Poll: How did human life come about?

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
"Seriously. Just look at the inherent problems with evolution such as the fossil record, entropy, and probability.'

There are tens of thousands of scientists world wide who have spent the majority of their lives studying biology and have advanced degrees. The general consensus among these people is that evolution exists without a doubt.

Do you think that these "inherent problems" that you speak of never occurred to them? Or do you think that some church leaders who probably never took a college level biology course know something that they don't?

...seriously, you think that none of these people with all their experience never got up and said "wait, wouldn't that violate the second law of thermodynamics?" Either they are oblivious to something that only a few religious people know or evolution doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics. Which one of these do you think it is?

There are millions of people wordwide who believe in God, and that God had a hand in creating you and the environment you live in. Many of them have advanced degrees. they vastly outnumber your scientists. Your point has just been blown apart.

How in the world does that follow? Are you seriously contending that evolution is believed to be true only by a minority of academia? Please tell me this is not your contention.

Let me lay it out for you:

There are tens of thousands of scientists world wide who have spent the majority of their lives studying biology and have advanced degrees. The general consensus among these people is that evolution exists without a doubt.

There are millions of people wordwide who believe in God, and that God had a hand in creating you and the environment you live in. Many of them have advanced degrees. they vastly outnumber your scientists. Your point has just been blown apart.

What makes your tens of thousands of scientists statement so powerful? The scientists with advanced degrees are woefully outnumbered by people who believe in God that have advanced degrees.

That would be only relevant if they had advanced degrees in this subject.

And what subject would that be? Science?

Evolution...

I thought the subject of this thread came down to if God had a hand. I was not aware that only those with advanced degrees pertaining to evolution had a say in this matter. Is that the box you are trying to put this in?

Umm, yeah, that is the topic of the thread.. but YOU were responding to whether evolution exists at all... and for that only people with a science degree relating to evolution would matter in terms of people with advanced degrees...

Did you forget what YOU responded to?

"There are tens of thousands of scientists world wide who have spent the majority of their lives studying biology and have advanced degrees. The general consensus among these people is that evolution exists without a doubt."

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
"Seriously. Just look at the inherent problems with evolution such as the fossil record, entropy, and probability.'

There are tens of thousands of scientists world wide who have spent the majority of their lives studying biology and have advanced degrees. The general consensus among these people is that evolution exists without a doubt.

Do you think that these "inherent problems" that you speak of never occurred to them? Or do you think that some church leaders who probably never took a college level biology course know something that they don't?

...seriously, you think that none of these people with all their experience never got up and said "wait, wouldn't that violate the second law of thermodynamics?" Either they are oblivious to something that only a few religious people know or evolution doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics. Which one of these do you think it is?

There are millions of people wordwide who believe in God, and that God had a hand in creating you and the environment you live in. Many of them have advanced degrees. they vastly outnumber your scientists. Your point has just been blown apart.

Pssst...guess what...there's quite a few scientists that believe in god, and yet have no problem understanding evolution.

And the fact that it is not the number of people who believe a case that make it correct, but the facts of the case. Nobody could believe that evolution was real. Zero people on the planet. And it still would be just as true, and young earth creationism just as much a fantasy.

Very true, that is exactly my point. If you are going to throw numbers around like they mean something though maybe you ought to consider the numbers on the other side eh?

The vast majority of academic scientists are atheist/agnostic. there was a survey done about this. Obviousl you can attribute sampling errors but if i remember correctly 70% of all PhDs in the hard sciences were atheist/agnostic

Not our fault that religious people don't want to study science.. but the only ones qualified to make determinations regarding science are the ones that... gasp.. study and experiment in science!

 

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
"Seriously. Just look at the inherent problems with evolution such as the fossil record, entropy, and probability.'

There are tens of thousands of scientists world wide who have spent the majority of their lives studying biology and have advanced degrees. The general consensus among these people is that evolution exists without a doubt.

Do you think that these "inherent problems" that you speak of never occurred to them? Or do you think that some church leaders who probably never took a college level biology course know something that they don't?

...seriously, you think that none of these people with all their experience never got up and said "wait, wouldn't that violate the second law of thermodynamics?" Either they are oblivious to something that only a few religious people know or evolution doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics. Which one of these do you think it is?

