okay, i know this is going to cause a LOT of people to call me an idiot and proly get me a lot of neg reps, but this is how i think of evolution. i think some of it is right, but then some of it isnt. i think that god created the earth and all of the planets/stars/etc. but evolution clearly states that basically a small single celled organism turned into a fish and that fish turned into a monkey and that monkey turned into a caveman, then that caveman evolved into a human being. and your saying that is more possible than a almighy being creating everything? i mean yeah they are both unlikely, and impossile to prove, but if you call christians brainwashed for believing in god, jesus, the holy spirit, etc., then you are a hipocrit. i want you to go buy a fish and tell me when it turns into a human being. then i will become an athiest. until that happens, im devoted 100% to god.

okay, i know this is going to cause a LOT of people to call me an idiot and proly get me a lot of neg reps, but this is how i think of evolution. i think some of it is right, but then some of it isnt. i think that god created the earth and all of the planets/stars/etc. but evolution clearly states that basically a small single celled organism turned into a fish and that fish turned into a monkey and that monkey turned into a human being. and your saying that is more possible than a almighy being creating everything? i mean yeah they are both unlikely, and impossile to explain, but if you call christians brainwashed for believing in god, jesus, the holy spirit, etc., then you are a hipocrit. i want you to go buy a fish and tell me when it turns into a human being. then i will become an athiest. until that happns, im devoted 100% to god.

Wow.

See, this is the problem with most of the Christian population.
You get your so called "facts" from Bill O'Reilly and Kent Hovind.

Go study up on Evolution, because you obviously don't have a clue what it is.

my fish just turned human

Wow.

See, this is the problem with most of the Christian population.
You get your so called "facts" from Bill O'Reilly and Kent Hovind.

Go study up on Evolution, because you obviously don't have a clue what it is.

i know what evolution is. and i dont get any facts from those 2 people, i get facts from school, and the internet.

Wow.

See, this is the problem with most of the Christian population.
You get your so called "facts" from Bill O'Reilly and Kent Hovind.

Go study up on Evolution, because you obviously don't have a clue what it is.

You forgot Pat Robertson. :icon_yes:

Wow is right. Evolution is fairly well documented.

However it is interesting that one of the species that we don't have a complete evolutionary record of is humans. There is still a pretty big missing link.

Isn't this like the millionth thread pertaining to atheists, evolution, God, etc.. So go express yourself on one of those threads instead of creating repetative useless threads.

Thanx.

^ Don't post here then, it's NOT a useless thread, he just wants answers

okay, i know this is going to cause a LOT of people to call me an idiot and proly get me a lot of neg reps, but this is how i think of evolution. i think some of it is right, but then some of it isnt. i think that god created the earth and all of the planets/stars/etc. but evolution clearly states that basically a small single celled organism turned into a fish and that fish turned into a monkey and that monkey turned into a caveman, then that caveman evolved into a human being. and your saying that is more possible than a almighy being creating everything? i mean yeah they are both unlikely, and impossile to prove, but if you call christians brainwashed for believing in god, jesus, the holy spirit, etc., then you are a hipocrit. i want you to go buy a fish and tell me when it turns into a human being. then i will become an athiest. until that happens, im devoted 100% to god.

Zeroordie, I'm glad you're asking questions. The first thing I'd like to ask is what theory are you talking about? For example:

a small single celled organism turned into a fish and that fish turned into a monkey and that monkey turned into a caveman, then that caveman evolved into a human being.

I've never heard that before, and I'm 100% certain that isnt evolution.

i mean yeah they are both unlikely, and impossile to prove, but if you call christians brainwashed for believing in god, jesus, the holy spirit, etc., then you are a hipocrit. i want you to go buy a fish and tell me when it turns into a human being.

They're not impossible to prove, science can't prove anything 100%. What it does do is go by evidence, evolution has more evidence and more scientists believe it than creationism. I believe the latest figure was 95% of scientists were evolutionists.

Even one of the most famous Christians today, Allistar McGrath, believes in evolution.

I know this has been brought up many times but seriously. Look at the Theory of gravity and the theory of evolution. I'm sure everyone here believes in gravity correct? Well, in order for evolution to be considered a theory it must meet the same qualifications as gravity has to reach that level. If you don't know what a theory is see the deffinition below.

"Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis."

In other words. Evolution HAS been proven MULTIPLE TIMES by MANY PEOPLE, NOT JUST ONE.

Saying you don't believe in evolution is basically the same as saying you don't believe an apple can fall from a tree. aka gravity.

Again I know this has been brought up many times but some of you people seriously need to read it and understand it because it is apparent that either 1. you don't understand, or 2. you just don't read/do research on both sides of the argument.

^ Um, nope you are wrong. The theory has not been fully proven and still has its flaws, the same with creationism. Some parts have been proven, but not all. As Razz said above, science can't prove anything 100%. Therefore, Intelligent Design and Evolution are right with each other, one may have more proof, but they still have their flaws and can not be proved, or for that matter, disproved.

Oh, and also, someone please feel free to correct me if I am wrong, which I may or may not be.

^ Um, nope you are wrong. The theory has not been fully proven and still has its flaws, the same with creationism. Some parts have been proven, but not all. As Razz said above, science can't prove anything 100%. Therefore, Intelligent Design and Evolution are right with each other, one may have more proof, but they still have their flaws and can not be proved, or for that matter, disproved.

Oh, and also, someone please feel free to correct me if I am wrong, which I may or may not be.

I never said it was "fully" proven. I simply said it has been "proven multiple times". I thought the caps and the bold would have given that away but o well. And there is proof that it is real. And if there are flaws to it, no one knows them because if there was a flaw for evolution(or gravity), it would no longer be considered a theory or it would be changed to make it back into a theory.

Quick question... do you believe that gravity exist?

Yes, I do. This does not mean I have to believe in Evolution though.

I didn't really mean flaws, but I meant a more incompleteness in the theory. You are right, they would change it to make it back into a theory. They do find flaws though, they are little, but they are there. Everything has some sort of flaw though doesn't it? Nothing is perfect.

Wow.

See, this is the problem with most of the Christian population.
You get your so called "facts" from Bill O'Reilly and Kent Hovind.

Go study up on Evolution, because you obviously don't have a clue what it is.

BTW evolution is taught in schools these days. Bill O'reilly wouldn't waste his time on it.

Yes, I do. This does not mean I have to believe in Evolution though.

I didn't really mean flaws, but I meant a more incompleteness in the theory. You are right, they would change it to make it back into a theory. They do find flaws though, they are little, but they are there. Everything has some sort of flaw though doesn't it? Nothing is perfect.

I do agree that everything has its flaws and no, nothing is perfect. But you have to realize that the theory of gravity and the theory of evolution have to go through the same qualifications in order to be a theory. The are both tested and proven in many ways that leads to it being 100% rea. Of coarse it will never reach 100% but nothing will. I don't know, I just find it hard to believe that you believe gravity but not evolution. It's like you believe 2+2=4 but not 3+3=6. They both are math just like gravity and evolution are theory's but you only believe one. They may look different but it takes the same knowledge and skill to accomplish both.

It is definitely possible to believe in one and not the other. Christianity seemed more right for me. Just because it is a theory does not mean it is the truth. My beliefs are different from Evolution, therefore I practice Christianity. I can not force myself to believe Evolution as you could not force yourself to believe Christianity. I will believe what I want to believe no matter what. I choose to believe in Christianity, not by what others tell me, but by what I have found myself.

It is definitely possible to believe in one and not the other. Christianity seemed more right for me. Just because it is a theory does not mean it is the truth. My beliefs are different from Evolution, therefore I practice Christianity. I can not force myself to believe Evolution as you could not force yourself to believe Christianity. I will believe what I want to believe no matter what. I choose to believe in Christianity, not by what others tell me, but by what I have found myself.

I'm not trying to take away your belief i christianity. I am just trying to understand how you somethings you can believe in and some you can't when they are related as to how they are formed. I used to be like you. I never talked about it and I was a really deep christian but I used to believe in god. I still go to church as of today and it was when I started paying attention in church that I realized exactly what I was saying I believed in. It was unreal. Then I did a lot of research on different religions and then evolution and I felt I was home. And thats what I think everyone should do. I believe that in order for you to believe in something you must understand other religions and beliefs because you simply don't know what else is out there. Now I didn't research every religion and belief becasue, well there are to many, but I did research enough to realize what I believe is correct.

^ Don't post here then, it's NOT a useless thread, he just wants answers



Zeroordie, I'm glad you're asking questions. The first thing I'd like to ask is what theory are you talking about? For example:



I've never heard that before, and I'm 100% certain that isnt evolution.



They're not impossible to prove, science can't prove anything 100%. What it does do is go by evidence, evolution has more evidence and more scientists believe it than creationism. I believe the latest figure was 95% of scientists were evolutionists.

Even one of the most famous Christians today, Allistar McGrath, believes in evolution.

i dont know the real scientific name for it i just remember seeing pictures(lol yah im old school) of a organism turning into a fish then said fish moves ontop land then that fish turns into a monkey then the monkey turns into a gorilla then the gorilla turns into a caveman and then the caveman advances to peoople today. i just remember seeing it in my science book last year and i thought i would bring it up. anhd yah i know nothing can be proved 1-00%, well a lot of stuff cant, like science as you said, but then no one can completely prove or disprove that god does or does not exist. and no one can disprove that jesus existed. but then its really challenging proving iti also. like bibliologists have devoted their entire lives to trying to prove that god/jesus exists/existed and i love how its so easy for non-christians to think that scientists are right but they think bibliologists and christians are crazy/lunatics/etc. im not aying everyone does, im just saying some people were saying christians are stupid and crazy and wrong and that scientists had proved all this. well have'nt bibliologists such as James White spent their lives trying to understand gods word and writing about it if there wasnt some reason behind it. i mean if there were only a few people that studied the word of god, yes they could be said to be dillusional, but there are so many people that believe in it and study it its hard to imagine that they are all wrong. and what makes science right but bibliology wrong? i mean yes, there is evidence for science, but isnt there also evidence for christianity? i know im just sort of rambling on, but im just trying to figure out what you guys think.

