Go Back   Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums > General Discussion > Critical Thinking
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

View Poll Results: Where do you stand: Intelligent Design or Evolution?
Other 4 15.38%
Evolution 12 46.15%
Intelligent Design 10 38.46%
Voters: 26. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-26-2005, 07:08 AM   #21
Eridor
FFR Player
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 13
Default

Yes, but you're missing a major detail here. If the Bible is the word of God, why would we believe only parts of it? Once you start undermining one part of it, people start to say, "Well, if Genesis is only symbolic then this part (such as Jesus actually being divine, etc.) must be symbolic too." Then, they can pick and choose which parts of the Bible they actually want to believe. If they don't agree with something, or they are uncomfortable with a certain verse, they can just slip around it. Besides, if God has the ability to create anything, why could he not create the world (and everything in it) in six days? This applies especially to the post above about God being outside of time because if time means nothing to God, he could easily have done it all in just six days.

Also, if you put evolution before Genesis, then you put death and destruction before man's fall (hence the fossil record). We know from the Bible that the world was perfect when it was created with no death or disease or anything else of that nature.

I also want to point to the fossil record itself. When you look at it, you never see any "intermediary" forms of animals evolving from one species to another. When an animal dies, it goes through stages of decay, and its remains are generally scattered everywhere and are unrecognizable. There have been cases though, where animals have died and then almost immediately covered by sediment. This seems to preserve whole skeletons and keeps them intact. If you apply this to the Flood, you could say that the flood had the ability to do this very easily. There would most likely be currents flowing through the water, much like the oceans today. This would bury animals right where they stood (or lay or whatever) thereby preserving whole skeletons of, not just one or two animals, but whole groups. Plus, with the currents running to and fro, this would lay down layer upon layer of sediment, creating the different layers of rock we see today and the fossil record.

-Eridor
Eridor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2005, 10:09 AM   #22
heidzo63
FFR Player
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4
Default

The_Q, how can you say that Christians should only believe parts of the Bible and just blow the rest off? That doesnt make sense. The Bible was written as a book that is supposed to be ALL true. What would be the point of writing a bunch of parts if nobody should believe them anyways?
heidzo63 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2005, 05:41 PM   #23
Afrobean
Admiral in the Red Army
FFR Veteran
 
Afrobean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: the moon
Age: 32
Posts: 13,262
Send a message via Skype™ to Afrobean
Default

Guys, logic tells us that the bible cannot be literally true. The bible is merely a good way to show you how to live your life. Think of it the way you would a greek myth. You don't be like "Wow! Zeus battled his father Chronus after Chronus ate all of Zeus's siblings. Then the Titans came and Zeus kicked their butts too!" No, you simply see it as meaning that tyrany will be punished with a hero who will defeat them. It's the same with the bible.
__________________
Afrobean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2005, 06:50 PM   #24
nforcer06164
FFR Player
FFR Veteran
 
nforcer06164's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Champaign, IL
Age: 32
Posts: 4,772
Send a message via AIM to nforcer06164 Send a message via Skype™ to nforcer06164
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Afrobean
Guys, logic tells us that the bible cannot be literally true. The bible is merely a good way to show you how to live your life. Think of it the way you would a greek myth. You don't be like "Wow! Zeus battled his father Chronus after Chronus ate all of Zeus's siblings. Then the Titans came and Zeus kicked their butts too!" No, you simply see it as meaning that tyrany will be punished with a hero who will defeat them. It's the same with the bible.
So true, Afro. Everybody knows the story of Moses parting the Red Sea to escape the Egyptians, right? Well, how else could they escape? They couldn't get past the water otherwise, right? Nah. All they had to do was walk through it. The Sea of Reeds, as it is also called, is only a few feet deep, and easy to walk through. So, while people could easily walk through the water, the Egyptian chariots, if THAT even happened (the chase, that is), got stuck in the mud. Nobody drowned.

What about Jesus healing the man born blind in the Gospel of John? Maybe he wasn't physically blind, but "spiritually blind". Jesus "healed his blindness" and brought him to have faith in God. And what about feeding the 5,000? Maybe he "fed" them the Word of God. So, the miracles and signs may never have happened physically as they are portrayed.

