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
  2. 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.
     
  3. 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...
     
  4. 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.
     
  5. 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....
     
  6. 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:
     
  7. 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?
     
  8. 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".
     
  9. 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!
     
  10. 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.
     
  11. 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.
     
  12. 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....
     
  13. 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.
     
  14. 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!
     
  15. 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!
     
  16. painted wolf

    painted wolf Grey Muzzle

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    15,370
    Ratings:
    +1,653
    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
     
  17. 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".
     
  18. inca

    inca Active Member

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

    inca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    459
    Ratings:
    +0
  20. 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.
     
Loading...