petioles?
 There's not???  Oh silly me. ...-Ok, look at all your hybrids: experiments.  Furthermore, evolution doesn't usually happen that fast, things that are majorly different than their parents often die, but every now and again we get a sucessful mutation or adaptation that gives that organism an edge.   If you want I can give you bunches of examples, feel free to ask, I could go on about biology and evolution all day.
smile_n_32.gif
 Though, to be less extreme, we right here on the forums see things like that, a double-headed VFT, plantlets growing out of flowers, just a matter of these things giving a reproductive edge. Sorry if I've made anything unclear, just gimme a poke if there's anything  
smile_m_32.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top