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
    If Creationist believe dragon of komodo is a relative of the dinosaurs is their problem. Bible never said the modern definitions. The word in Hebrew is just "taniyim" regarding big monsters. It doesn't matter to me if they were killed in Deluge time, if they survive til Middle Ages or until now. That's beating around the bush and probably you're right saying Komodo Dragon is not the same as dinosaur species. In that sense I think they are wrong because they think God should've preserved them as specie in Noah's ark (which is another issue). Yet, I said I'm not creationist. They have some points which are correct and others which are incorrect. If the evidence show (or would show) a meteor wiped them out in other times, it would mean God allowed their dissapearence and actually is allowing the dissapearence of other species. Yet our theme is evolution and evolution means the transformation of a specie into another completely different.That is forbidden by genetic law. So, I really think we understood each other and we're spinning around in circles.
    Well, I think if you confuse a plesiosaur with a bottlenose whale it's something of your personal perspective. Fishermen indeed knew that whale at the time and all whales have some distinct. You're assuming fishermen were ignorant to dismiss the discovery. Convenient again. You're smarter than them who witness the creature alive. BRAVO!
    The same thing about the "adaptation" thing. You say the teeth of giganto.. was like a gorilla. Then you say he probably didn't survive because lack of that adaptation... but gorilla survived. Why would men had to destroy them or why did they dissapear if they were not eating the same things we did? All your arguments are based upon dogmas repeated over and over. That ain't science. That's your faith and it's my duty to point out those beliefs in case someone comes here and says "this is science".
     
  2. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    In fact, you said you accepted evolution because you though it has sense. Now, it seems to me you want to ERASE from your memory the evidence against cos it doesn't fit in your puzzle. In extreme narrow minded attitude you wanna convince us the animal alive was a whale with 20 feet NECK and a NUMBER OF LEGS on it? Or you wanna also hide the evidence of another creature (no, not in too old times but in 1970 in Massachussets) or even the other one?:
    www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/38/38_1/Cryptid.htm
    It really doesn't matter the classification. It just a sample of evidence how come the pieces in scientific dogma are not complete. It's not Creationists' duty to explain their existence in first place. That's science duty.
    In fact I have arguments to explain why those fossils-alive are always present in the sea or in a lake or rivers and not on the ground .... but that's another issue.
    I'm no defender of a particular faith. I know the Protestants errors. I was just explaining to the other Catholic participant how come religious concepts and superficial science knowledge ain't enough and can be deceiving. That's why I examine absolutely everything not to fall into the dogmatism of ones and others.
    And oh, please, don't talk to me about gorillas. The scientists weren't even aware of its existence until recently. It was part of "mythological" fairy tales. You need to have a sense of time every time you mention the anaylisis of teeth , or even what we call archeology, paleonthology, geology, etc. If I keep on explaining the whole thing you'll discover even THE ANALYSIS are usually wrong or based upon an already existing criteria...or interpretation. Would you want me to discuss the issue ad infinitum? No way!
     
  3. CJW

    CJW Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Messages:
    71
    Ratings:
    +0
    Just to be clear, evolutionism vs. creationism is generally not a scientific debate. It is a historical debate. E.g. just as you can neither "observe" the historical figure Caesar nor put him in a test-tube and physically prove he existed at a given time such proofs fail with respect to the historical debate in evolutionism. A historical debate is not less than a scientific debate and often incorporates "some science" but it is not a scientific debate itself. Maintaining that it is "science" typically just makes it pseudo-science. Being honest and keeping science and history separate (as separate ways of dealing with the truth) with each informing the other somewhat, is probably for the best. Note that self defined scientists have a natural tendency to make everything a scientific issue and never admit to the limitations of science when it comes to history and/or mythological narratives. In this failure a new sort of mythological narrative has developed in which the stories read, "Once upon a time, a group of fish jumped out of the sea, killing themselves enough times that they randomly grew one leg that their mommy Nature selected for them, then another leg, then another leg, then a lung.... and so on, until eventually they walked away."

    Whether true or not or partially true, this is another type of mythology and historical narrative, NOT science.
     
