http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/4588289/The-Vatican-claims-Darwins-theory-of-evolution-is-compatible-with-Christianity.html
QuoteArchbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said while the Church had been hostile to Darwin's theory in the past, the idea of evolution could be traced to St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas.
Father Giuseppe Tanzella-Nitti, Professor of Theology at the Pontifical Santa Croce University in Rome, added that 4th century theologian St Augustine had "never heard the term evolution, but knew that big fish eat smaller fish" and forms of life had been transformed "slowly over time". Aquinas made similar observations in the Middle Ages.
Ahead of a papal-backed conference next month marking the 150th anniversary of Darwin's On the Origin of Species, the Vatican is also set to play down the idea of Intelligent Design, which argues a "higher power" must be responsible for the complexities of life.
The conference at the Pontifical Gregorian University will discuss Intelligent Design to an extent, but only as a "cultural phenomenon" rather than a scientific or theological issue...
Anyone care to discuss?
Just thought this was interesting.
They're going to "play down the idea of intelligent design..."
There are a number of official church organizations that have adopted some form of "Theistic Evolution" as their official position.
I've met a number of conservative Christians who hold the Theistic Evolution position as well. The real question I guess is whether Darwinism itself is good science or not.
My humble opinion is that good science and good theology should line up with each other.
Evolution does not threaten spirituality.
Quote from: Doc on February 11, 2009, 09:47:27 PM
There are a number of official church organizations that have adopted some form of "Theistic Evolution" as their official position.
Mmmm, I think that includes me.
QuoteThe real question I guess is whether Darwinism itself is good science or not.
That's no question for me. Darwinism was based on very little proof and much assumptions. To many to call it science IMO. But that's personal. In defense of Darwin he saw weak spots in his theory. Others after him pushed the theory more than Darwin himself. Now, many years after Darwin, and many many hours spend on archeology, what have 'we' found to support Darwin.
NothingOn the contrary, archelogical finds disprove Darwin. More recent science like micro biology and deeper understanding of gen-tech disproves Darwin even more. Just Google a bit for "Cambrian explosion"
Evolution wasn't a gradual proces like Darwinsm claims. No it made huge jumps.
Not "and then it evolved into"
But "and suddenly"
Much more the "God said let there be..." type of evolution.
QuoteMy humble opinion is that good science and good theology should line up with each other.
But if they don't... which one is wrong....? :thinking:
IMO the curch is again betting on the wrong horse.
Finally they embrace science and they pick an outdated theory :pointlaugh:
Actually the above kind of stuff (amongst other science stuff) is what gently pushed me toward religion :reachout:
Evolution is junk science.
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on February 11, 2009, 09:58:30 PM
Evolution does not threaten spirituality.
Not for you. Not for me.
But it does for all YECs.
Does this also mean Vatican is no longer YEC?
Unless ofcourse the pope thinks Darwinian evolution took place in 168 hours.....
Quote from: Molly on February 11, 2009, 10:49:10 PM
Evolution is junk science.
There are scientists who are Christians who would disagree with you.
Here's an interesting thought, though--that man in his own lifetime goes through an evolution of sorts.
Every other animal is good to go within a few minutes after birth. Within the first year of life, they are on their own, having left the nest, family, mother. Or, if they stay in the pack, they are running with the adults, hunting with them within the year.
But, look at man--prolonged babyhood--he comes out of the womb incomplete, in fact, his brain will keep growing and developing well into his twenties (one reason why drugs are so dangerous for teenagers).
And, spiritually, also, he will keep growing, if he keeps pursuing it--there is no end.
THERE ARE TWO LINES ALONG WHICH MAN'S DEVELOPMENT PROCEEDS, the line of knowledge and the line of being. In right evolution the line of knowledge and the line of being develop simultaneously, parallel to, and helping one another. But if the line of knowledge gets too far ahead of the line of being, or if the line of being gets ahead of the line of knowledge, man's development goes wrong, and sooner or later it must come to a standstill.
--In Search of the Miraculous
Quote from: Doc on February 11, 2009, 10:58:18 PM
Quote from: Molly on February 11, 2009, 10:49:10 PM
Evolution is junk science.
There are scientists who are Christians who would disagree with you.
And there are scientists who are not Christians who would agree with me. So what? lol
But, basically, any scientist who agrees with me is out of a job. That's more important.
Quote from: Molly on February 11, 2009, 11:03:26 PM
But, basically, any scientist who agrees with me is out of a job. That's more important.
False assumption Molly.
They just get transfered to the Vatican science department :tease: :banana:
Quote from: WhiteWings on February 11, 2009, 11:11:27 PM
Quote from: Molly on February 11, 2009, 11:03:26 PM
But, basically, any scientist who agrees with me is out of a job. That's more important.
False assumption Molly.
They just get transfered to the Vatican science department :tease: :banana:
Is that Hell or purgatory? :mshock:
Purgatory. Because when you grow older the pope looses interest.
Some peoples faith has no bearing on science or fear of evolution being the correct theory, wonder why that is?
It does not contradict what the bible can say, it contradicts a proposed intepretation that is asserted as truth. Big difference.
Evolution does not threaten faith or spirituality in any way.
Evolution is fact. Things evolve, nature evolves...this has been proven.
The THEORY of evolution is NOT fact. It's theory.
If it were proved to be fact, then, that would of course, not threaten my spirituality at all.
I have an open mind.
If that's how God brought it about, if that's the method he used for Creation... :dontknow: that's fine by me.
But how can the vatican "downplay intelligent design"... downplay a "Creator". That's the part I don't get.
People are always saying the theory of evolution is a fact, there is no God..
and I'm just sitting there thinking.. :dontknow: huh?
Even IF the THEORY of evolution were to become a FACT, how does that mean there is no God?
I never understood that.
But then again, to be honest, if someone discovered the bible was a total fake, that wouldn't phase me too much, either. My belief in God is powerful and it transcends bibles and anything else in this world.
just my :2c:
http://www.reasons.org (http://www.reasons.org) Ignore their "statement of faith." They're great scientists though they're still trapped by the ET myth of separation.
I'm no fan of Charisma magazine, but here's a good article:-)
http://charismamag.com/articles/index.php/18473 (http://charismamag.com/articles/index.php/18473)
People misunderstand that a "scientific fact" is not an assertion of truth it has to do with the scientific method.
QuotePeople are always saying the theory of evolution is a fact, there is no God..
and I'm just sitting there thinking.. huh?
Even IF the THEORY of evolution were to become a FACT, how does that mean there is no God?
I never understood that.
Because--either you are a glorified monkey, evolved from prehistoric slime, by accident, without purpose, here have a banana, grunt!--
or
You were created by God discretely, with a purpose, in his image and likeness, just like the Bible says.
Big difference in how you think of yourself and the existence of God.
Quote from: Molly on February 12, 2009, 02:59:01 AM
QuotePeople are always saying the theory of evolution is a fact, there is no God..
and I'm just sitting there thinking.. huh?
Even IF the THEORY of evolution were to become a FACT, how does that mean there is no God?
I never understood that.
Because--either you are a glorified monkey, evolved from prehistoric slime, by accident, without purpose, here have a banana, grunt!--
or
You were created by God discretely, with a purpose, in his image and likeness, just like the Bible says.
Big difference in how you think of yourself and the existence of God.
The problem is that you, like most Christians, see this as an either/ or thing; partially by creating a caricature of the current evolutionary position.
Now personally, I'm on the fence with regard to macroevolution, and I lean toward Old Earth Creationism, and certainly intelligent design. The "spiritual" argument between creation and evolution as I see it, mostly comes down to a question of timing and methodology used by God.
Quote from: Doc on February 12, 2009, 03:08:36 AM
The problem is that you, like most Christians, see this as an either/ or thing; partially by creating a caricature of the current evolutionary position.
Now personally, I'm on the fence with regard to macroevolution, and I lean toward Old Earth Creationism, and certainly intelligent design. The "spiritual" argument between creation and evolution as I see it, mostly comes down to a question of timing and methodology used by God.
Yeah, Doc.. I agree with you.
People on both sides of the argument are guilty of this (making it an either/or thing.)
I think more folks should learn how to do that fence sitting thing...and ponder more, and keep their eyes and ears and hearts and minds open.
Quote from: Doc on February 12, 2009, 03:08:36 AM
Quote from: Molly on February 12, 2009, 02:59:01 AM
QuotePeople are always saying the theory of evolution is a fact, there is no God..
and I'm just sitting there thinking.. huh?
Even IF the THEORY of evolution were to become a FACT, how does that mean there is no God?
I never understood that.
Because--either you are a glorified monkey, evolved from prehistoric slime, by accident, without purpose, here have a banana, grunt!--
or
You were created by God discretely, with a purpose, in his image and likeness, just like the Bible says.
Big difference in how you think of yourself and the existence of God.
The problem is that you, like most Christians, see this as an either/ or thing; partially by creating a caricature of the current evolutionary position.
Now personally, I'm on the fence with regard to macroevolution, and I lean toward Old Earth Creationism, and certainly intelligent design. The "spiritual" argument between creation and evolution as I see it, mostly comes down to a question of timing and methodology used by God.
Not really. I originally was taught evolution as theory, and not as science, and the many problems with it were obvious. So I never really took it seriously. It's only recently as I've watched the academic world being forced to embrace it as fact that I've asked myself--now why would they do that? And, I've decided it was done to impact how children think about themselves. In short, it's a subtle form of propaganda.
Quote from: Molly on February 12, 2009, 03:57:54 AM
Quote from: Doc on February 12, 2009, 03:08:36 AM
Quote from: Molly on February 12, 2009, 02:59:01 AM
QuotePeople are always saying the theory of evolution is a fact, there is no God..
and I'm just sitting there thinking.. huh?
Even IF the THEORY of evolution were to become a FACT, how does that mean there is no God?
I never understood that.
Because--either you are a glorified monkey, evolved from prehistoric slime, by accident, without purpose, here have a banana, grunt!--
or
You were created by God discretely, with a purpose, in his image and likeness, just like the Bible says.
Big difference in how you think of yourself and the existence of God.
The problem is that you, like most Christians, see this as an either/ or thing; partially by creating a caricature of the current evolutionary position.
Now personally, I'm on the fence with regard to macroevolution, and I lean toward Old Earth Creationism, and certainly intelligent design. The "spiritual" argument between creation and evolution as I see it, mostly comes down to a question of timing and methodology used by God.
Not really. I originally was taught evolution as theory, and not as science, and the many problems with it were obvious. So I never really took it seriously. It's only recently as I've watched the academic world being forced to embrace it as fact that I've asked myself--now why would they do that? And, I've decided it was done to impact how children think about themselves. In short, it's a subtle form of propaganda.
Y'know, Molly... I've actually thought about that, too... and wondered.
With all the rest of the propaganda out in society (which is a whole other can-o-worms), it does make sense... this is just one more thing to add to the list.
oy.. back up on my fence to sit and ponder..
Quote from: Molly on February 12, 2009, 02:59:01 AM
QuotePeople are always saying the theory of evolution is a fact, there is no God..
and I'm just sitting there thinking.. huh?
Even IF the THEORY of evolution were to become a FACT, how does that mean there is no God?
I never understood that.
Because--either you are a glorified monkey, evolved from prehistoric slime, by accident, without purpose, here have a banana, grunt!--
or
You were created by God discretely, with a purpose, in his image and likeness, just like the Bible says.
Big difference in how you think of yourself and the existence of God.
Irrevalent, however we got here has nothing to do with Gods love. Nothing at all. Gods love superceeds it all.
It is about a system of belief emotionally abusing people by making them think they have the only interpretation for worth.
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on February 12, 2009, 06:32:59 AM
Quote from: Molly on February 12, 2009, 02:59:01 AM
QuotePeople are always saying the theory of evolution is a fact, there is no God..
and I'm just sitting there thinking.. huh?
Even IF the THEORY of evolution were to become a FACT, how does that mean there is no God?
I never understood that.
Because--either you are a glorified monkey, evolved from prehistoric slime, by accident, without purpose, here have a banana, grunt!--
or
You were created by God discretely, with a purpose, in his image and likeness, just like the Bible says.
Big difference in how you think of yourself and the existence of God.
Irrevalent, however we got here has nothing to do with Gods love. Nothing at all. Gods love superceeds it all.
It is about a system of belief emotionally abusing people by making them think they have the only interpretation for worth.
All the systems of the world abuse people--whether you are made to feel like a monkey, a heretic, or an outcast. Even the in group is always in danger of speedy disappearance.
But, his kingdom is not of this world--although I'm praying for it to be...
True molly, you can find abuses everywhere you turn, thats why Gods love superceeds them all when you remove the fight for supremecy in theology and control.
Real spirituality at it's core does not need science to verify anything at all.
Science at it's core has proven to develop things that work and are tangible in our physical lives and does not threaten anything religious or spiritual except ridiculous dogma, that is all it threatens.
Quote from: martincisneros on February 12, 2009, 02:15:29 AM
http://www.reasons.org (http://www.reasons.org) Ignore their "statement of faith." They're great scientists though they're still trapped by the ET myth of separation.
I've read several books by Hugh Ross and none of them speaks about ET. His books are nice reading.
QuoteEvolution is fact. Things evolve, nature evolves...this has been proven.
With so many types of evolution you should specify what type of evolution.
QuoteBecause--either you are a glorified monkey, evolved from prehistoric slime, by accident, without purpose, here have a banana, grunt!--
or
You were created by God discretely, with a purpose, in his image and likeness, just like the Bible says.
Come on Molly! You surely know there are more options.
Like glorified monkey, evolved from prehistoric slime, from a process that was started by God.
or
Any other type of evolution started by God.
Do you believe we are stardust Molly? Do you believe God literally molded Adam from literal clay? Or is that a very simplified statement for a very complex process. (evolution starts in the soil)
To (partly) repeat myselef from a few posts back....
Darwinism is a hoax.
I believe in other forms of evolution that are actually possible according to science.
That evolution doesn't make the Bible make stupid.
A millenia old book that was written by drunken inbreed nomads (Bible summarized by atheists) is talking about things sciences figured out a few years back. Then either those where really smart nomads. Or the big One does exist....
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on February 12, 2009, 08:03:44 AM
True molly, you can find abuses everywhere you turn, thats why Gods love superceeds them all when you remove the fight for supremecy in theology and control.
Real spirituality at it's core does not need science to verify anything at all.
Science at it's core has proven to develop things that work and are tangible in our physical lives and does not threaten anything religious or spiritual except ridiculous dogma, that is all it threatens.
Let me try a different approach because I'm not successfully communicating what I really want to say.
There is a reason why the first modern scientists came out of the reformation. People like Isaac Newton and Kepler spent as much time on what we might call religion as they did on science. To them, science was another way to discover God by studying his creation. The reformation gave them the freedom to do this. They were in pursuit of God and thus in pursuit of truth, because to the believer those are one and the same thing.
Many of them did run smack into an entrenched religious system that was desperately trying to hold onto a power that was quickly eroding away. And, so, what looked like a war developed between science and religion. But, there is no intrinsic war between the two-- Because science will always lead to what an atheist might call the unknowable and the believer will call God.
What we call science today is a highly controlled and secretive business. We scarcely know the progress of the last century which has been mostly conducted behind closed doors for the benefit of a few over the many. And, real scientists like Newton and Kepler have been replaced by myths like Darwin and Einstein.
Look what I just found lol
There was an ancient monkey
With a long and curly tail
This ape evolved into a man
He's teaching now at Yale
A chimp could pass for upper class
In gloves and a cravat
---Richard Milner, Darwin in song--Nytimes/video [on youtube]
To celebrate the 150th anniversary of the publication of "On the Origin of the Species"
When scientists found a language center in the brain--that the human brain is hardwired for language--it was hailed as a great discovery. Now scientists have discovered that the human brain is also hardwired for God, and the evolutionists and atheists are tearing out their hair trying to explain it away. rofl
But, no matter, -- it looks like--we are born believers...
Much of that evidence comes from experiments carried out on children, who are seen as revealing a "default state" of the mind that persists, albeit in modified form, into adulthood. "Children the world over have a strong natural receptivity to believing in gods because of the way their minds work, and this early developing receptivity continues to anchor our intuitive thinking throughout life," says anthropologist Justin Barrett of the University of Oxford.
.....
Based on these and other experiments, Bering considers a belief in some form of life apart from that experienced in the body to be the default setting of the human brain. Education and experience teach us to override it, but it never truly leaves us, he says
......
These cognitive biases are so strong, says Petrovich, that children tend to spontaneously invent the concept of god without adult intervention: "They rely on their everyday experience of the physical world and construct the concept of god on the basis of this experience." Because of this, when children hear the claims of religion they seem to make perfect sense.
......
Even so, religion is an inescapable artefact of the wiring in our brain, says Bloom. "All humans possess the brain circuitry and that never goes away." Petrovich adds that even adults who describe themselves as atheists and agnostics are prone to supernatural thinking. Bering has seen this too. When one of his students carried out interviews with atheists, it became clear that they often tacitly attribute purpose to significant or traumatic moments in their lives, as if some agency were intervening to make it happen. "They don't completely exorcise the ghost of god - they just muzzle it," Bering says.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126941.700-born-believers-how-your-brain-creates-god.html
Quote from: Molly on February 12, 2009, 08:43:31 AM
What we call science today is a highly controlled and secretive business. We scarcely know the progress of the last century which has been mostly conducted behind closed doors for the benefit of a few over the many. And, real scientists like Newton and Kepler have been replaced by myths like Darwin and Einstein.
Well, Molly, there is actually nothing preventing Christian scientists from giving the world their discoveries, so exactly what are they discovering that will change the world as we know it?
I mean they have websites, no one has closed them down, so what is there that will make our lives better? Have they proven God and are just keeping it from the world? Where is their science for God?
The fact that they fail to replace mainstream science in the schools is miniscule to the actual freedom they have from sharing this vast knowledge they have with the world.
What exactly is that?
Quote from: Molly on February 12, 2009, 12:12:22 PM
When scientists found a language center in the brain--that the human brain is hardwired for language--it was hailed as a great discovery. Now scientists have discovered that the human brain is also hardwired for God, and the evolutionists and atheists are tearing out their hair trying to explain it away. rofl
But, no matter, -- it looks like--we are born believers...
What you really find is if you have enough conversations on a casual basis and not just debate, argument, mocking and sarcasm is that atheists do not inherantly reject the basic idea of God. They reject the mainstream christian outlook that they are going to go to hell because they do not measure up to the christian interpretation of the bible.
You can poke fun at dawkins, which pokes fun at Christianity, but if a person actually listens, it is the idea that in their realm Dawkins is going to spend an eternity in hell because he believes what he does. Christians cannot prove God exists only gather evidence to point to the assertion rather than the evidence predicting an invisible intelligent entity exists. Christians cannot prove there is an eternal hell, they can only point at an intepretation and assert it's truth regardless of the evidence.
But all those out there, the Christian scientists, the christian professors, the christian seminars it all has the undertow that there is this battle for the soul and it all is surrounded by the battle between an eternal hell and heaven.
So the Christians have invented a battle that does not really exist in the first place. That battle, that imaginary plain is all that is being challenged and I am glad that it is challenged.
The problem is though, then the battle become real in a society to protect reason and sensibility and keep dogmatic ridiculousness from taking over.
The only thing thats really at stake here from a religious perspective is eternal torment when it comes down to it.
Quote from: WhiteWings on February 12, 2009, 08:14:16 AM
QuoteEvolution is fact. Things evolve, nature evolves...this has been proven.
With so many types of evolution you should specify what type of evolution.
Evolution: Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
I grabbed the following off of wikipedia.. I guess this is basically what I was thinking of when I said "
Evolution is fact, things evolve, nature evolves"
QuoteAdaptations are structures or behaviors that enhance a specific function, causing organisms to become better at surviving and reproducing.[7] They are produced by a combination of the continuous production of small, random changes in traits, followed by natural selection of the variants best-suited for their environment.[101] This process can cause either the gain of a new feature, or the loss of an ancestral feature. An example that shows both types of change is bacterial adaptation to antibiotic selection, with genetic changes causing antibiotic resistance by both modifying the target of the drug, or increasing the activity of transporters that pump the drug out of the cell.[102] Other striking examples are the bacteria Escherichia coli evolving the ability to use citric acid as a nutrient in a long-term laboratory experiment,[103] Flavobacterium evolving a novel enzyme that allows these bacteria to grow on the by-products of nylon manufacturing,[104][105] and the soil bacterium Sphingobium evolving an entirely new metabolic pathway that degrades the synthetic pesticide pentachlorophenol.[106][107]
However, many traits that appear to be simple adaptations are in fact exaptations: structures originally adapted for one function, but which coincidentally became somewhat useful for some other function in the process.[108] One example is the African lizard Holaspis guentheri, which developed an extremely flat head for hiding in crevices, as can be seen by looking at its near relatives. However, in this species, the head has become so flattened that it assists in gliding from tree to tree—an exaptation.[108] Another is the recruitment of enzymes from glycolysis and xenobiotic metabolism to serve as structural proteins called crystallins within the lenses of organisms' eyes.[109
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDITED TO ADD: WhiteWings, hey brother (or sister??) I'm not talking about you at all in my next paragraphs! I went back and read what I posted and I thought to myself "Wow, that totally sounds like I'm passive aggresively directing this to WW!!! NOT AT ALL, BRO! (or sis.) :icon_flower: I was just sitting here for about 10 minutes thinking about this whole debate, and those that believe in eternal torment, and just basically thinking of a few people in my own life..
It seems like there are people in this world who are afraid of science for fear that it may disprove God. To me, science is more the study of God, moreso than any religion in this world. If I believe in a Creator... how can science NOT be the study of the Creator? Science studies the creation. Now, people who don't believe in God may not see it that way, and that's perfectly fine. Because of what I believe about God, I can secretly in my heart delight in the thought that there is a wonderful surprise waiting for them. God. God is behind the things that they are studying. I find a lot of joy in that.
And to think, there are those that condemn the scientist who doesn't believe in God, tell him he is going to suffer hellfire for all eternity... sheesh. If people would see that God is love, they would just let the scientist alone, let him walk his own path.
Quote from: sparrow on February 12, 2009, 04:25:44 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on February 12, 2009, 08:14:16 AM
QuoteEvolution is fact. Things evolve, nature evolves...this has been proven.
With so many types of evolution you should specify what type of evolution.
Evolution: Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
That type of evolution I don't believe in. It's quite well debunked too. Meaning by science. Not by YECs.
I believe in another type of evolution. The links Martin posted lean towards the type of evolution I believe in.
Modern science instead of old 'science' of Darwin.
QuoteIt seems like there are people in this world who are afraid of science for fear that it may disprove God.
I'm very sure of that.
For me science does more to prove God than to disprove Him.
In fact that's a big part of the reason I'm hear. So I don't fear science. Neither does God because He's the first scientist of all.