The theory of evolution is merely the best possible explanation for how the creatures on earth came to be as we know them today. Evolution is based on the observable and measurable phenomena of mutation and selection, and is a much more well thought out explanation than saying, "magic invisible man made it!"

To summarize, the theory would work much more like this: Variety of single-celled organisms develop, single-celled organisms best suited to the environment survive to reproduce. Thousands of years pass, the organisms continue to develop. Environment develops new challenges, variety of multiple-celled organisms develop, multiple-celled organisms best suited to the environment survive to reproduce. Thousands of years pass as the organisms continue to develop. Environment develops new challenges, multiple-celled organisms with flagella develop to self-propel, self-propelling multiple-celled organisms best suited to the environment survive to reproduce. Thousands of years pass as the organisms continue to develop...the complexity builds...the creatures are already in a state of tremendous variety, each possessing a new development which enables their survival. Invertebrates dominate for ages. Creatures begin to specialize in certain areas in which they excel. Primitive vertebrae, then limbs...primitive teeth, brains, and senses begin to develop in the vast variety of creatures...the watery planet eventually develops a variety of what we might recognize as primitive fish...

So you see, it's never that fish become reptiles or that apes turn into men. It's a slow process in which creatures mutate in a way which is an advantage, and are thereby selected to survive and reproduce. It didn't happen creature to creature, there was a huge variety of different developments resulting in life branching in multiple directions.

What you saw was an abbreviated picture, and if you didn't understand that picture was not an exact depiction of evolution, I'm afraid you won't understand any form of creation besides "God made us all."

It's like you believe 2+2=4 but not 3+3=6. They both are math just like gravity and evolution are theory's but you only believe one. They may look different but it takes the same knowledge and skill to accomplish both.

well what if i made an argument that 5=5=15?(just for the sake of the argument) and i went and suddenly convinced all of these scientists that i was right and they changed what we know is math? now 2=2=6 and 3=3=9. what if? i mean nothing is definite its just temperary. what if scientists made an argument saying everything you have been taught your entire life was wrong? they made a mistake? then couldnt that lead you to believe that maybe they made a mistake on christianity and evolution? then you wouldnt be so sure that creationalism was so far fetched would you?
waht if scientists got together and studied creationalism and said they were wrong and that there is a high possibility that god IS real? then you would probably believe them and become christian wouldnt you because almost every person talking about why god is wrong have all of their facts based off of scientists discoveries.

scientists basically have control over the media and therefore control the populatuions thoughts. what if scientists made an argument saying everything you have been taught your entire life was wrong? they made a mistake? then couldnt that lead you to believe that maybe they made a mistake on christianity? then you wouldnt be so sure that creationalism was so far fetched would you?
waht if scientists got together and studied creationalism and said they were wrong and that there is a high possibility that god IS real? then you would probably believe them and become christian wouldnt you because almost every person talking about why god is wrong have all of their facts based off of scientists discoveries.

Where the HELL are you getting this BS?

lol let me rephrase that. i mean arent a lot of you basing most of your opinions on science? forget i said that media ****. that didnt go with the argument lol.

well what if i made an argument that 5=5=15?(just for the sake of the argument) and i went and suddenly convinced all of these scientists that i was right and they changed what we know is math? now 2=2=6 and 3=3=9. what if? i mean nothing is definite its just temperary, because scientists basically have control over the media and therefore control the populatuions thoughts. what if scientists made an argument saying everything you have been taught your entire life was wrong? they made a mistake? then couldnt that lead you to believe that maybe they made a mistake on christianity and evolution? then you wouldnt be so sure that creationalism was so far fetched would you?
waht if scientists got together and studied creationalism and said they were wrong and that there is a high possibility that god IS real? then you would probably believe them and become christian wouldnt you because almost every person talking about why god is wrong have all of their facts based off of scientists discoveries.


Thats life. And with you saying that, I could substitute a few words in there and maybe change a few things so that it makes the argument against you and how the pope comes out and says everything is a lie and then people find ancient artifacts (sp) that proves the bible is a complete fake and all the christians have been living a lie their whole life. Then the pope and all priest and bishops and all other holy people begin to study evolution and learn about it and see and believe that it is the truth and then there is no more religion...

See how easy that was to turn around.

exactly. i mean yeah i know its easy to completely destroy both beliefs. its just a matter of if...im not trying to say christians are definitely right and your wrong. im jsut saying what if ya know? everyone has their beliefs and i respect that. i respect everyones beliefs. i was just trying to give people something to think about...

exactly. i mean yeah i know its easy to completely destroy both beliefs. its just a matter of if...im not trying to say christians are definitely right and your wrong. im jsut saying what if ya know? everyone has their beliefs and i respect that. i respect everyones beliefs. i was just trying to give people something to think about...

While we're in the business of "What if"s


What if you, personally, die, and go to heaven, and you don't see Yahweh, but instead you see Zeus?

He says "I know you've been terribly misled, but if you bow to me now, and ask ME into your heart, i'll permit you into heaven."

what do you do then?

Because let me tell you.
With something like 5,000 gods that people around the world believe in, the odds are that it ISN'T going to be your god, if there is any god at all.

That means the odds of you seeing your god, Yahweh, when you die, are 1:5,000

i like those chances a hell of a lot more than being an athiest(no offense meant to anyone) and seeing no god.
Merging doublepost
or did you ever think that maybe there are different places for people that believe in differenjt things? like i believe in god, my god, but what if say a christian dies and he/she see's god and jesus and they go into heaven. and then say someone that believes in zeus dies and they see zeus?? thats seems more likely doesnt it? im not saying thats what i believe will happen, but what if?

What if Uranus exploded and punctured a hole in heaven and made everyone fall out...you know .. just what if...


EDIT: That probably sounded mean but my point was you can say "what if" to infinit amount of situations.

uhm who ever said heaven is a physical place? who said its in the universe? the majority of people believe its spiritual state of being. so that just made no sense. if its spiritual it cant be blown up and u cant simply fall out into space. if uranus blows up, thats your problem lol. jk, but if it were to blow up, it wouldnt affect heaven cuz if it was within any near distance to heaven, we wouldnt be having htis argument because scientists would have found it...and if it blew up we would be royally ****ed so you wouldnt have time for that thought process to even go through your mind lolz not to sound like an *******, just correcting you.

Wow.

See, this is the problem with most of the Christian population.
You get your so called "facts" from Bill O'Reilly and Kent Hovind.

Go study up on Evolution, because you obviously don't have a clue what it is.

Stop stereotyping.

uhm who ever said heaven is a physical place? who said its in the universe? the majority of people believe its spiritual state of being. so that just made no sense. if its spiritual it cant be blown up and u cant simply fall out into space. if uranus blows up, thats your problem lol. jk, but if it were to blow up, it wouldnt affect heaven cuz if it was within any near distance to heaven, we wouldnt be having htis argument because scientists would have found it...and if it blew up we would be royally ****ed so you wouldnt have time for that thought process to even go through your mind lolz not to sound like an *******, just correcting you.

What if it is a phyiscal place. What if it is in the universe. What if it is not a spiritual state of being. What if it does make senes. What if it can blow up. What if you can fall into space. lol uranus is a funny word. What if it did affect heaven when blown up. What if heaven is invincable thats why we haven't found it. What if it blew up and we weren't royally ****ed. What if we did have the time for that.

Same here I'm not trying to sound like a douche intentionally but remember nothing is 100% so everything I said above could be true.

Stop stereotyping.

Ever said anything about Darwin?

I bet you have.


You should really consider not being so defensive.
No one on these forums has anything against you, but your attitude is beginning to change the way I feel about you.

I've seen Bill O'Reilly, and the kind of nonsense he and Kent Hovind preach.

It's my opinion. Not a stereotype.

This thread is so dumb, for so many reasons.

1. If you believe in Intelligent Design, please post why, because I seriously would like to know.

2. If you don't believe in gravity, also please post why, because, once again, I seriously would like to know.

3. Since Christians arguements against Pastafarianism and the Flying Spaghetti Monster [which yes, I realize was a joke made to prove a point] are that "oh no, it's not possible because it doesn't make sense! a flying spaghetti monster? yeah right!", I would like to know how you believe that the world was created by an almighty being, known as god. I would like to know what evidence there is to support that, because A. I'm uneducated on the subject of Creationism, and B. I would like to know what your arguement is.

If you have no idea what you're posting about, you're better off not making a thread about it, and then to top that off, to argue with people who do know what they're talking about. Noj said it best.

The Five Crises in Evolutionary Theory
Written by Dr. Ray Bohlin

The Case of the Missing Mechanism

The growing crisis in Darwinian theory is becoming more apparent all the time. The work of creationists and other non-Darwinians is growing and finding a more receptive ear than ever before. In this discussion I want to elaborate on what I believe are the five critical areas where Darwinism and evolutionary theory in general are failing. They are:

1. The unsubstantiation of a Darwinian mechanism of evolution
2. The total failure of origin of life studies to produce a workable model
3. The inability of evolutionary mechanism to explain the origin of complex adaptations
4. The bankruptcy of the blind watchmaker hypothesis
5. The biological evidence that the rule in nature is morphological stability over time and not constant change.

Much of the reason for evolution's privileged status has been due to confusion over just what people mean when they use the word evolution. Evolution is a slippery term. If evolution simply means "change over time," this is non-controversial. Peppered moths, Hawaiian drosophila fruit flies, and even Galapagos finches are clear examples of change over time. If you say that this form of evolution is a fact, well, so be it. But many scientists extrapolate beyond this meaning. Because "change over time" is a fact, the argument goes, it is also a fact that moths, fruit flies, and finches all evolved from a remote common ancestor. But this begs the question.

The real question, however, is where do moths, flies, and finches come from in the first place? Common examples of natural selection acting on present genetic variation do not tell us how we have come to have horses, wasps, and woodpeckers, and the enormous varieties of living animals. Evolutionists will tell you that this is where mutations enter the picture. But mutations do not improve the scenario either. In speaking of all the mutation work done with bacteria over several decades, the great French zoologist and evolutionist Pierre-Paul Grasse' said:

What is the use of their unceasing mutations if they do not change? In sum, the mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect.