It sure makes things a whole lot harder to believe....
__________________

PROUD OWNER OF TWO OMEGA FAVORS. YEAH, NICE TRY.
Giant NES Controller (4 FEET) progress: PAINT IS DONE!
Download my Wii Music Suite v1.0, and PM me with your input!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Squeek
My mind says "GOGOGOG" and my hands go "wut no scru u ***"
nforcer06164 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2005, 07:22 PM   #25
Eridor
FFR Player
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 13
Default

Quote:
And what about feeding the 5,000? Maybe he "fed" them the Word of God.
Not only does it say that he fed the five thousand, it also says that he used fish and bread to do it. This means that it was a physical feeding, not spiritual. Plus, they were up on that hillside for five days straight. How could they have stayed without physical nourishment?

Also, the Bible was not written by only one person, nor was it written by a group of people who got together and over a beer (just paraphrasing here ) decide what to write down. These men were all from different places and different cultural backgrounds, so how else would all of the books of the Bible be so closely related except that they were God-inspired. This is especially evident in the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) because they all have common elements, but they all have differences as well and are told from different perspectives.Now, you might say, "But how do we know that all of these men actuall existed?" The answer to that is archaelogy.

Based on archaeolgoical finds, mainly historical documents, such as records and censuses (what is the plural of census?), we know for sure that Jesus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul (formerly Saul), Thomas, and Peter actually existed, and I'm not including the burial box that says "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" on it because that is still in the "unauthenticated" stage.

-Eridor
Eridor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2005, 08:34 PM   #26
heidzo63
FFR Player
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4
Default

Who ever said Jesus couldn't do all that stuff like feeding the 5,000 and about a million other things? Jesus is God, and God CREATED the world....so why is it so hard to believe that he could heal a blind man?
heidzo63 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2005, 10:19 PM   #27
alainbryden
Seen your member
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
alainbryden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: noitacoL
Age: 33
Posts: 2,873
Send a message via AIM to alainbryden Send a message via MSN to alainbryden Send a message via Yahoo to alainbryden
Default

^^ignor'd. Although I have much to say on the topic, I will say little so that it is read.

Evolution is not all encompassing, and it has been infinitely misused in this thread. There is microevolution and macroevolution. I will leave it to you to reason out which is which. Either way, microevolution is a proven occurence, but whether or not macroevolution is a reasonable explanation for certain phenomena is still under debate. You have also all ignored the existance of genetic drift and other existing non-'natural selection' methods of species transcendance.

Also, I need not remind you that this is not yet another discussion about whether the bible is to be interpreted literally or even trusted as much as a science fiction novel.
__________________
~NEIGH
alainbryden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2005, 01:05 AM   #28
jewpinthethird
(The Fat's Sabobah)
FFR Music ProducerFFR Veteran
 
jewpinthethird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Palm Springs, California
Posts: 11,711
Send a message via AIM to jewpinthethird
Default

If Jesus is God, then does that make him also his own father?

Quote:
Originally Posted by alainbryden
Also, I need not remind you that this is not yet another discussion about whether the bible is to be interpreted literally or even trusted as much as a science fiction novel.
Not Science-Fiction...Miricale-Fiction.

---

It's sad to see that the Bible being used as a device which is argued over. Isnt the purpose of the Bible to teach the word of "God" and "Jesus Christ"? And isnt their word one of "unconditional love" and "peace"? Shouldnt we all take this into consideration before we attack it/or attack those who do not believe in it? Whether you believe the Bible literally, or not, isnt it basically a guide to living a good-wholesome life?

Religion is supposed to be something that unites one another, not something tears them apart.
jewpinthethird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2005, 09:47 AM   #29
alainbryden
Seen your member
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
alainbryden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: noitacoL
Age: 33
Posts: 2,873
Send a message via AIM to alainbryden Send a message via MSN to alainbryden Send a message via Yahoo to alainbryden
Default

Quote:
It's sad to see that the Bible being used as a device which is argued over.
This surprises you? Have you forgotten that the bible alone has been the sole cause of many wars?


