Creation vs. Evolution

[Dean810]

:lol: Is that with or without snorkle?

Discussing snorkles would only complicate the discussion!

 

[mislav]

Thou shall not discuss snorkle on this thread!?

 

[Thalassamania]

I'd rather have the ham sandwich.

 

[Dean810]

Thou shall not discuss snorkle on this thread!?

Too controversial. It will create too many bad feelings.

 

[fire_diver]

whoa!

so are you saying that the Old Testament is not really God's word, but man's word?

because as far as i know, Jewish law *IS* God's law, handed down to the Jews by God.

and God DID say those things.

unless, of course, you are admitting that God had nothing to do with it and it was all made up by men

The only true "laws" of God I know of are the 10 commandments. I'm not Jewish, therfore I don't recognize Jewish law.

 

[Warthaug]

I see that you can't see the difference between the Bible's history and it's teaching.

You seem to have mistaken which point of this "argument" I'm on. But when you look at those religous groups who use the bible as a grounds to deny rights to homosexuals - you know, those groups who have the 50% devorce rate but want to keep gays from marrying cause it'll damange the "sanctity" of marrage - they use this exact section of the bible as the rational for their beliefs.

Homosexuality is a sin, gays are all ging to hell, etc, we've all heard it 1,000,000 times, and it all stems from the section of the bible I quoted.

Remeber, these people don't see the metaphorical side of things, they think the word, is the word, is the word. Except for the parts that they don't like of course - like where I can buy their kids as slaves...

Bryan

 

[Debay777]

wow, I couldnt read all of this thread. I dont think my life span would allow it. But here is my 2p.s.i.--
Evolution is crap. There is not one single solitary piece of hard evidence that demonstrates true evolution. If every animal on this planet evolved from something else, then where are the fossils of these in-between creatures. Not one fossil has been found showing how a dolphin became a dog or vise versa. Now there is an aspect of evolution that is doccumented and is real but the propper term for that is especiation or commonly adaptation. for instance, fish trapped in a cave. They may lose their ability to see, lose their color, or become self luminous. That is adaptation. THe fish is still a fish and will always be a fish. THe one trial that got evolution taught in schools was based on a tooth recovered by archeologists. from the tooth they created a jaw, then a skull, then a skeleton, then a body. they painted up a monkey man and used it as evidence of cave man. the tooth was the only item found at that dig and the resulting commotion it stirred halted digging all together. some years latter the dig was resumed and a pig skull was found. the damage had been done and a championed cause for evolution was won by a pigs tooth.
as to the age of the earth. carbon dating is the main tool for aging an item and or the earth. It too is flawed. An archeologist from australia had a piece of stone carbon dated. I forget the actual age but it came back as 2-3 million years old i believe. the stone was a chip off of a petrified leather miners hat that had been sealed off for about 200 years. there are many fossils of dinosours found in the same sedimant layers as human remains. In parts of the world fossilized human and dinosour tracks are found side by side as if man and beast had walked together on the same trail. If you back off of the carbon dating and look at humans and dinosours living together the age of the earth shrinks considerably.
to be fair, there is little evidence about creationism that can be dug up, measured, and held in ones hand. but a scientific examination,, open minded, and common sense look at the scriptures will reveal that they answer many quetions about the origin of life very easily and the age of the earth very easily. this link goes to a web page dedicated to creationism and can offer a lot information, if you are ready to recieve it. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/ham.asp

 

[Warthaug]

nod, nod... i meant the two "polar opposites" to the sex equation, male and female

there are bound to be specimens that are born somewhat of a mix, quite neither, somehow both

Not exactly. There are genetic conditions where people are born with extra sex chromasomes - XXY, XXX, XYY, etc. But as it turns out you still get the good 'ol boy/girl mix here; basically you get one or more 'Y's you're a boy. The extra X's make for a bit of a feminine appearance, but you still have a "outie".

Perfect example is Klinefelter's syndrom, which is XXY. Aside from some minor mental retardation, and some feminization of features, they are otherwise pretty normal guys.

There are birth defects which can give the appearance of a person having both sexual organs. The origin of these are not well known, with the exception of a type of male birth defect that can occur if you have a vegan mother. In that case the woman has a lot of plant estrogens floating around, which "confuses" the male embryo, resulting in some birth defects in the nether region...

for now, let's assume a man born with xy chromosomes gets a sex change operation

does that operation change his chromosomes to xx?

i don't think it does

You are correct. The surgury is purely cosmetic (either making the outie an innie, or vice versa). Then its some hormones to trick the body into thinking its the opposite sex.