Quote from: WhiteWings on February 12, 2009, 04:43:21 PM
That type of evolution I don't believe in. It's quite well debunked too. Meaning by science. Not by YECs.
I believe in another type of evolution. The links Martin posted lean towards the type of evolution I believe in.
Modern science instead of old 'science' of Darwin.
hmm. I'll have to go check out those links. Now I'm wondering if maybe I'm confused as to what the heck I'm talking about here when I say "evolution" :dontknow: Ignorance sucks. :laughing7: Let me go do some reading..
QuoteFor me science does more to prove God than to disprove Him.
In fact that's a big part of the reason I'm hear. So I don't fear science. Neither does God because He's the first scientist of all.
I'm right there with ya.
Quote from: WhiteWings on February 12, 2009, 04:43:21 PM
I believe in another type of evolution. The links Martin posted lean towards the type of evolution I believe in.
Modern science instead of old 'science' of Darwin.
Hey, can you expand on this?
The Miller experiment shows that life can begin out of nothing. That's the start or Darwin evolution.
But it's proved that the conditions of that experiment where..... a hoax.
But let ignore that for now. Darwinian evolution is about a huge amout tiny steps leading to something new.
Problem is fossilised micro organisms are found from just after the earth cooled down. (3.3 billion years ago) To soon for Darwinism.
Then there was no evolution for a very long time. Then, suddenly, the Cambrian explosion. Suddenly (few million years) many species appear in the fossile layers. Much much to fast for Darwinsm.
Lets ignore that too and give Darwin the benefit of doubt. He really believed the missing links between mankind and apes. Or even further back can be found. And how many links have been found? Zero.
Insects show up after birds, rodents and sea mammals
If life created itself by random processes more randomness in cell can be expected. Yet every species is is 'build' from the same 20 amino acid.
The chance that a single protein developed is is 1:10^110. That would require 10^90 grams of carbon. The universe only contains 6x10^27 grams
If things evolve one would expect more and more complex cells.
Complexity: Corn 20, mouse 40, human 46, potato 48 chromosomes.
Several forms of single-celled algae have more than 100x more DNA per cell as mammals.
So I don't believe in Darwian evolution.
I don't really know what type of evolution I do believe in. Or even of that type has a name. The things I mentioned above almost point to no evolution at all.
Some say the layout of later life was already locked inside early life.
Darwinism is macro evolotution fish -> dog for example.
Ofcourse there is micro evolution. Like animals adapting to climate/food change. But that are minor adaptions for which the blue-print are already dormant in the genes.
Another thing is how can transition form survive?
Many animals are highly specialized. When mutating to something else it looses that edge and goes extinct.
Finally if so many species evolved from slime into millions of species why don't we never see something new appear?
A nice book on the subject: http://www.amazon.com/Icons-Evolution-Science-Teach-About/dp/0895262002/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234455480&sr=8-1
Light reading but informative. (doesn't speak at religion at all)
Ok, thanks Tony. I think I'm pretty much on the same page as you, or at least a similar page, anyway.
QuoteOf course there is micro evolution. Like animals adapting to climate/food change. But that are minor adaptions for which the blue-print are already dormant in the genes.
ok, that's what I was talking about I guess... "micro evolution".
Quote from: WhiteWings on February 12, 2009, 06:19:35 PM
Ofcourse there is micro evolution. Like animals adapting to climate/food change. But that are minor adaptions for which the blue-print are already dormant in the genes.
Good point... :gthumbsup:. This explains a lot in a sensible way...
Quote from: WhiteWings on February 12, 2009, 06:19:35 PM
I don't really know what type of evolution I do believe in. Or even of that type has a name.
Belief is really not a factor in whether something is scientifically valid or not.
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on February 12, 2009, 07:54:06 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on February 12, 2009, 06:19:35 PM
I don't really know what type of evolution I do believe in. Or even of that type has a name.
Belief is really not a factor in whether something is scientifically valid or not.
For Darwinists it is because they sure don't have any proof. That's why I keep calling it a religion.
But everything points to life appearing discretely, just like it does in the Bible. It's the difference between analogue and digital. You keep mentioning Christian scientists and how they are welcome to compete, and I keep telling you that no one who denies Darwin, Christian or not, is allowed to compete. If you can't get the job in the big university or the funding, or if you are fired, you cannot compete. That is one reason why I am objecting to a bailout which is tied to controlling free speech and freedom of religion. Science can only flourish (by definition) in an atmosphere of total freedom.
wow what if science really did prove the existence of God--as it is doing behind the scenes today--do you really think they would allow that to be known in this atmosphere of religious and expressive oppression? Darwin and Einstein, their fraud scientism gods, would never be reverred as they are, in an atmosphere of free speech.
Bet you didn't know we are back in the dark ages, did you? -- Even though you transport yourself every day from here to there in 100 year old technology. You haven't noticed? :laughing7:
Quote from: Molly on February 12, 2009, 08:43:31 AM
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on February 12, 2009, 08:03:44 AM
True molly, you can find abuses everywhere you turn, thats why Gods love superceeds them all when you remove the fight for supremecy in theology and control.
Real spirituality at it's core does not need science to verify anything at all.
Science at it's core has proven to develop things that work and are tangible in our physical lives and does not threaten anything religious or spiritual except ridiculous dogma, that is all it threatens.
Let me try a different approach because I'm not successfully communicating what I really want to say.
There is a reason why the first modern scientists came out of the reformation. People like Isaac Newton and Kepler spent as much time on what we might call religion as they did on science. To them, science was another way to discover God by studying his creation. The reformation gave them the freedom to do this. They were in pursuit of God and thus in pursuit of truth, because to the believer those are one and the same thing.
Many of them did run smack into an entrenched religious system that was desperately trying to hold onto a power that was quickly eroding away. And, so, what looked like a war developed between science and religion. But, there is no intrinsic war between the two-- Because science will always lead to what an atheist might call the unknowable and the believer will call God.
What we call science today is a highly controlled and secretive business. We scarcely know the progress of the last century which has been mostly conducted behind closed doors for the benefit of a few over the many. And, real scientists like Newton and Kepler have been replaced by myths like Darwin and Einstein.
I do understand what you're getting at Molly, I really do. There are so many things that are abused (used for the wrong reasons) these days. Both science and religion have been manipulated to promote agendas. I'm just trying to provide some balance by saying: don't blame the tool, blame those who misuse it.
Quote from: PaulWhat you really find is if you have enough conversations on a casual basis and not just debate, argument, mocking and sarcasm is that atheists do not inherantly reject the basic idea of God. They reject the mainstream christian outlook that they are going to go to hell because they do not measure up to the christian interpretation of the bible.
Atheists really do not believe in God. And, they call anyone who does believe in God stupid. Believe me, I know, I'm surrounded by them.
If you have doubts, you are no longer atheist, you are agnostic.
Quote from: Molly on February 12, 2009, 08:23:01 PM
For Darwinists it is because they sure don't have any proof. That's why I keep calling it a religion.
The proof that is demanded is a false assertion.
Quote
You keep mentioning Christian scientists and how they are welcome to compete, and I keep telling you that no one who denies Darwin, Christian or not, is allowed to compete.
Christians have their scientists and their publications and their research. What exactly are they kept from doing. What exactly have they proven that should cause people to not rely on a basic formulation for trying to determine something.
You say einstein is a myth, please explain in your own understanding why you think this.
Quote
If you can't get the job in the big university or the funding
The Christians collect billions of dollars in the offering plates, they have no excuses such as this. This is a cop out.
Quote
wow what if science really did prove the existence of God
Come on, Christian scientists believe God exists, where is their scientific formula for it? They do not need public funding to present this "Scientific fact".
Quote
Bet you didn't know we are back in the dark ages, did you? -- Even though you transport yourself every day from here to there in 100 year old technology. You haven't noticed? :laughing7:
I wonder if you dropped the accusations and sarcasm what you would have left to present in a scientific nature?
Quote from: Molly on February 12, 2009, 08:30:54 PM
Quote from: PaulWhat you really find is if you have enough conversations on a casual basis and not just debate, argument, mocking and sarcasm is that atheists do not inherantly reject the basic idea of God. They reject the mainstream christian outlook that they are going to go to hell because they do not measure up to the christian interpretation of the bible.
Atheists really do not believe in God. And, they call anyone who does believe in God stupid. Believe me, I know, I'm surrounded by them.
If you have doubts, you are no longer atheist, you are agnostic.
Not really that just convenient labeling. Maybe if an atheist thought a person wanted to just share ideas rather than being seen as some person who is beneath a believer they would loosen up a bit.
Quote from: PaulI wonder if you dropped the accusations and sarcasm what you would have left to present in a scientific nature?
That is not sarcasm. It's the truth. You are using 100 year old technology to transport yourself from here to there. Why is that? Have you ever asked yourself that question?
Atheists want to share ideas? I believe in God. They know this and that is all they know about me. They have no idea what flavor of God I believe in, although they know it is Christian. They aggressively deny God of any flavor. This is tied into their need to believe they are the most important beings in the universe.
You probably think that Einstein is the most brilliant scientist to ever live. His name is synomous with 'genius.' Then explain to me why he was never given the Noble Prize for the one thing that his name is associated with --special relativity. Could it be because those were not his ideas at all? Could it be because he took the philosophical and theoretical ideas of scientists before him and called them his own? That's called plagerism where I live. But, if they can convince you that a man is really a monkey in disguise, they should have no trouble convincing you that a high school drop out patent clerk is the smartest man that ever lived.
Quote from: sparrowIt seems like there are people in this world who are afraid of science for fear that it may disprove God. To me, science is more the study of God, moreso than any religion in this world. If I believe in a Creator... how can science NOT be the study of the Creator? Science studies the creation. Now, people who don't believe in God may not see it that way, and that's perfectly fine. Because of what I believe about God, I can secretly in my heart delight in the thought that there is a wonderful surprise waiting for them. God. God is behind the things that they are studying. I find a lot of joy in that.
And to think, there are those that condemn the scientist who doesn't believe in God, tell him he is going to suffer hellfire for all eternity... sheesh. If people would see that God is love, they would just let the scientist alone, let him walk his own path.
Hi Sparrow--what you are describing is really a war for the minds of men. You are saying you could win that war with love, if only you could get that message out.
But, these things don't just 'happen.' They are carefully orchestrated. If you want to know satan, study the history of ideas, and then you will see what you are really up against.
The hardest thing we might ever do is escape the prison we have been put into within our own minds.
Quote from: Molly on February 12, 2009, 08:48:19 PM
This is tied into their need to believe they are the most important beings in the universe.
Well that contradicts the assertion that evolution makes them think they are nothing.
Quote
You probably think that Einstein is the most brilliant scientist to ever live.
Why do you think I probably think that? Like I said before.....
Quote
His name is synomous with 'genius.'
Well, people all over taker pride in their IQ score, so what?
Quote
But, if they can convince you that a man is really a monkey in disguise, they should have no trouble convincing you that a high school drop out patent clerk is the smartest man that ever lived.
ok, like I said before.........
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on February 12, 2009, 07:54:06 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on February 12, 2009, 06:19:35 PM
I don't really know what type of evolution I do believe in. Or even of that type has a name.
Belief is really not a factor in whether something is scientifically valid or not.
It's just a way of expression Paul....
It's just like I
believe you are a male from the USA instead of a female from Sweden. I didn't meet you first hand.
Neither did I do the experiments/archeology that is relevant to evolution.
When it is proved a scientific theory is fake; the only conclusion you can draw that theory is fake.
It doesn't mean you proved another theory.
