Religious Sanctuary Thread

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by _Darth_Brooks_, May 14, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Vagrant Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Apr 21, 2002
    star 3
    I have my very own Bible here and I'd like to know where I can read these fulfilled profecies? Anything? Thanks.
  2. DarthPhelps Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 31, 2002
    star 5
    Chris2, I hope you meant to type "eschew".
    ;)
  3. Wylding Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 13, 2000
    star 5
    Wicca doesn't preach the worship of demons...

    Well of course it doesn't silly!
  4. _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2000
    star 4
    So little time, so many responses.

    Qui-Rune,

    I'm really trying to keep this thread away from an evolutionary debate. Doesn't seem to be working.

    40 dolphin fossils showing the complete development from 250,000 years ago?

    Are you sure that's what you saw?
    I don't think so. And while I can respect you're time in the museum, I also have a close relative who's a biologist, with whom I've spent considerable time discussing this subject.


    I don't know about the dolphins, but I do know there is no alleged unbroken chain of transitional fossils housed anywhere.

    I believe that's what you thought you saw, but where I'd place my money is on fibre-glass constructions artificed to resemble someone's personal conception of what might have been the evolution. Right here, I can think of a dozen skeptically valid questions to posit, but instead I'd rather have you read something else. That way, I'll tie this into your statements about men.



    Is there really evidence that man descended from apes?
    Many people honestly believe that the ancestry of mankind has been mapped faithfully and nearly completely. They have heard about "missing links," and regard them as scientific proof for man's evolution from primates. However, in truth, no ancestor for man has ever been documented. The "missing links" are still missing. Here is a summary of facts relating to some of the most well known fossil discoveries.


    Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neandertal man) - 150 years ago Neandertal reconstructions were stooped and very much like an 'ape-man'. It is now admitted that the supposedly stooped posture was due to disease and that Neandertal is just a variation of the human kind.

    Ramapithecus - once widely regarded as the ancestor of humans, it has now been realized that it is merely an extinct type of orangutan (an ape).

    Eoanthropus (Piltdown man) - a hoax based on a human skull cap and an orangutan's jaw. It was widely publicized as the missing link for 40 years.

    Hesperopithecus (Nebraska man) - based on a single tooth of a type of pig now only living in Paraguay.

    Pithecanthropus (Java man) - now renamed to Homo erectus. See below.

    Australopithecus africanus - this was at one time promoted as the missing link. It is no longer considered to be on the line from apes to humans. It is very ape-like.

    Sinanthropus (Peking man) was once presented as an ape-man but has now been reclassified as Homo erectus (see below).

    Currently fashionable ape-men
    These are the ones that adorn the evolutionary trees of today that supposedly led to Homo sapiens from a chimpanzee-like creature.

    Australopithecus - there are various species of these that have been at times proclaimed as human ancestors. One remains: Australopithecus afarensis, popularly known as the fossil 'Lucy'. However, detailed studies of the inner ear, skulls and bones have suggested that 'Lucy' and her like are not on the way to becoming human. For example, they may have walked more upright than most apes, but not in the human manner. Australopithecus afarensis is very similar to the pygmy chimpanzee.

    Homo habilis - there is a growing consensus amongst most paleoanthropologists that this category actually includes bits and pieces of various other types - such as Australopithecus and Homo erectus. It is therefore an 'invalid taxon'. That is, it never existed as such.

    Homo erectus - many remains of this type have been found around the world. They are smaller than the average human today, with an appropriately smaller head (and brain size). However, the brain size is within the range of people today and studies of the middle ear have shown that Homo erectus was just like us. Remains have been found in the same strata and in close proximity to ordinary Homo sapiens, suggesting that they lived together.

    There is no fossil proof that man is the product of evolution. Could it be that the missing links are still missing because they simply do not exist.
    "Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath
  5. Chris2 Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Oct 11, 1998
    star 4
    There are no transitional fossils.

    What of other transitional beings, like Ostelopis(Fish/amphibian) Archaeopteryx(Dino/Bird), Eryops(Amphibian/Lizard), Dimetrodon(Lizard/Mammal) and others?


    Did God create us and evolve everything else?

    There also seems to be some traces of evolution in Dinosaurs. The Psiccatosaurus, for instance, possibly evolved into the Ceratopsians and the Pachycelphalosaurs.
    Also, the plant-eating sauropods appear to have emerged from the prosauropods, which apparentally had a theropod ancestor.
    The Stegosaurs and duck-billed dinosaurs seem to have evolved from Hyspilodontits.

