Creationism- the dinosaur question

[Prader Willi]

According to creationist accounts I've heard, the dinosaurs were killed during the great flood about 5 or 6 thousand years ago. So what happened to the dinosaurs on Noah's Ark?-- according to the Bible, at least two of everything was on the Ark- that would include dinosaurs. Anyone know what the creationist explantion is for this important issue?

BTW- I'm not saying the Biblical account is wrong- it makes about as much sense as the theory of evolution (slime just spontaneously appeared and then changed into animals and stuff, lol)

[bob]

Even the Pope accepts theory of evolution.

[Prader Willi]

and he couldn't be wrong.

[HAL9000]

OK, but take into account what the people of Noah's time believed to be "the world". When the "world" flooded, it could be just a very small section of the continent as much of the world was undiscovered. This would explain why the dove was able to find the twig (olive branch??? I don't remember), as how did this grow so quickly if everything in the "world" was flooded entirely.

[bob]

Prader, the basics of evolution are fact. No different than the theory that the Earth is round.

We have evidence of dinosaurs but the Ark is still undiscovered. ;)

FYI, Noah sounds like a liberal PETA (sp) activest.

[Karel]

Bob is right. Because I said so...

Anybody can be right. Because there is always someone to say so...

:D

[HAL9000]

Kathaksung is right then :D

[Prader Willi]

I'm not advocating the Great Flood theory-- I was just wondering how creationist explain the disappearance of dinosaurs when there would have been two of each kind on the ark. I posted this question after I saw a new article saying how there is a bill in Ohio to force schools to teach creationism.

As far as the theory of evolution-- yes, within species evolution is well established (look at what we've done with dogs and corn)-- but I don't know of any proof of cross-species evolution-- or of the spontaneous generaton of life. We cannot genetically engineer corn to be anything but corn.

[drisley]

i love watching these types of discussion because Bob usually chimes saying that the "facts" of science cannot be disputed because some guys in white coats proclaim it so. Sounds like the same type of faith that creationists have in their theory.

I think the theory of evolution is full of gaping holes, the cross-species limitation being a big one. The other huge one is that scientists have absolutely no idea how life started. Their idea of a lightning strike in a sea of ammonia and - bang! - life. That's ridiculous.

[Prader Willi]

That's the dilemma, both theories have gaping holes. The universe has obviously been here for more than 6 thousand years.

However, the Hindu version of creation seems more on target than the Blblical. According to Hindu scripture the universe is created and destroyed every 4 or 5 billion years.

But who knows, I believe the universe was created- but when?- I guess it really doesn't matter. and I don't know what the answer is-- I don't even know how fish work, let alone how the universe was created.

[drisley]

I don;t know how fish work either, so I'm with you on that one. :)

I too believe the universe was created...it didn't just happen. The question of when, IMO, is unimportant because the entire idea of time is relative.

[clydefo]

http://slate.msn.com//?id=2062009

"Unintelligible redesign.
This is the way creationism ends. Not with a bang, but with a whimper...

...Creationists have devised a theory called "Intelligent Design" (ID) and are trying to get Ohio's Board of Education to make sure it's taught alongside Darwinism. Unlike creationism, ID accepts that the Earth is billions of years old and that species evolve through natural selection. It posits that life has been designed but doesn't specify by whom. Liberals call ID a menace that will sneak religion into public schools. They're exactly wrong. ID is a big nothing. It's non-living, non-breathing proof that religion has surrendered its war against science.
Creationism used to be assertive and powerful. Darwinism wasn't allowed in schools. As Darwin gained the upper hand, conservatives fought to preserve creationism alongside evolution. They lost the war on both fronts. Courts struck down the teaching of creationism on the grounds that it mixed church and state. Meanwhile, scientific evidence discredited the belief that the Earth was created in six days and was only 6,000 years old. Like the Taliban, creationists were washed up. Their only hope was to flee to the mountains, shave their beards, change their clothes, and come back as something else.
What they've come back as is the Intelligent Design movement...

