The whole leap in logic that just because a monkey peed on a computer(must have been a PC)means that life could not happen is stretch for me. I'm not trying to be stuck in the evolution paradigm, but I just don't see how one affects the other. As you said, its an anaolgy. What if its a bad analogy? And also, the experiment was a performance art "experiment", not what I'd call scientific. They used a couple monkeys for what a couple days. Hardly fulfills the anaology in my mind.
Given - Creationists and Evolutionists both contend there was an absence of matter prior to the existence of matter.
Given – The First Law of Thermodynamics (matter can be neither created nor destroyed)
My Challenge any Evolutionist Accepting the above Givens explain to me, using scientific reasoning, how one gets around the First Law of Thermodynamics.
My Stance. It is my contention that Evolutionists cannot faithfully align the beginnings of the universe under the First Law of Thermodynamics. Something being created from absolutely nothing requires some type of intervention. The intervention for Creationists is a belief in the ‘miracle of Creation’ and that a Deity is knowledgeable and powerful enough to bring something into existence that prior to that point never existed.
Creationists choose to believe in a Deity to explain the arrival of humanity and everything we know. Evolutionists want humanity to accept as scientific fact random chance. And that under random chance things came together just at the right moment to cause a big bang that set evolution in motion. However, this is notion that violates the accepted scientific principle of the First Law of Thermodynamics.
Therefore, if an absence of matter truly existed and if the state of matter cannot be changed because no matter exists (holding fast to the First Law of Thermodynamics), how does any Evolutionist navigate around the accepted scientific truth of the First Law of Thermodynamics? My answer. They can’t. Because a big bang by random chance violates in total the First Law of Thermodynamics because a bang requires something that did not exist... energy, and energy is a form of matter. And under the First Law of Thermodynamics something cannot come from nothing. And no amount of time (thousands, millions, billions, or trillions of years) will ever give a bang, because matter does not exist.
Can either view be proven? No. Can either view by disproven? No. So any argument regarding which idea is correct is academic at best. Regardless of position, it all boils down to faith. Frankly, I think it takes a greater amount of faith to accept random chance that breaches the First Law of Thermodynamics than to accept on faith creation.
First off, it isn't evolutionists who have to explain the Origin of Life. They are only concerned about how life changes after it begun. It is the Biologists (Molecular Biologists, specifically) whose job it is to explain the Life's Origins. And they would not be using analogies to do so. They would be using Scientific Theorums.
I believe that this is a diversion by use of terms. If a biologist believes that one species evolved from another species, then it boils down that everything evolved from something else which means that something came from nothing, which goes back to how did things begin.
On a personal note, every evolutionist I have ever spoken with tries to explain the origin of life by the big bang or some such thing that started the evolutionary movement. Only when they recognize they cannot persuade the dissenting view they use the argument of “it isn't evolutionists who have to explain the Origin of Life.”
No flame intended, but it all goes back to my previous post about it being a matter of faith regardless of position.
IP: Logged
05:07 PM
frontal lobe Member
Posts: 9042 From: brookfield,wisconsin Registered: Dec 1999
Hey, lurker, now I didn't even think you came across as rude!
longtermgt, I've never even heard of the Petrine Primacy, but at least I respect that what you believe has SOME foundation.
johnnyk, many people have those reasons. Others are just objectively looking for reality.
RoadRocket, many story/parable/analogies and theories (like evolution) start out as story/parable/analogies and theories but are repeated so many times that they start to become taken as technically correct when they were never meant to be. They are elevated to "truth" status by their repetition.
Carlc, I don't care what you think about the Bible per se, but if you've never read it, how do you KNOW it is a POS???
I believe that this is a diversion by use of terms. If a biologist believes that one species evolved from another species, then it boils down that everything evolved from something else which means that something came from nothing, which goes back to how did things begin.
You can believe that if you like, but while the Origin of Life began the process of Evolution, it is not Evolution. The Origin of Life asks the question "exactly how did life begin?" Evolution, OTOH, asks "where did all this life come from?".
And while they are similar questions, they are not the same question. The first concerns itself with chemical reactions and looks to find a "self-replicating molecule", while the other concerns itself with living and extinct species and looks to find a "missing link".
So, why would an evolutionist, who's job is to find this missing link, want to even try and explain Molecular Biology?
It's not his job...
No offense taken. Nor am I attacking anyone's faith. I am merely pointing out to Ken that an Analogy, treated and tested as a Theory, having failed that test, cannot disprove the Origin of Life nor could it have any repercussions to the Theory of Evolution in any case.
Hey Doc, of course I have a foundation for my belief system.! It isn't complete, however. Isn't that search part of personal growth? I deeply respect Christian-Judeo/Greco-Roman ethics and philosophy. I also admire the great humanist thinkers of the Enlightenment. I believe that the vast amounts of physical evidence that supports evolution is closer to fact than theory (and even closer when compared to New Earth Creationism). I think the great majority of scientists also accept evolutionary theory as fact. Science allows for the addition of new information that ongoing research provides. Literal interpretation of the Bible does not allow for such provisions. The Petrine Primacy states that Jesus confered the power of His church upon the head of the apostle Peter. The Church claims an unbroken lineage to St. Peter, the first pope.
IP: Logged
07:50 PM
frontal lobe Member
Posts: 9042 From: brookfield,wisconsin Registered: Dec 1999
longtermgt, yes that is part of personal growth. And I appreciate that you've thoughtfully researched and considered it. That's what I was commending. Versus a lot of people who just follow blindly or believe what they are told (over and over in many cases, religious and scientific). I happen to disagree with you, but I respect that you at least have reasons for what you believe.
Gold the quantum flux broke the first law along with alot of other safe sane ideas but Q is now the NEW LAW IN Q physics matter can just pop in or out of exstance and some [steven hawkings] think the big bang was just a big Q FLUX POP
btw the age of earth and sun system is billions of years leaving lots of time for randon chance to happen and remember IT only needs to happen ONCE then life is a selfreplication deal
IP: Logged
12:32 AM
DRH Member
Posts: 2683 From: Onalaska, WI, USA Registered: Dec 1999
btw the age of earth and sun system is billions of years leaving lots of time for randon chance to happen and remember IT only needs to happen ONCE then life is a selfreplication deal
The problem is there are a lot of ITS that had to happen. Even given billions of years the odds against it are staggering. That doesn't mean I believe in Johnny's "big invisible guy in the sky", but there does seem to be intelligence in the design. Not just the design of man... the design of everything, right down to the subatomic level. The laws that Einstein and others discovered don't seem random, they seem designed.
IP: Logged
12:55 AM
Carlc Member
Posts: 410 From: Nottingham, UK Registered: Apr 2002
You are making sweet sweet love to the partner of your dreams……………………………….
You can not believe your luck, you keep racking your mind trying to figure out how the hell you managed to enchant such a vision of beauty………………………
Was it my wit, my charm, my looks, my kind hearted nature, my aftershave?
Point is, if you find yourself in a magical situation that you thought was an impossibility don’t waste that moment trying to justify your being there, just enjoy it. Life is short – so very short – the important thing is that you have a happy and fulfilled life, to be able to lie on your death bed with no regrets just a sense of pride.
Guess I got up on the right side of the bed this morning eh Ken
Viva le Primate révolution !!!!!!! Give our hairy brethren a chance !!!!!!
IP: Logged
06:13 AM
Carlc Member
Posts: 410 From: Nottingham, UK Registered: Apr 2002
Carlc, I don't care what you think about the Bible per se, but if you've never read it, how do you KNOW it is a POS???
Bloody good point!!!! That was just a display of my ignorance, it was only about 6 months ago I was contemplating reading it, as I do enjoy the odd debate with people of limited perception, and thought that a bit more knowledge of the holy hand book would put me in good stead. Needless to say I feel the words of Noam Chomsky are more important at this worrying time, so the words of the lord will just have to wait!!!!
[This message has been edited by Carlc (edited 05-14-2003).]
"Stanley Miller... He undertook experiments designed to find out how lightning--reproduced by repeated electric discharges--might have affected the primitive earth atmosphere. He discharged an electric spark into a mixture thought to resemble the primordial composition of the atmosphere. In a water receptacle, designed to model an ancient ocean, amino acids appeared. Amino acids are widely regarded as the building blocks of life."
When this experiment was first conducted the news media quickly reported he had created LIFE in a test tube. The scientist were very slow to correct him.
And what they never pointed out is that the amino acids that were present in his flask when he was all done were tar. Toxic tar. He had created amino acids, but not THE specific ones needed to build living cells from.
What he really proved was the proverbial primortal soup turns into toxic chemicals, in which life as we know it could NOT exist.