    Then again, people design cars that look similar...

  6. JediofJade Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 25, 1999
    star 5
    I believe in God, and I always will. Science has agreed with the Bible before, but now, the field of evolution and its surrounding studies has been speculating so much that whatever information it has built up to support the evolutionary theses or ideas, is just unstable territory. Even though science in and of itself calls for observation and speculation, it almost seems like some scientists are grasping at straws in an attempt to justify what they believe to be fact.

    I can't prove there is a God. Hence, faith. To say that the universe has a designer is logical, but where did God come from? He has no beginning, no end. I've thought about this for a long, long time. if the theory of spontaneous generation has been disproved, how can one say that God created something out of nothing? I can't say.

    So my belief is, that is something beyond human comprehension.

    Seriously, there is so much that we don't know, can't handle, can't even imagine with the limited use of our brains.

    I have faith that there is a God. My personal beliefs *about* that god are mine, and no theory can disprove what I believe. Faith can not be disproved by science.


    Man, I feel really insignificant whenever I talk about god.





  7. Darth_SnowDog Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 10, 2001
    star 4
    Darth_Brooks: Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neandertal man) - 150 years ago Neandertal reconstructions were stooped and very much like an 'ape-man'. It is now admitted that the supposedly stooped posture was due to disease and that Neandertal is just a variation of the human kind.

    Some links I think you should read... seriously, Darth_Brooks, before you stick your foot any further down your throat just like the illustrious Dr. Duane Gish, pre-eminent spokesperson for Creation "theory".

    These first five links and image address the issue of Neanderthal... who was a hominid but not the ancestor of man. No self-respecting scientist today would claim that he was.

    Molecular Analysis of Neanderthal DNA

    Humans Not Descended From Neanderthals

    Comparison of All Skulls

    Fossil Hominids: The Evidence for Human Evolution

    [image=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids_horiz.jpg]

    Info on Homo Erectus


    Excerpt quoting Dr. William Goodwin, University of Glasgow:

    ?Neanderthal DNA is distinct from modern humans,? Goodwin says, ?and there are no examples of humans having Neanderthal-type DNA.?

    Macroevolution

    Transitional Fossils

    Mitochondrial DNA - demonstrating the evolution of Hominid lineage

    NASA Finds Clues that Life Began in Deep Space

    NASA Scientists Create Amino Acids in Deep Space-like Environment

    Are you going to tell me that NASA scientists, astrobiologists, geologists, microbiologists, molecular biologists, quantum physicists, geneticists, phlebotomists, botanists, zoologists, astrophysicists, meteorologists, seismologists, and all the other scientists of virtually every scientific discipline which has gathered evidence which all points in the same direction... towards the greatest likelihood, evolution theory... are all wrong?

    Do you know something all these people don't? Or are you just pulling ideas out of your butt?

    It's better to keep one's mouth shut and appear as a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.

    - Mark Twain

    If you don't know, ask... If you don't ask, don't presume. Either crap or get off the pot. Give me evidence that disputes the latest research on macroevolution (see links above). Not one person, not even the "esteemed" Dr. Gish himself, has been able to refute the HOX gene and Mitochondrial DNA analyses... What amazing knowledge do you possess that makes you think you can accomplish that which the top Creation theorists haven't been able to?

  8. _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2000
    star 4
    Snow-Dog,

    I'm presenting facts, amigo. Not my own words.

    And for each of the disciplines you mentioned the are as many counterparts in the same disciplines disputing those assumptions.

    And, the fact remains, that despite the reevaluation of the data on Neanderthal man, the creature was originally, and for many years, pronounced by scientists to be an early ancestor of humanity.

    You don't seem to realize, half the time you've actually been strengthening my arguments for me. Hitler and his 1,000 year reich for example. Neanderthal as another example of science having to retract initial assessments.


    ONE QUOTE OUT OF ONE OF THE ARTICLES YOU PROVIDED:


    "Therefore, it is extremely difficult to infer the phylogenetic tree of human populations from mtDNA variation. For this reason, a number of authors have emphasised the importance of studying many nuclear genes to resolve this controversy."


    PARAPHRASE:
    Do you know something all these people don't? Or are you just pulling ideas out of your butt?

