westmanguy's religion threads
Previous 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 13 Next
icekarma2752 @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 4:25 am
heres what i dont get..why cant you be both a christian as well as an evolutionist??...evolution is a perfectly valid theory..if you look at fossil records this becomes manifest.you will see that the more primitive life forms are older than the more sophisticated ones and i find carbon-14 and argon dating to be very infallible which confirms everything ive said so far.now what is the mechanism behind evolution?heres the best explanation i can give...as anyone knows mutations always seem to be 99.9% detrimental...but sometimes theres a random mutation that will enable an life form to live in what was once a hostile environment...giving rise to a new life form(a nice example is the transformation of fish to amphibians) and this is a process that takes million of years to accomplish which gives you an appreciation as to how valuable life really is..and even though i am a christian i do have a respectable knowledge(or so ive been told) of biology and paleontology which doesnt conflict with my spirituality whatsoever
icekarma2752 @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 4:41 am
westmanguy westmanguy:
Since our conversation in the "Do Atheists Celebrate Christmas" thread was unjustly and inconsiderately locked, we shall continue the talks in here.
If evolution is really true, how come I don't see humans getting smarter?
If evolution is really true, how come I don't see humans getting smarter?
the reality is humans are getting smarter..but i'd consider this to be attributed to more efficient access to information as well as improved education rather than evolution
CapeApe @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 5:16 am
Humans may be getting smarter but they definately are not getting any more intelligent....
The worlds a mess, we have the solutions to repair or problems but no political will or the
common dog to do it.
Rev_Blair @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 7:43 am
$1:
heres what i dont get..why cant you be both a christian as well as an evolutionist?
Many, perhaps most, around the world are. It is the fundamentalist sects of the three western religions...Judaism, Christianity, and Islam that tend to reject and even try to undermine science. Other religions, and non-fundamentalist sects of those three religions, either co-exist with science or just ignore it. There are even some scientists working in the field of evolution who profess some sort of religious belief.
It is the growth of fundamentalism since the early 1980s that needs to be watched very closely. These people are chipping away at modern society and will have us all living in mud huts and cooking over animal turds if we let them. The thing is that they are too ignorant to recognise that. They think that science is somehow separate from technology.
In the case of evolution, that relates mostly to medicine. It has implications for crops and animal husbandry as well though.
2Cdo @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 8:36 am
Rev_Blair Rev_Blair:
$1:
heres what i dont get..why cant you be both a christian as well as an evolutionist?
Many, perhaps most, around the world are. It is the fundamentalist sects of the three western religions...Judaism, Christianity, and Islam that tend to reject and even try to undermine science. Other religions, and non-fundamentalist sects of those three religions, either co-exist with science or just ignore it. There are even some scientists working in the field of evolution who profess some sort of religious belief.
It is the growth of fundamentalism since the early 1980s that needs to be watched very closely. These people are chipping away at modern society and will have us all living in mud huts and cooking over animal turds if we let them. The thing is that they are too ignorant to recognise that. They think that science is somehow separate from technology.
In the case of evolution, that relates mostly to medicine. It has implications for crops and animal husbandry as well though.
I think the bold says it all.
(I can't beleieve I found something else that I agree with Rev on)
Westman and BC are almost as dangerous as any Taliban and al Queda. The sheer ignorance of west and the fact that he seemed almost proud of flushing a book down the toilet is amazing. Bet you he can't wait for the next book burning! Thank God that wackos like him don't often resort to shootings and IED's, but I'll bet he wishes he could.
westmanguy @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 5:01 pm
Rev_Blair Rev_Blair:
$1:
heres what i dont get..why cant you be both a christian as well as an evolutionist?
Many, perhaps most, around the world are.
Wrong.
About 60% of Americans deny evolution
About 35% (1/3) of Canadians deny evolution.
Its not an overly "accepted" theory.
Blue_Nose @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 5:12 pm
westmanguy westmanguy:
Wrong.
About 60% of Americans deny evolution
About 35% (1/3) of Canadians deny evolution.
Its not an overly "accepted" theory.
Popular opinion and/or ignorance doesn't equate to truth, especially considering:About 60% of Americans deny evolution
About 35% (1/3) of Canadians deny evolution.
Its not an overly "accepted" theory.
$1:
Many of the social and political issues that have come to the forefront in the past decade have a strong scientific component. Issues related to reproductive technologies, the environment, and energy, for example, require a scientifically literate population for wise decision making in the coming years. Yet the current scientific literacy of the American people is a bit suspect. In a survey of American adults conducted by the National Science Foundation, less than a quarter of the adults surveyed could define the word molecule, and only about a third could describe what it means to study something "scientifically" (National Science Board & National Science Foundation, 2002).
Find one credible biologist that denies evolution that isn't linked directly with fundamental Christianity, you ignorant, lying coward.
Mustang1 @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 5:15 pm
westmanguy westmanguy:
Rev_Blair Rev_Blair:
$1:
heres what i dont get..why cant you be both a christian as well as an evolutionist?
Many, perhaps most, around the world are.
Wrong.
About 60% of Americans deny evolution
About 35% (1/3) of Canadians deny evolution.
Its not an overly "accepted" theory.
Since when do "theories" require majority acceptance? Damn, do you think this is how academia works? They do a poll and then go on those results? Gravity is probable as we're waiting on the results from North Bay? What about string theory - let me guess, science should wait on it till you've weighed in? Seriously, get a clue
westmanguy @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 5:16 pm
Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
westmanguy westmanguy:
Wrong.
About 60% of Americans deny evolution
About 35% (1/3) of Canadians deny evolution.
Its not an overly "accepted" theory.
Popular opinion and/or ignorance doesn't equate to truth, especially considering:About 60% of Americans deny evolution
About 35% (1/3) of Canadians deny evolution.
Its not an overly "accepted" theory.
$1:
Many of the social and political issues that have come to the forefront in the past decade have a strong scientific component. Issues related to reproductive technologies, the environment, and energy, for example, require a scientifically literate population for wise decision making in the coming years. Yet the current scientific literacy of the American people is a bit suspect. In a survey of American adults conducted by the National Science Foundation, less than a quarter of the adults surveyed could define the word molecule, and only about a third could describe what it means to study something "scientifically" (National Science Board & National Science Foundation, 2002).
Find one credible biologist that denies evolution that isn't linked directly with fundamental Christianity, you ignorant, lying coward.
$1:
Testimony of Biologists
The theories of both Lamarck and Darwin were used not only to explain the origin of species in general, but of man in particular; in fact the only use that a number of so-called scientists saw in either of the theories was to afford proof that man was not specially created, but evolved from a brute beast. As there was no real proof, recourse was had to fraud.
Dr. W. R. Thompson referes to this fact in his introduction to The Origin of Species, in which he says that "the success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity." He gives as examples the case of the Piltdown skull, in which an ape's jawbone was substituted for the original human one, and the case of the Java Man, in which a battered skullcap of a gibbon was represented as belonging to a creature half-man, half-ape, in order to provide an argument for Darwin's theory that man was descended from an ape.
Dr. Thompson might have added many more examples of fraud. For example, he might have referred to the Australopithecinae fossils, put forward by Drs. Dart and Broom as evidence of evolution, which were proved to be just fossils of ordinary apes by Professor Zuckerman in his chapter in Evolutions as a Process, edited by Dr. Julian Huxley, A. C. Hardy and E. B. Ford. (1954).
It is true to say, therefore, that this formulative period of the theory of evolution was barren of any practical results except to afford a basis for rationalism, a framework for communism, and to provide an incentive for the introduction of fraud and superstition into scientific investigation, when no genuine proof could be found for the theory.
The fourth period might be summed up as a practical acknowledgment of the bankruptcy of Darwin's theory by fitting the real scientific results achieved by Fr. Mendel into it and claiming that they belonged to it, in order to save the theory from devastating, modern criticism. It is like the attempt to save the corpse of Lenin from disintegration by fitting into it parts of other men's bodies.
In his introduction to The Origin of Species already referred to, Dr. W. R. Thompson recognizes the barrenness of Darwin's system, the injury it did to the progress of science and the fact that Mendelism owes nothing to it, and therefore does not belong to it.
In his article in The Catholic Encyclopedia (Vol. X), Sir Bertram Windle produces evidence to show that Fr. Mendel's experiments have in fact exploded the main points of Darwin's theory. In it he writes:
Bateson (in Mendel's Principles of Heredity) claims that "his experiments are worthy to rank among those which laid the foundations of the atomic laws of chemistry"; and Lock, that his discovery "was of an importance little inferior to those of a Newton or a Dalton." Punnett also states that, owing to Mendel's labours, "the position of the biologist of today is much the same as that of a chemist of a century ago, when Dalton enunciated the law of constant proportions." ...T.H. Morgan does not hesitate to say that Mendel's laws give the final coup de grace to the doctrine of Natural Selection. (op. cit. p. 182).
With regard to the claim made by evolutionists that the origin of the various species now existing in the world can be explained by the science of genetics (which as is admitted by all biologists, is but a development of Mendelism), Douglas Dewar writes in Man a Special Creation as follows:
Modern experimental work indicates that variations in organisms appear in consequence of 1) the duplication or multiplication of the chromosomes that occur in the cell nucleus, 2) in the translocation or displacement of parts of chromosomes, 3) the loss of chromosomes or parts of chromosomes, 4) gene mutations, which appear ot be the result of the rearrangement of the molecules that make up the gene, or the action of inhibitors or stimulators of the genes, 5) loss of genes, 6) cross-breeding varieties.
All the above causes are simply a shuffling or rearrangement of parts of the chromosomes or of genes. Such rearrangements may be expected to yield a considerable amount of variation, but clearly must be within the type...
...If a species be defined as a freely interbreeding community, no new animal species has yet been bred by any experimenter. This is very remarkable in view of the fact that breeding experiements lasting over some 30 years have been made with the vinegar fly, Drosophila melanogaster. This produces about 25 generations in a year, hence some 900 successive generations of this species have been bred in the laboratory in the unsuccessful attempt to convert it into another type. This corresponds to about 30,000 years of human existence. There appears to exist no mechanism whereby a new type of organism can arise from an existing one. This explains why all breeds of dogs, pigeons, etc., despite their great diversity are still dogs, pigeons, etc.
That it is impossible to change a dog or a pigeon into anything else but a dog or a pigeon is evident from such facts as the following which are taken from the work of Dr. Hurst, already quoted: "1) The gene is the sole basis of hereditary transmissions. 2) In every case that has been investigated more than one pair of genes are concerned in the development of each character...Genetical experiments show that in the simplest case, at least four pairs of genes are concerned in the organisation and development of the wild agouti coat colour of rabbits, and many other genes are also concerned."
The rearrangement of the molecules that make up one or more of the genes that regulate the colour of the rabbits' fur is likely to effect some change in that colour, but even if there be a simultaneous arrangement of the molecules of all such genes, the effect on the animal's coat is confined to the colour; all such changes are necessarily within narrow limits, and this applies euqally to the genes that regulate other parts of the rabbit, and those of all other animals.
Take a simple one-called organism, such as the amoeba - shuffle ad infinitum the constituent molecules of all the genes that control organisation of the amoeba, and what can the result be other than a modified ameoeba?
In view of the discoveries in genetics made during the past 35 years, those who have a legal training marvel how any geneticist can believe that the great variety of animals that now exist are offspring of some ancestor far more simple than an amoeba...
The theories of both Lamarck and Darwin were used not only to explain the origin of species in general, but of man in particular; in fact the only use that a number of so-called scientists saw in either of the theories was to afford proof that man was not specially created, but evolved from a brute beast. As there was no real proof, recourse was had to fraud.
Dr. W. R. Thompson referes to this fact in his introduction to The Origin of Species, in which he says that "the success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity." He gives as examples the case of the Piltdown skull, in which an ape's jawbone was substituted for the original human one, and the case of the Java Man, in which a battered skullcap of a gibbon was represented as belonging to a creature half-man, half-ape, in order to provide an argument for Darwin's theory that man was descended from an ape.
Dr. Thompson might have added many more examples of fraud. For example, he might have referred to the Australopithecinae fossils, put forward by Drs. Dart and Broom as evidence of evolution, which were proved to be just fossils of ordinary apes by Professor Zuckerman in his chapter in Evolutions as a Process, edited by Dr. Julian Huxley, A. C. Hardy and E. B. Ford. (1954).
It is true to say, therefore, that this formulative period of the theory of evolution was barren of any practical results except to afford a basis for rationalism, a framework for communism, and to provide an incentive for the introduction of fraud and superstition into scientific investigation, when no genuine proof could be found for the theory.
The fourth period might be summed up as a practical acknowledgment of the bankruptcy of Darwin's theory by fitting the real scientific results achieved by Fr. Mendel into it and claiming that they belonged to it, in order to save the theory from devastating, modern criticism. It is like the attempt to save the corpse of Lenin from disintegration by fitting into it parts of other men's bodies.
In his introduction to The Origin of Species already referred to, Dr. W. R. Thompson recognizes the barrenness of Darwin's system, the injury it did to the progress of science and the fact that Mendelism owes nothing to it, and therefore does not belong to it.
In his article in The Catholic Encyclopedia (Vol. X), Sir Bertram Windle produces evidence to show that Fr. Mendel's experiments have in fact exploded the main points of Darwin's theory. In it he writes:
Bateson (in Mendel's Principles of Heredity) claims that "his experiments are worthy to rank among those which laid the foundations of the atomic laws of chemistry"; and Lock, that his discovery "was of an importance little inferior to those of a Newton or a Dalton." Punnett also states that, owing to Mendel's labours, "the position of the biologist of today is much the same as that of a chemist of a century ago, when Dalton enunciated the law of constant proportions." ...T.H. Morgan does not hesitate to say that Mendel's laws give the final coup de grace to the doctrine of Natural Selection. (op. cit. p. 182).
With regard to the claim made by evolutionists that the origin of the various species now existing in the world can be explained by the science of genetics (which as is admitted by all biologists, is but a development of Mendelism), Douglas Dewar writes in Man a Special Creation as follows:
Modern experimental work indicates that variations in organisms appear in consequence of 1) the duplication or multiplication of the chromosomes that occur in the cell nucleus, 2) in the translocation or displacement of parts of chromosomes, 3) the loss of chromosomes or parts of chromosomes, 4) gene mutations, which appear ot be the result of the rearrangement of the molecules that make up the gene, or the action of inhibitors or stimulators of the genes, 5) loss of genes, 6) cross-breeding varieties.
All the above causes are simply a shuffling or rearrangement of parts of the chromosomes or of genes. Such rearrangements may be expected to yield a considerable amount of variation, but clearly must be within the type...
...If a species be defined as a freely interbreeding community, no new animal species has yet been bred by any experimenter. This is very remarkable in view of the fact that breeding experiements lasting over some 30 years have been made with the vinegar fly, Drosophila melanogaster. This produces about 25 generations in a year, hence some 900 successive generations of this species have been bred in the laboratory in the unsuccessful attempt to convert it into another type. This corresponds to about 30,000 years of human existence. There appears to exist no mechanism whereby a new type of organism can arise from an existing one. This explains why all breeds of dogs, pigeons, etc., despite their great diversity are still dogs, pigeons, etc.
That it is impossible to change a dog or a pigeon into anything else but a dog or a pigeon is evident from such facts as the following which are taken from the work of Dr. Hurst, already quoted: "1) The gene is the sole basis of hereditary transmissions. 2) In every case that has been investigated more than one pair of genes are concerned in the development of each character...Genetical experiments show that in the simplest case, at least four pairs of genes are concerned in the organisation and development of the wild agouti coat colour of rabbits, and many other genes are also concerned."
The rearrangement of the molecules that make up one or more of the genes that regulate the colour of the rabbits' fur is likely to effect some change in that colour, but even if there be a simultaneous arrangement of the molecules of all such genes, the effect on the animal's coat is confined to the colour; all such changes are necessarily within narrow limits, and this applies euqally to the genes that regulate other parts of the rabbit, and those of all other animals.
Take a simple one-called organism, such as the amoeba - shuffle ad infinitum the constituent molecules of all the genes that control organisation of the amoeba, and what can the result be other than a modified ameoeba?
In view of the discoveries in genetics made during the past 35 years, those who have a legal training marvel how any geneticist can believe that the great variety of animals that now exist are offspring of some ancestor far more simple than an amoeba...
icekarma2752 @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 5:33 pm
westmanguy westmanguy:
Rev_Blair Rev_Blair:
$1:
heres what i dont get..why cant you be both a christian as well as an evolutionist?
Many, perhaps most, around the world are.
Wrong.
About 60% of Americans deny evolution
About 35% (1/3) of Canadians deny evolution.
Its not an overly "accepted" theory.
ok west...do you believe the world is only 6000 years old as the bible seems to imply?
westmanguy @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 5:48 pm
I don't believe man came from apes.
I believe man didn't evolve but was created by God.
Dayseed @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 5:50 pm
Westmanguy,
From you statistic that 60% of Americans deny evolution and only 35% of Canadians do, are you saying that Canadians are 25% smarter?
Hey, where did you get those statistics anyway?
Mustang1 @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 5:52 pm
westmanguy westmanguy:
I don't believe man came from apes.
I believe man didn't evolve but was created by God.
I believe man didn't evolve but was created by God.
As per usual, you're wrong. It's no wonder you believe in the literal truth of the Bible - you're simply not very bright. Man didn't come from apes - us and apes share a common ancestor. Seriously, go find your corner and apologize to everyone for your uneducated prattle.
icekarma2752 @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 5:56 pm
westmanguy westmanguy:
I don't believe man came from apes.
I believe man didn't evolve but was created by God.
I believe man didn't evolve but was created by God.
i believe we've decended from ape-like creatures but it took a divine intervention for that to happen
Dayseed @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 5:58 pm
icekarma2752 icekarma2752:
westmanguy westmanguy:
I don't believe man came from apes.
I believe man didn't evolve but was created by God.
I believe man didn't evolve but was created by God.
i believe we've decended from ape-like creatures but it took a divine intervention for that to happen
So what? Your whole idea of fate doesn't apply to science. I can believe that Jesus rode a unicorn to the Sermon on the Mount, doesn't mean it's correct.
Previous 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 13 Next