  4. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    Just in case you "jump" my previous posts, :oops: I wanna remind you I never thought (by the knowledge of Hebrew descriptions and universal myths hiding some truth and different from isolated legends) we were directly created by God. I even explained the plural use in the texts and also mentioned links explaining there's plenty evidence although we are similar than apes there was insertion of bacteria as nothing we can see in vertebrated species. We're unique and evolution gives ridiculous explanations about the existence of human brain and consciousness.
    There was genetic experience with humans that explained how come the "races" existed but not by natural process neither father Chronus time or "adaptation" litter argument. Modern experiences in fact confirm what was explained in detail both in the Bible and Sumerian account.
    In that sense, not only the Bible -in Genesis 6- but universal myths explain there was an alien breeding with women from Earth and the resukt was those giants. Yet there were gIaNtS and "giants" that shall not be confused. So, they were never completely human. Some giants were sterile because of that hybridation that could well explain why they couldn't survive. Then again, that's genetic without eliminating historical memory. If evolutionists are so preocupied in their analysis forgetting history and historical archeology, that's THEIR PROBLEM. Not mine.
     
  5. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    It would be very nice to see a paleonthologist in the future analyzing historical skulls from Peru (that you ignore and keep the mouth shut, right?) or these:
    www.s8int.com/six.html
    Probably they are gonna assume those mutants were the best sample of our general likeness. HA-HA-HA! Or the fossil of a camel who lost the fat in it's back before dying in the desert. I wouldn't trust in their analysis but I bet millions would....
     
  6. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    CJW: I agree with your statement. It's very difficult to distinguish what is science or not. In fact I regret to tell (the ones who are not informed) this happens not only in paleonthology but in astronomy, geology, medicine and every field of science. That's the problem. People trust too much. So, my advice is don't trust and keep on investigating and what is gonna happen is you're about to become a selective person who chooses parts of different scientific "dogmas" and reject others seeming not real science but in the same category of religious dogmas. At the same time you have to investigate not all those sciences and discuss them in detail with "professionals" who are usual trapped in their dogma and can't answer the riddles, you need to investigate what was consider irrelevant and ignorance. Then something is gonna happen. You will discover science and myths were not far away really and in some details they even touch. But it requires TIME, PATIENCE, STUDY, going to the library, exhausting the patience of a smart geologist and paleonthologist, conversations in which they are gonna say the truth they can't say loudly in universities before the teachers (the acceptance of dogmas they never believed), it requires keeping the files year after year cos we don't have memory. We forget history (and politician promises) and scientific data. I can't afford the luxury.
     
  7. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    I even go beyond your statement. THERE'S NO DEBATE IN SCIENCE EVEN IN THE SAME FIELD! There's no podium or conference examining all archeology findings around the world trying to comprehend UNIVERSAL HISTORY. In medicine the fields are separated in onchology, oftalmology, etc. You're not gonna check a general congress uniting all hypothesis of physic theorists with physicists and so on. We live in time of Neo-Babel scientific particularities. So, if in Egypt the Egyptian Egyptologist authority, Dr. Hawass invites the one who believes like him (Dr.Lehner), they are gonna select what geologists are gonna study the sphinx (not Schoch) or even egyptologist (not Anthony West whom I have discussed by e-mail) and they do it because they have their personal "faith" to preach and contract with National Geographic and $$$$$$. They don't want another expert in other field to interfere with their own hypothesis. There's fame and $$$$ involved in the process and that was the case with Edison, with Newton and all the time.
    Hence, there's no scientifical debate ANYWHERE in a real sense. This is food for naïve imbecil readers to accept, they are the neo-high priests of modern world. Yet they are disguised. If they talk about a Big Bang which was implicit in the Bible in Hebrew (and give contradictory theories about Big Crunch and Big Rip and universes in the form of a saddle, a trumpet, a donut, DNA, etc), I have my reasons to believe in Hebrew tsim tsum or God's Big Crunch before the Big Bang or Big Day and Big Night of Brahma that scientists are BEGINNING TO RECOGNIZE. And in fact I discuss that with the "experts" who behave like surprised!
     