    It's better to keep one's mouth shut and appear as a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.

    - Mark Twain

    If you don't know, ask... If you don't ask, don't presume. Either crap or get off the pot. What amazing knowledge do you possess that makes you think you can accomplish that which the top Evolutionist theorists haven't been able to?


    Now, I suggest you tone down your rhetoric, and afford me that same politeness I've thus far extended towards you.

    While you've railed on Christianity, using absurdities such as Hitler, Koresh, and Torquemada, I've refrained from pointing out the atrocities committed by Hindu's, and particularly what's been emblazoned in Newspaper headlines recently.

    I don't know, nor do I care to know, where your antagonism stems from, but you need to put it in check.







  9. _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2000
    star 4
    Chris2,
    JediofJade really summed it up. There's quite a lot of imaginative speculation out there, across the lines, on both the parts of the religious and secular regarding the geological history of the Earth.

    Both sides are endeavoring to answer age old questions. It's a necessary question, as fundamental to us as knowing our mother and father. We only enjoy a mystery if there is umlimately and answer to be given.


    Science is frought with constant amendments, and has been for as long as it has existed. At one point "bleeding" was scientific, now we've advanced to chemotherapy, a 'cure' almost as terrible as the disease. Every month there's some sort of recall on prescription and over the counter pharmaceuticals, after clinical trials, research, and approvals by the AMA, people are found to be adversely affected, often to the point of death.

    What am I saying? Well, after all, so much is only guess work buttressed with latin terminology. It, science, doesn't have all the answers, and unless a 'way-back machine' is invented, transporting our modern historians and scientists back into the dim past, we'll only have speculative theories to attempt to provided answers for some questions.

    It's a worthwhile endeavor, make no mistake from my words.


    Don't misconstrue my words; I am not against science, no, I'm one of sciences truest advocates, if it is good science. I measure that by the criterion outlined in the scientific method.

    I also heed some of the best advice given me, being.'listen carefully for catch words, such as speculated, conjectured, theorized', et el. That informs me that we've deviated from the path of fact and entered the realm of personal opinion and imagination.

    Objectivity is hard to find often, with so much preconceived academic indoctrinational baggage following many into their profession from earliest elementary. Many are only looking for what they want and expect to discover, for what they've already been instructed is to be out there, and such a bias obfuscates the clear truths to be found afield.

    A pendulum has swung, in some ways the fault of religion. We can certainly point out an illustration using Galileo, and the Roman Catholic Church's narrow-minded view of passages within Scripture, and the misinterpretation. Let us also note that Galileo was a devout man, and one who recognized that Scripture didn't contridict his findings, but rather men in charge of Scripture, just as men throughout the centuries have used the name of Christ to commit atrocities the Bible strictly prohibits.

    It is not the fault, or found within the the pages, of Sripture, that men have misread or misused the content.

    The problem has been compounded in the dilution of truth and history by so many other "religions" now known to be mythology.
    And, the distinctions of Christianity from those myths are lost to the secular. To them the Greco-Roman pantheon of deities and myth is equivalent to Christianity. Because of the failings of many other ancient myths is the get-go assumption that Christianity will be revealed as just one more disappointment by time. Which in many ways has seemed justifiable in the light of many of the heretical perversions men have produced using brand-name Christianity.


    THE DINOSAUR/BIRD

    A few comments;

    The national media have had a tendency to exaggerate the importance of previous fossil finds. For example, it has now been conclusively shown by leading scientists that a previous "proof" of a dinosaur/bird link -- the so called "feathered dinosaur" in China -- was of a reptile that did not have feathers at all! Furthermore, Archaeopteryx, once paraded as a half-reptile/half-bird, has now been rejected as "transitional" by many evolutionists -- modern birds have been found in the fossil record below Archaeopteryx, so it could not have possibly been the ancestor of today's birds.


    (Let us remember as the "discovery" in China was widely proclaimed, prestigious and respected National Geographic magazine immediately published the "findings" in length, withou
  10. Saint_of_Killers Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 5
    "And, the fact remains, that despite the reevaluation of the data on Neanderthal man, the creature was originally, and for many years, pronounced by scientists to be an early ancestor of humanity."

    And the Christian Church thought hte Earth was flat, what's your point?
  11. _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2000
    star 4
    Saint-of-Killers,

    Give me one quote from the Bible saying the Earth was flat.

    It ain't in there, and neither is that what I wrote.

    My point was simply that the facts of the matters are often misidentified and misconstrued by personal misinterpretation due to preconceived personal bias.


    So, what's your point?
  12. _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2000
    star 4
    SnowDog,

    I've finished reading most of the linked articles you presented above.

    They don't seem to say what you think they do.

    Did you actually read them before posting?
  13. Saint_of_Killers Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 5
    My point is that no one is right 100% of the time.
  14. _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2000
    star 4
    That's precisely what I stated, attempting to give example,yet you seemed to have found fault with.

    I believe I evenhandedly included "religious and secular" in that post, and am Myself the one who put the flat earth debacle on the table.

  15. cydonia Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 6, 2001
    star 5
    My point is that no one is right 100% of the time.

    Speak for yourself, bub.
  16. _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2000
    star 4
    Snow Dog,

    I want to get back to your news article on Macroevolution in the words of Jonathon Wells, Ph.D(religious studies, Yale), Ph.D ( developmental biology, University of California at Berkeley), a very qualified and pedigreed scientist, who is a Creationist, and wrote an article addressing the specific content touched upon in the article you provided.


    Before returning to this later,
    a few comments on that article;


    Their saying that the genetic code is there, that it can be manipulated, but the actuator, the catalyst remains unassigned.
    This is nothing new.

    It's old news that birth defects can be caused by outside stimuli, that genetic interference results in mutatated creatures.

    There is nothing here that proves anything.
    The process is not disputed, but the mechanism's actuating/enabling intelligence is what is in question. What is the controller?

    What is the 'intelligence', the catalyst that enacts the mutation process described? What pushes the button?


    What is the activator; we should observe a process of constant mutation in a strictly naturalistic process. But we don't.

    Because someone is born with congentitol birth defects we don't deem that evolution.

    In this we are beginning to tread a thin line.

    What was described wasn't a new discovery authentically. We've known for quite sometime the contents in dna and about genetic manipulation.
    Which is the process described.





    Irnoically, I suppose, was the mention of the moths I'd already commented upon.

    It is not a process of evolution when a species variant is eaten to near extinction. Both gray moths and white moths were simoultaneously existant. There was no new organism that developed. And, in fact, under protected laboratory conditions, the white moth resurfaced and thrived, and it's genetics were not abandoned by nature in solely in favor of the gray moths.



    Mutations are tricky things, and generally a mutation in one generation doesn't appear in the next. For example, an average sized person may have a child that is a dwarf, but the liklihood is the progeny of the individual affected by dwarfism will be of average height. The affects of radiation upon the victims of the Hiroshima atomic blast are now, generations later, completely muted(not mutated). There is no significant evolutionary change in the Japanese people, and if anything were sufficient catalyst for activating such a process as macroevolution, those blasts should have been it.

    For an organism to evolve it needs a triggering stimuli, but the fact is such stimuli have destroyed the organism before it could hope to evolve. A fly doesn't recognize a swatter as dangerous until too late, so to speak.

    That being the case, then we have involountary random changes, changes just as likely to bring about an organisms extinction as equip it to be better suited to its environment. And, such randomness would seldom be beneficial in a purely random naturalistic universe; meaning that the mathematical probability is that there should be far less diversity of life on planet Earth, if any at all, or in the universe. Evolution would therefore be a blind, mindless process. So what are the odds of being blindfolded, with your back to a dart board and manageing millions of direct bullseyes back to back? But even that's not accurate, because you have intelligence and were acting out of purpose, a naturalistic universe hs neither intelligence nor motivation.

    One question, is according to evolution life emerged, a common amoebic ancestor, from the primordial ooze, so that leaves us with one life form that should have developed unmolested by other life, and thus no real need for diversity or an evolutionary process. No need to adapt; but then we're also talking about abiogenesis, and the whole reasoning becomes circular.



    But, as I've misinterpreted your stance previously, your being Hindu, allow me to ask, are we discussing evolution from a godless universe, or from a universe model predicated upon a Creator?

    Because then we are traveling a
  17. Qui-Rune Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    May 18, 2002
    star 4
    Darth Brooks,

    Im curious...how old is the Earth?

    Another question....

    What do feel is precise about the structure of the universe?



  18. JediofJade Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 25, 1999
    star 5
    lol, cydonia.
    No one is right!

    You can't trust anybody! :eek:
  19. Darth_SnowDog Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 10, 2001
    star 4
    Mutations are tricky things, and generally a mutation in one generation doesn't appear in the next. For example, an average sized person may have a child that is a dwarf, but the liklihood is the progeny of the individual affected by dwarfism will be of average height.

    Now I know I'm wasting my time for several reasons:

    1. As I predicted, you didn't even once attempt to address the Hox gene issue. Of course no Creationist addresses it... because a) they cannot refute it's evidence of macroevolution. b) they don't understand it. How can you debate against something you don't even understand properly? Don't tell me I don't understand it... because I too have read every one of those articles... and no scientist disagrees with my interpretation of their implications.

    2. Apparently, you've never heard of male pattern baldness (or any other trait for that matter). It's incredibly hard to say this without at some point observing the complete idiocy of your argument, but I'll try...

    3. You keep talking as if throngs of scientists dispute evolution theory... PPOR. Crap or get off the pot, for once.

    4. Might I remind you that Creation theory isn't accepted at all by the scientific community, and, much more importantly, isn't even accepted by the whole of the religious or even Christian community. There are plenty of Christians who don't agree with your literal interpretation of Genesis. Of course they must be idiots, but not you. After all, you know more about religion and science than the rest of the world, don't you?

    If you have some mind-boggling proof that I misunderstood each of those articles, and that the scientific community at large is entirely and completely wrong in their conclusions founded upon over 100 years of scrutiny, testing, research, refinement, analysis and repeated observation, be my guest and present the expert testimony here... I'm waiting.

    How many times have experiments in Creation theory produced consistent results?

    Not once. Why? Because Creationists generally don't conduct their own research. They read a few snippets of someone else's work, in which case they are no more scientific in their analytical methodology than those of us bantering here on the JC, and then they cut and paste together different factoids from unrelated studies, without having done one shred of testing on their own, and call it proof.

    Darth_Brooks, referring to the above paragraph of yours: As any scientist knows... just because a genotypic mutation doesn't manifest itself in every successive generation's phenotype, does not mean at all that the mutated gene isn't there in the offspring.

    Male pattern baldness is a perfect example... Women are carriers of this recessive-trait mutation, but rarely do women ever actually develop baldness themselves.

    What is the 'intelligence', the catalyst that enacts the mutation process described? What pushes the button?

    Who said there has to be "intelligence... pushing the button?" You need to read Douglas Futuyma's book, Evolutionary Biology. I'm tempted to FedEx you a copy... just so you can demonstrate at least a basic understanding of the principles of evolution... both micro- and macroevolution.

    "Therefore, it is extremely difficult to infer the phylogenetic tree of human populations from mtDNA variation. For this reason, a number of authors have emphasised the importance of studying many nuclear genes to resolve this controversy."

    What does this prove to say that it's "extremely difficult"? That all of evolutionary science is wrong? Does the shroud of Turin being a fake prove that Jesus never existed? Unlike Creationists, evolutionists don't sit around and pray for conclusive evidence to fall from the sky. They continue to scrutinize their findings when they are not satisfied, and feel that more evidence needs to be gathered.

    This is science... Nothing in science is taken for granted or accepted as fact. Nothing in science is presented before the scientific community, at lea
  20. Mister_Bunny Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Apr 5, 2001
    star 3
    White moth, grey moth... _D_B overlooks that one color is a mutation of the other.

    Didn't have to occur the same millenia that the birds started hunting moths. So a "trigger" argument doesn't do much.


  21. Qui-Rune Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    May 18, 2002
    star 4
    This debate of Evolution versus creationism will continue as long as there is someone who wants to believe in one or the other. It is obvious that physical evidence does not matter to some.

    Evidence will always be interpreted the way that the individual wants to comprehend it.

    The Church has always been blind to many discoveries of science. Look at Galileo for instance. Galileo thought that the sun was the center of the known universe, not Earth and not only was Earth revolving around the sun but so were other planets. Galileo also discovered Jupiter and several of it's moons.
    However, because this contradicted the holy scriptures, the church had imprisoned Galileo. Silly man....he should have known that Earth is center of all things and it was "created" just for us!

    Today, of course the church has no choice but to recognize the solar system's structure as fact. So it conveniently has altered it's interpretations over time to fit modern discoveries and understanding.

