The Grand Canyon was carved by Noah's flood - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-22-2004, 07:24 PM   #21
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 09:56 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by shart1780
Down with equality, up with selective censorship!


Would you call it equality if the government pushed for a book to be placed in meteorolgy centers that explained how rain is really just God crying?

Look I don't care if individuals have absurd theories and want to make books, go for it. I just don't want my government taking a role in getting them on the shelves.
__________________

BVS is offline  
Old 10-22-2004, 08:06 PM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Washington State
Posts: 3,861
Local Time: 02:56 PM
In that book are they teaching that as a fact? No?

The book is basically just showing other people's views, it's not teaching them as fact.

I don't believe in evolution but the governmant teaches that as a fact, not a theory. Is that not pushing their antithesis of religion on me?
__________________

shart1780 is offline  
Old 10-22-2004, 08:10 PM   #23
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:56 AM
Evolutionary Biology is not the antithesis of religion. It is a fact supported by observation and experiment, how it works is the theory. The mechanisms of life do not exclude the possibility of God, any higher power would never allow mankind to come into being with such intelligence and expect us not to use it.
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-22-2004, 08:18 PM   #24
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 10:56 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
The mechanisms of life do not exclude the possibility of God
anitram is offline  
Old 10-22-2004, 10:35 PM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Washington State
Posts: 3,861
Local Time: 02:56 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Evolutionary Biology is not the antithesis of religion. It is a fact supported by observation and experiment, how it works is the theory. The mechanisms of life do not exclude the possibility of God, any higher power would never allow mankind to come into being with such intelligence and expect us not to use it.
It's the antithesis of what I believe, just as that book is the antithesis of what you believe. What's the difference?
shart1780 is offline  
Old 10-22-2004, 10:59 PM   #26
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:56 AM
It really is not, you may have been told that evolution is totally contrary to your religious beliefs but it does not have to be. Many christians understand evolution but may see it as the way that God operates in the universe, his hand guiding the creation of mankind.

The difference between a literal account of genesis and an evolutionary explaination for life is a matter of objective analysis. If one studies the earth itself and its history there is no evidence for a global flood, one finds fossils in sedimentary rocks in very specific bedding arrangements with very particular sedimentary sorting. This cannot be formed in a flood and fossilization takes a lot longer than 6000 years. We can go all the way back to when life first emerged 3.7 billion years ago where we find banded iron formations - oxidized iron which requires free oxygen in the atmosphere. This is all consistent with the first organisms coming into being, our understanding of the history of life on this planet - the facts of the matter - are totally inconsistent with literal genesis style creation.

Genetically we can trace the migration of human beings and construct a "family tree' using human mitochondrial DNA. This can demonstrate major movements at least 100,000 years ago. This is all the result of scientific inquiry based on fact. Archbishop Ussher was totally wrong and his flawed 4004 BC date for the creation of the universe is utterly and completely wrong.

Evolution is a fact - species accumulate mutations over generations and given enough time those many minor changes can allow for more major changes. We know that this occurs - one can see it in action with resiliance to pesticides in insects. If you have an insecticide that kills off 99.9% of the pest then after each sweep there may be 0.1% that survive, but the offspring from this 0.1% will all have resilliance. Now this is a very crude example but it works. Mutations, sex and population pressures all ensure that life is rarely static.

It is a matter of evidence and objective inquiry versus acceptance without question. Understanding how the world works - perhaps comprehending the works of God as they are - is surely what any higher being would have endowed mankind with our advanced faculties to do. It is not a matter of faith to cling to falsehoods, understanding the world as it is is not compromise.

Theistic evolution would be synthesizing our current knowledge of evolutionary biology with the belief in God. One need not be a literalist and dwell in darkness when the light of knowledge and reason is out there, all that you need to do is open that door and expand your mind. Your appreciation for the world is a lot greater when you understand it's complexities.
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-22-2004, 11:15 PM   #27
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 09:56 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by shart1780


It's the antithesis of what I believe
How?!!!