Quote:
Religion is supposed to be something that unites one another, not something tears them apart.
This is not true. Religion is something that seperates people who have been raised differently. It exists as another prejudicial barrier between humans. Religion is only intended to bring structure and sometimes comfort to it's followers. Although it does not necessarily promote violence and hatred, it induces it more than anything else.
__________________
~NEIGH
alainbryden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2005, 02:11 PM   #30
ayanepuck
FFR Player
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Waco, Texas
Posts: 110
Send a message via AIM to ayanepuck
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by heidzo63
I believe in intelligent design. And I believe in the first thing that eyespewgreekfire said. In the book of Genesis, it may not have said dinosaurs existed, but that does not mean they never did. It never says, 'And God said, let there be platypuses, and there were platypuses' yet we know that they exist. Also, how can all life forms have evolved from prokaryotic single cells? The law of biogenis states that all life comes from other life, and evolutionists also say that the first prokaryotic cells evolved from simple chemicals. Evolution contradicts itself!
Another example that makes evolution hard to believe is just by looking at a cell with a single flagella. The flagella is basically a propeller that moves the cell through liquid. It can turn hunreds of thousands of times each second, then turn in the reverse direction in milliseconds. Some evolutionists say that with random design, simple cells could have evolved into these complex flagellate protists.
Look at a middle school science textbook! There is so much that evolution has no proof for. 'In the Precambian Time, blah blah blah, Eventually these molecules may have joined to form structures such as cells.' Notice the MAY. These textbooks contain many 'may have this, may have that.' I just can't believe in evolution.
And I just can't believe in intelligent design. So textbooks say "may." So what? The Bible is a book of faith...thousands of things from that book have never been proven.
I am a Christian as well....but I believe strongly that the story of creation were like many of the other stories in the Bible...metaphors and fables. Stories that teach lessons rather than actual facts. It is all very faith-based...so your argument doesn't hold much water.
ayanepuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2005, 02:32 PM   #31
alainbryden
Seen your member
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
alainbryden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: noitacoL
Age: 33
Posts: 2,873
Send a message via AIM to alainbryden Send a message via MSN to alainbryden Send a message via Yahoo to alainbryden
Default

And may just highlights the fact that it is a theory and not a fact. No one is trying to pull the wool over your eyes. It is merely the most reasonable explanation that exists. No one ever pretended that it is fact, because unlike religion, they science is not trying to brainwash you into believing their every word. They only pose the most moddern ideas. Just because science says "may" to be honest about their uncertainty, and religion says "it is so", it does not make their naive certainty truth. Religion does, afterall, target individuals like you, who are not looking for the most factual idea, just the person who best sells it to you.
__________________
~NEIGH
alainbryden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2005, 02:47 PM   #32
QreepyBORIS
FFR Player
 
QreepyBORIS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: It is a mystery.
Age: 30
Posts: 7,454
Send a message via AIM to QreepyBORIS Send a message via MSN to QreepyBORIS
Default

Studies have shown that religious Christian zealots and sheep evolved from the same one-celled organism.

Evolution, because it makes alot of things make sense.
__________________

Signature subject to change.

THE ZERRRRRG.
QreepyBORIS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2005, 11:23 AM   #33
DonCasablanca
FFR Player
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Exeter, NH
Posts: 21
Default

Read Genome, by Matt Ridley, or any genetics textbook, and understand the incredibly straightforward mechanism by which evolution happens. I would have hoped that most of the folks here would insist on taking this beyond this ridiculous, 4th grade textbook understanding of evolution.

For God's sake (sorry), it seems like some of us distrust the very idea of science: but how on earth should we define "facts" other than theories with excellent evidence? Look at the fossil record, look at genetics, and see that the theory of evolution is undeniable fact.

OBVIOUSLY: as humanity pursues science, as we "clear the forests of ignorance" around us, we only discover how infinitely vast those forests are.

OF COURSE: we don't have all the answers, as Aquinas put simply in his five proofs -- if all things have a cause, there must be an original cause. At that point -- the first cause -- as an Episcopalian, I look to God.

Can we religious folk please try to understand God as something meaningful?! As a human idea, as an expression of what makes life worth living -- of love, beauty, and yes, even reason, even science? Please, believe at least in the idea of science. Also, recognize that if a whole lot of very bright, well-informed people take evolution as fact, you probably don't know enough about it to deride it as ridiculous (PICK UP A TEXTBOOK -- THIS "IT'S TOO UNLIKELY" ARGUMENT IS WAY BESIDE THE POINT).

Please, just get on living your life in God's love. Appreciate the gift of reason, and then, please exercise it.
__________________
DonCasablanca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2005, 12:23 PM   #34
Eridor
FFR Player
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 13
Default

Quote:
Also, recognize that if a whole lot of very bright, well-informed people take evolution as fact, you probably don't know enough about it to deride it as ridiculous
I think that may be a bit too harsh. I, personally, have spent a lot of time researching the evidence and principles for both sides. If you read some of my other posts, you'll note that (except for the last one or two where I was replying to topics based on the Bible) I have stuck to pure scientific reason. Thus far, I have "dug up" some very compelling evidence for intelligent design (see other posts). Not only that, but there is an equal amount of very bright, well-informed people that support intelligent design, Johnathon Sarfati for instance. (If you're not sure who he is, look him up. He is a very interesting character.)