When I speak of evolution or Darwinism, it is the origin of new biological forms, new adaptive structures, morphological and biochemical novelties that I am referring to. This is precisely what has not yet been explained. When people question the popular explanations of the origin of complex adaptations such as the vertebrate limb, or sexual reproduction, or the tongue of the woodpecker, or the reptilian hard-shelled egg, they are usually given a litany of reasons why these structures are beneficial to the organisms. More precisely, the selective advantage of these structures is offered as the reason they evolved. But this begs the question again. It is not sufficient for an evolutionist to explain the function of a particular structure. What is necessary is to explain the mechanistic origin of these structures!

Natural selection does explain how organisms adapt to minor changes in their environment. Natural selection allows organisms to do what God commanded them to do. That is to be fruitful and multiply. Natural selection does not, however, explain the crucial question of how complex adaptations arose in the first place.
The Origin of Life

We have been led to believe that it is not to difficult to conceive of a mechanism whereby organic molecules can be manufactured in a primitive earth and organize themselves into a living, replicating cell. In fact, the ease by which this can (allegedly) happen is the foundation for the popular belief that there are numerous planets in the universe which contain life. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Early experiments suggested that it was relatively simple to produce some of the building blocks of life such as amino acids, the components of proteins. However, the euphoria of the Miller- Urey experiment of 1953 has given way to a paradigm crisis of 1993 in origin of life research. The wishful, yet workable atmosphere of ammonia, hydrogen, methane, and water vapor has been replaced by the more realistic, but stingy atmosphere of nitrogen, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide, and hydrogen cyanide. This is the stuff that volcanoes belch out. This atmosphere poses a much more difficult challenge. Molecules relevant for life would be much rarer. Even more damaging is the possibility of the presence of molecular oxygen in the atmosphere from the break-up of water vapor. Molecular oxygen would poison any reaction leading to biologically significant molecules.

Coacervates, microspheres, the "RNA world," and other scenarios all have serious flaws obvious to everyone in the field except those who continue work with that particular scenario. Some have privately called this predicament a paradigm crisis. There is no central competing model, just numerous ego-driven scenarios. Even the experiments in which researchers try to simulate the early earth have been severely criticized. These experiments generally hedge their bets by using purified reactants, isolated energy sources, exaggerated energy levels, procedures which unrealistically drive the reaction toward the desired product and protect the products from the destructive effects of the energy sources which produced them in the first place.

The real situation was summed up rather well by Klaus Dose:

More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance." [From Interdisciplinary Science Review 13(1988):348-56.]

But all of these difficulties together, as staggering as they are, are not the real problem. The major difficulty in chemical evolution scenarios is how to account for the informational code of DNA without intelligence being a part of the equation. DNA carries the genetic code: the genetic blueprint for constructing and maintaining a biological organism. We often use the terms of language to describe DNA's activity: DNA is "transcribed" into RNA; RNA is "translated" into protein; geneticists speak of the "genetic code." All these words imply intelligence, and the DNA informational code requires intelligent preprogramming, yet a purely naturalistic beginning does not provide such input. Chemical experiments may be able to construct small sequences of nucleotides to form small molecules of DNA, but this doesn't make them mean anything. There is no source for the informational code in a strictly naturalistic origin of life.
The Inability to Account for Complex Adaptations

Perhaps the single greatest problem for evolutionary biologists is the unsolved problem of morphological and biochemical novelty. In other words, some aspects of evolutionary theory describe accurately how existing organisms are well adapted to their environments, but do a very poor job of explaining just how the necessary adaptive structures came about in the first place.

Darwinian explanations of complex structures such as the eye and the incredible tongue of the woodpecker fall far short of realistically attempting to explain how these structures arose by mutation and natural selection. The origin of the eye in particular, caused Darwin no small problem. His only suggestion was to look at the variety of eyes in nature, some more complex and versatile than others, and imagine a gradual sequence leading from simple eyes to more complex eyes. However, even the great Harvard evolutionist, Ernst Mayr, admits that the different eyes in nature are not really related to each other in some simple-to-complex sequence. Rather, he suggests that eyes probably had to evolve over forty different times in nature. Darwin's nightmare has never been solved. It has only been made 40 times more frightening for the evolutionist.

In his 1987 book, Theories of Life, Wallace Arthur said:

One can argue that there is no direct evidence for a Darwinian origin of a body plan--black Biston Betularia certainly do not constitute one! Thus in the end we have to admit that we do not really know how body plans originate.

In 1992, Keith Stewart Thomson wrote in the American Zoologist that:

While the origins of major morphological novelties remain unsolved, one can also view the stubborn persistence of macroevolutionary questioning...as a challenge to orthodoxy: resistance to the view that the synthetic theory tells us everything we need to know about evolutionary processes.

The ability to explain major morphological novelties is not the only failing of evolutionary theory. Some argue that molecular structures are even more difficult to explain. The molecular architecture of the cell has recently described by molecular biologist Michael Behe as being irreducibly complex systems which must have all the components present in order to be functional. The molecular workings of cilia, electron transport, protein synthesis, and cellular targeting readily come to mind. If the systems are irreducibly complex, how do they build slowly over long periods of time out of systems that are originally doing something else?

While publishing hundreds of articles pertaining to molecular homology and phylogeny of various proteins and nucleic acids over the last ten years, the Journal of Molecular Evolution did not publish one article attempting to explain the origin of a single biomolecular system. Those who make molecular evolution their life's work are too busy studying the relationship of the cytochrome c molecule in man to the cytochrome c molecule in bacteria, rather than the more fundamental question of where cytochrome c came from in the first place!

Clearly then, whether we are talking about major morphological novelties such as the wings of bats and birds, the swimming adaptations of fish and whales, the human eye or the molecular sub- microscopic workings of mitochondria, ribosomes, or cilia, evolutionary theory has failed to explain how these structures could arise by natural processes alone.
The Bankruptcy of the Blind Watchmaker Hypothesis

In his 1986 book, The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins states, "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." He explains that

Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purposes in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.

Darwinism critic, Philip Johnson, has quipped that the watchmaker is not only blind but unconscious!

Dawkins later suggests just how this process may have brought about the development of wings in mammals. He says:

How did wings get their start? Many animals leap from bough to bough, and sometimes fall to the ground. Especially in a small animal, the whole body surface catches the air and assists the leap, or breaks the fall, by acting as a crude aerofoil. Any tendency to increase the ratio of surface area to weight would help, for example flaps of skin growing out in the angles of joints...(It) doesn't matter how small and unwinglike the first wingflaps were. There must be some height, call it h, such that an animal would just break its neck if it fell from that height. In this critical zone, any improvement in the body surface's ability to catch the air and break the fall, however slight the improvement, can make the difference between life and death. Natural selection will then favor slight, prototype wingflaps. When these flaps have become the norm, the critical height h will become slightly greater. Now a slight further increase in the wingflaps will make the difference between life and death. And so on, until we have proper wings.

This can sound rather seductively convincing at first. However there are three faulty assumptions being used.

The first doubtful assumption is that nature can provide a whole chain of favorable mutations of the precise kind needed to change forelimbs into wings in a continuous line of development. What is the larger miracle, an instantaneous change or a whole series of thousands of tiny changes in the proper sequence?

The other assumption is "all things being equal." These mutations must not have secondary harmful effects. How is the creature's grasping ability compromised while these wingflaps grow? These little shrew-like animals may slowly be caught between losing their adaptiveness in the trees before they can fully utilize their "developing" wings. Or there might be some seemingly unrelated and unforeseen effect that compromises survivability.

A third faulty assumption is the often used analogy to artificial selection. "If artificial selection can do so much in only a few years," so the refrain goes, "just think what natural selection can do in millions of years." But artificial selection works because it incorporates foresight and conscious purpose, the absence of which are the defining qualities of the blind watchmaker. In addition, artificial selection actually demonstrates the limits to change since an endpoint in the selection process is usually reached very quickly.

The blind watchmaker hypothesis, when analyzed carefully, falls into the category of fanciful stories that are entertaining--but which hold no resemblance to reality.
The Prevalence of Stasis over Mutability

Rather than observing organisms gradually evolving into other forms, the fossil record speaks of "sudden appearance" and "stasis." New types appear suddenly and change very little after their appearance. The rarity of gradual change examples in the fossil record were revealed as the trade secret of paleontology by Steven J. Gould of Harvard. Gould also refers to stasis as "data" in the paleontological sense. These are significant observations.

Darwin predicted that there should be innumerable transitional forms between species. But the reality of paleontology (the study of fossils) is that new forms appear suddenly with no hint of the "gradual" change predicted by evolution. Not only that, but once these new forms have appeared, they remain relatively unchanged until the present day or until they become extinct.

Some animals and plants have remained unchanged for literally hundreds of millions of years. These "living fossils" can be more embarrassing for the evolutionist than they often care to admit. One creature in particular, the coelacanth, is very instructive. The first live coelacanth was found off the coast of Madagascar in 1938. Coelacanths were thought to be extinct for 100 million years. But most evolutionists saw this discovery as a great opportunity to glimpse the workings of a tetrapod ancestor. Coelacanths resemble the proposed ancestors of amphibians. It was hoped that some clues could be derived from the modern coelacanth of just how a fish became preadapted for life on land, because not only was there a complete skeleton, but a full set of internal organs to boot. The results of the study were very disappointing. The modern coelacanth showed no evidence of internal organs preadapted for use in a terrestrial environment. The coelacanth is a fish--nothing more, nothing less. Its bony fins are used as exceptionally well-designed paddles for changing direction in deep-sea environment, not the proto-limbs of future amphibians.

Nowhere is the problem of sudden appearance better demonstrated than in the Burgess Shale found in the Canadian Rockies. The Burgess Shale illustrates that in the Cambrian period (which evolutionists estimate as being over 500 million years ago) nearly all of the basic body plans (phyla) of animals existing on earth came into existence in a geological instant (defined as only 20-30 million years), and nothing that new has appeared since that time. The Cambrian explosion as it is called is nothing less than astounding. Sponges, jellyfish, worms, arthropods, mollusks, echinoderms, and many other stranger-than-fiction creatures are all found to suddenly appear in the Cambrian without a hint of what they descended from nor even how they could all be related to each other. This is the opposite expectation of Darwinism which would have predicted each new body plan emerging from pre-existing phyla over long periods of time. The Cambrian explosion is a direct contradiction of Darwinian evolution.

If Darwin were alive today, I believe he would be terribly disappointed. There is less evidence for his theory now than in his own day. The possibility of the human eye evolving may have caused him to shudder, but the organization of the simplest cell is infinitely more complex. Perhaps a nervous breakdown would be more appropriate!

An article I found. I'd like to hear Razz's thoughts on all that (and Bman).

Ever said anything about Darwin?

I bet you have.


You should really consider not being so defensive.
No one on these forums has anything against you, but your attitude is beginning to change the way I feel about you.

I've seen Bill O'Reilly, and the kind of nonsense he and Kent Hovind preach.

It's my opinion. Not a stereotype.

As I said in my PM to you, even though I believe that the theory of evolution is true, it is known FACT that evolution is NOT fact. Evolution is just as much fact as creationism is. I don't care if you think he's retarded for not believing it, fact of the matter is he can believe whatever he wants, and since it isn't a fact, you can't call him ignorant. The reason I'm defensive is I can see through your bull****. I could care less who you are friends with, you still knock Christianity or any belief in God in so many posts its not even funny. Live and let live, and then shut the **** up.

As I said in my PM to you, even though I believe that the theory of evolution is true, it is known FACT that evolution is NOT fact. Evolution is just as much fact as creationism is. I don't care if you think he's retarded for not believing it, fact of the matter is he can believe whatever he wants, and since it isn't a fact, you can't call him ignorant. The reason I'm defensive is I can see through your bull****. I could care less who you are friends with, you still knock Christianity or any belief in God in so many posts its not even funny. Live and let live, and then shut the **** up.


I NEVER said that evolution is fact.


but even if it ISN'T true (no longer speaking towards ShredTheGnar)
That doesn't mean that Creationism wins by default.
The same gaps that plague the theory of evolution can plague the theory of... religion, or whatever it is you call it.

well what if i made an argument that 5=5=15?(just for the sake of the argument) and i went and suddenly convinced all of these scientists that i was right and they changed what we know is math? now 2=2=6 and 3=3=9. what if?

The answer is it wouldn't happen. Scientists aren't sheep that are convinced by a 12 year old of theories, to present such a theory you'd have to have evidence...and after that evidence had been tested you'd have the scenario you desire.

In other words, it's not just your words that are enough, you'll have people tested the hypothesis first and then you'll come to a conclusion as a scientific community.

As I said in my PM to you, even though I believe that the theory of evolution is true, it is known FACT that evolution is NOT fact. Evolution is just as much fact as creationism is. I don't care if you think he's retarded for not believing it, fact of the matter is he can believe whatever he wants, and since it isn't a fact, you can't call him ignorant

Wow, what a dunce...of course it isn't fact...IT'LL NEVER BE FACT. Facts are LOW in science, Theories are HIGH.

Do you think you'll ever hear the "Fact of Gravity" or the "Fact of Thermodynamics" ?

An article I found. I'd like to hear Razz's thoughts on all that (and Bman).

I'll respond, but first I'd like to know what you agreed with on the article and what research you've seen to combat it? I'm just asking because I was curious to know if you simply pasted the first article you found against evolution and had blind faith in it's accuracy.

The answer is it wouldn't happen. Scientists aren't sheep that are convinced by a 12 year old of theories, to present such a theory you'd have to have evidence...and after that evidence had been tested you'd have the scenario you desire.

In other words, it's not just your words that are enough, you'll have people tested the hypothesis first and then you'll come to a conclusion as a scientific community.



Wow, what a dunce...of course it isn't fact...IT'LL NEVER BE FACT. Facts are LOW in science, Theories are HIGH.

Do you think you'll ever hear the "Fact of Gravity" or the "Fact of Thermodynamics" ?



I'll respond, but first I'd like to know what you agreed with on the article and what research you've seen to combat it? I'm just asking because I was curious to know if you simply pasted the first article you found against evolution and had blind faith in it's accuracy.

Mainly I just want to see your thoughts. Heck, I don't say it's surly true because I just found it today. I just want to see your thoughts and nice smartlike figures bout it :p.

Though to somewhat answer, I'd have to say points 2 and 4 look like the best arguments.

Wow, what a dunce...of course it isn't fact...IT'LL NEVER BE FACT. Facts are LOW in science, Theories are HIGH.

Do you think you'll ever hear the "Fact of Gravity" or the "Fact of Thermodynamics" ?

Theories aren't proven.

And Razz, do you actually skate?

Mainly I just want to see your thoughts. Heck, I don't say it's surly true because I just found it today. I just want to see your thoughts and nice smartlike figures bout it :p.

I read it over, the arguments are the same so it's easy to respond to...I'm just curious as to the benefit it'll have for you.

It seems to me that whatever I say you'll just brush it off and waste both our times, so, when you tell me what it is you agree with and why you agree with it (based on your own research) I'll post responses for you.

In other words, I'm not your Google.

Theories aren't proven.

And Razz, do you actually skate?

That's the WHOLE POINT OF SCIENCE - dude, have you ever taken a science course....ever??? They're not suppose to be proven, it isn't mathematics, each new discovery leads to new questions.

And no I don't skate, I go and vandalize churches all day and complain when someone disagrees with me.

An article I found. I'd like to hear Razz's thoughts on all that (and Bman).

No offense but it is so easy to find stuff like that on the internet about anything.


Example :)


Disproving A Creator (god)

People seem to think that it is impossible to disprove God. Part of this is due to the fact that God is sometimes defined differently by different people, therefore I will use the most basic quality that most people attribute God's underlying nature, which is that god is the creator of all things.


So then it would suffice to disprove a creator, in which case we would need to understand what creation means. The dictionary defines creation as the act of producing or causing to exist. With respect to religion, it is defined as the original bringing into existence of the universe by God

This is the same as the first definition so it will be adequate to use the former, since it is more general. Let us begin to dissect the definition, but first I will define God as the creator of everything except himself. Therefore he is the fundamental cause for all things besides himself.


The definition of creation is the act of producing or causing to exist. This means at some point in time nothing existed. But wait, time didn't exist either since God hadn't created it. So we must throw away the whole concept of time and space, if we are to get at the crux of creation.

If we throw away time, we have to throw away words like before and after too, since these, in this context, are words involved with time. So what does this supposed divine creation really mean?

If one took the position of a divine creator, then you would also have to assume that the creator created everything essentially instantaneously, since there is no time, there is no time duration. Lack of time duration is instantaneous.

was there ever a time when there was nothing besides god? Well within the question you would be assuming time existed along with god.

In this case, time would be a fundamental property of existence, without the creator demanding it to be so, therefore not being the fundamental cause for everything besides himself.

I am not assuming you need time to exist. I am stating that to go from one state to another, time is certainly required. The act of creation requires time since it is going from one state to another, that is nonexistence, to existence.


You might be saying, nonexistence is not a state, but a lack of every state. However, for the case of a creator, there is no complete nonexistence. There would be the state in which it is just the creator, and then the state with the creator and everything else.

So for a creator to create anything, this being would need to first create time. But any attempt to create anything would be impossible unless time existed. If time existed without needing to be created, then whatever may have created anything else is not the fundamental reason for everything.


Thus, any divine creator of everything is impossible. Since God is defined as the divine creator of everything, there is no God. However, if you want to define God as existence itself or something of the like, then surely existence exists.

You can see that any other attempt to bring a God into the picture is simply a matter of language and terminology. To account for how we see things seemingly created everyday is a matter of illusion.

lol at razz's church thing
and im 15 btw and im not saying its possible like i said it was for the sake of the argument.

I'm not trying to take away your belief i christianity. I am just trying to understand how you somethings you can believe in and some you can't when they are related as to how they are formed. I used to be like you. I never talked about it and I was a really deep christian but I used to believe in god. I still go to church as of today and it was when I started paying attention in church that I realized exactly what I was saying I believed in. It was unreal. Then I did a lot of research on different religions and then evolution and I felt I was home. And thats what I think everyone should do. I believe that in order for you to believe in something you must understand other religions and beliefs because you simply don't know what else is out there. Now I didn't research every religion and belief becasue, well there are to many, but I did research enough to realize what I believe is correct.

Whoa whoa whoa, who is saying I never have studied other religions or other theories besides Christianity/creationism? I believe in other threads I have said that I find fun in reading about other religions, and that its something everyone should do. I have read about other religions and as you felt at home with evolution, I felt at home with Christianity. What you fail to see is that even though it is a theory does not make it fact, and just because intelligent design is not a scientific theory does not make it not the truth. You have a choice, the scientific way or some other way. I have chosen one of the many other ways. You may fail to understand why I can believe in Christianity instead of evolution, but I feel that I have made the right choice for ME, even though it is not the right choice for YOU. :icon_wink

Whoa whoa whoa, who is saying I never have studied other religions or other theories besides Christianity/creationism? I believe in other threads I have said that I find fun in reading about other religions, and that its something everyone should do. I have read about other religions and as you felt at home with evolution, I felt at home with Christianity. What you fail to see is that even though it is a theory does not make it fact, and just because intelligent design is not a scientific theory does not make it not the truth. You have a choice, the scientific way or some other way. I have chosen one of the many other ways. You may fail to understand why I can believe in Christianity instead of evolution, but I feel that I have made the right choice for ME, even though it is not the right choice for YOU. :icon_wink

Ok, sorry but I did not think you did as much research as you say you have for two reasons. 1. Most of the christians I know say they believe in god and thats that end of discussion they don't want to talk about it any more because thats all they know. I admit it was wrong to judge you off of that and I apoligize. and 2. because some of the things you were saying about evolition made no sense. Sorry but my guess is you read something that lead you to something false. Again there is a lot of that out there so that's not technically your fault.

And like you were saying with evolution may not be fact, Just because there is no real evidence of god doesn't mean it's fact and real. Just because there is no real proof of allah doesn't mean he is real. Thing is, there is evidence for evolution, there isn't for a god. Could either one be right? yes Could both be wrong? yes Like said before nothing is 100% fact.