QuoteWell that contradicts the assertion that evolution makes them think they are nothing.
Not really. Human psychology is funny that way. Or maybe it is just animal psychology. The most insecure human portrays himself as the most important and powerful. Just like a scared cat puffs himself up with hair. Or like an insecure dog becomes a 'fear biter.'
Quote from: Molly on February 12, 2009, 08:48:19 PM
Quote from: PaulI wonder if you dropped the accusations and sarcasm what you would have left to present in a scientific nature?
That is not sarcasm. It's the truth. You are using 100 year old technology to transport yourself from here to there. Why is that? Have you ever asked yourself that question?
Yep. and the answer is affordability and reliability and safety.
Where is this vast Christian wealth being put to good use, if all these Christian scientists are the REAL scientists then what have they developed, what are they knowledgable of that the rest of the evil mythical scientists are hiding?
I'd say it is time for christianity to put up or shut up. Where is their science and what does it have to offer along these lines? If your going to talk about science and modern day technology, then provide your examples and not your excuses, sarcasm and accusations.
Quote from: Doc on February 12, 2009, 08:26:41 PM
I do understand what you're getting at Molly, I really do. There are so many things that are abused (used for the wrong reasons) these days. Both science and religion have been manipulated to promote agendas. I'm just trying to provide some balance by saying: don't blame the tool, blame those who misuse it.
I certainly agree with that Doc.
But I want to add that, for me it's clear that, Darwinism is a false tool.
It's proved to be fake by scientific other tools. Not by religion.
I strongly feel the enemity between religion and science has a lot to do with it.
Quote from: Molly on February 12, 2009, 09:34:59 PM
Or like an insecure dog becomes a 'fear biter.'
True, I'll go along with that, kinda like a christian who gets their theology threatened by a mythical scientist.
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on February 12, 2009, 09:39:19 PM
Quote from: Molly on February 12, 2009, 09:34:59 PM
Or like an insecure dog becomes a 'fear biter.'
True, I'll go along with that, kinda like a christian who gets their theology threatened by a mythical scientist.
I am really having trouble understanding you. Where has anyone said that Christians are threatened by science? No one has said that. In fact, real science is the Christian's best friend. Have you heard what whitewings has said?
Quote from: PaulYep. and the answer is affordability and reliability and safety.
And you know this how? Last I checked a car costs minimum around 20K. And, 50,000 people a year die in them.
But, seriously, look at the advances in airplanes in the last hundred years. I mean the ones we know about.
Don't you think we could do a little better than we have done?
Or look at the advances in biology in the last hundred years. I mean the ones we know about.
Don't you think it makes the current geopolitical climate around oil look stupid?
Meanwhile we still bop around town in a glorified model T.
Quote from: WhiteWings on February 12, 2009, 09:38:13 PM
Quote from: Doc on February 12, 2009, 08:26:41 PM
I do understand what you're getting at Molly, I really do. There are so many things that are abused (used for the wrong reasons) these days. Both science and religion have been manipulated to promote agendas. I'm just trying to provide some balance by saying: don't blame the tool, blame those who misuse it.
I certainly agree with that Doc.
But I want to add that, for me it's clear that, Darwinism is a false tool.
It's proved to be fake by scientific other tools. Not by religion.
I strongly feel the enemity between religion and science has a lot to do with it.
Well, sure. Darwinism itself is quite flawed.
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on February 12, 2009, 09:38:07 PM
Quote from: Molly on February 12, 2009, 08:48:19 PM
Quote from: PaulI wonder if you dropped the accusations and sarcasm what you would have left to present in a scientific nature?
That is not sarcasm. It's the truth. You are using 100 year old technology to transport yourself from here to there. Why is that? Have you ever asked yourself that question?
Yep. and the answer is affordability and reliability and safety.
Where is this vast Christian wealth being put to good use, if all these Christian scientists are the REAL scientists then what have they developed, what are they knowledgable of that the rest of the evil mythical scientists are hiding?
I'd say it is time for christianity to put up or shut up. Where is their science and what does it have to offer along these lines? If your going to talk about science and modern day technology, then provide your examples and not your excuses, sarcasm and accusations.
The first question is how many Christian scientist are there? Owning a Bible doesn't make you a real Christian that goes on, ahum, crusade.
Is the field they do research in relavant to in the religious debate?
Christian scientists can only prove something is false but not prove God exists.
A scientist needs to leave his religion home (I hope you understand that translated expression)
A scientist is a fact finder not a dream promotor.
Quote from: Molly on February 12, 2009, 09:46:39 PM
Quote from: PaulYep. and the answer is affordability and reliability and safety.
And you know this how? Last I checked a car costs minimum around 20K. And, 50,000 people a year die in them.
But, seriously, look at the advances in airplanes in the last hundred years. I mean the ones we know about.
Don't you think we could do a little better than we have done?
Or look at the advances in biology in the last hundred years. I mean the ones we know about.
Don't you think it makes the current geopolitical climate around oil look stupid?
Meanwhile we still bop around town in a glorified model T.
My argument is not against the climate for better technology, or the hope to get rid of the need for fossil fuels
If these real scientists that you support have something to offer the world , then they really have no excuses, not today, not with the billions of dollars Christians have at their disposal to actually prove something if they believe that can.
They need to stop making excuses if indeed they are the real deal and their way of science is better.
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on February 12, 2009, 10:00:25 PM
My argument is not against the climate for better technology, or the hope to get rid of the need for fossil fuels
If these real scientists that you support have something to offer the world , then they really have no excuses, not today, not with the billions of dollars Christians have at their disposal to actually prove something if they believe that can.
They need to stop making excuses if indeed they are the real deal and their way of science is better.
Science is a funded activity Paul...
Does Christianity really hav eto spend billions of dollars? Not much of it is cash. Many Christians rather spend that cash on charity or spreading the word.
A fair share of Christian $ from into the pockets of the TV-preachers. Is it just me or are they serving a god named greed?
So little funding from them too. And not to forget: how many have the balls to swim upstream?
Quote from: WhiteWings on February 12, 2009, 10:16:12 PM
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on February 12, 2009, 10:00:25 PM
My argument is not against the climate for better technology, or the hope to get rid of the need for fossil fuels
If these real scientists that you support have something to offer the world , then they really have no excuses, not today, not with the billions of dollars Christians have at their disposal to actually prove something if they believe that can.
They need to stop making excuses if indeed they are the real deal and their way of science is better.
Science is a funded activity Paul...
Does Christianity really hav eto spend billions of dollars? Not much of it is cash. Many Christians rather spend that cash on charity or spreading the word.
A fair share of Christian $ from into the pockets of the TV-preachers. Is it just me or are they serving a god named greed?
So little funding from them too. And not to forget: how many have the balls to swim upstream?
Like I said, they need to put up or shut up.
All that is just excuses. Maybe they do serve a God named Greed, but that irrevalent.
While these people rake in the money from those who think they are saving souls from an eternal hell they sit on their pile of money critisizing and offering the world little more than that in terms of science.
If mainstream science is this great myth that molly implies, then they need to offer the world something substantial enough to prove it.
They demand proof, why can't they deliver it?
Quote from: Molly on February 12, 2009, 09:41:52 PM
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on February 12, 2009, 09:39:19 PM
Quote from: Molly on February 12, 2009, 09:34:59 PM
Or like an insecure dog becomes a 'fear biter.'
True, I'll go along with that, kinda like a christian who gets their theology threatened by a mythical scientist.
I am really having trouble understanding you. Where has anyone said that Christians are threatened by science? No one has said that. In fact, real science is the Christian's best friend. Have you heard what whitewings has said?
LOL, sorry molly, saying "real science" is avoiding the issue.
Mainstream science supports the theory of evolution, it is irrevalent to say it is fake or whatever. Evolution gets the christians all into fear biting mode because they are threatened.
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on February 12, 2009, 10:26:15 PM
LOL, sorry molly, saying "real science" is avoiding the issue.
Science without proof is no science. Where is the proof of the Darwin type of evolution?
Plus that other fields of science hint that Darwinism isn't true.
I write 'hint' because it isn't realy research that is aimed at figuring out evolution.
But a 'side-effect' of for example medical research and gentech.
QuoteMainstream science supports the theory of evolution,
Really. Not from what I have read about it. Same goes for the 2 articles Martin posted.
You must take care not to confuse scientific evidence with a Darwin news hype.
I don't know when sparrow found that article from the Vatican but is it a coincidence it's close to Darwins birthday.
Today is his birthday and full pages in newspapers are spend on telling us a little about the life and work of Darwin.
Quoteis irrevalent to say it is fake or whatever.
If not proven it's indeed irrevant from a scientific view.
QuoteEvolution gets the christians all into fear biting mode because they are threatened.
I'm sure that's true for many. But certainly not for all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_DNA -> especially the "Female inheritance" chapter
"mitochondria are normally inherited exclusively from the mother"
"The fact that mitochondrial DNA is maternally inherited enables researchers to trace maternal lineage far back in time."
"The concept of the Mitochondrial Eve is based on the same type of analysis, attempting to discover the origin of humanity by tracking the lineage back in time."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
The key of whole the story is this. Take a random living woman. Race is not relevant. She traces back a long long time.
But never to, for example, apes.
So what this proves?
Perhaps between now and Eve the looks have changed. That's even a fact because wasn't black and white at the same time to mention one thing. But the change is looks never traces back to the wife of King Kong :laughing7:
This is just one thing that disproves Darwin type of evolution. Why? Well.... because mtDNA passes on unchanged 'we' should also find in in apes and even fish. But there it isn't found...
Quote from: WhiteWings on February 12, 2009, 11:01:37 PM
Science without proof is no science.
What is considered proof?
What is the proof God exists, after all, christian scientists maintain there science is valid as opposed to evolution.
Evolutionary theory has a broad range of things and macro evolution has nothing to do with a fish turning into a dog, that is the hype. It is scientific observations that form a conclusion that can be falsified. Direct observance is not required. Saying it is false does not make it true, pointing out that the observations do not add up is a factor of falsification.
So then the people point out, God cannot be directly observed. That would be fine, if christians could allow for the fact that perhaps "Allah" is the creator or we were placed here already alive by an alien life form. It all is consistant with scientific conclusions.
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on February 12, 2009, 11:12:47 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on February 12, 2009, 11:01:37 PM
Science without proof is no science.
What is considered proof?
Humm, not so easy to answer.
Useally I would say it can be reproduced in every test. But that's a bit hard for a proces that is claimed to be random and takes millions of years.
QuoteWhat is the proof God exists, after all, christian scientists maintain there science is valid as opposed to evolution.
I think you mistunderstood me Paul.
Proving Darwinism is a hoax doesn't proof God exists. Surely you find people who claim they proved God.
I'm not one of them. But I have to admit that my
feeling is that 'open ends' in many scientific fields (like it's impossible the Big Bang occurred but it did) point a little to God.
But let's say that's my personal religion. I by no way make a claim I can prove God.
QuoteEvolutionary theory has a broad range of things and macro evolution has nothing to do with a fish turning into a dog, that is the hype.
Possibly we have different defenitions for macro evolution?
Or what Darwin actually theorized.
In my understanding he indeed suggested that a fish turn into a dog after many steps. Or not?
QuoteSo then the people point out, God cannot be directly observed. That would be fine, if christians could allow for the fact that perhaps "Allah" is the creator or we were placed here already alive by an alien life form. It all is consistant with scientific conclusions.
What do you mean with 'consitant with scientific conclusions'?
The problem with God is you can't prove Him with science. But neither can you disprove Him.