Bryan

 

[wreckchick]

wow, I couldnt read all of this thread. I dont think my life span would allow it. But here is my 2p.s.i.--

If you can't take the time to go over the details of the thread... your 2 psi means nothing to me.

We already covered every point you raised.

R

 

[Warthaug]

wow, I couldnt read all of the this thread. I dont think my life span would allow it. But here is my 2p.s.i.--
Evolution is crap. There is not one single solitary piece of hard evidence that demonstrates true evolution.

Looks to me like you should have read the thread, as literally thousands of examples disproving your statement were made.

For example, there have been over 2000 recorded speciation events in the scientific literature - i.e. cases where new species have been formed, and the genetics of that event discovered. That would be macroevolution in creationist-speak.

Then there would be the millions of known cases of microevolution - the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, the pepper moths, etc, etc, etc.

Then there is the whole entirety of the fossil record - a record which is full of transitional fossils, and well defined evolutionary sequences. Not to mention the entire field of cladistics, which has not only proven many of the links discovered in the fossil record, but discovered new evolutionary links we never even suspected.

Long story short - there is more evidence for evolution then pretty much any scientific theory to date. Just because you choose to ignore it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

If every animal on this planet evolved from something else, then where are the fossils of these in-between creatures.

All over. the fossil record is full of transitional fossils. Just yesterday another was found - a complete skeleton of the "Lucy" type of hominid - a transitional fossil between us and the apes. Just one example of the thousands out there.

Not one fossil has been found showing how a dolphin became a dog or vise versa.

Where did you get the idea that ever happened. Dogs did not evolve from dolphins. There are, however, transitional fossils showing the evolution of dolphins from their ancestor (a cow-like animal) and the evolution of dogs from their ancestor.

You see, there are a lot of transitional fossils for evolutionary events that actually occurred. Not too surprisingly though, there are none for imaginary evolutionary changes like dolphins turning into dogs.

Now there is an aspect of evolution that is doccumented and is real but the propper term for that is especiation or commonly adaptation. for instance, fish trapped in a cave. They may lose their ability to see, lose their color, or become self luminous. That is adaptation.

Adaptation IS evolution. Maybe you should read the definition of evolution before you make simple mistakes like that. Evolution is nothing more then the change in the genetic makeup of a species over time. You don't need to become a new species to evolve, any more then you need to be DIR to SCUBA dive (ducking and running now).

THe fish is still a fish and will always be a fish.

Give them long enough and they may turn into something else. But even if they don't the changes which occurred are still evolution.

You simply cannot redefine evolution simply because you disagree with it.

as to the age of the earth. carbon dating is the main tool for aging an item and or the earth.

Dead and absolutely wrong. Carbon dating is only good for dating things a few tens of thousands of years old. To date the earth we use things like uranium dating, etc. As in isotopes which are long-lived.

It too is flawed. An archeologist from australia had a piece of stone carbon dated. I forget the actual age but it came back as 2-3 million years old i believe.

Not possible with carbon dating. Limitation is about 50,000 years:

http://www.howstuffworks.com/carbon-14.htm

In parts of the world fossilized human and dinosaur tracks are found side by side as if man and beast had walked together on the same trail.

Actually, no. There is one such rock, in a creationist museum in the US. That is it. And the museum has not allowed scientists to date the rock, or even confirm that it is made of rock, and not concrete. Given the complete and absolute refusal of this organization to allow dating (or even rock typing) of this supposed find make it highly suspicious. I mean, if you wanted to disprove evolution, allowing the typing and aging of the rock would be a PERFECT way to do so.

If you back off of the carbon dating and look at humans and dinosours living together the age of the earth shrinks considerably.

As I pointed out before, carbon dating CAN NOT be used to date the earth. You want to shoot down the age of the earth you first need to disprove the actual dating methods used for that - uranium/lead dating for example.

to be fair, there is little evidence about creationism that can be dug up, measured, and held in ones hand.

To be specific, there is NO scientific data supporting young-earth creationism.

but a scientific examination,, open minded, and common sense look at the scriptures will reveal that they answers many quetions about the origin of life very easily and the age of the earth very easily.

Then please explain the discrepancy between the accounts of creation in Genesis I and Genesis II. The timing that creation occurs in those stories, the order of creation, etc, are different. how can you claim the bible gives an accurate story when it isn't even self-agreeing?

Bryan