ZeroSkater1223.

I'm not sure if i'm hearing you right, but are you contradicting the Bible in what you just said? does not the Bible say that "I am THE way and THE truth and THE life, NO ONE COMES TO THE FATHER BUT THROUGH ME."

doesn't that say that there is no "what's right for me may not be right for you ;)"

please correct me if i'm wrong, but i was a bit confused, honestly at what you said

thank you ;)

What if God created the first single-celled organisms and then evolution took it's course after that?? Why can't that be an option???

the creator of this thread can go suck off jamie thomas. cause id be willing to place money on it that he is so high n mighty on himself is because jamie thomas is christian... and he is awesome!:icon_weir . dont jump to one end of the spectrum because someone you like has lived through a good amount of there life and had there life experiences. and.... suck it.:icon_punc:

That has nothing to do with what is right for you, may be wrong for me. What is means is that through prayer, no one should go through anyone else but Jesus to get to God. It really has nothing to do with what I said. I think I am understanding you right Cha-Bang? Also, it has nothing to do with me letting people believe in what they want and going our separate ways.

the creator of this thread can go suck off jamie thomas. cause id be willing to place money on it that he is so high n mighty on himself is because jamie thomas is christian... and he is awesome!:icon_weir . dont jump to one end of the spectrum because someone you like has lived through a good amount of there life and had there life experiences. and.... suck it.:icon_punc:

awh arent u just the cutest little dumbass ever!
u just came to this thread and automatically assume im only believing in god because of jamie thomas? i didnt even know that jamie thomas was christian for one thing. and second ive been a christian all my life, but ive only been saved since february. so how about you go suck some **** moron.
Merging doublepost
What if God created the first single-celled organisms and then evolution took it's course after that?? Why can't that be an option???

and i suppose that can also be a theory. noone is saying that one side is wrong and one side is right, thats why we are debating and stating our opinions. and i dont see why god would make an organism when he could go ahead and create everything at once.

What if God created the first single-celled organisms and then evolution took it's course after that?? Why can't that be an option???
Because in order for Christians to accept that they would have to admit that the Bible, which they consider the divine word of God, was wrong as its theory of the beginning is the whole God created the Earth, the man (Adam), the created the woman (Eve) out of Adam and all that.

Now if they admit the Bible is wrong then that would be admitting God was wrong which would contradictory as they believe God is omni-benevolent, can do no wrong, perfect, and all that which would then lead to further questioning of the religion most likely taking down Christianity and any of the power it has that the Church enjoys so much.

awh arent u just the cutest little dumbass ever!
u just came to this thread and automatically assume im only believing in god because of jamie thomas? i didnt even know that jamie thomas was christian for one thing. and second ive been a christian all my life, but ive only been saved since february. so how about you go suck some **** moron.

Hahaha epicaly owned.

lol ^

An article I found. I'd like to hear Razz's thoughts on all that (and Bman).


The Five Crises in Evolutionary Theory
Written by Dr. Ray Bohlin

The Case of the Missing Mechanism

The growing crisis in Darwinian theory is becoming more apparent all the time. The work of creationists and other non-Darwinians is growing and finding a more receptive ear than ever before. In this discussion I want to elaborate on what I believe are the five critical areas where Darwinism and evolutionary theory in general are failing. They are:

1. The unsubstantiation of a Darwinian mechanism of evolution
2. The total failure of origin of life studies to produce a workable model
3. The inability of evolutionary mechanism to explain the origin of complex adaptations
4. The bankruptcy of the blind watchmaker hypothesis
5. The biological evidence that the rule in nature is morphological stability over time and not constant change.

Much of the reason for evolution's privileged status has been due to confusion over just what people mean when they use the word evolution. Evolution is a slippery term. If evolution simply means "change over time," this is non-controversial. Peppered moths, Hawaiian drosophila fruit flies, and even Galapagos finches are clear examples of change over time. If you say that this form of evolution is a fact, well, so be it. But many scientists extrapolate beyond this meaning. Because "change over time" is a fact, the argument goes, it is also a fact that moths, fruit flies, and finches all evolved from a remote common ancestor. But this begs the question.

The real question, however, is where do moths, flies, and finches come from in the first place? Common examples of natural selection acting on present genetic variation do not tell us how we have come to have horses, wasps, and woodpeckers, and the enormous varieties of living animals. Evolutionists will tell you that this is where mutations enter the picture. But mutations do not improve the scenario either. In speaking of all the mutation work done with bacteria over several decades, the great French zoologist and evolutionist Pierre-Paul Grasse' said:

What is the use of their unceasing mutations if they do not change? In sum, the mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect.

I think it is a hasty conclusion to say that "mutation does not improve the scenario either." Regardless of whether or not it has been substantiated in a laboratory, evolution remains the best possible explanation until a better one can replace it.


When I speak of evolution or Darwinism, it is the origin of new biological forms, new adaptive structures, morphological and biochemical novelties that I am referring to. This is precisely what has not yet been explained. When people question the popular explanations of the origin of complex adaptations such as the vertebrate limb, or sexual reproduction, or the tongue of the woodpecker, or the reptilian hard-shelled egg, they are usually given a litany of reasons why these structures are beneficial to the organisms. More precisely, the selective advantage of these structures is offered as the reason they evolved. But this begs the question again. It is not sufficient for an evolutionist to explain the function of a particular structure. What is necessary is to explain the mechanistic origin of these structures!

Natural selection does explain how organisms adapt to minor changes in their environment. Natural selection allows organisms to do what God commanded them to do. That is to be fruitful and multiply. Natural selection does not, however, explain the crucial question of how complex adaptations arose in the first place.

Now he's really fallen off the scientific boat. "What God commanded them to do." This clown demands that science to substantiate the "mechanistic origin of...structures" but he's going to throw the completely unsubstantiated almighty into the mix.


The Origin of Life

We have been led to believe that it is not to difficult to conceive of a mechanism whereby organic molecules can be manufactured in a primitive earth and organize themselves into a living, replicating cell. In fact, the ease by which this can (allegedly) happen is the foundation for the popular belief that there are numerous planets in the universe which contain life. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Early experiments suggested that it was relatively simple to produce some of the building blocks of life such as amino acids, the components of proteins. However, the euphoria of the Miller- Urey experiment of 1953 has given way to a paradigm crisis of 1993 in origin of life research. The wishful, yet workable atmosphere of ammonia, hydrogen, methane, and water vapor has been replaced by the more realistic, but stingy atmosphere of nitrogen, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide, and hydrogen cyanide. This is the stuff that volcanoes belch out. This atmosphere poses a much more difficult challenge. Molecules relevant for life would be much rarer. Even more damaging is the possibility of the presence of molecular oxygen in the atmosphere from the break-up of water vapor. Molecular oxygen would poison any reaction leading to biologically significant molecules.

Coacervates, microspheres, the "RNA world," and other scenarios all have serious flaws obvious to everyone in the field except those who continue work with that particular scenario. Some have privately called this predicament a paradigm crisis. There is no central competing model, just numerous ego-driven scenarios. Even the experiments in which researchers try to simulate the early earth have been severely criticized. These experiments generally hedge their bets by using purified reactants, isolated energy sources, exaggerated energy levels, procedures which unrealistically drive the reaction toward the desired product and protect the products from the destructive effects of the energy sources which produced them in the first place.

The real situation was summed up rather well by Klaus Dose:

More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance." [From Interdisciplinary Science Review 13(1988):348-56.]

But all of these difficulties together, as staggering as they are, are not the real problem. The major difficulty in chemical evolution scenarios is how to account for the informational code of DNA without intelligence being a part of the equation. DNA carries the genetic code: the genetic blueprint for constructing and maintaining a biological organism. We often use the terms of language to describe DNA's activity: DNA is "transcribed" into RNA; RNA is "translated" into protein; geneticists speak of the "genetic code." All these words imply intelligence, and the DNA informational code requires intelligent preprogramming, yet a purely naturalistic beginning does not provide such input. Chemical experiments may be able to construct small sequences of nucleotides to form small molecules of DNA, but this doesn't make them mean anything. There is no source for the informational code in a strictly naturalistic origin of life.

Now he's attributing superhuman intelligence to supposed "preprogramming" of inanimate objects. Remember, just because we recognize patterns, order, and hierarchy in nature does not mean that we can automatically decide that an intelligence like our own created the patterns, order, or hierarchy.


The Inability to Account for Complex Adaptations

Perhaps the single greatest problem for evolutionary biologists is the unsolved problem of morphological and biochemical novelty. In other words, some aspects of evolutionary theory describe accurately how existing organisms are well adapted to their environments, but do a very poor job of explaining just how the necessary adaptive structures came about in the first place.

Darwinian explanations of complex structures such as the eye and the incredible tongue of the woodpecker fall far short of realistically attempting to explain how these structures arose by mutation and natural selection. The origin of the eye in particular, caused Darwin no small problem. His only suggestion was to look at the variety of eyes in nature, some more complex and versatile than others, and imagine a gradual sequence leading from simple eyes to more complex eyes. However, even the great Harvard evolutionist, Ernst Mayr, admits that the different eyes in nature are not really related to each other in some simple-to-complex sequence. Rather, he suggests that eyes probably had to evolve over forty different times in nature. Darwin's nightmare has never been solved. It has only been made 40 times more frightening for the evolutionist.

In his 1987 book, Theories of Life, Wallace Arthur said:

One can argue that there is no direct evidence for a Darwinian origin of a body plan--black Biston Betularia certainly do not constitute one! Thus in the end we have to admit that we do not really know how body plans originate.

In 1992, Keith Stewart Thomson wrote in the American Zoologist that:

While the origins of major morphological novelties remain unsolved, one can also view the stubborn persistence of macroevolutionary questioning...as a challenge to orthodoxy: resistance to the view that the synthetic theory tells us everything we need to know about evolutionary processes.

The ability to explain major morphological novelties is not the only failing of evolutionary theory. Some argue that molecular structures are even more difficult to explain. The molecular architecture of the cell has recently described by molecular biologist Michael Behe as being irreducibly complex systems which must have all the components present in order to be functional. The molecular workings of cilia, electron transport, protein synthesis, and cellular targeting readily come to mind. If the systems are irreducibly complex, how do they build slowly over long periods of time out of systems that are originally doing something else?

