I'll agree... That was good one.

I'll answer later... probably tomorrow... I'd answer now but I have another Chapter to go through I gotta pick her up at 4... And I'm gonna be writing like a page on this.

Wait.. Just come to the meet and we'll piss everyone off by talking about this the entire time.

 

I'm up for trolling people IRL.

 

LLama, your quick to jump and judge. I answered those questions with what I believe, if you believe otherwise I'm happy for you having your own belief/opinion .

Since people said no religion, let that be the case hehe

I knew it!!!

 

Ummm... Where are you going with this? "You called me an idiot for saying I prove evolution wrong when I struggle with elementary homophones." Yeah, try that argument... we'll see how far it goes.


You believe that you disprove evolution? Really? You seriously believe that? Lol.

Oh, okay, this is where I play by the rules, right?

 

Llama,
I agree with a lot of what you've said, and i want to fill in some gaps as well.

I agree that the 7-day creation story isn't literal, and who knows what a "day" has been considered to be. I don't want to get too deep into it, because studying these things is all I do outside of my normal life haha, i'm a bio major for God's sake!

I've heard strong arguments for both, and being in higher level bio courses, studying all sorts of incredibly complex protein pathways, protein synthesis, the human genome, and all involved with RNA/DNA transcription/translation, I can tell you right now that much of these extremely intricate processes did not just "come about" on their own.

Many scientists would agree that evolution itself is so complex, the odds of it occurring in its fullest measure are close to the odds of a beautiful, and perfect sand castle constructing itself after years and years of waves crashing on the shore. I won't argue that a mound of sand would not appear, or mountains not be constructed due to such things, but I will say that something so complex and so naturally beautiful will not simply appear like so - even given an infinite time line. The second law of thermodynamics/entropy deal along the lines of disorder in the universe, if everything is left to its own devices these laws state that all matter falls into 'chaos' so to speak... How then do you explain these amazingly beautiful and complex structures taking place if we know for a fact that all matter takes on the most simple form if left alone. That argument can be argued in many ways back and forth, but it's pretty simple.

Over the years as i've taken more and more science courses, even in organic chemistry, and am continually blown away at the complexity of our universe, down the the very atoms/electrons/protons/nuclei, etc., that make up all matter. This all occurred by no random chance, there is thought and indescribable intelligence behind all this - and it will give us headaches to try and figure it all our, we were designed not to know everything... if we did, then what would be interesting about life itself?

These are just a few comments not going into much depth....

I must ask though, a simple question. For anyone. If the big bang or anything similar occurred, where did the matter from that come from in order for it to happen? I'm curious.

 

Big bang:
This theory says there was enormous dust clouds, right?

The Bible:
Says that everything was "null and void" without form.


Same shit. Science doesn't contradict the bible, it only contradicts incredibly stupid interpretations of the bible.

 

From what I have read, the "tail" in human embryo's is actually simply the vertebrae that has, for purposes an embryologist probably fully understands, grown at a faster rate because it is a key location of the embryo for the production or support of blood vessels, the nervous system, and muscle attachment. I'm surprised you didn't mention that humans have "gills" during this stage too! Somethings appearance doesn't account for much of anything, especially with something as complex as embryonic development.

Similar thinking with the hind-limbs on whales. None of the cases that I have read about have been anything close to functioning hind limbs, only what appears to be stubs/knubs, where these hind limbs would be. And considering all lifeforms are compiled using the same DNA, similarities between species is to be expected and deformations are as simple as an "on" where something should have been an "off", I guess you could say.

Even more, this does not even come close to proving macroevolution. That's like playing connect the dots, you go from 1 to 2, and decide to skip the next 73 godzillion to come to a conclusion. Also, one of the key elements in macroevolution is related to species isolation. Hard to isolate something in the ocean! Even further, since there is no isolation in the example of whales, where are the hundreds of thousands to possibly millions of interconnected species that led to what the whale is today? Do you think it is likely that every single one of these step species has become extinct? HIGHLY unlikely.

For the record, I'm not totally convinced either way, and only look for the truth. Either way it does not matter because whether or not macroevolution is fact, it doesn't collide with the Bible.

 

Lol, you have a bad experience at a Catholic church?

I agree, time is irrelevant.

Good read:

http://www.biblecenter.de/bibel/studien/e-std307.php

 

I completely agree.

Now lets take things further, theorists of the big bang say enormous dust clouds existed prior to the planets taking shape and ultimately leading to the big bang... And if they didn't believe that, it doesn't matter, it holds no weight against my argument. Here's what i'm saying, to add onto what you've said... Where did the enormous dust clouds come from? Who created the matter that comprised those dust class, or whatever else they said it was that 'existed' prior to the initial beginnings of evolution.

In an interview with world renowned evolutionist, anti-creationist Richard Dawkins, the Creationist (Ben Stein) asked him several simple questions.

Mainly pertaining to my above point. He finally got Richard Dawkins to claim that all the matter involved in creating the universe or involved with the big bang actually came from aliens. He noted that this is who created the matter... Very viable/reasonable I must say..right?......

