|
|
|
|
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Date: 8/1/2001 7:47:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 Or possibly the dolphin. Hugo |
Date: 8/1/2001 7:49:00 PM
From Authorid: 16612
That is so neat. I love thinking about those kinds of things.  |
Date: 8/1/2001 7:54:00 PM
From Authorid: 31145
hmm.. interesting theory, but i'm sticking with the idea the god created everything. =)  |
Date: 8/1/2001 7:54:00 PM
From Authorid: 40194
thanks for that. I didn't understand a word of it.  |
Date: 8/1/2001 10:11:00 PM
From Authorid: 37872
Hmmmm. Well Hugo, your right kinda. I think that that's how women were made, something as complex as a woman had to take eons to make...as for men, well being one for 29 years, I've come to believe that either a)we were a one shot deal, or b) put any two monkeys together and here we are. Well anyways,I going to get a banana now. Ra  |
|
Date: 8/2/2001 1:27:00 AM
From Authorid: 41296
WHAT IS YOUR DEFINITION OF COMPLEX MOLECULES? One of the laws of physics says, you don't get order out of chaos. No particles can or have ever been able to change into anything, even the. simplest amoeba. Also, contrary to popular belief, man has not been on the earth but a relatively short period of time. Read nuclear scientist, Robert Faid's books. |
Date: 8/2/2001 7:01:00 AM
From Authorid: 34476
More to think about: Nothing creates nothing and Only life creates life. Two of the many 'laws' of nature   |
| Date: 8/2/2001 7:47:00 AM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 What makes the creation of man orderly? Mankind creates more chaos than the rest of God's? creatures put together. The first life form had to originate somehow, it is my prediction life will be created in a lab within 50 years. Hugo |
|
Date: 8/2/2001 8:46:00 AM
From Authorid: 34476
LOL Hugo. I will disagree with you Nothing but life can produce life, therefore one cannot produce life from something non-living. It is one of the laws of nature which is recognized by the scientific community. |
| Date: 8/2/2001 8:55:00 AM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 It is not recognized by the scientific community, the prevailing position of the scientific community is evolution. This requires a non-living form to evolve into a living form as the original life form. To your position, is God life?If he is , how was he produced. If God is not life how did he produce life. The Bible itself contradicts your statement when it describes the creation of man. Neither evolutionists or creationists agree with you. Hugo |
Date: 8/2/2001 8:58:00 AM
From Authorid: 35042
MAYPOP (#41296) you are right. What you refer to it Entropy. A simple way of explaining it is this - imagine your kitchen, there are a few ways in which it can be tidy, right? You know, with all th bits in the correct draws etc etc, and yet as time progresses, things get out of place etc, and it becomes a mess. Well next time this happens, console yourself that this is normal! Whilst there are only a few ways to be tidy (order), there are an infinate number of ways it can be messy (disorder). When you talk about molecules etc, I think you are approaching it from the wrong end. The more complex the molecules the more disorder there can be. Also, using energy often reverses the natural Entropy - for example putting in a few hours to tidy the house. Evolution and God are not incompatible. Why could God not have created the Universe and said "Go!". Imagine it as a giant Petri dish, and the whole shebang is an experiment with God looking on... TSK  |
|
Date: 8/2/2001 8:59:00 AM
From Authorid: 35042
HUGO I can see what Paranoid is saying, but "all" that is needed to created life is matter and energy - it won't take long to produce single celled life... TSK |
| Date: 8/2/2001 9:03:00 AM From Authorid: 29773 I prefer not to think about how we were created. I mean, there's a lot of theories. I don't even know why people care.. It's way in the past, and it's just as bad as the theory of the destruction of man. Truth is, no one will really know. |
|
Date: 8/2/2001 9:09:00 AM
From Authorid: 34476
I'll make this a little simpler: A rock will not produce life. It won't even produce another rock. It cannot increase its mass, it cannot DECREASE its mass. There has to be a CAUSE for any effect which happens to it. A rock cannot 'spontaneously' combine with any other inanimate object to create a living one. An inanimate object, by itself, will NEVER create another animate(living) object. It also cannot 'create' or be changed into something with more mass than it originally started with. It is impossible. This scientific fact has been proven repeatedly, and is NOT in question On a side-note, the law of entropy is also fun (All things go from order to chaos, all energy goes from a usable form to an unusable one) Things which make you think, which ARE scientific. |
|
Date: 8/2/2001 9:20:00 AM
From Authorid: 34476
Thanks, TSK, but I believe since God said He made everything, that is exactly what He did. No evolution, no making the parts which eventually came to be everything else. Peace |
| Date: 8/2/2001 9:20:00 AM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 "The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that in the Universe AS A WHOLE, disorder increases as time goes on (OF COURSE, LOCALLY WORLDS AND LIFE AND INTELLIGENCE CAN EMERGE AT THE COST OF A DECREASE IN ORDER ELSEWHERE IN THE UNIVERSE)." Sagan. Hugo |
|
Date: 8/2/2001 9:26:00 AM
From Authorid: 34476
That sounds well and good, but please show me how something which happens in ONE corner of the universe(life, intelligence) can be an adequate cause to affect something in another corner of the universe(you pick the negative effect). A frog jumping in a river will NOT make the river muddy. I also do not see a logical answer yet as to how life began in the first place. |
| Date: 8/2/2001 9:29:00 AM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 Your a rock can not create a rock is the proverbial strawman. The fact is chemicals do combine and form compounds, molecules have shown the ability to replicate themselves and form other molecules. the Second Law of Thermodynamics states the universe is becoming more chaotic AS A WHOLE, this does not preclude locally chaos going to order. Just try cleaning your room sometime. Hugo P.S. When the universe stops expanding and begins to contract this law may no longer apply. Hugo |
|
Date: 8/2/2001 9:50:00 AM
From Authorid: 35042
*nice seeing intelligent people willing to use their minds here* You're both right, although Paranoid's, as I'm sure he knows, argument slips a bit when the idea of local chaos going to order (as I said in my reply to Maypop). The truth is, this is just a debate, and we will never know. But I regard evolution as fact. People disagree. But then people run accross the road without looking, and people think monsters live in the closet. Go figure. TSK |
|
Date: 8/2/2001 9:51:00 AM
From Authorid: 34476
?????? Strawman?? Law may no longer apply??? Interesting idea, that a law may no longer apply in a FUTURE time frame, yet also unproveable and therefore only conjecture. An outside force may CAUSE my rock to 'mix' with another different rock, having the effect of 'mixing' their elements to form a NEW rock, but THEIR mass will neither increase nor decrease if they completely mix together. Their 'pieces', assuming they break apart, will ALSO add up to the same amount of mass if one could find all of them. A new inanimate rock with different characteristics may be created, or smaller inanimate rocks or forms may be created, NO LIFE will ever be created. No life HAS ever been created. No life will ever BE created in this manner. |
|
Date: 8/2/2001 9:53:00 AM
From Authorid: 34476
LOL TSK! If we all agreed, there wouldn't be anything to debate about. *smiles* |
|
Date: 8/2/2001 9:54:00 AM
From Authorid: 34476
Also, we are not addressing what the cause is, in this scenario. We are assuming there will BE a cause. Another unproveable assumption. |
| Date: 8/2/2001 9:54:00 AM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 Mass does not have to be created for an organism to get larger. I consume food, my gut gets larger. There is no net increase in mass. Hugo |
|
Date: 8/2/2001 9:59:00 AM
From Authorid: 34476
??? You consume (add mass) food, your gut becomes larger. (partly from the added mass of food, partly from chemical processes in your body) Until you 'expel' some of the mass from the food, your body mass AND the mass of the food will be the same. |
|
Date: 8/2/2001 10:02:00 AM
From Authorid: 34476
I should have said "your body mass combined with the mass of the food" ^^^^, it makes more sense. |
| Date: 8/2/2001 10:23:00 AM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 No one is arguing that mass is created, only that it changes form. Happens all the time. Hugo |
|
Date: 8/2/2001 10:27:00 AM
From Authorid: 34476
Okay. |
|
Date: 8/2/2001 10:53:00 AM
From Authorid: 34476
so...... where would these self-generating molecules come from? |
| Date: 8/2/2001 12:50:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 Slightly different molecules changed by an energy source. Hugo |
|
Date: 8/2/2001 3:47:00 PM
From Authorid: 41296
The theory of evolution is falling apart because of the total lack of evidence to support its hypotheses. There is something very strange about the continuing acceptance of this theory. But the answer is clear. If evolution is rejected, then people have no choice but to believe in God. The Bible doesn't say He was created. It does say he is the beginning and the end. The has always been. |
| Date: 8/2/2001 4:00:00 PM From Authorid: 41296 The odds against life ocurring by chance are absolutely staggering. Scientists found that over twenty different amino acids are required to produce the proteins that exist in the smallest living cell. Despite scientific experiments where they tried to create these twenty amino acids in the lab, they failed every time. The proteins that make up living cells are composed of long thin lines of amino acids. The smallest living thing contains more than 500 amino acids. All amino acids have side groups of atoms. Scientists found that 50% of the side groups of atoms are on the lift sid and another 50% are on the right side. When biologists examined proteins within living cells they discovered that all proteins are "left-handed". In other words, all living cells contain amino acids with their side group of atoms on the left side only. Amino acids produced in a lab are exactly like those found in non-living matter with 50% on left and 50% on right. Yet, living cells can only exist when the atoms are ONLY left-handed. The odds against life occurring by chance on just this aspect are one chance in 10 (to the 123rd) power. This is just for one single living protein, this doesn't even account for the staggering number of awesomely complex proteins that make up the creatures in our world. |
| Date: 8/2/2001 4:02:00 PM From Authorid: 41296 The odds against life ocurring by chance are absolutely staggering. Scientists found that over twenty different amino acids are required to produce the proteins that exist in the smallest living cell. Despite scientific experiments where they tried to create these twenty amino acids in the lab, they failed every time. The proteins that make up living cells are composed of long thin lines of amino acids. The smallest living thing contains more than 500 amino acids. All amino acids have side groups of atoms. Scientists found that 50% of the side groups of atoms are on the left side and another 50% are on the right side. When biologists examined proteins within living cells they discovered that ALL proteins are "left-handed". In other words, all living cells contain amino acids with their side group of atoms on the LEFT SIDE ONLY. Amino acids produced in a lab are exactly like those found in non-living matter with 50% on left and 50% on right. Yet, living cells can only exist when the atoms are ONLY left-handed. The odds against life occurring by chance on just this aspect are one chance in 10 (to the 123rd) power. This is just for one single living protein, this doesn't even account for the staggering number of awesomely complex proteins that make up the creatures in our world. |
| Date: 8/2/2001 4:04:00 PM From Authorid: 41296 Sorry about the replication of that comment. Delete the first one if you don't mind. |
| Date: 8/2/2001 4:09:00 PM From Authorid: 41296 The formation of life requires far more complex structures than simple amino acids and proteins. Mathematicians have calculated that the odds against a single DNA gene forming by chance is equal to one chance in ten followed by one hundred and fifty-five zeros, a number that staggers the mind. Any person who can believe that life on earth evolved by random chance without the presence of a creator must do so on absolute blind faith. |
|
Date: 8/2/2001 4:46:00 PM
From Authorid: 41296
Hugo, your comment about life not being orderly just shows your lack of knowledge about the mind-boggling complexity of the human body. Scientists don't even begin to understand the complexities of the human eye, let alone the millions of other processes going on in our body right now. It is not only impossible for this to have happened by chance without a creator, it is really quite dumb to think so. |
| Date: 8/2/2001 4:46:00 PM From Authorid: 41296 Hugo, your comment about life not being orderly just shows your lack of knowledge about the mind-boggling complexity of the muman body. Scientists don't even begin to understand how the human eye works, let alone the millions of other processes going on in our body right now. It is not only impossible for this to happen by chance without a creator, it is really quite dumb to think so. |
| Date: 8/2/2001 4:47:00 PM From Authorid: 41296 The formation of life requires far more complex structures than simple amino acids and proteins. Mathematicians have calculated that the odds against a single DNA gene forming by chance is equal to one chance in ten followed by one hundred and fifty-five zeros, a number that staggers the mind. Any person who can believe that life on earth evolved by random chance without the presence of a creator must do so on absolute blind faith. |
| Date: 8/2/2001 4:49:00 PM From Authorid: 41296 I don't understand why my comments are being doubled. Sorry. |
|
Date: 8/2/2001 6:10:00 PM
From Authorid: 35042
lol @ Maypop's doubles! hehe Maypop, you talk about left and right sides. It's a very complex thing to explain without pictures, but it's something called Chirality (handedness). The whole Thalidomide thing was all to do with this. One form of the drug was "left handed" and the other "right", one was very dangerous and caused problems, the other was a perfect treatment... We can create all on or all the other in the lab - it's just harder and takes more thinking about! Your 10 to the 123rd comment I presume is something to do with the Drake Equation (see my post http://www.unsolvedmysteries.com/usm117309.html). Why can't we be That planet? Thanks for the replies. TSK |
| Date: 8/2/2001 6:59:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 Given eons of time and the vastness of the oceans the improbable becomes highly probable.The struggle for survival and natural selection explains man to those even sharper than I am. We see viruses evolve every day. Is God constantly creating viruses to torment us?It is yourself who does not understand orderly. A single cell organism is quite in order as things get more complex they get more chaotic. Even if evolution was rejected there are thousands of alternative beliefs to your God. You are blinded by your own mythology. Try to figure out what your appendix is doing. Hugo |
| Date: 8/2/2001 8:58:00 PM From Authorid: 41296 Well, there you go again talking about "eons" of time. I'm sorry, but we haven't been on the earth that long. There is scientific proof of that. And what do you mean there are other alternatives? Either we were created or not. And as for the struggle for survival, we're not even talking about that. You have to create a single cell, WHICH CANNOT BE DONE, before you can even start thinking about struggle for survival. Hugo, no offense, but you just don't know what your talking about. |
| Date: 8/2/2001 9:03:00 PM From Authorid: 41296 And... viruses have already been created. Their "evolving" has nothing to do with how they got here in the first place. And no, we can't even create a virus. Not one single thing necessary for even the simplest life are we able to create in a lab. |
|
Date: 8/3/2001 5:07:00 AM
From Authorid: 34476
Evolution, in a nutshell, is BASED on 'spontaneous' generation of a living organism. Pasteur proved this to be impossible a LONG time ago, yet scientists want us to believe it IS possible. As I stated at the beginning, any non-living thing (whether it is a rock or a molecule) will NEVER produce a living organism. Read the law of Bio-genesis Now I will read the rest of the comments which appeared after I left yesterday. |
|
Date: 8/3/2001 5:11:00 AM
From Authorid: 34476
HEY! My response actually makes sense Freaky! |
|
Date: 8/3/2001 6:18:00 AM
From Authorid: 24924
When I first read all the replies in this post, and even without looking at profiles, I could tell that Maypop's ramblings were coming from a die-hard, born-again Christian. I nearly fell off the chair laughing when she said "The theory of evolution is falling apart.."! Oh yeah? I don't know where she's...ah, wait, yes I do. From my many years of PRIOR experience and PREVIOUS belief in the christian dogma/teachings, and the Babble book, I know exactly where he/she is coming from. There is no way that anything regarding evolution, no matter HOW it is presented, or by WHOM, is ever going to be accepted. It is only creation for these folks, and creation, the god concept, IS the ONLY answer. What gets me all riled up, and want to thump them on the noodle sometimes, is: their audacity, gall, arrogance and nerve! to say things like what Maypop said to Hugo, like: "If evolution is rejected, people have no choice but to accept God" (WHAT A CROCK!), "something very strange about people still accepting evolution".."STRANGE"!!????? (THIS coming from some one who believes a very weird, strange, mythical creationist theory!????) oh boy! Ok, then by the lOOOOONG , rambling bibble babble about "random chance"!, followed by several "Hugo, that just shows your lack of knowledge....Hugo, you don't know what you're talking about.." LMAO!! Maypop, I'd knock it off if I were you. YOU lose when you say all this, and particularly , especially when you say the earth has only been here a short time!! What planet are you from!!?? WHO made YOU the expert, the scientist, the TOP DOG in this matter!??? Phew! You heard it from some fruitcake preacher in the pulpit, or read it in some "scientist" sayings that was taken out of context and placed in some christian literature, etc. etc. etc., and YOU (like all the other contradictory mumbo jumbo of christian traditional brainwashing) believe it as truth! The EARTH has been around for at least 500,000 Years (according to the science, history,archaeology books I've seen and read!) and that "strange" *wink*, mythical god concept, and Bible has only been here around 2000! Now, It doesn't take a freaking rocket scientist to figure out WHO is the ignorant one here, Maypop! I can't speak for anyone else, but you just keep looking more "strange" and ignorant with each statement you throw out there , like you have that is totally, clearly: BIASED, and just plain: FALSE. I would love to really give my LONG dissertation on MY thinking on evolution, but that would be several LONG LONG posts, and even then, it would just scratch the surface. YOU SEE, my friends, (CONTRARY to what christians think), evolution happened over A LONG, LONG, Yes, EON'S, of time, and is impossible to really fully understand by our teeny tiny brains. Even great scientists, millions in the world of science, archeological findings, ALL, can only go back as far as 500,000 years. Maypop, and people like that like to have things all neat and tidy, as in "God did". Simple. Short and sweet, eh? yeppers, "God did it", and only in 7 days. *grins* Yeah, right. Whatever.  |
|
Date: 8/3/2001 6:31:00 AM
From Authorid: 24924
Ah, yes, Maypop, would you have us just simply throw out the entire geologic time scale with its periods or epochs? Cenozoic, Mesozoic, Paleozoic, Pre-Cambrian, etc., and each representing millions of years? Also have you read "The meaning of evolution" by George Gaylord Simpson? I'd suggest you read other books and materials that maybe don't have such a christian "SLANT" or bias....to them. |
| Date: 8/3/2001 7:43:00 AM From Authorid: 39524 good topic! looks like i missed this one, but i`m more than happy to read responses...What always makes me laugh is how these two posts always come down to a revolution Vs. Christinanity debate, i`m with evolution, but i tells ya, sometimes they just won`t listen.....Kud |
|
Date: 8/3/2001 8:08:00 AM
From Authorid: 34476
LOL Kud! It's not over yet, it has only just begun, I think |
|
Date: 8/3/2001 8:14:00 AM
From Authorid: 34476
Thinker, what do scientists do with the fossils which have been found which cross through the different strata?? I have always been told for something organic to become a fossil, it had to become entombed or enclosed relatively quickly, before it rotted away. Surely, you won't tell me these animals died and their remains laid there for millions and millions of years while these layers slowly built up around them. Science has proven organic material rots away within a few years, at best. How does one explain this occurrence??? |
|
Date: 8/3/2001 10:06:00 AM
From Authorid: 24924
Paranoid, IF I were to go into that, you would be soon fast asleep, bored, lost in the maze of long, drawn out scientific explanation. I do not know WHERE you got the "science has proven organic material rots within a few" statement? I have read many discoveries of materials that survived millions of years, and it depends on the AREA found, the soil, the climate, lots of things contribute to the condition of the items found. A very good source of MY reading, and information on these things has been the reading of National Geographic magazines over the last 35 years. In the November 1985 issue, there are pictures and much information on the findings of Africa's Taung child, estimated to be around two million years old. In the East Africa's Lake Bogoria, Kenya region, fractures, uplifts, erosions have yielded many millions of years of well preserved remains of the earliest bipeds yet found, fossils and tantalizing clues to the origins of man. Stones, bones, nuts, vines, skeletons of man and animals all survived and some estimated at the 33 million years range. Oh,remember the remains of "Lucy" found in Ethiopia in 1974? She was diminutive, 3'8 and weighed approx. 65 lbs and apelike jutting jaws. You might want to go to the library and check out and or read that issue, because it is spellbindingly filled with lots of pictures and very in depth explanations of the search for our ancestors. It says Africa is the very cradle of the human race, and goes into great detail about the Taung child and how much has been learned from the thousands of museums, fossil sites, excavations, anthropologists, archaeologists, geologists, paleontologists and other specialists, and how they study and observe arrays of scientific secrets from teeth, bones, scraps and pieces of materials and mere flakes of stone and fossils. It goes into great detail as to how these things survive over the millions of years, and provides pictures and graphics. i highly reccomend this particular material to anyone who wants to (I'll say: TRY) to understand the vast, and very complex world of fossils and history of the origins of life. |
|
Date: 8/3/2001 10:15:00 AM
From Authorid: 34476
Thinker, I have studied this a bit, and these recovered 'artifacts' WERE encased quite rapidly in either ice, mud, silt or sap. (Opps, I forgot deserts --basically baked materials) Now, WHERE do I find scientifically the proven fact that an organic material, left unprotected, will take millions of years to rot? Also, you have not addressed the issue of 'spontaneous' generation of life or the Law of Biogenesis. |
Date: 8/3/2001 10:22:00 AM
From Authorid: 1631
I think this is one of the most highly intellegent debates I have seen on this site *applauds*. Now, since I can't compete with the board's level of scientific knowledge, I will instead share a little "story" that I was told in Sunday School that has stuck with me all of these years: If you were walking along the ocean, and you found a watch washed up along the beach that was in working condition and keeping perfect time, would you believe that through the rubbing of sands and waves that the ocean, over time, created that watch or was it made by an outside force?...  |
| Date: 8/3/2001 10:52:00 AM From Authorid: 41296 Who's babbling Thinker? In all of your comment I have yet to see any proof YOU have of evolution. There are always variations within the species, but never, ever is there one species changing into another species? Can you give any proof of that. And another good thought, where did all the matter and energy come from in the first place? And exactly what are the other theories? Either we were created or we weren't. |
|
Date: 8/3/2001 11:08:00 AM
From Authorid: 24924
Paranoid, I've having difficulty understanding when you say: Left"Unprotected"? Or even the term: "Rot" for that matter. The bone fragments, shards and layers of matter is what (over millions of years) has survived. As for "spontaneous" generation of life"? From all my readings and conclusions (albeit with my limited brain capacity) I don't believe that ANYTHING was of a "spontaneous" nature. Now, to go into the millions of years of time, that it took for one single little creature to form and develope and evolve, would put us all to sleep. LOL . Have you read, and TRIED to follow the studies and documentation of scientists or paleontologists on this!? I have, and I get just a few paragraphs or pages into it and give up, what with all the scientific names of species, and differentiates of matter. We are not trained scientists, and are often not capable of beginning to understand such matters. We'd have to study for YEARS, and then, we STILL might have difficulty understanding. This is why millions of people take what I call: The EXPEDIENCY Factor; that is: The most simple, the easy way, the path/road to least resistance, and simply say :"God Did It". Then we are on our merry way, and don't have to do much, think much, or even worry about it. "Biogenesis"?? Perhaps you could expound on that term and what you know or think of, or have read, since in all my studies, I have not come across that exact term and IF I have, I simply haven't the recall at the moment. Again, when you delve into the biological evolutionary differences in rate, kinds, and directions of evolutionary changes and time tables of the morphologies of simple, single celled organisms, and the impossible to pronounce names, it can get so mind boggling, mind numbing that one just throws up their hands or closes the books. *wink* I still love to dig around and read scientific findings and writings on the matter. |
|
Date: 8/3/2001 11:16:00 AM
From Authorid: 24924
*Chuckles at Maypop's reply* I have learned. Let me repeat that, please. I HAVE LEARNED that it is impossible, and an exercise in futility, to EVER get into a disscussion and or debate on evolution with a closed mind, eyes and ears nailed shut, blind faith, died-in-the-wool, hard-shelled, creation believing Christian! I refuse to bang my head against a virtual brick wall. |
|
Date: 8/3/2001 11:21:00 AM
From Authorid: 34476
LOL Thinker. The law of Biogenesis states this: only living matter can create living matter. Eventually, when one studies evolution far enough, there HAS to be a point where something non-living (non-organic) produced something living (organic). This is the point I am trying to make. According to science today, it is impossible. Unless one wishes to believe like Hugo (Well, the laws MAY change at a later date or HAVE changed) this question must have a logical, scientific answer which does NOT break these scientific laws for evolution to be correct. I, too, have studied these theories and explanations with loooooong, boring, strange (I think they are latin) names. You're talking to the original reader here, I absolutely LOVE a good read. Something "short" to me that is read for entertainment is only about 350 pages! Also, history interests me greatly. I wish there was MORE written about previous centuries. *sigh* Ultimately, I will agree with you and say people will believe what they wish. But --please don't tell me I cannot understand something, or LEARN it. I can and have learned more than enough for me to believe the way I do. It is neither 'easy' nor 'convenient' to hold to my particular set of beliefs. It is also not easy to answer some of the questions I have faced in my life |
|
Date: 8/3/2001 11:24:00 AM
From Authorid: 34476
ROFL! 'virtual brick wall'. I'm going to start writing some of these down, they're great! *smiles* |
|
Date: 8/3/2001 11:52:00 AM
From Authorid: 24924
Paranoid, I 'm sorry, and apologize if you took it that I was doubting YOUR intelligence in any way. I was really referring to US all, when it comes to trying to understand a lot of science and in matters pertaining to evolutionary processes. Let me put it another way: You ever got into studying MEDICAL anatomy books, and medicines, dosages, amounts, affects, contraindications, functions, diseases disorders and abberations on the theme?? Makes your head spin, right? That is why we have doctors. And after that, we have specialists in a particular field of the medical sciences. I suppose, in my limited ability, I'm saying it is NOT impossible, but improbable that most of us don't really know or don't take the time and make the effort to KNOW and learn all this stuff. Aw shucks, Paranoid. I know YOU know what I'm TRYING to say here. I have to go run an errand, but I promise to address the other matter: "living organic matter from non-organic, etc." when I return. Love discussing these things with you! I'll be back. |
|
Date: 8/3/2001 12:07:00 PM
From Authorid: 34476
No problem, Thinker. Yes, I think I do understand what you are saying. I have no desire to study medical things, and that DOES confuse me most of the time. What little I do know about anatomy is difficult to explain, and tends to be a bit biased. (Yes, I have learned only a few medical/anatomical 'facts' which back up my point of view on creation/evolution) Anywhooo -No foul, no harm done As always, you are turning this into an interesting debate! |
| Date: 8/3/2001 3:27:00 PM From Authorid: 39524 maypop: what about mudskippers? surely that animal is half way from a fish turning to a land living animal?? its got all the traits, i think thats proof of evolution, and proof of one species turning into another....and what about duck billed platypus?? what possible use does that have other than it is still evolving?.kud |
|
Date: 8/3/2001 5:15:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
I'd be very happy to hear, er, read those medical/anatomical "facts", Paranoid. OK, let me see here, I'm not sure if I'm , oops, Yes, I AM SURE that I am not the most qualified to SPEAK on this, but I am one who TRIES to communicate that which I've learned and or concluded about a particular subject. There are many sites all over the globe where paleobiologists have discovered tons of material and fossils that support the theories of evolution and the earliest life forms on our planet. From the hills of the northern Czech Republic, a few miles from the German and Polish borders, there is an area called The Black Triangle (gets it's name from the coal burned by nearby power plants) that paleontologists say is the best place today to see what the world would have looked like especially during the Permian Period (250-300 million years ago). Another site is a half days drive inland from Cape Town, South Africa, in a scrubland known as the Karoo. For each altitude you gain, you can travel tens of thousands of years forward in time with regards to the fossils of the animal group known as synapsids. Mammal like reptiles that looked like a cross between a dog and a lizard-the synapsids were Earth's first great dynasty of land lizards. (keep in mind: the dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago). Now, there is the Italian Alps where exposed fossil beds lie high on cliffs and the layers of rocks that chronicle very early plant and animals, some fragments containing microscopic pieces of pollen and fungi, typical of a healthy, thriving forest and sea life. All the fungi in boundary rocks may represent an exploding population of scavengers feasting on an epic meal of dead trees. Think of it as a wood decaying fungus. When a tree dies, it falls. As it decays, fungi grow into it from spores on the ground, decocomposing it. There have been fossils of many sea urchins found high on mountaintops. Studies of quartz crystals from Australia to the Antartica reveal that in order for the creation of these quartz, and some gemstones, there had to have been a staggering force of some kind, like an enormous asteroid impact, sending clouds of noxious gases to billow and block out the sun for months. So exactly where am I going with all this you say? I will get there, believe me, I will be back....gotta go attend to some more chores. *wink* |
| Date: 8/3/2001 11:32:00 PM Interesting post, Hugo. There are accounts of molecules replicating themselves, but it is my understanding that the experiments are carefully controlled: a confined space with the necessary ingredients already present, including a representative of the finished product. Although this is remarkable, the results seem to suggest a nearly unfathomable distance from the random and choatic conditions which some have suggested existed early in Earth's history. If this is overlooked, and a molecule of DNA actually comes together by chance (the odds of which are mathematically zero), the end product is not even simple life; DNA (or any other molecule)is not alive. Simple one-celled organisms generate thousands of chemical reactions, all requiring specific materials to be already present in the cell for life to continue. A mistake in the replication of the genetic material is called a mutation. It is my understanding that very few (less than 1%) mutations are beneficial to the species. It seems hard to argue the advantages of a system that allows one step forward for every ninety-nine steps backward. I also differ with your opinion on the Law of Biogenesis; if the scientific community disagrees with the premise that life comes only from life, then it must produce empirical evidence to counter observations of the past three centuries, not speculations about what is essentially a matter of faith. Alfrowi |
|
Date: 8/4/2001 12:28:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
Alfrowi, Coming long before humans, or dinosaurs, the Precambrian can be called the Age of microscopic life. Although the characters of this chapter were minuscule-billions could fit in a drop of water-they paved the way for all later organisms. They developed DNA and proteins, the basic molecules that sustain all living cells. Many scientists, research chemists, microbiologists have concluded that life got it's start in a scalding enviroment approximately 4 billion years ago, when deep sea geysers spewed out superheated fluids with metals and with energy rich compounds that can power some of the chemical reations believed to be critical for evolving life. Seafloor springs simmered the primordial ocean, causing chemicals to join together in myriad ways to create totally new molecules. Over thousands of years, perhaps millions, those chemical "kitchens" with their eukaryotes (organisms made of cells with a nucleus), archaea (single-celled) and bacteria , came up with LIFE itself. For example, by studying the thermophiles in Yellowstone, scientists can more unravel how life first took hold on this planet. In the bubbling ponds, these thermophiles (heat lovers) which are living fossils from Earth's earliest days; grow only in water hot enough to burn a human. Perfectly at home in their toxic surroundings, the single celled creatures consume iron, sulfur compounds and other nasty chemicals in the water. These thermophiles are some of the most primitive organisms known. For three-quarters of its span on Earth, life evolved almost exclusively as microorganisms. Yet those changes had enormous consequences, leading to our own existence. Now, the RNA molecules were capable of replicating themselves, mutating, and undergoing natural selection. In modern cells, RNA has given up to DNA the lead role for passing along genetic information, although RNA still plays a vital role. **wonders if anyone is still awake** |
Date: 8/4/2001 8:49:00 PM
From Authorid: 5886
Even if only 1% of Mutations are helpful, how many mutations does a lifeform go through when it's born? Usually quite a bit... and few are harmful, few are helpful, alot of mutations are just inactive or not useful. But if a helpful mutation triggers those previous "stored" mutations, then it'll be a even larger change in the organism than a single mutation could do. I don't know if anything I just said made sense, I just felt like saying it.  |
Date: 8/4/2001 9:13:00 PM
From Authorid: 37900
Thanks for your reply, Thinker. (I was able to stay awake.) There was an extremely wide gap between the scalding cauldron of chemicals and life, even if every molecule necessary for life was already present. Excuse the example, but if I have a living frog, cut it into ten pieces and then put the pieces together again exactly as I found them, the frog is still dead. The same would be true for any organism, regardless of complexity. Accounts of the spontaneous generation of life from non-living molecules leave the impression of its inevitability, given enough time. It seems to me that adding any kind of energy for any length of time will never produce life in either the frog parts or the primordial soup. To think otherwise is a matter of faith and contradicts established empirical science. Alfrowi  |
| Date: 8/5/2001 10:51:00 AM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 Both evolution and Genesis require the original life form to have been created from a non-living form. Probably about the only area that these two theories agree upon, Pastuer never proved a living form could not derive from a non-living form. It is impossible to prove a negative of this nature. The fact is the vast majority of scientists believe in evolution. Hugo |
|
Date: 8/5/2001 3:23:00 PM
From Authorid: 34476
Yes, Hugo, they do. But the vast majority of people in the 1500's believed the earth was flat. Belief in something does not make it fact. Evidence does. So far, there is NO evidence, scientific or otherwise, that anything not alive can produce something living. It may protect living organisms, it may be food for living organisms, it may be a perfect environment for living organisms, but it will NOT produce a living organism. All other proofs are not necessary until one can PROVE that something which is not alive can 'create' or 'transform' or 'combine' into something living. Karma has already shown the impossiblity of 'not' proving something, so this also is a moot point, at best.(See her post about Santa and the Easter Bunny) My whole point is this: evolution is JUST as much a belief-based system as creation is. I have faith in a creator, others have faith in 'spontaneous life-creating generation'. Neither side at this time can prove the other side wrong --yet the evidence ALSO points to an impossibility of this ever happening (spontaneous creation) and a 'law' of nature which states no inanimate object will ever produce life. Clearly, evolution has very high odds against it. |
|
Date: 8/5/2001 3:24:00 PM
From Authorid: 34476
A belief in a god is a solution to this problem, NOT an easy way out. |
|
Date: 8/5/2001 5:11:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
Poor , very poor. Paranoid, the "vast majority" back in the 1500's were NOT one one tiny bit as knowledgible (in ANYTHING) as they are today, certainly not in the scientific world! People in those days were wildly superstitious, very limited and primitive in so many areas. You say "belief in something does not make it fact. Evidence does".....I been saying that for so long I sound like a broken record: BELIEF IN SOMETHING DOES NOT MAKE IT FACT. EVIDENCE DOES, and from where I see it, from where MOST of the scientific world, and people who follow LOGICAL thinking or do a lot of intense, open minded, fact seeking, continual ongoing, unbiased search for the answers, they will find MUCH MORE evidence to support evolution. THAT cannot be said about "just have faith" in some mythical god or "read the bible" creation theory. NO, I do not have a faith based belief. I could give a rats patootie. Like Sgt. Friday said on that old TV program always said: "just the facts, Maam" I maintain that belief in "God did it" IS the E A S Y way out, and religion IS NOT a solution that I would ever, ever recommend. |
|
Date: 8/5/2001 5:30:00 PM
From Authorid: 34476
Okey-dokey. So show me the proof of something inanimate 'creating' something animate. Please. Anything will do, from a microbe to an amoeba. Anything in their labs at all. So far, NOTHING has ever been created with life from something without life. Therefore, to me, this means they BELIEVE evolution to be correct, they have no proof. It is a supposition, an assumption, only an opinion. I am just saying it leads me to believe in a god, not necessary THE God of the bible. (There are other reasons for that, which do not belong on this post) |
|
Date: 8/5/2001 5:40:00 PM
From Authorid: 34476
On a side note, isn't it amazing how two people can approach the same problem and reach a completely different conclusion, based on the evidence at hand?? I have always been surprised at this. (Why can't everyone think like me??? LOL) |
|
Date: 8/5/2001 6:24:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
Paranoid, The material that I have read/studied, and TRIED (albeit with my limited brain capacity)and to logically follow, leads me to conclude with a high level of certainty (I'm still seeking) that back many billions of years ago, the CONDITIONS were such (atmospheric) that there was a lifeform that came out of that "primordial SOUP" which consisted of the right ingredients necessary for evolution of living cells or the creation of cells which evolved into tiny microscopic creatures, and those, over millions of years evolved into more larger creatures and so on. I am just not able to put into words such a concise synopsis of those conditions and "ingredients" necessary for living cells to "burst" forth on the scene. I tried to touch on it just a teeny bit with the thing on saying that for three-quarters of its span on earth, life evolved almost exclusively as microorganisms, and they began with primordial RNA, replicating themselves, mutating, and transmitting information to the ribosomes, where cells produce their proteins. NOW, exactly HOW those RNA came to be remains a mystery. The first real cells probably looked much like modern prokaryotes-bacteria and the newly designated archaea usually found in extreme conditions. Both ancient and modern proikaryotes have no nucleus and contain little more than genetic material and ribosomes in a jellylike cytoplasm. From their beginnings evolved a wide variety of forms. Over time cells evolved into specialized parts, oxygen-breathing mitochondria , the powerhouses of aerobic respiration. Decendents of these carried on photosynthesis in the new cells as chloroplasts with its gene bearing nucleus, this new kind of cell--called eukaryotics-which makes up all other forms of life, from slime molds to humans. These eukaryotes evolved very slowly and split into two identical copies of themselves, just as bacteria and archaea do today. They began to reproduce by combining genetic material and producing accelerated variations within the gene pool and led to a profusion of life-forms and a far more rapid rate of evolution. This is MY "squishing" tons of material into a tiny little, pathetic? attempt at trying to explain the basic beginnings as I gleaned from all these extremely detailed, diagrammed, scientific writings. I should tell you that I studied in the medical field as I was sure I wanted to be a lab techinician, but after working at that for sometime, I found out I was much better in the Medical business office. *wink* It sure was fascinating looking under the microscope at all sorts of cells, and all the zillions of things one sees in blood and urine and tissue samples. Thank you. I'm sure my ramblings appear to be quite "scattered" but this is NOT an easy topic. |
|
Date: 8/5/2001 7:04:00 PM
From Authorid: 34476
Oh, its not a scrambled mess, with much more detail than I can recall (The farthest I got into cells/etc was Biology I in college) I understand the concept and the process, I am only saying it is still that: a concept. An idea. It is just not proveable (yet) so therefore it must be presented as just that: an idea. Not the fact of evolution, the theory of evolution. Just like creation: not the fact of creation(also unproveable to an absolute certainty) but the theory of creation. I just get bent out of shape when I'm told for a fact that we came from 'amoebas' in the primordial soup. (more conjecture, to me) That's all. And you definitely know alot more than you are giving yourself credit for |
|
Date: 8/5/2001 7:59:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
Thank you. I am definitely NOT, ever saying these things are "Facts". All I'm trying to say is it makes a heck of a lot more sense, logically, than just saying "God did it". I mean, the whole god concept, and the bible didn't come along until the last couple thousand years or so, and when you put that up against the millions, billions? of years prior to that, it makes even more sense. Am *I* making ANY sense? IF I am to believe in the Bible, or the creation theory, then I have to ask this question of your "God" ..........WHY IS IT that for millions and billions of years, this old earth was here, evolving and spinning around in the universe, and THEN all of a sudden ("sudden" in comparison of the mere 2 thousand to the millions) you send a savior to die on a cross, and you leave so many questions unanswered, and just want your believers to not question, but just have "faith"???? Makes no sense to ME. No logic there whatsoever. |
|
Date: 8/5/2001 8:30:00 PM
From Authorid: 34476
I think I understand. I've never looked at it that way before. (IF the earth is millions and millions of years old, it wouldn't make alot of sense for God to be silent, and then all of a sudden say *wham* I'M HERE! ) Good point. As a creationist, tho, I believe the earth has only been here a few thousand years (from 6-8,000, I'm not exactly sure), so I had never thought of that. Trees were possibly created as adult trees. Did they have rings which may 'prove' how old they were? I don't know. Probably. Rocks and different strata within them were obviously here as well. I don't know what 'age' they were created at either. (I know, I know, more 'seeming' illogic or assumptions, but scientific dating techniques all have their flaws as well and are not as solid as they appear. This is, unfortunately, one of those 'belief' issues) I will not tell anyone, tho, to 'just believe' as that doesn't make sense either. Some Christians may, but I won't. That is why I have learned/am learning as much as I can about different topics, instead of being limited to "believe the bible because I said so." I have tried my best in this debate to only say 'belief in a god' instead of God. That is demeaning to most people, and usually turns people AWAY from any belief in any god whatsoever. I know I would be offended if I were told I was wrong because ONE BOOK said so. As far as this goes, I believe we are in complete agreement I'm the one rambling now, so I'll quit. I'll check back later *smiles* |
|
Date: 8/5/2001 9:08:00 PM
From Authorid: 37900
Good comments Thinker and Paranoid! It seems to me that the modern scientific community is guilty of the same bias that was present in the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages. The result is a war between the sciences and religion, with each attempting to eliminate the other from discussions of their disciplines. IMO, examination of available evidence indicates there are limits to each field which may be expanded by the other. The problems seem to arise when personal opinions are translated into "what the Bible says" or into "what science says." In my understanding, not everything that is asserted to be in the Bible is, and not everything that is asserted to be scientifically proven is, either. Alfrowi. |
| Date: 8/5/2001 9:20:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 There is a difference between theories based on scientific evidence and a theory based on a religious book produced by the same people who believed the Earth was flat. Mankind has just now obtained the ability to clone; we are not yet scientifically advanced enough to discover the secret of the origin of life. The attackers of evolution today are descendants of those who attacked Copernicus and Galileo in there day. The fundamentalists seem to think Christianity is so fragile that it can not co-exist with the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is backed up by archeological and biological evidence, not all the links are in place but more are being found everyday. The theory of creation is based on the writings of some ancient hebrew who never claimed to be a scientist or unbiased. The theory that the Earth is 6000 or 8000 years old is absurd. Dating systems have flaws, but not to that degree. Hugo |
|
Date: 8/6/2001 5:22:00 AM
From Authorid: 24924
Thank you Hugo. I agree with your points, and I reiterate: There is a whole lot more evidence to support evolution than creation. There are many sofisticated methods of determining the approximate age of an artifact, or fossil, or trees, rocks, bones, etc, and more and more are being developed every day. Archaeological digs reveal layer upon layer of histories, with each layer representing thousands and or millions of years. Just the other day I was reading of some of these techniques, and was mesmerized by the facts that a lot of it is the same kinds of things used in modern medicine today and or forensic sciences used in crime scene analysis. Bones, hair, fibers, unearthed from long long ago can be analized just like those from crime scenes of today. I saw some pictures of some well preserved bodies that were discovered high in the mountains of Peru, and a couple of them looks as though they were but a few years old because of the preservation of them within the cold perma earth and conditions in the region. They were determined to have been placed there sometime before the Pyramids in Egypt were built. IF anyone would like, I will go look up that particular material and report it here. It is spellbinding. I'd like to say to Paranoid: Last night I was thinking about your last entry there and my mind was going through some of the things I've seen in Museums, and the Smithsonian. I also remember seeing the very old trees still standing in Northern California, and read how they "read" the lines or rings on the trees to determine the approximate age. Also, I don't know if anyone out there is into studying rocks, or even gemstones? Some of them took millions of years to form, and I was thinking of how most of them come from Africa, South America, and Asia. About 1:30 a.m. I finally got to sleep. It's hard to turn it off when I get going on this stuff. Y'all have a good day today. Thanks. |
|
Date: 8/6/2001 5:57:00 AM
From Authorid: 34476
I know, that's the kicker. The earth appears much older than I believe it is. How do I prove it is younger? A few ways come to mind (Not involving 'dating' techniques, but math(known calculations) and other observations) Dust on the moon, the amount of fuel left in the sun, the population of the earth, and fossilized trees standing up 30 feet through these strata which we are told took millions upon millions of years to create are a few 'scientific' reasons why I believe what I do. Hugo, I don't believe Christianity is fragile at all. I came to a point in my life where it became hypocritical to believe in evolution. (I once was a theistic evolutionist) It just doesn't add up. As a believer in the bible, it's all or nothing. It all is true, or it may as well just be another 'religion' out there, peddling truths amidst lots of opinions and half-truths. I looked at the available facts, and chose: creation. Others look and see evolution. I see God as a solution, not a problem. I also have no problem supporting what/why I believe with fact. And, if you hadn't noticed from earlier replies, a theory is still a theory(guess) no matter what the source. It is just that: something not yet proveable. I'd also like to address your point about life, Hugo: nobody on earth knows WHY life exists, they know it does. They know HOW it does, to a point. What is needed to sustain life IS known. Medical science today can keep a body 'alive' long after what constitutes 'life' is gone. The body cannot breathe on its own, nor do other normal functions. It is all machine-assisted. In most cases, these people physically die while in this state. They were never mentally there, even tho all the physical requirements for brain activity is present. What is missing?? What 'spark' is needed for their bodies to become full of life, instead of life-less? My answer is this: their soul or spirit. Until science can 'create' a soul or spirit, we will NEVER be able to create life. We can copy something already in existence, we cannot 'make' something from scratch. All the pieces need to be present for mankind to do this. This is one more reason why I find it so hard to believe random chance(evolution) led to every living thing around us today. |
Date: 8/6/2001 10:01:00 AM
From Authorid: 41296
The Bible states that the earth is round, I don't know where your misinformation comes from. The book of Isaiah was written 300 years before Aristotle suggested the earth was round. But yet in Isaiah 40 2 "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof..." This expression clearly describes the earth as a sphere or globe. Why do people think science contradicts the Bible? Science has NEVER contradicted the Bible. |
| Date: 8/6/2001 10:21:00 AM From Authorid: 41296 The theory of evolution tells us that life adapted itself to the environment, and that those who best adapted survived while those which did not died out. But if survival of the fittest determined the type of life forms now existing in the world today, then in each species the best suited would have alone survived. We should have A bird, A reptile, A fish, A tree, A plant, etc. But we don't. There are over 625,000 different kinds of insects, there are 12,000 different species of mammals, 30,000 of birds, 40,000 of fish, over 5,000 different species of reptiles. The thousands of species in each category of life would have meant that an UNIMAGINABLE number of mutations would have had to occur to account for the evolutionary ascent of higher life forms from lower ones. Each of these unimaginable number of mutations would have to have been subtle enough to allow the organism to survive. A single mutation can't change an amoeba into a giraffe. Over 99 percent of induced mutations are DEFECTS rather than improvements in the mutated organisms. Mutations can and do cause variety within the species, but never have been found to produce anything other than the species to which it originally belonged. |
|
Date: 8/6/2001 10:39:00 AM
From Authorid: 41296
Psalm 24:1 tells us "The earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof." Something flat cannot have fullness. Only something round can have fullness. "He stretched out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing." Job 26  Hang the earth on nothing! Job 367-29 explains the water cycle. Job 26 and 37:11 talks about condensation. Ecclesiastes 1 talks about recirculation of water. Job 38:16 talks about the springs that are underneath the sea. (modern science has just recently discovered there are rivers under the sea). Ecclesiastes 1:6 talks about the circulation of wind. |
|
Date: 8/6/2001 11:41:00 AM
From Authorid: 24924
Maypop, here you go again. Your 2nd reply there about the "mutation" thing is totally WAY OFF. You're quoting bible scriptures just means nothing. ANYONE can interpret it however they WANT. There have been tons of discoveries/findings and documentations on the very beginnings of creatures that over millions of years turned into or evolved into something else that doesn't even slightly resemble it's modern day counterpart. We humans, for that matter, only slightly resemble our ancestors. Paranoid, in your last replies there, you are really talking about 2-3 different things. The origins of life, Cloning possibilities of today, and the definition of "soul" "spirit" . To go into each and define each one, and debate it would require setting up another individual story or debate on here, and then it would be another 95-100 or some odd comments or replies, which not many people really READ anyway........and even then, most people can't or don't want to even understand them. |
|
Date: 8/6/2001 11:52:00 AM
From Authorid: 34476
I know. Like you, apparently, I have been thinking about this quite a bit lately. If you want to see what I mean about science also backing creation, go to the Institute of Creation Research website. It is very interesting and has LOTS of info on many different subjects. (some of which would probably drive us BOTH crazy) *smiles* It's been fun. Cya later! |
|
Date: 8/6/2001 11:56:00 AM
From Authorid: 34476
To make it a bit easier to find, here is the URL: http://www.icr.org/ Have fun! |
|
Date: 8/6/2001 12:25:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
Paranoid, I'm not sure what you meant by that "like you, apparently" ? I DO read, and I DO want to understand. I am not afraid of anything or reading and understanding others views. Now, I did go to that website. I am a speed reader, and ran through a lot of it. It was very vague, very sparse, lacking in content, and it was very slanted and biased. What really cinched it for me, was the thing at the end of one of the categories which said something like "against the godless dogma of evolutionary humanism" . *Shrugs & rolls eyes* |
|
Date: 8/6/2001 12:34:00 PM
From Authorid: 34476
I was pointing out a commonality, not a difference. *shrugs* A friend told me about that site. I just had the chance to glance at some of the articles there, not their personal opinion(s) or attack rhetoric. I knew, of course, it would be biased, as ALL science of this nature is either biased toward evolution or creation. All I did was go to their "search" button at the bottom, and only glanced at their major topics of the day. I apologize if it offended you in any way. I know you are open-minded about this, or we would not have had such a long discussion about this already. I'll do some searching on my own to see if I can find a BETTER site without the hate-mongering that seems to be typical of most websites today |
|
Date: 8/6/2001 1:10:00 PM
From Authorid: 34476
"The Celera human genome sequence contains 2.91 billion nucleotides of human euchromatin and the HGP sequence contains 2.69 billion. The human genome is by far the largest genome ever completely sequenced. The next largest is from Drosophila, which weighs in at 120 million nucleotides of euchromatin, merely 4% of the size of the human genome. Celera and HGP scientists have mapped the sequence onto genetic and physical maps of the chromosomes, so that the physical location and orientation of each contiguous DNA sequence is known with high confidence. The size of the human genome is easily misinterpreted, however. One might think that a human might have 25 times as much DNA as a fly because humans are so much larger and more complex. Unfortunately, the amount of DNA in a genome appears to be uncorrelated with biological complexity. For example, the single-celled ciliate Paramecium caudatum possesses a genome of 8.6 billion nucleotides, more than twice as big as the human genome. One of the largest known genomes, 670 billion nucleotides, is found in the single-celled Amoeba dubia. Other complex multicellular organisms, such as the chicken, contain genomes that are substantially smaller than the human genome." ---This is a sample from the website. Sorry Thinker, but I disagree on the "sparse" information available there. This seems fairly in-depth to me, as it is only one paragraph of a fairly short article about the genome project. I am sorry if what they say offends you, but after reading article after article for over 1/2 an hour (I read rather quickly, and only speed-read unless forced to. It takes the fun out of it) I have not found any statements resembling this: "against the godless dogma of evolutionary humanism". I realize you were not giving me a direct quote, tho, so I may have missed it as this site DOES agree with creationism, not evolution. Also, there is quite a bit of information archived there, which one can access through their "search" option found at the bottom of the main page. Hope this helps clarify why I believe the way I do. You are right, Thinker, this could go on indefinitely Even tho an "endless" debate has a certain appeal to it, I don't think I have the focus or knowledge to sustain one Adieu. |
|
Date: 8/6/2001 1:17:00 PM
From Authorid: 34476
Thanks again, Thinker, for showing me where this statement is on their website. It is apparently one of their reasons for having this site. Here it is, in its entirety: "We believe God has raised up ICR to spearhead Biblical Christianity's defense against the godless dogma of evolutionary humanism. Only by showing the scientific bankruptcy of evolution, while exalting Christ and the Bible, will Christians be successful in "the pulling down of strongholds; casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ" (II Corinthians 10:4,5)." Lots of opinion here, as we all can see. They may be a bit over-zealous, but their facts seem to be verifiable and proveable. Goodbye again. |
|
Date: 8/6/2001 1:21:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
Click on "Were Neanderthals Human", then scroll down to the very bottom, where they are talking about the purpose of the website, and you will find that entire statement which contains the part that I quoted. You see, Paranoid, I refuse to listen to, or pay much attention to a website that is so biased as that one is. When I said that it was sparse, and limited, I should have said: IN COMPARISON TO MOST all of the materials I have read on the various subjects contained in other websites or books. COMPARED TO those, this one IS very vague and limited. Thank you for all your imput here. I enjoyed it very much. |
|
Date: 8/6/2001 1:25:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
oops! I was typing my reply just as you were posting yours. LOL . um, "verifiable and provable" ? Nope. Not from where I'm looking at it all. Thanks again. Bye bye! |
|
Date: 8/6/2001 1:41:00 PM
From Authorid: 34476
I would LOVE to get more info on a site which compares the two, instead of being all for one, and not the other. An honest comparison would be refreshing and challenging. I'll see ya around, Thinker! It's been fun. |
| Date: 8/6/2001 4:04:00 PM From Authorid: 41296 Thinker, you're way off on the mutation thing. There is absolutely NO PROOF WHATSOEVER OF ANY SPECIES CHANGING TO ANOTHER SPECIES. YOU are just so closed minded on evolution that you don't even care to check out the creationist web-site. I sense you don't even really want to know the truth. If the truth slapped you in the face, you still wouldn't believe it. Here's another website that answers tough questions on the creation view. It probably won't suit you either, but I thought I would mention it. drdino.com There is not a whole lot of interpreting that has to be done to come to the conclusion that the Bible states that the earth is round. I would like to know of ONE of these "millions of creatures that evolved into something else". Where in the world are you getting this information? Carbon dating is not accurate for measuring the age of something that is thousands of years old. And how can evolutionists explain the rock layers that are bent? One thing I don't understand about the evolution time line is this: there is "millions and millions" of years before there is any record of man and then all of a sudden...There's man! How do you evolutionists explain that man has not even been in the picture when all this "evolving" took place. Man just all of a sudden pops up seven or eight thousand years ago? Then he is a perfect man having gone through all the billions of accidental mutations that low and behold created a perfect human? It just doesn't make sense. How do evolutionist explain the PERFECT ORDER of our universe, the perfection in every living thing? |
| Date: 8/6/2001 9:48:00 PM From Authorid: 41296 The whole idea of evolution: Matter and evergy created itself from nothing (violating the First law of Thermodynamics), Life originated from non-life (violating the law of Biogenesis), The Universe began as disorder (Big Bang) and became orderly over time (violating the second law of Thermodynamics). Both Christians and Atheists have faith in miracles. Which one requires more faith? |
|
Date: 8/7/2001 12:25:00 AM
From Authorid: 24924
Atheists believe in "Miracles"!!?? In YOUR mind, Maypop, IN YOUR MIND. |
| Date: 8/7/2001 7:19:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 A total misrepresentation of the Big Bang theory. The expansion of the universe as a result of the big bang is not increasing orderliness. It requires much more faith to believe if there is a God of all the proposed Gods yours is the correct one. The creation of life is like winning the lottery it may seem like a miracle but is simply the result of a multitude of actions which inevitably lead to a positive result. Over billions of years life becomes inevitable. Hugo |
| Date: 8/7/2001 7:38:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 My statement the bible was produced by the same people who believed the Earth is flat comes from a Christian source,"The New American Bible, St. Joseph edition, 1970" page 5. Of couse it ain't the King James and is produced by them evil Catholics. The ancient hebrews believed the flat Earth rested on columns and the sky, shaped like an overturned bowl also rested on columns. How is it the ancient Hebrews recognition of the shape of the Earth is so remarkably different than your own, did not they read their own holy books? There are still members of the Flat Earth society, they are rare but they still exist. Most Christians no longer look at the Bible as a science book, Most no longer believe the earth was created on October of 4023 BC. Most have been able to understand the difference between science and religion. |
| Date: 8/7/2001 7:42:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 Plate tectonics and the movement of the continents, just one more scientific theory(also well documented and highly researched) which can not work under a 6000 year old Earth. Hugo |
|
Date: 8/7/2001 11:16:00 PM
From Authorid: 41296