But here we are, 50 years later, and his experiment is STILL being touted as proof of one way life could happen spontainiously.
If evolutionist have divorced themselves from the question of the origins of life, then why do they focus on life evolving from single cell organisms into more complex one?
why do they assume life 'happened' as a single cell and went upwards from there?
esp since we have never witnessed a species evolving into a higher level species?
why not assume that life 'happened' on a higher level, and now we are decending lower and lower- that is what our understanding of genetics indicates. The more generations we reproduce, the weaker and more defective the succeeding generations become.
All the evolution we have documented can be attributed to selective breading. We have hundreds of breeds of dogs, but they are all still dogs - if you mate different dogs for many years, and come up with a new breed
thats not evolution, is it? How can biologists say for sure whether the variations they attribute to evolution are due to mutations, or due to genetic variables?
is that all the evolutionist have to show for their 100+ years of research? Selective breeding?
Ken have you read DARWIN's origain of the speachies??? or just the thumpers bad spin books?? please do some research and stop parroting thumpers site BS
life can and does live in many thought to be toxic places deep sea hot vents, and in desiel fuel, other bugs eat tar, first life had a very wierd anti-O2 form, as there was not free o2 to use, o2 use came later and of course life started at one cell or mostlikely at a virus no-cell level and got more complex over time
------------------ Question wonder and be wierd are you kind?
IP: Logged
10:02 AM
AusFiero Member
Posts: 11513 From: Dapto NSW Australia Registered: Feb 2001
I wont get into the big picture argument here but species mutating and forming new species doesn't need proving, it happens. Take 1 horse and take 1 donkey and you get 1 ass. If those related species can breed who knows what has bred with what along the way to create new species.
But here we are, 50 years later, and his experiment is STILL being touted as proof of one way life could happen spontainiously.
Evolutionist never admit when they are wrong.
Ummm... Ken? The example I posted to you was meant to be an example of a theory. It was not meant to be represented as a fact.
Why are you trying to misrepresent it?
quote
Originally posted by Ken Wittlief:
If evolutionist have divorced themselves from the question of the origins of life, then why do they focus on life evolving from single cell organisms into more complex one?
why do they assume life 'happened' as a single cell and went upwards from there?
Biologists believe life originated from a self-replicating chemical not a cell. Cells came later as part of an effort to defend themselves from other self-replicating chemicals.
You are misrepresenting again. You certainly are the only one who seems to believe life started as a complete cell.
quote
Originally posted by Ken Wittlief:
esp since we have never witnessed a species evolving into a higher level species?
why not assume that life 'happened' on a higher level, and now we are decending lower and lower- that is what our understanding of genetics indicates. The more generations we reproduce, the weaker and more defective the succeeding generations become.
All the evolution we have documented can be attributed to selective breading. We have hundreds of breeds of dogs, but they are all still dogs - if you mate different dogs for many years, and come up with a new breed
thats not evolution, is it? How can biologists say for sure whether the variations they attribute to evolution are due to mutations, or due to genetic variables?
is that all the evolutionist have to show for their 100+ years of research? Selective breeding?
Ken, you seem more interested in misrepresenting facts than engaging in any kind of intelligent discussion.
Why? Did evolutionists kill your family in a horrible raid to steel gold and gain glory for themselves?
Ed, I wasn't going to pounce on you about the primordial soup experiment where "amino acids" were created, but I had recalled that the amino acides had nothing to do with sustainable life, were in a toxic environment that resulted, and didn't last long.
Yet that experiment is often touted as PROOF of how life formed--NOT BY YOU, but by many. And then the real results are kept quiet. That is my biggest objection. All these "theories" and unsuccessful experiments put out as fact. It goes on often and doesn't get called for what it is-in classrooms across our country. I don't care so much about WHAT people decide to believe. I do care about dishonesty and bad science.
Also, I don't know about Ken and if he thinks life started as a single cell. I don't. I believe God spoke into existence COMPLETE life forms from the beginning, not just cells that developed into something. Because that is was a normal, literal read of the Bible would say. So that's a far leap from self-replicating chemicals not even in a cell.
My belief may seem as far-fetched to you as yours does to mine, but I'm defintely not attacking you or trying to misrepresent you. Just enjoying the discussion.
IP: Logged
12:04 PM
Carlc Member
Posts: 410 From: Nottingham, UK Registered: Apr 2002
One did in mexico (the first ever) about a year ago I think.