  8. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    Wanna see a fresh example?:
    www.smithsonianmag.si.edu/smithsonian/issues04/may04/iran.html
    The expert is "discovering" something but there are already critics saying he "overreached" his assumptions. And do you think his collegue trying to prove the antiquity of Maya or Egyptian or Irakian or American or African or Peruvian or Bolivian culture HAS ANY INTEREST IN HIS DISCOVERIES? So, the result is gonna be the imbecil public will always have news like this and is gonna be even more lost than Adam in "his" Mother's Day! So much for scientific debate!
     
  9. painted wolf

    painted wolf Grey Muzzle

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    15,370
    Ratings:
    +1,651
    I don't think we were solely responcible for the extinction of the other hominids or apes... I'm saying we are a very efficent nail in the coffin....

    one of the most tramatic things a species can experience is a change in its environment... this was happining as the glaciers advanced and then retreated creating new ecosystems and distroying old ones....

    species that cant adapt to new conditions die off... we do have a habit of helping them allong though...eaven you cant argue that one

    Plese explain your 'universal' myth of aliens interbreading with humans... I've heard no such myths from my people... Perhaps aliens created westerners?

    races exist because people adapted to different environments with the help of localized gene pools... much like why different breeds of horses, dogs, cattle, sheep and goats exist.... the genetic difference is absolutely tiney... .001% of the DNA.
    the primary difference... mellinin ammounts is how people adapted to differing ammounts of UV radiation... more UV exposure, more mellinin, darker skin... Less UV, less mellinin, lighter skin...

    I dont ignore the skulls from anywhere... The skull binding phenomina was quite common all over the americas... Peruvian, Mayan, the "Flat-heads" of california, eaven my own Cherokee ancestors performed this body alteration.... you can tell from the formation of the bones that they were altered as they grew... much like the foot binding practice of China or the 'giraffe neck' practices of maylasia and africa... it shows on the bones.

    every branch of science debates its basic belief systems...

    I'll use paleontology as its my strongest field...
    The most earth shaking arguments began in the 60's and continue today... such as the warm-cold debate in referance to metabolism in dinosaurs... we are also still debating the 'avian origens'....
    both of these theories are mostly settled but science is about pushing theories and so the debate continues in a good natured way... keeping science on its toes...
    other arguments include...
    T.rex.. hunter vs. scavenger
    Oviraptor egg theif or good mom...
    how the heck did stegosaurus do it?
    flight mecanics of pterosaurs
    swimming mecanics of plesiosaurs... boy I bet they would love to see a living one to settle that debate!

    I personally don't fully agree with the feathered baby T-rex... We know from skin impressions of fully grown Carnotaurus that they had boney noduals like a mosaic in thie skin (like the legs of a bird)... T-rex being a relitively close cousin to carnotaurus probably had skin like this as well...

    However I am amazed by the number of good specimins of other theropods with feathers we are finding... such as the Dromeaosaurs (raptors in JP) Therizrinosaurs (wierd plant eating threopods) Oviraptors (the 'infamous' and falce egg thief)
    dozens of new birds such as Confusicornis
    Scinosauropteryx (a basal little celeosaur)
    et cet...

    as for this one :
    www.smithsonianmag.si.edu/smithsonian/issues04/may04/iran.html

    from my reading of it... they arn't ignoring him they are simply waiting for more evidence... a valid thing in science... Archeology is well known for its arguments on dates and its considered the most importent thing for them to verify...
    look at Monte Verde... they are going back to the site more than 20 years later in hopes of getting better dates because they are so hotly debated... to think that the 'establishment' isn't intrested in obviously important sites is falce....

    ps.. I saw an intresting documentery a few years back about the 'maping-guari'(sp) supposidly a living giant sloth... a biologist heard about it from the natives and decided to devote his life to finding it....
    they spent several weeks in the jungle, going to all the places he knew it would be... they never found it... but they got some hair and dung samples that later turned out to belong to tapirs and monkeys...
    but who knows maybe some day...

    also they had reports of 'giant prehistoric elephants' in far northern india... it was hoped that they were mammoths... they also got DNA samples from the supposedly prehistoric animals... they turned out to be regular asian elephants... just a little bit bigger than normal...