A_Wanderer is right. They can coincide. How is it that some deny proven evidence?
BVS is offline  
Old 10-22-2004, 11:44 PM   #28
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Washington State
Posts: 3,861
Local Time: 02:56 PM
I believe in evolution to a point. I believe creatures can grow and adapt to certain enviroments, but I don't believe they can completely change forms. I don't believe a fish can become a lizard can become an ape can become a human. I don't even think that's possible.

I believe the world was created in seven days.
shart1780 is offline  
Old 10-22-2004, 11:52 PM   #29
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 09:56 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by shart1780


I believe the world was created in seven days.
So you dismiss dinosaurs or the idea that maybe 7 days doesn't exactly mean 168 hours.
BVS is offline  
Old 10-23-2004, 12:08 AM   #30
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:56 AM
You are exactly right, a fish cannot turn into a lizard and then turn into an ape and then turn into a human, that idea is not evolution at all. You have a common misconception of evolution by means of natural selection. Creatures do not magically change from a fish to a lizard in their lifetime (magic), a horselike creature doesn't reach high and grow a long neck to become a giraffe (llamarckism). It is a process which occurs over the generations, and has to do with how sucessfull organisms are at reproducing and spreading their genetic material.

The principle is that between generations of organisms there are differences. You yourself are different than your parents, there is a transfer of genetic material between both parents and the permutation that results is you, in addition there are sometimes mutations in the genetic code which add furthur difference.

Now these differences are usually very minor, however sometimes a particular difference in an organism may offer an advantage to its survival and its relative reproductive success.

For example a lion may have a mutation which allowed for a greater degree of muscle strength which allowed it to move slightly faster. Now with this mutation which other lions dont have this animal would suceed at catching prey and would also have a greater opportunity to reproduce. When it has sex the same mutation which gave it stronger muscles could be passed down into its offspring giving them an advantage until the change becomes more and more prevalent in the population at large. Eventually all the lions in the pride (after enough generations) would have this mutation and they would all be stronger.

So you see the one fluke change in the DNA of the organism allows it a slight advantage in reproduction. That is the point of evolution, natural processes will favour certain traits depending on the biotic and abiotic conditions amd those traits may be passed to their offspring.

Over time, millions of years, these changes accumulate and new species may appear from these mutations.

The earth is older than 6000 years, The most obvious reason is that in the sky there are stars hundreds of thousands of light years away, there are galaxies and quasars even furthur away still. The radiation emitted by these things takes time to reach earth, they all travel at the speed of light (299 792 458 m / s) and can take longer than 6000 years to get here. The universe is at least billions of years old.

The solar system can be dated using the sun and tracing its point on a HR diagram, to work out its age which is around 5 billion years.

The planets, asteroids and comets in the solar system are loose particles left over from the formation of the Sun. Originally the gas and dust that would become the Sun was the core of a cloud much larger than the solar system, probably several light-years across. (One light-year is equal to approximately 6,000,000,000,000 miles.) The core was slowly rotating at first, but as it collapsed it spun faster, like a spinning ice-skater pulling in his arms. The rotation prevented the material at the core's equator from collapsing as fast as material at the poles, so the core became a spinning disc.

Gas and dust in the disc spiraled gradually in to the center, where it accumulated to form the Sun. But because dust is denser than gas, some of the dust settled to the mid-plane of the disc. These dust particles stuck together to make clumps, then clumps stuck together to make rocks, then rocks collided to make planets. In the case of the "gas giant" planets, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, the rocky cores were massive enough to also attract some of the gas. The outer layers of these planets are made up of hydrogen and other gases.

So the Sun is the collapsed core of an interstellar gas cloud, and the planets, asteroids and comets are small lumps of dust or ice chunks which stayed in orbit instead of spiraling into the Sun. The planets all formed within a very short period, probably a few million years.

