Libs & Xmas
- Started
- Last post
- 157 Responses
- gruntt0
mimio - that has already been discussed in this thread. I don't blame you for not reading through all the bullshit either.
=)
- Mimio0
As far as the creationsim vs evolution thing, let me recommend that all you bible believing literalists look into the human genome project... an incredible amount of support for evolution is being reported all the time.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/t…
The study of evolution has givin more insight and produced more advances in the lst 100 years than creationsim has since it's invention.
- discipler0
Ok, as expected, the facts I raised were not really dealt with... because there is no answer from the Naturalist camp. And, as expected, ridicule and intolerance have arrived. So, rather than continue an attempt at a rational debate that would generate more heat and very little light... here are some excellent reads for the intellectually honest here who are actually interested in this subject:
http://search.barnesandnoble.com…
- ********0
what facts? you gave no facts. all u said was i chose to believe these scientific theories cause they agree with my religion, and disagree with these because they upset me.
well, to sum up anyway.
WHAT FACTS????
- xaoscontrol0
let it go people....
MERRY CHRISTMAS...and I'll say it again....
cept to the sour-grapes...
MERRY GRINCHMAS to you :P
- discipler0
Mimio, what are some of these advances?
I'm only aware of the devaluing of the human species that evolution has produced.
It's interesting that the very article you just linked focuses on the complexity of DNA. Yet another scientific discovery which flies in the face of the random nature of the evolution belief.
- Mimio0
discipler, can anyone who is head of the "Christian Research Institute" (also a lawyer, not a scientist) really present anything objective outside of the Christian theology?
- Blofeldt0
How is questioning your beliefs insulting anyway?
My arguement is not so much that you are WRONG. I don't know if you're wrong or i'm right. My arguement is that you are prepared to believe in scientific process and method to explore say medicine or electricity, but, you ignore the same process in relation to evolution. Why is one ok and the other not. If you believe the results of one, why not the other?
- ********0
discipler - what FACTS??
"I'm only aware of the devaluing of the human species that evolution has produced."
now you're making a moral judgement. i thought we were talkgin about science and research and eveidence etc..
- discipler0
Kuz, here's just a couple (and please, don't take my word for it... research it yourself):
1. Fact: The II Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy) states that matter moves from order to disorder - things break down and deteriorate. Fact: Evolution states the opposite: things are generally improving and becoming more refined. Conclusion: Evolution undermines proven scientific laws.
2. Fact: there has never ever been a transitional form from one species to the next and then ultimately to humans. Only biologically completed forms. If reptiles became birds - provide the transitional form in between. If primordial soup became amphibians - produce the transitional form. If reptiles or apes became humans - provide the transition between.
There are many other issues, hence the books I linked to above. Happy studying.
- Mimio0
Discipler, your last statement illustrates your miscomprehension of the evolutionary process. Read "The Blind Watchermaker" it addresses your exact misconceptions very well.
- Blofeldt0
Oh yes, and evelution is anything but random. As observed by Darwin. It is to do with mutation, and adaptation. He noticed that you get different plants on the shady and sunny sides of a hill (in the Galapogas i believe). Even famous early geologist such as William Buckland came across awkward problems regarding the great flood and dinosaurs which he never resolved, and if fact tried to devalue anyone wo said otherwise.
- Mimio0
Also, discipler, if you knew you're sciences...you'd know that an observable biological process and a physics principle can't be compared in such a rudamentary way.
- ********0
there is no discussion here. everyday is "a day for giving". Christmas is uncut, undiluted, wicked, white consumerism. Evolution is being threatened by folks who say they are following Christ when, in fact, they are following the Satan of their own 'closets'.
joy to Kashmir
- discipler0
Blofeldt, the point I was making is that the true scientific process and the belief of evolution are mutually exclusive in a very real sense. i.e. macro-evolution is bad science. I'm simply saying that I believe that Creationism as presented in the Biblical account is more scientifically plausible. As are more and more scientists today.
- gruntt0
God made me an atheist. Who are you to question his wisdom?
- discipler0
Blofeldt, let me clarify again that I'm specifically speaking of macro evolution from species to species, not environmental adaptations, etc... The latter is perfectly consistent with a Creationist world view.
- unfittoprint0
"As are more and more scientists today".
"scientists" != scientists
- Blofeldt0
I think you are suffering from the misconception that eveloution leaves behind it's 'in between' states. In fact the inbetween states are still here, it is widley considered that birds are decended from dinsaurs, that far from leaving single cell orgaisums behind, they are still here. In fact the thing about scienece, is it's completely prepared to admit that we don't know very much, where religion propurts to know all.
- ********0
discipler - species die out. That is also a process of evolution. There are fossil records that show transitional species. Amphibians that were sea dwelling creatures that evolved to live on land.
ABOUT 2ND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS:
Sounds like you believe in this law, but then Creationism goes against this law as you seem to interpret it. Why? Because during the period of Creation, God was introducing order and organization into the universe in a very high degree, even to life itself. Therefore Creationism also kinda breaks the law. Oh wait, God is outside all laws!
ahem...
It is only the over-all entropy of a complete, or closed system that must increase when spontaneous change occurs. In the case of spontaneously interacting sub-systems of a closed system, some may gain entropy, while others may lose entropy. Your beliefs are based on a complete mis-reading of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.