Creation or Evolution?, Which do you believe in? Options

[ItzOnlySydney]

oo... what fun. 

i'm going to break down your post into segments and tell you why each is wrong.  I can also tell you something that disproves god's existance. 
1.  god is the alpha and omega, meaning that he has no beginning nor end.  if god were created or born, then he wouldn't be god. 

oh and here was me, thinking that jesus the SON was god, and was BORN.  wow i must be mistaken... cus see here i thought god was in this trinity, and his SON was BORN to mary.  strange, right?  so i guess god isn't really god.  the rest of that is opinion.  what says god is the alpha and omega? 
2. how can the cell theory be true?

i have not the time to write a textbook on cell theory for you.  read any and you will find how cell theory can be true.
3.  merely looking into a microscope doesn't explain how all the protein and organelles were constructed and how they all came together just to form a single cell.

of course,  you think all science has is microscopes?  there's this thing called DNA, you see.  and it is copied because of the chemical attractions, onto RNA.  RNA is a self replicating molecule.  put one RNA molecule in a beaker with all the parts of RNA, and that RNA string will make more. 

so, this RNA also gathers protiens amino acids by itself.  these in turn are made into protiens by RNA, and these protiens make up everythin becasue of thier structure, which is determined by RNA.
4.  even in chemistry, the probability of any of those elements forming together is considered "negligible."

even in chemistry?  why in chemistry?  is chemistry something that looks at things with low propabilities?  even as such, RNA is self replicating.  the probablity of having RNA molecules increases TONS every second. 

this is, in short, a wrong fact.  no truth in any part of this.
5.  it will never happen.  you give me an instance where life was formed out of nothing.

Miller- Urey expirement.  They made 'life'.  actually, they made amino acids and some parts of RNA, and then the plug was pulled.  should have gone on longer,but it didn't. 

however, they still created self replicating units.  all from inorganic elements.
6.  you can't, which explains that there must be a supreme being and his name is god.

you can't just say stuff, and then say it proves something else.  it has to ACTUALLY prove it.  you see, first off i can prove it, i just did.  secondly, even if i couldn't prove it it would not explain hat there has to be a supreme being.  even if you could, by some stroke of luck, explain why there has to be a supreme being, that would not say that his name is god.  his name could very well be bob for all you know. no, the bible is not a historical source and cannot be used as proof of that.
7.  you want evidence for god's existence?  look at nature.  look at everything around you.  do you actually think that those things created themselves or evolved from other things?  that is not plausible.

i see cells replicating, i see DNA making it happen.  nice opinions there, but not facts.  facts, my friend, are proven. what you have here are assertions you (not even the bible!) made.

8.  the human body is even more complex that a computer.  do you think a computer can assemble itself?  of course not.

did you know, that that happens every single FREAKING DAY!!!!   
it's a freaking computer that puts together other computers.  also, there are computer programs designed that design other computers. 

anyways; the human body has less genes than corn.  so much for complex, eh? 

9.living things cannot evolve from one species to another.  god's existence is evident in nature. 

the evidence that god is a lie is in nature.  there are documented cases of speciation.  and evolution.  animals have been selectivly speciated untill they could no longer reproduce.  that's speciation.

10. you can't see god.  he is a spiritual being.  even though you can't see god, you have to have faith that he exists.  what is faith?  faith is trust.  don't tell me that faith is a false idea.  everyone has faith.  how do i know that this message will be sent?  i don't know for sure.  but i send it anyway because i have faith that my computer will transfer it to this website.

hello. i'm paris hilton.  you can't see me, i'm just letters on a screen.  have faith in me.  i'm paris hilton.  have faith in me.

11.  and now: proof god does not exist.

a.  god, if he were to exist, would be good. 
b.  god, if he were to exist, would be allpowerful.
c.  god, if he were to exist and be good and all powerful, would stop every single crime and every single murder.

look around you.  humans are proof god doesn't exist.

columbine is proof god doesn't exist
war is proof god doesn't exist
september 11th is proof god doesn't exist
the death of any christian due to violence is proof god doesn't exist

look around you. god doesn't exist.

i have to agree. power to the athiests!

[*jcwdragon*]

unfortunately, many people, especially immature atheists, do not understand who god really is.

---on the trinity---
yes, god is the trinity. he is the father, the son, and the holy spirit. when jesus was "born," he descended to earth from heaven. it was not when he was created. god even says in the bible that he is the alpha and omega. having no beginning nor end is difficult for us humans to comprehend because everything on earth had a beginning and everything has or will have an end.

---on the cell theory---
the urey experiment was already proven false. see the university of indiana's website if you don't believe me. it is true that amino acids were formed, but how? because scientists controlled it. it didn't occur naturally. further study was conducted upon it and discovered that those amino acids were soon destroyed by nature. the plug was not "pulled." if it were, then you just proved that nature did not make life. it was an outside source. again, see the university of indiana's website. the second law of thermodynamics says that life cannot form out of nothing, which is explains that there must be a creator.

as for looking at a cell through the microscope, of course you can see all the organelles. and after looking at all those diverse and intricate structures, do you think that such a thing can produce itself? yes, these things can reproduce. but this debate is about creation vs. evolution. the cell was created and it didn't evolve. no animals evolved from one species to another.

the probability that i'm writing about is the probability of life forming by itself. of course life is still going on today. but how did it all forM? god created life. life cannot form out of nothing.

and for the person who brought up the computer refutation: of course a computer can produce another. it knows how. but a computer cannot produce itself, by itself. once a computer is made, it can make others. but no computer was suddenly born. it was created by a human--an outside source.

in essence, the cell and any other living thing are so complex that there must be an intelligent designer. time and chance cannot produce life. the probablity would be negligible.

---on seeing god---
no one can physically see god. god himself is invisible. but we can see what he has done on earth. in the bible, romans 1:20 says, "For since the creation of the world [god's] invisible attributes, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." What this verse means is that god's power is evident in nature. it is so evident that no one has an excuse to not believe.

---on evolution---
the fossil record is incomplete. it would be complete if only evolutionists didn't make up so many species that never existed.

dna cannot tell itself to change the physique of a species. if human evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys? and where are the links between humans and monkeys?

and i'll repeat myself: life cannot form out of nothing. don't refute me with the urey experiment because it has already been proven fallible and it wasn't even a true course of nature. it was controlled by chemists.

again, this debate is creation vs. evolution. if you want to debate, don't write about life today. write about how life started, because that is the central argument between creation and evolution. consequently, the debate between creation and evolution questions the existence of god, which we can also address.

---on the bible---
the bible is a historical source. the events in the bible actually happened. the books of the bible were written by people who actually lived. their existence is proven by many other sources. it is as valid a source as any other historical book.

the bible even has prophecies that have been proven. there is only one prophecy that has not been confirmed, and that is Jesus's second coming. yet, the bible also predicts the warning signs of his coming, such as the increasing number of earthquakes.

---on God himself---
god is all-powerful, all-knowing, and his is everywhere. this is hard to comprehend because we are human and nothing on earth is like him, so we can't compare him. god controls all things. a non-christian would think that god is evil and self-contradictory. but he is not. he loves us. we are his creation and he thought of us way before we were born. he says so in the bible.

god had no beginning and he will have no end. he is the creator of all things and therefore he can control all things. god uses every event on earth to work for the better. he used the tsunami to remind people that life is fragile and that they shouldn't waste their lives on frivolous things. he might appear evil to people still, but god promises that every thing he does is for the good. I, as a christian, trust god in this because I read the bible and i find its truth whenever i study it and how i can use it in my own life.

god can make decisions that we as humans don't understand. we cannot make quick judgments and say that he is evil.

if you say that god is evil, then you obviously do not know god. so I recommend that you read the bible first, or at least some of it, before you make any more inaccurate statements.

---on humans and human nature---
god loves humans above all others. he chose us to rule the earth. but satan caused us to sin, or do wrong against god's commandments. humans have free will and you can choose to live your life however you want. but god is your creator and if you choose to live against him, then you will pay the punishment of hell.

humans are inherently bad. we are bad because we have sin, and sin separates us from god. but if you simply believe that god sent jesus to die on the cross to take away your sin, then you will go to heaven and live a better life.





***if you want to debate further, provide evidence. don't tell me that your evidence is so huge that only a textbook can hold it. you can summarize it. and don't make any judgments about god unless you can site the information from the bible.***

[racoons > you]

you're going to get raked across the coals for saying th ebible is a valid historical source

i'll leave the pleasure to justin, tho

but justin, war isnt proof of GOd, it justprooves that he chooses not to interfere with human life. his omnipotency means he has teh power to mke that choice

why do i constantly argue the existence of god, when i dont believe it? eh, tweo years of r.e. class has warped my brain

[AngelTears]

evolution..

Im not a religiouse person.. at all.

[Spirited Away]

[quote=jcwdragon,Mar 30 2005, 2:31 PM]
unfortunately, many people, especially immature atheists, do not understand who god really is.

[/quote]

And it goes to show how close minded some Christians are, perhaps even prideful in their closed mindedness.

[QUOTE]---on the trinity---
yes, god is the trinity. he is the father, the son, and the holy spirit. when jesus was "born," he descended to earth from heaven. it was not when he was created. god even says in the bible that he is the alpha and omega. having no beginning nor end is difficult for us humans to comprehend because everything on earth had a beginning and everything has or will have an end. [/QUOTE]

And once again, if one can believe that God is the alpha and omega, why not believe that Nature can come about just the same... oh, because God "says" so while Nature... oh, while Nature simply proves that she exists by allowing us to see her?


[QUOTE]the probability that i'm writing about is the probability of life forming by itself. of course life is still going on today. but how did it all forM? god created life. life cannot form out of nothing.[/QUOTE]
For the sake of clearing things up, I agree with you somewhat because I believe in a Creator.

[QUOTE]---on seeing god---
no one can physically see god. god himself is invisible. but we can see what he has done on earth. in the bible, romans 1:20 says, "For since the creation of the world [god's] invisible attributes, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." What this verse means is that god's power is evident in nature. it is so evident that no one has an excuse to not believe.[/QUOTE]

Nature is older than the Bible, yet she cannot speak for herself. Her origins are a mystery supposedly reveal by a book that claims God created Nature. The funny thing is, the validity of such claim is based on a one sided persective.

[QUOTE]---on evolution---
the fossil record is incomplete. it would be complete if only evolutionists didn't make up so many species that never existed.[/QUOTE]

So you seem to think that non-scientists can speak for scientists. This reminds me of Galileo once again. He tried to educate people about one thing, and the Church called him blasphemous simply because he didn't have all the evidence then. Years, and years later, evidence is clear.

As technology improves on that note and as science advances, we'll get a better idea. However, until then, we shouldn't discredit scientists so readily as the Church discredited Galileo.

[QUOTE]and i'll repeat myself: life cannot form out of nothing. don't refute me with the urey experiment because it has already been proven fallible and it wasn't even a true course of nature. it was controlled by chemists.[/QUOTE]

God supposedly form from nothing, why not something else? On this, I'm truly curious.

[QUOTE]---on the bible---
the bible is a historical source. the events in the bible actually happened. the books of the bible were written by people who actually lived. their existence is proven by many other sources. it is as valid a source as any other historical book.[/QUOTE]

Nature is a historical source. It existed before people who lived to write the Bible. It is more valid than any book.

[QUOTE]---on God himself---
god is all-powerful, all-knowing, and his is everywhere. this is hard to comprehend because we are human and nothing on earth is like him, so we can't compare him. god controls all things. a non-christian would think that god is evil and self-contradictory. but he is not. he loves us. we are his creation and he thought of us way before we were born. he says so in the bible. [/QUOTE]

Yes, He loves us so much that He allows evil to exist, to tempt us. On the part where you said he is "everywhere". I also read this in Psalm 139 I believe. Would you mind telling another member "aznxdreamer" that please because he/she is Christian yet disagreed with me when I said God is omnipresent.

[QUOTE]god can make decisions that we as humans don't understand. we cannot make quick judgments and say that he is evil.[/QUOTE]

I do not think anyone can really prove God is either good or evil.

[QUOTE]if you say that god is evil, then you obviously do not know god. so I recommend that you read the bible first, or at least some of it, before you make any more inaccurate statements.[/QUOTE]

Historical scenerio:

Remember the Hundred Years War? The one that you probably learned in World History class about English and the French fighting. The war where Jeanne D'Arc (Joan of Arc) was burned as a heretic by the English but was revered as a God sent patriot?

On one side, Jeanne D'Arc was simply a heretic and on the other she was a soldier of God. It all depends on which country you side on, really.

This leads into my point of bias. How can you tell a non-believer to read a biased Book, and expect him/her to learn or believe anything? It cracks me up whenever a Christian says " if you don't believe me, just read the Bible". Of course, that isn't what you said, but it's very close to it.

[QUOTE]---on humans and human nature---
god loves humans above all others. he chose us to rule the earth. but satan caused us to sin, or do wrong against god's commandments. humans have free will and you can choose to live your life however you want. but god is your creator and if you choose to live against him, then you will pay the punishment of hell.[/QUOTE]

Choosing not to believe is not to live against God. If belief is to be sided with God, and non-belief is to be against God, then God is unjust. If you would like me to further explain why, just ask. Though, I'm sure you can guess on your own why this is so.

[QUOTE]humans are inherently bad. we are bad because we have sin, and sin separates us from god. but if you simply believe that god sent jesus to die on the cross to take away your sin, then you will go to heaven and live a better life. [/QUOTE]

Humans are inherently bad, yet, if God is our Creator, what does innate evil within humans say about Him?

[sadolakced acid]

<!-- begin code provided by createblog.com --><br /><br />jcwdragon,Mar 30 2005, 1:31 PM<br /><br />unfortunately, many people, especially immature atheists, do not understand who god really is. <br /><br />---on the trinity---<br />yes, god is the trinity.  he is the father, the son, and the holy spirit.  when jesus was "born," he descended to earth from heaven.  it was not when he was created.  god even says in the bible that he is the alpha and omega.  having no beginning nor end is difficult for us humans to comprehend because everything on earth had a beginning and everything has or will have an end.  <br /><br />---on the cell theory---<br />the urey experiment was already proven false.  see the university of indiana's website if you don't believe me.  it is true that amino acids were formed, but how?  because scientists controlled it.  it didn't occur naturally.  further study was conducted upon it and discovered that those amino acids were soon destroyed by nature.  the plug was not "pulled."  if it were, then you just proved that nature did not make life.  it was an outside source.  again, see the university of indiana's website.  the second law of thermodynamics says that life cannot form out of nothing, which is explains that there must be a creator.  <br /><br />as for looking at a cell through the microscope, of course you can see all the organelles.  and after looking at all those diverse and intricate structures, do you think that such a thing can produce itself?  yes, these things can reproduce.  but this debate is about creation vs. evolution.  the cell was created and it didn't evolve.  no animals evolved from one species to another.  <br /><br />the probability that i'm writing about is the probability of life forming by itself.  of course life is still going on today.  but how did it all forM?  god created life.  life cannot form out of nothing.<br /><br />and for the person who brought up the computer refutation: of course a computer can produce another.  it knows how.  but a computer cannot produce itself, by itself.  once a computer is made, it can make others.  but no computer was suddenly born.  it was created by a human--an outside source.<br /><br />in essence, the cell and any other living thing are so complex that there must be an intelligent designer.  time and chance cannot produce life.  the probablity would be negligible. <br /><br />---on seeing god---<br />no one can physically see god.  god himself is invisible.  but we can see what he has done on earth.  in the bible, romans 1:20 says, "For since the creation of the world [god's] invisible attributes, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."  What this verse means is that god's power is evident in nature.  it is so evident that no one has an excuse to not believe.<br /><br />---on evolution---<br />the fossil record is incomplete.  it would be complete if only evolutionists didn't make up so many species that never existed.<br /><br />dna cannot tell itself to change the physique of a species.  if human evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?  and where are the links between humans and monkeys?<br /><br />and i'll repeat myself: life cannot form out of nothing.  don't refute me with the urey experiment because it has already been proven fallible and it wasn't even a true course of nature.  it was controlled by chemists.<br /><br />again, this debate is creation vs. evolution.  if you want to debate, don't write about life today.  write about how life started, because that is the central argument between creation and evolution.  consequently, the debate between creation and evolution questions the existence of god, which we can also address.<br /><br />---on the bible---<br />the bible is a historical source.  the events in the bible actually happened.  the books of the bible were written by people who actually lived.  their existence is proven by many other sources.  it is as valid a source as any other historical book.<br /><br />the bible even has prophecies that have been proven.  there is only one prophecy that has not been confirmed, and that is Jesus's second coming.  yet, the bible also predicts the warning signs of his coming, such as the increasing number of earthquakes.  <br /><br />---on God himself---<br />god is all-powerful, all-knowing, and his is everywhere.  this is hard to comprehend because we are human and nothing on earth is like him, so we can't compare him.  god controls all things.  a non-christian would think that god is evil and self-contradictory.  but he is not.  he loves us.  we are his creation and he thought of us way before we were born.  he says so in the bible. <br /><br />god had no beginning and he will have no end.  he is the creator of all things and therefore he can control all things.  god uses every event on earth to work for the better.  he used the tsunami to remind people that life is fragile and that they shouldn't waste their lives on frivolous things.  he might appear evil to people still, but god promises that every thing he does is for the good.  I, as a christian, trust god in this because I read the bible and i find its truth whenever i study it and how i can use it in my own life.<br /><br />god can make decisions that we as humans don't understand.  we cannot make quick judgments and say that he is evil.<br /><br />if you say that god is evil, then you obviously do not know god.  so I recommend that you read the bible first, or at least some of it, before you make any more inaccurate statements.<br /><br />---on humans and human nature---<br />god loves humans above all others.  he chose us to rule the earth.  but satan caused us to sin, or do wrong against god's commandments.  humans have free will and you can choose to live your life however you want.  but god is your creator and if you choose to live against him, then you will pay the punishment of hell.  <br /><br />humans are inherently bad.  we are bad because we have sin, and sin separates us from god.  but if you simply believe that god sent jesus to die on the cross to take away your sin, then you will go to heaven and live a better life.  <br />***if you want to debate further, provide evidence.  don't tell me that your evidence is so huge that only a textbook can hold it.  you can summarize it.  and don't make any judgments about god unless you can site the information from the bible.***<br />[right][snapback]1153055[/snapback][/right]<br /><br /><!-- end code provided by createblog.com -->

ahh, with pleasure.


1. yes, god is the trinity. he is the father, the son, and the holy spirit. when jesus was "born," he descended to earth from heaven. it was not when he was created. god even says in the bible that he is the alpha and omega. having no beginning nor end is difficult for us humans to comprehend because everything on earth had a beginning and everything has or will have an end.

so jesus wasn't born to mary. it's all a big lie, is that what you're saying?


2. the urey experiment was already proven false. see the university of indiana's website if you don't believe me. it is true that amino acids were formed, but how? because scientists controlled it. it didn't occur naturally. further study was conducted upon it and discovered that those amino acids were soon destroyed by nature. the plug was not "pulled." if it were, then you just proved that nature did not make life. it was an outside source. again, see the university of indiana's website. the second law of thermodynamics says that life cannot form out of nothing, which is explains that there must be a creator.


does your bible-indoctrinated mind even know what the miller-urey experiment did? in ancient times, before life, the earth had no oxygen or nitrogen or stuff in the air. it was ammonia and other toxic stuff.
in addition, there were various elements in the water. Also, there was lightning.

the miller-urey expirement merely took what was present in ancient earth, and let it run. and so amino acids were formed.

do you know what naturally is? you're citing nature as your source...
THAT WAS NATURE AT THAT TIME.

the plug was pulled. the expirement was stopped. No outside source made life. Earth made life, because of the chemicals in the air and water.

3.
in essence, the cell and any other living thing are so complex that there must be an intelligent designer. time and chance cannot produce life. the probablity would be negligible.

ahh, but see, you say probablitily would make it negligible, when there are infinit stars in the universe, and some of them have planets, thus there are infinite planets in the universe, and life happend on one of them.

did you know that if you walk at a wall infinte times, one time you'll pass right through? it's quantum mechanics. It deals with improbablity. Things that are so improbably, they shouldn't happen. But they do, rarely, but stil they do happen.

the intellegent designer. i see you're not saying 'god' anymore. you see, the problem with an intellegent designer, is who made the intellegent designer? who made god? as you said, things can't come out of nothing (which you're in fact suggesting), so who made god?

if god made everything; what'd he make it out of? would it be the same things that you say 'cannot by chance become life'? so god didn't make life, he assembled it?


bleh bleh bleh. James, Sammi, Fae, could you handle the utter wrongness of those? i want to get on to the bible.

the bible is a historical source.  the events in the bible actually happened.  the books of the bible were written by people who actually lived.  their existence is proven by many other sources.  it is as valid a source as any other historical book.

the bible even has prophecies that have been proven.  there is only one prophecy that has not been confirmed, and that is Jesus's second coming.  yet, the bible also predicts the warning signs of his coming, such as the increasing number of earthquakes. 

oh boy... here we go again. which bible are you reading? King James? Mormon's? the one placed by the Gideons in hotels?


who wrote them? you know, the king james version was written to get the irish to accept the king's version of christianity?

are you reading the latin bible? the older one that should be more accurate? that one was also written with politics in mind. It was written so that the church would get more power.

how about the older versions of the bible? the hebrew ones? oh, those are much better. now those, those are great accounts of jesus and the time before him, considering they were written in 500 AD.

the bible, is the word of politics, the word of man, the word of translators, and the word of fools.

if there was actually a 'bible' that was the true word of god, it has been tainted, stained, and corrupted till it is nothing but a storybook.

The bible is not as valid as any other historical book. History books have been written without translation, and maybe translated once of twice.

the bible has been re-written many times.

it's like the game telephone.

let's say this was the original line:

"and god said, satan is right" (just an example)

each subsequent line will be changed only a bit.

and god said to jesus, satan is right.
and god said to jesus, satan will right.
and god said to jesus, satan will fight.
and god said jesus will fight.
and god said jesus will right.
and god said jesus is right.
and god said, let jesus be right.
and god said, let be right.
and god said, let there be right.
and god said, let there be light.

when you're writting with a quill on hides, it's easy to mess up words. expecially if, by leaving a few out, you can say that your neighbor's good land is rightfully yours.

[Aesirus]

[QUOTE]unfortunately, many people, especially immature atheists, do not understand who god really is. [/QUOTE]

Obviously atheists don't. How can you understand something you don't purport to exist? This is what we like to call a tautology.

[QUOTE]---on the trinity---
yes, god is the trinity. he is the father, the son, and the holy spirit. when jesus was "born," he descended to earth from heaven. it was not when he was created. god even says in the bible that he is the alpha and omega. having no beginning nor end is difficult for us humans to comprehend because everything on earth had a beginning and everything has or will have an end. [/QUOTE]

According to most religions, this is true.

[QUOTE]---on the cell theory---
the urey experiment was already proven false. see the university of indiana's website if you don't believe me. it is true that amino acids were formed, but how? because scientists controlled it. it didn't occur naturally. further study was conducted upon it and discovered that those amino acids were soon destroyed by nature. the plug was not "pulled." if it were, then you just proved that nature did not make life. it was an outside source. again, see the university of indiana's website. the second law of thermodynamics says that life cannot form out of nothing, which is explains that there must be a creator. [/QUOTE]

No, the Second law of Thermodynamics states that teh total amount of order in a system can only decrease over time, not increase. However, PARTS of the system can become more ordered--just the rest of the system becomes less so. If I build a fusion reactor and use it to generate power, I've seemingly violated the Second Law of Thermodynamics, because the area inside the reactor is now more orderly. But this isn't true, because the area outside becomes less orderly.

For the same reason, evolution is perfectly compatible with the second law--just for things to evolve, other things have to become less ordered, which is also one reason why higher levels of life often need to consume more energy (food) per unit of body mass--the consumed energy reduces in order.

[QUOTE]as for looking at a cell through the microscope, of course you can see all the organelles. and after looking at all those diverse and intricate structures, do you think that such a thing can produce itself? yes, these things can reproduce. but this debate is about creation vs. evolution. the cell was created and it didn't evolve. no animals evolved from one species to another. [/QUOTE]

If you look at a cell long enough, you can see that it mutates. If a cell mutates enough, it is classified as a different species.

[QUOTE]the probability that i'm writing about is the probability of life forming by itself. of course life is still going on today. but how did it all forM? god created life. life cannot form out of nothing.[/QUOTE]

How do you define life? Is a virus life? Viruses can reproduce on their own, and they consume energy, and they are composed of DNA. Scientists produce viruses in laboratories all the time. Much of modern oncology is based on that.

Certainly, our technology is not sufficiently advanced to build a human being out of dust, but the fact that we can build a virus out of non-living materials, and there have been inroads towards producing simpler forms of bacteria out of non-living materials, shows that it is indeed possible.

Note that evolution does not disprove the existence of God at all; you can argue that God created matter, and there would be no way to disprove that, in fact, if you argued that, I would be inclined to agree with you, but life can very well come from non-life, and life can certainly come from other life (evolution).

[QUOTE]in essence, the cell and any other living thing are so complex that there must be an intelligent designer. time and chance cannot produce life. the probablity would be negligible. [/QUOTE]

A probability of one in ten trillion (which is negligible) times ten trillion planets leads to a probability that is much higher.

[QUOTE]---on seeing god---
no one can physically see god. god himself is invisible. but we can see what he has done on earth. in the bible, romans 1:20 says, "For since the creation of the world [god's] invisible attributes, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." What this verse means is that god's power is evident in nature. it is so evident that no one has an excuse to not believe.[/QUOTE]

No, nature's power is evident in nature. God is not nature. God is God. The belief that God is nature is Paganist, and I'm pretty sure heretical in most Christian sects.

[QUOTE]---on evolution---
the fossil record is incomplete. it would be complete if only evolutionists didn't make up so many species that never existed.[/QUOTE]

We can't prove that any single species existed, we can only show that evidence points towards it. Of course there is not 100% conclusive evidence for evolution--but having a lot of evidence, even if not complete, is better than having no evidence.

[QUOTE]dna cannot tell itself to change the physique of a species. if human evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys? and where are the links between humans and monkeys?[/QUOTE]

DNA can very well change the physique of a species. Why do you think different people look different?

SOME monkeys evolved. Not all of them. Monkeys still had enough potential to survive--but so did humans. When you are a fetus, all of your cells are the same, and eventually SOME of your cells turn into a heart, a brain, skin, etc. But just because some cells turn into a heart doesn't mean that there are no more undifferentiated cells.

[QUOTE]and i'll repeat myself: life cannot form out of nothing. don't refute me with the urey experiment because it has already been proven fallible and it wasn't even a true course of nature. it was controlled by chemists.[/QUOTE]

Scientists have produced viruses. Viruses can move on their own, can reproduce on their own, consume energy, and have DNA. They are the simplest form of life.

[QUOTE]again, this debate is creation vs. evolution. if you want to debate, don't write about life today. write about how life started, because that is the central argument between creation and evolution. consequently, the debate between creation and evolution questions the existence of god, which we can also address.[/QUOTE]

What does creation and evolution have to do with God? The position that God created matter, or even that God created the simplest forms of life, and then those forms of life evolved, is compatible completely with both God and evolution. Or you could argue that God's plan involved evolution, that evolution occured, but under God's guidance. Why did God necessarily have to jump directly to humans?

Moreover, since God is omnipowerful, it makes sense that God invented the laws of biology and physics, so, even if evolution happened, then that does not disprove God--it merely showed that evolution was part of God's plan. The evidence is in favor of evolution: YOu have three options, therefore: To reject God is all-powerful, to reject the evidence, OR to accept that God may have created the laws of physics and biology, and therefore evolution is God's plan.

If you say that the evidence is wrong, then you also have two choices: Either God is testing us--in which case, God is pretty evil for trying to trick everyone--or God is somehow incompetent, which is also heretical.

If you ask science, is there a God? Science cannot answer. You can't set up an experiment to prove God -- nothing in science will prove or disprove God.

[QUOTE]---on the bible---
the bible is a historical source. the events in the bible actually happened. the books of the bible were written by people who actually lived.[/QUOTE]

Ahem, the Bible is somewhat symbolic... while it is a historical account, not everything in it actually happened. Especially since parts of the Bible say different things. Three of the Gospels say that Jesus was visited by Angels, the other one says that Jesus was born without angels, and visited later by teh Magi. So which is it? Angels or no angels? Obviously, one of them has to be wrong.

[QUOTE] their existence is proven by many other sources. it is as valid a source as any other historical book.[/QUOTE]

Not all ancient histories are valid. Historians in the ancient world often wrote for political purposes, or to entertain audiences. They were not subject to the same rigorous scholastic standards taht modern historians are today, and thus most modern historians take ancient ones with a grain of salt.

Take for example, Herodotus, often regarded as teh father of history. He claimed that the Persian invasion of Greece had two million men. Nowadays, we know that this is untrue, and the number is probably closer to two hundred thousand, possibly even less. So even the most respected ancient historian embellished facts to suit a political agenda. It's how history was done back then.

[QUOTE]the bible even has prophecies that have been proven. there is only one prophecy that has not been confirmed, and that is Jesus's second coming. yet, the bible also predicts the warning signs of his coming, such as the increasing number of earthquakes. [/QUOTE]

We don't know if we have an increasing number of earthquakes... the world has only been sufficiently globalized to record every earthquake in the last few decades. Sure, the eruption at Vesuvius is known today, but an eruption of Mt. St. Helens two thousand or even two hundred years ago would have gone unknown.

[QUOTE]---on God himself---
god is all-powerful, all-knowing, and his is everywhere. this is hard to comprehend because we are human and nothing on earth is like him, so we can't compare him. god controls all things. a non-christian would think that god is evil and self-contradictory. but he is not. he loves us. we are his creation and he thought of us way before we were born. he says so in the bible.

god had no beginning and he will have no end. he is the creator of all things and therefore he can control all things. god uses every event on earth to work for the better. he used the tsunami to remind people that life is fragile and that they shouldn't waste their lives on frivolous things. he might appear evil to people still, but god promises that every thing he does is for the good. I, as a christian, trust god in this because I read the bible and i find its truth whenever i study it and how i can use it in my own life.

god can make decisions that we as humans don't understand. we cannot make quick judgments and say that he is evil.

if you say that god is evil, then you obviously do not know god. so I recommend that you read the bible first, or at least some of it, before you make any more inaccurate statements.[/QUOTE]

allah is all-powerful, all-knowing, and his is everywhere. this is hard to comprehend because we are human and nothing on earth is like him, so we can't compare him. allah controls all things. a non-muslim would think that allah is evil and self-contradictory. but he is not. he loves us. we are his creation and he thought of us way before we were born. he says so in the koran.

allah had no beginning and he will have no end. he is the creator of all things and therefore he can control all things. allah uses every event on earth to work for the better. he used the tsunami to remind people that life is fragile and that they shouldn't waste their lives on frivolous things. he might appear evil to people still, but allah promises that every thing he does is for the good. I, as a muslim, trust allah in this because I read the koran and i find its truth whenever i study it and how i can use it in my own life.

allah can make decisions that we as humans don't understand. we cannot make quick judgments and say that he is evil.

if you say that allah is evil, then you obviously do not know allah. so I recommend that you read the koran first, or at least some of it, before you make any more inaccurate statements.

[ED NOTE: Has anyone actually read the Bible? I mean the whole Bible? All thousand plus pages of the Old and New Testaments?]

[QUOTE]---on humans and human nature---
god loves humans above all others. he chose us to rule the earth. but satan caused us to sin, or do wrong against god's commandments. humans have free will and you can choose to live your life however you want. but god is your creator and if you choose to live against him, then you will pay the punishment of hell. [/QUOTE]

That's not really free will, that's more coercion to me. If I rob a bank, "The teller gave me money of his own free will" is not a viable legal defense.

A better explanation of Heaven and Hell goes like this:
When you sin, something in your soul turns away from God, and when you don't, something turns towards God. When you die, your soul judges itself. If, after your death, your soul has turned so far away from God, the prospect of Heaven would have no appeal for you, and you would go to Hell of your own accord. Hell itself is not being poked around by devils with pitchforks, but is probably more something of isolation. (Would a person who knows he is evil and has been humbled by the revelation of God choose isolation or being surrounded by people who he knows are better than him and thus feel worse about himself? Thus, evil judges itself)

[QUOTE]humans are inherently bad.[/QUOTE]

Yet we have free will. If someone has free will, he isn't inherently good or bad, he's inherently free. If he's inherently something, he categorically does not control his own actions, and tehrefore has no free will.

[QUOTE]we are bad because we have sin, and sin separates us from god. but if you simply believe that god sent jesus to die on the cross to take away your sin, then you will go to heaven and live a better life. [/QUOTE]

Read my explanation of Heaven and Hell above.

[QUOTE]if you want to debate further, provide evidence. don't tell me that your evidence is so huge that only a textbook can hold it. you can summarize it. and don't make any judgments about god unless you can site the information from the bible.***[/QUOTE]

That's a good idea. You should do that.

[sammi rules you]

minda did the allah thing!

and yes, mr. jcwdragon (*cough* does he remind anyone of sikdragon?..) you should provide some proof as well! that'd be great.

[skateforfree]

evolution


haha monkeys evovled from creationists
i saw a sticker that said that

[Spirited Away]

I just wanted to be off topic this time and say...

I wuv you guys.... (you know who you are)

[sammi rules you]

awww, fae we love you too! you're our queen.

[*Fallen_Fairy*]

evolution is logic
creation is belief
endofstory

i'm cool

[jenika]

i think both plays a huge roll...God created the earth,humans and animals and as time went on some species evolved to better adapt to their enviroment. except in the case of humans and monkies...

[Loff]

Thats called Evolutionary Creationism.

In my opinion, creationism is not real. Not real at all.

Life probably originated from some simple patterns that become more sophisticated.

[stryker76]

i feel evolution is the logical way that life became.....i do not understand the reason for human life other then to reproduce and die......i also do not know if the christain god is the god that is correct.....just like i dont kno the day ill die....

Nobody really knows who is right who is wrong and i feel that for all of us to sit and debate about something that is so debatable is pointless.....although educational....and entertaining at times.....

All ne one can say is that they believe there is something after death...after all that is the point of religion.....to give people hope and to not fear death. Religion is not need for someone to lead a happy fulfilling life....all you need is to feel that you can do what ever it is you set your mind too...because if you want to you can do anything.

For all of you that believe in God and Christ....good for you im glad you find fulfillment in you believes.....and for those of us that feel evolution is the way we where brought to be....i hope it makes it easier for you to sleep at night knowing that you have complete control of your life....

I think that is what its all about....control....who controls what do you control your own destiny or does a higher power that you can not communicate with....or maybe its not.....

Gor those of you that do not like this post because it does not add to the "topic" im sorry but tough....because it is true....you can not change any ones feelings or believes.....that is something that can only be done on there own.....

[*mona lisa*]

eh i don't remember if i've ever posted before, but i believe in both. i'm sort of in the middle, but basically, i believe that God(s) included evolution as a process on life on this earth and that's the way humans developed, but God also had a part in it.

[surfhottieoffcoa...]

its very hard for me cause i've been going to a christian school since forever, and in bible class they pretty much make us re read the beggining of the bible over and over about adam and eve, but in science they force us to wach a vidio wich tolled us about evolution.
my brother who is in collage, says that when u learn about that stuff in collage, ITS JUST A STORY.

[winterzflamez88]

Evolution! Just look at all the proof. OK, so the fossil record is incomplete, but it's there! All of the papers and everything about Darwin. I can't see how somebody could push ALL that evidence away for 'faith.' There's no proof of creationalism at all, it's impossible. Evolution just makes so much more sense. Sorry about my all atheistism, I find it very hard to find faith in something so.... weird and unexplainable!!!

[XoJennaoX]

I believe that we will never know......
the side i'm leaning toward is evolution through creation and it is funny cuz i'm not all that religous.

but i cannot go by evolution alone..... because of the two eye theory....if anyone has heard of this, this was the main argument of the darwinian theory back in the 80's. If we all evolved through natural selection, which darwin states, how come everything in this world (except insects) have two eyes, a nose, two ears, and one mouth(or close to it). If it was a true survival of the fittest and natural selection did occur there would be no way that any two animals would look even similar, becasue they would evolve each to their own special need. There are still a lot of questions about evolution like - why are we not evolving now? are birds more evolved than us because of flight, why can't we fly?

I don't know about the whole God thing but, I can not force myself to not believe in something just becasue there is no proof. I think that is stupid. Just because we don't know it is there, does not mean it doesn't exist.

It is funny because Plato a greek philosopher, if any of you are famaliar with him, was one of the first to say there is one God, we are inferior to him, therfore we will NEVER have proof. Just as a chimp will never be able to understand us(because it is inferior), we will never understand God. The amazing thing is this was written approximately 100 years(maybe more) BEFORE the bible was written.

And yet how many 1,000 years later will still do not know. I go with Plato.......we will NEVER know.

[twelveislands]

Evolution.

For the same reasons has most people who have said this.

[sadolakced acid]

it's called convergent evolution.

2 eyes, ears, and noses so you can tell which direction/ depth something is.

stereo.

i believe you misunderstand evolution. survival of the fittest isn't saying the best species wins. it's saying the best individual has sex and passes along thier genes, whereas the worst individual doesn't.

[XoJennaoX]

i completely understand what you are saying...lol..let me try and clarify my statement. It is not that fact that we have two eyes, two ears blah blah blah

There is no scientific law that allows something to evolve from nothing. If there was nothing in the universe to begin with, obviously nothing could happen to cause anything to appear.

Evolutionists often try to duck this problem by saying that evolution is not concernd with the origin of life, only how life progressed after it appeared. But if you can't get something from nothing, it's pointless thinking you can accurately explain a next step. Juggle the figures any way you like, but without a Creator you are not going to get anything, let alone everything.

There is no known scientific law that would allow one kind of creature to turn naturally into a completely different kind. Insects don't evolve into more complex non-insects for instance, because they don't have the genes to do it. The best that evolutionists can come up with to try to explain how this might have happened is to propose that it happened by mutations and natural selection. But mutations overwhelmingly destroy genetic information and produce creatures more handicapped than the parents.

[sadolakced acid]

?

what are you basing your claims on?

does it bother you that almost all your claims are wrong?

1. evolution isn't concerned with creation. however, that is explained easily. it's in the thread, if you would read all of it.

2. you don't understand mutations.

[XoJennaoX]

I'm sorry but i really don't understand you and your claims, you didn't really tell me anything i already did not take into consideration.....i have read the posts....my arguements are valid...the most you are saying is that i don't understand evolution, but you are not proving my claims wrong in any way

[sadolakced acid]

`sigh. are you sure you read every post of all 22 pages?

because i'm sure i explained how those claims were wrong more than once... and i'm kinda tired of explaining it.

but if you must...

There is no scientific law that allows something to evolve from nothing. If there was nothing in the universe to begin with, obviously nothing could happen to cause anything to appear.

well, there is no scientific law that deals with the begining of the universe. the big bang is just an explination of how our universe could have started. from the collapse of another one.

Evolutionists often try to duck this problem by saying that evolution is not concernd with the origin of life, only how life progressed after it appeared. But if you can't get something from nothing, it's pointless thinking you can accurately explain a next step. Juggle the figures any way you like, but without a Creator you are not going to get anything, let alone everything.

evolution isn't concerned with the origin of life, it's concerned with how a species changes over time.

however; science has explained how things can 'evolve' from nothing.

in ancient earth, there was not oxygen and nitrogen, etc. in the atmosphere. there was ammonia, and other posionous chemicals.

now, Miller and Urey took the chemicals thought to be in ancient earth's atmosphere, some water, and so raw chemicals all thought to be in ancient earth, and put a jacob's ladder (simulate lightning) in with it in a sealed container and let it run.

this s refered to as the miller/ urey expirement. They created self replicating molecules, more specifically, somethign very much like RNA.

RNA creates more RNA, which can in turn create different protiens, and those protiens can form a cell, all because of RNA.

so once RNA is formed, as cell is formed, and evolution can happen.

and the RNA could have been formed. Miller/Urey proved that it's possible for 'life' to start from inorganic compounds.

now, the beauty of self-replication is you don't have to get everything. you just have to get one. one thing. and then it will self replicate to create tons of itself.

There is no known scientific law that would allow one kind of creature to turn naturally into a completely different kind. Insects don't evolve into more complex non-insects for instance, because they don't have the genes to do it. The best that evolutionists can come up with to try to explain how this might have happened is to propose that it happened by mutations and natural selection. But mutations overwhelmingly destroy genetic information and produce creatures more handicapped than the parents.

umm... it's a the law of speciation through natural selection.

iinsects don't evolve inot more complex non-insects. they evolve into more complex insects. or they evolve into more complex insects that resemble non-insects.

they do, however, have the genes to do this. they're int he 90% of genes that aren't active. If an activator gene were to be, by mutation, placed in front of one of these genes the insect could become a non-insect.


you do not understand mutations completely. high school only teaches about the simple mutations, because there are more complex mutations that happen that are harder to understand.

there is the simple change-of- base mutation. a base is transcribed wrong.

this can do five things:

1. cause a new amino acid to be used, and thus a different protien to be made.
2. corrupt the start of an active gene and make it inactive, resulting in no protien.
3. create a stop in the middle of the gene, cutting it short, making a different protien.
4. corrupt the stop of the active gene causing it to go on much longer, making a different protien.
5. corrupt an area of inactive DNA and make it a start, causing a new protien to be made.

now, the phase shift mutation can also do those five things, except the changes are much greater.

it can change the entire set of protiens made. by one simple mutation.

most of these mutations do do harm. however, there is a mutation that caused one amino acid to change in hemoglobin;which causes sickle cell anemia. which protects agains malaria.

that's benificial.

however; these are just simple mutations.

to understand complex mutations you have to stop thinking of DNA as a blueprint or as a book. it's much more.

about 90% of DNA is what researchers call 'junk DNA'. this DNA is not used to code for anything. it's there. why? for evolution.

now: there are strands of DNA called selfish DNA. these strands aim to have themselves copied more than once. They want more of them in the next DNA strand.

now, these are not consious. it's simple the coding of the DNA that makes it propogate. it's like a computer viruse.

one such strand is called ALU, and it is only about 200 bases long. it mimices the gene for initiating copying. this gene (the one that initiates copying) is one of the few that is not checked over thrice by anti-selfish-DNA protiens.

thus alus are very prominatant in DNA. they will get the copy protiens to insert them into usable DNA.

now; this is a strand of 200 extra bases in the middle of a protien.

this changes quite a lot.

now; there are many more strands of selfish DNA than the Alu strand, and thus, many differnet mutations may be made.

now; you must realize that the 90% of 'junk DNA' isn't just there. it was there. there are codes for protiens in there, deactivated. it was a mutation that deactivated it.

Now, when these can be reactivated by any of the above muations, causing lots of new protiens to be formed.


and as to mutations all being harmful: that is incorrect. most mutations cause no change in an organism's appearance or function. Sometimes it causes a change in functionality. this can be both good and bad.

now; you should understand mutations better. there are still more ways for DNA to be mutated, and i don't know them all.

i hope you learned something from that.