 |
GuitarDiscussion.com
Christian Guitar Forum
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
jeff_osu
Tiger
Joined: 17 Sep 2003
Posts: 838
Location: Oklahoma
|
 Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 10:42 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| jon_baptist_89 wrote: | Well, i don't have a problem with science, unless it conflicts with the bible.
Assuming that the evo theory is credible enough, it causes a lot of damage in various and far reaching aspects.
if darwin was right, then man is not held accountable for his sins because he is the ultimate form of evolutionary selection. this means that man is able to do all things, regardless of ethical or moral issues. he is permitted to commit murder and robbery, because of the "survival of the fittest". he can exploit the environment because he is king.
|
Such as Nazi Germany.....I see what you're saying here and agree, but that is the ultra-fanatical view of survival of the fittest. Christians exploited their beliefs in the Crusades and Muslims are doing it now, both for personal agendas, but it's hardly indicative of the groups as a whole.
| Quote: | unfortunately darwin was wrong.
way wrong.
in his last days he expresses his doubts about his fairy tale.
too bad, one life wasted: Darwin.
countless others dragged to hell because of his ideas.
so sad... |
He died as an agnostic, and his last words were directed to his wife. Elizabeth Hope's account has been disproved by his children and historians. Just anti-Darwin propoganda.
I dunno, I just don't see how anyone can say that natural selection doesn't occur.....there are noticable changes of species even within a person's lifetime. The common cold is constantly evolving, which is why there's no treatment for it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
PunkStar
Moderator
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
Posts: 1176
Location: Wodonga, Australia
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 4:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
According to the wikipedia article on Natural Selection:
| Quote: | | Natural selection is the evolutionary process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common. |
I don't believe I have ever heard a Christian scientist debate that skills and traits are passed on by species to it's offspring in the name of survival. But to say that is proof of evolution as a whole is inaccurate. To use Jeff's example. Yes, the common cold germ changes to become resistant to various antibiotics. But it is still the common cold germ. It hasn't evolved any new infection symptoms, and is still only a minor health problem lasting only a few days and is handled reasonably easily by the body. Individual changes within a subspecies can be passed on, I certainly wont deny natural selection as described above exists. But it hasn't been sufficient to create a whole new creature (which seems the whole basis of evolution). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jon_baptist_89
Sea Monkey
Joined: 07 Apr 2007
Posts: 12
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
well...
now that we got darwin straightened out (literally, haha)
now we come to the next step of breaking the legs of the evo theory:
radiometric dating (RMD)... (it has nothing to do with going out with somebody of the opposite gender).
ahem, most people get the idea that to date an object via RMD, one just has to put the object in the "microwave-oven-like-thingy" and wait and a few minutes later, a date pops out like a fortune cookie.
UTTER NONSENSE: what actually occurs is that the machine spits out a calculation and it is up to the scientist to interpret the formula.
even before the object is subjected to RMD testing, the scientist will give an estimated date, i.e 2.5 bil yrs
if the results doesn't match the estimate, i.e. 100 mil yrs,
the scientist will then callibrate the machine and run the test again until a satisfactory date shows up.
in the common tongue of man: "if you don't like what you get, then change it!"
how convenient! imagine how wonderful to have your trusted give you a precise date and with confidence!
FYI, RMD isn't accurate to calculate beyond 100000 years |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PunkStar
Moderator
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
Posts: 1176
Location: Wodonga, Australia
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jon_baptist_89 wrote: |
radiometric dating (RMD)... (it has nothing to do with going out with somebody of the opposite gender).
|
Although that too is a worthy area of study. 
Ok, I don't know much more about evolution than I have already posted. So I am dropping out of the thread until I find something I can make a real comment on.
Now, back to your regularly schedule discussion.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jon_baptist_89
Sea Monkey
Joined: 07 Apr 2007
Posts: 12
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 2:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not done slaying the sacred cow of evolution.
Not even close...
if you've read my prev post, chances are you had a good laugh.
now listen to this: here's an even more hillarious method!
Suppose you find a fossil one day on a picnic.
Experts swarm to you like ants to sugar to analyse the find of the century.
You then walk over to the paleontologist (the fossil expert) to see what the buzz was about.
He tells you that you've made an amazing discovery in the realm of paleontology.
When he's done with the occupational jargon and monologue, he finally tells you that your find was over 2 billion years old!
You ask how, and he says with utter confidence that it was found with a 2 billion year old rock, therefore it dates 2 billion years.
After a while of uninteresting chat, you part ways, and lo and behold you meet the geologist, who greets you and congratulates you with no less enthusiasm than the aforesaid paleontologist.
Now you ask him how he knows that the rock was 2 billion years old, he will say to with equal certainty that he came to this expert opinion that the rock was so because...
THE FOSSIL WAS 2 BILLION YEARS OLD!!!
don't think this is absurd and fictional.
in the realm of science this dating method is STANDARD PROCEDURE. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
markm2553
Moderator
Joined: 03 Feb 2003
Posts: 1005
Location: Marengo, IN USA
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 4:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Let’s assure for a moment that we agree with this idea of one animal evolving into another type creature over time. One theory I hear often today is that the dinosaurs became the birds we see today. Ok there are more than a couple of things that need to change for this to happen, taking millions of years as the theory goes. So over these millions of years would there not be millions of creatures that are somewhere between a dinosaur and a bird; would there not be millions of remains left behind? We have the fossils of the dinosaurs, and the bones of birds, why can’t we find anything in between?
I know this sounds like an overly simple question, but where are the answers to these simple questions. This is one small example, what about all the different creatures that are said to have evolved over time? Adaptation can not be refuted, but there is all the world of difference between adaptation for survival and evolution into another animal all together.
I read a very good book on the subject a few years ago then gave it away. I’ll look and see if I can find the title. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
markm2553
Moderator
Joined: 03 Feb 2003
Posts: 1005
Location: Marengo, IN USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jeff_osu
Tiger
Joined: 17 Sep 2003
Posts: 838
Location: Oklahoma
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 12:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| markm2553 wrote: | | Let’s assure for a moment that we agree with this idea of one animal evolving into another type creature over time. One theory I hear often today is that the dinosaurs became the birds we see today. Ok there are more than a couple of things that need to change for this to happen, taking millions of years as the theory goes. So over these millions of years would there not be millions of creatures that are somewhere between a dinosaur and a bird; would there not be millions of remains left behind? We have the fossils of the dinosaurs, and the bones of birds, why can’t we find anything in between? |
There are actually. Of course, there's Archaeopteryx, which had the fused pelvic bones (synasacrum) found in modern birds and also had a furculum (wishbone), however it was still too primitive to do any more than gliding and moderate flapping, it couldn't actually "fly" in the sense we think of today (couldn't get off the ground). Cryptovolans had more "bird" characteristics than Archaeopteryx, and so forth until you get birds.
They are discovering a lot of fossil evidence in China indicating that many of the dinosaurs had feathers. Dinosaurs steadily decreased in size and many were developing feathers as insulation by that 65 mya mark. That's the great thing about Ornithology, we actually see that "missing link" that has vexed mammalogists.
| Quote: | | don't believe I have ever heard a Christian scientist debate that skills and traits are passed on by species to it's offspring in the name of survival. But to say that is proof of evolution as a whole is inaccurate. To use Jeff's example. Yes, the common cold germ changes to become resistant to various antibiotics. But it is still the common cold germ. It hasn't evolved any new infection symptoms, and is still only a minor health problem lasting only a few days and is handled reasonably easily by the body. Individual changes within a subspecies can be passed on, I certainly wont deny natural selection as described above exists. But it hasn't been sufficient to create a whole new creature (which seems the whole basis of evolution). |
Well, not in a single lifetime. According to proposed human evolution theories, we evolved in only 10 million years. That's a tick on the clock compared to the extent of the proposed age of the earth, but that's still a really long time. A lot of times something just "happens" and there's this huge evolutionary advance for a species....congenital syphilis is proposed to have genetically altered because it really hit the scene bigtime about the 15th century or so. It's easier to see on the microscopic scale because they are so short-lived they can change noticeably in our life time.
