I know Hitler had an obsession with the occult and reincarnation too, so you may well be right that he wasn't, strictly speaking, an atheist. However, he was, without any doubt, an evolutionist, and evolutionary thinking was clearly behind his racist ideas about the highly developed arian race having the duty to stamp out the weak Jews and Negroes. This is pure Eugenics, evolution in practice.
Oh, please.
There's no such thing as an inbetween atheist. He was not an atheist. He believed in a higher power.
I don't think Hitler was inspired to kill millions of people because he believed in evolution. And I certainly don't see how evolutionary thinking was behind his racist ideas. There's nothing in the evolution theory that suggests jewish people, black people, gypsies, slavic people... are inferior or that the arian race is superior.
That is an ideology that has nothing to do with evolution. Nothing. It is an ideology of one person.
I am aware that fightless cormorants cannot fly, it seems kind of self-evident. I think you are missing my point entirely. I was not trying to say anything about HOW genetic information is lost (i am aware that Cormorants did'nt lose it from a hole their bag), that is why my analogy bears no relation to that point. My analolgy was only supposed to make one point, and I think it did it quite adequately. The point is that the LOSS of flight does NOT demonstrate evolution since it is a LOSS of genetic information through harmfull mutations, devolution if you like. It does NOT demonstrate the ability of animals to generate new genetic data, so as to develop an entirely new organ or limb, there is zero evidence for this. Flightless birds demonstrate that mutations are a largely destuctive, and NEVER creative, force. Many diseases are caused by mutations, not a single one has ever been observed to add anything new to the gene pool.Creation requires intelligent input - creativity, destruction does not.
why are you looking as the loss of flight as a destructive thing. it is a step forward for the cormorants. they no longer require this defensive mechanism. i see this as a step forward in this environment as it has gone hand in hand with their increased swimming ability. all adaptation imo is constructive.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Don't you think science should be looking for evidence that the Greek gods created the earth and universe, or the Egyptian gods, or Slavic gods...
You don't believe in those because they don't fit your biblical worldview. Let me paraphrase your own words:
"This is faith, and once you accept the [biblical] narritive, all things that are not strictly biblical (ie other mythical creatures from other religions) become, not just unproven, but ridiculous - not even worthy of consideration."
Nice.
I dont believe in these so-called gods because:1: They dont fit into my Biblical world view, and 2: There existence has been falsified by science.
Here is a challenge: see if you can find an organisation, or even one person who is both scientifically literate - and believes in the existence of the greco-Roman Pantheon. I know that there are Hindu's who worship nature gods, but is there even a single scientist who believes that the existence of hindu gods can be reconciled with modern science? I could be wrong but i doubt it. Certainly the only serious non-atheistic scientists I have come across,whether, Christians, Muslims, Jews, or deists, have believed in a fully transcendant God.
the universe is basically made of three raw materials, time, matter/energy, and space. All three were created simultaneously by God. God is not subject to time because God created time. If God is not subject to time, concepts like 'beggining' and 'end' do not apply. These concepts apply only in a time/matter/space universe. It follows that a human mind, being subject to time, is unable to adequately comprehend anything that exists outside the time/space universe. All the gods of greece, rome, India etc are personifications of nature, they are spacio-temporal. Only the God of the Bible is fully transcendant.
There's no point in discussing this. God is god, right. It's the answer to every question you can't answer. You'll see that all the questions you have about the beginning of life and the beginning of the universe can also be asked about god. The convenient thing about god is, he's his own answer.
So what is god made of? Did god create itself? Was it always there? Where? There's no time, no space... Where did it reside before it created everything?
Answers: Doesn't matter, god doesn't have to make sense, in god contradictions become possible, the impossible becomes possible, that which you need an answer to in other matters fades when we talk about god.
I say god of the bible is a personification of nature, I say god of the bible is spatiotemporal too. And I believe that someday people will look at god and allah and brahman... the same way as we look at zeus or ra or thor.
why are you looking as the loss of flight as a destructive thing. it is a step forward for the cormorants. they no longer require this defensive mechanism. i see this as a step forward in this environment as it has gone hand in hand with their increased swimming ability. all adaptation imo is constructive.
yes yes, mutations can sometimes be helpfull, even though they delete information from the genetic code. Eyes on a cave fish have no positive value because it never sees light. Such eyes yes only have negative value (weak spots for predators) so natural selection will eventually eliminate them. However, this still doesn't help ameba to man evolution. As I said, losing information doesn't require intelligence, even when it is useful, but for prgressive ameba to man evolution to be true, you have to have a way of ADDING information. None of your examples illustrate this, no mutation has ever been observed to do this. Mutations are just copying errors, sometimes information gets damaged or lost as it is transmitted. We need something a bit more sophisticated if you are gonna get human beings and golden eagles from a glob of chemicals. Peace.
yes yes, mutations can sometimes be helpfull, even though they delete information from the genetic code. Eyes on a cave fish have no positive value because it never sees light. Such eyes yes only have negative value (weak spots for predators) so natural selection will eventually eliminate them. However, this still doesn't help ameba to man evolution. As I said, losing information doesn't require intelligence, even when it is useful, but for prgressive ameba to man evolution to be true, you have to have a way of ADDING information. None of your examples illustrate this, no mutation has ever been observed to do this. Mutations are just copying errors, sometimes information gets damaged or lost as it is transmitted. We need something a bit more sophisticated if you are gonna get human beings and golden eagles from a glob of chemicals. Peace.
Nice.
I dont believe in these so-called gods because:1: They dont fit into my Biblical world view, and 2: There existence has been falsified by science.
Here is a challenge: see if you can find an organisation, or even one person who is both scientifically literate - and believes in the existence of the greco-Roman Pantheon. I know that there are Hindu's who worship nature gods, but is there even a single scientist who believes that the existence of hindu gods can be reconciled with modern science? I could be wrong but i doubt it. Certainly the only serious non-atheistic scientists I have come across,whether, Christians, Muslims, Jews, or deists, have believed in a fully transcendant God.
It doesn't really matter if there are scientists or not. I thought ID was going to look for evidence of an intelligent designer. If their starting point is that all the evidence they find point either to god, allah, jahwe... then what's the point. They don't have a shred of evidence it wasn't brahma who did it. So are they're not looking for intelligent design, they're looking for intelligent design that fits their agenda. I hope some hindus jump on board, though. I'm sure it will be mighty entertaining to see all these scientists, once their research is concluded, argue about who's god it actually was.
There's no point in discussing this. God is god, right. It's the answer to every question you can't answer. You'll see that all the questions you have about the beginning of life and the beginning of the universe can also be asked about god. The convenient thing about god is, he's his own answer.
So what is god made of? Did god create itself? Was it always there? Where? There's no time, no space... Where did it reside before it created everything?
Answers: Doesn't matter, god doesn't have to make sense, in god contradictions become possible, the impossible becomes possible, that which you need an answer to in other matters fades when we talk about god.
I say god of the bible is a personification of nature, I say god of the bible is spatiotemporal too. And I believe that someday people will look at god and allah and brahman... the same way as we look at zeus or ra or thor.
Neitche agreed with you. he said 'God is dead' and predicted that religion would die out by the end of the century. Well, Neitchze is dead and god is very much alive. What is God made of? I dont know, but this is not a cop out. If I knew all the answers, if I could describe God in minute detail, he would not be God, he would be part of the material world. the design and beauty of the universe point us to God. We have constructed a way to blind ourselves to this in Darwinism, as Dawkins said 'Darwinism made it possible, for the first time, to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist'. this is attractive to many because humans do not want to answer to anyone. Like mrfadedglory, we just want to happy, we want to please ourselves, we dont want to be told that we are in trouble, that God is gonna judge us as sinners. We are 'in hiding' and Darwinism is the bed-cover pulled over our heads.
yes yes, mutations can sometimes be helpfull, even though they delete information from the genetic code. Eyes on a cave fish have no positive value because it never sees light. Such eyes yes only have negative value (weak spots for predators) so natural selection will eventually eliminate them. However, this still doesn't help ameba to man evolution. As I said, losing information doesn't require intelligence, even when it is useful, but for prgressive ameba to man evolution to be true, you have to have a way of ADDING information. None of your examples illustrate this, no mutation has ever been observed to do this. Mutations are just copying errors, sometimes information gets damaged or lost as it is transmitted. We need something a bit more sophisticated if you are gonna get human beings and golden eagles from a glob of chemicals. Peace.