There are millions of people wordwide who believe in God, and that God had a hand in creating you and the environment you live in. Many of them have advanced degrees. they vastly outnumber your scientists. Your point has just been blown apart.

Pssst...guess what...there's quite a few scientists that believe in god, and yet have no problem understanding evolution.

And the fact that it is not the number of people who believe a case that make it correct, but the facts of the case. Nobody could believe that evolution was real. Zero people on the planet. And it still would be just as true, and young earth creationism just as much a fantasy.

Very true, that is exactly my point. If you are going to throw numbers around like they mean something though maybe you ought to consider the numbers on the other side eh?

The vast majority of academic scientists are atheist/agnostic. there was a survey done about this. Obviousl you can attribute sampling errors but if i remember correctly 70% of all PhDs in the hard sciences were atheist/agnostic

Not our fault that religious people don't want to study science.. but the only ones qualified to make determinations regarding science are the ones that... gasp.. study and experiment in science!

I personally think anyone that uses God as an explanation for natural phenomena we do not know should not be called scientists. using religion as the basis for explanation goes against the very principles of science and the scientific revolution.

if we want to use god as the answer for our questions regarding nature why dont we just stop all science funding and give it to theologists

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
I have explained this several times in this thread and others, but here it goes once more. The Bible doesn't say that the Earth began at the time of Adam and Eve. If properly translated, it says that the Earth started a new age at that time. Therefore, with a previous Earth age, it would have remanents in fossil form that outdates the Garden of Eden. Since this thread is about the difference in the Biblical and scientific accounts of the origin of the Earth and mankind, it should be obvious that this is very germane.

I question it's relevance because to me it sounds like a vacuous attempt to sidestep traditional critques of creationism by "reinventing the wheel", so to speak. It's as if you believe there is some sort of merit in conceding that the earth and the fossils it contain can be millions of years old, while conveniently keeping put with the biblical creation.

It sounds like a complete intellectual cop out to me. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Whether the creation event was 10 billion or 100 million years ago, or once every 6000 years is essentially irrelevant, since that is an act of faith whenever it happen. No one is questioning when creation happened, they question the entire notion.

I guess to each their own, but I still fail to see how this strange idea of "Earth Ages" bears any relevance to the debate, other than being a cute trick to smirk and agree with those that believe the universe is millions of years old with one side of your mouth, and scowl and disagree with the other side.

I suppose that if what I said were merely a method of attempting to combining science and religion, as you have suggested, then the rest of your sentiments would be accurate. But, the entire assumption is wrong, because it is not merely my explanation, it is what the Bible says, regardless of who likes or agrees with it.

However, I have also made it clear that I do NOT accept or believe in the millions of years for the age of the Earth. However, that is not something that I can document from the Bible.

You ask for an explanation, and then simply discount it, so I shall not go to any great lengths to elaborate, only to have you twist what I say.

Oh no, thats as I expected. There was this part of me was hoping that you might have an original idea to add, yet it is just another case of referring to the indisputable scripture.

For what its worth, I don't discount your ideas any more than any other flavor of creationism - they're all equally discounted. I've had quite a few interesting discussions with creationists who can articulate their ideas without directly referring to scripture in order to make their points, but looks like I won't find that here. I guess "Earth Ages" is just the new creationist flavor of the week.

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
"Seriously. Just look at the inherent problems with evolution such as the fossil record, entropy, and probability.'

There are tens of thousands of scientists world wide who have spent the majority of their lives studying biology and have advanced degrees. The general consensus among these people is that evolution exists without a doubt.

Do you think that these "inherent problems" that you speak of never occurred to them? Or do you think that some church leaders who probably never took a college level biology course know something that they don't?

...seriously, you think that none of these people with all their experience never got up and said "wait, wouldn't that violate the second law of thermodynamics?" Either they are oblivious to something that only a few religious people know or evolution doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics. Which one of these do you think it is?

There are millions of people wordwide who believe in God, and that God had a hand in creating you and the environment you live in. Many of them have advanced degrees. they vastly outnumber your scientists. Your point has just been blown apart.