The scientists can predict the age of rock by it's composition and where they found it, that's no biggie. You can do the same with soils.
Radiocarbon dating has become increasingly refined and they are constantly callibrating it to account for errors. They adjust calculations to make up for things that would cause inconsistency (altitude for instance). Chemistry is ordered, there's no magic involved with RCD and scientists aren't just pulling numbers out of their rears, they would get called out on it and lose credibility (and thus job).
It's not a big deal to me in the religious sense where I and everything else came from, but after 4 years of majoring in Ecology there is just no doubt in my mind that with or without God's help we are direct descendants from hominid apes. I'm not trying to push that on other people and won't directly say that in front of someone who disagrees out of respect, but some of the comments in this thread are likening science to magic and idol worshiping which has me scratching my head. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PunkStar
Moderator
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
Posts: 1176
Location: Wodonga, Australia
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 4:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jeff, it's obvious you've put quite a bit of time in this. I was wondering, what is your view on Genesis?
EDIT: Remember that book I recommended earlier in the thread, The Genesis Record. Well, here is a link to it on Amazon.com. In case anyone wanted any more info about it. Apparently it's still available. I also mentioned in another thread about The Revelation Record, similar sort of book by the same author. It can be found there as well.
http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Record-Scientific-Devotional-Commentary/dp/0801060044 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
markm2553
Moderator
Joined: 03 Feb 2003
Posts: 1005
Location: Marengo, IN USA
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 7:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jeff, we are talking millions of mutations over millions of years, would there not be many transitional animals? A bone in common here or there doesn’t prove much. I have a lot of hair on my body and two eyes, so does my dog. And you can even use a pig’s heart valve in a human, or so I hear. Many of the creatures here on Earth seem to share a lot of the same attributes, almost like they where designed that way…
Good discussion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jeff_osu
Tiger
Joined: 17 Sep 2003
Posts: 838
Location: Oklahoma
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 8:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| PunkStar wrote: | Jeff, it's obvious you've put quite a bit of time in this. I was wondering, what is your view on Genesis?
|
I think it's a parable, but with more truth than the word parable implies.
Day 1: God creates light.
Ka-blamo, creation of the universe, however that might have occurred.
Day 2: Firmanent of Heaven created, separation of the waters.
Our solar system forms.
Day 3: Creation of Land.
The Earth forms.
Day 4: Stars, Moon, and Sun are created.
Our planet takes the form that we know of today.
Day 5: Air and Sea Creatures Created.
Life originated in the sea....who can say about the air creatures? Not every living organism on Earth leaves a fossil behind. Also, could refer to "spores", which would lead into the next jump...
Day 6: Land animals and humans created.
...the fishies crawl out of the water and start walking.
Day 7: God rests.
Aside of the big asteroid 65 mya, it's been fairly quiet, at least during our brief 10,000 years of recorded civilization.
| markm2553 wrote: | | Jeff, we are talking millions of mutations over millions of years, would there not be many transitional animals? A bone in common here or there doesn’t prove much. I have a lot of hair on my body and two eyes, so does my dog. And you can even use a pig’s heart valve in a human, or so I hear. Many of the creatures here on Earth seem to share a lot of the same attributes, almost like they where designed that way… |
Well, those 2 Dinosaurs I mentioned are just 2 of the proposed missing links. There isn't a lot of mystery to it with birds, there's more species as well and they're constantly finding more, I think in 50 or 100 years it will be common knowledge that birds descended from dinosaurs. If a guy could run back 66 mya with a thermometer and take a dino's temp and find it is homeothermic like birds today, it would pretty much seal the deal.
Here's another example, this is a Liaoningornis:
http://dino.lm.com/images/display.php?id=1143
There's also Confuciusornis, Ichthyornis, and Hesperornis.
All that said, convergence does happen and it's not a definite and I'm not saying it does, it's just that at the present it looks pretty likely. Also, as I mentioned earlier not every species will leave behind a fossil or fossils that are found by humans.