The Bible has NEVER EVER EVER been proven wrong. Not one iota. When it was thought to be wrong, it turned out that man was wrong. As far the statement that the Hebrews thought the earth was flat in those times, I don't know. But I do know how to read. And the Bible states that the earth is round, not just in one chapter. Can you read? I didn't pull a rabbit out of my hat to come up with that verse. I knew it was there, and that is what the Bible says. And the Bible is not meant to be a scientific book, but yet the explanations of science are there, you just have to open your eyes, and your mind, to see it. I didn't make that up. That is well-known in the creation movement. There is also the explanation in Ecclesiastes 1 of the circulation of the atmosphere. Now how did these "fakes" that wrote the Bible know exactly how the wind moved? I believe they knew because our Creator talked with them. It says: "The wind blows to the south and turns to the north, round and round it goes ever returning on its course." How did these people know the exact movement of the wind? In Ecclesiastes 1 it says, "All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full, to the place the streams come from, there they return again." In Job 26, "He spreads out the northern skies over empty space, He suspends the earth over nothing." I thought the writers of the Bible didn't know anything about science! Hangs the earth on nothing! They sure didn't think Atlas held it up! Job 26, "He wraps up the waters in His clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight." Condensation? Job 36: 27-29, "He draws up the drops of water which distill as rain to the streams: the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind." Job 38:16, "Have you journeyed to the springs in the sea or walked in the recesses of the deep?" Job 40:15- "Look at the behemoth which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox. What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly! His tail sways like a cedar: the sinews of his thighs are close-knit. 23-"When the river rages, he is not alarmed, he is secure, though the Jordan should surge against his mouth." Is this talking about a dinosaur? Yes! Tale sways like a cedar tree? |
|
Date: 8/7/2001 11:49:00 PM
From Authorid: 41296
To your comment about plate tectonics as proof the earth is not 6,000 years old: I say this is more proof of a worldwide flood, to which all scientists agree on by the way. The Bible says there was GREAT UPHEAVAL during that time. In Amos 5 "Seek him that maketh the seven stars and Orion." This referred to the constellation Pleiades. Everyone thought the Bible was wrong because Pleiades only has six stars. Recently, modern telescopes have discovered that seventh star, proving the Bible was right all along. How else did Amos know this unless God told him. I am what you call a doubting Thomas. I have always needed proof that I could see with my own eyes. I am scientific in thought. I always ask...how? I am NOT a gullible person by no means. I have to have proof. The Bible gives us proof. It's there. For you, for me. My husband, on the other hand, has always had a strong faith and didn't have to have answers. Not me! He would often wonder aloud why I needed this proof. I know it sounds like I'm a religious fanatic, but I'm not. I didn't even grow up in church. I always doubted God. But I don't doubt now. I've discovered proof ALL THROUGH THE BIBLE. Please don't discount this as "just quoting scripture". It is there for you to see. On another note, the population of the earth, if evolution was correct as man being here for over a million years, would be 10 to the 2091 power. Do you realize how big that number is? Evolution theory would have our population at "trillions x trillions x trillions x trillions", this should be the number of man living today. If creation was correct, the population should be 5 billion people. (our pop. is about 5.5 billion) |
|
Date: 8/8/2001 12:11:00 AM
From Authorid: 41296
And Hugo, the ancient pagans believed the earth was situated on the back of an elephant that rested on the back of a turtle. Job HAD to have been inspired by the very God that created us to have written that. And man is not becoming smarter. The ancient Egyptians were extremely advanced in astronomy and engineering although they were severely lacking in medical knowledge. Did you know that most of the laws of the old testament had to do with cleanliness so that infection would not spread? God promised that if they obeyed all of His laws and statutes that He gave Moses, He would protect them from plague and illnesses that afficted the ancient Egyptians. Medical science did not know there was germs that could make you sick until the end of the last century, yet in Leviticus 68, written over 3500 years ago, reveals a clear commandment to discard broken pottery (because the cracks could contain harmful germs). "But the earthen vessel in which it is boiled shall be broken. And if it is boiled in a bronze pot, it shall be both scoured and rinsed in water." In other words, a cracked cooking pot should not be used for cooking or eating but should be thrown away. The Bible tells us further that "if it be sodden in a brazen pot, it shall be both scoured, and rinsed in water". These instructions saved hundreds of thousands of Jews from infections when the rest of the world didn't even know that germs existed! How could Moses have known unless our Creator told Him this? There are thousands of examples like this regarding sanitation and health throughout the old testament. Why do some people still doubt? I have no idea. I'm NOT making this up. This is in the Bible that supposedly is "a bunch of garbage". I suggest to you this: that the Bible says the ways of God will seem like foolishness in the eyes of the world. |
| Date: 8/8/2001 12:22:00 AM From Authorid: 41296 And Hugo, your right, the Big Bang would NOT increase orderness. It would be chaos. And chaos + millions and millions of years = chaos. Chaos doesn't become orderly no matter how many years it has. The idea of evolution is no more believable than a house constructing itself in a lumber yard over millions and millions of years. I would rather not play that lottery. I'll take my paycheck. |
| Date: 8/8/2001 9:14:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 Another quote from "The New American Bible" (sorry do not have a copy of a condensed (Protestant) Bible,"The Allegory: A figurative story with a veiled meaning. Read Genesis 2,3;4, 1-16;6-8;11,1-9. For centuries these chapters have been misunderstood as inspired lessons in science. The Bible does not teach science; it teaches religious values. It uses these folktales to teach a lesson." This is the prevailing CHRISTIAN opinion. The Bible will never be proven wrong to someone who can ignore evolutionary theory, ignore plate tectonics, ignore scientific dating procedures. You can not prove Santa Claus does not exist to a 5 year old and you can not prove the Bible has erred to a fundamentalist Christian. And ONE MORE TIME the increase of chaos universally does not prohibit orderliness locally.Hugo |
|
Date: 8/8/2001 9:26:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 37354
A terrible misreading of Leviticus, first they are talking about sin offerings only, not regular habits, It says 61 "A clay vessel in which it has been cooked should THEREAFTER be broken"; In other words a clay pot used in sin offerings should be thrown away. Is your reading of the Bible always so sloppy or just when you need an erroneous reading to make a point? Hugo |
| Date: 8/8/2001 9:29:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 Oh, by the way we may no longer be in that lottery, man may have overcome "nature red in tooth and claw" to the point he is no longer evolving. This has been a recent achievement until then Darwin's survival of the fittest doctrine prevented a rising human population. Hugo |
| Date: 8/9/2001 1:02:00 AM From Authorid: 41296 Well, if that's not enough proof, here's more: Leviticus 15:12-"A clay pot that the man touches must be broken, and any wooden article is to be rinsed with water." (this is talking about skin discharges) Leviticus 11:33- "If one of them falls into a clay pot, everything in it will be unclean, and you must break the pot." (this is talking about animals such as rats that die and fall into the pot) Diseases such as leprosy, God instructed the people to quarantine. Leviticus 13:46-"He shall be unclean. All the days he has the sore he shall be unclean. He is unclean, and he shall dwell alone; his habitation shall be outside the camp." When the Black Death was killing so many people, priests looked to the Bible for answers and found this. People were instructed to circumcise their baby boys on the 8th day of life. Genesis 17:12-"He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised, every male child in your generations." Recently, scientists have found that two different blood clotting factors, vitamin K and prothrombin, are at the highest level of your entire life (110% of normal) on the 8th day of life. Also, the Israelites were told to go outside of camp to use the bathroom and then to cover the waste up. Deuteronomy 23:12-"Also you shall have a place outside the camp, where you may go out; and you shall have an implement among your equipment, and when you sit down outside, you shall dig with it and turn and cover your refuse." There are thousands of examples like these in the old testament. |
| Date: 8/9/2001 1:17:00 AM From Authorid: 41296 That about we're no longer evolving is about the silliest thing I've ever heard! How did they come up with that? That's funny. We're no longer evolving because we never were evolving to begin with. Darwin was good at observation, but he was a crock. Even he thought evolution was impossible! Don't you see that evolution is a religion too? All it is is an impossible theory. It breaks laws of physics, but "it still could happen with millions of millions of years." If a piece of metal was given millions and millions of years, does that mean it "could" become a truck? After all, millions and millions of years makes the impossible possible. |
|
Date: 8/9/2001 5:46:00 AM
From Authorid: 34476
LOL Maypop! That's what I was saying all along |
| Date: 8/10/2001 1:41:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 The fact is medical treatments were well known throughout the ancient world and among primitive peoples today, they were not so stupid they needed Gods or aliens to give them knowledge. The metal to truck is another straw man argument. The improbable becomes a certainty given enough opportunities. Hugo |
| Date: 8/10/2001 1:43:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 About the silliest thing I have ever heard is a loving God creates viruses to torment us. Hugo |
Date: 8/10/2001 3:21:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