Even if we have knowledge of every atom in the universe. When we reached the point even a child knows all science there is to be know in the universe. Then we can only look back till the big bang. We still can't prove what was before/'outside' the big bang
That's just it, isn't it? Science is a useful tool, but it can only measure what can be measured. You can't use it to prove or disprove God, because you can't "measure" God. The arguments that arise between Science and Christianity come mainly from comparing apples and oranges, so to speak, once the agenda-pushing is swept aside.
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on February 12, 2009, 11:12:47 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on February 12, 2009, 11:01:37 PM
Science without proof is no science.
What is considered proof?
What is the proof God exists, after all, christian scientists maintain there science is valid as opposed to evolution.
Evolutionary theory has a broad range of things and macro evolution has nothing to do with a fish turning into a dog, that is the hype. It is scientific observations that form a conclusion that can be falsified. Direct observance is not required. Saying it is false does not make it true, pointing out that the observations do not add up is a factor of falsification.
So then the people point out, God cannot be directly observed. That would be fine, if christians could allow for the fact that perhaps "Allah" is the creator or we were placed here already alive by an alien life form. It all is consistant with scientific conclusions.
Paul, please. I have my beliefs. I do not have to allow for the fact that Allah might be the creator or some alien life form. I do not have to do that. My beliefs are my own. Freedom of religion, remember? I do not have to be accomodating to the beliefs of another, other than to allow them to believe their own thing in freedom. I do not have to believe in the religion of relativism or the religion of secularism or the religion of scientism. Those are other religions. I do not have to be double minded to please a bunch of relativists.
Darwinism and monkey to man is being taught as fact right now to our children with my public funds. It is a lie. It should not be funded by the gov't, especially to the exclusion of all other theories of like ilk. Put it where it belongs--in a history class.
Quote from: Molly on February 12, 2009, 11:59:30 PM
Paul, please. I have my beliefs. I do not have to allow for the fact that Allah might be the creator or some alien life form. I do not have to do that.
This isn't about you and your beliefs other than an appearance that evolution threatens them.
Science is not about belief. A christian assertion that evolution is a belief and science is a religion simply is a lie itself, but a lie you don't seem to mind.
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on February 13, 2009, 12:16:14 AM
Quote from: Molly on February 12, 2009, 11:59:30 PM
Paul, please. I have my beliefs. I do not have to allow for the fact that Allah might be the creator or some alien life form. I do not have to do that.
This isn't about you and your beliefs other than an appearance that evolution threatens them.
Science is not about belief. A christian assertion that evolution is a belief and science is a religion simply is a lie itself, but a lie you don't seem to mind.
Evolution does not threaten my beliefs. Lies threaten them. Especially lies taught to children. Lies are my enemy.
Science should not be about beliefs but it has become that. Science was completely corrupted in the 20th century.
The theory of evolution is just one example, although maybe one of the best, of that.
That is the point I am making, and I am sticking to it.
You don't have to be a real Christian to know that evolution is bunk, just a real scientist.
Quote from: Molly on February 13, 2009, 12:19:55 AM
That is the point I am making, and I am sticking to it.
Thats why christians will find such a hard time getting their ideas taken seriously. You make the accusation of a lie when thats not really what is going on. You don't care about a method that really works quite well for discovery and things that become useful to our lives because your belief is more important than being reasonable.
You can believe whatever you want, but please, the oppression complex is getting old. Read the boy who cried wolf.
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on February 13, 2009, 12:34:22 AM
Quote from: Molly on February 13, 2009, 12:19:55 AM
That is the point I am making, and I am sticking to it.
Thats why christians will find such a hard time getting their ideas taken seriously. You make the accusation of a lie when thats not really what is going on. You don't care about a method that really works quite well for discovery and things that become useful to our lives because your belief is more important than being reasonable.
You can believe whatever you want, but please, the oppression complex is getting old. Read the boy who cried wolf.
I am saying these things as a scientist, not as a Christian.
Quote from: Molly on February 12, 2009, 09:17:27 PM
Quote from: sparrowIt seems like there are people in this world who are afraid of science for fear that it may disprove God. To me, science is more the study of God, moreso than any religion in this world. If I believe in a Creator... how can science NOT be the study of the Creator? Science studies the creation. Now, people who don't believe in God may not see it that way, and that's perfectly fine. Because of what I believe about God, I can secretly in my heart delight in the thought that there is a wonderful surprise waiting for them. God. God is behind the things that they are studying. I find a lot of joy in that.
And to think, there are those that condemn the scientist who doesn't believe in God, tell him he is going to suffer hellfire for all eternity... sheesh. If people would see that God is love, they would just let the scientist alone, let him walk his own path.
Hi Sparrow--what you are describing is really a war for the minds of men. You are saying you could win that war with love, if only you could get that message out.
But, these things don't just 'happen.' They are carefully orchestrated. If you want to know satan, study the history of ideas, and then you will see what you are really up against.
The hardest thing we might ever do is escape the prison we have been put into within our own minds.
Molly, I'm afraid we do not see eye to eye on this. I do not believe Satan is some boogeyman out to get everyone. I just don't. I believe Satan is more our carnal nature.
I never said anything about winning any wars.... You put those words in my mouth.
What I am saying... is everyone has a path to walk.
I see human beings who are here on this earth to learn. We are all related. We are brothers and sisters.
An atheist is my brother just as much as someone who believes the same things as me.
Every human being must walk their own path.
I'm not into forcing others down my path or "winning wars".
I'm the same as anyone else... struggling to get to truth.
Some don't struggle, some don't care. Some are too scared to care.
All any one person can DO is share their beliefs, listen to others, and have an open mind with each other.
No-one knows everything.
There is ALWAYS something to learn. (and something to teach.)
We just need to be more open and accepting and loving towards each other, man...
That's it.
Quote from: sparrow on February 13, 2009, 01:22:00 AM
Quote from: Molly on February 12, 2009, 09:17:27 PM
Quote from: sparrowIt seems like there are people in this world who are afraid of science for fear that it may disprove God. To me, science is more the study of God, moreso than any religion in this world. If I believe in a Creator... how can science NOT be the study of the Creator? Science studies the creation. Now, people who don't believe in God may not see it that way, and that's perfectly fine. Because of what I believe about God, I can secretly in my heart delight in the thought that there is a wonderful surprise waiting for them. God. God is behind the things that they are studying. I find a lot of joy in that.
And to think, there are those that condemn the scientist who doesn't believe in God, tell him he is going to suffer hellfire for all eternity... sheesh. If people would see that God is love, they would just let the scientist alone, let him walk his own path.
Hi Sparrow--what you are describing is really a war for the minds of men. You are saying you could win that war with love, if only you could get that message out.
But, these things don't just 'happen.' They are carefully orchestrated. If you want to know satan, study the history of ideas, and then you will see what you are really up against.
The hardest thing we might ever do is escape the prison we have been put into within our own minds.
Molly, I'm afraid we do not see eye to eye on this. I do not believe Satan is some boogeyman out to get everyone. I just don't. I believe Satan is more our carnal nature.
I never said anything about winning any wars.... You put those words in my mouth.
What I am saying... is everyone has a path to walk.
I see human beings who are here on this earth to learn. We are all related. We are brothers and sisters.
An atheist is my brother just as much as someone who believes the same things as me.
Every human being must walk their own path.
I'm not into forcing others down my path or "winning wars".
I'm the same as anyone else... struggling to get to truth.
Some don't struggle, some don't care. Some are too scared to care.
All any one person can DO is share their beliefs, listen to others, and have an open mind with each other.
No-one knows everything.
There is ALWAYS something to learn. (and something to teach.)
We just need to be more open and accepting and loving towards each other, man...
That's it.
That's the way I tend to lean as well, sparrow. I guess I kind of see the adversary as something in between the two extremes we usually see advocated. I think the terms 'principalities, powers and spiritual forces of wickedness in high places' is more along the lines of what we're dealing with as an adversary. In some sense, the adversary is somewhat undefined and undefinable, yet still very real. This is the same type of thing as the spirit of antichrist, and also explains why Jesus could refer to Peter at one point as "satan".
We do tend to get unnecessarily hung up on the personifications that are present in the language of scripture.
Quote from: SparrowI'm the same as anyone else... struggling to get to truth.
That's what I am calling war. You might not think of it as war, but it's the way the bible characterizes it. That is why we are told to put on armour, like soldiers do before they go to battle. Truth is absolute, and rare in the minds of men, and there are forces continually working against it.
11Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
12For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. --Eph 6
Quote from: WhiteWings on February 12, 2009, 11:33:07 PM
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on February 12, 2009, 11:12:47 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on February 12, 2009, 11:01:37 PM
Science without proof is no science.
What is considered proof?
Humm, not so easy to answer.
Useally I would say it can be reproduced in every test. But that's a bit hard for a proces that is claimed to be random and takes millions of years.
I'll try a perspective here to get a better idea what I am talking about.
There was a conclusion at one time the earth was flat, now that we know that is not correct, does that make the conclusion of a flat earth (at the time it was thought to be correct) a"lie", does what we know now prevent the flat earth theory from being valid science (at the time)?
In the 4th century it was proposed that the earth was spherical. How can it be valid science to propose such a thing? They could not observe the earth from space and offer proof, the could not directly prove anything. So how was their theory any more valid than the theory for the "type" of evolution that would take millions of years to directly observe?
Another aspect of science that gets ignored is that the flat earth theory was indeed a "scientific fact" its "truth" is irrevalent to it being one. So when people complain that evolutionary theory is taught as fact, it is indeed a scientific fact, whether it is "true" or not has no bearing on it being one. They just happen to leave off the scientific word in order to twist things.
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on February 13, 2009, 05:27:30 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on February 12, 2009, 11:33:07 PM
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on February 12, 2009, 11:12:47 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on February 12, 2009, 11:01:37 PM
Science without proof is no science.
What is considered proof?
Humm, not so easy to answer.
Useally I would say it can be reproduced in every test. But that's a bit hard for a proces that is claimed to be random and takes millions of years.
There was a conclusion at one time the earth was flat, now that we know that is not correct, does that make the conclusion of a flat earth (at the time it was thought to be correct) a"lie", does what we know now prevent the flat earth theory from being valid science (at the time)?
No it wasn't a lie. Assuming the conclusion wasn't influence by for example church.
I said it something similar earlier in this thread. Darwin himself wasn't very sure about his theory. He dedicated a chapter to that doubt. His theory was wrong. (Perhaps) based on to little evidence to call it science. But it was no hoax. The hoax started later. Not by Darwin himself but others. Heckler is a good example of that. He claimed to have researched embryos of several species in various stages of growth. He doctered his drawings in such a way it looked that the early stages of a several animals including humans looked very similar.
That's a hoax. Or the moth that changed color. Hoax. Lucy. Hoax. Piltdown man. Hoax. No missing link is found to backup the theory of Darwin.
It started aout as honest mistake by Darwin and slowly it evolved into a real hoax.
To get back at your flat earth science.
Yes during that time it was valid and prestigious science. Good to be thaught is schools.
QuoteIn the 4th century it was proposed that the earth was spherical. How can it be valid science to propose such a thing? They could not observe the earth from space and offer proof, the could not directly prove anything.
Ships that dissapear under the horizon is one way of concluding the earth isn't flat.
QuoteAnother aspect of science that gets ignored is that the flat earth theory was indeed a "scientific fact" its "truth" is irrevalent to it being one.
Agreed. Wrong science still is science if the conclusion is reached with the best/honest intentions. I don't expect that scientists are without error.