My point is, evolutionist/big bang theorists can never give a straight answer to WHO, not what, created matter itself. As humans we have developed laws stating matter can neither be created nor destroyed... and that may be 100% true in our universe... But that doesn't negate the fact that the matter, itself, had to come from someone/something. That's where the evolutionists' theory falls apart, if they want to deny the existence of God then they deny the existence of themselves and the entire universe. All matter came from something, and they have no leg to stand on as to what that 'something' is. Do you see what i'm saying? If you keep going further and further back, you end up with something..... The easiest explanation for it is that there is a God/intelligent design involved in the creation of all things, even the universe as a whole. It takes more faith to believe that life just 'happened randomly, or by chance out of simple matter' than it does to believe that there is a God out there that orchestrated everything.

I'm not saying he didn't allow certain aspects of evolution to take place, we all know, even those who believe in God, that microevolution/adaptation occurs. Plain and simple. Even some forms of macroevolution may be true.... That's something we may never know/understand, we weren't designed to do so. But to take credit away from the God of the universe, and say it was all random, would be a shame, and quite arrogant for those who do so.

On a simple, small scale, if you labored over creating the most beautiful thing you know, whether it be art, the best car, the greatest house, etc... And then had people some along and say "wow, this is awesome, it must of taken 1 million years for this house, car, painting, etc., to create itself from it's surroundings" - wouldn't that upset you just a bit? It is important to give credit where credit is due, and for those who believe in God, they will tell you all the credit in the world is owed to God, the creator of all.

It really puzzles me why some scientists are so bent on trying to 'figure it out' - and by 'it' I mean the origins of life, why things function the way they do, and how they came about. There is a bit of arrogance involved in all that, they feel they want to know exactly why; they want to be the person to of 'figured it all out,' the person who ought to be given credit for cracking the code... When in reality, the root issue is that many of them refuse to believe in such a God, because if they do, and if they feel God exists, then suddenly they are accountable to him. People don't want that accountability, people desire to be left to their own devices, but at some point you must realize that's not how life works. Some things aren't meant to be understood, and that's where a strong faith comes into play, especially as a scientist who believes in God. One such person will always be called out by the evolutionists as "ignorant" "prideful" "close minded" etc.... But in reality, their belief in intelligent design via a God holds so much more weight than the belief of the scientists who feel all happened by chance.

As technology becomes more readily available to us, at an extremely scary rate, I must add, scientists are learning more and more about our universe, and finding that even the smallest things have a great deal of detail... It is interesting, because many of Darwin's theories have been disproved now that we have the technology to study the theories he and other scientists of his time had developed. Many theories, such as the formation of sediment and rock layers over millions of years, are now being explained and exposed... Technology has shown us how sediment flows in water and settles at a rate much faster than Darwin and his colleagues ever knew or understood, it was simply easier for them to write it off as build-up over millions of years... However, that is not the case. So the specimens he studied for years that to him were apparently millions of years old, actually turn out to be only a few thousand years old.

Now this is just the tip of the iceberg, i'm just throwing minute examples out there just to show you some examples. This is by no means a "The Bible disproves everything in evolution" argument. As Llama said, science does not disprove anything Biblical, but rather much of science agrees or coincides with the contents of the Bible. It's really not that thick of a subject, its simple and straight forward.

I love talking about issues like these, they get me fired up in a good way, I am fascinated to hear the comments of others, this is by no means a "your beliefs suck, these beliefs are better" argument. Everyone brings to the table what they know and what they learn and believe... Then together we can sift through what seems viable and what may not seem viable.


I think you guys will enjoy watching this movie clip from Ben Stein concerning his new movie "Expelled" - it goes along with my above statements concerning anti-creationists vs. creationists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cv8Vt9n0do8

"If man is just a speck of dust, struck by lightening, and then turned into a human being, then he has no moral responsibility. If we are all children of God then we have some moral responsibility [...] and that scares [the scientists] to death."


Full video of the interview, more detailed/in depth - very, very interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc&NR=1

I love this quote speaking about what he would say to God if he existed and spoke with him after death, he would ask: "Sir [God], why did you take such pains to hide yourself?"

The amazing thing about that quote is how fascinating man is, and his attempt to shed all responsibility onto God, and not onto self. That statement right there places all the fault on God, and removes all fault from Man, saying he hid himself and did not allow man to see him exposed. It is a truly disparaging attempt to say "God, its your fault for not showing me you existed, therefore don't condemn me, I didn't know all because you hid yourself." When in reality, it is entirely Man's fault if he, not fails but refuses, to see a God behind everything in our universe.

That moves on to the next argument - One can see God and intelligent design in everything. What about beauty? What spawned aesthetic appeal in man, the love for beauty, and perfection... The feeling one gets as they watch the unique sunset, or the crashing waves of the ocean, there is beauty in all things, and that alone tells us in the simplest way there is a God behind it all. Men like Richard Dawkins are held to the highest accountability, for they see all things, even in the most microscopic levels - they have been exposed to the intricate details set in place by God... It's like the creator has given them a special look into all he has done, even into the smallest of things. You know what I mean? Those who know and understand more are held to a higher accountability - but that is the point at which those intelligent men begin to become arrogant and prideful, for they refuse to admit any responsibility or to give any credit to the true creator because if they do, then they are suddenly accountable for all they do and the way they live.

 

I aint readin all that *****.

I have ADD.