Utopia Temple
Main Forum Page Register an Account for Free! Calendar Frequently Asked Questions about this Board View New Posts Advanced Search Login
  Utopia Temple Forums > General Discussions > Respectable General Discussions > Religious Discussions

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Post New Thread Reply
Author Thread
(Posted as Lord Paul X)
Posts: 216/586
Donated $4.24
(06-Aug-2003 at 01:14)


Evolution? Split from 2 Samuel 24 thred

The discussion about Evolution, seen through the eyes of Christians and Atheists.

The discussion started here (it was going to much off-topic):
http://forums.utopiatemple.com/showt...986#post667986

Nimon promished to give me a bible text to support his statements, i'm waiting for him to post it...

(here you go mister Titan)

"I've discovered that I often visit the state of confusion,
and I know my way around pretty well."

Last edited by Lord Paul, 06-Aug-2003 at 01:14.
Edit reason: 2 am...
#1  
View Public Profile Visit Lord Paul's homepage Find more posts by Lord Paul Add Lord Paul to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 120/317
(06-Aug-2003 at 01:20)


Re: Evolution? Split from 2 Samuel 24 thred

Quote:
(Originally posted by Lord Paul X)
Nimon promished to give me a bible text to support his statements, i'm waiting for him to post it...

(here you go mister Titan)
Why thank you.

And here is what I posted in that same thread. This is the bible passage that I think Nimon was referring to.

Quote:
(Originally posted by Lord Paul X)
2: i hope you find it, i'm looking forward to read it!
Nimon, I'm gonna help you out because I think that I have the verses in question handy in a word file. I suspect that you were thinking of this end-time prophecy...

Quote:
(Mark 8 : 38 - 9 : 1)(Mark 13 : 24-27)(Mark 13 : 30)
Mark 8
38If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels."

Mark 9

1And he said to them, "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power."

The coming of the Kingdom of God "with power" is described in more detail in Mark 13, especially verse 26. It is identified as the end of the world. In verse 30 of the same chapter, Jesus proclaims, "Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place".

Enjoy.

"To sit alone with my conscience will be judgment enough for me."
-Charles William Stubbs
"'Faith' means not wanting to know what is true."
-Friedrich Nietzsche
#2  
View Public Profile Find more posts by TheTitan Add TheTitan to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 524/4773
Donated $9.31
(06-Aug-2003 at 01:38)


Yeah, that was what I was thinking off. Thx TheTitan

My MSN is still [email protected].
My Skype is kapteindynetrekk
#3  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Nimon Add Nimon to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 122/317
(06-Aug-2003 at 01:59)


Quote:
(Originally posted by Nimon)
Yeah, that was what I was thinking off. Thx TheTitan
Glad I could help, and also looking forward to seeing what the response is.

Also, on the topic of evolution, perhaps we could start off by having a few of our esteemed creationists post some of their problems with the ToE.

"To sit alone with my conscience will be judgment enough for me."
-Charles William Stubbs
"'Faith' means not wanting to know what is true."
-Friedrich Nietzsche

Last edited by TheTitan, 06-Aug-2003 at 02:03.
#4  
View Public Profile Find more posts by TheTitan Add TheTitan to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 526/4773
Donated $9.31
(06-Aug-2003 at 02:06)


Well... Victor1 said he doesnt pay attention at school when they have about Evolution, and Lord Paul says hell look into it seriously when I disprove the bible, with his standards...

My MSN is still [email protected].
My Skype is kapteindynetrekk
#5  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Nimon Add Nimon to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 148/385
Donated $2.72
(06-Aug-2003 at 02:38)


Mark 9 verse 1 is paralled in Matthew 17 verse 1. my bible has a pretty good commentary on that.

Quote:
There are two main interpretations of this verse: 1. It is a prediction of the transfiguration, which happened a week later (17 verse 1) and which demonstrated that Jesus wil return in His Father's glory (16 verse 27). 2. It refers to the Son of Man's authority and kingly reign in his post-resurrection church. Some of his disciples will witness - even participate in - this as described in the book of Acts. The context seems to favor the first view.
and just because God coming in power in the end times is mentioned once doesn't mean that is the only time He will come in power. this could be any visitation from an angel, or the resurrection of Christ.

Jesus had been talking about what will happen in the end times and ppl's involvement in/notice of this. maybe He is saying this generation as in this generation that notices/participates in these things.

I'm not ashamed of the One I love.
[Our dream] eluded us then, but that's no matter — tomorrow we will run faster, stretch out our arms farther. And one fine morning...
Hail Jesus, You're my Lord.
#6  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Victor1 Add Victor1 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 528/4773
Donated $9.31
(06-Aug-2003 at 03:01)


Ill let the other ones answer this one, but wasnt this thread about evolution? We are here to discuss that.

My MSN is still [email protected].
My Skype is kapteindynetrekk
#7  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Nimon Add Nimon to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 128/317
(06-Aug-2003 at 03:06)


Quote:
(Originally posted by Victor1)

Mark 9 verse 1 is paralled in Matthew 17 verse 1. my bible has a pretty good commentary on that.



and just because God coming in power in the end times is mentioned once doesn't mean that is the only time He will come in power. this could be any visitation from an angel, or the resurrection of Christ.

Jesus had been talking about what will happen in the end times and ppl's involvement in/notice of this. maybe He is saying this generation as in this generation that notices/participates in these things.
Ya, I had heard that explanation before. Nimon is right though, I don't want to get off topic so lets concentrate on what the thread is here for.

"To sit alone with my conscience will be judgment enough for me."
-Charles William Stubbs
"'Faith' means not wanting to know what is true."
-Friedrich Nietzsche
#8  
View Public Profile Find more posts by TheTitan Add TheTitan to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as Lord Paul X)
Posts: 220/586
Donated $4.24
(06-Aug-2003 at 10:49)


Quote:
(Originally posted by Hero of Time)

Hey, NIMON, And EVERYONE ELSE. You have lost ALL CREDIBILITY. Sorry, but you have. You are STILL going on about the 70k peeps when I have explained it MULTIPLE times to you ALL. You IGNORED IT. Thereby, WE will IGNORE you. So maybe you should LISTEN to OTHERS if you want OTHERS to LISTEN to YOU.
Quote:
(Originally posted by Nimon)

Fine with me, I havent seen you make any real comments anyway so its not really a loss not to be able to debate with you. And hey Hero of Time, you lost all credibility the day you started to trust the bible.

And you have NOT give us a good explanation. As you can see we are furthering that thought, I am talking about the quotes certain xtians made about this even that contradict themselves.
If you guys want to say things like that go ahead! But it makes me really consider if i even want to talk to you guys. Maybe i'll return later to continue the discussion with you.

And BTW, post the whole part not just a part that points to the part i want to read...

"I've discovered that I often visit the state of confusion,
and I know my way around pretty well."
#9  
View Public Profile Visit Lord Paul's homepage Find more posts by Lord Paul Add Lord Paul to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 537/4773
Donated $9.31
(06-Aug-2003 at 13:19)


Hmmm... maybe that was a good way to avoid having to argue with us on evolution?

My MSN is still [email protected].
My Skype is kapteindynetrekk
#10  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Nimon Add Nimon to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 161/385
Donated $2.72
(06-Aug-2003 at 18:49)


Quote:
(Originally posted by Nimon)

Hmmm... maybe that was a good way to avoid having to argue with us on evolution?
why should we argue with u if u won't consider our points valid, even if they r just as good as urs r.

I'm not ashamed of the One I love.
[Our dream] eluded us then, but that's no matter — tomorrow we will run faster, stretch out our arms farther. And one fine morning...
Hail Jesus, You're my Lord.
#11  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Victor1 Add Victor1 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 544/4773
Donated $9.31
(06-Aug-2003 at 19:58)


we are considering your points, you have made NONE about evolution!

My MSN is still [email protected].
My Skype is kapteindynetrekk
#12  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Nimon Add Nimon to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 140/317
(07-Aug-2003 at 01:43)


Quote:
(Originally posted by Victor1)
why should we argue with u if u won't consider our points valid, even if they r just as good as urs r.
Alright I guess we have won this one. Look like the other side wants to forfeit.

Victor, any of the other creationists, please give us some valid points to discuss. Tell us why evolution via natural processes is impossible. That is why this thread is here.

"To sit alone with my conscience will be judgment enough for me."
-Charles William Stubbs
"'Faith' means not wanting to know what is true."
-Friedrich Nietzsche

Last edited by TheTitan, 07-Aug-2003 at 01:44.
#13  
View Public Profile Find more posts by TheTitan Add TheTitan to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 152/317
(10-Aug-2003 at 00:53)


*bump* Man, not even my last post caused them to say anything!? I guess they don't even want to try Nimon.

"To sit alone with my conscience will be judgment enough for me."
-Charles William Stubbs
"'Faith' means not wanting to know what is true."
-Friedrich Nietzsche
#14  
View Public Profile Find more posts by TheTitan Add TheTitan to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 570/4773
Donated $9.31
(10-Aug-2003 at 02:33)




Yeah, looks like the first rule of debating with xtians arrived. If you cant answer, ignore it

My MSN is still [email protected].
My Skype is kapteindynetrekk
#15  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Nimon Add Nimon to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 159/317
(11-Aug-2003 at 04:05)


Well, I guess that the creationists aren't going to show themselves. On the lighter side though, I found this article the other day, and I thought that I would post it. If you have been to those silly creationist websites, then you have no doubt heard them arguing that "polystrate" fossils prove the flood. One such fossil that they always quote, is a whale found in California. The alleged 80-foot-long whale, they say, was found, buried, in a vertical position. Anyway, I have always wondered about this claim, and whether or not it was true. No more though, I have found the answer:

Quote:
(Entire Article)
Had anybody taken the time and trouble to check the facts, they would have found that the story by Russel (1976) took some liberty with the facts and lacked very important information. First, the skeleton was not found in a vertical position, but was lying at an angle 50 to 40 degrees from horizontal. Finally, although at this angle, the whale skeleton lay parallel to the bedding of strata which at one time was the sea floor on which the dead whale fell after its death. This facts were confirmed by inquiring with the people at the Los Angeles Museum of Natural History who excavated the whale. Although nothing had been published on the whale, Russel (1976) clearly identified the staff who excavated the skeleton and they could have been easily called at the Los Angeles Museum of Natural History in Los Angeles, California.

Oh well, better luck next time creationists.

"To sit alone with my conscience will be judgment enough for me."
-Charles William Stubbs
"'Faith' means not wanting to know what is true."
-Friedrich Nietzsche
#16  
View Public Profile Find more posts by TheTitan Add TheTitan to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as dravid)
Posts: 614/1184
(11-Aug-2003 at 04:26)
Quote:
(Originally posted by TheTitan)

Well, I guess that the creationists aren't going to show themselves.
I am quite happy to get this discussion going...

But first you (we?) need to get a definition of evolution happening. As you may already know, I dont have a problem with microevolution, just macroevolution. So for future reference, when we say evolution, we shall be referring to macroevolution... ok?

also seeing this is an evolution debate, lets not bring creation into it. as far as anyone is concerned, it is another theory, but a theory that isn't being discussed at the moment...

so to get started, I have a couple of questions:

1. According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds.

There are only two documented cases of inanimate objects coming to life:

Pinocchio
Frosty the Snowman

Most scientists consider these two reports to be false.

So my assertion is: The notion that lifeless material can come to life all by itself is not consistent with scientific observation

2. Under normal circumstances, creatures give birth to the same kind of creatures. One does not expect a lizard to hatch from a chicken egg. Chickens have baby chickens. It is established scientific fact that like begets like.

For the theory of evolution to be true, there must be a fantastic number of creative mutations that produce new kinds of offspring which are better suited for survival, and therefore are favored by natural selection.

When I say 'creative mutations', I am referring to mutations that add information - which is what has to happen for reptiles to evolve into mammals.

Assertion number 2: The notion that random genetic changes can produce creative mutations is not consistent with scientific observation.

and finally...

3. The notion that the Earth is billions of years old is not consistent with a considerable amount of scientific observation.

I'm guessing that we will get into a lot more depth on each of these issues as time goes on!!
#17  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Aussie Dravid Add Aussie Dravid to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 160/317
(11-Aug-2003 at 08:58)


Hey dravid, glad to see we are finally getting started.
Quote:
(Originally posted by dravid)
I am quite happy to get this discussion going...

But first you (we?) need to get a definition of evolution happening. As you may already know, I dont have a problem with microevolution, just macroevolution. So for future reference, when we say evolution, we shall be referring to macroevolution... ok?
Sounds good, if we are speaking of microevolution then the distinction will (should) be made.

Quote:
(Originally posted by dravid)
also seeing this is an evolution debate, lets not bring creation into it. as far as anyone is concerned, it is another theory, but a theory that isn't being discussed at the moment...
I agree completely. Lets also leave God completely out of it.

Quote:
(Originally posted by dravid)
1. According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds.

There are only two documented cases of inanimate objects coming to life:

Pinocchio
Frosty the Snowman

Most scientists consider these two reports to be false.

So my assertion is: The notion that lifeless material can come to life all by itself is not consistent with scientific observation
True. Empirical science is not able to prove nor disprove the theory of life coming from chemicals. This is obviously one of the largest hurdles for the evolutionist. Deductive reasoning however, has lead most scientists to the conclusion that this theory is entirely possible. Unfortunately, this is the best theory science has been able to produce up to this point.

Quote:
(Originally posted by dravid)
2. Under normal circumstances, creatures give birth to the same kind of creatures. One does not expect a lizard to hatch from a chicken egg. Chickens have baby chickens. It is established scientific fact that like begets like.

For the theory of evolution to be true, there must be a fantastic number of creative mutations that produce new kinds of offspring which are better suited for survival, and therefore are favored by natural selection.

When I say 'creative mutations', I am referring to mutations that add information - which is what has to happen for reptiles to evolve into mammals.

Assertion number 2: The notion that random genetic changes can produce creative mutations is not consistent with scientific observation.
I can't really see your reasoning on this one. Your assertion and the example you gave do not match up. It is true that a lizard will not hatch from a chickens egg, but this does not disprove helpful mutations. I assume though that you want an answer to the assertion that mutations do not add information. For that, I give you this:
Quote:
(Chromosomal Effects of Rapid Gene Evolution in Drosophila melanogaster, Dmitry Nurminsky, Daniel De Aguiar,Carlos D. Bustamante, Daniel L. Hartl, SCIENCE VOL 291 5 JANUARY 2001)
"The gene was created from duplicated—and hence dispensable—copies of the genes for annexin X (AnnX) and the cytoplasmic dynein intermediate chain (Cdic). Three large deletions led to the fusion of the duplicated genes, whereupon a series of smaller deletions and nucleotide substitutions fashioned a new amino end of the Sdic polypeptide and created motifs characteristic of known axonemal dynein intermediate chains. The regulatory region of Sdic,including a spermatocyte-specific promoter element, also evolved from AnnX and Cdic sequences"


Quote:
(Originally posted by dravid)
and finally...

3. The notion that the Earth is billions of years old is not consistent with a considerable amount of scientific observation.

I'm guessing that we will get into a lot more depth on each of these issues as time goes on!!
Yes indeed we will get more in-depth on each issue you decide to raise. I am a bit troubled by your third though. The first two were well explained, but the third is backed up by nothing. I hope that in the future you will be able to enlighten us, and show how scientific observation disproves an old earth.

"To sit alone with my conscience will be judgment enough for me."
-Charles William Stubbs
"'Faith' means not wanting to know what is true."
-Friedrich Nietzsche
#18  
View Public Profile Find more posts by TheTitan Add TheTitan to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as Cydoc)
Posts: 580/789
Donated $1.36
(11-Aug-2003 at 09:03)


You do not need a "fantastic number of mutations" for evolution to work. You don't even need any mutations. If a tall person marries a tall person they have a tall kid. If that kid marries a tall person they have a tall kid. Now lets say this family or group of tall people moved off to a different area to live and eventually started a large population. The people in that area would be taller than the people in the other area. If evolution does not exist how do you explain all the different skin colours and race characteristics but while we are the same speicies?

Again take for example domesticated animals. Through selective breeding humans have shaped animals into something much different from the originals. Look at the dog. All the varities that have been created. Were each of these breeds of dog taken from the wild? No. Look at the cow. It was taken from one breed and made into many. Not only that, but the cow has doubled in size.

If it is possible for humans to create new varations through selective breeding over hundreds of years, is it not possible for nature to do the same over millions?

Quote:
The notion that the Earth is billions of years old is not consistent with a considerable amount of scientific observation.
Really? Where did you hear this? Some bible site? If anything this is the most accepted theory in the scientific community.
#19  
View Public Profile Find more posts by ghdfgsdrgsdfgdr Add ghdfgsdrgsdfgdr to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 144/8194
(11-Aug-2003 at 09:18)
Quote:
(Originally posted by dravid)
So my assertion is: The notion that lifeless material can come to life all by itself is not consistent with scientific observation
This is a very complex process expected to take hundreds of millions of years, it's not something we would have expected to be able to observe whether it can happen or not. It is a hole in the theory of evolution that we can't show how life first appeared, but it is hardly evidence against it.

Quote:
2. Under normal circumstances, creatures give birth to the same kind of creatures. One does not expect a lizard to hatch from a chicken egg. Chickens have baby chickens. It is established scientific fact that like begets like.
Did you know that if you apply growth hormone to the beak of a chicken, teeth will start to grow? Makes sense if birds descended from dinosaurs with teeth, but not if you think they were created the way they are.

Here is a counter question: when evoloution was proposed all people had to go on was the shape of animals. Based on this they tried to reconstruct a history of evolution with a tree of which species were most closely related to which. Much later DNA was discovered and it is now possible to build a tree from similarities in DNA. Given evolution these trees are expected to match since they just reconstruct a real history. Based on "intelligent design" there is absolutely no reason for them to do so. As it happens the trees do largely match. Why? Why shouldn't "God" pick the same genes for creating a human and an octopus eye since they are so similar?

Quote:
3. The notion that the Earth is billions of years old is not consistent with a considerable amount of scientific observation.
How do you explain radioactive dating of rocks?
#20  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Bernel Add Bernel to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump:


All times are GMT+1. The time now is 18:12.

Powered by vBulletin (modified)
Copyright ©2000-2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.