...John Calvert, the country's principal exponent of ID, answered that question in a treatise he presented to the Ohio board. Calvert described the "methods" by which scientists can "detect" design in nature.
In summary, if a highly improbable pattern of events or object exhibits purpose, structure or function and can not be reasonably and rationally explained by the operation of the laws of physics and chemistry or some other regularity or law, then it is reasonable to infer that the pattern was designed. â€" the product of a mind.
That, in a nutshell, is ID. It offers no predictions, scope modifiers, or experimental methods of its own. It's a default answer, a shrug, consisting entirely of problems in Darwinism. Those problems should be taught in school, but there's no reason to call them intelligent design. Intelligent design, as defined by its advocates, means nothing. This is the way creationism ends. Not with a bang, but with a whimper."

[bob]

http://www.kidzworld.com/img/upload/article/a1087i0_bsc.jpg


That is a human ear growing on a mouse.

Link to a site for those that do not understand evolution
http://www.kidzworld.com/Frameset/reloadframe.asp?s=102&p=http://www.kidzworld.com/site/Wild_Things.htm

[Prader Willi]

Wouldn't have much respect for proponents of ID. Either the Biblical account is right or it is wrong. A tenet of creationism is that it is based on faith- you accect it as true because the Bible is the word God and therefore indisputable- regardless of the evidence that contradicts it. If the ID folks are admitting that the Biblical account is inaccurate- then they do not have any basis for their theory. What's their position?-- God created the universe- he just didn't tell the truth when he described how he did it?

On the other hand, the theory of evolution also contains much dogma and leaps of logic. Like I said, neither theory makes much sense.

bob-- I saw a movie once where a guy turned into a fly-- guess maybe you are right, cross-species does exist!

[HAL9000]

Why does everybody believe that god created people as we see them today? Nobody seems to want to suggest that if God created man, that man may have looked quite a bit different than we do now, but have since evlolved into what you see today.

[drisley]

I think both sides are right and both sides are wrong. Creationists don't concede that what is in the Bible is basically one account written by men. Scientists don't concede that they have no idea what caused all this. Both sides are driven by their own dogma - creationists that God is the cause of all - scientists that God cannot possibly exist and that nothing besides matter exists. I've said this before - scientists are just preachers of their own "religion", and they wear white coats instead of robes. That's the only difference.

On first glance, ID seems like a reasonable theory. Whoever said it was proof that religion has surrendered its war against science is just arrogant and shows their own close-mindedness.

[clydefo]

"...driven by their own dogma ... scientists that God cannot possibly exist and that nothing besides matter exists." <b>-drisley</b>

Few scientists would make those absolute claims and if they did it would be because of their personal philosophical beliefs and not as a result of their work applying their scientific methods.

The realm ascribed to God is beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. Science doesn't assert that "nothing besides matter [& energy] exists", they simply say that they haven't yet found evidence of anything else except in the imagination of mankind.

As that article pointed out, ID is just the simplistic assertion that because scientific inquiry hasn't yet answered all questions in its accumulated understanding of our universe, a God must have designed it.

Give man more time to figure it all out. We've made some real progress, but remember, we've only ourselves recently evolved beyond grunting and wearing animal skins since the last ice age.

[drisley]

Science doesn't assert that "nothing besides matter [& energy] exists", they simply say that they haven't yet found evidence of anything else except in the imagination of mankind.

That's kind of a generality, because there is a lot of science that professes exactly that. Not all, of course, because many scientists are themselves religious. But, for example, take a look at the psycho-sciences like psychology and psychiatry (if you can even call them sciences). They both go over and beyond to prove that nothing immaterial can be involved with the human mind and the human spirit. They don't even recognize that a spirit exists. They've developed some weirdo theories to prove otherwise.

Whatever you might think about that particular subject, I don't care - but it is true that many of those guys actively try to disprove anything immaterial.

[clydefo]

The onus is on those who assert that a spirit exists to produce their evidence.

[Prader Willi]

Originally posted by clydefo
The onus is on those who assert that a spirit exists to produce their evidence.

The onus is on those who assert that a spirit does not exist to produce their evidence.