However, scientists who say that all the above and such is 100% accurate are very mistaken. These are all just hypotheses and theories, and if I give the impression that these are "law" it's not intentional. In my personal opinion, only God is 100% correct on where everything came from, but it's fun to try and figure it out for ourselves. 
Indeed, it's cool to get different viewpoints in a civil discussion, which is rare for the topic at hand in every day life. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jon_baptist_89
Sea Monkey
Joined: 07 Apr 2007
Posts: 12
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 3:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Chemistry is ordered, there's no magic involved with RCD and scientists aren't just pulling numbers out of their rears, they would get called out on it and lose credibility (and thus job). |
I don't deny the fact that Chemistry is ordered.
But the fact is that they ( the evolutionists ) are using an unreliable measure to 'confirm' their findings.
Its like using a 6-inch ruler to measure the length of the entire US of A.
Its like, way out of the scale of usefulness.
Sure RMD works fine with 2nd century papyrus, but beyond your millions of years, it takes more than that to convince me.
it is a fact that the RMD method is the trademark of the evolutionist scientific community, just as the stetoscope is to the medical profession.
they can't live without it.
it's because they rely on it as a ruler, instead of relying on THE Ruler. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PunkStar
Moderator
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
Posts: 1176
Location: Wodonga, Australia
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jeff_osu wrote: |
I think it's a parable, but with more truth than the word parable implies.
|
Please forgive the lateness of this reply. But the board needs a bit more discussion.
Is there any other parts of the Bible you believe to be less than literal? What about key historical figures like Adam and Eve, Abraham, Moses, and David?
The reason I ask these questions is because I would like to know if you believe the whole Bible is valid, or only a portion of it.
And yes, I am going somewhere with this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
George E
Big Hamster
Joined: 29 Jul 2007
Posts: 92
Location: Pittsburgh
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2007 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Is there any other parts of the Bible you believe to be less than literal? What about key historical figures like Adam and Eve, Abraham, Moses, and David?
First, the entire Bible is valid. It is the sole source of God's true message for us of his love for us, and our redemption. Some of the stories in the Bible are parables that illustrate a lesson, some are literally and historically true. As for which are which, what does it matter?
Any student of the Gospels knows that the chronology of events in the synoptic Gospels doesn't match the chronology in John. Does it change our understanding of God's Grace or the Passion, death, and resurrection of Jesus if Jesus chased the moneychangers out of the temple at the start of His ministry (according to John), or at the start of Holy Week near the end of His Ministry (according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke)?
Does it matter if God created man and woman simultaneously, as it says in Genesis 1:27, or if God created man first and women second, as it says in Genesis 2:22? Or does it matter that in Genesis 1, it says that God created all the birds and beasts and fish, and then created humans, while in Genesis 2 it says that God created man first, then all the creatures, and then finally woman?
Or is what really matters the core fact that is in both of the different accounts in Genesis, and that is also agreed to by all Christians who also accept that evolution was one of the the processed that God created and used to form His Creation? And that core fact is that it was God who did the creating. It wasn't random chance. God didn't create the world by magick.
God created an entire universe, a complex and marvelous creation we're barely learning to understand a little bit. God's creation was so marvelous, so perfect, so intricate and complex and yet so flawless that we in the beginning of the 3rd Milena can barely start to understand it. So, God explained it to Moses almost 6,000 years ago in terms Moses could understand within the context of his education and knowledge. Moses got the important part. God created heaven and earth. The rest is mere details.
It doesn't matter how God did what God did. The point is that it was God who did it. That is a marvelous and wondrous truth. That should be sufficient truth for any believer. Whether the two different stories of Genesis are both factually accurate (which would be some trick, since they don't agree with each other) or if both are divine parables, does it really matter? Does it change the truth that it was God who did the creating? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KY Ratshooter
Little Guppy
Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 30
Location: North, KY
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks George,
I believe you have successfully removed God from the box everyone was trying to put him in!
Our beliefs have no invluence on reality as precieved by God. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