What I have not done is say that I just refuse to believe in evolution because it goes against all of my other beliefs. Instead, I have given evidence that contrasts with evolution.

Quote:
No one ever pretended that it is fact, because unlike religion, they science is not trying to brainwash you into believing their every word.
If this is true, then why do so many people have a problem with intelligent design being taught in the classroom setting? Like you said, evolution is only a theory, not undeniable fact, so it shouldn't be taught as the only alternative in today's society.

Quote:
Also, I need not remind you that this is not yet another discussion about whether the bible is to be interpreted literally or even trusted as much as a science fiction novel.
Thank you. This is exactly what I was saying when I started this topic.
__________________
-Eridor
Eridor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2005, 01:34 PM   #35
DonCasablanca
FFR Player
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Exeter, NH
Posts: 21
Default

Quote:
I, personally, have spent a lot of time researching the evidence and principles for both sides. If you read some of my other posts, you'll note that (except for the last one or two where I was replying to topics based on the Bible) I have stuck to pure scientific reason. Thus far, I have "dug up" some very compelling evidence for intelligent design (see other posts).
Eridor, in your particular case:

Sorry, this thread is the victim of its first reply (from Chromer), which set a tone (adopted by both sides of the argument) that I projected (perhaps unfairly) onto your posts (one more parenthetical for good measure). But still, while you may have "stuck to pure scientific reason", you haven't applied that reason to nearly enough evidence -- what's more, you're applied it to evidence that is factually incorrect.

Quote:
In regard to this: The Darwin's finches theory has been discarded as an example of evolution because the Galapagos finches are not a different species from the mainland finches. The Galapagos finches apparently were forced to adapt to their environment when the only food to be found was nuts. This caused them to have larger beaks so that they could crack the nuts open, while the mainland finches, whose diet consisted of insects and berries, didn't have a need for that particular feature.
Ummmm ... I don't know how to say this ...

You're right, Darwin's Galapagos finches were not a different species from the mainland finches.

They were 13 different species of finch, descended from their mainland ancestor: Geospiza magnitrostis, G. fortis, G. fuliginosa, G. difficilis ... the list continues. And I have no idea how your brief description of forces of selection (above) lends to your argument.

As for your other vague "very compelling argument" about microevolution being unable to explain macroevolution, you (as I said in my last) need to read a genetics textbook. There is a huge variety of mutational forces at work on our DNA, and exponentially more in less and less complex creatures. These are not just replication errors, not just "old DNA being shuffled around". Go to the NCBI website and search for "mechanisms of mutation" under "books" (they have free textbooks online) and find out how frequently. For starters, mammalian cells have to try to repair several varieties of spontaneous mutations (let alone those caused by transposons, or UV light, or carcinogens) in about 10,000 bases of their DNA in a 20-hour cell-generation period at 37 degrees celsius. Remember that 3 bases codes for a single amino acid.

Read more about this, get your facts straight, and make some more compelling arguments. Sorry to be inflamatory, but I'm up to my elbows in a genetics course right now, and this is very much on my mind.
__________________
DonCasablanca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2005, 05:24 PM   #36
Chromer
Hookers and Blow
FFR Veteran
 
Chromer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: You heard the robot. No fun.
Age: 31
Posts: 4,981
Send a message via AIM to Chromer Send a message via Yahoo to Chromer
Default

I never "victimized" anything. I stated my opinions and thus stand by them. Simple as that.
__________________
Chromer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2005, 10:42 PM   #37
ayanepuck
FFR Player
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Waco, Texas
Posts: 110
Send a message via AIM to ayanepuck
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chromer
I never "victimized" anything. I stated my opinions and thus stand by them. Simple as that.
And I respect you for that...but we are doing the same. That is why I think this thread is pointless...how many people are going to change their minds?
ayanepuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-1-2005, 01:48 PM   #38
DonCasablanca
FFR Player
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Exeter, NH
Posts: 21
Default

Chromer, ayanepuck,

Why on earth would you bother with this if you are only willing to "stand by your opinions"? For the useful contributors here, this is a discussion, where ideas are presented and defended. If you have no explanation as to why you stand by your opinions/beliefs, or are just unwilling to defend them, this forum isn't for you. I hope.