Pssst...guess what...there's quite a few scientists that believe in god, and yet have no problem understanding evolution.

And the fact that it is not the number of people who believe a case that make it correct, but the facts of the case. Nobody could believe that evolution was real. Zero people on the planet. And it still would be just as true, and young earth creationism just as much a fantasy.

Very true, that is exactly my point. If you are going to throw numbers around like they mean something though maybe you ought to consider the numbers on the other side eh?

The vast majority of academic scientists are atheist/agnostic. there was a survey done about this. Obviousl you can attribute sampling errors but if i remember correctly 70% of all PhDs in the hard sciences were atheist/agnostic

Not our fault that religious people don't want to study science.. but the only ones qualified to make determinations regarding science are the ones that... gasp.. study and experiment in science!

Not our fault that scientists don't accept religion. Following your logic we should say the only ones qualified to have an opinion on God are those that study theology! Scientists are not qualified to opine on the feasbility of God, they don't study religion! Again your statement is without logic.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
"Seriously. Just look at the inherent problems with evolution such as the fossil record, entropy, and probability.'

There are tens of thousands of scientists world wide who have spent the majority of their lives studying biology and have advanced degrees. The general consensus among these people is that evolution exists without a doubt.

Do you think that these "inherent problems" that you speak of never occurred to them? Or do you think that some church leaders who probably never took a college level biology course know something that they don't?

...seriously, you think that none of these people with all their experience never got up and said "wait, wouldn't that violate the second law of thermodynamics?" Either they are oblivious to something that only a few religious people know or evolution doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics. Which one of these do you think it is?

There are millions of people wordwide who believe in God, and that God had a hand in creating you and the environment you live in. Many of them have advanced degrees. they vastly outnumber your scientists. Your point has just been blown apart.

Pssst...guess what...there's quite a few scientists that believe in god, and yet have no problem understanding evolution.

And the fact that it is not the number of people who believe a case that make it correct, but the facts of the case. Nobody could believe that evolution was real. Zero people on the planet. And it still would be just as true, and young earth creationism just as much a fantasy.

Very true, that is exactly my point. If you are going to throw numbers around like they mean something though maybe you ought to consider the numbers on the other side eh?

The vast majority of academic scientists are atheist/agnostic. there was a survey done about this. Obviousl you can attribute sampling errors but if i remember correctly 70% of all PhDs in the hard sciences were atheist/agnostic

Not our fault that religious people don't want to study science.. but the only ones qualified to make determinations regarding science are the ones that... gasp.. study and experiment in science!

I personally think anyone that uses God as an explanation for natural phenomena we do not know should not be called scientists. using religion as the basis for explanation goes against the very principles of science and the scientific revolution.

if we want to use god as the answer for our questions regarding nature why dont we just stop all science funding and give it to theologists

Well, thats what we've been doing for the past 6 years or so...

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
"Seriously. Just look at the inherent problems with evolution such as the fossil record, entropy, and probability.'

There are tens of thousands of scientists world wide who have spent the majority of their lives studying biology and have advanced degrees. The general consensus among these people is that evolution exists without a doubt.

Do you think that these "inherent problems" that you speak of never occurred to them? Or do you think that some church leaders who probably never took a college level biology course know something that they don't?

...seriously, you think that none of these people with all their experience never got up and said "wait, wouldn't that violate the second law of thermodynamics?" Either they are oblivious to something that only a few religious people know or evolution doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics. Which one of these do you think it is?

There are millions of people wordwide who believe in God, and that God had a hand in creating you and the environment you live in. Many of them have advanced degrees. they vastly outnumber your scientists. Your point has just been blown apart.

How in the world does that follow? Are you seriously contending that evolution is believed to be true only by a minority of academia? Please tell me this is not your contention.

Let me lay it out for you:

There are tens of thousands of scientists world wide who have spent the majority of their lives studying biology and have advanced degrees. The general consensus among these people is that evolution exists without a doubt.

There are millions of people wordwide who believe in God, and that God had a hand in creating you and the environment you live in. Many of them have advanced degrees. they vastly outnumber your scientists. Your point has just been blown apart.