oh i see so i have to show you a direct link from amoeba to homo sapien. i cant do that cause ive never proposed that. youre are requiring an ever increasing sophistication to our view at the same time that you simplify the existence of God. God just is, but i have to come up with all encompassing scientific evidence that must link ALL living things in a linear way? who says information has to be added. as far as i can see, the cormorants added ability of streamlined swimming and ability to remain underwater offsets the loss of flight. there's your added info. if in the distance past the dugong and the manatee were land creatures and through the process of adaptation they have become the sea creatures they are today, how is that a negative? their mass could not be sustained on land so they took to the water in order to exist. as ive said before, i look at the hippopotamus and can posit a theory as to where their future may lie. their decreasing ability to walk on land is offset by their increased ability to remain underwater for increasing periods of time.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
The application of Darwinism to the human race is known as Eugenics, and was developed by Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton. In 1907 Galton founded the Eugenics society, describing his theory as: ‘the science of improving stock….to give the more suitable races a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable’. Surely anyone can see that this evolutionary logic lies behind the Nazi Holocaust. Dr. Ernst Haeckel, a contemporary of Darwin and an early convert to his theory also developed the theory, saying that ‘politics is applied biology’, a quote used by Nazi propagandists to justify many of their actions.
As well as being central to Nazi ideology, Eugenics has been an essential doctrine of the pro-choice movement. Pro-choice heroines Marie Stopes and Margaret Sanger were both committed eugenicists. In fact Marie Stopes, who founded the largest worldwide abortion provider (Marie Stopes International), along with the first UK family planning clinic, called for the sterilization of the ‘lowest and worst members of the community’ whose ‘stunted and warped infants’ were burdensome to the ‘classes above them’. Likewise, Margaret Sanger, founder and president of the International Planned Parenthood Association, referred to certain segments of society as ‘human waste that should never have been born.’ Sanger also justified infanticide, saying: ‘The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.’
Barbara Burke expounds this Darwinian thinking in her article in Science magazine:
‘Among some animal species, infant killing appears to be a natural practice. Could it be natural for humans too, a trait inherited from our primate ancestors? Charles Darwin noted in The Descent of Man that infanticide has been 'probably the most important of all checks on population growth throughout most of human history.’
There is also a more specific way that Darwinism has affected our attitudes to abortion, the so-called ‘Biogenetic law’, otherwise known as the theory of ‘Embryonic recapitulation’. Haeckel’s theory proposed that during its 9 months in the womb a human embryo relives human kind’s evolutionary history, thus desecrating any perceived sanctity of embryonic life by de-humanizing it. If Haeckel were correct, a fetus would only become human shortly before it’s birth, prior to this it would be more like a fish or amphibian, depending on the stage of the pregnancy. Haeckel’s drawings have been proven to be completely false, the Biogenetic law is a load of horse-shit, yet the drawing still appear in school textbooks.
dont forget genesis 10:25-27. many people use the supposed curse of Ham and the canaanites as a justification for the subjugation of people into slavery.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
oh i see so i have to show you a direct link from amoeba to homo sapien. i cant do that cause ive never proposed that. youre are requiring an ever increasing sophistication to our view at the same time that you simplify the existence of God. God just is, but i have to come up with all encompassing scientific evidence that must link ALL living things in a linear way? who says information has to be added. as far as i can see, the cormorants added ability of streamlined swimming and ability to remain underwater offsets the loss of flight. there's your added info. if in the distance past the dugong and the manatee were land creatures and through the process of adaptation they have become the sea creatures they are today, how is that a negative? their mass could not be sustained on land so they took to the water in order to exist. as ive said before, i look at the hippopotamus and can posit a theory as to where their future may lie. their ability to walk on land is offset by their increased ability to remain underwater for increasing periods of time.
No. I am not asking you to demonstrate evolution from amoeba to man. I am asking you to show me a mechanism than can add genetic information to the gene pool. this is entirely different to animals learning a new skill. No genetic generation mechanism - no evolution.
dont forget genesis 10:25-27. many people use the supposed curse of Ham and the canaanites as a justification for the subjugation of people into slavery.
Yes. people have used this verse too. But they didn't read the rest of the Bible, which clearly says that the Canaanites were the inhabitants of Canaan (the land of Israel) not africans, and that they were completely destroyed (by the Israelites) three millenia before the african slave trade.
Yes. I read it, the same old passing off information losing adaptions as 'evolution in practice'. the same old claims of transitional fossils that are not transitional at all. The same old claims that evolution is a 'fact', not a theory, and the same old misrepresentations of creationism.
Have you read 'Darwin on Trial' by Philip E. Johnson?
Yes. people have used this verse too. But they didn't read the rest of the Bible, which clearly says that the Canaanites were the inhabitants of Canaan (the land of Israel) not africans, and that they were completely destroyed (by the Israelites) three millenia before the african slave trade.
Black Africans werent the first slaves. however, slavery wasnt always split along racial lines. there are some people who believe that race is a social construction to justify all manner of things.
hmm and much like those people not reading the rest of the bible, when we speak of nazi iodeology, eugenics was hardly the singular basis for the shoah.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
No. I am not asking you to demonstrate evolution from amoeba to man. I am asking you to show me a mechanism than can add genetic information to the gene pool. this is entirely different to animals learning a new skill. No genetic generation mechanism - no evolution.
and i am asking you to show me God. you cant, so dont expect me to be able to show something millions of years in the making. ive never said i could. ive told you where i stand. i can not accept the 'just is' philosophy of believers as evidence that God exists. it makes zero sense to me. the things in nature i have pointed out make sense to me. i can see the correlations. i have no faith in the existence of God, but nor do i blindly believe everything science places before me.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Listen, I don't have a dog in this fight, however I do find it mildly entertaining (trust me, anything is more entertaining then Microsoft Excel). Also, I really don't know shit about anything and thought perhaps you could better explain. I'm not sure how you would define evolution. Why would the loss of flight constitute devolution of a particular species? Just because genetic information is lost doesn't necessarily mean it was a destructive event. And I believe, as far as biology is concerned, that the definition of evolution allows this to take place. Evolution doesn't predict that species will only evolve "upwards", that is gain traits or at least maintain them at a certain point. Instead it calls for genetic changes (whether through positive or negative adaptation). Once again, not attempting to debate evolution and creationism, just that the loss or "destructive" mutation is not particularly strong evidence it seems. Either way, I bet Bob Dylan knows the answer, but he'd never tell.
welcome to the thread.
you are correct in saying that evolution doesn't ONLY predict upward changes but to get from an amoeba to a man you do need a hell of a lot of upward changes along the way. Therefore, for evolution to be true, there has to be a mechanism of getting new information into the gene pool. Darwin thought it was mutations but he had no idea what a mutation was since we couldn't observe what goes on inside the cell back then. Well now we can, and it turns out that mutations are just defects in the transcription of DNA from parent to offspring. after observing shedloads of mutations on the genetic level, none have been observed to add anything, all either subtract or damage the existing information. Sometimes this is relatively harmless, once in a while it is usefull, mostly it is destructive.
and i am asking you to show me God. you cant, so dont expect me to be able to show something millions of years in the making. ive never said i could. ive told you where i stand. i can not accept the 'just is' philosophy of believers as evidence that God exists. it makes zero sense to me. the things in nature i have pointed out make sense to me. i can see the correlations. i have no faith in the existence of God, but nor do i blindly believe everything science places before me.
I wish I could show you God, but I think that this theory that we call 'evolution' is so ingrained in us, from every wildlife documentary, every reference to the 'stone age' or the 'age of the dinosaurs' that we are often unable to see God for ourselves in what he has made. All I can say is when you see a cliff face, try to suspend your automatic thought of 'those layers took millions of years to form' and consider that they could have been laid down by a great flood. Next time you see a bird of prey circling above, try to forget what the narrator said about evolutionary arms-races on the documentary, and consider that it could be a thought of God, a creative masterpiece to remind us that he is always watching from above, and imagine what kind of mind would have designed such a majestic creature.
but for prgressive ameba to man evolution to be true, you have to have a way of ADDING information.
thats asking to demonstrate evolution ACROSS species. amoeba are their own entities. they have their own complicated systems just as we do. they are hardly the simple single celled organisms people mistake them for.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
thats asking to demonstrate evolution ACROSS species. amoeba are their own entities. they have their own complicated systems just as we do. they are hardly the simple single celled organisms people mistake them for.
You are missing the point. Whatever you think the oldest human ancestor was, to get from that to man, you have to add a lorryload of information.