    wa:-do
     
  10. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    And then again I say unto you: environment changes don't change species so much as to transform them into other species as evolution proposed. Back to mutations and square one AGAIN. That is what science has discovered. I agree with you races are just superficial genetic differences. Nowhere I said something different. Now all sort of dogs bark and have the caracteristics of a dog. Evolution wants us to believe hominids were something like "races" or subspecies breeding each other eventually becoming into our own specie. If you believed that lie, well , I pity you. You can disguise the idea with pretty funny names but it's pretty much like this. There are some "chickens" which have some characteristic of archeopterix, that never proved evolution.
    I'm sorry to say regarding the skulls you're wrong again BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT READING THE POSTS, you keep on jumping and are quick to answer. First read and then reply. Some skulls in Peru were not artificially deformed and that is specifically written in the site (and other sites as well). I know myself cos I'm Peruvian as you're Cherokee descent.
    I won't discuss here the alien gods around the world cos that would be too detail and a bit off topic. But I'm sure the "spirits" of your ancestrals gave the same importance to animals as it's been giving all around the world. Have you practiced shamanism experience to be in contact with those hyperdimensional realms as your ancestrals did? I ask you cos I don't want you to think about me as someone who believes the entities must be like Benitez or Däniken images. Perhaps both of you can find a point of equilibrium that science is reaching in Planck dimension, billions of billions times smaller than a proton. There's no human device to check that not even a lab which can reproduce the oniric experience of dreams though Japanese have invented a device that can alter the dreams "under request".
     
  11. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
  12. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
  13. true blood

    true blood Active Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    848
    Ratings:
    +36
    Nice Topic
    My theory/religion mix: First, life is everywhere on Earth and over the last 4 billion years living organisms have diversified and adapted to almost every environment imaginable. They all can replicate, DNA. In the 18th or 19th century these living organisms were divided into 2 kingdoms: Animalis and Plantae. Among growing evidence these kingdoms were insufficient to express life so we added Monera, Protista, and Fungi. It is my opinion that in the near future years scientist will expand this list even more. Example: viruses and even the possibilites of life forms found during space explorations to come.
    However my theory is Humans (because of God related reasons) are within its own kingdom. Not in the Animal kingdom. This is unscientific I think and to support my theory I use the reasoning that during the creation of mankind, God created something in man that separated man from the animal kingdom thus placing them in their own Human Kingdom.

    Now in relation to evolution I totally believe in evolution but only with in a living organisms own kingdom. In other words I don't believe I came from River Apes.
     
  14. painted wolf

    painted wolf Grey Muzzle

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    15,370
    Ratings:
    +1,651
    of cource I know about Uktena, or as she was also know Unktehi, Uncegila and several other names...
    the detail of the story vary... according to the Sioux she was killed by a brave pair of brothers one of wich was blind... Uncegila could kill a man who looked in her eyes...

    Some say her heart held her power in a great crystal that both burned and froze... it was distroyed eventually... stoping her evil.

    Her bones make up the mountains and from time to time you can find them coming out of the rocks...

    yes I know Uktena.... I'm not ignorant of my culture...
    and I keep a close eye on waterways, just incase... she has children who may or may not still live. But speaking scientiflically I wont say yes or no untill I see proof...

    We also have stories of rolling/flying canibilistic heads...

    its a common misconception that any spirits we honor are automatically 'gods'.... we see them as our elder brothers and sisters/ grandfathers/ grandmothers....
    Creator is above and a part of everything....

    glad your intrested in a secetive stories but they dont make you an authority on my people...
    but hey, thanks for the insult.... :killme:

    wa:-do
     
  15. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    No, I'm not an authority. But I 'm aware about universal legends and the fact some entities come out of stones is not a legend. Even the "evil" aspect of that particular legend. This thing is something investigated by Nasa consultant and awarded because of his Excellence in Science, Richard Hoagland. Not only him. And you know what? It's just an example of what happens in hyperdimensions and don't have to wait until "science" duplicates the oniric experience of dreams to believe in the existence of dreams (millions have been dreaming for thousands of years) yet the experience is very subjective cos you can't reproduce it in a machine. The same can be said about shamans experience. So, if I were ignorant I would say like a cynical imbecil your whole heritage is crap and "mere" myths. I'm respectful cos I know they knew something science can't even touch or are beginning to touch:
    www.cyberspaceorbit.com/kerub.htm
    www.xpeditionsmagazine.com/magazine/articles/marcahuasi/marcahuasi.html
    So, when we talk about creation, don't think only in dense matter. Creation came even before the right levogire aminoacids in the right number and combination to produce the right number of proteins and the important parts of DNA and eventually a cell. That universe losts in binary (or other) codes. So, when you say the animal spirits are like "brothers" I don't laugh. I know there's a literal truth beneath those words. Unfortunately I think you have understand nothing from what I said.
     
  16. painted wolf

    painted wolf Grey Muzzle

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    15,370
    Ratings:
    +1,651
    Not just the animals spirits..the animals themselves.
    Evolution also helps me account for my animal brothers... we are all related, both spiritualy and factually because we all come from the same ancestors...

    DNA is showing just how close we all are to one another... humans and chimps are 98% identical... and just a tad less for other apes... Bonobos, Gorillias, Orangutans, then Gibbons respectively...

    another fun DNA comparison shows that Fungus is actually closer to animals than to plants in terms of its DNA...

    Uktena didn't come from rocks... she was a water monster... no one says where she came from... Her spine turned into mountains when she died....

    While I don't doubt that Uktena was a real something, I think she may have been... 'embelished' a bit over the years.

    wa:-do
     
  17. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    Yap, fungus evolved from animal HA-HA-HA-HA!!!!
    I have already mentioned the important differences in human beings which are not present even in the similar beings and the links. It's obvious all beings have something in common cos DNA is omnipresent on Earth and wasn't sowed by meteor "pansperm" accident. Yet, as experts in genetic have demonstrated there are no jumps in different species. Similarity doesn't prove anything. The eye of the octopus seems to have some human characteristics and so what? Don't be deceived by what some people write. There are clones of cats that should be completely equal to the original "father" or "mother" and yet they are different...even in the same species. They are trying to investigate why. You're giving more details but fail to demonstrate any evolution whatsoever. You can go 20 additional pages if you want.
     
  18. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    I didn't say Ukthena came out from rocks, I said "some entities". But anyway there are rocks and rocks in different places. The sites I mentioned say explicitly the Uktena "came and went from this world to underworld through caves under water of rivers and lakes and certain entrances into the earth....hide in deep pools and lonely passes in high mountains". I think you misunderstood....again.
    Even if we are too close, we are still waiting more and more experiences to demonstrate, let's say a breeding between a Rhesus monkey with a gorilla would create an intelligent human being (including a beardless female)... Until then....
     
  19. painted wolf

    painted wolf Grey Muzzle

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    15,370
    Ratings:
    +1,651
    I didn't say fungus evolved from animal...
    I said that it was closer to animal than plant

    now your not paying attention.

    ahh.. but the eyes of all animals have the same genetic triggering mecanism in the Hox gene series. Therefore the similarity does have a faint genetic basis.... Its all in the DNA

    Resus Monkies cant interbreed with Gorillas... thier diferent Genera... Thats not how evolution works...
    I think you are missing a fundimental concept in evolutionary theory...

    the reason that Horses and say Zebras can interbreed is that they are within the same genera (Equis equis and Equis Burchelli respectively) and genetically close enough to one another to allow it to happin. They aren't genetically close enough though to allow such a hybrid to be fertile...

    Gorilla and Resus are totaly different. Different genera, and eaven different familiy (Gorillia gorilla, fam. Pongidae compaired to Macaca mulatta fam Cercoptihecidae) Thereby makeing such a union genetically impossible.

    I took this as an implication that you considered Uktena one of these legends.

    wa:-do
     
  20. inca

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
    Off course gorillas and Rhesus can not interbreed and fungus will not evolved into or from animals. Now that you got my point I say unto you: hominids couldn't breed among them and finally cos of some evolutionist MIRACLE or mutation or adaptation for the same reason you said. It's all in DNA limits.
     
Loading...