What makes your tens of thousands of scientists statement so powerful? The scientists with advanced degrees are woefully outnumbered by people who believe in God that have advanced degrees.

Newsflash genius, evolution |= atheism. Therefore, belief in God does not automatically confer disbelief in evolution. In fact, as the surveys always show, the majority of academics are theists and accept evolution. I have to wonder where you got your alleged "facts" from because they are certainly not consistent with reality.

 

[NaOH]

We came from aliens. They shot their seed onto Earth to see what would happen. We happened.....

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
"Seriously. Just look at the inherent problems with evolution such as the fossil record, entropy, and probability.'

There are tens of thousands of scientists world wide who have spent the majority of their lives studying biology and have advanced degrees. The general consensus among these people is that evolution exists without a doubt.

Do you think that these "inherent problems" that you speak of never occurred to them? Or do you think that some church leaders who probably never took a college level biology course know something that they don't?

...seriously, you think that none of these people with all their experience never got up and said "wait, wouldn't that violate the second law of thermodynamics?" Either they are oblivious to something that only a few religious people know or evolution doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics. Which one of these do you think it is?

There are millions of people wordwide who believe in God, and that God had a hand in creating you and the environment you live in. Many of them have advanced degrees. they vastly outnumber your scientists. Your point has just been blown apart.

How in the world does that follow? Are you seriously contending that evolution is believed to be true only by a minority of academia? Please tell me this is not your contention.

Let me lay it out for you:

There are tens of thousands of scientists world wide who have spent the majority of their lives studying biology and have advanced degrees. The general consensus among these people is that evolution exists without a doubt.

There are millions of people wordwide who believe in God, and that God had a hand in creating you and the environment you live in. Many of them have advanced degrees. they vastly outnumber your scientists. Your point has just been blown apart.

What makes your tens of thousands of scientists statement so powerful? The scientists with advanced degrees are woefully outnumbered by people who believe in God that have advanced degrees.

Newsflash genius, evolution |= atheism. Therefore, belief in God does not automatically confer disbelief in evolution. In fact, as the surveys always show, the majority of academics are theists and accept evolution. I have to wonder where you got your alleged "facts" from because they are certainly not consistent with reality.

Take a reading lesson, go back and re-read my point. No one said that belief in God automatically means disbelief in evolution. Where'd you get that business from?

 

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
"Seriously. Just look at the inherent problems with evolution such as the fossil record, entropy, and probability.'

There are tens of thousands of scientists world wide who have spent the majority of their lives studying biology and have advanced degrees. The general consensus among these people is that evolution exists without a doubt.

Do you think that these "inherent problems" that you speak of never occurred to them? Or do you think that some church leaders who probably never took a college level biology course know something that they don't?

...seriously, you think that none of these people with all their experience never got up and said "wait, wouldn't that violate the second law of thermodynamics?" Either they are oblivious to something that only a few religious people know or evolution doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics. Which one of these do you think it is?

There are millions of people wordwide who believe in God, and that God had a hand in creating you and the environment you live in. Many of them have advanced degrees. they vastly outnumber your scientists. Your point has just been blown apart.

Pssst...guess what...there's quite a few scientists that believe in god, and yet have no problem understanding evolution.

And the fact that it is not the number of people who believe a case that make it correct, but the facts of the case. Nobody could believe that evolution was real. Zero people on the planet. And it still would be just as true, and young earth creationism just as much a fantasy.

Very true, that is exactly my point. If you are going to throw numbers around like they mean something though maybe you ought to consider the numbers on the other side eh?

The vast majority of academic scientists are atheist/agnostic. there was a survey done about this. Obviousl you can attribute sampling errors but if i remember correctly 70% of all PhDs in the hard sciences were atheist/agnostic

Not our fault that religious people don't want to study science.. but the only ones qualified to make determinations regarding science are the ones that... gasp.. study and experiment in science!

Not our fault that scientists don't accept religion. Following your logic we should say the only ones qualified to have an opinion on God are those that study theology! Scientists are not qualified to opine on the feasbility of God, they don't study religion! Again your statement is without logic.

Most scientists are not interested in directly attack religion. And I would agree that scientists are not fully qualified to debat every nuance regarding your christian god but they can still have their own theories on natural laws as alternatives to religious dogma. it's only when religion attempts to spread its message under the veil of science that real scientists go on the attack.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
"Seriously. Just look at the inherent problems with evolution such as the fossil record, entropy, and probability.'

There are tens of thousands of scientists world wide who have spent the majority of their lives studying biology and have advanced degrees. The general consensus among these people is that evolution exists without a doubt.

Do you think that these "inherent problems" that you speak of never occurred to them? Or do you think that some church leaders who probably never took a college level biology course know something that they don't?

...seriously, you think that none of these people with all their experience never got up and said "wait, wouldn't that violate the second law of thermodynamics?" Either they are oblivious to something that only a few religious people know or evolution doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics. Which one of these do you think it is?

There are millions of people wordwide who believe in God, and that God had a hand in creating you and the environment you live in. Many of them have advanced degrees. they vastly outnumber your scientists. Your point has just been blown apart.

Pssst...guess what...there's quite a few scientists that believe in god, and yet have no problem understanding evolution.

And the fact that it is not the number of people who believe a case that make it correct, but the facts of the case. Nobody could believe that evolution was real. Zero people on the planet. And it still would be just as true, and young earth creationism just as much a fantasy.

Very true, that is exactly my point. If you are going to throw numbers around like they mean something though maybe you ought to consider the numbers on the other side eh?

The vast majority of academic scientists are atheist/agnostic. there was a survey done about this. Obviousl you can attribute sampling errors but if i remember correctly 70% of all PhDs in the hard sciences were atheist/agnostic

Not our fault that religious people don't want to study science.. but the only ones qualified to make determinations regarding science are the ones that... gasp.. study and experiment in science!

Not our fault that scientists don't accept religion. Following your logic we should say the only ones qualified to have an opinion on God are those that study theology! Scientists are not qualified to opine on the feasbility of God, they don't study religion! Again your statement is without logic.

I'm sorry... are you trying to equate an actual subject that deals with real experiments/observations/trials with the study of theology?

Your answer shocks me and actually made me just get a shiver down my spine. Any old crackpot could claim they know the "truth" about "god", etc... theology is based on opinion...No one could be more right than others. Science requires actual experiments of tangible evidence... Theology has no tangible evidence.

Theology is about opinions.
Science is about facts, experiments in real life, observations, and understanding complex concepts.

In order to have an opinion that means anything regarding something scientific, you must actually understand the concept first.

Anyone could claim ANYTHING regarding religion and CANNOT be proven wrong! And therefore any old shmo could have an opinion.

You cannot have an opinion that gravity does not exist. DO YOU NOT GET THAT. It is something that could be scientifically proven. Someone needs to understand science to get this. You do NOT need to understand theology to believe in some unknown god and claim it is the "truth."

 

[shadow9d9]

dnuggett , uhh.. I don't believe the world is round.. it is pyramid shaped... and my opinion is just as valid as any astrologer!

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
"Seriously. Just look at the inherent problems with evolution such as the fossil record, entropy, and probability.'

There are tens of thousands of scientists world wide who have spent the majority of their lives studying biology and have advanced degrees. The general consensus among these people is that evolution exists without a doubt.

Do you think that these "inherent problems" that you speak of never occurred to them? Or do you think that some church leaders who probably never took a college level biology course know something that they don't?

...seriously, you think that none of these people with all their experience never got up and said "wait, wouldn't that violate the second law of thermodynamics?" Either they are oblivious to something that only a few religious people know or evolution doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics. Which one of these do you think it is?

There are millions of people wordwide who believe in God, and that God had a hand in creating you and the environment you live in. Many of them have advanced degrees. they vastly outnumber your scientists. Your point has just been blown apart.

How in the world does that follow? Are you seriously contending that evolution is believed to be true only by a minority of academia? Please tell me this is not your contention.

Let me lay it out for you:

There are tens of thousands of scientists world wide who have spent the majority of their lives studying biology and have advanced degrees. The general consensus among these people is that evolution exists without a doubt.

There are millions of people wordwide who believe in God, and that God had a hand in creating you and the environment you live in. Many of them have advanced degrees. they vastly outnumber your scientists. Your point has just been blown apart.

What makes your tens of thousands of scientists statement so powerful? The scientists with advanced degrees are woefully outnumbered by people who believe in God that have advanced degrees.

Newsflash genius, evolution |= atheism. Therefore, belief in God does not automatically confer disbelief in evolution. In fact, as the surveys always show, the majority of academics are theists and accept evolution. I have to wonder where you got your alleged "facts" from because they are certainly not consistent with reality.

Take a reading lesson, go back and re-read my point. No one said that belief in God automatically means disbelief in evolution. Where'd you get that business from?

The counterpoint that you provided to the claim that a majority of individuals holding advanced degrees accept evolution (which provides strong indication evolution is true) was that a majority of people worldwide believe in God, which according to you "blows that point apart." But it could only follow that his claim is "blown" apart if somehow the majority of theism in the world meant that the very same majority disbelieved evolution. It doesn't.

If that is not what you intended, then I suggest you take a writing lesson and learn to construct arguments coherently.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
zinfamous,

I do not believe that my post referring to women ministers was directed to you, so I will assume that you adopted it, because of similarities to your situation. If your mother is such a good Christian minister, how is it that she hasn't reached you? Did she teach you that Buddhism and Islam was equal to Christianity? If so, then the point is made. If not, then she must not have been able to reach you at all...her own child. The qualifications given for a bishop or deacon of the Church, is that they must be MEN, with a well managed family. This kind of management would mean that the father would be able to communicate properly with his children. Apparently, you have ignored what your mother has taught you, because you certainly do not sound like a Christian.

nope. you quoted me in that post when i mentioned my mother was a minister (i did not include my quote here; but gave anyone the means to seek it out). it was clearly directed at my mother, and perhaps me as well. whether you meant direct offense or not, remains to be seen. however, it is clear that your comment implies that you perceive females as incapable of delivering the word of God, of interpreting the bible towards whatever means you interpret this word (uh...thank God), and possibly as incapable of anything outside of providing baby christian soldiers for you. Does this sound about right?

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
zinfamous,

I do not believe that my post referring to women ministers was directed to you, so I will assume that you adopted it, because of similarities to your situation. If your mother is such a good Christian minister, how is it that she hasn't reached you? Did she teach you that Buddhism and Islam was equal to Christianity? If so, then the point is made. If not, then she must not have been able to reach you at all...her own child. The qualifications given for a bishop or deacon of the Church, is that they must be MEN, with a well managed family. This kind of management would mean that the father would be able to communicate properly with his children. Apparently, you have ignored what your mother has taught you, because you certainly do not sound like a Christian.

you're catholic, and possibly irish catholic? well then....i rest my case. (i mean no offense to irish people, i love irish people...i just hope seekermeister does not prove to be a poor example)

I'm basically quoting your post again for posterity. I can't imagine that you are serious here. If you are, then may God have mercy on your pathetic soul.

 

[jack bauer]

Option #3. This is fact. Period. Read Sam Harris or Greg Graffin, if you want to learn how to save the future of human beings and learn about Naturalism in the process.

 

[zinfamous]

BTW, Seekermesiter, you and your warped ideas make baby Jesus cry. You are not the authority on Christianity. You obviously think that you are pope, as you would shock even the most licentious, homicidal, pedophilic, and egomaniacal popes with your blatant disregard for true Christian theology.

 

[KurskKnyaz]

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
"Seriously. Just look at the inherent problems with evolution such as the fossil record, entropy, and probability.'

There are tens of thousands of scientists world wide who have spent the majority of their lives studying biology and have advanced degrees. The general consensus among these people is that evolution exists without a doubt.

Do you think that these "inherent problems" that you speak of never occurred to them? Or do you think that some church leaders who probably never took a college level biology course know something that they don't?

...seriously, you think that none of these people with all their experience never got up and said "wait, wouldn't that violate the second law of thermodynamics?" Either they are oblivious to something that only a few religious people know or evolution doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics. Which one of these do you think it is?

There are millions of people wordwide who believe in God, and that God had a hand in creating you and the environment you live in. Many of them have advanced degrees, they vastly outnumber your scientists. Your point has just been blown apart.

Advanced degrees in what? Scientists follow a strict and reliable method of deriving conclusions 9scientific method), people do not. Numbers of just any people don't mean anything. The credibility of 10 biologists on the topic of biology is greater than that of 10,000 accountants. Don't forget the majority thought the earth was flat. You missed my point and you have no point.

 

[KurskKnyaz]

Pssst...guess what...there's quite a few scientists that believe in god, and yet have no problem understanding evolution.

Actually I can easily say that the vast majority of scientists believe in God because their research has shown them how amazing the universe is.

"I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice." - Albert Einstein

 

[KurskKnyaz]

What makes your tens of thousands of scientists statement so powerful? The scientists with advanced degrees are woefully outnumbered by people who believe in God that have advanced degrees.

because they follow a strict and accurate guideline for handling evidence known as the scientific method. If masses were right then the earth would be flat.

 

[KurskKnyaz]

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: DougK62

Originally posted by: bluemax
For all those calling the Bible "fairy tales" I have only one thing to say regarding evolution and the beginning of all life;
"It rained on the rocks."

Now THAT'S fairy-tale magic!


I can't tolerate bad data, and the poor excuse of a theory "evolution" is shot full of holes, reckless theory, NO evidence or falsified evidence.

Makes me wonder what they're so desperate to prove that they have to make up BS to "prove" it?

...and I do SO love the bible-bashers who haven't got a clue what's even inside it.
(And those that have the slightest inkling have still barely scratched the surface.)


I'm a man of science. Truth is based on facts. History, science, evidence. Facts.
Creation has this, evolution does not. End of Line.

Uhh...seriously? Last I checked, the theory of evolution is packed full of veifiable facts and is one of the most "solid" theories in all of science. I guess you're just smarter than the entire scientific community...

Seriously. Just look at the inherent problems with evolution such as the fossil record, entropy, and probability.

Why is probability an inherent problem for evolution?

Here is something basic to start off.

I read the first 5 paragraphs and I already know the gist of their poorly thought out argument. First of all, complex life as we know it today did not magically appear 3.5 billion years ago. So in terms of the flash cards analogy, natural didn't suddenly align the 10 cards in a row. Evolution stats that you start very simple then build to complexity through a string of changes that work. So you start with 1. Ok , that's fine. Then as one multiplies, you add a number (a mutation). If its a 3, then obviously 1,3 is out of order an that set "dies" (reflecting a less competitve mutation doomd to extinction) but while this 1,3 set is going extinct, another 1 just had a 2 card added next to it. Since thats in order ,it stays. So if you propagate that idea, you can build to 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 without having all of them be there at once. Who ever wrote that article has a very poor understanding of evolutionary theory.

According to evolution, single-celled organisms where the first forms of life. Do you have any idea how amazingly complex even those tiny creatures are (thousands of genes)? The article was for the purpose of demonstrating the impossibility that even the "simplest" forms of life could not have come together from a collection of random processes and that it is clearly a showcase of the ordered structure of the universe.

Who said the first living thing was a cell? Doesn't have to be. Just something that can replicate and mutate is all that's required, the genetic material doesn't have to be DNA. A cell doesn't necessarily have to have thousands of genes, particularly given a lack of competition.

And before you even think about saying something about mycoplasma, that's like comparing a fusion powered flying Mercedes to a horse drawn sled.

Edit: still waiting for the entropy argument.

You need to distinguish between living and self replicating. Self-replicating is NOT living. We have proteins that can self replicate. Anyway, this thread is dealing with evolution not abiogenises.

 

[KurskKnyaz]

Originally posted by: Crono
The Bible says we came from dust. Evolutionists say we came from rocks and gas. So why we we, who believe in the God of infinity, called stupid and are insulted? If evolutionists actually thought about it, they would realize that they're believing in a religion of death and no hope. It's no wonder so many people commit suicide. Belief in evolution by country.

Lol, you should actually read the data you post. Lithuania has the highest suicide rate in the world but one of the lowest percentages of people who believe in evolution.

 

[KurskKnyaz]

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Crono
The Bible says we came from dust. Evolutionists say we came from rocks and gas. So why we we, who believe in the God of infinity, called stupid and are insulted? If evolutionists actually thought about it, they would realize that they're believing in a religion of death and no hope. It's no wonder so many people commit suicide. Belief in evolution by country.

Why don't you actually put some effort into educating yourself instead making all of these stupid posts? Your posts make it clear that you don't even understand the fundamentals behind the theory of evolution.

Instead of calling me stupid, why don't you post a constructive post and inform me? Or am I stupid to read and learn? :frown: Explain abiogenesis to me (if that's what you believe in) or any alternate hypothesis that explains how organic chemicals developed here on earth.

For the 10th time evolution and abiogenesis are two different theories that are independent of one another, in the same way that the Big Bang and the existence of the four forces of nature (weak nuclear, strong nuclear, gravity, and electromagnetism) are independent of one another. Evolution deals with how life reached the point it is at now. Abiogeneses deals with how it originated. We don't know much about abiogenesis but we have 130+ years of overwhelming evidence at just about every sub-field of biology (and even psychology and chemistry) to support evolution. We came from an ape like ancestor, who came from an even ape-er like ancestor, who's generation dates back to a single celled bacteria. Do you think it is a coincidence that you and a fruit-fly share 60% of the same genetic code!

 

[KurskKnyaz]

The whole theory of evolution is based on the faulty premise that similarity = relation. Which is poor science as well as poor logic. Homological "evidence" as well as fossil "evidence" (and what other "evidence" you want to throw in there) are all based on that logic.

ehm no,

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

There is physiological, morphological, and genetic evidence of evolution too.

 

[KurskKnyaz]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Seriously. Just look at the inherent problems with evolution such as the fossil record, entropy, and probability.

Maybe you should let MC Stephen Hawkins and DJ Doomsday school your ass. (This goes to the beat of "O.P.P" by Onyx except instead of saying "you down with O.P.P" you say "you down with en-tro-py")

http://www.mchawking.com/includes/lyrics/entropy_lyrics.php

Entropy

Trash Talk
Harm me with harmony.
Doomsday, drop a load on 'em.

Verse 1
Entropy, how can I explain it? I'll take it frame by frame it,
to have you all jumping, shouting saying it.
Let's just say that it's a measure of disorder,
in a system that is closed, like with a border.
It's sorta, like a, well a measurement of randomness,
proposed in 1850 by a German, but wait I digress.
"What the fvck is entropy?", I here the people still exclaiming,
it seems I gotta start the explaining.

You ever drop an egg and on the floor you see it break?
You go and get a mop so you can clean up your mistake.
But did you ever stop to ponder why we know it's true,
if you drop a broken egg you will not get an egg that's new.

That's entropy or E-N-T-R-O to the P to the Y,
the reason why the sun will one day all burn out and die.
Order from disorder is a scientific rarity,
allow me to explain it with a little bit more clarity.
Did I say rarity? I meant impossibility,
at least in a closed system there will always be more entropy.
That's entropy and I hope that you're all down with it,
if you are here's your membership.

Chorus
You down with entropy?
Yeah, you know me! (x3)
Who's down with entropy?
Every last homey!

Verse 2
Defining entropy as disorder's not complete,
'cause disorder as a definition doesn't cover heat.
So my first definition I would now like to withdraw,
and offer one that fits thermodynamics second law.
First we need to understand that entropy is energy,
energy that can't be used to state it more specifically.
In a closed system entropy always goes up,
that's the second law, now you know what's up.

You can't win, you can't break even, you can't leave the game,
'cause entropy will take it all 'though it seems a shame.
The second law, as we now know, is quite clear to state,
that entropy must increase and not dissipate.

Creationists always try to use the second law,
to disprove evolution, but their theory has a flaw.
The second law is quite precise about where it applies,
only in a closed system must the entropy count rise.
The earth's not a closed system' it's powered by the sun,
so fvck the damn creationists, Doomsday get my gun!
That, in a nutshell, is what entropy's about,
you're now down with a discount.

Chorus

Trash Talk
Hit it!
Doomsday, kick it in!

http://www.buyswag.com/mchawking/product.aspx?id=554