I wish I could show you God, but I think that this theory that we call 'evolution' is so ingrained in us, from every wildlife documentary, every reference to the 'stone age' or the 'age of the dinosaurs' that we are often unable to see God for ourselves in what he has made. All I can say is when you see a cliff face, try to suspend your automatic thought of 'those layers took millions of years to form' and consider that they could have been laid down by a great flood. Next time you see a bird of prey circling above, try to forget what the narrator said about evolutionary arms-races on the documentary, and consider that it could be a thought of God, a creative masterpiece to remind us that he is always watching from above, and imagine what kind of mind would have designed such a majestic creature.
i cant do that. i cant entertain the existence of God, ive tried. it just makes me feel stupid. hence why i am an atheist.
but you know that great flood you speak of. it is my opinion that a great flood did occur. but the world that was spoken of was more localised. remember back in the day, and even to an extent today, the notion of one's world was/is subjective.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
You are missing the point. Whatever you think the oldest human ancestor was, to get from that to man, you have to add a lorryload of information.
and youre tailoring your argument to suit yourself. you said amoeba. so i went with that. now youre telling me thats not quite what you meant. there is a big different between amoeba and man's ancestor (whatever that ancestor may turn out to be). i do not believe we are descended from apes. i do however believe it is entirely possible that apes and man share a common ancestor.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
i cant do that. i cant entertain the existence of God, ive tried. it just makes me feel stupid. hence why i am an atheist.
but you know that great flood you speak of. it is my opinion that a great flood did occur. but the world that was spoken of was more localised. remember back in the day, and even to an extent today, the notion of one's world was/is subjective.
God put a rainbow in the sky as a promise that he would 'never flood the world again'. If the 'great flood' was just a local flood, he is a liar. We got some serious local flood over here in England last year, not to mention Bangladesh and china. It only makes sense if it was truly global. Why would noah have to make a boat for all kinds of animals if it was local? couldnt they have just legged it? they had 100 years warning. It was global in the Bible, and the sedimentary layers confirm that it was global since they are found accross the globe.
and youre tailoring your argument to suit yourself. you said amoeba. so i went with that. now youre telling me thats not quite what you meant. there is a big different between amoeba and man's ancestor (whatever that ancestor may turn out to be). i do not believe we are descended from apes. i do however believe it is entirely possible that apes and man share a common ancestor.
I'm not 'tailoring' anything. I dont believe we evolved from anything. Evolutionists have suggested that the first life was something like an amoeba. I dont care what you think it was, personally I think its all bullshit. whatever you think it was, you've still got to get from that to us. Look, if you find an answer to ths question let me know, my point about generating information is crystal clear, quit trying to avoid it.
God put a rainbow in the sky as a promise that he would 'never flood the world again'. If the 'great flood' was just a local flood, he is a liar. We got some serious local flood over here in England last year, not to mention Bangladesh and china. It only makes sense if it was truly global. Why would noah have to make a boat for all kinds of animals if it was local? couldnt they have just legged it? they had 100 years warning. It was global in the Bible, and the sedimentary layers confirm that it was global since they are found accross the globe.
God put a rainbow in the sky as a promise that he would 'never flood the world again'. If the 'great flood' was just a local flood, he is a liar. We got some serious local flood over here in England last year, not to mention Bangladesh and china. It only makes sense if it was truly global. Why would noah have to make a boat for all kinds of animals if it was local? couldnt they have just legged it? they had 100 years warning. It was global in the Bible, and the sedimentary layers confirm that it was global since they are found accross the globe.
well i imagine it was a great flood to those drowned by it. for me the bible as a book and the stories within, relates to a particular region and culture of the world. for those involved God was not a liar. to me, all those animals in the ark were local fauna. unless of course you are telling me that EVERY animal on earth was on that boat? must have been a hell of a boat. and if that is what youre telling me then i guess i dont have to say what a problem i have with that.
yes you are correct sedimentary rock is found world wide. all this proves(for want of a better word) is that the process of the laying down of these rocks is the same. not that it happened at the same time due to one occurrence.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I'm not 'tailoring' anything. I dont believe we evolved from anything. Evolutionists have suggested that the first life was something like an amoeba. I dont care what you think it was, personally I think its all bullshit. whatever you think it was, you've still got to get from that to us. Look, if you find an answer to ths question let me know, my point about generating information is crystal clear, quit trying to avoid it.
Gotta go now.
Peace.
evolutionists have suggested. that to me says they dont know for sure. you however are dead certain we are the product of what? the worlds biggest magic trick? one minute the earth is devoid of humans, the next minute man is here. im not the one in avoidance here.
and the first doesnt mean the only. much like the women absent from the bible when all that begatting was going on. they arent mentioned but they have to be there, right?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
It indeed tries to tell us who we are, where we came from etc. This is based on studies, research... Not a book, written by man. It's not a religion, though.