I look around a see life-- so a spirit must exist-- science cannot produce life-- to say that life happened by a random event and then evolved into man takes as much faith as to say the life was created by God.

Either way, the question cannot be answered with proof. Its a matter of faith either way.

[clydefo]

Not so fast there about who has the burden of proof. Imagine when the idea of a spirit was first introduced around some ancient campfire. Someone like yourself pipes up and proclaims "spirits exist"! Someone like me says, "Huh? How do you know that"? Now it's your turn, and sorry, but simply saying that you see life around you only proves that you have eyeballs.

[drisley]

What the fuck gives you that idea? Where'd this fire story come from anyway? The idea that we are all spiritual being is as old as mankind himself. The idea that he is not was born in the late nineteenth century by some doctor kook doing experiments on dogs and implying the same for humans. This materialistic theory is new on the scene and, honestly, held my a minority of the human race.

I asked this of Bob one time and he hemmed and hawed and basically came up with some drool: Think of a cat. Now, you have a thought of a cat in your head, right? Now, WHO IS LOOKING AT IT?!

If you can explain to me how a non-spirit, basically a piece of meat in a skull, can think up an image and then look "internally" at it, then you should write a book.

[bob]

Think of a [God]. Now, you have a thought of a [God] in your head, right? Now, WHO IS LOOKING AT IT?!

Now I wonder when a cat thinks of [you] does it see a God?

Garbage in garbage out.

[clydefo]

drisley,

Your suggestion that the debate about the spiritual nature of Man goes back no further than the late Nineteenth Century is so ridiculous that I can only assume you have mis-spoken somehow.

As for the cat; the nature of human consciousness is not very well understood yet and is the "next big thing" in scientific inquiry.

Whether one imagines the cat or actually "sees" it the result is the same. It is incorporated into an internal model of the universe created by our minds, not "seen" by a spirit or a soul occupying our bodies.

[Prader Willi]

Try it this way then-- you say life spontaneously generated. Prove it. Please show how an inanimate object can suddenly come to life.

There is no proof that this occurred. The only reason it is offered is because the idea that God created life was rejected by atheist scientists who therefore they had to come up with something else.

If there isn't any proof of the spontaneous generation of life- and you accept this theory-- then your acceptance is based on faith- not observation or scientific research.

[clydefo]

No reputable scientist claims to know how or where life started.

There appear to be no supernatural forces needed for the evolution and maintenance of life on an everyday, ongoing basis, why jump to the conclusion that they were needed to get life started?

Ancient man could not conceive of any mechanism or reason why cold damp clouds could or would suddenly produce something as powerful and terrifying as a lightning bolt. Fire from the sky during a rainstorm? The only imaginable explanation that seemed to make any sense was that it was the work of a capricious or angry God. (Although, I suspect that even then there were a few freethinkers around who, while not being able to explain it all yet, nonetheless figured the witch doctors were full of baloney).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume you are using "spontaneous generation" as a catch-all term for any non-supernatural origin of life rather than as a synonym for the discredited theory of abiogenesis (I looked it up). I don't believe that an "inanimate object can suddenly come to life", as you put it.

Looking down the food chain of life forms, one sees progressively less-complex organisms. Down to one-celled creatures, then on to quasi-life forms such as viruses and prions. This hierarchy of complexity suggests to me that if we keep looking in the right places we will find a transitional zone where chains of amino acids and whatnot grow more complex and begin to perpetuate and reproduce themselves. The process is probably very gradual. It probably takes extreme conditions. Life began on Earth only 500 million years or so after its formation, while the new planet was still in its initial cool-down. There is evidence that life formed and may still be forming at the dark depths of the oceans in the extreme pressure and heat of volcanic vent pipes. If we eventually find the same process going on at the bottom of the frozen oceans of Europa or elsewhere, it would be reasonable to conclude that life formation is a natural process that occurs when conditions are right. Physical cause and effect; sort of like a lightning bolt.