But it would be different if today it was taught the earth is flat and the sun rotates around earth in a perfect circular orbit because God wouldn't make inperfect elliptic orbits. (church influence)
QuoteSo when people complain that evolutionary theory is taught as fact, it is indeed a scientific fact, whether it is "true" or not has no bearing on it being one.
The aim of science always has to be 'true'
Often it turns out to be wrong. It happend in the past. It happens now. It happens in the future. That's a pitty. But as I said we can't expect Godly perfection from scientists.
So Darwins evolution is fine to be taught as science as long as the theory is considered valid.
But when by various means the credibility of the theory gets weaker and weak it no longer is science.
Fact -> Theory -> Guesswork -> debunked.
IMO when the 'Guesswork' phase is reached it should no longer be thaught in schools.
QuoteThey just happen to leave off the scientific word in order to twist things.
Give me one post where I twisted things....
I do not know if you personally are twisting anything WW.
I am saying that teaching evolutionary theory, whatever it entails is valid scientific fact. Scientific facts are what makes theorys.
To say you can't teach it as "fact" and have to say it is a theory is a misrepresentation. If your not doing that, then my statement don't apply to you.
What I am saying is that just declaring something is debunked according to how you analyze things does not mean it is not valid science to teach in schools.
Explain what is guess work that does not hold up to the scientific method apart what people already know that have been hoaxes? Just because there are zealots that are insecure and come up with that stuff is also not a valid reasonable method of saying the whole idea is a hoax either.
Alternative possibilites by analyzing the data differently is part of the falsification process. A process that allows a conclusion to be made is valid science whether anyone thinks it is right or disagrees.
That does not make something a hoax or a lie. It is actually the scientific method that was able to determine something to be wrong or discovery of deceptive practices. That is a reflection upon individuals not that anything was ever a lie or wrong to teach in a school.
One last try to explain my point. But I fear we didn't evolve to agreement :laughing7:
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on February 13, 2009, 08:48:36 PM
I do not know if you personally are twisting anything WW.
Let me be brief and state: "For me science increases the believability of the Bible"
So when I say Darwian evolution is crap that's not because I fear it debunks the Bible.
QuoteI am saying that teaching evolutionary theory, whatever it entails is valid scientific fact.
Here we have to agree to disagree.
Darwinian evolution theory (the topic of this thread) has not a single scientific fact to back it up.
Note: that I always write "Darwinian evolution" and not just "evolution"....
QuoteScientific facts are what makes theorys.
Agreed.
QuoteTo say you can't teach it as "fact" and have to say it is a theory is a misrepresentation. If your not doing that, then my statement don't apply to you.
Theories can be good science too. And for me there is no problem to put them in a school book.
QuoteWhat I am saying is that just declaring something is debunked according to how you analyze things does not mean it is not valid science to teach in schools.
Let me say I didn't debunk it. Scientist in relavant field did it.
QuoteExplain what is guess work that does not hold up to the scientific method apart what people already know that have been hoaxes?
A scientific theory is a bit more than assuming the moon is made of cheese. There needs to be some proof and solid reasoning to have it accepted as a theory (that later may be proved fully right or wrong)
QuoteJust because there are zealots that are insecure and come up with that stuff is also not a valid reasonable method of saying the whole idea is a hoax either.
So every scientist that publishes something that isn't inline with Darwin is a zealot?
QuoteAlternative possibilites by analyzing the data differently is part of the falsification process. A process that allows a conclusion to be made is valid science whether anyone thinks it is right or disagrees.
The aim of that analyzing is either proving or disproving something and use that conclusion.
QuoteThat does not make something a hoax or a lie. It is actually the scientific method that was able to determine something to be wrong or discovery of deceptive practices.
A theory in good faith is no hoax. But when the evidence against that theory stacks up it becomes disproved. That happens. Pitty. Move on.
But it becomes a hoax if disproved theories are still promoted as a fact. Or if a single pig tooth is used to recontruct a missing link to 'prove' evolution true.
Quote from: wwDarwinian evolution theory (the topic of this thread) has not a single scientific fact to back it up.
:cloud9:
How is even one of the basic premises of darwinian evolution not backed up by a single scientific fact.
Here is just one.
QuoteThat biological types or species do not have a fixed, static existence but exist in permanent states of change and flux;
Explain.
Quote from: WhiteWings on February 13, 2009, 09:28:37 PM
Or if a single pig tooth is used to recontruct a missing link to 'prove' evolution true.
That has no bearing on the scientific validity of the whole of anything anymore than Ted Haggards failure means we might as well toss the idea of God out.
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on February 13, 2009, 09:59:26 PM
How is even one of the basic premises of darwinian evolution not backed up by a single scientific fact.
Here is just one.
QuoteThat biological types or species do not have a fixed, static existence but exist in permanent states of change and flux;
Explain.
Within certain parameters things change. As an example we have different races.
Certain animals adapted to their surroundings. They changed a bit to eat what's most found in the place where they live. Dogs and wolves are related. That's called micro evolution.
Darwinism is about macro evolution. So it's not just a bird that gets longer legs but the bird evolves into a cat. The changing from bird to cat takes many steps. Why are the hybrids never found? Say a cat with feathers. Or a bird with 4 legs? Animals mate with the perfect partner. A mutant usualy doesn't get very lucky. Breeding outside the species just doesn't work. A cow and a horse will never get offspring.
Quote from: WhiteWings on February 13, 2009, 10:24:30 PM
A cow and a horse will never get offspring.
That is not what darwinian evolution even asserts in any way. That is not what macro evolution is about at all, not even close.
Debunking arguments that bring that up are straw men. Of course there is no scientific fact to back up a cow and a horse getting offspring, but that is not debunking macro evolution in the first place.
Do you think I "believe" in macro evolution just because I support it's scientific validity?
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on February 13, 2009, 10:02:44 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on February 13, 2009, 09:28:37 PM
Or if a single pig tooth is used to recontruct a missing link to 'prove' evolution true.
That has no bearing on the scientific validity of the whole of anything anymore than Ted Haggards failure means we might as well toss the idea of God out.
But that kind of things are used to prove Darwinism. Because no missing links where found 'scientists' just contructed themself.
Piltdown man:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/Hoaxipedia/Piltdown_Man/
50 page .pdf: http://www.palarch.nl/NorthWestEurope/nweur_2006_1_1.pdf
Nebraska man:
(from a single tooth)
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/nebraska.html
http://www.rdlindsey.com/flashfacts/Nebraska.html
Lucy:
http://www.omniology.com/LucySkeletons.html
Not a hoax. But proved not to be a missing link.
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on February 13, 2009, 10:36:35 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on February 13, 2009, 10:24:30 PM
A cow and a horse will never get offspring.
That is not what darwinian evolution even asserts in any way. That is not what macro evolution is about at all, not even close.
Debunking arguments that bring that up are straw men. Of course there is no scientific fact to back up a cow and a horse getting offspring, but that is not debunking macro evolution in the first place.
You are right about that. It wasn't meant as a straw man but it doesn't add to the discussion.
But that was not the only thing in my post. Please don't pick out one thing that suits you and ignore the rest.
QuoteDo you think I "believe" in macro evolution just because I support it's scientific validity?
That was indeed my impression.
If you don't base it on scientific validity, what do you base it on?
Quote from: WhiteWings on February 13, 2009, 10:55:47 PM
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on February 13, 2009, 10:36:35 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on February 13, 2009, 10:24:30 PM
A cow and a horse will never get offspring.
That is not what darwinian evolution even asserts in any way. That is not what macro evolution is about at all, not even close.
Debunking arguments that bring that up are straw men. Of course there is no scientific fact to back up a cow and a horse getting offspring, but that is not debunking macro evolution in the first place.
You are right about that. It wasn't meant as a straw man but it doesn't add to the discussion.
But that was not the only thing in my post. Please don't pick out one thing that suits you and ignore the rest.
QuoteDo you think I "believe" in macro evolution just because I support it's scientific validity?
That was indeed my impression.
If you don't base it on scientific validity, what do you base it on?
Disinformation? :laughing7:
Quote from: WhiteWings on February 13, 2009, 10:55:47 PM
But that was not the only thing in my post. Please don't pick out one thing that suits you and ignore the rest.
Don't use such blatently false information as some factor.
QuoteDo you think I "believe" in macro evolution just because I support it's scientific validity?
Quote
That was indeed my impression.
If you don't base it on scientific validity, what do you base it on?
Why do I need to believe anything that I see as scientifically valid?
The flat earth theory is scientifically valid based on the time frame in which it was accepted. Do you see my point?
The false assertion and straw man here is that a scientifically valid statement has to be believed as "truth". It doesn't.
Quote from: Molly on February 13, 2009, 11:00:19 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on February 13, 2009, 10:55:47 PM
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on February 13, 2009, 10:36:35 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on February 13, 2009, 10:24:30 PM
A cow and a horse will never get offspring.
That is not what darwinian evolution even asserts in any way. That is not what macro evolution is about at all, not even close.
Debunking arguments that bring that up are straw men. Of course there is no scientific fact to back up a cow and a horse getting offspring, but that is not debunking macro evolution in the first place.
You are right about that. It wasn't meant as a straw man but it doesn't add to the discussion.
But that was not the only thing in my post. Please don't pick out one thing that suits you and ignore the rest.
QuoteDo you think I "believe" in macro evolution just because I support it's scientific validity?
That was indeed my impression.
If you don't base it on scientific validity, what do you base it on?
Disinformation? :laughing7:
I forgot sarcasm and ass usations mean truth to you.
So you are saying whatever science claims doesn't make you 'believe' because there are many examples in the past, flat earth being one, that where claimed to be correct but lateron they where claimed to be false.
And things that are now claimed to be false can later eb claimed true.
I hope that's what you mean.... otherwise I'm afraid my brain isn't evolved enough to understand you.
Possibly because I evolved from a hamster and you from a owl. :laughing7:
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on February 13, 2009, 11:09:16 PM
Quote from: Molly on February 13, 2009, 11:00:19 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on February 13, 2009, 10:55:47 PM
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on February 13, 2009, 10:36:35 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on February 13, 2009, 10:24:30 PM
A cow and a horse will never get offspring.
That is not what darwinian evolution even asserts in any way. That is not what macro evolution is about at all, not even close.
Debunking arguments that bring that up are straw men. Of course there is no scientific fact to back up a cow and a horse getting offspring, but that is not debunking macro evolution in the first place.
You are right about that. It wasn't meant as a straw man but it doesn't add to the discussion.
But that was not the only thing in my post. Please don't pick out one thing that suits you and ignore the rest.
QuoteDo you think I "believe" in macro evolution just because I support it's scientific validity?
That was indeed my impression.
If you don't base it on scientific validity, what do you base it on?
Disinformation? :laughing7:
I forgot sarcasm and ass usations mean truth to you.
Again, it's the truth, as ww has pointed out.
Darwinian evolution has been promoted by disinformation.
And, I have a feeling, you do not understand how dangerous it is as
an idea.
Quote from: Molly on February 13, 2009, 11:14:19 PM
And, I have a feeling, you do not understand how dangerous it is as an idea.
I don't care what you "feel" about it. You accuse me of being brainwashed and believing disinformation as if that solves the issue. Go ahead, keep up your insults and disguising them as some kind of scientific knowledge and fact. It doesn't surprise me at all, I left the very institution that your in forever for the same reason.
Quote from: WhiteWings on February 13, 2009, 11:13:23 PM
So you are saying whatever science claims doesn't make you 'believe' because there are many examples in the past, flat earth being one, that where claimed to be correct but lateron they where claimed to be false.
