why wonder? look it up on wikipedia

julz

Also, for the record, I, like many creationists, do not believe that the earth was created in a few thousand years. Yes some do, but some do not. If the fact that some creationists believe that the earth was created in a few thousand and that turns out to be wrong means that everyone who believes in creation is wrong. Then that must apply to evolutionists also because not all evolutionists believe the same thing. In fact, many evolutionists believe that a creator started it all and evolution took over, and some of them making that statement are infinitely smarter and well known than I am.

Welcome back too

I really wish the guy would finish his manual and provide a few more useful scripting examples. Impossible to use it at the moment ...



Why should that be impossible? It is possible. It has been proven by experiments afaik.



No. I don't see design. Some things are too obviously grown together. Some things are so complex, no designer would make it this complicated. Some things so obviously unnecessary and just to explain by evolution, like the appendix. No i don't see a designer at work from my angle of view.

What i see is that most of the things the bible tells us about how the earth has been made has been disproven by facts. What i see is that most of those facts points in the evolution direction instead. When there is no evolution then there is no change. But there is obviously change.

Micro and macro evolution. Hmm, for me one undividable thing. Micro evolution can be shown and proven by facts. So this one cannot be discussed away. What's unfortunately impossible to show is the macro evolution at work. This would need several thousands years. And we obviously are not able to observe such a timespan by ourselves. Facts that proves macro evolution are fossils therefore. Which are simply ignored by creationists because they don't fit to their theory. Or shown at similar species at isolated parts like islands. After a specific point they reach the point of sexual barrer, and cannot longer have childs with each other. And that's what divides species. Also simply ignored.

I don't even say the evolution theory is in all its aspects true as it is now. There are gaps. There are parts that needs closer explanation. But creationism is obviously much wronger than the evolution theory. Lots of facts points into the direction of evolution, not a single one in direction of creationism.
It may even happen that somebody completely disproves the evolution theory in the future. But it is at the moment the theory that makes most sense when we take all facts into account.

The main thing that bothers me in connection with creationism is that disproving parts of the evolution theory should automatically disprove the whole theory and automatically lead to prove the creationism theory as true. When an object is not green then it is not automatically red. When a leaf falls down the tree it doesn't mean the tree doesn't exist anymore.

But that is what creationism stands for. They don't understand (or even really disprove an aspect, hey, they can of course be right with it) a single aspect of the theory, so it is wrong, so whole evolution is wrong, so the creationism is right. Which leads to Bible is right, science wrong in general. There is just god, and the earth just a few thousand years old. Those guys even fake facts. Like quoting Darwin in a way that says exactly the opposite of what Darwin says in the whole statement. This is so obviously a step towards back to medieval, so obviously a last try to get the authority about the view of the world back. You must be blind not to see it.

I don't want to take away your faith. Keep it.

But faith should stay faith, and science should stay science. Disprove and prove a theory by facts. Not by faith

But that is what I thought I did. I didn't think I used faith anywhere in what I said. All available scientific knowledge/evidence/experiments that I have seen on the subject shows that it is impossible for proteins to exist for extended periods of time outside of a living cell. They are quickly broken down into simpler compounds. Is that not what decay is?

Is that not a fact? anyone?
What have you seen that shows that it is possible?





hmm, interesting that you do not see design in nature. Most documentaries dealing with nature from respected evolutionists seem to mention the word often enough.


Oh and fossils are another interrest of mine as is science (and history) in general. Has been since i was 13
So to say I ignore the fossil record is simply untrue. Yes I know, I have too many interrests.
A true jack of all trades and a master of none.
The point is however, that I am not the uneducated buffoon that evolutionists like to pass creationists off as.
And neither are a lot of other creationists that I have seen and/or heard, both famous and infamous.
Not talking about religionists here, that's another subject altogether.

In fact, I am going to go out on a limb here and say that in my (limited) experience
you are more likely to find a critical thinker in a creationist that an evolutionist.

Evolutionists tend to dogmatically adhere to what they learn't at school
and consider anyone who dosn't agree as a fool who listens to priests.
Because a scientist says its true then it must be true.

To be fair, I have also heard what I consider to be absolute garbage from creationists also.
But hey, I could be wrong in both counts. All I can do is weigh up what I see and go with my instincts.

That's quite a stretch. I think we also disagree on how it does matter. After all plenty of things are supposedly interpreted literally. Don't forget that Tiles already said that the Bible teaches nothing. With all due respect, basically that's quite right as it's totally dependent on ones interpretation of the vagueness.



Such expressions are obviously remnant of ancient times and can have many meanings, in case of sailors and navigators they simply meant 'out of reach', in early times not knowing that the earth didn't quite has ends the way they thought.

Back in the day it wasn't that strange to think of earth as something with ends at all. In their view the earth does have ends, either because landmasses stop where the seas start, but also because they weren't fully aware about the entire earth so 'ends of the earth' would also mean 'out of reach' or 'never been there' more or less.



I agree that there's an inconsistency, but that's part of the whole point. It shows that it doesn't teach a spherical earth. It shows that it's inconsistent and it shows that they thought the earth was flat in my opinion.

I already explained that at best the description sounds like a flat circular earth with half a sphere on top as sky. I never said it makes perfect sense regardless of the inconsistencies in the bible.