People may well change their minds if an argument is reasonably refuted. For instance, for those of you who don't believe in the capacity for genetic material to mutate enough to explain natural selection, I've suggested strong evidence to the contrary. Again, that is the idea of discussion.
__________________
DonCasablanca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-2-2005, 09:29 AM   #39
Eridor
FFR Player
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 13
Default

Quote:
I'm up to my elbows in a genetics course right now, and this is very much on my mind.
You see, I am also "up to my elbows" in a genetics course right now, so I already know what you are talking about. By "shuffling around" what I mean is that mutations are caused by an amino acid in the polypeptide chain being damaged by an external source which causes it to either be removed from the code or replaced by another amino acid. The DNA then replicates and (if the mutation is not corrected) creates more mutated DNA. This would be considered "shuffling" since there isn't any new information being produced. The old information has just been changed slightly.

My point with the finches was that (and I probably should have used genus instead of species) they are still birds. If they had evolved separately, they should be completely different from each other, and yet they have only external differences. Their DNA is the same (by this I mean the same way all human DNA is the same with slight variation).

Quote:
There is a huge variety of mutational forces at work on our DNA, and exponentially more in less and less complex creatures.
This is hugely contradictory. Evolution states that at some point, bacteria were dominant and that they evolved into more and more "complex" creatures. However, being bigger and having more organs does not make something more complex. Recent research shows that bacteria are some of the most complex organisms on the planet! This is especially evident with flagella. I think this point was made earlier on, but the way a bacterium's flagellum is designed lets it stop, start, or make a ninety degree turn on a dime. Not only is it more efficient than many of the motors that we have designed, it is also a fraction of the size of the smallest motor that we have designed. Scientists are presently studying the internal workings of the flagella and have found that:

"Like an electrical motor, the flagellum contains a rod (drive shaft), a hook (universal joint), L and P rings (bushings/bearings), S and M rings (rotor), and a C ring and stud (stator). The flagellar filament (propeller) is attached to the flagellar motor via the hook. To function completely, the flagellum requires over 40 different proteins. The electrical power for driving the motor is supplied by the voltage difference developed across the cell (plasma) membrane."

All of this is made out of protein. I don't see what is simple about that.
__________________
-Eridor
Eridor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-3-2005, 01:23 PM   #40
DonCasablanca
FFR Player
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Exeter, NH
Posts: 21
Default

Eridor,

What sort of genetics course are you taking? I think you're trying to get by with a vague understanding from an intro Bio course. Mutations caused by ... damage to proteins themselves? I hope that was just unelegantly phrased. I'm sorry, but I don't have anything like the patience required to explain this to you. Please, please, go to www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov (if you were taking a genetics course, you would already be very familiar with GENBANK) and read at least the first chapter of Modern Genetic Analysis.

At least concede your several other logical slips: the genetic code is like any other language (although with only four letters, which form only 20 three-letter words, plus some punctuation). You have to understand that if letters spontaneously change, and quite often, some vqry dityeremt wpdrs are formed. If you did this to the Bible (and again, believe me, there are a lot more interesting mechanisms of drastic mutation than the point mutations you may or may not understand), you could eventually get Tolstoy. That is, in fact, new information by any definition.

As for your rebuttal on the finches, you defeat your own argument. You specifically refer to how little DNA has to mutate to differentiate human beings (and birds) from one another -- perhaps you don't understand taxonomy; these different species of finch can't produce fertile offspring when cross-bred. They are about as different from one another as human beings are different from chimpanzees -- we "have only external differences" as you say. But I think you'll agree that they're significant differences, unless you intend to do some terrible things with chimps (which, I'll warn you, are felonies I think).

As for your last point ... wow. Definitely aren't learning much in your genetics course -- you know that bacterial genomes only have about 100,000 base-pairs of DNA, while human beings' have 100 million? That sounds a lot less complex to me. Speaking of flagella, ever seen pictures of sperm? Our genomes make those just fine. For God's sake, our genomes assemble trillions of cells into undeniably the most complex creatures on earth, while most bacterial genomes, even with their flagella, assemble a single cell with a 30-minute life-cycle.

There are just too many ways to express how ridiculous your last "point" is. I give up.

You've made your arguments a lot less compelling, I'm afraid.
__________________
DonCasablanca is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution