Beliefs in God

[Jonathan]

>I think there are self-inconsistencies in all religions, including Christianity, does that mean they are all false?<
If they are all inconsistent, then either yes, or the assumption that 'the true philosophy is consistent' is wrong; remember, the latter is just my unprovable belief.

I don't think Gordon answered very clearly, he believes in the day-age hypothesis, IINM.

>Creationists seem willing to accept that fruitflies can change and adapt to meet environmental pressures, but then turn a blind eye to the possibility of the same mechanism at work within us. What do you think?<
Essentially all creationists agknowledge adaptation in animals and people, they deny that the adaptations become so overwhelming that one species becomes another.

>Wouldn't the Duck billed platypus be a prime example of a link in evolution. How many mammals lay eggs or how many egg layers suckle their young.<
I would say so, there is no shortage of links in evolutionary theory. The problem is that there is, as far as I know, no actual evidence that one species became another. They have fossil bones, which when laid out chronologically according to time of death, seem to show one animal morphing into another.

[racer270]

bill, my point exactly .....!!!
i wish i could type like all the rest of you.....!

.typing sucks, but if you were to talk to me in person ...Iaaaa i " ssttt,aaadde,rr ", to.............lol

just ask jonathan, or jim , victor ,or scott...... i have tryed talking to them on the phone ,
aaa what's a guy to do.....( get his wife to do it.)...lol"



gordy

[ovyyus]

Essentially all creationists agknowledge adaptation in animals and people, they deny that the adaptations become so overwhelming that one species becomes another.

OK, so creationists just have a problem with one species transforming into another. But a caterpillar transforms into a butterfly :P

Seriously though, as you say there is some fossil evidence to suggest that radical transformation can occur. Not enough to conclusively prove the case though. Certainly not enough to disprove it either. The trend is interesting though.

Here's another question - oh no, not another one :D ... let's go back to the fruit fly... if there is an intelligence behind the design of the fruit fly then why does the result of it's adaption to imposed environmental stressors appear to occur by natural selection from random mutation?

[ovyyus]

Hey Gordy, your typing may be carp, but I understand you just fine :D

[racer270]

Wouldn't the Duck billed platypus , just prove god has a sense of humor.....?
ps. i can spell again, i am heald.....!!!!

/ or my wife just came in from mowing the lawn..........{ ralph}-----------LOL

[ovyyus]

They are an amazing creature. They live in the creeks and rivers around where I live here in Tasmania and my daughter and I sometimes jump in our little blow-up boat and quietly row up the river and occasionally spot one. They're extremely shy and difficult to see in the wild - but who wouldn't be after having that joke pulled on them - lol

Hey Gordy, have you thought about some voice recognition software to make your typing a bit easier? I hear they're pretty accurate these days after you spend a little time training them. Could be easy... talk-cut-paste. We might not ever shut you up! :D

[Jonathan]

>if there is an intelligence behind the design of the fruit fly then why does the result of it's adaption to imposed environmental stressors appear to occur by natural selection from random mutation?<
I don't understand the question, I don't see how those are mutually exclusive.

[racer270]

bill

i have thought about those programs but to get one that is decent is about $200 bucks out here.

with my wife around , it is cheaper to keep her........i spent plenty of time,
time training her,from mowing the lawn to oil changes,cleaning the pool, and painting the house..........

------{ thanks for the tips ralph }-----LOL


Could be easy... talk-cut-paste. We might not ever shut you up! :D

bill,
careful what you ask for.......#$W#%@#^@#%#

[Michael]

Michael, I didn't understand what you suggested in the second part.

Hi Jonathan. I meant seeing if members here can try to formulate the true philosophy. This should be done in point form. Those points could then be debated. It would be a process of refining the list to the essentials.
It would start by people supplying what points or statements they think the true philosophy would consist of.
Points should not be repeated, so if someone has already made a certain point then someone else shouldn't state it if again by putting into different words > Unless it is a better description. They would also have to show why it is a better description, and if it ignors any points made by the previous statement it is trying to replace it should state why those points are irrelevent.

[Jonathan]

That does sound very interesting, but I think you'd have to start a new discussion board for it.

[ken_behrendt]

Gene wrote:

Rabbits are rabbits and fruit flys are fruit flys. One species doesn't evolve into another as far as man has observed.

One of the problems with the theory of evolution is that the process takes a LOT of time. Yes, random mutations can be created in the laboratory by exposing an organism's generative DNA to chemicals or radiation, but when this is done, it is discovered that about 99+% of the resulting mutations are fatal to the offspring. Only a few such mutations produce a viable offspring that can pass on the mutation.

Even in these cases the mutation does not result in a new species...just a variation of the species one started with.

Obviously, true evolution must require the slow accumulation of thousands of tiny non-fatal mutations that, eventually, so modify the progeny's DNA that they are not longer able to interbreed with the starting species.


Another problem with the theory of evolution is that there is almost a complete lack of transitional species in the fossil record. In other words, we see one species' fossils in a rock stratum and then virtually on top of it we see another stratum with a species that evolved from the first, but there are no intermediately evoluted species between the two.

However, I do not think that this is proof that new species suddenly emerge. It can be explained if we assume that fossils are only created under certain specific environmental conditions and that the intermediate species are missing because the conditions to form fossils when they existed were not present.

But, there is some fossil evidence of intermediate species. I remember reading that they found some fossils of a bird-like creature called an Archeopterix. At first glance, it looks much like a small dinosaur and had teeth. However, upon closer examination its forearms were found to be covered with feathers! Also, its bones, like that of a true bird, were hollow so as to cut down its body weight. Thus, this creature seemed to be halfway between the dinosaurs and the birds.

What good would half a bird be? Well, I think they theorized that this intermediate species was not capable of flight. Rather, it would run on its hind legs from an enemy and then use its front limbs with the feathers to glide for short distances.


A lot of fundamentalists claim that the Earth is only about 4000 years old based on the chronology given in the Old Testament. This claim, of course, does not make sense when one considers that the amount of radioactive decay measured in certain rocks indicates that they have been decaying for many millions of years.

Modern man is only supposed to be about a few million years old. Who knows, maybe advanced civilizations like our present one have risen and fallen hundreds of times during that period. They may have had their own religions, holy books, and prophets of which we will never know...


ken

[turulato]

A few years ago I watch a debate between evolutionist and astronomers where the astronomers were asking the evolutionist to revise their numbers and to be more accurate for the good of the school systems as their hundreds of millions of years did not make any sense in astronomy. The astronomers contended that the sun shrinks 5 feet per year and that if you do the reverse math you will find out that earth could not sustain life as it only takes a couple of degrees change in temperature to wipe out all living organisims on this planet. Another interesting observation they made, was that the oceans take about an inch of land every year, which means that with all those years we should be underwater by now. The astronomers however did not say that the evolutionist were wrong just that what is being taught in schools should be revised to teach that the earth is more like 2 million years old to make any astronomical sense. They also pointed out that what we perceive as evolution is nothing other than different species dieing out. On this point they made it clear that it was their own theory.

Who is right?

Astronomers, evolutionist, creationist or Rael?

What say you!

Turulato

[AgingYoung]

No matter who has them or what they are firmly held beliefs are hard to give up, Turulato. A foundational and fundamental belief I have is that man has to make up his own mind concerning truth and God. If God wanted to He could force an understanding on man. God has given each man a measure of pasta between his ears and it's up to everyone to let that pasta evolve into a fine noodle. Some evolve into a Primo Primavera while others just have mac and cheese.

A. Gene Young
PhD, noodleology

[Jonathan]

>Another problem with the theory of evolution is that there is almost a complete lack of transitional species in the fossil record.<
Not as far as I know. I heard about a skeleton they found in Jamaica that they think was a legged-whale.

>I remember reading that they found some fossils of a bird-like creature called an Archeopterix.<
I heard some recent, but probably uncorraborated, research that said that the feathers on that creature may not be feathers, but could be some formation resulting from the decay of flesh.

>Astronomers, evolutionist, creationist or Rael?<
I'm not sure the things you cite are right, neither the sun nor oceans change size linearly, so if those astronomers were not careful, their results may be meaningless. Also, I was under the impression that all astronomers believe that many stars are billions of years old.

[Vic Hays]

A lot of fundamentalists claim that the Earth is only about 4000 years old based on the chronology given in the Old Testament. This claim, of course, does not make sense when one considers that the amount of radioactive decay measured in certain rocks indicates that they have been decaying for many millions of years.

Modern man is only supposed to be about a few million years old. Who knows, maybe advanced civilizations like our present one have risen and fallen hundreds of times during that period. They may have had their own religions, holy books, and prophets of which we will never know...


ken

I don't know or even claim to know how old the earth is. If they use the chronology of the Old Testament it does not take into account the time the earth was " without form and void" before the creation of life. If you want to check out http://www.halos.com/ you will find that the granites of the earth were created and hardened nearly instantaneously. This of course is impossible without divine intervention. polonium has a half life of about two minutes. Within these polonium halos there is no trace of the uranium that the Polonium should have decayed from. Very interesting site.