Cheers

Ah, okay, so how does fossils fit into the theory that the earth is just a few thousand years old? Ah, wait, you said you don't believe in that part of creationism. Okay, then, how comes that you can see evolution happen at fossils?



Huh? Who digs for facts? And who relies at a book?



I think the same from creationists. For creationists just the bible exists. Who cares about facts. Bible states it, then it must be true



Totally agree, from my angle of view of course. In my case my insticts tell me that there is something wrong with the bible way

yes, but Tiles first said that the Catholic church had to admit the church was round and therefore "the bible is wrong". it can't be "wrong" if it's too vague to figure out exactly what it means.

if the bible described a "sea of people" would we have to take it as an ocean composed of people, or a large crowd? you can't expect anyone to take it that literally.

this vagueness you associate with the entire bible shows exactly how little you've read of it.

that's what i'm saying. it's just an expression. do you think anyone who read those passages soon after it was written thought that it meant "the earth has four corners"? of course not.
how many times do i have to say it doesn't teach a spherical earth? it doesn't teach that the earth has any shape. the inconsistency shows they didn't presume to know the shape of the earth, and instead were using imagery. if this discussion was with native-english speakers it would've been over long ago.

"the corners of the earth" is as ancient an expression as "the ends of the earth", and describes vastness, not geography.

"the circle of the earth" allows readers (especially readers who have no idea what shape the earth is) to imagine how God has dominion over it in its entirety and created the heavens to surround it and cover it. it's a huge stretch to imagine someone reading either of those passages and saying "this is a teaching about the earth's shape".

in a time when the idea of a spherical earth is simply ridiculous (no concept of gravity), would it have been helpful to describe the earth as a sphere in any of those images?

ultimately, whether you agree with those arguments or not, you cannot say the bible teaches a flat earth and does not teach anything.

julz

It is you who keeps bringing faith and the bible into the discussion you and I are having. Search my posts, I have not tried to use either as evidence.

I have presented to you a fact, proteins cannot exist outside of a living cell.
I ask you for facts that show otherwise.
You come back at me and say you search for facts and I believe a book.
Gross misrepresentation just like the theory you hold to


It dosn't and I never said it did, again gross misrepresentation of my words.

The fossil record teaches me that life forms suddenly appear and the ones that go extinct suddenly dissappear.
The fossil record teaches me that every life form that has survived until our day has done so virtually unchanged.

I just want to get back to what I have been trying to say.
And whichever side of the fence you sit on this is true.

There is, as yet not, one fact that proves one viewpoint over the other. All evidence presented in an attempt to proove one side or the other is nothing more than circumsantial evidence. All evidence presented in an attempt to disproove the other is nothing more than circumstantial evidence.

I see design in nature and I see life starting without assistance as impossible.
This is all circumstantial evidence....yes.
I have reached my conclusion without reference to any religious book and or person.

I have based that on what I can see/read/research/investigate/contemplate for myself.
I have not seen anything in science (so far) that is reserchable/investigatable that shows absolutely that my conclusion from the above is wrong.
Nothing more than circumstantial evidence that is open to interpretation either way and highly suspect due to scientist being paid to get results.
And far too many lucky accidents for chance to be the cause.

Tiles, you can disagree with my conclusion but don't accuse me of believing it because the bible tells me so. I think I have proven that is not true.
Shoot me down based on what I have said not on some perception you have of people who believe in creation

I just jumped in because somebody else started to mention god as a fact

And not every answer from me was meant in your direction.

It is not my goal to shoot anybody down by the way. We lead a discussion here. Not a war.

And of course do i accept when somebody has another opinion than i have.


Ah, sorry, have overlooked to answer that question. My fault.

I thought this proteine thingie is proven by the experiment of Stanley Miller? Isn't a proteine made of amino acids?


Earth did have millions of years to go through all possible combinations. Which must have leaded to the first cell. Else we wouldn't be here. But okay, that's just my interpretation



Hmm, i see a snapshot with every fossil. Not every chain is filled with examples. There are still lots of missing links. But there are enough examples where the chain is full enough to give a first rough picture.

Putting them in order shows me a sauropode without feathers, a sauropode with feathers, a first bird with still teeth, a bird. You can follow how it changes from one to another.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fossil_birds#Basal_Aves_.28extinct.29

And what's even nicer, you can follow this evolution that is represented by fossils even in how a bird embryo grows. They show rudimentary teeth at one point for example before it turns into a beak

Putting them in order i see something like a seacow, i see something like a whale with degenerated feet, see the backfeet become smaller and smaller and the frontfeet become fins, and i see a whale where the degenerated backfeet are nearly gone. I see a land animal become a ocean animal here. You can follow how it changes from one to another.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_Cetaceans

Putting them together i see a horse evolute, i see how feet becomes hoofs. They change sizewise and shapewise from a foot with pad and claw down to current hoofs. With all their steps between. It's not that there were just feet, and from one moment to another hoofs. I see evolution in all their steps happen.

Putting them in order i see the different subspecies of homo. I see the brain grow, i see how the frontpart becomes bigger and bigger over the time with every evolutionary step.

I see change where you see not connected jumps. I see evolution

A donkey and a horse can have childs. But this childs are infertile. This is one live example of evolution where the species are still close enough to have childs, but not longer close enough to mix again. Evolution that happens now.