1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Creation - Evolution Continuum

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by (Q), May 12, 2004.

  1. (Q)

    (Q) Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    558
    Ratings:
    +12
    Copy and paste can be misconstrued as plagiarism.
     
  2. (Q)

    (Q) Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    558
    Ratings:
    +12
    God made the giraffe a giraffe and the sheep a sheep from the beginning.

    How do you know this?
     
  3. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    Well, if a someone refuses to check the NAMES of the people who are quoting science, let it be. I'm not quoting films to give credibility, I'm using the names of the SCIENTISTS. Films are just an example and don't laugh too loud because great scientists like Carl Sagan, Asimov, Michio Kaku and Stephen Hawkins do care about science fiction based upon science. If you couldn't comprehend what I wrote, how on Earth are you gonna understand evolution or science??? Please, instead of using rethoric and words against me , use DATA and INFORMATION. Too much obliged! Scientists don't write "anecdotes" Mr. I'm quoting since you ask quotings. I already gave several and you who make no mention of no particular information demand ME to give you extra info???????? Do you think I 'll have to write every single reference just to satisfy your ignorance. Then again a stupid general remark "there are mountains of evidence". I let the reader decide if you are giving that much evidence. I don't laugh at you.... I pity you. You always have to respect your enemy. The links are not stupid. Stupid is the one who doesn't read or consider that everything against his ideas is nonsense. The links also provide more names of authors and books just in case an occasional reader wants to inform himself (herself) , definitely not your case. You are using your liver rather than brain. Relax, take it easy, take a deeeeeep breath...anc continue. Please, remember you're the defender of SCIENCE and not a traditionalist religious leader......HE-HE-HE!
     
  4. (Q)

    (Q) Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    558
    Ratings:
    +12
    inca

    You copy and paste a lot of material yet make no comments yourself. Why should we bother responding?

    For example, you copied a statement in regards to entropy, yet I can't help but feel you know nothing about entropy, or the laws of thermodynamics.

    The conclusion drawn is seriously flawed, yet I doubt you would understand why. And I don't think it worthwhile to explain to you why it is flawed considering you made no effort yourself to create your own arguments. I also doubt you would understand the answer in the first place.

    Try not to get over your head too much.
     
  5. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    Q: something to add to the issue but your ego? No? It's no surprise at all. It's all in the genes, Mr. When you see -and trust- evolutionist writing in an issue that "Australopithecus or whatever being fabricated the arrow" you trust that not cos you have witnessed the thing. That's for sure cos I know many things that you even see by television or video tapes or photographs you hesitate or just don't believe. All of us. We live in cynical and skeptic world. So, you trust because the idea pleases you. You wanna eliminate the "god" word of your personal dictionary cos you think of yourself His presence is no longer needed and indeed you're smart wise a...s. That's nothing but ego. I can question you right now several issues about science starting with bone fragments and ending in gravitons or "nothingness" of the universe or Big Crunch-Big Rip-Big Bang and you and any other evolutionist would shut up cos there are no answers but contradictory theories against each other. So, you prefer to ACCEPT the "evidence" of your liking even if you don't know that evolutionist archeologist didn't find the ape bone in the strata you imagine or even if he joined with another piece of bone km away in Java island and after said it belonged to the same animal. But you're not seeing anything. The fact is genetic proves and has always proved there's a map of all millions of animal species and though they are constructed with the same elements or some similarities, they are separated themselves and there's a limit which is sterelization. Even in species who are "relatives" this always happened. Hence if there's a genetic design there was no evolution in a step by step progression (slow or fast according to evolutionists own desire whenever they please). Using the same argument of the arrow who was designed by intelligent creature whether you can only guess how, when or why, I assume the same thing about DNA in our Earth and I agree like physicist whose names I have mentioned (whether any idiot can say is not relevant or is "anecdotic") in the anthropic principle of the Earth & Universe as well. Yet, now that you know my point of view and I already know yours, DO YOU HAVE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT EVOLUTION? It's perfectly clear religion doesn't require evidence. Yet, if evolution is science we urge the "mountains of evidence". Is not enough when somebody says "it's a fact" , "we have mountains of evidence", that is bla-bla-bla. If evolutionists don't have evidence so it's a "mano a mano" struggle between two faiths.
     
  6. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    And no, I'm not quoting and make no comments. I made in the last 2 posting some quoting and I added my comments and so I have done in many pages. The anthropic principle in fact involves the knowing of thermodynamics. When you say that I don't know YOU'RE JUDGING AND ASSUMING. And when you say it's not worthy to discuss the issue with me is a subtle way to admit YOU DON'T KNOW THE HECK ABOUT THERMODYNAMICS and wanna escape from the discussion. If you wanna ran away from me cos you don't have the brains and wanna use that an excuse to get out from the debate, who you think is loosing? Me the one who's not allowed the chance to discuss the subject with Omnipotent Mr Q Unknown? Clap-clap-clap. I defy and challenge your pseudo-knowledge about that thermodynamic issue and let's see how deep the rabbit goes. You did exactly the same before; you were arguing and then vanished to write your eloquents "questions" . Keep on, I beg you.
     
  7. Engyo

    Engyo Prince of Dorkness!

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2004
    Messages:
    6,379
    Ratings:
    +825
    Shakyamuni Buddha answered the question of (variously) "who made the world?" or "Where did the world come from?" by answering that this wasn't the important question. The important question is what you do with the life you have now. If this question (creation vs. evolution) were to be conclusively and absolutely answered beyond a shadow of a doubt by this time next year, how would it change your life and what you do every day?
     
  8. painted wolf

    painted wolf Grey Muzzle

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    15,369
    Ratings:
    +1,652
    oh trust us we can tell the difference between your cut and paste and your genuine comments... you tend to ramble and insult and carry on...

    as for asking Q if he was there to witness any of the scientific finds... I would assume from this then that you were there to see god make the animals and everything with your own eyes?

    the pot and the kettle remember?

    as for the list post above...

    lamerkin is outdated and discarded
    Lungfish, monotremes, and the dukier...
    sex allows us to mix genes to make better 'mutations'
    Dinosaurs survived the Jurassic by almost 100 million years... eaven in cold places...
    if clams got to the tops of mountians because their were no mountains untill during the flood... then how were the 'advanced' animals able to climb higher up to escape the flood and be burried in higher strata?
    life from lifeless matter... like god makeing us from dirt?
    and we already went over mutation as a good thing so that argument is bunk...

    wa:-do
     
  9. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    In your statement "as for asking Q if he was there to witness any of the scientific finds... I would assume from this then that you were there to see god make the animals and everything with your own eyes? " the answer is NO. Of course not, what I tried to say is evolutionists and any people trust many things without having to see or witness a fact but assuming by the context, the indirect evidences.
     
  10. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    Engyo: You gotta a good point here. In my case I don't wanna use the information to my glory. Nobody knows me, I use a nickname, I'm not gonna make a fortune or fame, I'm not writing a book. My point is some fellows here who are star dust like myself are feeling so cocky because they think they know. Yet the people who had more knowledge (and we are in doubt with them because of that) everytime they knew more, they were more humble. Newton was a Freemason who wrote more about God and Creation and against trinity than his writings about science. He sent a friend of his to measure Great Pyramid in Egypt in order to use that information to make the calculations of the dimensions of our planet !!!!!! Einstein was someone who believed in pantheism but wrote personal letters to a friend using the Hebrew name of God; physicist Ramanujan believed the Hindu goddess from Namakkal inspired him with math formulas; Michio Kaku admits physicist don't have the slightest clue why some math number codes appear in their formulas "magically"; Mendeleiev discovered the table of elements but trusted in the formulas of the Creator; even Stephen Hawkins dares to discuss about God but this people here who are unknown amateurs make fun of the divine idea. Nobody has to believe me nor scientists (some of them I quoted by name). But I believe an eventual reader can judge better and put the things in balance and wonder, why would those bright minds think about God or divine power rather than materialistic evolution?
    Mr Wolf wrote AGAIN about surviving of dinosaurs. This has nothing to do with the coming of the dinosaurs in first place nor evolution. Mutations are explained by experts in that field and I already quoted that in the similar issue. Mutations never add information to the point a specie creates a new one completely different by mixing genes.
    No, nobody says there were no mountains in pre-Flood times. They were just smaller. Mountains became higher after those events, specially in the Himalayas and Andes. The question itself demonstrates how ignorant is the one who asks cos the Bible (and Sumerian account) describe the ark on Ararat.
    Matter was not made out of dirt. In fact NASA discovered it was used CLAY as the Bible and other myths explain.
     