    This will continue to happen until eventually, it's foundation will have no basis for modern understanding. I'm sure however that their will be some who will be kicking and screaming, trying to hold on just as a child trying to hold on to a security blanket or taking the training wheels off of a bicycle for the first time.

  22. JediofJade Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 25, 1999
    star 5
    wait...are you saying the bible says that the earth is the center of the universe?

    And, please, everyone, do not talk of the Church of England as if it is the Christian church or the representation of all religions. I know some may not have meant it to sound that way, but still, everyone here seems to be rather avid about jumping all over misconstrued details.


    And also, keep the flaming to a minimum. You may have said you're going to keep this as a cold flame war, but obviously some of the posters here aren't mature enough to do that.

    Grow up, people- stop insulting others for their ignorance or viewpoint. This should be a *debate*, not some "You're wrong, I'm right" fest.

    Thank you! :)
  23. _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2000
    star 4
    Qui-Rune,

    I don't know how old the Universe is. No one does.

    Let me offer a few borrowed facts;

    Missing Origin: The big bang theory assumes an original concentration of energy. Where did this energy come from? Astronomers sometimes speak of an origin from a "quantum mechanical fluctuation within a vacuum." However, in the big bang theory, no vacuum existed before the explosion. Actually there is no consistent secular origin theory, since every idea is based on preexisting matter or energy.
    Missing Fuse: What ignited the big bang? The mass concentration proposed in this theory would remain forever bound as a universal black hole. Gravity would prevent it from ever expanding outward.

    Missing Star Formation: No natural way has been found to explain the formation of planets, stars, and galaxies. An explosion should produce, at best, an outward spray of gas and radiation. This gas should continue expanding, not form intricate planets, stars, and entire galaxies.

    Missing Antimatter: Some versions of the big bang theory require the equal production of matter and antimatter. However, only small traces of antimatter-positrons and antiprotons, for example-are found in space.

    Missing Time: Some experiments indicate that the universe may be young, on the order of 10,000 years old. If true, then there is not sufficient time for the consequences of the big bang theory to unfold. A short time span will not allow for the gradual evolution of the stars or life on Earth.

    Missing Mass: Many scientists assume that the universe will eventually stop expanding and begin to collapse inward. Then it will again explode and repeat its oscillating type of perpetual motion. This idea is an effort to avoid an origin and destiny for the universe. For oscillation to occur, however, the universe must have a certain density or distribution of mass. So far, measurements of the mass density are 100 times smaller than expected. In fact there are indications that the universe is accelerating outward instead of slowing down. The universe does not appear to be oscillating. The necessary mass or "dark matter" is "missing."

    Missing Life: In an evolving universe, life should have developed everywhere. Space should be filled with radio signals from intelligent life forms. Where is everybody?

    Missing Neutrinos: These small particles should flood the earth from the sun's fusion process. The small number detected raises questions about the sun's energy source and man's overall understanding of the universe. How then can science speak about "origins" with any authority?




    What do I feel is precise about the universe? Everything.
    We need go no further than right here on planet Earth; The eco-system is incredibly fragile and precise. If the planet were closer to the sun life wouldn't exist, if further life couldn't exist. There's a precise orbit around the sun, and a perfect rotation, oxygen content, ad inifinitum. It is easier to ask, what do you think is not precise and orderly in the universe?


    It's not a denial of physical evidence. It's not that physical evidence doesn't matter. It's the interpretation of that evidence, which is something I've attempted to explain.


    There is a distinction between a mutation, genetic triats, and macroevolution.

    No one disputes that. Not evolutionist or creationist. These are basic foundational understandings.

    It is not a mutation for a labrador retreiver to be black, chocolate, or yellow, which are all normal colorations of the species. These are natural variants in the standard genetic traits.

    If one of these dogs was born with a tail attached to it's skull, that would be a mutation.

    Is that mutatation macroevolution? Certainly not, and one reason is that the organism, a dog, hasn't dompletely changed into another organism, an animal not a dog.


    Now this is basic, and if some of you people don't understand where I'm coming from, then I suggest you retake Bio 101.


    I believe in genetic processes, in the same way that I believe all English words are made
  24. Wylding Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 13, 2000
    star 5
    Perhaps this should be re-named the religious contention thread, due to all of the arguing :)
  25. cydonia Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 6, 2001
    star 5
    I know, i didn't know this was a debate but apparently it is?
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.