"Carl, Genesis and Ecclesiasticus are very, very, intersting reads. I guess after a 12 year sentence in Catholic school, something had to rub off! Lol"
I shall check them out, my lodger was a catholic school inmate aswell, boy did that mess her head up!!!!!
ray - I am a creationist, but I am willing to listen to the evolunist view, and I (also) thank you for the link. I have visited and bookmarked the site.
If I may, from a creationist perspective there is a Dr. Thompson who is a graduate of TX A&M where he earned a Ph.D. in microbiology and is currently the executive director of Apologetics Press and does great critical examinations between evolution and creation. Even if one disagrees, the reading itself in intriquing.
BTW, for such a hot topic, I think the thread has stayed fairly civil. My kudus to all.
[edit] Cleaning up my spelling. Hope I caught them all. [/edit]
[This message has been edited by Gold-86SE (edited 05-14-2003).]
IP: Logged
12:57 PM
Gridlock Member
Posts: 2874 From: New Westminster, BC Canada Registered: Apr 2002
If evolutionist have divorced themselves from the question of the origins of life, then why do they focus on life evolving from single cell organisms into more complex one?
why do they assume life 'happened' as a single cell and went upwards from there?
esp since we have never witnessed a species evolving into a higher level species?
why not assume that life 'happened' on a higher level, and now we are decending lower and lower- that is what our understanding of genetics indicates. The more generations we reproduce, the weaker and more defective the succeeding generations become.
All the evolution we have documented can be attributed to selective breading. We have hundreds of breeds of dogs, but they are all still dogs - if you mate different dogs for many years, and come up with a new breed
thats not evolution, is it? How can biologists say for sure whether the variations they attribute to evolution are due to mutations, or due to genetic variables?
is that all the evolutionist have to show for their 100+ years of research? Selective breeding?
You mention why we have never seen a species mutate into a higer level of species. You said it in your own post. One Hundred years of research, that's it. I realize that a monkey took a whiz on a keyboard which means if something doesn't happen in a week, it doesn't happen at all, but I don't think 100 years is near enough time to see these kinds of transformations before our very eyes. If you look through the fossil record, you will see the transformations of man. It looks pretty damn convincing to me. First we walked bent over and had big foreheads, and then bingo bango bongo, we walk erect and we have fire.
My question to you is: Explain the fossil record for us from the churches perspective.
So we've seen your arguments against evolution. You've seen that the thoery changes to include new information. You almost argue that we should throw out the evolutionary theory due to the fact that it keeps changing.
What if researches studying the shroud of Turin(I think thats the one) discovered that Jesus was female? Damning evidence, that could not be misinterpreted. What would you do then. Would people go through and reinterpret the bible to see the hidden meanings that Jesus was in fact a woman, or would the bible be thrown out as irreleveant? I think the church would adapt to include this new information. Maybe science can adapt to include new information as well.
what fossil record are you referring to? the missing link is still missing - all of them.
We have fossils of big horses and small horses - so what? where the small horses embrios? a horse is still a horse. If the smaller breeds became extinct that doenst prove that they evolved from something else.
The fossil record is also strewn with fraud and outright deception - many of which (now known to be outright concotions) are still in the school books as if they are a scientific fact.
If you have found the missing link you better call someone quick - you will be the first.
and what is the point in playing 'what-if' ?!
what-if Jim Henson comes back from the dead as a giant muppet, and sucks your brains out through your nose. What will you do then?
[This message has been edited by Ken Wittlief (edited 05-14-2003).]
Ed, I wasn't going to pounce on you about the primordial soup experiment where "amino acids" were created, but I had recalled that the amino acides had nothing to do with sustainable life, were in a toxic environment that resulted, and didn't last long.
As I mentioned to Ken, what I posted was meant to be an example of what a theory should look like. Nothing more.
What I have been arguing with Ken about was the assertion that an Analogy, once disproved, cannot disprove a theory. Only measurable facts and repeatable processes can approve/disprove a scientific theory.
The Primordial Soup experiment does not prove and cannot prove the Origin of Life. The only thing it can do is support the argument that the basic chemicals needed by life were present on the primordial earth.
quote
Originally posted by frontal lobe:
Yet that experiment is often touted as PROOF of how life formed--NOT BY YOU, but by many. And then the real results are kept quiet. That is my biggest objection. All these "theories" and unsuccessful experiments put out as fact. It goes on often and doesn't get called for what it is-in classrooms across our country. I don't care so much about WHAT people decide to believe. I do care about dishonesty and bad science.
This is precisely what I was pointing out to Ken. No no single theory, and certainly analogy is going to be used by a reputable scientist to prove the Origin of Life.
And, in fact, it is not scientists who are presenting these arguments, but laymen who think they understand everything.
Which, again, is why I posted that link. On that page were reputable theories that will ultimately be proven/disproven using accepted scientific methods.
And locking a monkey in a room for a few days with a typewriter is not one of those exceptable methods...
quote
Originally posted by frontal lobe:
Also, I don't know about Ken and if he thinks life started as a single cell. I don't. I believe God spoke into existence COMPLETE life forms from the beginning, not just cells that developed into something. Because that is was a normal, literal read of the Bible would say. So that's a far leap from self-replicating chemicals not even in a cell.
My belief may seem as far-fetched to you as yours does to mine, but I'm defintely not attacking you or trying to misrepresent you. Just enjoying the discussion.
[/QUOTE]
I have as yet to say whether or not I believe in evolution. I have as yet to tell anyone that their beliefs are wrong. The only thing I have done so far is point out the fallacy of using an analogy to disprove a scientific theory.
And yes, I'm enjoying the discussion too. But then, I've always enjoyed a good debate.
many "missing links" have been found one is named lucy sereral others are allso found will we find them all WHO CARES we have enuff to see the trend but fools will eyes only on a fairytale book will never see anyway
ken please explain dino's if everything was created
btw oldest living thing found is algee about 3 billion years old and single celled but it formed in to matts as it does today so they were able to find evidence of the matts
early life lived in a enviroment we would call toxic today life has changed the EARTH
------------------ Question wonder and be wierd are you kind?
As for "lucy" there is credible studies questioning the validity of whether or not 'she' is a missing link. Other 'missing links' have be 'discovered' but questioned as well.
I don't consider my self a fool for believing in creation nor for believing in the Bible, because I don't just 'accept' what is preached from any pulpit, I read the Bible and read secular materials to help determine my stance. But I do take it personally when I am called a fool because it is assumed that I am not looking objectively at the 'evidence.'
When considering 'evolutionary evidence' everyone (creationists and evolutionists) should be open to valid critism of any 'discovery.' We, as humans, take a partial fossel find and extrapolate the rest of the find to form a representation of what the fossel looked like when living. At best, it is an educated guess. And all guesses are worth critical examination. However, it appears to me that evolutionists try harder to overlook meaningful questions in order to preserve the thought that evolution from species to species exists.
As for the dinosaurs. If one believes in creation, which some don't, the dinosaurs were made extinct because of the world wide flood found in Genesis. Noah took two of every kind, plus some others, he did not take two of every animal. A german-shepard is a kind of dog, but how many other kinds of dogs are there? The boat was not big enough to take a representation of every animal, just a kind of animal. Hence, we have aligators and other reptiles which can be classified in the same category as dinosaurs. But one has to believe in Creation and the Bible for this to be acceptable.
As for life changing on earth. I believe that it has, but not as an evolutionist beleves. Early life biblically, there was a garden, lush, green, beautiful. Everything humans needed, but because man's sin we lost it. A little later humanity became so unrighteous that a flood was brought to save only the righteous and that flood destroyed the lush life, and now we have a more difficult life, hence why those in the OT lived longer lives that those in the NT. This btw also fits the scientific principle that all things work to disorder. But once again, one must put some belief in the Bible and creation for this stance. Which is no more than what evolutionists require when they want one to believe in evolution. Again it all comes back to the question, where are you going to put your faith?
ray - my responses are not intended as flames, but hopefully an explaination from my pov.
IP: Logged
11:54 AM
DRA Member
Posts: 4543 From: Martinez, Ga, USA Registered: Oct 1999
I love these threads, makes for entertaining reading. All this talk of evolution has me suprised no one has brought up the evolution of religion. It is very well documented and there are no missing links!
I have always considered the monkey's and the typewriter thing to be an example of probability having absolutely nothing to do with evolutionay theory. Take an infinite number of scrabble pieces and drop them from the sky, they should form every possible word in the english language, you may have to drop them an infinite number of times LOL!
I have read the bible, need to do that again someday, it has some good stories in it! Full of deciet, revenge, incest, war, you name it it's got it. Not so interesting when you get to the new testament, god seemed to turn into a wimp at some point in time according to my read on it, maybe he evolved! Even better read are some of the older texts the bible is based on and some of the texts that were left out (I guess according to gods will).