The earth itself is billions of years old, using radiometric dating one can determine the exact age of volcanic rocks and use these to construct the relative ages of rocks above and below them in the strata.

I shall post more when I have finished cooking dinner - please consider these things, an inquisitive mind is no threat to your beliefs.

*******************************
I suggest that you look over this site, it provides information in relation to the matter.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-23-2004, 01:20 AM   #31
War Child
 
Inner El Guapo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 609
Local Time: 08:56 AM
The idea that creationsism cannot co-exist with evolution is only perpetuated by the ignorant evangelical zealots. It's simply boggles the mind. Evolution HAS BEEN PROVEN. Just as it's been proven that you need oxygen to breathe. I am not talking abouot any one theory persay, but the actual process of species evolving is fact.

For the record, I am a creationist, I hate religion, or at least what it has become, a social event, a corporation whatever analogy that fits for you, but you simply cannot ignore hard core scientific fact, it defies logic.

It's the silliness of books like this, and those who promote it that really lead people away from God or faith in the truest sense. Most biblical scholars will say that almost all of the older religions, the muslims, even the buddhists have historical references of a great flood. In other words, it's not really disputed. What is disputed is that the flood submerged the entire earth, It's believed by scholars I have heard and read, that the most likely occurence was a deluge in mesopotamia (middle east) or in the general area, which is actually beilevable even to the secular scientists.

I have read a lot, or tried to anyways, about science/creationism/evolution/geology/biblical history etc.
I would never claim to be an expert but in my efforts to educate myself I have found, as well as those much much more scholarly than me, that creationism and evolution can absolutely co-exist.

I am not talking about Darwin's theory, but I don't even discount it.

I believe that science itself tells you that creationism is plausible. You have to look at the scientific theories for the creation of life and understand some of the stretches that are made. I have read (or heard) more than one secular scientist say that they could see both sides of that token, but it cannot be proven, how would it be proven?

Anyhow this is not an argument about the semantics of each of our beliefs, it's about the agenda that our leadership in DC has.
It's an agenda if ignorance because it defies science. Believe what you will, I am a man of faith, I believe the bible is a book of teachings, and I believe in Christ. And while someone like A_Wanderer or others might think that is silly, I am okay with that. But at least I don't defy actual scientific fact.

What does it say about a philosophy or religion or line of thought that defies science? It's a lot harder to believe unless you throw all critical thinking out the window. Is this what we have in DC?
Yes. Bush seems to be a good man, who is like every other radical evangelical I know (and I know a lot of them, friends and family).
They would discount the nose on their face if it was taught to them in bible study.

Just think, for goodness sakes. Can't I have a President who thinks? Critically? I don't agree with everything that Bush stands for, but if this were a critically thinking man who could admit mistakes and listen to opposing opinions or points of view then I would feel better. What we have is a man of faith, who leads by faith. That's why he scoffed at Kerry, these people (radical evangelicals) don't take doubters well.

I don't want to put down anyone's faith or the way they practice it, I would just like the President of the United States to be able to discern opinions that don't follow his method of operation. Critically think for goodness sakes. Bush's life was changed by an emotional and dramatic event in his life, this was tied into his sobriety, his wife etc. It's a wholesale event. I'd applaud the man's steadfastness and stubborness if he weren't the most powerful man on the planet fighting a difficult war. He HAS to be able to listen to oppositions.

That's the thing, he doesn't think he has anything to learn. He believes it's all mapped out for him.
This doesn't defy science, this defies logic, even in the sense of faith and love in a higher being. The mistakes that have happened over the last few years could have been avoided, not all of them, but some had he had more of a presence of mind to listen to opposing viewpoints.

Have you read Bush at War by Bob Woodward? This book was AUTHORIZED by the White House and it shows the very same things that his critics think. I am not talking about Michael Moore hyperbole and untruth, I am talking about a man that will not listen to opposition. O'Neill's book said the same thing. Clarke's book said the same thing. Woodwards second book Pal of Attack, said the same thing. But I guess we are to believe that this is all 'partisan hackery'. Give me a break.