Indeed, we can create our own morality. It doesn't tell us it's ok to trample on others to succeed. I don't know where you got that.
They should "look" for signs of design and they shouldn't look for signs of evolution. They should look for data and study it.
I don't think those events seem "more and more to defy any naturalistic explanation" at all. New theories suggest that the universe actually did come out of nothing, more or less. It's interesting and something we should definitely look into.
OK, if the earth and the universe were created by god, who created god? Your argument is that things are so complex that they need a creator, that matter or energy cannot be created... Yet the creator himself, probably the most complex, intelligent being, exists without cause or end. Where did it come from?
I think they are. I don't see how Greek mythology is any different than christian mythology.
You have no proof whatsoever god exists, and there's no proof whatsoever these creatures exists, or Ra or Zeus etc. exist.
Don't you think science should be looking for evidence that the Greek gods created the earth and universe, or the Egyptian gods, or Slavic gods...
You don't believe in those because they don't fit your biblical worldview. Let me paraphrase your own words:
"This is faith, and once you accept the [biblical] narritive, all things that are not strictly biblical (ie other mythical creatures from other religions) become, not just unproven, but ridiculous - not even worthy of consideration."
So, I sincerely hope you'd explore all those possibilities too when you're looking for evidence of a intelligent designer.
There is no sin now. At least not according to me and so many other people. What's your point?
I may have missed this altogther but I think there is still sin. The sins that were before are still as well as the arrogance that I always count as the biggest sin. That is the sin that we do when in church sometimes ourselves (although I have checked myself for this constantly so I don't do this; but I may have before).
We are only forgiven if we say to God that we are sorry and ask for His help in changing our behavior. Sin is still sin. And yes, we can all be forgiven but it is not a disclaimer that says,"ok, do what you want; you now have God".
Sorry if I missed the point you were making, I just had to point that out.
Are you a believer?
Baby, You Wouldn't Last a Minute on The Creek......
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
I may have missed this altogther but I think there is still sin. The sins that were before are still as well as the arrogance that I always count as the biggest sin. That is the sin that we do when in church sometimes ourselves (although I have checked myself for this constantly so I don't do this; but I may have before).
We are only forgiven if we say to God that we are sorry and ask for His help in changing our behavior. Sin is still sin. And yes, we can all be forgiven but it is not a disclaimer that says,"ok, do what you want; you now have God".
Sorry if I missed the point you were making, I just had to point that out.
Are you a believer?
sin does not exist without religion.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Comments
Oh, please.
There's no such thing as an inbetween atheist. He was not an atheist. He believed in a higher power.
I don't think Hitler was inspired to kill millions of people because he believed in evolution. And I certainly don't see how evolutionary thinking was behind his racist ideas. There's nothing in the evolution theory that suggests jewish people, black people, gypsies, slavic people... are inferior or that the arian race is superior.
That is an ideology that has nothing to do with evolution. Nothing. It is an ideology of one person.
naděje umírá poslední
why are you looking as the loss of flight as a destructive thing. it is a step forward for the cormorants. they no longer require this defensive mechanism. i see this as a step forward in this environment as it has gone hand in hand with their increased swimming ability. all adaptation imo is constructive.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Nice.
I dont believe in these so-called gods because:1: They dont fit into my Biblical world view, and 2: There existence has been falsified by science.
Here is a challenge: see if you can find an organisation, or even one person who is both scientifically literate - and believes in the existence of the greco-Roman Pantheon. I know that there are Hindu's who worship nature gods, but is there even a single scientist who believes that the existence of hindu gods can be reconciled with modern science? I could be wrong but i doubt it. Certainly the only serious non-atheistic scientists I have come across,whether, Christians, Muslims, Jews, or deists, have believed in a fully transcendant God.
There's no point in discussing this. God is god, right. It's the answer to every question you can't answer. You'll see that all the questions you have about the beginning of life and the beginning of the universe can also be asked about god. The convenient thing about god is, he's his own answer.
So what is god made of? Did god create itself? Was it always there? Where? There's no time, no space... Where did it reside before it created everything?
Answers: Doesn't matter, god doesn't have to make sense, in god contradictions become possible, the impossible becomes possible, that which you need an answer to in other matters fades when we talk about god.