  11. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/822
    www.sitchin.com
    (last part of that last link).
    Now, don't aske me to provide more information or links. I have provided enough. If you don't believe or your skepticism is so close to cynicism that's your own business. Do your research, do your homework, investigate, invest time, read books and sites and then get back.
    Someone asked me about thermodynamics. Well, it can be explained in 3 ways the 3 laws:
    1) You can't win (you can't get nothing for nothing cos matter and energy are conserved).
    2)You can't get out without winning or loosing (you can't get back to the same state of energy cos there's always an increasing of disorder, entropy always rises)
    3) You can't abandon the game (cos zero is absolutely unreachable).
    SO WHAT??????
     
  12. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    :drink:
    I don’t know about you but I don’t feel intellectually intimidated by a name of “authority” like physicist Stephen Hawkins, specially cos some statements don’t seem to be naïve or childish but really IMBECIL for a man knowing math as he does in his Brief Story of Time, the example of monkeys hammering in typewriters machines, -the bigger part will be litter but occasionally, by mere CHANCE, they will type one of Shakespeare’s sonnets.
    Shakespeare’s complete works do have the sonnets pretty much the same size. The initial verse of sonnet 18 is well known: “Shall I compare you to a summer’s day?” which follows the usual 14 lines and ends:
    “So long as men can breathe or eyes can see, so long lives this, and this gives life to thee”.
    There are 488 letters in the sonnet. Ignoring the spaces between words (like the Bible Code)the chance to type by chance 488 letters and produce this sonnet is 1 in 10 follow by 690 zeros! The enormity of this scale can be notice if we consider after Big Bang there’s 15 billion years, that means only 10 follow by 18 zeros (seconds).
    Hence, to write by chance one of Shakespeare’s sonnets it’s required all the monkeys PLUS all the animals of the Earth type in typewriter machines MADE BY ALL IRON OF THE UNIVERSE in a period of time EXCEEDING ENORMOUSLY THE TIME SINCE BIG BANG, even so, the odds are minimum. Trying one chance by second, even a simple sentence with 16 letters demands 2 millions of billion years while the Universe only exists 15 billion years ago…to eliminate all possible combinations.
    In XIII Century, Namanides quoted a commentary about Genesis written 600 years before, explaining BEFORE the existence of our universe TIME DIDN’T EXIST. This is due to what is written in Genesis 1:5: “There was an afternoon and morning, day one”. IT WASN’T WRITTEN “FIRST DAY” as stupidly translated in most of the Bibles, because the use of “first” would implied a series already existing of days in a “continuum” of time when truly there was no time before that “DAY ONE”. There was no “before” and not even “after”, there was nothing linked to that day. The subtle difference was not noticed in Jerusalem Bible when we read “first day”, something not happening in Vulgata version translating “Jactunque est vespere et mane, DIES UNUS” in Latin. That day was unique as “day one”. With impeccable logic in all the rest of days of Genesis’ week, are used the ordinal term: second, third, fourth, etc., because from the day two it was already established a series of days, the creation of the universe brought with itself the concomitant creation of time. Hence, commenting about Genesis, both Maimonides and Namanides arrived to the same conclusion and interesting idea: before the creation of the universe, space didn’t exist neither time. The creation of the universe brought not just the time in which it flows but the space in which it expands. I already explained the blackness and vacuum was “ruach elokim” expansive inflation or superhole paying attention to Hebrew words.
    In that sense, Hebrew idea wasn’t giving a mythical cow, or “nothingness” opening, or primitive supermaterial linked to a divinity limited to matter existence like Greek gods. Not even in Plato or Aristoteles times their gods could create matter. They were limited by the matter of the Universe and depending on it.
    Five hundred years ago, kabalists understood Moses saying God filling eternity, shrank and in that God’s Big Crunch –tsim tsum- there was universal Big Bang expansion. God chose 10 dimensions or aspects to form the universe and included into our universe. 10 times is written “God said” in chapter 1 of Genesis. Kabalists thought only 4 from 10 dimensions are physically measurable while other 6 contracted in submicroscopic dimensions during the 6 days of Creation. So, what Kaku explained in his book HYPERSPACE without saying a word of what I do explain here comes to modern society CENTURIES LATE, I regret to say! The scientists reference to the original space of a “grapefruit” is just a renewed version of kabalists “mustard seed space”. Even in Naimonides times he was aware of Hebrew meaning of the creation STARTING IN THE AFTERNOON AND ENDING IN THE MORNING. Christians ignore the fact, the word “morning” is “boker” in Hebrew and means “distinguished, capable to be distinguish, ORDERED” while “afternoon” is “erev” meaning “confused, mixtured, DISORDERED”. Therefore, what Genesis was saying all the time is creation started in the chaotic entropy of the “afternoon” ending in the quantified order of the “morning”. Usually Christians don’t know either the meaning of the word “yown” translated as “day” and the fact Genesis is talking about simultaneous times using different clocks cos the sequence of events is not the same EVERYWHERE. In Exodus 31:17, Genesis 1:1 and 2:4 we clearly see not only the difference between creative days and THE DAY in which both heaven and Earth WERE MADE from a primordial substance. Then AFTER when energy from photons dropped to 3000 K degrees, the electrons could have stable orbits around helium and hydrogen nucleus and the photons not only liberated from universal matter (SEPARATED IS THE TERM USED IN THE JEWISH TORAH IN GENESIS BOOK) but also became visible. This fire was in the water and there was water in the fire, not separated as we know in our dimension. It was neo-kabalist brothers Wacholsky did in SFX in one of MATRIX movies making the fire have the attributes of water. More than 99% of Universal mass is under the form of hydrogen and helium, two of the slightest elements of the universe. That is known. But how many of you know when Genesis mentions the Earth was empty and vague it’s used the Hebrew words “tohu” and “bohu”? The most important physicist of particles in fact use the initial T and B (from ToHu and BoHu) as the two main blocs of formation of all matter. The pressure of forces of Big Bang literally did a fussion of this T and B into hydrogen and helium. So much of Hawkins’ expertise!
     
  13. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    And about the brain: 100 billion cells in the gray mass. Each with 50.000 neuron connections to other brain cells. It receives over 100 million separate signals from total human body EVERY SECOND. If we learned something new every second of our lives (perhaps with implant of chip silicon in the "future" and again that would be man made, no natural adaptation or accident)...if it were the case, it'd take 3 million years to exhaust the capacity of human brain. That's the conscious part though, but people can actually reason, anticipate consequences, devise plans, imagine the future without knowing they are doing so. So here we are, wonder of wonders, the only ones on Earth with full capacity of consciousness trapped in a body living the same as unconscious swan or parrot and a lot LESS than a giant turtle in Galapagos reaching between 150 and 200 years old!!! No plan for the evolution. It set the motor of a Jumbo or Concorde in a bike and the battery of a radio as motor of the airplanes! Absolutely nonsense unless many myths (not just the Bible) is right saying somebody turn off something in ourselves and we're f%*&#% up! Like buying a new hi-fi-set or flat tv liquid screen adaptable to DVD, video tape, tv channel, awsome sound from several speakers and "someone" unplugs something and then you are, watching black & white programs without sound and only to stare Bush-Alfred Newman Mad's face talking some lies to the public....Let's face it, for the scientists is easier to explain why we should've keep on living rather than dying. Many atheistic people laugh all their lives and when they have to face the terrible pain and death of someone close or even themselves they start NOW to think about the life and all magnificence of the things they took for granted as watching in colors, tasting, etc. Let'em laugh.
     
  14. painted wolf

    painted wolf Grey Muzzle

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    15,369
    Ratings:
    +1,652
    actually its Ms Wolf to you.... you gotta' learn to read the bits under the names... oh, gender neutral one....

    so you know physics better than Stephan Hawking eh?... you must, to be able to call the man an Imbicile....

    the chimps writing shakespere is an old analogy to chaos therory and probibility... I'm sorry if the analogy is over your head... most people find it amusing... Duglas Adams did when he included it in his books.

    as for us being the only species with the capability to plan... ever watch lions or any pack animals hunt? They obviously plan ahead and work together for a future goal... who chases first, who do they attack, when to attack, who eats first when its all over...

    verry little that man does is truely unique in the animal kingdom...

    wa:-do
     
  15. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    No.Hawkins is not an imbecil. He said an imbecility quoting an analogy trying to prove chance is what stablishes the things in the universe. Quoting Douglas Adams in that sense knowing enough math should've alerted him against using that "analogy". The fact that he didn't show how can a person goe beyond his mind to believe what he WANTS to believe. In I say more, it wasn't the first time Hawkins did exactly that, MRS. He was skeptical about Thorne's ideas about wormholes but he proposed the theory even more fantastic than him that instead of contacting present with past we could contact with infinite number of parallel universes. This is also physicist Michio Kaku's point of view in his "Hyperspace", chapter 11 under the title "Project for a Time-Machine".
    Animals, my dear, already have a program in their brain most of the time. Have you seen a cat covering its excrement on asfalt? The offspring of many animals have been kept from their parents and eventually they already know by "instinct" many things. Not all things of course. Yet this argument of yours has nothing to do with evolution.
     