[drisley]

Clyde, its a little hard to debate you when you throw out facts as if they're common knowledge like that, and then act like it is our job to disprove it. Honeslty, what gives you the idea that the spiritual debate is that old? Its not. Sure, the spiritual nature of man has been under debate, but the idea that he is a spirit in some form versus the idea that he is a brain is a new debate - started in the nineteenth century. And that is a fact.

It is called dualism, and the idea has been around forever. Your version started in the 1850's with Darwin, and that laid the groundwork for Professor Wundt to come up with his theory in 1879 that the human mind can be studied the same way as the body, or a frog for that matter. First, Wundt was a physiologist, to begin with. And depite the fact that he didn't prove any of what he said, he was the start of the school of experimental psychology.

From then on, this debate in trying to refute the age old idea of dualism has been raging, and it has only been really going since then, because that's when it started.

As for the rest of what you said, I only laugh. The mental machinery people like you must develop to explain away the idea of you looking at an image is funny as hell to me. If its just the "intenral model of the universe" spontaneously creating thoughts and we coming up with imagined images and nobody's looking at it or creating the image in the first place....well, that's just funny.

[bob]

They are to anyone (including religous people) with a BS degree. ;)

[clydefo]

"Democritus, Greek philosopher (460?-357 BCE).
The father of Materialism. Argued that mechanical relationships or arrangements of the atoms account for various characteristics of nature, the intimation here being that the natural order of the world resulted from chance. Even morality, the soul, and all mental life are reducible to mechanistic terms with physical imperceptible atoms as their basic structure. Spiritual reality does not exist; what appears to be spiritual is attributed simply to subperceptible atomic structure or else to mere superstition. Hence, the Democritan philosophy of mechanistic Materialism is complete, self-sufficient, and self-contained". (From the list of Famous Dead Non-Theists) http://www.visi.com/~markg/atheists.html

[drisley]

Boy, has this debate wandered. Started with dinosaurs and creationism and wandered into this.

Democritus is the father of materialism, so to speak, but he was also not common in his time. He was also the epitomy of an ivory tower type, hardly mainstream. And since I'm talking about when this debate started to rage, I think you'll find Wundt signified the start of it. With him and the start of experimental psychology, we have a whole branch of psycho-sciences that in and of themselves are completely misnamed, being that the word "psyche" means soul and they try to prove it doesn't exist. The idea of materialism has become more popular since then, with people trying to find quick fixes for their problems and these "experts" in white coats handing out drugs to fix their brains.

As to the debate itself, I just can't understand how anyone can think they are a brain. I view the brain as a switchboard, but I know it is not me. I think its idiotic to think otherwise, and I think the theory of materialism has dragged this society down.

[SARGE]

I'll never find a way to argue down those who doubt God's existence, the spirit (soul) or creationism. Man, with our arrogance and limited knowledge seek answers to everything and even create theories. I do know that I too searched most of my life for answers, when they were right smack dab in front of me. Even while I was fighting it, HE became real in my own life. Though I've been credited with using the English language in a concise way, words escape me to explain my own experiences.

[Prader Willi]

Originally posted by clydefo


I don't believe that an "inanimate object can suddenly come to life", as you put it.


Then we agree, if there was no life on earth and suddently there was life on earth- then that would involve a non-living substance coming to life- unless life was created.

Arguing that there are different degress of life based on complexity and this explains how life sponteneously generated just doesn't cut it. Either something is alive or it isn't. A substance isn't nonliving and then it's kinda alive and then it's really kinda alive and then its almost alive and then its really sort of almost alive and then it's alive. :)

The argument is really quite simple- either you accept on faith that life was created or you accept on faith that non-living things can turn into living things- the evoluntionist view.

Demo the Greek? why would anyone give a f*** what he thought about anything? Because he's Greek and he's dead?

[clydefo]

Do you insist that life had supernatural origins because you simply can’t imagine a natural cause? If so, you are no more enlightened than the caveman trying to explain lightning.

The cause of life formation hasn’t been discovered and yet you make the unequivocal assertion that it was caused by an intelligent creator. Don’t you risk the same embarrassment as the caveman when he was proven wrong?

You say that “either something is alive or it isn’t”. Such simplistic dichotomies may make someone feel as though they know what’s going on (“Thar’s only two kinda people in the world, blah, blah, blah…”), but it may be that the arbitrary definition of life needs to change. How do you categorize viruses? Are they alive?

I don’t accept anything on faith; I wait until the evidence is in.

Are you suggesting that dead Greeks have added nothing to our understanding of the world?

[drisley]

Clyde,

Honestly, I think this debate is mute. You are accepting your idea on faith every bit as strongly as other people accept that God created it. You can't imagine a supreme being having a hand in it, so you accepting your theory without any evidence is just as un-enlightened, as you say it. Science has absolutely no idea how the hell life started, and if you are the type who waits until "the evidence is in", then you should withold your "conclusions" until the facts are in. Truth is, you'll be waiting for a long time...

All Prader is pointing out is that things that are inanimate don't just turn animate. It doesn't happen and no scientist in the world has even seen it happen. I don't believe that this point is under debate.

And are you denying something is either alive or it isn't? Is a switch neither on or off? I love how some of you guys try to wallow in self-created complexities, as if it is the only way it could be true. :)

[Prader Willi]

Originally posted by clydefo

The cause of life formation hasn’t been discovered and yet you make the unequivocal assertion that it was caused by an intelligent creator. Don’t you risk the same embarrassment as the caveman when he was proven wrong?


Are you suggesting that dead Greeks have added nothing to our understanding of the world?

Nope, I never made that assertion-- my point has always been that the evolutionist's theory of beginning of life makes about as much sense as the creationists explanation. Both seem implausible and accepting either one is a matter of faith.

Dead Greeks have added nothing to our understanding of the world-- that is true. Only professors and people in college think they have. How is your life better because of Greeks? Once you are out of college (you are in college aren't you) you won't give them another thought. Unless you watch Xena or Hercules that is :D.

Yes, things are either alive or they are not- this is one of the true black and white issues. I know it hard to tell sometimes-- but believe me on this one.

[SARGE]

As my kids asked (when younger), if we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?

[clydefo]

Gentlemen:

Perhaps some clarification of my position is in order since you seem to either misunderstand or misconstrue what I have argued.

I don't have a "faith" in the correctness of an "evolutionist" point of view on the origin of life. Mostly that is because there is no such thing as far as I can tell. We are all just waiting around to find out what the experiments reveal.
My own rank speculation about a possible scenario is clearly just that and nothing more.

If you are suggesting that I have a "faith" that there is a non-divine origin of life, then that is also not true. I have an an open mind. Show me a single piece of evidence of divine origin and I will eagerly and fairly consider it.

drisley, I can in fact imagine a supreme being getting it started, it's just that I agree with Prader Willi that it is "implausible". I believe that just as the ongoing life processes we experience are manifestations of demonstrably natural forces, so most likely was life's beginning. But like I say, I'm open to anything.

SARGE, please reassure your kids that we didn't evolve <b>from</b> the other apes. The evidence strongly suggests that all primates evolved from a common ancestor. Some species, like Homo Sapiens and Chimpanzees developed advanced intelligence while others, such as the Neanderthal, in spite of their intelligence, died out for some unknown reason.

[drisley]

Clyde,

I guess that does clarify your position. On that same line, though, you must admit that we will never prove how life started scientifically. I don't think it will ever happen, mainly for religious reasons (and I'm not a Christian or anything), but just in the day-to-day world, all a scientist can do is use a few experiments that he says might have been this or that and could have led to that and might possilby be why...blah blah blah....it just won't happen, and any explanation we have, ever, will be based on faith and faith alone.

[clydefo]

drisley,

I do not at all "...admit that we will never prove how life started scientifically...". Quite the opposite, I believe that since it is most likely a natural, physical process, as we explore the Cosmos, we will figure it out. It may be one of those slap-the-forehead "of course!" moments for the discoverer.

But then that leaves the really tough questions like "is infinity for real?" and "what was going on before the Big Bang?"