I say god of the bible is a personification of nature, I say god of the bible is spatiotemporal too. And I believe that someday people will look at god and allah and brahman... the same way as we look at zeus or ra or thor.
naděje umírá poslední
yes yes, mutations can sometimes be helpfull, even though they delete information from the genetic code. Eyes on a cave fish have no positive value because it never sees light. Such eyes yes only have negative value (weak spots for predators) so natural selection will eventually eliminate them. However, this still doesn't help ameba to man evolution. As I said, losing information doesn't require intelligence, even when it is useful, but for prgressive ameba to man evolution to be true, you have to have a way of ADDING information. None of your examples illustrate this, no mutation has ever been observed to do this. Mutations are just copying errors, sometimes information gets damaged or lost as it is transmitted. We need something a bit more sophisticated if you are gonna get human beings and golden eagles from a glob of chemicals. Peace.
Did you read the link I gave you?
naděje umírá poslední
It doesn't really matter if there are scientists or not. I thought ID was going to look for evidence of an intelligent designer. If their starting point is that all the evidence they find point either to god, allah, jahwe... then what's the point. They don't have a shred of evidence it wasn't brahma who did it. So are they're not looking for intelligent design, they're looking for intelligent design that fits their agenda. I hope some hindus jump on board, though. I'm sure it will be mighty entertaining to see all these scientists, once their research is concluded, argue about who's god it actually was.
I have to go now, I promised my girl sunshine...
naděje umírá poslední
Neitche agreed with you. he said 'God is dead' and predicted that religion would die out by the end of the century. Well, Neitchze is dead and god is very much alive. What is God made of? I dont know, but this is not a cop out. If I knew all the answers, if I could describe God in minute detail, he would not be God, he would be part of the material world. the design and beauty of the universe point us to God. We have constructed a way to blind ourselves to this in Darwinism, as Dawkins said 'Darwinism made it possible, for the first time, to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist'. this is attractive to many because humans do not want to answer to anyone. Like mrfadedglory, we just want to happy, we want to please ourselves, we dont want to be told that we are in trouble, that God is gonna judge us as sinners. We are 'in hiding' and Darwinism is the bed-cover pulled over our heads.
oh i see so i have to show you a direct link from amoeba to homo sapien. i cant do that cause ive never proposed that. youre are requiring an ever increasing sophistication to our view at the same time that you simplify the existence of God. God just is, but i have to come up with all encompassing scientific evidence that must link ALL living things in a linear way? who says information has to be added. as far as i can see, the cormorants added ability of streamlined swimming and ability to remain underwater offsets the loss of flight. there's your added info. if in the distance past the dugong and the manatee were land creatures and through the process of adaptation they have become the sea creatures they are today, how is that a negative? their mass could not be sustained on land so they took to the water in order to exist. as ive said before, i look at the hippopotamus and can posit a theory as to where their future may lie. their decreasing ability to walk on land is offset by their increased ability to remain underwater for increasing periods of time.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
dont forget genesis 10:25-27. many people use the supposed curse of Ham and the canaanites as a justification for the subjugation of people into slavery.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
No. I am not asking you to demonstrate evolution from amoeba to man. I am asking you to show me a mechanism than can add genetic information to the gene pool. this is entirely different to animals learning a new skill. No genetic generation mechanism - no evolution.
Yes. people have used this verse too. But they didn't read the rest of the Bible, which clearly says that the Canaanites were the inhabitants of Canaan (the land of Israel) not africans, and that they were completely destroyed (by the Israelites) three millenia before the african slave trade.
Yes. I read it, the same old passing off information losing adaptions as 'evolution in practice'. the same old claims of transitional fossils that are not transitional at all. The same old claims that evolution is a 'fact', not a theory, and the same old misrepresentations of creationism.
Have you read 'Darwin on Trial' by Philip E. Johnson?