My only hope is that Bush learns from his mistakes for the good of us all. I think he will be re-elected by those who buy his rhetorric. I'm not talking about conservative Republicans. Those people were going to vote for him no matter what. That's fine that is an idealogical link, they are likeminded, right or wrong, it's understandable. I am talking about those voters in the middle, the ones who are gullible and buy into Swiftboat nonsense and other garbage. They can't critically think either. Look at the charts, the music charts, the TV ratings, the movies our mass public watches, listens to etc. We aren't a thinking public, so I guess maybe we deserve a non-thinking President. Well, I'm sure he thinks a lot, but not critically. It's been proven, just like the sciences, but not everyone believes it, if it defies their dogma, then it can't be, even if it is.
Inner El Guapo is offline  
Old 10-23-2004, 02:43 AM   #32
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:56 AM
I would not mock your belief, generally people dont listen if one doesn't respect them.
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-23-2004, 07:26 AM   #33
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 07:56 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
but it does not have to be. Many christians understand evolution but may see it as the way that God operates in the universe, his hand guiding the creation of mankind.


Theistic evolution would be synthesizing our current knowledge of evolutionary biology with the belief in God.
Evolution as the method of God's creation is the only way any of it makes any sense.
martha is offline  
Old 10-23-2004, 09:04 PM   #34
Paper Gods
Forum Administrator
 
KhanadaRhodes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: a vampire in the limousine
Posts: 60,684
Local Time: 09:56 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha
Evolution as the method of God's creation is the only way any of it makes any sense.
__________________
KhanadaRhodes is offline  
Old 10-23-2004, 10:00 PM   #35
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 10:56 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by shart1780

I don't believe in evolution but the governmant teaches that as a fact, not a theory. Is that not pushing their antithesis of religion on me?
You are kidding aren't you? Please tell me you are kidding. You can't possibly believe in creationsim as FACT. I almost fell off my chair when I read that.
indra is offline  
Old 10-24-2004, 02:06 AM   #36
War Child
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 654
Local Time: 02:56 PM
who says a day in God's time has to be a literal 24 hours... it can mean a period of time.. even a thousand years are described as a day in Gods eyes in the bible

like when someone says in my day.. they are basically referring to a period of time an era that could cover 10 to 20 years not a literal 24 hour period..

if God referred to a creative day as a period of time in which he created the animals or the land which could be as long as thousands of years if need be I think it would agree with science and geology ect
annj is offline  
Old 10-24-2004, 04:33 AM   #37
Refugee
 
stammer476's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,058
Local Time: 11:56 PM
Quote:
Evolution HAS BEEN PROVEN
Let get our terms straight here, folks. MICRO-EVOLUTION has been proven. In that, species can make small adaptations to fit their environment. MACRO-EVOLUTION has NOT been proven. In that, species can make enough small adaptations to fit their environment that these adaptations add up to an entirely different species. Macro-evolution is the theoretical aspect of evolution, and a grand jump, to say the least.

Without macro-evolution, the explanation of the species of the world cannot be explained. However, macro-evolution has not been proven as scientific fact, and the fossil record does not give addequate information to prove this theory correct.

Just wanted to clarify. The battle over evolution as the explanation of the species is far from as simple as some would like it be.
stammer476 is offline  
Old 10-24-2004, 04:47 AM   #38
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:56 AM
I beg to differ - micro-evolution and macro-evolution are two scales of the same process - the problem is time. They are each part of the same process of evolution - it is Natural Selection, Punctuated Equalibrium etc. that make up the theory of evolution. Anyway it is all very consistent if you are willing to think in terms of geological time, but it is total nonsense if you restrict yourself to young earther time scales.