Yep
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on February 13, 2009, 11:43:02 PM
Quote from: Molly on February 13, 2009, 11:14:19 PM
And, I have a feeling, you do not understand how dangerous it is as an idea.
I don't care what you "feel" about it. You accuse me of being brainwashed and believing disinformation as if that solves the issue. Go ahead, keep up your insults and disguising them as some kind of scientific knowledge and fact. It doesn't surprise me at all, I left the very institution that your in forever for the same reason.
well, let me ask you directly. Do you acknowledge that Darwinian evolution has been promoted by disinformation? That is, phony scientists giving phony results to perpetrate a phony theory. And, do you acknowledge that the idea is dangerous? If not, would you care to know why the idea is dangerous?
Quote from: Molly on February 13, 2009, 11:54:03 PM
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on February 13, 2009, 11:43:02 PM
Quote from: Molly on February 13, 2009, 11:14:19 PM
And, I have a feeling, you do not understand how dangerous it is as an idea.
I don't care what you "feel" about it. You accuse me of being brainwashed and believing disinformation as if that solves the issue. Go ahead, keep up your insults and disguising them as some kind of scientific knowledge and fact. It doesn't surprise me at all, I left the very institution that your in forever for the same reason.
well, let me ask you directly. Do you acknowledge that Darwinian evolution has been promoted by disinformation? That is, phony scientists giving phony results to perpetrate a phony theory. And, do you acknowledge that the idea is dangerous? If not, would you care to know why the idea is dangerous?
Can it be possible for you to take a reasonable look at my answer, or am I wasting my time only for you to declare you don't give a crap what I say and say I just verify being brainwashed?
Your call.
The missing link: Piltdown man--skull of a human, jawbone of an ape--a deliberate 50 year hoax.
In 1856 the first Neanderthal fossil discovery was made and the hunt was on to find fossil remains of human ancestors. In the next half century finds were made in continental Europe and in Asia but not in Britain. Finally, in 1912, the sun rose on British paleontology -- fossil remains of an ancient pleistocene hominid were found in the Piltdown quarries in Sussex. In the period 1912 to 1915 the Piltdown quarries yielded two skulls, a canine tooth, and a mandible of Eoanthropus, a tool carved from an elephant tusk, and fossil teeth from a number of pleistocene animals.
There is a certain vagueness about some of the critical events. Dawson contacted Woodward about the first two skull fragments which were supposedly found by workman "some years prior". Exactly when is unknown. Similarly, the discovery of Piltdown II is shrouded in mystery. Supposedly Dawson and an anonymous friend make the discovery 1915; however the friend and the location of the find are unknown.
The reaction to the finds was mixed. On the whole the British paleontologists were enthusiastic; the French and American paleontologists tended to be skeptical, some objected quite vociferously. The objectors held that the jawbone and the skull were obviously from two different animals and that their discovery together was simply an accident of placement. In the period 1912-1917 there was a great deal of skepticism. The report in 1917 of the discovery of Piltdown II converted many of the skeptics; one accident of placement was plausible -- two were not.
It should be remembered that, at the time of Piltdown finds, there were very few early hominid fossils; Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens were clearly fairly late. It was expected that there was a "missing link" between ape and man. It was an open question as to what that missing link would look like. Piltdown man had the expected mix of features, which lent it plausibility as a human precursor.
Finally, in 1953, the roof fell in. Piltdown man was not an ancestor; it was not a case of erroneous interpretation; it was a case of outright deliberate fraud.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html#history
From the chronology and the later reconstruction of events it is fairly clear that there never were any significant fossils at the Piltdown quarry. It was salted from time to time with fossils to be found. Once the hoax was exposed, Sir Kenneth Oakley went on to apply more advanced tests to find where the bones had come from and how old they were. His main findings were:
Piltdown I skull: Medieval, human, ~620 years old.
Piltdown II skull: Same source as Piltdown I skull.
Piltdown I jawbone: Orangutan jaw, ~500 years old, probably from Sarawak.
Elephant molar: Genuine fossil, probably from Tunisia.
Hippopotamus tooth: Genuine fossil, probably from Malta or Sicily.
Canine tooth: Pleistocene chimpanzee fossil.
Not only were the bones gathered from a variety of sources, they were given a thorough going treatment to make them appear to be genuinely ancient.
The Piltdown hoax does not seem to fit any of these categories well. This was not an ordinary hoax; it was a systematic campaign over the years to establish the existence of Piltdown man. The early skull fragments were created in advance and salted with the foreknowledge that more extensive finds would be planted later. The hoaxer had to have good reason to believe that the salted fossils would be found.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown/pfolks.gif
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on February 14, 2009, 12:08:06 AM
Quote from: Molly on February 13, 2009, 11:54:03 PM
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on February 13, 2009, 11:43:02 PM
Quote from: Molly on February 13, 2009, 11:14:19 PM
And, I have a feeling, you do not understand how dangerous it is as an idea.
I don't care what you "feel" about it. You accuse me of being brainwashed and believing disinformation as if that solves the issue. Go ahead, keep up your insults and disguising them as some kind of scientific knowledge and fact. It doesn't surprise me at all, I left the very institution that your in forever for the same reason.
well, let me ask you directly. Do you acknowledge that Darwinian evolution has been promoted by disinformation? That is, phony scientists giving phony results to perpetrate a phony theory. And, do you acknowledge that the idea is dangerous? If not, would you care to know why the idea is dangerous?
Can it be possible for you to take a reasonable look at my answer, or am I wasting my time only for you to declare you don't give a crap what I say and say I just verify being brainwashed?
Your call.
Yes, of course I'll look at your answer. I apologize if I implied you are brainwashed. I mean to say the whole world is brainwashed--that is, they are being taught lies as if they were fact.
Quote from: Molly on February 13, 2009, 11:54:03 PM
well, let me ask you directly. Do you acknowledge that Darwinian evolution has been promoted by disinformation? That is, phony scientists giving phony results to perpetrate a phony theory. And, do you acknowledge that the idea is dangerous? If not, would you care to know why the idea is dangerous?
Hi molly,
First whether intentionally or unintentionally you asked me to acknowledge something that is not necessarily true by the nature you claim that it "IS" true. That something is "phoney theory" you are welcome to that belief and I cannot tell you to not believe it.
What I ask you is for our discussion to give the benefit of the doubt to the "Theory" being scientifically valid. That validity is NOT, I repeat NOT my personal statement saying I "BELIEVE" that it is true. I do not have to accept a scientific statement as true just because it is valid in a scientific nature.
With that said I will address the issue that you raise and I ask that you be held accountable to your own reasoning. If you cannot accept that, then I will allow that to stand on it's own for the conclusion it gives evidence for.
I have no problems at all acknowledging hoaxes. They exist. What you appear to be suggesting or outright demanding is those hoaxes prove that darwinian evolution is phoney. The is a patently incorrect way to determine that is it phoney.
Scientists are the ones that eventually come to that conclusion that evidence such as the "pilt down man" was a hoax, the same scientists that use evidence that is not phoney to conclude darwinian evolution is scientifically plausible.
For instance, not all evolutionary scientists accepted that the piltdown man was valid in the first place. Are you aware of that fact?
So your post with all the hoaxes only means that science is actually doing what it is intended to do "DESPITE" what corruption and preconception that does exist. So the assertions that the typical creationist make about mainstream science are not what they appear to be.
Now, lets see what we have next.
Are you familiar with paluxy footprints, Calaveras skull, Moab Man, Malachite Man to name a "FEW"? If I am to accept your reasoning, then will you acknowledge that creationism has been promoted by disinformation? That is, phony scientists giving phony results to perpetrate a phony theory?
Hi Paul,
I am having some trouble in seeing what you are asking of me. So I will do my best to answer what you asked--if I understood it correctly. If not, I didn't understand the question.
I am not saying that the hoaxes prove the error of Darwinian evolution. It's error stands for itself in that in 150 years there has been no scientific evidence supporting it as a valid theory. In fact, the evidence is to the contrary.
The hoaxes are a different matter altogether--because you see something is keeping this faulty theory standing with no legs--it is, and has always been, very well marketed to the public. And, that is where its power lies, not in any domain of science.
From my point of view, and you are welcome to take issue with this but it won't change my mind, this theory now presented as fact to schoolchildren, is serving the purposes of those who would rather rule a world of monkeys than of men. So why not tell them they are monkeys from the time they are babes? There is always a good chance that many will believe it.
And, more than that, teach them a philosophy of life which they claim is based on fact. It's survival of the fittest--so kill or be killed--only the fit survive--and if the unfit happen to make it by, get rid of them the way Hitler did with the disabled and elderly, employing the theories of Darwin's cousin who applied this philosophy to people.
In fact, most don't know that many were forced to be sterilized in this country at this same time and based on these same theories. Not to mention all the horrible 'scientific' experiments done on people in camps and later in hospitals. The dark underbelly of this self styled 'scientific' theory and those related to it is a horror show that many are unaware of to this day.
Because if people are just monkeys---there's apparently no end to what you can do to them.
Oh, you understand, I may disagree with you, but I know your not stupid. Have a great night.
As far as creationism is concerned, I have never given it much thought, since as ww says, you are never going to prove the existence of God, or a particular God, using the scientific method.
Although, I think you could put together a really interesting course for young people based on Intelligent Design, but, this would more be a discussion of systems and the orderly processes and designs of the universe we live in that point to an intelligent creator rather than a course in any particular science.
Quote from: Molly on February 14, 2009, 07:50:13 AM
Because if people are just monkeys---there's apparently no end to what you can do to them.
What people do to others has nothing to do with whether a process of biology is correct or not or scientifically valid or not. Nothing at all.
Just as the FACT that my parents daily beat me in the name of this blessed God of Christianity that so gallantly teaches I am not a monkey does not make God disappear.
By your reasoning, God cannot exist in my world because of the attrocities done in the name of some a-hole sky fairy.
Quote from: PaulWhat people do to others has nothing to do with whether a process of biology is correct or not or scientifically valid or not. Nothing at all.
This is true.
Neither does the Inquisition prove that God does or doesn't exist.
What people do with ideas that they claim to be factual and truth is what is at stake, nothing else.
It is the idea that is powerful, whether it is truthful or not.
And, if it is not truthful, it needs to be exposed if it is operating in an arena that requires truth, such as science.
For that matter, even in the area of religion, there is nothing in the New Testament or the teachings of Jesus that could justify even half the stuff done in his name.
Quote from: Molly on February 14, 2009, 07:50:13 AM
And, more than that, teach them a philosophy of life which they claim is based on fact. It's survival of the fittest--so kill or be killed--only the fit survive--and if the unfit happen to make it by, get rid of them the way Hitler did with the disabled and elderly, employing the theories of Darwin's cousin who applied this philosophy to people.
In fact, most don't know that many were forced to be sterilized in this country at this same time and based on these same theories. Not to mention all the horrible 'scientific' experiments done on people in camps and later in hospitals. The dark underbelly of this self styled 'scientific' theory and those related to it is a horror show that many are unaware of to this day.
Because if people are just monkeys---there's apparently no end to what you can do to them.
:cloud9: That's exactly what they did too, touting this relatively new "science" as a reason to exterminate those who had not "evolved" enough, and they actually had charts proving the Jews and gypsies had "inferior" cranial bone structure. Then it was just a hop, skip and a jump to exterminate other "lesser" individuals, such as the elderly, infirm, and mentally or physically disabled. Their "perfect Aryan race" was based on "scientific" studies of the day.