While publishing hundreds of articles pertaining to molecular homology and phylogeny of various proteins and nucleic acids over the last ten years, the Journal of Molecular Evolution did not publish one article attempting to explain the origin of a single biomolecular system. Those who make molecular evolution their life's work are too busy studying the relationship of the cytochrome c molecule in man to the cytochrome c molecule in bacteria, rather than the more fundamental question of where cytochrome c came from in the first place!

Clearly then, whether we are talking about major morphological novelties such as the wings of bats and birds, the swimming adaptations of fish and whales, the human eye or the molecular sub- microscopic workings of mitochondria, ribosomes, or cilia, evolutionary theory has failed to explain how these structures could arise by natural processes alone.


Science does not accept the notion of anything being "irreducibly complex." It would be lazy to look at something which is complex and just throw our hands in the air and admit defeat. Where evolutionary theory fails to explain anything it attempts to explain is the territory of further research and attempting to improve the explanation.


The Bankruptcy of the Blind Watchmaker Hypothesis

In his 1986 book, The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins states, "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." He explains that

Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purposes in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.

Darwinism critic, Philip Johnson, has quipped that the watchmaker is not only blind but unconscious!

Dawkins later suggests just how this process may have brought about the development of wings in mammals. He says:

How did wings get their start? Many animals leap from bough to bough, and sometimes fall to the ground. Especially in a small animal, the whole body surface catches the air and assists the leap, or breaks the fall, by acting as a crude aerofoil. Any tendency to increase the ratio of surface area to weight would help, for example flaps of skin growing out in the angles of joints...(It) doesn't matter how small and unwinglike the first wingflaps were. There must be some height, call it h, such that an animal would just break its neck if it fell from that height. In this critical zone, any improvement in the body surface's ability to catch the air and break the fall, however slight the improvement, can make the difference between life and death. Natural selection will then favor slight, prototype wingflaps. When these flaps have become the norm, the critical height h will become slightly greater. Now a slight further increase in the wingflaps will make the difference between life and death. And so on, until we have proper wings.

This can sound rather seductively convincing at first. However there are three faulty assumptions being used.

The first doubtful assumption is that nature can provide a whole chain of favorable mutations of the precise kind needed to change forelimbs into wings in a continuous line of development. What is the larger miracle, an instantaneous change or a whole series of thousands of tiny changes in the proper sequence?

The other assumption is "all things being equal." These mutations must not have secondary harmful effects. How is the creature's grasping ability compromised while these wingflaps grow? These little shrew-like animals may slowly be caught between losing their adaptiveness in the trees before they can fully utilize their "developing" wings. Or there might be some seemingly unrelated and unforeseen effect that compromises survivability.

A third faulty assumption is the often used analogy to artificial selection. "If artificial selection can do so much in only a few years," so the refrain goes, "just think what natural selection can do in millions of years." But artificial selection works because it incorporates foresight and conscious purpose, the absence of which are the defining qualities of the blind watchmaker. In addition, artificial selection actually demonstrates the limits to change since an endpoint in the selection process is usually reached very quickly.

The blind watchmaker hypothesis, when analyzed carefully, falls into the category of fanciful stories that are entertaining--but which hold no resemblance to reality.

...and I say it is a fanciful story that "the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning." It's simply more assigning human traits to non-human objects. I see just as much chaos as order in nature.


The Prevalence of Stasis over Mutability

Rather than observing organisms gradually evolving into other forms, the fossil record speaks of "sudden appearance" and "stasis." New types appear suddenly and change very little after their appearance. The rarity of gradual change examples in the fossil record were revealed as the trade secret of paleontology by Steven J. Gould of Harvard. Gould also refers to stasis as "data" in the paleontological sense. These are significant observations.

Darwin predicted that there should be innumerable transitional forms between species. But the reality of paleontology (the study of fossils) is that new forms appear suddenly with no hint of the "gradual" change predicted by evolution. Not only that, but once these new forms have appeared, they remain relatively unchanged until the present day or until they become extinct.

Some animals and plants have remained unchanged for literally hundreds of millions of years. These "living fossils" can be more embarrassing for the evolutionist than they often care to admit. One creature in particular, the coelacanth, is very instructive. The first live coelacanth was found off the coast of Madagascar in 1938. Coelacanths were thought to be extinct for 100 million years. But most evolutionists saw this discovery as a great opportunity to glimpse the workings of a tetrapod ancestor. Coelacanths resemble the proposed ancestors of amphibians. It was hoped that some clues could be derived from the modern coelacanth of just how a fish became preadapted for life on land, because not only was there a complete skeleton, but a full set of internal organs to boot. The results of the study were very disappointing. The modern coelacanth showed no evidence of internal organs preadapted for use in a terrestrial environment. The coelacanth is a fish--nothing more, nothing less. Its bony fins are used as exceptionally well-designed paddles for changing direction in deep-sea environment, not the proto-limbs of future amphibians.

Nowhere is the problem of sudden appearance better demonstrated than in the Burgess Shale found in the Canadian Rockies. The Burgess Shale illustrates that in the Cambrian period (which evolutionists estimate as being over 500 million years ago) nearly all of the basic body plans (phyla) of animals existing on earth came into existence in a geological instant (defined as only 20-30 million years), and nothing that new has appeared since that time. The Cambrian explosion as it is called is nothing less than astounding. Sponges, jellyfish, worms, arthropods, mollusks, echinoderms, and many other stranger-than-fiction creatures are all found to suddenly appear in the Cambrian without a hint of what they descended from nor even how they could all be related to each other. This is the opposite expectation of Darwinism which would have predicted each new body plan emerging from pre-existing phyla over long periods of time. The Cambrian explosion is a direct contradiction of Darwinian evolution.

If Darwin were alive today, I believe he would be terribly disappointed. There is less evidence for his theory now than in his own day. The possibility of the human eye evolving may have caused him to shudder, but the organization of the simplest cell is infinitely more complex. Perhaps a nervous breakdown would be more appropriate!

Here he expands on the fact that there isn't a perfect fossil record for evolution. Perfect fossils require perfect environments to preserve them. Not all soil works like the La Brea Tar Pits. The remnants of most creatures decay and break down into the smallest parts until nothing recognizable is left. The theory of evolution stands strong as the best explanation for connecting the dots. Yes, questions remain. However, that doesn't mean we just decide that a magic man did it.

I feel that I have made the right choice for ME, even though it is not the right choice for YOU. :icon_wink

when you said that, it comes across as "i chose the way for me, but you have a different way", which (implied by [it is not right for you])that he is also justified through his belief, or disbelief.

if you could re-state that it would make me happy, i was just a bit confused there ;)

as you felt at home with evolution, I felt home with Christianity.

this also makes it seem like you were saying that the other is justified in what they believe, not that he is "wrong" in not believing in Jesus.


sorry if i misunderstood you, i just wanted to hear that more clearly, i was utterly baffled.

thanks ;)

Ohh, ok, I was a little confused also. I do follow along with that statement, that Christ is the only way. I do not think there is more then one right way, the only way is through Christ. I guess all I'm saying there is live and let live. If you can't convert someone then why be a bother to them about their what they believe whether you think it is wrong or right or not.

When all you athiests die ,,you will find out the truth. How do you think on channel 20 or the christian channel they heal people and people that cant see they heal.. There are also records of people that have seen Jesus heal people from thousands of years ago,,,try reading the book,, The case for Christ,,thats some proof,, I have felt Jesus Christ in so many ways and I know its the truth. When this world will pass away ,, there is something else,, and its called heaven and hell.

^^^
Was that a threat?

You actually believe those televangelist programs? Wow, there's one born every minute--maybe even more frequently in South Carolina.

We're discussing evolution here, so spare us the hellfire and damnation.

because that's what Jesus would do, right?

doesn't the bible tell us to preach the gospel to EVERYONE and show them the way?

When all you athiests die ,,you will find out the truth.

No we won't because we will be dead and will lay there and rot under ground. Nothing more nothing less. So then that means there is no truth to be told.

Zero or Die. Im pretty sure its un-christian to be un-kind towards your fellow man...
did you go confess for that? confess to nothing but air? did you get a reply? did it make you feel better? you get so defensive over things/ people question your faith. why dont you take it as it is and practice what you preach. turn the other cheek. so now that youve said those things, you can go RIGHT TO HELL. because thats what the bible says will happen. your a FOOL to believe in such a fictional novel that it runs your life. do this, do that, never do this, never do that. you are missing out on the pleasures of the earth. get your head out of your ass. go read every other religious text there is out there with an OPEN mind and tell me those have no chance of being true. weighing the options anything is as true as the last. faith alone will not save you. only your ability to let go will truely "save" you. go out and live life. grow up a little bit. and rethink your life in another 5-10 years. because at 15 years old, you dont know **** except for what your mommy tells you. go to bed you little snot.

No we won't because we will be dead and will lay there and rot under ground. Nothing more nothing less. So then that means there is no truth to be told.

That is if you're right. On the day you die, you won't know if you're right, but you'll sure know if you're wrong.


Zero or Die. Im pretty sure its un-christian to be un-kind towards your fellow man...
did you go confess for that? confess to nothing but air? did you get a reply? did it make you feel better? you get so defensive over things/ people question your faith. why dont you take it as it is and practice what you preach. turn the other cheek. so now that youve said those things, you can go RIGHT TO HELL. because thats what the bible says will happen. your a FOOL to believe in such a fictional novel that it runs your life. do this, do that, never do this, never do that. you are missing out on the pleasures of the earth. get your head out of your ass. go read every other religious text there is out there with an OPEN mind and tell me those have no chance of being true. weighing the options anything is as true as the last. faith alone will not save you. only your ability to let go will truely "save" you. go out and live life. grow up a little bit. and rethink your life in another 5-10 years. because at 15 years old, you dont know **** except for what your mommy tells you. go to bed you little snot.