The fossil record is full of transitionary forms, evolutionary dead ends and a whole manner of other wierd and wonderful types of life. Micro-evolution versus macro-evolution only become a problem when the time scale of life on the planet is compressed from billions of years to thousands. By eliminating geological time young earth creationists do not have enough time to account for life on the planet.

What we see in the world and the fossil record makes no sense without evolution. To accept microevolution but deny macroevolution is somewhat contradictory, macroevolution can occur as an accumulation of more minor mutations over a lot of time. The problem is that the creationists cannot think about the sheer length of times involved.

There is no battle over the legitimacy of evolutionary theories within the scientific community, it is pretty much universally accepted and has an extremely high confidence level as a theory because of the massive ammounts of supporting evidence. The idea that evolution is on its last legs and mostly discredited is a myth perpetuated by the creationist movement to kick up a lot of dust to legitimize their "theories" on the subject. We have the evidence for macroevolution - we have been collecting it for centuries and it is there for the world to see, if you choose wallow in ignorance and ignore it then that is your choice - however I would say you should learn about the science first.

I ask you this, on one hand we have have theory that is supported by evidence, when we discover more about life the more that evolution makes sense (the discovery of DNA was well after the theory of evolution by means of natural selection was proposed but DNA is the crucial element of modern investigation into the underlying processes).

To make this theory work
>The earth has to be billions of years old.
>Species must not be static, there must be changes within a population.
>You do NOT need to have intervention by an infinitely powerful being.
>The earth must have been different in its past.

On the other hand we have young earth creationism - the Earth was made by a creator in 7 days 6000 years ago, all life forms that ever existed lived on the earth at the same time but most were wiped out in a global flood. but Noah saved every species that survives today on his ark, every human being is the offspring of Adam and Eve etc,

To make this proposition work
>Mitochondrial DNA is a big fake because it is inconsistent.
>Radioisotope dating is false because it is inconsistent.
>All the fossils in the world just happened to be layed down in their specific beds even though this is impossible to happen in a flood.
>All of geology is an ubersham because it uses especially long time scales based on that same radioisotope dating.
>You require intervention from an infinitely powerful being.

Now please can you give me a good reason that we should treat each equally, a scientific theory with supporting evidence and an extremely high confidence level versus superstition that has to exclude most evidence and bend other evidence to be proven. This is a moot debate because evolution is a fact of life and creation is stuffy old superstition - the flipside is that if I were to just walk away (so to speak) then it would become a case of "oh the science cannot argue against the pure facts that backup creationism". So I will stay around and answer what you choose to lob - but only because I have nothing better to do and I want to make the facts on the matter abundantly clear.

Speciation of species can be seen across habitats on the same continents, minor differences between seperate populations - the ultimate example being Darwin's Finches in the Galapagos Islands. I ask any budding creationist to offer an explanation as to the diversity in those environments and how it came to be without population dynamics and evolution?
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-24-2004, 08:16 AM   #39
War Child
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 654
Local Time: 02:56 PM
Well another way to look at it, is people find ruins and artifacts all over the earth and they knew it had to be made by someone even a simple flint tool.. they know it did not come about or evolve by itself.. they readily accept it was made and admire the workman ship of the person who made it

yet something as complex as a the cells in our body.. which is structured and work in a far more complicated way just happened by some random chance is a bit much to accept

the brain is far more complex than a computer, yet would any one believe that you could just get lots of computer parts and they will suddenly come all together to make a working machine
without the help of some one to build them

why would evolution given us feelings of love sadness hatred compassion caring happiness.. a sense of awareness of who we are and a sense of uniquiness. it is not a neccesity to just get by every day.. so why are they there?

We can look around us and appreciate the beauty of our surroundings and question our exsistence why does mankind seek and search for answers to things around them in a way no other animals do,

why do they feel the need that there is a higher power to turn to if it had not already been built into them.. and why would evolution built such things into us if a Creator doesnt exsist?
__________________

annj is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×