[bob]

DNA is the matrix for life.
Just agree that if you beleive in God IT only created DNA. Explains alot... Diesm would be a choice. :D
The jab of virus life (RNA only) was good Clyde but way over the heads of your opponents.
They need to understand evolution first. ;)

[drisley]

I understand evolution fine, Bob, I just think it is a shoddy theory as it is told. I think evolution as a process is probably valid, but vast cross-species changes are just not provable, and the holes in the anthropological record between species can only be filled with faith by the scientist. If someone claims to base facts on evidence alone, I would think both you and Clyde would see that.

I think, personally, that DNA is the matrix for bodies. I do not believe it is the matrix for life itself.

[bob]

When animals die their bodies usually do not become fosills. That is because they rot away.
To get fosills you need a rare event like an astroid hitting the earth. That does not happen often - hence the gaps in the record.
Anything else you want me to explain to you? ;)

[SARGE]

I understand the "theory" of evolution; a substitute for creationism. Santa Claus for Christmas and the Easter Bunny for Easter. Each a substitute for the alternative.

[drisley]

Bob, you can attempt to explain the holes, but you're not denying that the holes are there. And being that they are there, how can you continue to say evolution is a 100% proven theory?

A scientist invents a theory. He finds fossil records that could possibly deduce a pattern, but the large time gaps in between and the large changes in each fossil make any real pattern a real leap. So, he comes up with an explanation for the holes and declares his theory fact?

Maybe you'd make a shitty scientist? :)

[bob]

The theory of astroid impacts on earth can be verified by looking at the moon and the crators on earth.

//"how can you continue to say evolution is a 100% proven theory?"//
I did not say 100%. There is no such thing as a proven theory. Gaps in the record are not holes in the theory either.

//"A scientist invents a theory"//
"Look up scientific method."

[drisley]

Gaps in the record are not holes in the theory either.


Okay, only if you view it as a theory and a theory only. You seem to view it as gospel and use it to poo-poo other theories.

Personally, I think the large holes in the timeline blow the theory. Scientists like to draw that picure of the ape turning into human through the various stages, yet we do not have any records of many of those in-between stages. What we have are a few particular fossils and a large leap to find the pattern between them.

[clydefo]

"...ape turning into human through the various stages, yet we do not have any records of many of those in-between stages..." <b>drisley</b>

If this progression though stages, with some of the stages as yet undiscovered, does not suggest a natural evolutionary process to you, does it cause you to think that a Creator fashioned Man in fits and starts over time, perhaps taking million-year coffee breaks?

[drisley]

It doesn't suggest anything, Clyde, that's the whole point. If you have a beginning and an end, but nothing in between, how can you deduce a pattern? How can we assume that some monkey fossils are our ancestors without a direct link to human? How do we know that these "stages" were not completely separate animals with no relation? And without fossil evidence, how do we even know they existed in the first place?

I'm not leaping onto the creationist bandwagon...I'm only pointing out that evolution is full of holes and therefore not worthy of being shoved in the faces of those who preach otherwise as if it is the end-all fact. Both are theories.

[clydefo]

Don't misstate it as "...a beginning and an end, but nothing in between...". There are, as you put it, "gaps" or "holes" in the progression, but not a void. As for a direct link between "monkeys" and humans, what do you make of the DNA evidence? We are 98% the same as chimps. Our primate ancestors have clearly evolved - standing and walking more upright, less forehead slope, less hair, etc. Their bones bear this out.

If you won't accept the fossil evidence for evolution of species, then what do you have to say about the ongoing process we can observe in bacteria, viruses, insects and plants, species with a rapid generational turnover. They mutate, adapt, and evolve right before our eyes. Last year's flu shot won't do you any good.

[bob]

Clyde you beat me to it with DNA.

Mr D. The fossil record exists because of events like astroid impacts. There is a great deal of time that passes between these impacts.

These snapshots in time are consistant with the current evolutionary rates we see currently.

Funny thing is that your economic theories seem to match evolutions "the fittest survive" clause. (he he)

BTW, Mr D. Do you have any problems with the theory of gravity?