My uncle was one of the first to enter the camps, told of seeing people with their legs horribly infected and long incisions on them. The reason? The Nazi "doctors" wanted to see what the body could fight off, so opened up their legs surgically and then put sweepings from the floors in, and sewed them back up. They used them for guinea pigs as well, because after all, what use did they have except to be shot later?
As for the monkey thing, the Lord showed me why there is such a push to have people believe that image. A monkey cannot stand up perfectly straight (upright) as a human does. Upright is a natural image of His righteousness, which means, uprightness. Images and their interpretation are meant to convey information to the soul, which has a component of spirit, ie. the carnal mind. So any image interpretation that reinforces some opposition to God's truth, is from the adversary of our souls.
This is why one of the 10 words says not to make a graven image. Most western people overlook that one, as what western thinking person is going to rush out and carve something to worship, so they think they're "safe" on that one? But a graven image is more than carving out a calf out of gold, or a wood or clay image of something. It's an image of something of this "grave", a grave is something that is "carved" out of the earth/flesh of man. It's something that points to death, as opposed to pointing to life, specifically the life of the Spirit of Christ.
So then focusing on even a "scientific" theory that does not point to Christ or some aspect of His nature and glory, is spiritually speaking, making a graven image to worship, because that man created thing does not have the revealed nature of Christ in it. I'll go one farther than that even, because the same applies to any religious (from the carnal mind of man) ideas about God and His nature, as opposed to the Spirit revealed truth about Him and His nature. The Spirit came to us, to reveal Christ; that's His job, yet the carnal mind insists on trying to do it for Him, which = DEAD (or of the GRAVE/GRAVEN) works.
This principle, in a positive application, is why many in the scientific world are coming to God, because they are seeing His revealed nature in the creation, even in the numerical sciences, because anything that originated with God has to reveal His nature. So I'm all for them working hard to come up with theories, because if they are correct, they have just revealed an aspect of God's nature, and isn't that what we all want, ie. to see God more clearly? Blessings....
Cardinal how do you come up with this stuff? Never in a million years would I SEE any of that. But, I knew it instinctually. These symbols they manipulate--every time I see them, I cringe. Every time I see the pictorial rendition of monkey to man, I cringe. Look how they put it into language--Man is descended from the apes, not even ascended, but descended--our father is a monkey. It has to be deliberate.
That movie they put out 30 years ago--2001? The image at the beginning of a bunch of monkeys dancing around an obelisk and they throw a bone in the air and it becomes a spaceship orbiting the earth...
They have to know what they are doing, the ones who design these things.
Anyway, thank you!
great, now when are they gonna say women are equal to men and that priests can marry? :laughing7:
Catholic priests have "knew" Marry :boogie:
Quote from: Molly on February 14, 2009, 09:01:11 PM
Cardinal how do you come up with this stuff? Never in a million years would I SEE any of that.
:cloud9: HE showed me. It actually started with a dream, and I asked Him for understanding of the dream. Glad it blessed you...... :HeartThrob:
Just a word game. Marry - Mary
I read something interesting not long ago, it seems Darwin rejected christianity due the teaching of hell, I've read that he said something like: "This text seems to say the unbelievers shall suffer eternal punishment, this is a damnable doctrine."
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on February 11, 2009, 09:58:30 PM
Evolution does not threaten spirituality.
Paul,
I agree. Interestingly, all throughout the scriptures that man is likened unto various animals. Perhaps that is a hint.
Peace -
Anne
Quote from: Raggedy Anne on February 17, 2009, 03:56:53 PM
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on February 11, 2009, 09:58:30 PM
Evolution does not threaten spirituality.
Paul,
I agree. Interestingly, all throughout the scriptures that man is likened unto various animals. Perhaps that is a hint.
Peace -
Anne
The bible talks about man being "formed" but thats not till Genesis 2
Genesis 1 man was created, Genesis 2 man was formed. There is no detail along the lines of how specifically it was done. Man actually fit along the basic lines of evolution. Man was not first, man came along later just like in evolutionary theorys.
The idea that evolution was used to abuse humans is a huge case of the pot calling rhe kettle black and does NOT make evolution false, period, darwinian or otherwise. If that argument holds any weight then Christians need to see their own faith as false.
But of course they won't live up to their own standards. lol Much of it is steeped in the fear of hell, "oh noez, our children are being fed to the debil by de atheismz."
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on February 17, 2009, 04:31:17 PM
Quote from: Raggedy Anne on February 17, 2009, 03:56:53 PM
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on February 11, 2009, 09:58:30 PM
Evolution does not threaten spirituality.
Paul,
I agree. Interestingly, all throughout the scriptures that man is likened unto various animals. Perhaps that is a hint.
Peace -
Anne
The bible talks about man being "formed" but thats not till Genesis 2
Genesis 1 man was created, Genesis 2 man was formed. There is no detail along the lines of how specifically it was done. Man actually fit along the basic lines of evolution. Man was not first, man came along later just like in evolutionary theorys.
The idea that evolution was used to abuse humans is a huge case of the pot calling rhe kettle black and does NOT make evolution false, period, darwinian or otherwise. If that argument holds any weight then Christians need to see their own faith as false.
But of course they won't live up to their own standards. lol Much of it is steeped in the fear of hell, "oh noez, our children are being fed to the debil by de atheismz."
Oh...since you can't prove evolution scientifically, you are now going to prove it using the Bible?
LOL!
Well, God could not find a suitable helper for Adam among the animal world or anywhere else, for that matter--that's why he made woman out of Adam's rib--one just like him.
20And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. --Gen 2
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on February 17, 2009, 04:31:17 PM
The idea that evolution was used to abuse humans is a huge case of the pot calling rhe kettle black and does NOT make evolution false, period, darwinian or otherwise. If that argument holds any weight then Christians need to see their own faith as false.
:cloud9: I'm not sure what you mean here by the pot calling the kettle black in the context of what was being discussed.
Also, since evolution is such a slow process, it's odd to me that in at least the last 3 or 4 centuries (maybe more) that scientists who document new species found, ect., have yet to find anything in the "embarrassing" state of being almost something else. :winkgrin: Joke intended. :icon_jokercolor: Blessings....
Quote from: Cardinal on February 17, 2009, 04:44:34 PM
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on February 17, 2009, 04:31:17 PM
The idea that evolution was used to abuse humans is a huge case of the pot calling rhe kettle black and does NOT make evolution false, period, darwinian or otherwise. If that argument holds any weight then Christians need to see their own faith as false.
:cloud9: I'm not sure what you mean here by the pot calling the kettle black in the context of what was being discussed.
I am refering to messages pointing out that evolution was used as justification for bad things along with the assertions of it being false or that evolution should not be taught.
In light of religions past, thats the context I see.
If we go back to the title of the thread. I can make a statement that "No, evolution is not compatible with "christianity", but it is easily compatible with the bible."
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on February 17, 2009, 04:56:30 PM
Quote from: Cardinal on February 17, 2009, 04:44:34 PM
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on February 17, 2009, 04:31:17 PM
The idea that evolution was used to abuse humans is a huge case of the pot calling rhe kettle black and does NOT make evolution false, period, darwinian or otherwise. If that argument holds any weight then Christians need to see their own faith as false.
:cloud9: I'm not sure what you mean here by the pot calling the kettle black in the context of what was being discussed.
I am refering to messages pointing out that evolution was used as justification for bad things along with the assertions of it being false or that evolution should not be taught.
In light of religions past, thats the context I see.
If we go back to the title of the thread. I can make a statement that "No, evolution is not compatible with "christianity", but it is easily compatible with the bible."
well I think you are right that the same spirit which is destroying science has been destroying religious teachings, that is, God's message to men. Nothing new about that. Didn't Jesus already point that out himself?
13But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.--Mat 23
Those who hate him love death.
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on February 17, 2009, 04:56:30 PM
I am refering to messages pointing out that evolution was used as justification for bad things along with the assertions of it being false or that evolution should not be taught.
I am one who said that evolution was used for bad things, specifically the genocide of Jews, gypsies, the infirm, ect., but the fact it was used for this, is not what makes it bad or in error, IMO, nor did I mean to imply that. It stands or falls on it's own merits, or lack thereof. Blessings....
Well, one thing is for sure and that is that there is a long process going on to bring man to perfection. And there are plenty of men/women who do things very evil, things that even animals (whom we consider lower) do not do. Which just goes to show you how depraved man is capable of being. I actually think it is a PRIDE thing that kicks in when people get hot under the collar about the subject of EVOLUTION. It seems clear to me that we are evolving. And I believe God loves all living creatures.
The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.
Beloved, we are God's children now, it does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. And every one who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure. {1 Jn 3:2-3 RSV}
Quote from: Molly on February 17, 2009, 04:42:45 PM
Oh...since you can't prove evolution scientifically, you are now going to prove it using the Bible?
LOL!
Hi Molly, where did I ever state I was going to prove evolution with the bible. Please show me.
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on February 17, 2009, 08:35:53 PM
Quote from: Molly on February 17, 2009, 04:42:45 PM
Oh...since you can't prove evolution scientifically, you are now going to prove it using the Bible?
LOL!
Hi Molly, where did I ever state I was going to prove evolution with the bible. Please show me.
QuoteGenesis 1 man was created, Genesis 2 man was formed. There is no detail along the lines of how specifically it was done. Man actually fit along the basic lines in evolutionary theorys. Man was not first, man came along later just like in evolutionary theorys.
QuoteInterestingly, all throughout the scriptures that man is likened unto various animals. Perhaps that is a hint.
But, this I agree with:
Quote from: Raggedy AnneAnd there are plenty ofmen/women who do things very evil,things that even animals...do not do.
That should tell you something...
Hi Molly, I will clarify even though I still did not state that I was going to prove evolution with the bible.
You do realize that seeing a scientific statement not being threatening to the bible is not the same thing as saying that it can be proven with the bible right?
I do agree that evolution is not compatible with "Christianity", because that is simply an intepretation and not necessarily completely true.
Quote from: Raggedy Anne on February 17, 2009, 07:59:09 PM
And there are plenty of men/women who do things very evil, things that even animals (whom we consider lower) do not do.
Well, if you take non-human world as a whole, I really fail to see where there is that large of a gap.
Might give some examples to see where your coming from though.
Quote from: sparrow on February 12, 2009, 02:01:58 AM
Evolution is fact. Things evolve, nature evolves...this has been proven.
The THEORY of evolution is NOT fact. It's theory.
If it were proved to be fact, then, that would of course, not threaten my spirituality at all.
I have an open mind.
If that's how God brought it about, if that's the method he used for Creation... :dontknow: that's fine by me.
But how can the vatican "downplay intelligent design"... downplay a "Creator". That's the part I don't get.
People are always saying the theory of evolution is a fact, there is no God..
and I'm just sitting there thinking.. :dontknow: huh?
Even IF the THEORY of evolution were to become a FACT, how does that mean there is no God?
I never understood that.
But then again, to be honest, if someone discovered the bible was a total fake, that wouldn't phase me too much, either. My belief in God is powerful and it transcends bibles and anything else in this world.
just my :2c:
I dont think the Vatican is downplaying intelligent design. They are pretty against the use of Evolution to try to disprove the existence of God. But we understand that today, that the world is much older than a couple thousand years, nor was the world created in Six days.
The "Vatican."
lol
They know nothing, nothing, nothing, for they have not HIM.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veT1G-_aAsg&feature=related
Cardinal, what you shared on the graven image . . .that was outstanding! Yet another door to the many rooms of the Father's house you have led us to. I'm trying to get my printer here to print that one off . . .it's not cooperating with me thus far though . . perhaps it's of the antichrist as well???
:cloud9: Glad it blessed you Nate!