It has taken me awhile to read through all of this -- I hope my response is not untimely. How hard is it for people to reconcile "evolution" and God! The answers are all here if you could truly open your mind. To fundamentalists: Can you truly ignore the facts of this earth being in existence for millions of years? To Bible-bashers: Can you set aside your RELIGIONS' teaching of the Bible and let yourself be open to the possibility that God exists? I am not a Bible scholar, and I feel Maypop is probably saying the same things I am going to say here, but there is so much bias in being deemed either a non-believer or believer in the Bible for anyone to come to an agreement. So, let's get in a vaccuum and see if this could all possibly be reconciled. Are you with me? O.K., here is goes. The Bible talks of the earth being a void place when God first started to become involved with it. The Thinker's information stating a vast ocean sounds like that. Then she goes into the explanation of life cells forming from a heat source, and the millions of years of formation (evolution) that leads us to the present. I look at the Bible and note that God threw "the Morning Star" out of Heaven. What I can picture, then, is a fiery ball hitting this void ocean planet which gave a heat source leading to the creation of these micro-organisms and eventually the evolution of man. Could the process of God throwing the star have taken six days to reach the ocean planet? Each of these six days could have been accounted for in the resulting pull of the suns gravitational power into its orbit, setting its axis spinning, having the light of the sun penetrate its atmosphere, setting in motion the tides which eventually gave way to land masses, and finally with that star actually landing on this planet setting in motion the creation of life pursuant to the Thinker's responses. In this way of thinking, life is not created from non-life, humans just suddenly didn't exist, scientific findings aren't discounted, and the Bible knows what it is talking about. What is the meaning of life? God's plan. I hear it referred to as the "perfect plan" and I really wonder what people think the word "perfect" in this sense means. To me, it means that what God has in mind is the perpetuation of this creation called humans. Not in the physical sense, though it has its orgins in this. We are a favored species in case you haven't looked in the zoo lately. Why did He allow thousands of years to go by without sending His Son as a messenger of this? Because we as a human race hadn't evolved into the species we are now with distinct reasoning power and intelligence. Once the race reached this potential, He sent someone to give us the idea of Faith. Why does he not just instill all of that in us now? That, I don't know. He works on His own time schedule, . . .obviously! All Loving He is in attempting for people to understand their place in comparison with Him. He created us. We are mortal. You know, Hugo, you once made what I would deem a sarcastic comment to me regarding what I know of God. (BTW, I speak to God on a daily basis, in prayer; He spoke to me in a audible voice on two occasions.) And, He mentioned this very thing on the first of these two occasions. He did say that He does have to keep coming up with ways for humans to die because we have become so evolved as to eradicating the dissemination of certain diseases. The bottom line is: He is in control. When your appointed time comes to die, in whatever way, you will be powerless to stop it. If there is suffering involved, there is a message in that, there for your own interpretation. Good luck and God Bless.  |
| Date: 8/10/2001 11:40:00 PM From Authorid: 41296 First of all God created a perfect human. I believe, after much Bible and Scientific study, that man was most intelligent in the beginning. I think it is one of the biggest misconceptions today. Everyone thinks we are smarter now. Man talked directly to God, our Creator. The book of Genesis, as is all the books in the Bible, are written as EYEWITNESS accounts. The books are sometimes dubbed "contradictory" because different people write in different ways about the same subject. I believe God instilled his wisdom and His knowledge to the men He talked to. You can't be stupid if you talk directly to God. There are many proofs of this in the world today. Man built structures that stupify modern man. Man had more astronomy knowledge than the men of today (if it wasn't for our high-tech gadgets we would know nothing about the solar system.) Man is not smarter today than the great men of the Bible. On the other hand, Egyptians were very limited in their medical knowledge. That we have proof of. At the same time they were limited, God's people had the medical knowlege. You can't dispute the Bible has scientific AND medical knowledge. This knowledge HAD to have come from an all-knowing God. I believe man continues to go down-hill as far as intelligence is concerned. I think a lot of people mistake technology for smarts. Anybody can add with a calculator. If you've heard about the statue in Egypt, (the one that looks half-lion and half Egyptian, I forget what it's called, the sphinx? Modern scientists have discovered that the perimeter of this structure and its surrounding courtyard, is EXACTLY the perimeter of the earth. These men knew what size the earth was exactly. That entire courtyard is filled with mathematical genius. All the pyramids are built with mathematical and engineering genius. We have this idea of "caveman" ooga ooga, but this is simply not true. This is something we've been taught since grade school. As I said earlier, God created man PERFECT. Everything perfect. So this means even a virus was perfect. God didn't create a killing virus. Viruses have mutated over the thousands of years due to many different environmental changes. And yes, I said mutated. That doesn't mean it's no longer a virus. It is still a virus, but a different virus. God didn't create AIDS. AIDS is something that just happened and God sees fit to not intervene. Remember, He has a plan. And He told us that it all is good and according to His will. We don't understand this plan, and sometimes it seems cruel, but God knows what's best for us in eternity. We only see in this dimension. God sees in our dimension, His dimension, and time's. Even Einstein said that our earth and universe cried out a superior intelligence. Einstein once said that he doesn't study science because he enjoys science, he said he studys it because he wants to know what was on the mind of our Creator. Cedars Sinai hospital research scientists are ALL believers in a creator. They say to find the evolutionists, you need to go to the psychology department. The greatest men of science were believers in Creation. Werner Von Braun, pioneer of rocket science, was a believer. Isaac Newton, a believer. These men knew the inner workings of our earth, solar system, and mankind better than any of us put together, and they they believed it to be designed by a superior intelligence. Where is all the supposed "missing links". According to evolutionary theory, there would be trillions x trillions x trillions x trillions of bodies to be found. WHERE ARE THEY ? Can you really believe that we have not found even one single body out of this impossible number that should be out there? |
|
Date: 8/10/2001 11:52:00 PM
From Authorid: 41296
And Hugo, man did not have medical knowledge in that day. Are you saying that we are dumber now because we didn't think to quarantine people dying of the Black Death as people of the Bible were instructed to quarantine? Do I detect a little creationism in you? We could put the Bible aside and still the universe and man would "holler out" a creator. (We say "holler" in Alabama.) |
| Date: 8/11/2001 8:08:00 AM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 If the pyramids are proof of God, it is proof of Ra not the God of the Bible. There is no missing link between modern ape and man they both diverged from the same creature. The fossil record is scant but there are many fossil finds of creatures who are neither ape or modern man which are possible antescendants of man. Ancient man needed no God to recognize cause and effect and they had myriads of myths some which modern man is able to INTERPRET as showing advanced scientific knowledge. Those who interpret the Biible or the pyramids or Nostradamus or Cayce are very good at showing how they made amazing predictions in the past they bat .000 when it comes to future predictions. The Bible is never wrong because whenever it is it just needs to be interpeted differently. Hugo |
| Date: 8/11/2001 8:17:00 AM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 37354 The fact that great men of science have been believers does not contradict the position of evolution. It is your FEAR that your God and evolution can not coexist, not mine. The fact is the great scientists of the modern era, almost universally agree with evolutionary theory. Hugo |
|
Date: 8/13/2001 7:06:00 AM
From Authorid: 34476
Hugo, evolution and Christianity cannot co-exist. Not out of FEAR, but out of belief. One either believes God when He states in Genesis that He created the earth and all that is in it in 6 days or one does not. Sorry, Deb, there is no middle ground. I, too, once believed that God created "life" and other elements which then evolved into us, but that is contrary to scripture. Therefore I will not believe that any longer. Believe as you will, I choose creation |
|
Date: 8/13/2001 8:31:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
I'm sorry, too, Paranoid. I'm sorry that this whole debate is seen as an "either/or" proposition. I'm sorry that people can't reconcile their hearts(souls) with their minds (spirits) and their bodies (physical surroundings). What I see a lot of is the ability to reconcile two components of our being (for instance, yourself I see reconciling heart and mind; non-believers reconcile their minds with their physical surroundings); the reconcilliation of all three components are needed in order to come up with an understanding of this (and many, many more) issues. God Bless. |
|
Date: 8/13/2001 10:27:00 PM
From Authorid: 34476
Deb, I understand completely. I was a theistic-evolutionist for over 10 years. But I feel the need to state this in response to your last reply. My heart(soul), spirit(mind) and body(physical surroundings) are all in agreement on this issue. There are too many other things which God through scripture has shown to be the truth. Also, He cannot lie. God said He made it all, and told us when He did so. I, therefore, believe this. If one doubts the first 2 chapters in the bible, what ELSE will one discard in the scriptures as well?? You've seen me make this point before: one cannot pick and choose what one believes about the bible and also claim to follow God and His commands. It just isn't possible. (I know, I know ....there's another one of those "either/or" no middle ground statements from me) Well, this is how I see it. When I was young, life seemed black and white. As I grew older, life was filled with grays. Now, while I grow older yet, life is once more black & white. I've straddled the fence, and tried to stay in the middle. It just doesn't work. At least not for me. There was no focus in my life --I was too busy trying to please everyone else. I succeeded in pleasing no-one(including me). I lost sight of the truth, and I will NOT do so again if possible. Peace to you, DEB, and never quit seeking. |
|
Date: 8/14/2001 9:03:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
Paranoid, I do not pick and choose what to believe in the Bible. I believe in the Bible. What I have found lacking is any religion's explanation of the Bible. I don't feel there has been any interpretation given, including yours, which reconciles my mind (intelligent reasoning) with my body (all the physical evidence) and my heart (what I feel is the Truth). and , yes, I will continue seeking. Peace and God Bless. |
|
Date: 8/15/2001 7:46:00 AM
From Authorid: 34476
I'm not trying to point fingers at you, Deb. I was only stating what I believe on this matter. As I said, I understand you completely, as I believed the same once. I apologize if it seems like I was putting down your beliefs, I was only trying to give you more to think about. |
|
Date: 8/15/2001 8:45:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
No offense taken whatsoever. God Bless. |
Date: 9/28/2001 12:30:00 AM
From Authorid: 177
Why try to reconcile Scripture with Evolution? I see the original "sperm" of God as a sort of impregnation of "mother earth".  |
Date: 12/15/2001 2:56:00 PM
From Authorid: 44525
here we go again...let me ask where you get your "facts"??  |
Renasoft is the proud sponsor of the Unsolved Mystery Publications website.
See: www.rensoft.com Personal Site server, Power to build Personal Web Sites and Personal Web Pages
All stories are copyright protected and may not be reproduced in any form, except by specific written authorization