[drisley]

Is it some kind of liberal thing to be this close-minded? ;) I thought you people were supposed to be open-minded.

You guys are barking up the wrong tree. I'm not trying to discount evolution as a THEORY, I'm only trying to point out that it is not a proven solid fact. There's a huge difference. This whole thing started because some guys were talking about creation and you tried to bring them down with evolution, but in reality, you're only proposing your theory over their's. Both are theories and neither side knows.

Try reading up some time on evolution...read some stuff by some people who don't accept everything they hear. For every scientist that swears by evolution, there's another that points out the problems with it. That's what good scientists do, not just jump on the bandwagon and discount all debate as if it is out in left field. This is why I've said before that scientists are preachers in white coats. No difference.

[Prader Willi]

The question : why can't scientists create life using the same processes that was supposed to have started life in the beginning?

If life could suddenly appear out of nonliving chemicals, we could replicate the process in laboratories. The fact that we cannot create life using the same process that evolutionists say originally created life would seem to weaken the theory- but given it is accepted by faith and dogma- contradictory evidence is ignored (just as evidence against creationism is ignored- such as the dinosuar question).

In fact, there is as much evidence that life was put on earth by an alien race in spaceships as there is for the evolutionary theory of the beginning of life- which is to say there isn't any evidence.

[clydefo]

Scientific inquiry into the origins of life is still in its infancy. As more is discovered and understood, researchers may well reach the point at which they could in fact trigger life. But there may be good reasons not to initiate such an unpredictable process, and it would certainly drive the Jerry Falwell crowd berserk.

As an analogy, consider that even though the existence and the physics of black hole formation is reasonably well established and understood, we have not recreated the process here on Earth, and we may not want to do so even when we gain such capability.

[Prader Willi]

Not a good analogy because black holes do not exist naturally on earth- but life is everywhere. Life was supposed to have suddenly appeared through some chemical reaction- it should be easy to replicate this process because of our purported knowledge of the conditions during the early beginnings of life. If we replicate the chemical reactions and we get amino acids but no life- then it would appear that there is something more to the creation of life than what can be accounte for by the theory.

[clydefo]

Dang, I thought that analogy was right on point. The fact that a natural process has not been reproduced in a Human laboratory doesn't mean that the process doesn't exist. It also reinforces the wisdom of the adage, "don't mess with things you don't [yet] understand."

[clydefo]

Coming attraction:

Tuesday night, February 26, PBS NOVA. "Missing Link".

Check your local listings.

[Lucifer]

Funny that it is always called the "theory of evolution".
Back in the 19th century there was a "theory" of evolution. There was also the "theory that germs cause disease" and the "theory that matter is made of atoms" and the "theory of electricty"

Well guess what? None of those things are theories anymore despite the fact that we don't understand them completely.

Even the darned Pope accepts the Big Bang and evolution. Why is it that a country that is supposedly the most andvanced and educated also have the highest percentage of people who think we're still in the Dark Ages?

[Prader Willi]

There was also the theory of spontaneous generation, theory of phrenology, theory of electromagnetic induction of emotions, etc, etc.

Just because one theory receives empirical support doesn't mean that all other theories are true. Because electricity exists-- therefore evolution is true and should accepted without question. What kind of thinking is that?

[Lucifer]

Creationists seem very limited in their ideas of HOW the world was created.

I pissed off some guy on another forum. He said "Creationism should be taught in schools"
I replied "Sure. Which creation myths do you want taught? Jewish? Hopi Indian? Greek? Norse? Australian Aboriginal? Hindu?"

For some reason that seemed to annoy him. I can't see why. They all say that some god or other did it in one unlikely way or another.

[Prader Willi]

I would agree with that-- keep in mind, my position is that all of the theories or explanations for the beginnings of life seem farfetched.