Black Africans werent the first slaves. however, slavery wasnt always split along racial lines. there are some people who believe that race is a social construction to justify all manner of things.
hmm and much like those people not reading the rest of the bible, when we speak of nazi iodeology, eugenics was hardly the singular basis for the shoah.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
and i am asking you to show me God. you cant, so dont expect me to be able to show something millions of years in the making. ive never said i could. ive told you where i stand. i can not accept the 'just is' philosophy of believers as evidence that God exists. it makes zero sense to me. the things in nature i have pointed out make sense to me. i can see the correlations. i have no faith in the existence of God, but nor do i blindly believe everything science places before me.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
welcome to the thread.
you are correct in saying that evolution doesn't ONLY predict upward changes but to get from an amoeba to a man you do need a hell of a lot of upward changes along the way. Therefore, for evolution to be true, there has to be a mechanism of getting new information into the gene pool. Darwin thought it was mutations but he had no idea what a mutation was since we couldn't observe what goes on inside the cell back then. Well now we can, and it turns out that mutations are just defects in the transcription of DNA from parent to offspring. after observing shedloads of mutations on the genetic level, none have been observed to add anything, all either subtract or damage the existing information. Sometimes this is relatively harmless, once in a while it is usefull, mostly it is destructive.
I wish I could show you God, but I think that this theory that we call 'evolution' is so ingrained in us, from every wildlife documentary, every reference to the 'stone age' or the 'age of the dinosaurs' that we are often unable to see God for ourselves in what he has made. All I can say is when you see a cliff face, try to suspend your automatic thought of 'those layers took millions of years to form' and consider that they could have been laid down by a great flood. Next time you see a bird of prey circling above, try to forget what the narrator said about evolutionary arms-races on the documentary, and consider that it could be a thought of God, a creative masterpiece to remind us that he is always watching from above, and imagine what kind of mind would have designed such a majestic creature.
thats asking to demonstrate evolution ACROSS species. amoeba are their own entities. they have their own complicated systems just as we do. they are hardly the simple single celled organisms people mistake them for.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
You are missing the point. Whatever you think the oldest human ancestor was, to get from that to man, you have to add a lorryload of information.
i cant do that. i cant entertain the existence of God, ive tried. it just makes me feel stupid. hence why i am an atheist.
but you know that great flood you speak of. it is my opinion that a great flood did occur. but the world that was spoken of was more localised. remember back in the day, and even to an extent today, the notion of one's world was/is subjective.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
and youre tailoring your argument to suit yourself. you said amoeba. so i went with that. now youre telling me thats not quite what you meant. there is a big different between amoeba and man's ancestor (whatever that ancestor may turn out to be). i do not believe we are descended from apes. i do however believe it is entirely possible that apes and man share a common ancestor.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
God put a rainbow in the sky as a promise that he would 'never flood the world again'. If the 'great flood' was just a local flood, he is a liar. We got some serious local flood over here in England last year, not to mention Bangladesh and china. It only makes sense if it was truly global. Why would noah have to make a boat for all kinds of animals if it was local? couldnt they have just legged it? they had 100 years warning. It was global in the Bible, and the sedimentary layers confirm that it was global since they are found accross the globe.
I'm not 'tailoring' anything. I dont believe we evolved from anything. Evolutionists have suggested that the first life was something like an amoeba. I dont care what you think it was, personally I think its all bullshit. whatever you think it was, you've still got to get from that to us. Look, if you find an answer to ths question let me know, my point about generating information is crystal clear, quit trying to avoid it.
Gotta go now.
Peace.
open your eyes you numpty
well i imagine it was a great flood to those drowned by it. for me the bible as a book and the stories within, relates to a particular region and culture of the world. for those involved God was not a liar. to me, all those animals in the ark were local fauna. unless of course you are telling me that EVERY animal on earth was on that boat? must have been a hell of a boat. and if that is what youre telling me then i guess i dont have to say what a problem i have with that.
yes you are correct sedimentary rock is found world wide. all this proves(for want of a better word) is that the process of the laying down of these rocks is the same. not that it happened at the same time due to one occurrence.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
evolutionists have suggested. that to me says they dont know for sure. you however are dead certain we are the product of what? the worlds biggest magic trick? one minute the earth is devoid of humans, the next minute man is here. im not the one in avoidance here.
and the first doesnt mean the only. much like the women absent from the bible when all that begatting was going on. they arent mentioned but they have to be there, right?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I may have missed this altogther but I think there is still sin. The sins that were before are still as well as the arrogance that I always count as the biggest sin. That is the sin that we do when in church sometimes ourselves (although I have checked myself for this constantly so I don't do this; but I may have before).
We are only forgiven if we say to God that we are sorry and ask for His help in changing our behavior. Sin is still sin. And yes, we can all be forgiven but it is not a disclaimer that says,"ok, do what you want; you now have God".
Sorry if I missed the point you were making, I just had to point that out.
Are you a believer?
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
sin does not exist without religion.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say