Hahahahaha praise God! Jesus you're right again! The world has rejected your chosen, because they are not of the world, but of a city built by God himself! Do you have ANY clue dude how exact you just said about the thoughts of the Greco-Romans about early Christians. "Missing out on pleasures of the earth." "a FOOL" Let me quote you something really quick.

Lest we think that the early Christians were describing a lifestyle they didn't really practice, we have the testimony of the Romans themselves. One pagan antagonist of the Christians remarked:

They despise the temples as houses of the dead. They reject the gods. They laugh at sacred things. Wretched, they pity our priests. Half-naked themselves, they despise honors and purple robes. What incredible audacity and foolishness! They are not afraid of present torments, but they fear those that are uncertain and future. While they do not fear to die for the present, they fear to die after death....

At least learn from your present situation, you wretched people, what actually awaits you after death. See, many of you-in fact, by your own admission, the majority of you-are in want, are cold, are hungry, and are laboring in hard work. Yet, your god allows it. He is either unwilling or unable to assist his people. So he is either weak or unjust.... Take notice! For you there are threats, punishments, tortures, and crosses.... Where is the god who is supposed to help you when you come back from the dead? He cannot even help you in this life! Do not the Romans, without any help from your god, govern, rule over, and have the enjoyment of the whole world, including dominion over you yourselves?

In the meantime, living in suspense and anxiety, you abstain from respectable pleasures. You do not attend sporting events. You have no interest in public amusements. You reject the public banquets, and abhor the sacred games.... Thus, wretched as you are, you will neither rise from the dead, nor enjoy life in the meanwhile. So, if you have any wisdom or sense, stop prying into the heavens and the destinies and secrets of the world.... Persons who are unable to understand civil matters are certainly unable to discuss divine ones.
http://www.earlychurch.com/index.php

And if believing in the Bible makes a man a fool, then I proudly say I'm the biggest fool on SC. Then again, it doesn't at all surprise me that you think that. The message of the cross is foolishness to those that are lost, blind by the things of this world, walking the broad path to destruction, but to us that are saved from sin, walking in the light of Christ, dead to ourselves but alive in Christ, it is power!

no no no, i dont say beleiving in the bible or god is being a fool. everyone has the right to beleive in what they want. but it is foolish to limit yourself to one thing without knowing everything thats out there. its foolish to be so closeminded. allah and god are the same thing but by a different name. muhammed. the devil. they are all the same spiritual being. ive read up on this n that. and there are some things that i beleive COULD be true, but the more points i come across, the ridiculous jsut outweigh the plausible. i am by no means an athiest. but i have grown to refuse standardized religion and develop my own ideas about what its all about. nothing is as straight forward as saying. " well thats what this says, so its true. if you dont beleive it, then go to hell." start seeing colors boys. then youll be able to live by the word of god without preposterous restrictions.

When all you athiests die ,,you will find out the truth. How do you think on channel 20 or the christian channel they heal people and people that cant see they heal.. There are also records of people that have seen Jesus heal people from thousands of years ago,,,try reading the book,, The case for Christ,,thats some proof,, I have felt Jesus Christ in so many ways and I know its the truth. When this world will pass away ,, there is something else,, and its called heaven and hell.

most uneducated post ever

hahahha

When all you athiests die ,,you will find out the truth. How do you think on channel 20 or the christian channel they heal people and people that cant see they heal.. There are also records of people that have seen Jesus heal people from thousands of years ago,,,try reading the book,, The case for Christ,,thats some proof,, I have felt Jesus Christ in so many ways and I know its the truth. When this world will pass away ,, there is something else,, and its called heaven and hell.

lol

The message of the cross is foolishness to those that are lost, blind by the things of this world, walking the broad path to destruction

We're the lost, blind fools? Did you just say that Izzy?

uh oh. razz gonna OWN some ****!

sorry my comp crashed so i had to get it fixe thats why i havent replied.

the beard, i was just pretty pissed that you automatically judged me just because of my sn.

i did judge you because of your SN. i hate the # configuration "13452". just HATE it! :)

lol



We're the lost, blind fools? Did you just say that Izzy?

All I did was take God's word and put it out in the open. I didn't call you a fool, but lost and blind, definitely. Lost in the darkness and blinded by the cares of this world. As far as being a fool, by the worlds standards you are among the wisest of the wise, following the wisdom of this world, but "the foolishness of God is greater than the wisdom of man," and any wisdom I have is the wisdom of God (though I'm not always to apt to follow it, but I have faith by his word he has given me his wisdom), so by the standard of wisdom I possess, you are the most foolish of fools, rejecting the truth for a lie. So, whose standard do you accept Razz, the world's or God's?

From where I sit, all of the standards are worldly.

seconded.

i know what evolution is. and i dont get any facts from those 2 people, i get facts from school, and the internet.
AKA the truth machine!
Merging doublepost
all I Did Was Take God's Word And Put It Out In The Open. I Didn't Call You A Fool, But Lost And Blind, Definitely. Lost In The Darkness And Blinded By The Cares Of This World. As Far As Being A Fool, By The Worlds Standards You Are Among The Wisest Of The Wise, Following The Wisdom Of This World, But "the Foolishness Of God Is Greater Than The Wisdom Of Man," And Any Wisdom I Have Is The Wisdom Of God (though I'm Not Always To Apt To Follow It, But I Have Faith By His Word He Has Given Me His Wisdom), So By The Standard Of Wisdom I Possess, You Are The Most Foolish Of Fools, Rejecting The Truth For A Lie. So, Whose Standard Do You Accept Razz, The World's Or God's?
The Truth Aka Fsm

i dont know the real scientific name for it i just remember seeing pictures(lol yah im old school) of a organism turning into a fish then said fish moves ontop land then that fish turns into a monkey then the monkey turns into a gorilla then the gorilla turns into a caveman and then the caveman advances to peoople today. i just remember seeing it in my science book last year and i thought i would bring it up. anhd yah i know nothing can be proved 1-00%, well a lot of stuff cant, like science as you said, but then no one can completely prove or disprove that god does or does not exist. and no one can disprove that jesus existed. but then its really challenging proving iti also. like bibliologists have devoted their entire lives to trying to prove that god/jesus exists/existed and i love how its so easy for non-christians to think that scientists are right but they think bibliologists and christians are crazy/lunatics/etc. im not aying everyone does, im just saying some people were saying christians are stupid and crazy and wrong and that scientists had proved all this. well have'nt bibliologists such as James White spent their lives trying to understand gods word and writing about it if there wasnt some reason behind it. i mean if there were only a few people that studied the word of god, yes they could be said to be dillusional, but there are so many people that believe in it and study it its hard to imagine that they are all wrong. and what makes science right but bibliology wrong? i mean yes, there is evidence for science, but isnt there also evidence for christianity? i know im just sort of rambling on, but im just trying to figure out what you guys think.

Don't think I'm un-retiring, but I just couldn't resist this, it had the guy with a baseball bat and everything.

Your view of evolution and actual evolution are not the same, first off, that picture isn't even believed to be correct by the scientific community anymore, as they have found the fossil links that suggest it really wasn't a fish like the ones we see today that crawled out of water, it was more like an iguana or crocodile mixed with a frog, in that it was an amphibian, with limbs, that could move out of the water, and breath out of the water, but still lived in the water just like it's parents before it and it's parents before it etc...

Secondly, things don't turn into things, and I feel the reason you feel this is so preposterous is that you have the pre-determined idea that evolution is meant to create, to reach goals of developing species into what would eventually become us, humans, the most successful (that we know of) thing to ever live on this earth in terms of intelligence, which would allow us to become the most powerful as well. But this is a wrong view, evolution wasn't trying to create us, we just happened. Ever notice how babies don't look like their parents all the time? Let's say a couple had a kid, and the dad had a big nose and the mom had a small nose, and the kid has a medium sized nose. You don't doubt it's possible right? Well let's go back a few hundred thousand years, and say that 2 frog-like species mated, and their kid got super strong legs, which served him pretty well in life, seeing as every other frog got eaten cause they couldn't hop away fast enough. So then these super strong legs stay with this frog, and when he finds a mate, he can pass that trait on to his kid, so now his kid has super strong legs, maybe even stronger? The point is that variation within a species occurs, not all frogs have the same legs, not all humans have the same noses, and sometimes when an environmental pressure occurs, the lucky ones who have stronger legs get to survive and the weaker ones get killed off, and soon enough, all these variations that amass over hundreds of thousands of years causes the new frogs to look nothing like the frogs from hundreds of thousands of years ago, thus they are a new species.

A note, don't just think in physical traits either, let's say one frog has a natural immunity to a deadly virus, like for instance, (just providing an example) in Africa, where people who carry the sickle blood cell gene, have a natural immunity to malaria, which is pretty handy in a region where malaria is a major killer. So let's say these frogs have a natural immunity to a deadly virus, and other frogs don't, the other frogs get killed off, even if they had super strong legs, and these frogs that carry the gene for the natural immunity live on, even if they were pretty weak physically. And don't forget of course that intelligence can be an inherited trait, the ability to learn at least. Some find it easier than others, and the smarter you were, the better you were able to survive.

And your final statement there,

what evidence is there of christianity? Heck, no one is even sure if Jesus really existed, or whether he was just an allegorical hero.

In fact, if you look back through the original books, it's a pretty shaky connection between Jesus' life and the time people started worshipping him as the son of god. There's a minimum 40 year gap, probably more where Jesus lives, dies for everyones sins, and then 40 years go by, and someone says "Hey! This guy lived and died for our sins! Let's worship him!"

All I did was take God's word and put it out in the open. I didn't call you a fool, but lost and blind, definitely. Lost in the darkness and blinded by the cares of this world. As far as being a fool, by the worlds standards you are among the wisest of the wise, following the wisdom of this world, but "the foolishness of God is greater than the wisdom of man," and any wisdom I have is the wisdom of God (though I'm not always to apt to follow it, but I have faith by his word he has given me his wisdom), so by the standard of wisdom I possess, you are the most foolish of fools, rejecting the truth for a lie. So, whose standard do you accept Razz, the world's or God's?

God can be foolish? That doesn't sound very omniscient to me... I'd rather not worship something that's supposedly there if it has the potential to be foolish, in fact, if it has the potential to be foolish, it really isn't perfect anyways, cause that means it's making mistakes.