[dldz]

I think you need to call your nurse in & have her change your drool towel & diaper. What a bunch a shit have'nt you guys ever dug up dino bones ? I suppose 'GOD' put them there as some kind'a joke ? give me & mankind a break & jump from the highest point your weak eyes can find.
Me

[dldz]

1 2 3

[Quartzhunter]

Your all correct...This IS GODS project...(us)he started it a long time ago...sooner or later we will figure out how....The bible is just MANS (not womans)way of explaining things that HE cannot understand...thats why it sounds odd at times...so tell me why can't we have evolved from "the big bang" and god was the one who lit the fuse?;)

[WJWheels]

The bible is a bunch of old stories and recollections passed down and written down by a bunch of old men and later cannonized by another bunch of old men. If your reading and/or interpretation of the stories helps you get through life, then good for you.

----------------

I see it like this:

A: If you're a "believer" and you're wrong, when you die, you're dead - big fuggin' deal!:cool:

B: If you're a "non-believer" and you're wrong, when you die, you're burning in hell, baby!:confused:

[bob]

And God said let there be light - so he fliped a switch and there was light.

That helps me not to trip in life every night. :D

[Quartzhunter]

So while I totally with you on the "historic" value of the bible, and I totally agree with the science's explanation of the evolution of man, I think my point was why can't it can work both ways at the same time (the God part not the bible part)? its the same thing with religions in general, I can't understand all the "holy wars" man has fought through out history. If every religion has a "God" with a different name, does that mean there are many "Gods" or just one with a lot of nicknames? ;)

[bailey]

the same God is known by many names

[bailey]

because some men refuses to acknoeledge God exist, is searching for anything he can to disprove he is.

to try to understand God is like trying to understand the unknown. can't be done.

that is why it is called faith.

what do you have to loose if you are wrong.

if there is no God nothing

If there is a God everything

I think I would rather have faith that there is a God, try to live the way he wants, and if I am right ?

better than being wrong.

[dldz]

I could call my dawg 'god'
god is what you believe, it follows under my higher power rule.
Higher power = any damn thing ya want to make it.
A tree for example...... if it's small it's a higher power,
If it's large cut it down, and in a couple of years you can get a higher power.

[bailey]

very true, you could create a idol and call it God too.

I know some bikers that think harley davision is God.

[WJWheels]

Originally posted by dldz
I could call my dawg 'god' I am GOD to my dog. He is dependent on me for his every need. He loves me. He fears me. He's loyal to me. He'll stand up and protect me and knows I'll do the same for him.

I had a cat once that didn't seem to believe I was GOD. That little sucker changed her mind when she found out she couldn't get out of that sack in the lake on her own.

[dldz]

So you are saying your an ALPHA ?
Don

[bob]

The enlightment of understanding what we know, do not know, and what we will discover.
That is a bit hard if one just accepts truth on faith.

[bailey]

I couldn't agree with you more,

and that is not the way it works.

[bob]

Originally posted by bailey
I couldn't agree with you more,

and that is not the way it works.


Hmm...
How does it work?

Reminds me when I asked how Santa could fit down the chimney.

No Dave, I did not ask that yesterday, I was about age 5 at the time. :D

[Quartzhunter]

Prader...hasn't it occured to you that maybe the bible fibs just a little? The time line is all wrong for the dino's dear...I have a "christain" freind (whom I do love dearly) HOWEVER she tried to tell me God put the Dino's bones in the earth for us to dig up that was the best she could do on that line of disscussion...Its just a historical record of what was going on at the time. A beautifully written, interesting, based in fact, but lots o story telling going on there...

[WJWheels]

Don't forget! Then entire "world" of the bible comprised not much more than what Jews & Arabs are still fighting over today.

I'm sure those old geezers wrote down things as best as they could remember and as best as they could understand. I'm also sure that some more old geezers some time later did their best deciding what stories to cannonize.... but the WORD OF GOD? Gimme a break!

[Quartzhunter]

WJ is it true we are agreeing? I'm scared now...

[WJWheels]

Originally posted by Quartzhunter
WJ is it true we are agreeing? I'm scared now... You're scared!!! I'm almost ready to perch in a tree for a couple months.


-NOT!-


You are starting to come along pretty well though.. keep up the good work.


PS: there's a big difference between religion & politics.