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 vs. Evolution

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by Rex, Mar 19, 2004.

  1. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    Painted Wolf understood it quite well. Similar characteristics doesn't mean they were man for Christ sake! Have you seen someone with duplication of chromosome 21? Now imagine him with hirsutism. Would that convert him into an orangotango? The so called ape-man didn't survive the apes. They were mutants and indeed according to Sumerian account many tentatives were made and most of them resulted in these hairy monsters. The final experience used at least 7 Adamus or Adapas to get it finally right. Didn't you understand the example of breeding different species of modern apes won't produce new specie? You have to review again what the scientists explain about mutation. So you can ask me the same question 1000 times and still won't understand. You still use the same argument that "similar skulls" has to prove half-way missing link.
    Painted Wolf: According to Genesis and Sumerian account the beings were not created but just "form" according to their own "kind". Modern clasification of "specie", "family", etc, still proves you can't cross same DNA barriers. Only by genetic manipulation eventually in the future may be possible but not naturally. You know even cloning was extremely difficult cos the Scottish scientist won't give too much emphasis to the fact many failure tentatives were done before until the desired achievment. I have said and repeat the geological strata reveals an explosion of different kind of life appears in different moments. Yet there was no evolution or missing links between them, all parts of the fossils don't have transformation of legs, wings or whatever. The parts were complete. Hence "macroevolution" term was invented admiting the evolution came so fast that the half-way fossils were no longer required. So evolutionists have to accept by faith (very convinient) something in the past was attributed to slow-motion time effect happening in millions of years of evolution. Darwin of course feared the evidence would make the readers distrust his theory that's why in his Origin of Species 7 times he says readers should ignore the fossil evidence. He used faith believing in the future the fossils would eventually reveal what he couldn't find. Here we are an the fossils remain as ever, no missing links. If the "hominids" were survived until now, a comparision of skulls between them and the photos of the sites provided here wouldn't show so much difference. Mosquitos were mosquitos since they came until now, so the rest of animals. To believe missing link in other species is as fallacious as believing in "hominids". To trust they didn't survive cos of competence or whatever reason repeated over and over ain't science either. But we're spinning in circles now and I'm beginning to be bore.
     
  2. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    Einstein said: "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind". :clap: :clap: :clap: ...... :goodjob:
    In Chinese language "tempter" is the ideogram for devil + 2 trees + covered. Interesting the fact Ezekiel 28 : 13 to 20 compares the cocky attitude of Tyrus king with the cherub in Eden who sinned against god. In verses 14 and 16 the Hebrew equivalent of protector or the one who "covered" was included. In Chinese "create" is depicted with the symbols for dust (mud)+alive+mouth+ walking which reminds us the Biblical episode of using clay in the Adamus experiment and he became alive after "soul" was insuflated and the use of Hebrew "neshama" means "breathing". In Chinese Devil is garden(field)+alive+secret+man(son) while Supreme Being is the association between emperor+above.
    www.creationism.org/csshs/v06n2p04.htm
    www.creationism.org/csshs/v07n4p24.htm
    More about languages and evolution inspiring science fiction :mrgreen: :
    www.creationism.org/csshs/v13n2p27.htm
    www.creationism.org/csshs/v12n4p25.htm
    www.creationism.org/csshs/v15n4p18.htm
    www.creationism.org/csshs/v16n4p24.htm
    www.creationism.org/csshs/v14n2p23.htm
     
  3. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    In one of the sites it's mentioned the Logos, Verb or Word of God. This is not just a concept coming from John 1:1. It's even remembered in the Popul Vuh of Quiche people.
    Please, Mr Q, it's confirmed your "confirmations" mean nothing and your QI is absent. Come now and "ramble" your bad opinions against Joseph Campbell too. Would it be a surprise? Not at all! I really LOVE your virulent messages and tactic, you glue something I post and make an almost monosyllabic uh-oh-uh-oh stummering statement in one single sentence, repeat the same a fistful of times and then, MR Q has achieved grandiloquent intelligent & scientific paragraph with a bunch of pertinent info. HE-HE!
     
  4. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    Oba-oba-oba! Don't tell me. I suspect Mr. Q following message won't add too much to the theme here. Now he will probably change his tactic and will say something very very very bright. For example a detailed examination of MY tactics. Don't bother. We all know it. I wrote a synthesis of my thought and set many sites in case somebody else wants to have many details. Sometimes I don't write anything at all and I just quote the sites. Something else to add? Oh yes, I know, your personal opinion about me. C'mon, spit it out, I know you wanna do a massage to my ego paying me the attention we all deserve.....
     
  5. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
  6. (Q)

    (Q) Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    558
    Ratings:
    +12
    Everything else is based upon scientific facts. Has anybody hear an unknown guy say "I wanna see the math" Allow us to laugh! The poor old decrepit guy doesn't even know how to multiply! If he wanna know, he shall do his homework, don't you agree???

    Hardly a scientific fact, you make another ridiculous claim regarding statistics without citing a source or showing the math. If you can’t produce the numbers, then shut up.
     
  7. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    Shut yourself up! I provided the name of the scientist. If you wanna know something more do homework or are that skeptical it's your business. I'm not writing to you. I ignore what you solicite, got it? Besides only the owner of this site has the capacity to shut me or the moderator. If he's showed enough patience to bear us (even you), who do you think you are to ask me to stop???? If other participant disagrees or agrees with me I will answer. You're no one and know nothing! Don't you get tired or bored to write the same thing over and over that my statements are ridiculous. Don't you have 1% brain even to make a different "scientific argument"? Keep on writing, no answer for you...only smiling. Don't deserve even a single laugh.
     
  8. Green Gaia

    Green Gaia Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    Messages:
    19,780
    Ratings:
    +1,927
    ***MOD POST***

    Stop the personal attacks and get back to the topic of this thread, please. :roll:
     
  9. (Q)

    (Q) Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    558
    Ratings:
    +12
    I provided the name of the scientist.

    So what? You made a claim and didn’t back it up.

    If you wanna know something more do homework or are that skeptical it's your business

    That’s not the way it works. If you make an extraordinary claim, you have to back it up with extraordinary evidence. If you can’t then your claim is useless.

    Don't you get tired or bored to write the same thing over and over that my statements are ridiculous.

    Yes. So, why not try to make sense, instead?

    Don't you have 1% brain even to make a different "scientific argument"?

    There is a big difference between science, which is what we are supposed to be talking about, and pseudoscience, which is what you are talking about. You don’t know anything about science to warrant a “scientific argument.” The rest of us have to continuously remind you of that.
     
  10. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    The sites already explained WHY giganthosauros is not an ape and we see photographic evidence of bones. What you're saying about twisting snakes is just an interpretating according to your own liking. I have to say even in history your knowledge about the symbols on those times is pathetic! Your argument about pterodactils is really funny. Some people are saying now even the T-REX "babies" had feathers. There are different species and not all of them have to have the same characteristics just because you wanna believe in the illustrations of your choice...which are also interpretation as I said.
    Regarding the pre-historical daman I have said they had changes. All the fossils about eohippus are just interpretations saying horses evolved from them. If you were someone believing in re-encarnation I won't show the bone of a real animal existing in the past or an egg and say "that's the "evidence" YOU WERE LIKE THIS in the past!!" Try to use the same silly argument at the university.
    The bones and the photographic evidence indicates the giant bones were not of apes but human beings.
    The word "dinosaur", Dear Friend, is a modern concept , so if you wanna make a case about the name lizards, reptils, etc, lemme remind you we're talking even originally about the frighting aspect of the creature. The word hypopothamus is an example cos is taken from Greek meaning "horse", yet it doesn't look like a horse yet they had to give that name cos there was nothing like this. The same can be said about the sea-horse.
     
  11. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    Wow, Mr. Spinkles! You really don't know the stuff and Painted Wolf either! I said you were gonna jump information rather THAN READING and you did it exactly as I predicted! You didn't read nor understood what I posted and not even the links you post about gigantopithecus, etc. The sites are repeating the same information of how scientists chosed arbitarly largest apes to make the MODEL accoding to their own image. Of course they had to add hair to give the appearance of an ape AS USUAL. You can go to a beauty saloon and probably find the photograph of a modern man with the features of an ape hanging on the wall. Probably you didn't check the sites are filled with expressions like: probably, assumptions, would be wiser to consider the dimensions with caution and so on. They are doing the same thing National Geographic does and BBC, and I already said it. There's no way to know the amount of hair. This is all fairy tale story for naïve people like you. Read and read and read again not only my links but the very ones you're posting. Check the photographs of giant snakes, fishes and other beasts found even in our time. All your efforts to diminush the astronomic amount of information checking possible flaws don't eliminate the facts.
    I have already mentioned many but many arguments of my own before and even quoted people who are scientists and are not creationists, I started talking about mutation but now you wanna make a superficial chit chat changing the thing talking and leading the issue towards me? DO YOU WANNA DISAGREE ABOUT MUTATIONS WITH NOBEL PRIZE WINNER? Who the heck you think you are? I have mentioned several books and references of scientists who are not creatonists. It doesn't mean that Creationists are accurate in some points. There's some truth everywhere, even in some words that you say. Nobody is 100% stupid to make contra-arguments and say everything he says is absolutely wrong. To say that is to be very narrow minded L7 person.
     
  12. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    You're the typical reader who doesn't even read what you post and no thinking either. One of the sites says "there was no way to investigate Giganto's diet"... all this is subjective. If you pick the teeth of a gorilla (increidible size) you wouldn't think the beast is vegetarian. It continues the use of uniformitarian dogma that the events of the presence shall be the key to understand the past. In every possible issue about hominids you're gonna read the same CRAP repeated to infinite "the arrival of man or whatever made it difficult the survival of them". Yet baboons, chimps, orangutangos and all apes who were less "evolved" managed tu survive man and even continue to be with us!
    The so-called Replica is ridiculous. As usual as they did with the FIASCO or scientific XOAXES I mentioned by name, they INVENT A WHOLE SKULL based upon very fragmented pieces of bones. The most part of the skull (shown in white) is purely speculative. I draw myself and I can do -exactly like the arttists hired by National Geographic- a completely different skull...yet more "human". Something more?
    Don't worry about Mr. Spinkles, he was taught by Catholic Church and since that church was always light years off course from science and real Bible understanding giving so much attention to Latin than Hebrew (in fact Jewish were cast out from Spain during Catholic kingdom), they have always been speculating in ignorance. America developed much more than South America and Central America because Protestans settled rather than ignorant Spaniards. So, is inevitable that Mr. Spinkles undertook and inherited part of that poorly sophisticated legacy. I don't know how old is he, but let's suppose he's 70. In that case it 's even worst cos the education 5 decades ago was even in Latin. This affects even today. An example is Mel Gibson. I had to write to his official PASSION's site and corrected an expression used in the film that was just an adaptation of the Greek word (ego eimí) to Aramaic (in Hebrew the expression would be "ani hu") and I understood what the film was saying and had to correct them. So, even if Mr. Spinkles is not old, his understanding must follow the same patterns....
     
  13. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    In fact your links are just saying an un-detailed information which is the same info you critized in the "Creationist" site. Of course, your site didn't repeat some interesting details or didn't show the photograph of the giant femur of a human being (not an ape) found in Turkey and wouldn't mention the 37 lb copper axe of the Meganthropus.
    www.s8int.com/giants1.html
    www.s8int.com/giants2.html
    No mentioning in your sites about
    HISTORICAL skulls in Peru (some of them I saw it myself in the museums) which are not artificially deformed, or footprints in Patagonia, etc. Please, keep on writing. The more you do it, the more you fail...
     
  14. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
  15. Runt

    Runt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,833
    Ratings:
    +189
    ***MOD POST***

    Inca, will you please try to keep all your comments to one post, or at least wait until you get a response before posting new comments? If you think of something new that you want to add later, you can always just edit your post.
     
  16. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    I'm sorry I can't. It's too much information I have always hateD to post superficial things. If I were to do what you ask the post would be so extensive that nobody would want it to read. The eyes get exhausted after a time, reading on a screen of a desktop is not the same as reading a book. What's the problem of posting that way? Why does it bother so much anyways? It's even better cos the reader needs TIME to absorb and digest information.
    Painted Wolf: the photo presented in the site was something like Plesiosaurus, it was not a Bottlenose whale or Hyperoodon ampullatus. See view large photo in:
    www.fotosearch.com/COR373/314005
    The fishermen know pretty better than you the difference between a whale and THAT...
     
  17. Runt

    Runt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,833
    Ratings:
    +189
    If people are unwilling to read one long post, they will also probably be unwilling to read several short posts that all together make one long post. The length of your writing is the same whether you divide it into paragraphs in one post or several short paragraphs in multiple posts. Either way you're writing a lot that people may or may not be willing to read, but at least with it all in one post it doesn't look like you're completely dominating the forum.
     
  18. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    I understand your point and in the future I will try to do as you solicit but I think you're not understanding mine. It's not a matter of lenght, it's a thing about how much can the "eye" can assimilate in a single event and how much can the brain digest.The paragraph allow the reader to "breathe" for a while and re-check again. But I won't discuss this issue, it will be really off topic. There's a reason for the people to "jump" information by the net and it's completeky different from what the eyes do when reading the book. Jewish Isaac Asimov knew it quite well. And there's another reason for my style of posting which I'll rather don't explain in detail but it's pedagogical. In fact I asked a rethorical question when I said why you care. I suppose the reasons of your request....
     
  19. painted wolf

    painted wolf Grey Muzzle

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    15,370
    Ratings:
    +1,653
    Inca-
    Take a better look at both pictures and you will see that they are the same... I spoted it without haveing to look side by side... but as the bottle nose whale is very rare I can imagine people back in the day may not have known what it was... education and avalibility of information being what it was... 8)

    my argument on pterosaurs is based on actual fossils... Sordes pilosus was preserved with its wing membrain and hair... and not just one specimin of this remarkable pterosaur either...

    As for making the gigantopitihicus a hominid... There are several distinctions between the teeth of apes and the teeth of hominids... thats one of the main reason the Hoax of the Piltown man was discovered... gigantopiticus has ape teeth most closely resembling Gorillas... Australopithicus by comparison has human teeth...

    its funny how you damn a reconstruction into an ape as faulty because they are using limited fossils but champion an eaven more tennuous reconstruction into a hominid.... hypocracy?

    and no.. we would not reconstruct Gorrilla as a carnivore... there are several features of the teeth that point to herbivory including micro wear patterns on the teeth that can only happin while chewing on plant matter

    These same silly arguments... (comparitive anatomy, microscopic study of wear patterns and actual analysys of fossil remains) are used in University

    Acturally the website in question sugested that they had covered up the fact that (the very famous) Komodo Dragon is indeed a living dinosaur... it is not...

    the differences between Dinosaurs and Lizards (all othe reptiles for that matter) (lets take your Komodo Dragon for instance) are numerous....

    1> gate... the lizard and all reptiles for that matter are sprawlers.. with ther legs out to thier sides, Dinosaurs were more like birds and mammals in that thier legs were fully erect and positioned under thier bodies.
    2> ankles... the ankles of the dinosaur are hinged in a single plane like those of birds... lizards and other reptiles are hinged in bend
    3> stance dinosaurs are ditigrade as opposed the reptiles that are plantigrade...

    I can go on and on and list the full hundred or so differences but I want to keep this as short as possible...

    >>Yet baboons, chimps, orangutangos and all apes who were less "evolved" managed tu survive man and even continue to be with us!<<

    you obviously don't really understand the concept of evolution and adaptation...
    it isn't the most advanced species surviving... its the best adapted species...

    we can not fill the eccological nieces that they fill in todays world... we can't eat the same foods, swing through the trees (dispite what Tarzan says) or other wise live like them... we do not compete with them....

    They are best evolved for thier lifestyle... now on to hominids... we did compete ammongst ourselves... we hunted the same animals, lived in the same environments and frankly those who had the best tecnology won... we had the most advanced wepons so we killed off the compitition.

    Just like we are killing off all the other animals we compete with... wolves, big cats, california condors, sharks and other predators...

    I don't base my arguments on the bible... I'm not christian, I'm native american and so I don't have to worry about being bogged down by a faith that has to prove its true or it looses its ability to command...
    Protestants who believed in witches? who couldn't feed themselves without our help? I'm not getting the superiority of the Protestants out of this.... not that it matters this issue isn't about bashing religions just discussing crationism and evolution...

    so if I were you I'd be careful of the religous/ethnic slurs... :mad:

    wa:-do

    ps.. of cource I can go into the beauty parlor and find a picture of someone with ape features.... we are apes! *sigh*

    runt- maybe he just wants the post points :lol:
     
  20. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    You talk as if we really know how do dinosaurs looked like. We're learning to know what they were. The color is usually speculation, we suppose the T-Rex had feathers; we don't if they acted like carnivorous beasts or like modern birds eating corpses, I am aware of this. You're using different names to say the same as I did, I said "skilled" animals and you say "adapted". Adaptation -I repeat again- does not tranform a being into another as scientists have declared. The coming of human beings could've eliminate all apes indeed but just eliminate ALL THE SPECIMENS OF HALF-MEN (how convinient!). I understood what you said since the beginning. You're not saying nothing new, just repeating like others have said since Darwin. That's your faith. There's no science in this. YOU WOULD HAVE TO PROVE HOMO SAPIENS OR AUSTRALOPITHECUS DESTROYED THEM ALL. IN fact there are doubts all over the place, every year they keep on coming with new names. And the "procedure" is usually saying the dates are older and older in order to give "more credit", the older fossil and the usual stuff.
    Fragments of a bone or fragments of a teeth or skull are difficult to be interpreted but not a complete human femur.
    Celecanthus was considered an extinted animal until it was discovered never changed into other specie. It's better trust in animals discovered alived than trusting in an interpretation of a fossil. We still can find giant squids and octopus right?
     
Loading...