Izzy just said god makes mistakes, enjoy everybody.

^Hey, cool to see you around again Skateyasha, I had wondered where you went, you always bring an intelligent post to the to the table (or in this case, sub-forum) though sad to see that you aren't staying.

^Hey, cool to see you around again Skateyasha, I had wondered where you went, you always bring an intelligent post to the to the table (or in this case, sub-forum) though sad to see that you aren't staying.

Meh, I might be, I got pretty tired of the redundancy of this section, but now, I kinda miss it <3

I know what you mean, I feel like I want to stop posting at times also but then I just can't resist. :)

Meh, I might be, I got pretty tired of the redundancy of this section, but now, I kinda miss it <3

What?!?! this is the most awesome section!

75% of my posts are in this section if not more!

Rest of the forum is just useless compared to this section and video section.

Don't think I'm un-retiring, but I just couldn't resist this, it had the guy with a baseball bat and everything.

Your view of evolution and actual evolution are not the same, first off, that picture isn't even believed to be correct by the scientific community anymore, as they have found the fossil links that suggest it really wasn't a fish like the ones we see today that crawled out of water, it was more like an iguana or crocodile mixed with a frog, in that it was an amphibian, with limbs, that could move out of the water, and breath out of the water, but still lived in the water just like it's parents before it and it's parents before it etc...

Secondly, things don't turn into things, and I feel the reason you feel this is so preposterous is that you have the pre-determined idea that evolution is meant to create, to reach goals of developing species into what would eventually become us, humans, the most successful (that we know of) thing to ever live on this earth in terms of intelligence, which would allow us to become the most powerful as well. But this is a wrong view, evolution wasn't trying to create us, we just happened. Ever notice how babies don't look like their parents all the time? Let's say a couple had a kid, and the dad had a big nose and the mom had a small nose, and the kid has a medium sized nose. You don't doubt it's possible right? Well let's go back a few hundred thousand years, and say that 2 frog-like species mated, and their kid got super strong legs, which served him pretty well in life, seeing as every other frog got eaten cause they couldn't hop away fast enough. So then these super strong legs stay with this frog, and when he finds a mate, he can pass that trait on to his kid, so now his kid has super strong legs, maybe even stronger? The point is that variation within a species occurs, not all frogs have the same legs, not all humans have the same noses, and sometimes when an environmental pressure occurs, the lucky ones who have stronger legs get to survive and the weaker ones get killed off, and soon enough, all these variations that amass over hundreds of thousands of years causes the new frogs to look nothing like the frogs from hundreds of thousands of years ago, thus they are a new species.

A note, don't just think in physical traits either, let's say one frog has a natural immunity to a deadly virus, like for instance, (just providing an example) in Africa, where people who carry the sickle blood cell gene, have a natural immunity to malaria, which is pretty handy in a region where malaria is a major killer. So let's say these frogs have a natural immunity to a deadly virus, and other frogs don't, the other frogs get killed off, even if they had super strong legs, and these frogs that carry the gene for the natural immunity live on, even if they were pretty weak physically. And don't forget of course that intelligence can be an inherited trait, the ability to learn at least. Some find it easier than others, and the smarter you were, the better you were able to survive.

And your final statement there,

what evidence is there of christianity? Heck, no one is even sure if Jesus really existed, or whether he was just an allegorical hero.

In fact, if you look back through the original books, it's a pretty shaky connection between Jesus' life and the time people started worshipping him as the son of god. There's a minimum 40 year gap, probably more where Jesus lives, dies for everyones sins, and then 40 years go by, and someone says "Hey! This guy lived and died for our sins! Let's worship him!"

yeah, ur right i dont know a lot about evolution, and i admit that. but i think you understnad the general concept of what im talking about. and everyone here has criticized god, and told me im stupid for believing in him, but when i am faithful to the lord, and i do my best to live by his word, really good things happen to my friends, family, and myself. and when i sin and i know im doing it, bad things happen to me. you can just say its ironic or something but i honestly believe it is god.

yeah, ur right i dont know a lot about evolution, and i admit that. but i think you understnad the general concept of what im talking about. and everyone here has criticized god, and told me im stupid for believing in him, but when i am faithful to the lord, and i do my best to live by his word, really good things happen to my friends, family, and myself. and when i sin and i know im doing it, bad things happen to me. you can just say its ironic or something but i honestly believe it is god.

Not necessarily true there. Look at the apostles for just one example. They went through a BUNCH of crap for being believers. Paul even said if Christ didn't rise again (trying to make a point about the resurrection of the dead), then we are the most wretched of all people. It's not that good or bad things happen, it's how Jesus is with you through it all.

Not necessarily true there. Look at the apostles for just one example. They went through a BUNCH of crap for being believers. Paul even said if Christ didn't rise again (trying to make a point about the resurrection of the dead), then we are the most wretched of all people. It's not that good or bad things happen, it's how Jesus is with you through it all.

what do you mean?? sorry i just dont really understand what your meaning is...

what do you mean?? sorry i just dont really understand what your meaning is...

You said things will go good when you live right and not when you don't. That isn't true at all. The early believers for just an example lived more like Jesus than any of us, and they had TERRIBLE persecution (remember Nero Caesar). Honestly, when you live for Jesus, more bad stuff will happen to you because you are on Satan's opposite side now, and it ticks him off and he wants you in hell. The thing is though, Jesus will be with you through any bad thing, and will work it all out for your good in the end (though it may not seem like it at the time).

yah i meant when i pray he answers my prayers.

you know i really do hope there is a heaven and a god. i may not be a big beleiver. but an 8 year old boy, who skates with me at the park alot and is just one of the nicest people ive ever met, just died on Tuesday from natural causes. its things like that that make me really hope there is something for him after death.

you know i really do hope there is a heaven and a god. i may not be a big beleiver. but an 8 year old boy, who skates with me at the park alot and is just one of the nicest people ive ever met, just died on Tuesday from natural causes. its things like that that make me really hope there is something for him after death.

Who says it has to be heaven or God? Personally, I think there is a good possibility that there is something after death but I don't think it is God or the Bible's story. There may be nothing after death but there could also be something totally unexpected by us though your story does also make me hope there is something better than this world afterward when things like that happen.

After life? Why?

It's typical stone age brain thinking "damn it I can't imagine death therefore there has to be something after it! Let's make sh*t up!"

I wish for the Norse mythology after life. That would f*cking rock!(if you happen to get to the right part of course :p)

Here you two are basically proving that after life is based upon mourning for lost friends/family/whoever.

"He's in a better place now" to comfort you. Quite silly.

After life? Why?

It's typical stone age brain thinking "damn it I can't imagine death therefore there has to be something after it! Let's make sh*t up!"

I wish for the Norse mythology after life. That would f*cking rock!(if you happen to get to the right part of course :p)

Here you two are basically proving that after life is based upon mourning for lost friends/family/whoever.

"He's in a better place now" to comfort you. Quite silly.

Not necessarily an "after life" as in a sort of heaven with a God or something similar but I do think there is the possibility something else after death. What happens after death, that is something with truly no evidence going either way which is why I stick simply with accepting that there is the possibility of something else after death.

Here you two are basically proving that after life is based upon mourning for lost friends/family/whoever.

"He's in a better place now" to comfort you. Quite silly.

This really pisses me off. To be honest you're arguments can be quite pathetic. One, you automatically assume that the reason I accept the possibility of something after death is because of the "He's in a better place now" comfort. You seem to have this superiority complex. You come off thinking your hot sh*t and have all the answers and look down upon those who disagree with you. You are honestly just as close-minded I'd say as people like =Z28= or Izzy, just with a different set of beliefs.

Two, you're argument doesn't even apply to The Beard, here he is quoted:

its things like that that make me really hope there is something for him after death.

Hope, not believe or know, but hope that there is a heaven or God after death for the sake of an eight year old. How is hoping, not believing, giving him comfort when all that is does is give no answers?

Hope is belief according to some. I'd like it if that were true for everyone.

Hope is belief according to some. I'd like it if that were true for everyone.
True, but looking at the context in which "hope" was said, I wouldn't think it equates to "belief" in this situation.

You come off thinking your hot sh*t and have all the answers and look down upon those who disagree with you.


Tbh I just type a lot of sh*t most of the time. And most of the time it's in the middle of the night or early in the morning with no sleep.

I don't actually look down upon anyone here even if my writing comes off crude and aggressive(maybe I'm angry deep inside for whatever reason IRL and forum posts vents it a little. who knows?!?). Not a hot shot either for that matter.

But yeah I immediately assume something and just write some lines what I think.
Sometimes it sets off a few fuses and I think this isn't the first you have had about my posts? :D

But yeah I immediately assume something and just write some lines what I think.
Sometimes it sets off a few fuses and I think this isn't the first you have had about my posts?
Yeah, I also typed that late at night and tired, not so pissed off now really. Shouldn't have really let it get to me, I remember you said in a different thread you said you tend to take a more extremest view than usual on things just to see people's reactions or something like that.

All I did was take God's word and put it out in the open. I didn't call you a fool, but lost and blind, definitely. Lost in the darkness and blinded by the cares of this world. As far as being a fool, by the worlds standards you are among the wisest of the wise, following the wisdom of this world, but "the foolishness of God is greater than the wisdom of man," and any wisdom I have is the wisdom of God (though I'm not always to apt to follow it, but I have faith by his word he has given me his wisdom), so by the standard of wisdom I possess, you are the most foolish of fools, rejecting the truth for a lie. So, whose standard do you accept Razz, the world's or God's?

Izzy, have you ever taken into consideration that you just could be wrong? I know you've been indoctrinated by your parents who, by your admittance, ban you from reading material challenging your faith.

But, seriously, have you ever looked at yourself and said "wow, I could possibly be wrong on all this"

Izzy, have you ever taken into consideration that you just could be wrong? I know you've been indoctrinated by your parents who, by your admittance, ban you from reading material challenging your faith.

But, seriously, have you ever looked at yourself and said "wow, I could possibly be wrong on all this"

At one time, I did. At one time, I wasn't even the slightest bit Christian, and I somewhat thought that, but I didn't worry much about it, because