I know I probably sound like an atheist, by some folks standards I may be, but I do believe in a higher power, just not the popularly accepted!
flood storys in the bible [there are two] one says 2 of each the other 7 of the clean animials both are mostly likely spin on summerian tales with a old race memory of the black sea flood mixed in!! but no ark on the mt that is a old 5-600ace church built up there by monks of the eastern roman empire/church so no wonder they "found timbers!!!!! THERE IS NO RECORD OF ANY WORLD WIDE MT COVERING FLOOD not 5000 years ago or at any other date, local floods sure, but no big one
but DINO's sorry NOWAY dates are toooooo far off 100,000,000 years not 6,000 thats a BIG GAP!!!!!!! DINO's died way before monkeys let alone their uncle modern man
missing link debates are about classiphying pre-modern man in to groups NOT that the dates or links are wrong or faked for lucy and many others
------------------ Question wonder and be wierd are you kind?
there a record of the world wide flood, its written in the bible - thats what a record is - a written account.
And to put it into perspective, Noah was still alive when Abraham (beginning of the Jewish family) was born. They could have been neighbors for all we know.
The account of the flood is also present in other cultures. That does not mean the bible copied it from someone else's book of fables, it could also mean that it actually happened, and was acknowledged by different cultures through their heritage of oral history.
If a comet was recorded in 2000BC in china, and in the middle east - would you insist that the comet was a fable, and the Chinese copied the story from middle eastern writings?
of course not - you would say the comets appearence was a historical fact, documented by people living in isolation on the opposite sides of the earth.
But when it comes to biblical truths you sing a different tune. Now you say its all stories and someone one culture copied the story from the other.
The bible has not evolved over the centuries- God does not change - our relationship to Him does not change.
The bible is 66 books written by 40 authors over a period of thousands of years - and yet it is an integrated message system from our creator - who lives outside our time domain.
The story is consistant from Genesis 1 to the end of Revelation. The nature of God is revealed in every book - and Jesus is also present in every chapter.
If you dont understand the consistancy of it, you dont understand God's nature, or your relationship to Him.
BTW an interesting thing about dinosaurs - about 10 years ago biologist realized the larger ones were so big, they could not live with our current level of O2 and airpressure.
The air pressure at sea level would need to be at least 30psi (twice what it is today).
The biblical account of the flood, and the biblical account of the atmospheric conditions that existed before the flood fully account for this sudden change in air pressure
which would have killed off the dinosaurs
and reduced the life span of all other living creature (including humans).
Do scientist want to consider a sudden discontinuity in the earths environment like this? no!
Why? because its not possible? its not scientifically feasible? No
they wont consider it because it is associated with the bible.
The biblical account of the flood, and the biblical account of the atmospheric conditions that existed before the flood fully account for this sudden change in air pressure
which would have killed off the dinosaurs
and reduced the life span of all other living creature (including humans).
Do scientist want to consider a sudden discontinuity in the earths environment like this? no!
Why? because its not possible? its not scientifically feasible? No
they wont consider it because it is associated with the bible.
You're painting with a very broad brush, once again...
And, for the record, there's no reason why God can't use natural forces to accomplish his ends. He made 'em. He understands 'em. He's not afraid to use 'em.
Why explanations for biblical miracles demistify God for some, I'll never understand.
Maybe the true miracle is in the timing of the event, not the event itself.
Why did that volcano (if true) explode and cause Moses' miracles when it did? It could have exploded at any old time...
------------------ Ed Dana 88 Coupe.
[Edited to add last two points]
[This message has been edited by RoadRocket (edited 05-15-2003).]
Is that Moses link suppost to be a serious scientific theory
or a joke?
let me get this straight - an 80mph wind pushes the red sea back, and the 1 million Hebrews cross the red sea. Then the egyptian army decides to attack them, and the 80mph wind stops suddenly, and they are all killed.
Stick you head out the car window next time you are driving 80mph and then tell me how a million people are going to WALK across a muddy sea bottom in those conditions? In an 80mph wind you cant even STAND UP!
And what type of volcano produces a wave of death that falls over a nation so that the first born of all animals and humans are struck dead during the night
unless they are within a household that has the blood of a lamb on its doorpost? Thats gotta be once specialize (one night only) illness spewing from that volcano!
(That web site has to be a joke - you cant be serious!)
BTW - you have it backwards. Im not saying science has to explain how God did what He did - how the flood happened, how the red sea was parted.
Im saying that those events left evidence of their occurace- the change in air pressure, the death of the dinosaurs, the drop in the human life span, plate techtonics, mountians being pushed up, tropical plant and animal fossils in the extreem north and south, fossils of sea life at the tops of mountians
a predictable level of sailentity in the oceans (if the earth was millions of years old, the oceans would all be saturated with salts by now, like the great salt lake, and nothing would be living in them.
I dont need science to explain how miracles happened by God's timely use of the laws of physics. Let the scientist view the world without their preconceived notions of what happened - open their eyes and consider all the possibilites - not only the ones that allow them to deny the existance and interaction of God in human history.
knowledge and truth has no respect for person. the drunk on the corner may be correct about something, and the professors at the discovery channel may be completely wrong.
To assert that something must be correct because of the education or character of the author is a fallicy.
Its not who you believe, its what you believe. I personally dont believe the things written in the bible because they are written in the bible - I believe them because I can put them to the test and verify they are true and correct.
Esp things relating to human nature, interpersonal relationships, what I feel inside at the core of my being, and which things in this world bring you genuine joy, and which things destroy you.
Other religions do claim absolute authority - the Koran states outright "This is true because I say it is"
the bible says to put its words to the test and see what effect it has on your life. People dont follow Jesus because some 4000 year old book tells them to.
They follow Jesus because it profoundly changes your life. Right now, here, today, in this life, all of it, every aspect of your being.
[This message has been edited by Ken Wittlief (edited 05-15-2003).]
IP: Logged
03:46 PM
I'm Back Member
Posts: 3780 From: Phoenix, Az, USA Registered: Oct 2002
Is that Moses link suppost to be a serious scientific theory
or a joke?
let me get this straight - an 80mph wind pushes the red sea back, and the 1 million Hebrews cross the red sea. Then the egyptian army decides to attack them, and the 80mph wind stops suddenly, and they are all killed.
Stick you head out the car window next time you are driving 80mph and then tell me how a million people are going to WALK across a muddy sea bottom in those conditions? In an 80mph wind you cant even STAND UP!
And what type of volcano produces a wave of death that falls over a nation so that the first born of all animals and humans are struck dead during the night
unless they are within a household that has the blood of a lamb on its doorpost? Thats gotta be once specialize (one night only) illness spewing from that volcano!
(That web site has to be a joke - you cant be serious!)
The reason I choose to counter you on your previous statements was that you were painting your POV with a very large brush. Asserting things like "Do scientist want to consider a sudden discontinuity in the earths environment like this? no!" paint all scientists as atheists or rebels, but certainly not interested in religion.
This is not so. Many scientists believe in God. Albert Einstein probably the most well known of all. His most famous quote: "God does not play dice with the universe".
The Discovery link I posted, look at the second paragraph:
quote
"I believe God is acting in, with and through nature to produce the miracles of the Exodus. For example, it was when the Israelites were at the Red Sea, surrounded by Pharaoh's army, and about to be attacked and captured, that the Red Sea was blown back enabling the Israelites to cross," said Humphreys.
This is another scientist who believes in God and is trying to validate the events of the bible.
The truth is, I'm not disagreeing with your beliefs, I'm disagreeing with your debating style.
The arguments you've used, concluding that an analogy disproves the Origin of Life theory, or that scientists refuse to accept the bible. ..
Well, it's like trying to kill a fly with a shot gun. It might kill the fly, or it might scare the fly away, or it may do nothing at all, but in all cases, it lacks finesse.
I'm not trying to be insulting. I'm just suggesting a different approach.
I'll give you an example.
Take the URL I posted earlier about Ambulocetis. I suggested it was a missing link. And many scientists believe that it is. But look at the facts. While it appears to be an ancestor of the whale and it did walk on four legs, the skeleton is incomplete and, therefore, there is insufficient proof to declare it a missing link. Without conclusive evidence, it remains a theory.
Find the facts, understand them, and attack their weaknesses. It's a strategy that's used in court, politics and science. And it tends to work very well. You also learn a lot in the process.
------------------ Ed Dana 88 Coupe.
IP: Logged
07:15 PM
AusFiero Member
Posts: 11513 From: Dapto NSW Australia Registered: Feb 2001