  16. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    And I didn't say we are the only beings with skill to plan. If I have said that, it would mean I never watched foxes or lions and predators. I said and say again, we are the ones who have consciousness about life, laws of the universe, existence. Between one thing and the other, there's a distance between here and Orion.
     
  17. painted wolf

    painted wolf Grey Muzzle

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    15,369
    Ratings:
    +1,652
    sounds like it to me... maybe you better be more carefull in how you phrase things?

    again... how do you know humans are the only ones with these things?

    who says dolphins and elephants dont talk to one another about philosophy?
    ever see a mother chimp with her dead child... she understands life and its loss...
    Chimp tool use is not an instinct but is a learned activity... as is tool use among crows in the Pacific Northwest...

    what this has to do with evolution is this... you seem to have a falce notion that evolution works to make 'more advanced' lifeforms from more 'primitive' lifeforms... with humans, obviously at the top... this isnt the case...

    evolution works to make new species that are better adapted to their environments than the previous ones... not more advanced or superior... just better at getting by...

    wa:=do
     
  18. dudley thoth

    dudley thoth Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2004
    Messages:
    248
    Ratings:
    +2
    I Dunno.

    by inclination I am drawn to the creationist point-of-view to the exclusion of the evolutionary process. But even so, Evolution could be true. I wish I was more familiar with both sides(and all that is inbetween) of the argument. In my current state of ignorance concerning this subject I feel to go either way would be indoctrination.

    :roll:
     
  19. Lightkeeper

    Lightkeeper Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    4,634
    Ratings:
    +223
    I'm probably an EC. Sometimes I think religion is ahead of science. Evolution maintains life began in the ocean. Several places in religion there is reference to the ocean being the womb. From the Vedanta, the salt doll enters the Ocean and is dissolved in the Ocean. This could be interpreted as "when our body dissolves we return to Universal Conciousness, the beloved and I are one."
     
  20. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    Painted Wolf said "how do you know humans are the only ones with these things? "
    Your question is not science but philosophy. Perhaps you need to understand a bit of animal language science but I would have to teach from zero and I don't have the time nor the energy to do that.

    "who says dolphins and elephants dont talk to one another about philosophy?
    ever see a mother chimp with her dead child... she understands life and its loss... "
    No, the animals don't talk about philosophy nor science or math. How can someone thinking like this dares to write about SCIENCE? Animals understand when another animal is dead. They have to know that cos they kill or are killed. No philosophy about that.
    "Chimp tool use is not an instinct but is a learned activity... as is tool use among crows in the Pacific Northwest... " I never said animals were completely stupid and I didn't say everything done by them is instinct. I agree they have a degree of intelligence but not consciousness as human beings.

    "what this has to do with evolution is this... you seem to have a falce notion that evolution works to make 'more advanced' lifeforms from more 'primitive' lifeforms... with humans, obviously at the top... this isnt the case..." Not at all. You're missinformed. Books of evolution are FILLED with the statement you're denying and even more than this, are filled with images of less advanced lifeforms in a sequence leading to human beings at the top, obviously.
    how do you know humans are the only ones with these things?

    who says dolphins and elephants dont talk to one another about philosophy?
    ever see a mother chimp with her dead child... she understands life and its loss...
    Chimp tool use is not an instinct but is a learned activity... as is tool use among crows in the Pacific Northwest...

    what this has to do with evolution is this... you seem to have a falce notion that evolution works to make 'more advanced' lifeforms from more 'primitive' lifeforms... with humans, obviously at the top... this isnt the case...

    "evolution works to make new species that are better adapted to their environments than the previous ones... not more advanced or superior... just better at getting by... " This is just not proved cos as I said before the ones who know about genetic have never seen a NEW SPECIE by mutations or whatever reason. What you say it's perfectly known but evolutionist don't have evidence of their saying. You're spinning in circles again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again....ad infinitus like one of the 1001 Nights Arabian stories.


    evolution works to make new species that are better adapted to their environments than the previous ones... not more advanced or superior... just better at getting by...
     
Loading...