So tell me This.... - Page 14

JMS · #**131** (**permalink**) 04-29-2008, 02:19 PM

thats not what i mean. im saying its not just about adding information.

MasTequila · #**132** (**permalink**) 04-29-2008, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMS

thats not what i mean. im saying its not just about adding information.

Now I can point out exactly where my difficulty comes with the theory of evolution. I researched this for a long time and never found a situation where information was added. It was always subtracted which made me question evolution.

Man from apes
animal from fish

If this were the case there would be (in my opinion) clear fossil evidence of the transition gradual or immediate and each case I studied shows tampering or mis-diagnosis of the fossil and later changed interpretation.

Homo habilis -never existed
Homo erectus - Java man (Pithecanthropus) Peking man (Sinanthropus) which were taught as missing links are now known to have been fully human. They were thought to have lived in seclusion and through breeding developed certain physical aspects that made them look slightly different.

My problem with evolution is the transitional fossils don't pan out and that is why I still believe it is just a theory. Sorry if I mis-spelled some of the names it has been years since I studied this.

MasTequila · #**133** (**permalink**) 04-29-2008, 02:38 PM

The other issue I have with evolution deals with the different races.

I have heard evolution used to point out why one race is less than another. This is why I lean toward intelligent design.

Races of people from different parts of the world that had no interaction with each other until recently... last several hundred years. In creation God made one man and one woman. From those 2 came all of us. Therefore we all are alike and related. If a man in Japan or Africa whom I have never met needs medical treatment and blood donated I can do that and my blood can help to save his life.

What are the odds of different races evolving from different species so that blood, organs and tissue could be transplanted from one to another without causing death? Can you take blood from a cat and use it to save a dog? Or from a pig to a cow?

JMS · #**134** (**permalink**) 04-29-2008, 02:54 PM

it doesnt place any race above another. thats social darwinism; that actually has nothing to do with charles darwin or evolution as it pertains to science. evolution is about common ancestry, despite having so many peoples spread across the globe, the argument is that all shared a common ancestor, not that they managed to evolve to fit into the same species independently. how closely related different animals are can vary despite every living thing sharing common ancestry. its kind of like a family tree, how it branches out as time passes, and people grow less related but share origins.

redphish · #**135** (**permalink**) 04-30-2008, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beachbum

im agnostic yet i believe in ID.. and what youre discussing is an intelligent designer, not intelligent design. and its pretty simple to not discuss religion. religion is about faith and belief. science is about finding truth.

i have a couple of questions for you..

1. do you believe everything religion teaches has no truth to it?
2. do you believe that just because some views are seen as religious, they shouldnt be questioned in a scientific content?
3. do you think that science should be open to all beliefs and should study all fields, whether or not they are religious?
4. if ID is teaching religion, what religion are you teaching? specific religions please. and could you back up your claims with proof that ID is exactly what those religions teach?

i hope you answer all questions..

I guess I could have been a little clearer in my last post. My beliefs would be most accurately described as Deist so I also believe in a creator in some form. I just don't think ID should be taught in public school in a science class. I would have no problem, however, with it being taught to older students in a comparative religion class. That being said, I'd be happy to answer your questions.

1. I think that most religions are based in truth to some extent but have to be taken on faith because their spiritual basis or origins can't be proven.

2. No, I think that they should be, to the extent that they can be objectively studied.

3. Yes I do.

4. The majority of cases, that I am aware of, where a group pushes for ID to be taught in public schools are Fundamentalist Christians who would then insist on teaching Biblical creation. I just don't think it would be appropriate to teach that in a science class. There is no scientific basis for it and no way to prove or disprove it.

Rotaerk · #**136** (**permalink**) 05-01-2008, 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Link S.

These are the responses I had hoped to hear. I agree that ID and Evolution should both be taught but I do not know that intelligent design need be shoved into the realm of religion. My view is that God is a scientist a master scientist who knows all laws of nature and how to use them. Humans seem to think that certain things are impossible I.E. Invisability yet look up meta material they are coming out with invisable things now. Humans do not know all science yet with the pitiful amount that we do know we are able to recreate primative earth conditions and it does start the basics of life to form in a nutrient rich solution. So if Humans can do it why not someone who knows all science, all laws, all math do it within natural bounds.

I say this because there seems to be a belief that God exists outside natural bounds and could not possibly be God in natural bounds. I personally think that it is very possible that out there, there is a man who knows all laws of science and such. Anyway what do you think.

God is normally considered omniscient. This means he is not a scientist. Science is what you use when you do not know everything; it is the most logical approach to learning about the world. You represent a very common phenomenon: Religious people criticizing the secular world without actually taking the time to understand it.

Qwerty · #**137** (**permalink**) 05-01-2008, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MasTequila

I disagree (that probably shocks you), micro-evolution can be something as simple as hand size, eye color or height in a population. If green eyes are the rage in an area, people in that area will be more attracted to green eyes, thus the ability for people with green eyes will greatly increase. Causing more babies with green eyes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MasTequila

I believe that evolution (micro) takes place on a daily basis, but this type is the lessening of the species that occurs through birth defects. Show me one type of any evolution that has ever added to the species.

I'm confused by your two statements. In the first you believe it can add (hand size, ect), but in the second you believe it can't. Could you clarify?

Qwerty · #**138** (**permalink**) 05-01-2008, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MasTequila

[color="Red"]Well God created time on day 2 or 3

If it happen on day 2, that would mean time already existed.

beachbum · #**139** (**permalink**) 05-01-2008, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qwerty

If it happen on day 2, that would mean time already existed.

i believe Einstein suggested that theres no such thing as time. everything happens all at once but we cant see that because we are within the box so we cant see outside the box.

Qwerty · #**140** (**permalink**) 05-01-2008, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beachbum

i believe Einstein suggested that theres no such thing as time. everything happens all at once but we cant see that because we are within the box so we cant see outside the box.

So then time never existed. No god necessary to create it. We were always in existence in one form or another. We are god

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode